death penalty and honour killings - what's the difference?

[aardvarkcore]

In the context of American culture and of fundamentalist Muslim culture, what's the difference between an honour killing and the death penalty? In both cases they are an act of justice.

Thoughts?

[Crow]

Death penalty--Legal, due process is observed, accused gets to put up a defense and have his case heard in court. The state must prove the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Honor killing-- "I tell you, that thair Billy Ray is the only one who would do sumpin' that rotten. Outta be a law against that, but thair ain't. Jim Bob, do you still have that rope in the back of yer Ford?"

[Conductor42]

The difference is like that of a person stabbing you because you said something that offended them, and someone beating the crap out of a person who was raping a girl.

The latter situation is just, the former is not.

[aardvarkcore]

But, you have to look into the social context. Muslims truly believe that honour killings are just, now, coming from a Western background I have a different view of justice but; my view of justice has been instituted by my surroundings.

In my country (New Zealand) if someone punches you and you punch them back you both get charged by the courts, and that is justice.

In Iraq, if someone punches you the act of justice is punching them back. And to them, that is justice.

It's the same sort of situation with the death penalty and honour killings. People have an inner sense of right and wrong but often this is made up by the cultural setting. If they dishonour the family things need to be made right and there is the subsequent death. In the US is someone kills some people things need to be made right and their is a subsequent death. They are both acts of justice and in both social settings they are justified.

I was brought up to believe everyone is redeemable and no one is worthy of having their life taken, that is my social background and it has lead me to believe both these forms of "justice" are in fact unjust

[Conductor42]

In my country (New Zealand) if someone punches you and you punch them back you both get charged by the courts, and that is justice.

No self-defense? Yikes. For once I'm glad I live in a Neo-Con stronghold.
I eventually plan to move to a Gold Star Open-Carry state.

I was brought up to believe everyone is redeemable and no one is worthy of having their life taken, that is my social background and it has lead me to believe both these forms of "justice" are in fact unjust

I sorta agree, but on the other hand there are times when death is merited.
For example, when it saves lives. If some gangbangers decided to go for a drive-by shooting, I wouldn't hesitate to go grab the shotgun in my basement.

I won't pretend I'm not biased on this issue, though, I'm a lifetime member of JPFO.

[aardvarkcore]

No self-defense? Yikes. For once I'm glad I live in a Neo-Con stronghold.

Well, there is a difference between self defence and a brawl here also.

[JB]

One fundamental difference, I suppose, might be that the death penalty is pursued through official channels, whereas (I presume) the honor killings in question are acts with greater resemblance to vigilante justice. It may be that acting in accordance with the official means of achieving just penalties is, to some extent, a good in and of itself.