"Local" law enforcement when no gov't oversees the law

Pergamum · #1 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 12:23 PM

In "Wild West" situations or tribal situations where there is no gov't, what factors need to be in place before a group-led murder qualfies as lawful execution of a transgressor instead of a vengeance killing.

HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO:

Person A has murdered 3 people in the past, he is prone to violence.

Now he is making threats again.

Secretly by night, members of 3 clans sneak into his hut and shoot him with arrows until he is dead.

This was done after representatives of these 3 clans got together and decided it was best for Person A to die since he has already murdered and is threatening to murder again.

Is this murder or captial punishment?

Also, if you lived as an outsider in this area would you be obligated to report this to a distant gov't post or merely let it pass? If you report it to the gov't there is a high likelihood that the wrong people will be punished or tortured.

Daniel Ritchie · #2 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

In "Wild West" situations or tribal situations where there is no gov't, what factors need to be in place before a group-led murder qualfies as lawful execution of a transgressor instead of a vengeance killing.

HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO:

Person A has murdered 3 people in the past, he is prone to violence.

Now he is making threats again.

Secretly by night, members of 3 clans sneak into his hut and shoot him with arrows until he is dead.

This was done after representatives of these 3 clans got together and decided it was best for Person A to die since he has already murdered and is threatening to murder again.

Is this murder or captial punishment?

Also, if you lived as an outsider in this area would you be obligated to report this to a distant gov't post or merely let it pass? If you report it to the gov't there is a high likelihood that the wrong people will be punished or tortured.

Are the clans representatives the civil government of those people?

smhbbag · #3 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 12:29 PM

py3ak · #4 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 12:40 PM

Does the role of the avenger of blood in the OT shed any light on the subject?

Daniel Ritchie · #5 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Does the role of the avenger of blood in the OT shed any light on the subject?

Wasn't that for someone who had committed manslaughter, but who refused to stay in a city of refugee?

MrMerlin777 · #6 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 12:42 PM

py3ak · #7 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 12:50 PM

Daniel, as I understand the laws the avenger of blood was usually the one who did the execution: if a man wouldn't flee to the city of refuge (or didn't flee fast enough), or if on arriving the elders investigated and found him guilty, he was turned over to the avenger of blood. Although I haven't seen this proven, I have seen it suggested that this was the same individual as the kinsman-redeemer (of the victim, obviously, not of the slayer). This seems to imply a more limited role for the official civil magistrate, which may make this a fruitful area of investigation for Pergamum's inquiry.

Pergamum · #8 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 12:54 PM

define civil gov't.

The clans usually have a person that rises to the top, but nothing agreed upon officially.

When they meet and plot they do not hold a gavel and go by Robert's Rules..

But it seems that imperfectly the murderer from each clan, being one of these people that rise to the top in each clan, is a representative of that clan.

Daniel Ritchie · #9 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Daniel, as I understand the laws the avenger of blood was usually the one who did the execution: if a man wouldn't flee to the city of refuge (or didn't flee fast enough), or if on arriving the elders investigated and found him guilty, he was turned over to the avenger of blood. Although I haven't seen this proven, I have seen it suggested that this was the same individual as the kinsman-redeemer (of the victim, obviously, not of the slayer). This seems to imply a more limited role for the official civil magistrate, which may make this a fruitful area of investigation for Pergamum's inquiry.

The problem is though, if the civil government in the place that Perg is talking about does not recognise this law, then private individuals surely cannot take it upon themselves to carry it out.

Daniel Ritchie · #10 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

define civil gov't.

The clans usually have a person that rises to the top, but nothing agreed upon officially.

When they meet and plot they do not hold a gavel and go by Robert's Rules..

But it seems that imperfectly the murderer from each clan, being one of these people that rise to the top in each clan, is a representative of that clan.

Are they what you would call civil rulers (as per Romans 13)?

Pergamum · #11 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:02 PM

How about the scenario from the Wild West:

Sheriff's Doc Watson deputizes Farmer Bill on the spot to go chase and hang some Varmint Rustlers. Farmer Bill shoots said Varmint Rustlers as they flee, and another Varmitn Rustler who has murdered is strung up and hanged on the spot. Is Farmer Bill a lawman or a murderer?

Pergamum · #12 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:03 PM

That whole avenger of blood thing is like so Old Testament. That was civil law right.

Daniel Ritchie · #13 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

That whole avenger of blood thing is like so Old Testament. That was civil law right.

In its literal context that law has expired (we do not have cities of refugee in Canaan). However, when a paralell situation arises in modern nations we have to figure out its general equity.

Pergamum · #14 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:10 PM

NO. They wouldn't think of themselves under a category of "civil rulers" because I don't even know what that means.

Why use the term civil rulers? That sounds so Reformation-era.

How about "big man", "head of clan" or "father of the clan" - would these be cultural equivalents?

Daniel Ritchie · #15 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

How about the scenario from the Wild West:

Sheriff's Doc Watson deputizes Farmer Bill on the spot to go chase and hang some Varmint Rustlers. Farmer Bill shoots said Varmint Rustlers as they flee, and another Varmitn Rustler who has murdered is strung up and hanged on the spot. Is Farmer Bill a lawman or a murderer?

Farmer Bill is the lawman, as he is acting as an agent of law-enforcement with the permission of the civil government.

Keep in mind that in the OT, it was the witnesses who did the stoning along with the other citizens, the magistrate simply authorized it.

Daniel Ritchie · #16 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

NO. They wouldn't think of themselves under a category of "civil rulers" because I don't even know what that means.

Why use the term civil rulers? That sounds so Reformation-era.

How about "big man", "head of clan" or "father of the clan" - would these be cultural equivalents?

In my opinion those would be the civil rulers according to Romans 13

py3ak · #17 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:13 PM

Would it be absurd to argue that in the practical or political absence of a more structured civil government the (extended) family automatically takes on that role?

Pergamum · #18 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:15 PM

What would that general equity then look like?

Daniel Ritchie · #19 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What would that general equity then look like?

Well that is the difficult bit. Some (Gary North, FN Lee and myself) say we should have cities of refugee in our own nations; others (Ken Gentry and Greg Bahnsen) say that the manslaughterer should have general judicial protection from being slain.

Pergamum · #20 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:18 PM

Py3ak:

Then it would be every family for itself?

And a larger gov't does "claim" these people, though too far to have any effect. If your suggestion were granted why wouldn't a backwoods family in Alaska then decide to become a law unto themselves?

py3ak · #21 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:19 PM

If an uncle in a backwoods cabin in Alaska became violent, actually killed one person, and threatened to do so again, I think a proper paterfamilias would assume the mantle of law, don't you?

Pergamum · #22 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:19 PM

Daniel: What would an American city of refuge look like and who would guard the gates?

Daniel Ritchie · #23 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Would it be absurd to argue that in the practical or political absence of a more structured civil government the (extended) family automatically takes on that role?

That is a good point. Was Genesis 9 given to a civil government formally established, or to Noah to enforce as a head of a family?

Daniel Ritchie · #24 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Daniel: What would an American city of refuge look like and who would guard the gates?

Dunno, I'm not American

All that would have to be done, if there were to be cities of refugee, is that the city magistrates would inform the manslayer as to which boundaries he was not allowed to cross.