blood money - is that acceptable ?

[BlackCat]

Paying blood money is common practice especially in the ME, but shuld that be adobted in the rest of the world ?

Currently, if danish soldiers stationed in Iraq makes damages to civilians, there has been paid a retribution according to local customs wich I find fair.

On the other hand there has been an incident at a local discoteque/bar where the doorkeeper was attacked by a gang of immigrants (no doubt, they were captured on surveillance camera), and as last resort he draw a gun and killed one person; injured another seriously.

An imam has suggested that aprox $36.000 dollars should be paid by society to the dead persons family to solve the problem.

Please give your comments to handle this.

Oh, of course I have my own idea of how it should be handled, something like the current laws here.

Can't deliver any english links to this but some danish if requested -

[Pekka]

immigrants attacked in Iraq, in discoteque? They have immigrants in Iraq?

[Pekka]

I guess you mean a disco in Denmark? Well, I suggest that any pseudo judges can stick it and let the matter to be decided in the court of law. If the court of law sees the dude guilty, and orders money to be paid, then that's the money that will be paid. No imam, priest, or high commander should be able to do anything. The court will decide. And that money isn't blood money, it's compensation for the damages, and fines.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Pekka
immigrants attacked in Iraq, in discoteque? They have immigrants in Iraq?

As far as I know, my locale is Denmark, so you have missed some serious amount of kilometres.

[Lancer]

"Currently, if danish soldiers stationed in Iraq makes damages to civilians, there has been paid a retribution according to local customs wich I find fair."

Pay for the damage to Kuwait did Iraq?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Pekka
I guess you mean a disco in Denmark? Well, I suggest that any pseudo judges can stick it and let the matter to be decided in the court of law. If the court of law sees the dude guilty, and orders money to be paid, then that's the money that will be paid. No imam, priest, or high commander should be able to do anything. The court will decide. And that money isn't blood money, it's compensation for the damages, and fines.

You guessed right .D

And yes, there has been a time i scandinavia when you cold do that, but it's close to 1.000 years ago. Do we wan't to introduce that again ?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Lancer
"Currently, if danish soldiers stationed in Iraq makes damages to civilians, there has been paid a retribution according to local customs wich I find fair."

Pay for the damage to Kuwait did Iraq?

What do you mean - you don't make any sense ?

[Pekka]

to pay blood money? No. Court of law rules. No one else (except SC).

[Urban Ranger]

Re: blood money - is that acceptable ?

Originally posted by BlackCat
An imam has suggested that aprox $36.000 dollars should be paid by society to the dead persons family to solve the problem.

Please give your comments to handle this.

Instead of getting the case through court? I'd say no.

If the friends and family of the dead person think the killing also caused monetary damages, they could also bring a civil suit as well.

[BlackCat]

The doorman is of course in police custody and are charged for manslaughter - his problem isn't so much that he had killed someone, it's more that he did it with an illegal weapon.

There is no doubt that the dead person himself was to blame for the incident that caused his dead - if you attack someone with shovels etc, you are risking that they protect themselvs. The dead are so to say to be blamed for his own death.

The blood money issue isn't that unknown here but you have to go back to the viking days to find it.

The doormans family including a brother in law has gone underground because of this.

[Pekka]

Illegal weapon.. mm.. that's a problem for sures.

In the morals and eyes of justice, if you are attacked by group with shovels, coming to get you, you have a gun, you have every moral right to shoot. You can expect to not make it out alive when you go down the first second, get circled and they start smashing your skull with the tools.

You have every reason to assume you might die in the attack, and thus you must have the right to shoot the attackers. If you only one died from the gunshots, I figure it shows rather restraint than wildness.

Police can't protect you in the street. What are they going to do when you are attacked. Mind read and get over there via teleport and start accurately sniping people? No no no.. better go to jail alive than take a chance and possibly fatal beating.

THIS IS of course in general, I don't know the facts and details of this particular case. Quickly sounds like he was in the right and defending himself with extreme measures. If nothing more than illegal weapon comes to his record from this, I won't judge the man, I won't blame the man.

And when it comes to 'he most likely would have survived the attack alive'. Well.. if its' between me getting a serious brain damage, and someone getting shot, and I was attacked, someone will get shot if I can decide and I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

[BlackCat]

Actually, I think it would have been fine if the doorman has used a howitzer to protect himself since he was attacked with weapons that easily could have caused his death.

My concern is that we have a legal system where problems isn't solved by paying blood money - a system I think is worth keeping. Now we have this situation where a gang of immigrant that attacks someone doing his job (actually, the doorman was an immigrant too).

To "solve" this situation, an imam has proposed that the state should pay blodd money to ease down the situation. Of course he has the right to do this - doesn't mean that anybody takes it seriosly.

What really pissed me off was that our state owned radio made a comparison between payments made in Iraq and this incident.

If you guess that my thoughts about that radios journalists are pretty low, then you are quite precise.

[Spiffor]

Blood money is an acceptable system in pre rule-of-law countries. And to an extent, the victims' loved ones do get a financial compensation even in our countries.

However, the law is a much better way to deal with crime/accidents than the oldfashioned blood money.

I suppose the dead's family will get some financiary compensation in terms of insurance, or survival income, so the function of blood money will be served anyway.