Power of the laws?

[thehehe]

I start this thread with some recent news. In France, a woman had been sentenced to 10 years of prison for the savage murder of her husband. After some investigations, it had been discovered that her late husband was very violent, beat his wife and actually raped his daughters. This woman killed him after 47 years of what she called a "nightmare". But after her sentence to prison, her family pled for her release, arguing she acted for her life and the lives of her children. They came to the president and François Hollande, after a moment, pardoned her. A lot of very different reactions followed these news.
Some people argued that the laws have to respected on every case and that this is not the role of the state to play the great judge and the modern Salomon. Some answered that clemency is the definition of justice and greatness. Then we come to a few questions: are the laws really the definition of justice? It is the role of the Human beings to decide what is right or not? Is the executive power more important than the legislative power, and if yes, on which name? And moreover does clemency give to the Head of the State a more important power over his people (power the people already deliberately gave to him)?

I hope everything is understandable! I really have to improve my English grammar.

 

[Soyeong]

While the way that the husband treated his family made her actions understandable, it doesn't excuse them. Furthermore, it sets an ugly precedent to follow for other women who are in a similar situation. There are other laws set up to protect people from this sort of abuse, so she had other options to get out of that situation that she should have used. I think just laws should be respected in every case, but the judge should have the freedom to give her a lesser sentence for mitigating circumstances. No set of laws is complicated enough to handle every single set of circumstances, so laws do not define justice, but they can approximate or give examples of it. Legislators do have the role of legislating what they think is moral, but enforcers of the law also need to take into consideration what the laws were designed to do.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Some people argued that the laws have to respected on every case and that this is not the role of the state to play the great judge and the modern Salomon.

If it was good for Solomon, it's good for current heads of state as well.

Obviously, this power should not be used lightly to set people free, but following the law blindly can lead to injustice. Having flexibility is very useful.

 

[SkyWriting]

Some people argued that the laws have to respected on every case and that this is not the role of the state to play the great judge and the modern Salomon. Some answered that clemency is the definition of justice and greatness. Then we come to a few questions: are the laws really the definition of justice? It is the role of the Human beings to decide what is right or not? Is the executive power more important than the legislative power, and if yes, on which name? And moreover does clemency give to the Head of the State a more important power over his people (power the people already deliberately gave to him)?

In the US a jury of peers decides if the laws apply in each individual case.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Every case is different.

It makes no sense to me to state absolutes in laws like "killing someone = x years in jail, period".
Every case is different. In this specific case, there certainly are special circumstances that should be taken into account (47 years of abuse). However, it was not upto her to take matters in her own hands.

She could have just gone to the police, file for divorce, get restraining order, etc.
If the dude indeed raped his daughters and engaged in domestic violence, then the guy would have gone to prison anyway.

In other words, it seems to me that this woman had options other then killing the guy.
And while her story surely is heartbreaking and tragic... she had no right to do what she did.

disclaimer: while I saw the headline, I did not read the articles so the only information I have on this case, is what I read in the OP here...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

IIRC Saadia the Jewish thinker said inclinations for rest food revenge etc were all created by God with a purpose. Personally I think the court (or an ethicist hired by the court) ought to have analysed the case and come out withsome public advice like dogma hunter has. *smiles*...

Otherwise were dealing with skinnerian behaviouristic justice, which dishes out penalties etc, rather than focuses on social resoning skills etc as the focal point of learning and "distribution of justice" to the people.

"Operant conditioning was developed by B.F. Skinner in 1937 and deals with the modification of "voluntary behaviour" or operant behaviour. Operant behavior operates on the environment and is maintained by its consequences. Reinforcement and punishment, the core tools of operant conditioning, are either positive (delivered following a response), or negative (withdrawn following a response). Skinner created the Skinner Box or operant conditioning chamber to test the effects of operant conditioning principles on rats. From this study, he discovered that the rats learned very effectively if they were rewarded frequently. Skinner also found that he could shape the rats' behavior through the use of rewards, which could, in turn, be applied to human learning as well." Wikipedia