A punishment dilemma

James R

James R

Just this guy, you know?
Staff member
I'd like some opinions on the following hypothetical scenario. In particular, I'd like to hear some opinions from Christians, Jewish people and Muslims, but others can contribute too if you like. If you're responding, please state which religious or other moral perspective you are applying to the problem (e.g. "I am a Christian, and I think a Christian answer to this would be ...")

After a few responses, I'll have a few comments to make.

Here's the scenario:

"Albert and his wife Betty are walking home one night after having a meal at a nearby restaurant. As they pass the local park, Charlie, a strong large man jumps out from behind some bushes and demands A & B's money. A refuses to hand over the money, and a scuffle starts between A and C.

A is not as strong as C, and C is clearly getting the better of A in the fight. Betty, eager to help her husband, comes in behind Charlie, grabs his testicles and squeezes them hard, causing Charlie enough pain that he stops attacking Albert for a moment.

As C lies on the ground in pain, A and B are about to leave when the police happen to pull up. A, B and C are all taken down to the local police station, where the entire story (as written) comes out."

Now, forget any current laws. Assume you are making the law from scratch. The question is this:

Who should be punished here? A, B or C? More than one of them? All of them?

And what would be appropriate punishments?

Remember, I'm looking for an answer given in light of your understanding of your chosen religion. That's why the question is in the Religion forum.
 
C should be the only one punished. And in case you don't know, I'm an athiest.

I'm curious as to what the ulterior motive of this thread is, given that the answer is so obvious.
 
Speaking from a Catholic standpoint, I would argue that C would be the one punishable in this instance.

C was the agressor, and instigated the 'scuffle.' A was acting in self-defence, as was B. If C had overpowered A, he would easily have done the same to B (presumably, as, on average, males are physical stronger than females). C neither had the right to demand money from them which he had not earned, nor did he have the right to force them to give it to him. Thus, he is at fault both on the account of unjustly attempting to take what he did not deserve from people whom had no obligation to give it to him, and who had every right to deny it of him, as well as being at fault for instigating the struggle between he and A, which was done in attempt to take the money by force.

While it might be contested that the way that B stepped in to incapacitate C could be considered wrong, I would argue that it wasn't. Some might argue that C's ability to procreate was more important than a few dollars, but a few dollars wasn't the only thing at stake, nor was it likely that B intended to irrevocably damage C's genitals. By all accounts, it appeared that she accomplished exactly what she had intended, no more than she had intended and no less, C's incapacitation.

Other things that were at stake were the following: A's health. B's health. A' and B's self-esteem. A's for not being able to protect his wife, and B's for not having done something to help her husband. B's conscience, for not doing everything in her power to prevent injustices to take place (the attacks on her and her husband, as well as the theft of their own hard-earned money).

So, one is left with weighing the different bad things. On one hand, the POSSIBILITY of C's inability to procreate, versus all of the aforementioned violations that could POSSIBLY have taken place if B had not done what she did, in conjunction with other possible methods of incapacitating C (which may or may not have included the such possibilities as brain damage, or other such physical detriments). In my opinion, B was justified in her course of action.

As well, one could also take a step backwards and question A's refusal to give C the money. A risked the possibility of everything that ensued when he decided to deny C the money. However, at the same time, A would also have risked increasing C's confidence in performing the same action again on other unsuspecting innocent folk, as well as allowing an injustice to take place (that of C taking what he had not earned).

All in all, weighing all the possibilities versus the reality, along with intentions of the various characters, C would be the one punishable. Self-defense is acceptable, demanding, and attempting to take by force, that which does not belong to you (to put it shortly), is not acceptable. Thus, C would be the one punished.

As for the appropriate punishment, I'll get back to you on that.
 
obviously... A and B were only defending themselves... and if it was me, i would have beat the shit out of him once he was down.

and im no atheist...

they guy was willing to beat the shit out of A... SO HE DESERVED IT.

but i would be careful not to kick him in the head... as that is attempted murder.

-MT
 
Quite simply, Albert and Betty where acting in self-defense. We all have the right and primal drive to defend ourselves from attack. Even the simplest of organisms defend themselves in whatever way they can.

As for the punishment of Charlie, it depends on how much harm he inflicted on Albert. If Albert just has a few cuts and bruises, than he should be jailed overnight (I assume there is jail because the police picked them up). If Albert was seriously hurt, than Charlie should serve more time.
 
I'm Christian and one of commandment is; Thou shalt not steal
A and B find themselves in dilemma,
C should be the only one punished.
 
James R said:
I'd like some opinions on the following hypothetical scenario. In particular, I'd like to hear some opinions from Christians, Jewish people and Muslims, but others can contribute too if you like. If you're responding, please state which religious or other moral perspective you are applying to the problem (e.g. "I am a Christian, and I think a Christian answer to this would be ...")

After a few responses, I'll have a few comments to make.

Here's the scenario:

"Albert and his wife Betty are walking home one night after having a meal at a nearby restaurant. As they pass the local park, Charlie, a strong large man jumps out from behind some bushes and demands A & B's money. A refuses to hand over the money, and a scuffle starts between A and C.

A is not as strong as C, and C is clearly getting the better of A in the fight. Betty, eager to help her husband, comes in behind Charlie, grabs his testicles and squeezes them hard, causing Charlie enough pain that he stops attacking Albert for a moment.

As C lies on the ground in pain, A and B are about to leave when the police happen to pull up. A, B and C are all taken down to the local police station, where the entire story (as written) comes out."

Now, forget any current laws. Assume you are making the law from scratch. The question is this:

Who should be punished here? A, B or C? More than one of them? All of them?

And what would be appropriate punishments?

Remember, I'm looking for an answer given in light of your understanding of your chosen religion. That's why the question is in the Religion forum.
Click to expand...

Well as a Christian I would not be making laws and giving out punishments. All i can say that if A B and C where Christian they would all be in the wrong and need to repent of their acts. C, for theft and violence. A and B for violence.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
I was raised as a protestant, but am now a devout agnostic.

Only C should be punished. A and B were defending themselves using appropriate (one might say restrained) levels of force.

I might be prepared to consider a more Ghandi like response: give everything the thief asks for and more besides. In this case hand him the wallet, then kick him in the nuts. Drat, that's not quite how Ghandi would have done it. Heros are so hard to live up to.
 
Here's what the Bible has to say:

From Deuteronomy 25:11-12

"When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity."

So, according to the Bible, Betty should have her hand cut off in this situation.

Are all Christians, Muslims and Jews agreed on the fairness of this?
 
James R, I am not a religious person, but I wonder where you got your quote. Possibly a 'crank' site?
First, let me post a context around the extract of your post:

"25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

25:12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity [her].

25:13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.

25:14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.

25:15 [But] thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

25:16 For all that do such things, [and] all that do unrighteously, [are] an abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Do you now have a context for the metaphor? The Bible is saying that to cut off the wife's hand is an unjust measure, an abomination unto the LORD. "Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small". The bible is saying justice must be equal for all, let the punishment fit the crime, dealt out equally for all.
 
James R, I am not a religious person, but I wonder where you got your quote. Possibly a 'crank' site?
Click to expand...

No, from the Bible. Specifically, the Revised Standard Edition, based on the King James Bible.

25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

25:12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity [her].
Click to expand...

This says the same thing as the version I posted. Note, in particular, that it says "thou shalt cut off her hand", not "thou shalt not..."

Do you now have a context for the metaphor?
Click to expand...

The context is a section on the criminal law handed down by Moses to the Israelites.

The Bible is saying that to cut off the wife's hand is an unjust measure, an abomination unto the LORD.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It is saying it is a JUST measure, since the wife committed a crime.

The following verses on weights is unrelated. It is about crimes committed by shonky traders.
 
This passage isn't very clear in what it means by "puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts" or "putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets." It could be that she is doing so in a manner of seduction, which could also effectively end the fight. This understanding would be more in keeping with the moral standards of Deuteronomical Laws.

At any rate, the punishment is one we see over and over again, and is considered to be exaggeration, or the maximal limit to the kind of punishment to be given. ie, she deserves no greater than this, which comes out of the Lawcode of Hammurabi, eye for eye, which means that the punishment cannot outweigh the crime. This is why, in that passage, you have the bit about weights.

At any rate, aside from the underlying moral principle, we (as in we Catholics, since that is what I am) don't believe specific laws and punishments from Deuteronomy or Leviticus to be absolute moral laws of God. Like any laws given in any government, they are changing, and so is their punishment. It is the underlying principle that supports such laws that we consider to be absolute and unchanging.
 
The NKJV bible states:

Deuteronomy 25
11 “If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, 12 then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.

That is part of the law and it was just. She is not having her hand cut of for attacking the man but because of the way in which she chose to attack the man. Of course if they where Christians then they would have just handed over the money and allowed themselves to be robbed.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
beyondtimeandspace:

This passage isn't very clear in what it means by "puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts" or "putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets." It could be that she is doing so in a manner of seduction, which could also effectively end the fight.
Click to expand...

I think that's a fairly tortured reading of it. Wouldn't the logical assumption be that the action was not seductive?

At any rate, the punishment is one we see over and over again, and is considered to be exaggeration, or the maximal limit to the kind of punishment to be given.
Click to expand...

From my reading of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there were no "ifs" or "buts" about these punishments and laws. What makes you think otherwise?

At any rate, aside from the underlying moral principle, we (as in we Catholics, since that is what I am) don't believe specific laws and punishments from Deuteronomy or Leviticus to be absolute moral laws of God.
Click to expand...

So, is it ok to pick and choose certain parts of the Bible to follow, or not, as you see fit?

If God didn't mean for women's hands to be cut off for this kind of thing, why did He write that, or tell Moses that?

Like any laws given in any government, they are changing, and so is their punishment. It is the underlying principle that supports such laws that we consider to be absolute and unchanging.
Click to expand...

Which principle underlies this particular law, do you think? From a Christian perspective.


Adstar:

That is part of the law and it was just. She is not having her hand cut of for attacking the man but because of the way in which she chose to attack the man.
Click to expand...

So you approve of cutting off her hand? In my modern situation, do you think Betty's hand should be cut off?
 
No. But i still accept the judgement of the verses that say it is wrong for a woman to attack the genitals of a man. I have stated before that we now live in the age of grace that being forgiveness. But what is wrong then is still wrong now.

As for whatever punishment the courts and systems of the world today give that’s up to them. I do not seek to change any laws founded by the powers that control this world.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Haaaaahahahah cut off her hand - what a load of crap!

This doesn’t surprise me at all. She probably shouldn’t have looked up from under her burka anyway. That’s middle eastern culture right from day dot. O good gollies, goodness me.. my woman touched another man’s penis – best cut it off as she is now unclean! No better yet, just kill her now and keep her from telling the other wives how much bigger his was compared to mine….yeah that’s it, God wants me to kill you for touching another man’s penis.

I wonder how in the world this stupid idiotic monotheistic Jehovah worship became part of European culture – what a complete waste of time.
 
Oh, and C should be jailed, DNA sampled, photographed, fingure printed and made to pay $500 to A&B for compensation.
 
When men fight with one another...

This would be the statement that would make or break the defence for Betty.

In James example, one man was robbing another. Perhaps the above quote refers to simple disagreements.

a scuffle starts between A and C.

Who instigated the scuffle?
 
ah...

but did she grab him meanly.???

or nicely... to make him stop beating the husband???

it doesnt say...

but surely it means... if she pleasures the man... not attacks him.

-MT
 
And, if Charlie was a masochist... then that means that she pleasured him as she squeezed him rudely. Betty's mitigating circumstances were that she had a few too many Margaritas in the restaurant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top