Barbaric Behavior or Justice?

I wish I could get feedback on this story but I'll just post it here for all to see:

 ______________________________________________________________

By BABAR DOGAR, Associated Press Writer Babar Dogar, Associated Press Writer – Tue Dec 22, 10:22 am ET



LAHORE, Pakistan – A Pakistani court has ordered the noses and ears of two men cut off after they did the same thing to a young woman whose family spurned one of the men's marriage proposal, a prosecutor said Tuesday.


The anti-terrorism court in the eastern city of Lahore said it was applying Islamic law by ordering the punishment.


 Lahore prosecutor Chaudhry Ali Ahmed said one of the accused, Sher Mohammad, was a cousin of the 19-year-old woman and wanted to marry her. Her parents refused his proposal.



Sher Mohammad and a friend, Amanat Mohammad, were accused of kidnapping the woman and cutting off her ears and nose in late September in the Raiwind area of Lahore.



The court on Monday also sentenced each man to 50 years in prison and told them to pay fines and compensation to the woman amounting to several thousand dollars, the prosecutor said.



Pakistan's legal system has Islamic elements that sometimes lead to orders for harsh punishments, but the sentences are often overturned and rarely carried out. Serious crimes are often referred to anti-terrorism courts in Pakistan because they move faster.



Violence against women, especially attacks by spurned lovers, also occurs frequently in this impoverished South Asian nation.



The men have seven days to appeal the ruling, Ahmed said.
_________________________________________________________


I think that we humans far too often let compassion overcome justice and what SHOULD be done to truly punish those who do wrong.

Now, when I read that the guys were getting their noses and ears cut off, I was freaking mortified!

However, after reading that they'd done the same to another person, I thought, "OK so that's fair and square, they deserve it."

So am I without compassion?

I don't know. I mean the very thought of such a horrific thing really is startlingly traumatizing.

But they did it to someone else first - someone who didn't even merit such treatment. I think it is only fair then but it's very, very unlike our culture. Such treatment is considered barbaric in western societies.

But then again, are our western societies any better? We certainly seem to think so but let's examine how it might have unfolded in America:

The guys would have been locked up once files were charged, but then they might have been able to post bail and get back out on the street until their court date arrived. Of course, that would not be possible if a judge denied them bail. However, their lawyers could beg on their client's behalf and (if they are very good at their jobs) convince a judge to let them out until their case is tried due to that so-called belief that you are "innocent until proven guilty".    

A noble intention to defend the innocent and a blessed loophole for the all-too-often guilty.

Which side would win if the lawyers appealed to the judge?

It depends...you know, how good the lawyers are (A.K.A. how expensive they are, ahem), how harsh of a judge you're dealing with (they differ county to county and city to city), whether or not you've had a similar case such as this in the past and the conclusions that were drawn from it, the mood that the judge is in, the weather patterns, phase of the moon, the Chinese zodiac and feng shui of the room, you know: the usual.

Then the case can be pushed back under a PILE of paper work in some secretary's office and all that shit processed and then the scumbag lawyers can ask for more time for their dumb ass clients. Truths can be candy coated, mental illness can be blamed, cultural differences can be cited and loopholes manipulated. The guy may not even show up for court since he is out on bail which would lead to an arrest warrant. Still though, you have to find the guy to arrest him, you know.

The case might be brought before a judge and jury finally. Bullshit can be presented. It just depends on who has more money - the defendant or prosecutor. Naturally, we Americans say that all have the right to an attorney but if you have an attorney who has been assigned to you by the state, they have no personal interest in the case other than keeping up their win/lose ratio on paper. In reality, they don't give a shit about whether or not you get your justice because they are still being paid at the end of the day. You are business to them and they sleep just fine either way.

A jury will be composed of people. People are emotional beings. People listen.  They listen to lawyers who manipulate and twist truths to sugar coat them and make them easier to swallow. In reality, they're just shoveling sugar sweet shit to the jury and they have no choice but to sit and eat it because they are legally obligated to show up to court for their jury duty.  So these people listen to these lawyers and their emotions drive them to create a verdict based on what they feel was right or wrong.

Who is to say that justice will be done at the end of the day? Who will the jury side with?

Usually it's the person with the better lawyer in cases that have no foundational set of laws with which to judge the guilty. When it's "his word against his word" or "he said, she said" crap, you can bet the better lawyer gets the upper hand. And good lawyers don't come cheap, why should they? After all, they have a right to charge out the ass for their services because they're AMERICAN! They have the right to make as much money as they want and no one can stop that. When you're good at something, you know you're good. You use it to your advantage and by God they do.

So who would be the winner in this case if it were tried in America?

Easy, the guy with more money.

SO is this really justice?

Can we really say that our system of justice is any better than the system in Pakistan?

And are we REALLY the more civilized nation?

Are we REALLY better than these savage people?

Are we?