Amaranthus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 The police, the prosecuter and ultimately the judge. We have similarly vague laws (though less mental). Stuff like the obscene publications act is very much open to interpretation. Isn't law supposed to be meticulous? They should list every action which comes under those headers and not leave it vague and open to an individuals interpretation. At least then people will know exactly what specifically they can and can't get away with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 How is a religion or any kind of ideology not a fault for people who've been indoctrinated into that ideology doing precisely what they understand the ideology requires them to do? Quakers for example don't do this kind of thing as their ideology doesn't mandate coercion, sadly a significant varieties of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism... do require coercion of others and those subject to such ideologies often act accordingly. Why should such ideologies escape all blame for this? Because I believe everyone should be held accountable for themselves. Having a belief in something does not automatically take away your brain and free thought. I have my beliefs but I would not accept something blindly, without thinking it through first. Some religious people do crazy things some don't, some non-religious people do crazy things and some don't. Just because some nutters cite religion as an excuse for their behaviour, it does not take away from the fact that they are nuts. Someone else of the same religion would not dream of doing the things the nutters do; the religion is the same, the only difference is the person so the person must be the one at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 I remember when Akmal Sheik got executed for drugs in China and people were saying he broke the law in that country and got the sentence according to China's law. This couple broke the law of a crime in Pakistan and have been sentenced according to Pakistan's law. I personally believe it is excessive but so was Akmal Sheiks sentence but the law is the law however unjust it may seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 I remember when Akmal Sheik got executed for drugs in China and people were saying he broke the law in that country and got the sentence according to China's law. This couple broke the law of a crime in Pakistan and have been sentenced according to Pakistan's law. I personally believe it is excessive but so was Akmal Sheiks sentence but the law is the law however unjust it may seem. I understand that but don't you think they should make it crystal clear what actions will be breaking said law? Especially when you're dealing with such harsh sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icon76 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Isn't law supposed to be meticulous? They should list every action which comes under those headers and not leave it vague and open to an individuals interpretation. At least then people will know exactly what specifically they can and can't get away with. Ideally laws would be drafted in such a way that it was clear what is and isn't acceptable. In reality many laws both in the UK and abroad are very much open to interpretation. Personally if I were in charge i'd want a "blind taste test" of any new law by all serving judges with say 3 different sets of fictional evidence compiled by an independant panel and all judges to come to conclusions of if the new law had been breached and the appropriate sentance. Any less than 90% agreement and the law gets sent back to parliament as unclear and thus not fit for purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 295-B. Defiling, etc., of Holy Qur'an: Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur'an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life. But who decides what the definition of "defiles, damages or desecrates" is? To me that would probably mean taking a dump on it... ? Speaking of which.... I wonder what sentence this guy and his wife would receive in Pakistan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Because I believe everyone should be held accountable for themselves. False dilemma, to say that a ideology may have contributed to the problem is in no way to suggest individuals shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. Having a belief in something does not automatically take away your brain and free thought. I have my beliefs but I would not accept something blindly, without thinking it through first. Some religious people do crazy things some don't, some non-religious people do crazy things and some don't. Just because some nutters cite religion as an excuse for their behaviour, it does not take away from the fact that they are nuts. Someone else of the same religion would not dream of doing the things the nutters do; the religion is the same, the only difference is the person so the person must be the one at fault. People subject to some varieties of religion clearly do far more crazy things than equivalent numbers of people subject to other ideologies which would suggest that some varieties of religion encourage people to do "crazy things". Or do you think it's just a coincidence that such "crazy" behaviour is so concentrated amongst people subject to certain ideologies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Ideally laws would be drafted in such a way that it was clear what is and isn't acceptable. In reality many laws both in the UK and abroad are very much open to interpretation. In this day and age why can't they do that? We're not living in medieval times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 I remember when Akmal Sheik got executed for drugs in China and people were saying he broke the law in that country and got the sentence according to China's law. This couple broke the law of a crime in Pakistan and have been sentenced according to Pakistan's law. I personally believe it is excessive but so was Akmal Sheiks sentence but the law is the law however unjust it may seem. So if 25 years is too much what do you think would be an appropriate punishment for touching a book with dirty hands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 In this day and age why can't they do that? We're not living in medieval times. Sadly a distressingly large number of deeply religious people seem to with we were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.