Quote
Josh
I think the thing that was frustrating me about the questions being asked about the whipping thing, not just by you but by alot of people, was that it was continually being raised as a question to Dave and then people acting surprized or newly disgusted when he didn't answer. Everyone knows he's not going to answer, so asking the questions over and over seems like beating your heads against a wall.
I don't think that "everyone knows" he won't answer. It seems to have received a lengthy response from you Josh. Which is appreciated by the way because it opens up the dialogue again and give me and others a chance to get our point, and the perspective of the Kenyan government across.
Quote
Josh
Someone from Kenya stole from the JCs
The punishment for stealing in Kenya is somethink like 20 lashes
The JCs gave the guy a choice,
a. Get turned into the police for theft
b. Take 5 lashes from the JCs
c. Have a JC take them for him
The Kenyan chose option c
I am assuming all of these things are true. I have no other option since I wasn't there and have never heard anyone contradict the facts of this story.
That sounds pretty accurate going on how Dave presented the events on his website.
Quote
Josh
I should also say that I don't see reasonable corporal punishment as being inherently immoral. So I don't have a problem with the government of Kenya giving 20 lashes for theft rather than a jail sentence as long as the accused has the option of a fair trial. Do you disagree at this point? Do you think the Kenyan government is out of line giving lashes for theft?
It is curious that you say you have no problem with the Kenyan government whipping people and yet the Kenyan government clearly does (see [
www.corpun.com]) for the source of the below article. So having posted what the Kenyan government clearly thinks about the issue of whipping I would have to say that the corrupt police and the Jesus Christians are clearly out of line as the group whipped the Kenyan volunteer in 2006,
3 years after the criminal law code of Kenya was changed. This means that the JC's engaged in a criminal action. Still not having a problem with a professing Christian "quaker" group whipping someone?
Daily Nation,
Nairobi, 16 September 2003
Changes in criminal law significant
By Pravin Bowry
(extracts)
Recent procedural changes in criminal law have ushered in a new era in criminal jurisprudence. The long-term effect of the changes will, in future, be seen as a milestone.
It is ironical that this moment of great legal, national and historical importance has gone largely unnoticed.
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (Act No 5 of 2003) came into force on July 25, 2003. Heading the laudable list of changes was abolition of corporal punishment.
Since the advent of the colonial era, and through the post-independence period, Kenyans have been humiliated by the law stipulating whipping for convicts, legally known as corporal punishment.
This was a colonial means of control, a means of demeaning humanity. That it continued into independent Kenya is something Kenyans will have to reflect on.
And the manner of carrying out the sentence under the Prisons Act was so repulsive that right-thinking humans should have abhorred it long before now.
Corporal punishment is headline news in other countries. I have vivid memories of a renowned American photographer in Kenya having been sentenced to caning in 1968 and the New York Times published banner headline: "American to be flogged in Kenya".
It is, therefore, gratifying that, from July 25, some dignity to the penal system has been added by abolishing corporal punishment. Human rights organisations will now give Kenyans a few more marks for whatever they are worth.
Those who know the history of criminology are aware that the greater part of investigations and, indeed, convictions relies on confessions to the police.
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act has put an end to confessions (other than to a magistrate in open court) being accepted as evidence.
In both the colonial and post-colonial periods, trials centred on confessions obtained by police, contrary to the so-called "Judges Rules", but under a system of institutionalised torture.
....................
Mr Bowry is a Nairobi-based lawyer
Copyright ©2003, Nation Media Group Ltd. All rights reserved.
Quote
Josh
So then I believe the JCs would have the right to whip someone that stole from them in the absence of the government.
moot point
Quote
Josh
I don't see the moral difference of who was swinging the whip. If the JCs had struck the deal and hired an employee of the state to swing the whip using tax funds to do the hiring I don't see how that would be more acceptable.
As I have established the fact that the JC's did in fact break Kenyan law by whipping that volunteer I doubt they could hire someone other than a thug to do likewise.
Quote
Josh
So while I think there are better ways to handle the theft than the way it was handled, I do think that the JCs did not violate anyones rights in handling it the way they did.
Yes they did. That volunteer had the right to NOT get whipped according to Kenyan law since 2003. That was ignored in the dispensation of JC vigilante justice
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2008 05:58AM by apostate.