Court of law - vedic scriptures on this?

[bhups]

Hi,

 

I will be doing Jury service as part of Civial Service for the UK and am wandering if there is a scripture on the veda or something on ways of decision making or something on this...

 

any information on this will be VERY appreciated.

 

thanks in advance.

[suchandra]

 

Hi,

 

I will be doing Jury service as part of Civial Service for the UK and am wandering if there is a scripture on the veda or something on ways of decision making or something on this...

 

any information on this will be VERY appreciated.

 

thanks in advance.

 

MANAVA DHARMASASTRA

 

 

http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/samhita/manu/index.html

 

Could be that the Manu-samhita is of such kind.

For example, Manu-samhita 9.50:

 

50. If one man’s bull were to beget a hundred calves on another man’s cows, they would belong to the owner of the cows; in vain would the bull have spent his strength.

 

284. All physicians who treat their patients wrongly shall pay a fine; in the case of animals, the first (or lowest); in the case of human beings, the middlemost amercement.

285. He who destroys a bridge, the flag of a temple or royal palace, a pole, or images, shall repair the whole damage and pay five hundred panas.

286. For adulterating unadulterated commodities, and for breaking gems or for improperly boring them, the fine is the first (or lowest) amercement.

287. But that man who behaves dishonestly to honest (customers) or cheats in his prices, shall be fined in the first or in the middlemost amercement.

288. Let him place all prisons near a high-road, where the suffering and disfigured offenders can be seen.

289. Him who destroys the wall (of a town), or fills up the ditch (round a town), or breaks a (town)- gate, he shall instantly banish.

290. For all incantations intended to destroy life, for magic rites with roots (practised by persons) not related (to him against whom they are directed), and for various kinds of sorcery, a fine of two hundred (panas) shall be inflicted.

291. He who sells (for seed-corn that which is) not seed-corn, he who takes up seed (already sown), and he who destroys a boundary (-mark), shall be punished by mutilation.

292. But the king shall cause a goldsmith who behaves dishonestly, the most nocuous of all the thorns, to be cut to pieces with razors.

293. For the theft of agricultural implements, of arms and of medicines, let the king award punishment, taking into account the time (of the offence) and the use (of the object).

 

Chapter 12

 

62. For stealing grain (a man) becomes a rat, for stealing yellow metal a Hamsa, for stealing water a Plava, for stealing honey a stinging insect, for stealing milk a crow, for stealing condiments a dog, for stealing clarified butter an ichneumon;

63. For stealing meat a vulture, for stealing fat a cormorant, for stealing oil a winged animal (of the kind called) Tailapaka, for stealing salt a cricket, for stealing sour milk a bird (of the kind called) Balaka.

64. For stealing silk a partridge, for stealing linen a frog, for stealing cotton-cloth a crane, for stealing a cow an iguana, for stealing molasses a flying-fox;

65. For stealing fine perfumes a musk-rat, for stealing vegetables consisting of leaves a peacock, for stealing cooked food of various kinds a porcupine, for stealing uncooked food a hedgehog.

66. For stealing fire he becomes a heron, for stealing household-utensils a mason-wasp, for stealing dyed clothes a francolin-partridge;

67. For stealing a deer or an elephant a wolf, for stealing a horse a tiger, for stealing fruit and roots a monkey, for stealing a woman a bear, for stealing water a black-white cuckoo, for stealing vehicles a camel, for stealing cattle a he-goat.

68. That man who has forcibly taken away any kind of property belonging to another, or who has eaten sacrificial food (of) which (no portion) had been offered, inevitably becomes an animal.

69. Women, also, who in like manner have committed a theft, shall incur guilt; they will become the females of those same creatures (which have been enumerated above).

70. But (men of the four) castes who have relinquished without the pressure of necessity their proper occupations, will become the servants of Dasyus, after migrating into despicable bodies.

71. A Brahmana who has fallen off from his duty (becomes) an Ulkamukha Preta, who feeds on what has been vomited; and a Kshatriya, a Kataputana (Preta), who eats impure substances and corpses.

[bhups]

thank you suchandra!

[theist]

 

Hi,

 

I will be doing Jury service as part of Civial Service for the UK and am wandering if there is a scripture on the veda or something on ways of decision making or something on this...

 

any information on this will be VERY appreciated.

 

thanks in advance.

If you are going to be doing jury duty then you must act according to the laws that govern being a jurer. Don't try to whimsically impose something. That could get tricky. Take for example the accused is some sadist on trial for beating his wife daily and you are a Muslim who thinks a husband has a right to beat his wife and so you refuse to convict and free the sadist who then one day later murders his wife for filling charges.

 

There is a Muslim saying I heard while watching a movie called the Kite Flyer recently that goes like this; "Beat your wife every morning because even if you don't know the reason she deserves it... she does."

 

This raises questions like, are you now karmically implicated in his murder of his wife?

 

 

 

There is no room in western society for the imposition of Sharia Law from the Muislims or the laws of the Manu Samhita either from the Hindus or Mosaic law from the Jews. Let that stuff become relegated to history. We can take the best of history and recaste it into a modern model and preserve it without all the horrific components like stoning others to death etc.

 

Don't become too creative when acting as a juror. Be cautious.

[suchandra]

 

If you are going to be doing jury duty then you must act according to the laws that govern being a jurer. Don't try to whimsically impose something. That could get tricky. Take for example the accused is some sadist on trial for beating his wife daily and you are a Muslim who thinks a husband has a right to beat his wife and so you refuse to convict and free the sadist who then one day later murders his wife for filling charges.

 

There is a Muslim saying I heard while watching a movie called the Kite Flyer recently that goes like this; "Beat your wife every morning because even if you don't know the reason she deserves it... she does."

 

This raises questions like, are you now karmically implicated in his murder of his wife?

 

 

 

There is no room in western society for the imposition of Sharia Law from the Muislims or the laws of the Manu Samhita either from the Hindus or Mosaic law from the Jews. Let that stuff become relegated to history. We can take the best of history and recaste it into a modern model and preserve it without all the horrific components like stoning others to death etc.

 

Don't become too creative when acting as a juror. Be cautious.

One of the important things - deterence:

"Let him place all prisons near a high-road, where the suffering and disfigured offenders can be seen."

Manu-samhita, 9.288

[theist]

 

One of the important things - deterence:

"Let him place all prisons near a high-road, where the suffering and disfigured offenders can be seen."

Manu-samhita, 9.288

 

Yes deterence is a good principle when used rightly. In our system we leave that up to the lawmakers in Congress and the judical branch. Doesn't always work well but what's the alternative.The law must be strong but equally applied. We see that it's not applied equally.

 

There is an exception to what I said and it is called jury nullification. The law may state clearly that a man who kills some man who raped and murdered his child must go to jail for taking the law into his own hands but if was on the jury I would never vote to convict him of manslaughter.

[theist]

Basically what I am saying is that the Manu Samhita was for another time and culture. We should take the good found there and where possible place it in a modern context to preserve it and let the old context remain as history.

 

Here is a link to an online text of the Manu Samhita translated by Bulher. As one reads it try to see how impossible it would be to present the text as is to the modern world.

http://oaks.nvg.org/pv6bk4.html

[bhups]

Well I am a logical person and can reason with what extent a punishment should be carried.

 

Theist: "The law may state clearly that a man who kills some man who raped and murdered his child must go to jail for taking the law into his own hands but if was on the jury I would never vote to convict him of manslaughter."

 

If this was the case, then you are in a way saying that everyone should take the law into there own hands and deal with the problems there own way, which in turn will leave the world in MADNESS.

 

This world is organised for the people designated for their decisions to make hopefully the right ones (we know that his doesnt always happen).

 

But a man who has kill another man, should be charged with murder, reguardless of the reason (unless it was self defence).

 

anyway... I really appriciate the posts and will do as much reading on the information provided.

 

Thanks again

 

Bhups

[Murali_Mohan_das]

The idea that, in the material world, there can be some objective standard of justice is an illusion--wishful thinking.

 

It is a fact that there are double-standards everywhere and the law is almost never applied equally to all.

 

A police officer told me that he had once pulled over a prominent local businessman who was clearly drunk. Rather than arrest him for DUI, he advised him to drive carefully and sent him on his way.

 

Ultimately, the only fair justice is karma. Beyond that, mercy is higher than justice.

[theist]

 

Theist: "The law may state clearly that a man who kills some man who raped and murdered his child must go to jail for taking the law into his own hands but if was on the jury I would never vote to convict him of manslaughter."

 

If this was the case, then you are in a way saying that everyone should take the law into there own hands and deal with the problems there own way, which in turn will leave the world in MADNESS.

 

This is true in a way. And curious enough it is a part of our jurdical system called jury nullification. The classic case for jury nullification would be a law that is clearly unfair as in a black man in the south in the early 20th century being tried for a murder even though he has a clear and justifiable alibi. There was a time when he easily could have been convicted and hung based solely on his skin color and the prejudice of his jury. All it would take is one honest person standing up and refusing to go along with it to block him from being found guilty.

 

Or say a kid gets caught with a bag of pot. In Texas in the late sixties their was a celbrated case of some kid getting life sentence FOR A JOINT. It was allowable under the law. I could never go along with that law or not.

 

All I did was reveal the truth about how I would act in the cicumstance I outlined. Others act from their prejudices and experiences and there is nothing that can be done about that,

 

Lady Justice is depicted as wearing ablindfold in the American system and this is supposed to indicate her neutrality but in fact it more represents a lack of being able to properly see the truth.

 

The main point I was making is trying to bring in Manu Samhita, Mosaic law(Old Testament laws) or Sharia Law and seriptiously impose that through ones own interpretation as a jurer is way way out of bounds. It just makes a bad system that much worse.

 

Frankly I avoid all jury lists by no longer registering to vote. And even when I was on them I would make up some excuse to not do the duty.

 

Basically it was rightly side there is no justice in the material worls except karmic justice.