I don't really subscribe to the speaker's thesis, but it is interesting. The speaker, Thane Rosenbaum, who is a lecturer at Fordham University in the College of Law, sets most of his points out well (stumbling one one point, about abstaining from vengeance in war) in only one place. Rosenbaum's thesis is that all justice is based upon just and measured revenge, and any justice system that doesn't accommodate a desire for revenge is unjust, and probably unworkable.
Something that isn't mentioned in the interview is that Rosenbaum is Jewish and a writer on Jewish topics, in addition to legal topics. I mention that due to something he said in the interview which is an often missed point, but which is quite accurate. He cites the Old Testament's maxim that justice should be based on "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" as a limiting, not expansive, principal. Oddly enough, it was just a few days after listening to this that I heard Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin make the exact same point.
That is a significant point indeed. Rosenbaum must have come to this in his studies of Jewish topics. By the same token, Akin came to this via his work as an Apologist. And it shows how truly erroneous our understandings of some things can be without the appropriate background.
Returning to the "eye for an eye" matter itself, how can that be a limiting law? Well, simply put, the "ancient law," i.e., the law that people seem to carry instinctively, generally accords that violence of any type can be met with supreme violence. For example, one of the callers in to this show cited the example of Njals Saga, but I don't know if she understood why her comment was off the mark. Njals Saga, a master work of Icelandic pre Christian literature, provides examples of a legal blood feud that never ends. The law, seemingly, was not limited. Killing was rapidly resorted to, and then everyone was off and running as there was no way to satiate the need for unlimited revenge. An "eye for an eye," however, did the opposite. It provided that if somebody blinded you in one eye, they could be similarly blinded. They couldn't be killed. That was a significant limitation in the ancient world.
There are many similar Biblical examples which are misunderstood. Slavery is discussed in the Old and New Testaments, for example, and some cite that as proof that slavery was sanctioned. However, the citations to slavery are either a limit on the conduct of the master, demonstrating that slaves were people too and not to be mistreated, or they refer to the ancient means of handling prisoners of war. In ancient times, when resources were so thin, POWs generally became slaves or bargaining chips. There wasn't much of an option as to anything else, economically. Instructions on how to treat slaves do not amount to a ratification of it, anymore than an insistence that, for example, hard drinkers not be abusive and provide for their families would amount to a modern legal sanction of alcoholism.
Another interesting example, also related to warefare, that is often misunderstood is the Old Testament provision that victorious Jewish combatants could take the widows of defeated enemies as wives, provided they allowed them time to mourn. That seems harsh, but it actuality it was the polar opposite. The norm otherwise was that victorious combatants could simply have the women of defeated enemies, a type of horrific abuse that has carried down to the modern era in many places. The Old Testament, however, says "no" to that, and requires a marriage. Not only does it require marriage, however, but the poor woman is allowed to mourn her lost family. If you think of that, it's pretty stunning. A victorious soldier would have to be pretty taken with a woman to determine he was going to marry her, allow her to mourn somebody he just aided in killing, and then return to his native land with her. I wonder how often it actually happened?
Anyhow, this simply brought up a very interesting point, and nicely demonstrates how modern understandings of ancient texts can be so badly off the mark. Having said all of that, I don't think a modern justice system can really be based on revenge, but then I don't know what really does work in terms of an effective, modern, criminal justice system.
No comments:
Post a Comment