WR: The Qur'an's 'Just War' Theory

Karen Armstrong comments on the Qur'an making known a just war theory, as a practical idea, alluding to the fact that there will always be conflict between nations and nation states.  This has often been a criticism of the turn-the-other-cheek philosophy of Christianity; in other words, the idea of complete nonviolence (not even self-defense) is unrealistic in a world of (somewhat) constant conflict.  Thoughts?

CLP: Circumstance of Principle

Many times, the circumstances that are required in order to give rise to more principle within a legal society are odd, extreme, or very specific.  This does make sense, however; if the cases did not have these peculiar qualities, it is very likely that simple precedent would have been enough for a lower level judge to make a perfectly valid ruling.

With that being said, I think the qualities of these cases are actually important to the United States especially.  It teaches us a lesson; hard cases in the supreme court are often times not about the case itself, but the rhetoric that emerges, as judges try to articulate nuanced differences between the one case, and countless others that weren't granted cert. by the court.

The fact that most free speech cases involve either racist advocates, or anti-communist suppression, contributes to the idea that the idea of free speech involved in the cases is more important than the normative value contained in the circumstance in the speech.

CLP: The role of international law in our Constitution

Having transitioned from international criminal into Constitutional Law, I wanted to pose this question- how does/can international standards of proper punishment play into our country?

For example, in Roper v. Simmons, Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion (5-4) ruled that it was unconstitutional to administer the death penalty to anyone 18 or younger, citing scientific and psychological studies based around maturity and ability to comprehend the full scope of an action.  He also cited a group of the only countries to execute a convicted person since 1990:  Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo- and the United States.

Using the cruel and unusual punishment theory, it is clear that in this company, capital punishment is very unusual in the 21st century.  However, many judges and lawyers in the United States today gave Kennedy a lot of grief for the inclusion of international norms in a national judicial opinion.  Of course, since the US has always had capital punishment, and lethal injection has been ruled to be 'not cruel,' how can we deem execution unusual, unless we take a step back and look at the international community?

CLP: Finding the Balance Between Responsibility and Retribution

In class today, it seemed that we came to the consensus that while mens rea contributes to the cyclical nature of retributive punishment with taking responsibility for a criminal act, I think we can actually separate the two.  

It lies in this assertion:  that, there is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, why convicted criminals should be "worse off," than citizens.  

Perhaps the only lacking quality of life necessary would be a diminished autonomy.   If we take seriously the true goal of the prison system as corrective justice, than a diminished quality of life cannot and should not be justified.  A corrective system is not retributive or deterrent, but strives to restore the individual to full societal participation.  This cannot be done unless a relatively comfortable standard of living, inclusive of mental and physical health, is established. 

So, what if we combined this corrective mentality (for real, this time) and kept mens rea?  Is there anything wrong with taking responsibility for an action, and then allowing oneself to participate in a lifestyle in which helps the individual cope with and later correct the problems that caused the criminal action in the first place?  

The retributive notion of punishment can easily be mixed with the (mens rea) notion of accepting responsibility of an action, but I would argue that these are linked via thousands of years of proportional punishment in judicial systems, and with an intense psychological attraction to see wrongdoers "pay" for their wrongdoing. Beyond tradition and a psychological, socio-cultural propensity for vengeance, in no way is punishing criminals via inadequate living conditions acceptable, holding of course, that the primary goal of the system of justice is indeed, corrective.

WR: Setting the Stage for Allah

In chapter one specifically, Armstrong really discusses the socioeconomic conditions of Arabia and how they changed in the few centuries leading up to Muhammad's first revelations.  In my opinion, the increase of wealth, due to the creation of a stationary lifestyle in big cities, like Mecca, contributed to a move away from the fatalist life view of the Bedouins.  The Quraysh especially, now viewed wealth as the solution to a former life of constant struggle and inevitable, miserable, death.  One of the prominent messages of Muhammad early on his teachings, was the idea that only Allah has the answers, and the solutions to the lives of humans.

How much did the changing socioeconomic conditions of Arabia influence the receptiveness of Islam?  (It seems that it helped some and hurt others)

WR: Confucian Thought on Accurate Stipulation

A thought was tossed around in class this morning that caught my attention; does Confucian thought, in regards to using the proper method of address hold sway in the contemporary political landscape?

In other words, do terms like collateral damage, national security, or nicknames like the defense of marriage act, the war on drugs, terror, etc. dilute or desensitize citizens from realizing a) what they are saying b) the magnitude of what they say and c) what policies supporting or disproving the terms really entail?

CLP: Tolerance in Mill and Devlin

Both Mill and Devlin include the theme of tolerance in their writings- Mill uses tolerance as means for extending the individual rights of others, while Devlin uses tolerance as a means through which a society progresses, or digresses, through a change in public opinion on moral issues.

With that being said, both have different outlooks on society.  Mill puts faith in generational progress.  Moral issues are either assimilated into law by the ensuing generation, or they are simply recycled into the following generation with a more accurate and empathetic educational process, from parent/guardian to child.  Devlin, on the other hand, views generational progression as possibly negative- that progression does not necessarily change moral acceptance, but merely bolsters the tolerance in which immoral acts are publicly committed.

My question is this- does Devlin's view of generational progression in morality really differ that much from the positive one of Mill?  Or, perhaps, does his argument through gay and lesbian rights unfairly polarize and twist his methods of reasoning?