21:22
This refers to men fighting together and hitting a pregnant woman. It seems that the hitting of the woman was not planned, but inadvertent. Even if there is no long term harm, the one who hit her is still to pay compensation. The husband of the woman would demand that payment was made, but the judge would determine the amount. Today there is a move for victims having more say in sentencing. I believe this is wrong. The victim will be emotionally involved and will find it difficult to make a rational decision. The judge should decide. However, why are we considering this? It is because the courts have seemed to be thinking only of the criminal, and being too lenient. The proper answer is for the courts to treat crime with the proper seriousness.
21:23-25
The rules in 21:22 applied if there was no long term harm. We now come to what happens if there is long term harm, and we get the “eye for an eye ....” rule. There are two things to note. The first is that this placed a limit on the punishment. The second is that the punishment was to fit the crime. In our day it seems that often the sentences handed out by courts do not match the crime. This is a very serious matter. First of all it is unjust, and secondly this leads to an erosion of confidence in the justice system.
No comments:
Post a Comment