Diminished Responsibility

Lewisy-boy

and I don't want to offend anyone by generalising and lumping big groups together.

Wise.

You made an interesting point about Western students assuming we are "right" though, mate. Before you said that I could easily have seen myself slipping into that belief.

Reply 26

Lewisy-boy

Surely we should respect cultural diversity and not force our western preminitions on others? The common mistake of the western student: assume that our position is correct, regardless. The fact that this is rather an extreme example that no-one can really justify is irrelevant (and, personally, I think it's a disgusting practice).

To take a typical Daily Mail approach: if they are going to live in our country then they must respect our laws and our cultural beliefs. Our law says that it is illegal to kill anybody, except with lawful excuse. Just because somebody has a cultural belief to the contrary, that does not override our law. To an extent we should respect multiculturalism and differing opinions, but on matters of such a grave nature, the law must prevail.

Reply 27

Lewisy-boy

11

IN that regard we probably are "right", but if you see things like Freedom of Religion in Islamic countries their views may seem harsh to us, but it's a way of life to them. Yet western countries go round trying to impose their views with universal rights which they complain when such alternative cultures reject them.

Individual focus does not fit neatly within a communitarian spirit. Studying in Asia makes you respect this, although tbh I'm still not overly swayed by many cultural relativism arguments mainly because quite a few writers criticise it as a mask of oppression, and make a damn good job of it. I'm still going to raise awareness of it, because thinking about such things is beneficial to us academic lawyers.

Reply 28

Well, if I went to Saudia Arabia or Pakistan then I would respect their laws and practices regardless of whether I agreed with them and make sure that my own practices did not contravene their laws, as I'd be in their country and so would be playing under their rules, as it were. The same should apply in the reverse.

I'm not going to complain if West Bongostan (I don't want to offend or misrepresent real countries) if according to their legal systems honour killings are allowed. Likewise, I don't think other countries were right to criticise Iraq for hanging Saddam. I don't personally agree with these things but I respect that these states should have legal autonomy and should be allowed to administer justice in a way which they see fit, as long as attention is paid to some basic human rights principles.

Reply 29

Ryands

OP

TommehR

To take a typical Daily Mail approach: if they are going to live in our country then they must respect our laws and our cultural beliefs. Our law says that it is illegal to kill anybody, except with lawful excuse. Just because somebody has a cultural belief to the contrary, that does not override our law. To an extent we should respect multiculturalism and differing opinions, but on matters of such a grave nature, the law must prevail.

Our own law should certainly take precendent in our own country, but that does not necessarily mean it is "right" by default - just because that's the way it's been for so long and it's our "culture".

I happen to agree with the law, but I'm just playing devil's advocate, really. Lewisy-boy is right; it is good for us to consider other viewpoints.

Reply 30

Ryands

Our own law should certainly take precendent in our own country, but that does not necessarily mean it is "right" by default - just because that's the way it's been for so long and it's our "culture".

I happen to agree with the law, but I'm just playing devil's advocate, really. Lewisy-boy is right; it is good for us to consider other viewpoints.

I don't think my point was whether or not our system is 'right' or not. That's a whole other debate. I was merely saying that if people come to our country then they are obliged to follow are legal rules, regardless of whether they think they are right or not.

Reply 31

Ryands

OP

In that case I agree with you. :smile:

Reply 32

dragon_1706

Lewisy-boy

What about honour killings? Where should they fit in?

Wouldn't they come under provocation rather than DR?

Reply 33

Serenity

Lewisy-boy

In some cultures, if your daughter sleeps with a man outside of wedlock you can kill her to restore the family honour. This is but one example.

Might wanna check out Mohammed (2005).

Reply 34

Serenity

dragon_1706

Wouldn't they come under provocation rather than DR?

Yeah it would.. Culture/religion isn't a mental instability (even though some may argue otherwise).

Reply 35

2026

15

I am utterly shocked and disgusted by some of the comments made by certain individuals in this thread.

Firstly, on this issue of honour killings in the UK, and similar Western jurisdictions, it is not morally, nor legally acceptable to grant the defendant any defence in such a situation. No court rightly in the land would allow a defendant to raise a defence of provocation for someone who committed an honour killing.

TommehR

Well, if I went to Saudia Arabia or Pakistan then I would respect their laws and practices regardless of whether I agreed with them and make sure that my own practices did not contravene their laws, as I'd be in their country and so would be playing under their rules, as it were. The same should apply in the reverse.

I'm not going to complain if West Bongostan (I don't want to offend or misrepresent real countries) if according to their legal systems honour killings are allowed. Likewise, I don't think other countries were right to criticise Iraq for hanging Saddam. I don't personally agree with these things but I respect that these states should have legal autonomy and should be allowed to administer justice in a way which they see fit, as long as attention is paid to some basic human rights principles.

What are you talking about? How can you "respect" another countries laws and disagree with them at the same time? I assume you mean you would follow a countries laws, even if you disagreed with them. You argue that if you went to SA or Iran, you would abide by their laws because you are 'in their country', but that's rather pathetic when considering the issue of honour killings in the West, which are carried out by legal citizens of respective Western countries. An Asian man who carries out an honour killing in the UK is not committing a crime in another person's country, its his country as well.

I completely understand the argument about cultural relativism, however, to argue that we should respect, or at least accept terrible acts committed in foreign jurisdictions would be absurd.

You argue that as long as sovereign nations adhere to 'some basic human rights principles', they should have the respect to pass justice as they see fit, but what to you constitutes as 'some basic human rights'? Is capital punishment acceptable, even if it is carried out by beheading or hanging? Is cutting the hands of an individual for theft acceptable?

We in the West are certainly not perfect, but let us not concede the unarguable fact that most of our laws, and certainly our legal system is by far the most fair and moral of all jurisdictions.

Reply 36

-1984-

What are you talking about? How can you "respect" another countries laws and disagree with them at the same time? I assume you mean you would follow a countries laws, even if you disagreed with them.

It's not very difficult to make that assumption as that's exactly what I was saying.

Respect:"2. to show consideration for, or thoughtfulness or attention to, something 3. to heed or pay proper attention to (a rule, law, etc)"

In much the same way that I can respect somebody's right to be a Christian and respect their beliefs, while at the some time completely disagreeing with what they believe in.

You argue that if you went to SA or Iran, you would abide by their laws because you are 'in their country', but that's rather pathetic when considering the issue of honour killings in the West, which are carried out by legal citizens of respective Western countries. An Asian man who carries out an honour killing in the UK is not committing a crime in another person's country, its his country as well.

Some countries allow honour killings and view them as being lawful (Jordan, Syria, etc.). If I went to that country then I would respect their right to have such a law. However, our legal system does not allow that, and thus an Asian man carrying out an honour killing in the UK is committing a crime. All people living under our legal system should have to abide by it regardless of their origins or cultural beliefs.

You argue that as long as sovereign nations adhere to 'some basic human rights principles', they should have the respect to pass justice as they see fit, but what to you constitutes as 'some basic human rights'? Is capital punishment acceptable, even if it is carried out by beheading or hanging? Is cutting the hands of an individual for theft acceptable?

Let us not forget that it is only recently that capital punishment was abolished in this country and that hanging and beheading have been two of them most popular methods for many centuries and seen as quite acceptable. To chastise another country for using such punishments when we ourselves have used them for many hundreds of years would be hypocritical. Just because our moral beliefs and laws have recently shifted away from capital punishment doesn't mean to say that our beliefs are right and theirs are wrong.

We in the West are certainly not perfect, but let us not concede the unarguable fact that most of our laws, and certainly our legal system is by far the most fair and moral of all jurisdictions.

From a Western, liberal, and democratic perspective ours is the fairest and most moral of all jurisdictions. What is to say that a Middle Eastern person who thinks that their system is fairer and moral is wrong? Any air of objectivity is always going to have a distinctly Western bias.

Reply 37

Lewisy-boy

11

I think the problem lies in saying broad sweeping statements like "we have the most fair, beneficial system"... I think several Asian states have shown that their different ways of doing things can lead to economic growth etc far beyond our own. And in return for what? Usually trading in a few free speech rights, if you have everything else but not free speech (!00% anyway, it's mostly fine), surely that's a good trade?

I don't accept you saying things like - "they can enact whatever they want, provided they adhere basic human rights principles" - do you know how big the international debate on "basic human rights" is? The "core" of HR? Just because the west sees a certain right as "core" by no means renders it a core right. I admit my honour killing example was a very very bad one and not one I agree with. But what about claims that the right to development is the necessary one first, before giving Civil and Political Rights: on the basis that you need economic security in order to enjoy your CPR. The converse, of course, if that you need free speech in order to obtain development so you can criticise bad policies etc. However, you can see the merits in both arguments. Other societies are focused on communitarian rights and duties of the individual thereto. The western liberal idea is to give all the rights to the individual, which to some societies can be very damning to the social cohesion which has made their countries what they are today.

Another argument which exists is that economic rights are more important because the rights to food and water etc are vital to survival. Surely, if you're hungry, you don't give a toss about being able to join a trade union or the like. Odds on, because no-one has the initiative to think about it... all they want is food. There are totally different considerations of things which we take 100% for granted: food, water and the basics. Makes you realise once and for all how lucky you are.
However, you have all proved to me that you are unwilling to open your eyes (or most of you). I would have taken the exact same view as you a couple of months ago, which is why I am glad this year has changed the way I talk somewhat.

Reply 38