Why men won't marry you

[Town Heretic]

Some people need the crap beat out of them, and be honest on this one, do you feel bad for a child rapist who got raped in prison?

Of course not. It's hard enough to not promote the death penalty for that low an animal. But I don't want the law to be controlled by anger and there's no justification for rape.

 

[Crucible]

Some people need the crap beat out of them

(unless they are a woman)

Because "ekwality"

 

[Traditio]

No. It's what is, not how we justify it. An Islamic state believes its laws are grounded in the absolute. We believe that there are self evident truths and rights, derived from an unnamed Creator, that we're born with. None of us can objectively demonstrate the truth of our propositions.

You don't mean that. You mean if I loose my hold on a claim of absolute truth I have no more right than the next fellow. Of course at that point I have as much right as any fellow and no inherent obligation to honor the wishes of any other.

No, which is why you should either quote me or not speak for me. What I wrote was, "The punishment advanced is the least cruel infringement upon right that we can envision while still carrying the punitive weight of social/legal censure." I'm explaining something to you. I'm not originating it.

Our law has boundaries for what can be done punishing in the name of the state and that it doesn't adopt an eye for an eye as the operating principle. We use means aimed at reformation and reflection, as well as punishment in the degree of impairment of rights and absent state sanctioned torture. If that disappoints our sense of justice then I'd suggest you examine the why of it.

You're entitled. It's a long argument with a lot of facets. It isn't, however, more than tangential to my point and it deserves more than a sidebar.

I am going to make things simple by answering all of this with the following:

As so often seems to happen when you and I converse, I have asked a very broad question: could, in principle, the law permit a husband to beat his spouse for such and such reasons?

You have, reasonably or unreasonably, answered "no," and you have justified yourself by appealing to US legal principles. Fair enough.

But that answer doesn't really get at my question. Granted that the law says what it does, and granted that the the US has the faulty legal principles that it does (and faulty they must be, since they are based on modern political philosophy (*cough*Locke*cough*)), could the law and the legal principles be different and still be just?

That is a question that you cannot answer as a black letter lawyer.

You will, of course, appeal to the modern conception of "rights," and I'll dismiss them offhand as modern innovations.

Do you have anything else?

And even more importantly, it doesn't get to the real root of what I'm after.

What does the woman deserve? What punishment is proportionate to the injustice she has committed against her husband and against the State? Do you think that, abstractly speaking, and apart from any consideration of modern Western law, death is not and cannot be proportionate to her crime?

But of course, as a Christian, you are not entitled to say that. You must say otherwise.

It's a prima facie case that someone wronged should not be judge and jury. I'm more concerned with the operating principle than whether or not you can fashion a particular hypothetical to meet your ends.

I'm unwilling to admit the principle universally speaking. The reason you wouldn't want the offended party as judge and jury is because his partiality in the case would prevent him from treating the other person fairly. However, two points must be noted here:

1. There is no question about the matter of fact.
2. If his "natural" inclination, given his partial mindset, is precisely in accord with what the offender deserves, then there is simply no possibility of him going astray.

Do you fear that he'll beat her too much? Too harshly? But the assumption under which we are working is that she deserves to die a painful death by being beaten.

Do you realize what the mitigation actually was? An aberrant mental state. It's not a stamp of approval on the behavior.

There's a world of difference between recognizing that in a moment a man or woman may be overwhelmed and act in an unpremeditated rage, for which they will receive a reduced sentence of incarceration, and sustaining the notion that the still illegal and punishable action is a good idea.

People naturally become angry when they perceive that they have become the victim of an injustice. The perception of a greater injustice, the greater the anger. If the State recognizes that adultery evokes sufficient anger/rage sufficient to cause "an aberrant mental state," in particular, of the kill-y variety, it thereby recognizes the immense injustice done by the adulteress...injustice which, at least in principle, could merit death, in fact.

Rather, sex isn't intrinsically evil. Rape is. Beating someone isn't intrinsically evil. Battery is.

Let us assume that you are correct. Then wherein lies your objection? I say not that a batterer should be battered, but that the State may flog him (i.e., beat/strike/whip, etc. him as punishment for crime).

No idea what you mean by that.

The State and the individual are two different things. The State has care over the whole political society, works for the good of the whole, the maintenance of justice with respect to the whole, has authority over the whole, and has a right of vengeance for the sake of justice.

The individual? Not so much.

The State and the individual aren't morally permitted to do the same kinds of things.

Not really. The modern notion of right is mostly about including the woman, though men have been forbidden to act certain ways toward their wives in antiquity and Christianity has some fairly strong things to say about how we are to behave. Ways inconsistent with berating and degrading and treating a wife as property.

1. So according to Christianity, it's not true that "a woman's body is not her own, but is her husbands," huh? Is that what you are saying?

2. That's not the modern notion of right. The modern notion of right is: "Here is x, y and z to which I am entitled. It's up to you to prove that I can't do so and so." The ancient notion of right is justice.

You'll tell me that a woman has a right to bodily integrity, and this precludes the possibility of her being beaten by her husband.

I'll tell you that the woman is guilty of a grave injustice, and all such people have an objective right to receive punishment proportionate to their crimes.

 

[Town Heretic]

...I have asked a very broad question: could, in principle, the law permit a husband to beat his spouse for such and such reasons?

You have, reasonably or unreasonably, answered "no," and you have justified yourself by appealing to US legal principles. Fair enough.

It isn't an appeal. It's a context to give the question meaning. Else, almost any question of that sort can simply be answered, "Yes. It is possible to frame a legal system within any given context." But I'm not sure what the value of the proposition is, that broadly.

could the law and the legal principles be different and still be just?

Just by what light? And there you go, back into an argument from context. That's the problem. So, ultimately, however wrapped in the robes of reason, any proposition of this sort begins with, "I believe justice is this and from this laws should be compounded." That's the context. Yours might be the Quran, the Bible, some established philosophical camp removed from religious undertone or just a strong feeling that you can reduce to principles of your own. But whatever that guiding principle is it will necessarily shape what follows.

What does the woman deserve?

She deserves equality before the law, both in respect and protection and in punishment in violation. Any other application of the word is subjectively problematic. Her conduct has breached the contract with her husband. All sorts of remedies follow. She is no longer entitled to the marital estate. Out of Eden goes she, so to speak with commiserate penalties attaching, as noted prior.

What punishment is proportionate to the injustice she has committed against her husband and against the State?

She's going to lose her status and many of the privileges the state had set aside for her, as she should. I set out her part above and prior.

But she has not battered either the state or husband and she has killed no one.

We understand/reason that a misdemeanor is a lesser crime, does a lesser damage than a felony and we make the sentence under law a lesser sentence. Within misdemeanors and felonies we scale relative to the injury and its permanence. We don't attempt to equate a penny with a pinch or emotional upheaval with a slap.

Do you think that, abstractly speaking, and apart from any consideration of modern Western law, death is not and cannot be proportionate to her crime?

If you're going to begin with the affirmative you should stay in it or you make the question problematic. Watch those negatives. Anyway, should someone lose the ability to reform their life and lose their life for a decision (to use your proportionate scaling) costing no one their life? Hard to miss the answer. I'll stand with Christ and say put down the rock to the state and reform your ways to the woman or man. I'm a big fan of redemption.

The reason you wouldn't want the offended party as judge and jury is because his partiality in the case would prevent him from treating the other person fairly.

There's really no "but" or "however" beyond that point. That's the rebuttal.

1. There is no question about the matter of fact.

There's almost always a question and every bald fact can have mitigation, context that changes its nature. Without an intervening authority you'll never get to that or past many an errant assumption.

You invite tragedy, even before the consideration of the penalty, which is tragic enough. But even if it didn't and even if the facts were clear and asserting somehow that a beating was in any real sense more than vengeance rooted in emotional pain on the part of the husband, was in some way actually just, you invite disproportionate punishment within your context.

Why? Because one wife may endure what another cannot. One husband may inflict what another can or will not. Regardless of the outcome threshold the administration of this "justice" cannot be uniform and therefore cannot be proportionate.

If the State recognizes that adultery evokes sufficient anger/rage sufficient to cause "an aberrant mental state," in particular, of the kill-y variety, it thereby recognizes the immense injustice done by the adulteress...injustice which, at least in principle, could merit death, in fact.

Well, no. If the state found the response meritorious it wouldn't penalize it. Rather, we understand that when someone is rendered by emotional response incapable of fully appreciating the nature of their actions we cannot treat them as we would someone in full possession of their faculties. It's not an attaboy for the mentally deranged, temporarily or not.

Let us assume that you are correct. Then wherein lies your objection? I say not that a batterer should be battered, but that the State may flog him (i.e., beat/strike/whip, etc. him as punishment for crime).

That's back to the notion of proportionate physical suffering relative to the crime and has the same problems I've noted.

So according to Christianity, it's not true that "a woman's body is not her own, but is her husbands," huh? Is that what you are saying?

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." One flesh, not one with flesh grafted onto him and have fun with that.

You'll tell me that a woman has a right to bodily integrity, and this precludes the possibility of her being beaten by her husband.

I tell you that she has the same right as her husband and that no one has the right to beat someone who isn't threatening their person or the person of another.

I'll tell you that the woman is guilty of a grave injustice

Woman or man, the breaker of an oath has transgressed and there are repercussions for that unless they're very, very fortunate and have a spouse who will forgive them.

, and all such people have an objective right to receive punishment proportionate to their crimes.

Put down the stone, Trad, before you hurt someone with it.

 

[THall]

You all are so narrow minded.

Here are some facts for you.

If I saw my wife, or anyone other
person's wife abusing a child, she
would get the same exact beating
a man would get for the same exact
reason. God be my judge, period dot.

 

[bybee]

(unless they are a woman)

Because "ekwality"

You show such hatred for women.

 

[Rusha]

You show such hatred for women.

That he does ...

 

[kmoney]

For the moment, let it simply suffice for me to say that I've noted your opinion. I have no other relevant comments at this point.

Fair enough.

I don't entirely remember the entirety of this discussion, but I do think that this represents a shift in your views with respect to what you previously said, as, I believe, you yourself note later on.

Earlier, it probably seemed to you (as it indeed it seems to AnnaBenedetti, Arthur Brain, and the rest of the liberal crowd) that it is categorically and universally unjust for a man to beat his wife, regardless of the circumstances, and I believe that you were in basic agreement with them, no?

But the point that I initially wanted to make, before I even started on this particular line of thought, was basically this: "never" is a strong word. Not even a single woman has ever deserved a beating from her husband? Not even one? There are no circumstances which might justify this, no matter how rare, grave or unusual?

That's a strong claim, and I think that you yourself are at this point prepared to admit its falsity. In effect, Kmoney, whether or not you disagree with me on the particulars of my point, you at this point are in complete rupture with the views of AnnaBenedetti et al.

First, I'd just like to point out that what you're talking about is very far from what most conversations about spousal abuse is about. For all practical intents and purposes, I still very much agree that NO WOMAN DESERVES TO BE BEATEN BY HER HUSBAND. Your far-fetched hypotheticals don't help the discussion much.

What I have conceded is the possibility that for ancient Israel God gave a law that proscribed death as the punishment for adultery. However, I don't agree with applying that to US law so from that perspective I don't think any woman deserves to be beaten by her husband in any context that's relevant to us.

I disagree with this. Justice is not simply paying back what you stole. It's paying back what you stole and facing either corporal punishment, paying an additional fine or going to prison or some like thing.

The way Aristotle describes it is this way: the victim suffers defect because of the crime, whereas the criminal enjoys excess because of his crime. Justice "evens things out," so to speak. It makes the victim whole again and puts the criminal back in his place.

That's fine, I'd agree that the thief should pay back more. My point wasn't about exact details though. I was only saying that proportionality is easier for some crimes than for others.

Death. Some goods are equivalent to life, and the rapist violates one such good in a sufficiently grave way (i.e., bodily integrity) to merit his death.

Lesser punishments, of course, could be acceptable (e.g., life imprisonment). Death certainly isn't out of the question, though.

No comment here. Rape is one of the crimes that I would put in the discussion of possible capital crimes.

The blood of the assailant, as well as the confiscation of his property sufficient to pay for significant psychological counseling, medical treatment, etc. His suffering (especially of the intense and exceedingly painful variety) also works no small satisfaction.

Yes, the blood and pain of the rapist might make the victim feel better, but I don't know about 'whole'. Counseling can help.

Also, how does the State get to determine what makes the victim whole? That seems to be a subjective thing.

Christian or not, that's justice. :idunno:

Maybe.

The business of the State is justice. Private citizens can correct, rehabilitate, deter, etc. in all sorts of ways. The State, however, has a right of violence or retribution, and this right is ordered to the administration of justice.

I agree with this to some extent. Though, deterrence will flow somewhat naturally from punishment even if it isn't the stated purpose. I think my concern about rehabilitation revolves mostly around the prison system we have. What are your thoughts about incarceration as a punishment? It strikes me as not being very good at providing 'justice' and removing people from society for a while and then throwing them back in probably just increases the likelihood that they will stay a criminal. So if we're going to incarcerate people I think we should help them become good citizens when they get out. I know there are some programs but I don't think they are very effective. I should look up more info about recidivism rates.

In addition, even if I grant your point that rehabilitation isn't the business of the State, don't think it would serve them to think about it anyway? If they can incorporate rehabilitation along with justice?

And with that, you have conceded my initial point, i.e., that it cannot categorically be claimed that beating one's wife, to death or otherwise, is necessarily or always wrong.

AnnaBenedetti et al. won't be happy with you.

:chuckle: I've conceded the possibility that corporal punishment or death is a just punishment for adultery. I do so because it's present in the Mosaic Law and if God truly handed that Law down to Moses then who am I say to differently.

Using the above is a theological argument. We don't live in a theocracy and you also said that you aren't trying to use theological arguments. So even if God said that adultery should be punished with death I don't think it should be instituted in the US. Earlier in this thread you laid out a secular argument for death for an adulterer and I found it unconvincing. From a secular standpoint, I don't think an adulterer deserves to be beaten or killed.

But if all you care about is the possibility in some context that adultery can be punished with death then you can declare victory.

Perhaps "should" is a strong word. I'm willing to make a minimal claim, i.e., that the State could in principle delegate the authority and/or duty to do so. If the State commands him to do so, then I can assert the stronger claim: he should and must do so.

I do, however, admit what Cabinetmaker said earlier in the thread: the likelihood of this working, practically speaking, in our society is pretty much null. The man in the case I mentioned didn't even bother moving out of the house...it is extremely unlikely that he would have beaten her, even if he could have done so.

Fair enough. I'd just add that I disagree that the State should ever command someone to carry out a punishment like this. I tend to think that would be adding another injustice upon the victim.

This sounds like a flat contradiction to me. Claims of justice often are expressed as "ought" claims. It sounds like you are telling me that the husband ought not do what he ought to do.

I disagree. You'll probably flip out at this but I tend to think mercy and justice are mutually exclusive things. :chuckle:

I basically agree with your basic sentiments, i.e., that whereas the State concerns itself with the administration of justice, private citizens (especially Christians) should display mercy, forgiveness, etc. The husband, qua husband, should not seek or even desire to seek out retribution against his wife. Christianity requires something else.

In what I am describing, however, he is not acting qua husband, but qua deputy of the State.

I don't know how you think a husband can simply separate the roles of being her husband and being an agent of the state. How he can set aside his own feelings and act as an agent of the state to beat and/or kill his wife.

Furthermore, if we take Christianity out of the picture, it seems like you have no argument as to why he shouldn't want to beat her. He's been offended. She deserves it. He has the right to do it. Why not? :idunno:

Because perhaps, even outside of Christianity, this was a woman that he loves.

Trad, think of someone you love. Can you imagine beating that person, possibly to death, even if they wronged you a great deal?

Finally, and this just occurred to me, it also seems to me that you've basically admitted/conceded a further point to my arguments, Kmo: you seem to have agreed that, in effect, the adulteress deserves to be beaten to death; you just don't think that this desert should actually be rewarded by the State, and you don't think that the husband should want to do it.

But I think that you are still admitting that she does deserve it.

As I said: the liberal pc crowd won't like this.

I've addressed what I've admitted above. :chuckle:

That depends on a great many different circumstances upon which I can't really comment.

:doh:

As I said, the State shouldn't concern itself with what God can do, or what might possibly happen in any given number of unlikely scenarios.

I'm not as pessimistic as you are about people being reformed, particularly in this scenario. I also don't share your view about how serious what that woman did is, in relation to the State.

Complicated question. Briefly speaking: habits are inculcated through repeated acts.

So, you think repeated acts has created a habit and has damaged the person to reason correctly at least regarding the particular criminal act. Why don't you think the habits and reasoning can be similarly changed in the other direction?