After reading the stories in Half The Sky and The Hunt, I do believe that the only way to truly get justice in those cases is to kill the attacker. In Chapter 3 of Half The Sky, we read about Akku Yadav. For a long time he basically ruled Kasturba Nagar, and he got away with whatever he wanted. He ruined many lives, and he would have continued doing so if Usha hadn't come along and stood up against him. He bribed the police, so the only way the people of Kasturba Nagar could truly get rid of him was to kill him. In The Hunt, rape was considered the worst of crimes, and was met with the harshest of punishments. When Tehsildar tried to rape Mary, he deserved to die. So when Mary finally did kill him, her actions were completely justified. That is the law, and no one is above it. I believe that what these women did was justified, and that the attackers got what they deserved.
I think much of the class (inlcuding Corey) has come to a consensus on one basic idea: violence can be justified in extreme situations when "the system" fails to protect its people. It's the details of Corey's argument I don't agree with, mainly the phrase "deserved to die." Because Yadav committed the worst possible crime, he DESERVES to get the worst punishment? No, it was neceserry for Yadav to die because there was no other way for the village to escape from his grasp. Who is to say what crimes deserve what punishment? This is straying really far into the death penalty realm but I could never say that anyone DESERVED to die.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, it's the terminology and reasoning behind the conclusion that is causing me some trouble.
I think Ally and Corey's conflicting viewpoints on whether anyone can ever forfeit their right to life is perhaps at the root of the question of whether or not violence against an oppressor can be justified. It seems that as Ally pointed out, the general consensus is that violence is justified in the sense of protecting the oppressed for the greater good. In the case of Yadav it was quite clear that he was infringing on the rights and well being of countless families, but in "The Hunt" Mary was the only victim. I agree with Corey in that I have no qualms with Tehsildar's murder, but his case seems to strike more closely to Ally's concerns. He was only affecting Mary adversely and she had not fully explored every possible alternative, yet it does not seem so unjust that he was murdered. It would seem that in condoning his murder we also affirm the idea that he forfeited his right to life by adversely impacting another; therefore it seems to me that one cannot simultaneously condone the use of violence and contradict the idea of deserving to die.
ReplyDeleteI believe that no one deserves to die and that no human being should have that power to deteremine if someone deserves to die. As Rebecca stated in the Hunt Mary did not look for other routes to take besides killing Tehsildar. People do bad things to other people all the time but that does not mean we should always take it into our own hands and try to bring what we believe to be is justice to our tormentor. When there is an oppressed community or group of people I do agree that violence is needed just as in chapter 3 of Half the Sky, there was no other way. But just to kill to kill because we feel it is right I do not believe is justified.
ReplyDeleteRebecca, I think there might be some truth to your statement. I was thinking of deserve as a vengeful word that someone arbitrarily places on someone else. I think that connotation exists. But when I looked up deserve, I found it to mean to be qualified for something. In that sense, then, saying someones deserves the punishment and saying violence is justified are similar sentiments. I guess that brings me back to my other question that I asked on Sonia's blogpost... is being morally permissible and being just or fair the same thing?
ReplyDelete