Unjust punishent

Being stoned to death for cheating is an unjust and inhumane punishment. Stoning is an actual death penalty that is practiced in many Muslim countries. These countries include, but not limited to Iraq, West Bank, Jordan, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Mexico( some parts), and Africa. Stoning sentence is given to those people who commit adultery. It is an actual written law and mostly affects women who are accused of committing an adultery. The law says that it applies to everyone regardless of sex, but evidently men do not suffer this brutal and unjust punishment. Almost all the men who have committed and adultery gets lesser sentence in these countries, but women cannot avoid it because they are not allowed to hire a lawyer or defend themselves.

From Wikipedia:

Stoning, or lapidation, is a form of capital punishment whereby a group throws stones at a person until the person dies. No individual among the group can be identified as the one who kills the subject, yet everyone involved plainly bears some degree of moral culpability. This is in contrast to the case of a judicial executioner. Slower than other forms of execution, stoning is a form of execution by torture.

The government in these countries seem to suggest that the their religious text Qu’ran dictates that people who commit adultery shall be receive the harshest and most brutal way of execution. Unfortunately, it is a lie as I have read the entire Qu’ran translated into English.  In fact, nowhere in Qu’ran it dictates of punishment, rather it dictates that people be forgiving and understanding of one another.

If you apply both Finnis and Fullers’ tests to legitimizing stoning death sentence, it would further support that it would be unlawful and unjust to allow this brutal punishment.

Fuller believes that law are the rules for human conduct. Fuller suggests that so long as the law meets the requirements of Fuller’s 8 elements of law, then it is lawful and just. In the case of stoning. One of Fuller’s law is:

5. He enacts contradictory rules. This applies well for the case of stoning death punishment because the law does not affect people in a same way. It contradicts with the actual practice.

On the other hand, Finnis suggests that in order for the law to be just and lawful, it should be able hold all 7 forms of human flourishing then the law is unjust and immoral.

7. ‘religion’ or the value of spiritual experience.

Stoning is not a practice of a religious or spiritual person’s action. The whole idea of accusing their religion of being responsible for this brutal punishment is a clear message of a sadist.

The fact that there is the unjust law and it affects certain genders is in itself unjust and unlawful.

Following is a useful information link regarding stoning.



1 Comment

Filed under Musing

One response to “Unjust punishent

  1. It is interesting that you initially note that stoning is practiced in many Muslim countries, and then provide a list of locations that includes states that do not have Islam as an official religion as well as the entire continent of Africa (which is not a country). Would it be more accurate to say that stoning is a form of death penalty that has, historically, been practiced in many states, and to note that while many states have long-since abolished the practice, it remains common in some countries, including xyz …?

    Your observation that the universal applicability of stoning in law contrasts with the disproportionate use of stoning as a punishment for women is an effective application of Fuller (though it seems to fit with his eighth observation, regarding the alignment between rules and their administration, rather than the fifth).

    I’m not sure that I follow your argument regarding Finnis. He does not suggest that just laws must be rooted in religion – only that just laws should promote (or at least not inhibit) religion or the value of spiritual experience. Your observation that religion is erroneously used to justify stoning is interesting, as you are essentially suggesting that the practice is supported by claims to natural law that do not correctly reference an external source of moral authority. I think that you could also draw on Finnis to suggest that the practice of stoning is a violation of the requirement that law should value human life. It also seems inimical to the common good, which is Finnis’ core principle.