India Rapist Burned Alive by Victim

[HVC]

His family will now set her on fire and the vigilantly scales of justice will be balanced once more.

you'd at least have made a better cowboy than viking

slowest draw in the west!

And derspiess, there's a 50/50 chance of that happening on any given day lol

[Razgovory]

Of course it's entirely possible he didn't rape her, and she brought him into her house for some purpose and chose to light him on fire.  You know, when you cast aside due process and engage in vigilantism it's difficult discover who's really guilty.

How is determining her guilt for murder inherently more difficult that determining his guilt for rape?

What?

Presumably, she will be tried for murder. At such a trial, she will have to demonstrate that her story is true to have a hope of being aquitted - she admits she did it.

If she had not killed him, but rather successfully managed to get him charged with rape, to secure a conviction the state would have to prove that he raped her.

Proving rape is going to be difficult - as will proving her motives for murder.

It isn't "vigilatism" per se that creates the difficulty.

It's hard to prove rape because she killed him and burned down the house and I don't think providing a motive is required for a conviction.

[Razgovory]

Of course it's entirely possible he didn't rape her, and she brought him into her house for some purpose and chose to light him on fire.  You know, when you cast aside due process and engage in vigilantism it's difficult discover who's really guilty.

Given what's been reported in the story, that would still be karmic justice.

How is it Karmic justice if she burned a man not guilty of rape alive.

[Eddie Teach]

Of course it's entirely possible he didn't rape her, and she brought him into her house for some purpose and chose to light him on fire.  You know, when you cast aside due process and engage in vigilantism it's difficult discover who's really guilty.

Given what's been reported in the story, that would still be karmic justice.

How is it Karmic justice if she burned a man not guilty of rape alive.

hakur died in the fire. Police told the Hindustan Times he had been previously accused in dozens of cases of "eve-teasing" -- a euphemism used in India for public sexual assault.

So even if he didn't rape her, he was still guilty.

[fhdz]

Usually I'm on the opposite side from Meyth. But in this case, I gotta agree she has a point.

Killing someone who has just committed such a crime on you would not be justifiable, if there were other reasonable choices available. From what I've read, in many places in India the authorities will do diddly-squat in cases of rape like this.

In a place where there is a functioning system of cops and courts, yeah, the law should discourage vigilantism to the utmost. Where the situation is at least in part a function of the fact that the authorities can't or won't do shit about it, then it seems reasonable for a court asked to judge *her* actions to use the old Texas-style verdict of 'yep, he's a guy that needed a killing' - perhaps call it 'not guilty by reason of momentary insanity' or some such  . Assuming of course that the story as stated is true.

That's my line of reasoning, too.

Viking, you're taking a society in which the rule of law is taken for granted (yours) and trying to impose it on a culture where the rule of law applies unequally.

[Razgovory]

So extralegal murder is acceptable in a society that doesn't have equal rights?

[fhdz]

So extralegal murder is acceptable in a society that doesn't have equal rights?

Put yourself in her shoes for a minute.

She was stalked for months and then raped. She knows - or at least is relatively sure - that the legal system in her country is unlikely to procure a conviction and is predisposed to believe the rapist. She takes steps to ensure that she will never be stalked and raped by this man again.

Is she right to do so? Maybe, maybe not. But it is at least quite understandable, unless you are one of those people who values theory over reality.

[katmai]

She put kerosene on him before he raped her, then he raped her, and then she set him on fire?  I think I'd get the kerosene off of me before continuing the rape, but then I wouldn't be raping someone in the first place, so clearly I don't understand the mindset of rapists.

Is it wrong of me that this brings to mind a certain song by the Doors? 

What does People are Strange have to do with this?

[Razgovory]

So extralegal murder is acceptable in a society that doesn't have equal rights?

Put yourself in her shoes for a minute.

She was stalked for months and then raped. She knows - or at least is relatively sure - that the legal system in her country is unlikely to procure a conviction and is predisposed to believe the rapist. She takes steps to ensure that she will never be stalked and raped by this man again.

Is she right to do so? Maybe, maybe not. But it is at least quite understandable, unless you are one of those people who values theory over reality.

It would seem to be somewhat self-defeating.  Accepting revenge killings would undermine efforts to have a effective and equitable legal system.  By rejecting the theory of impartial judiciary system you are effectively making sure it will never occur in reality.

[fhdz]

Who is "accepting" revenge killings? I don't have any authority in India.

[Razgovory]

When you talk about it being "understandable", you appear to be approving of what this woman did, thus accepting it.  I fail to see what the point of the second sentence is.

[fhdz]

When you talk about it being "understandable", you appear to be approving of what this woman did, thus accepting it.

When I said I understand it, what I meant was "I understand it".

I fail to see what the point of the second sentence is.

Clearly:

Accepting revenge killings would undermine efforts to have a effective and equitable legal system.  By rejecting the theory of impartial judiciary system you are effectively making sure it will never occur in reality.

Who is the "you" in this quote, Raz? Is it me? If it is, how does my "accepting" anything have any effect whatsoever on India's legal system? And if it is someone else, like "the Indian people", then why do you care whether I accept it or not?

[Razgovory]

If you find her behavior unacceptable, then we agree.  This board would be quite dull if we only discussed things we actively effect.  You brought up their legal system as a mitigating factor, and said, "unless you are one of those people who values theory over reality.", even though I have no effect on anything.  The point I made about their legal system was made in the same spirit.

[fhdz]

If you find her behavior unacceptable, then we agree.

I understand her behavior. It may or may not be acceptable, depending on a variety of factors. I don't need to accept a black & white answer in a case as complex as this and certainly won't be pigeonholed into one by you.

This board would be quite dull if we only discussed things we actively effect.  You brought up their legal system as a mitigating factor, and said, "unless you are one of those people who values theory over reality.", even though I have no effect on anything.  The point I made about their legal system was made in the same spirit.

No, I said it was understandable unless you are one of those people who values theory over reality. You were speaking specifically about my acceptance undermining the legal system. My post is right up there. You can read it again if you are having trouble.

[garbon]

Good on her and you go, girl!