XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: dthierbach@usenet.arcornews.de   
      
   Steve Hayes  wrote:   
   > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:44:55 +0200, Dirk Thierbach   
   >  wrote:   
      
   >>Steve Hayes  wrote:   
   >>> The historian Ronald Hutton, in his book "Pagan religions of the ancient   
   >>> British Isles", seems to be making a similar point to Lewis when he wrote:   
      
   >>> "The pagan Romans, like most ancient peoples and modern tribal   
   >>> societies, prescribed the death penalty for those who killed or who   
   >>> harmed property by witchcraft: in a system which believes in magic   
   >>> and has capital punishment for normal murder and arson, there is no   
   >>> other logical situation."   
      
   >>And not so long ago Hitler prescribed death penalty for Jews because he   
   >>believed them being a "inferior race" would justify this. Guilt by   
   >>accusation.   
      
   > Unrelated, as I'm sure you realise, since you yourself pointed it out. The   
   > punishment if for the killing, not possessing the means.   
      
   I would be still interested how they proved that people were killed   
   by witchcraft, or property was harmed by witchcraft. I'm not an expert   
   on the history of the jurisdictional system, but didn't the Romans   
   already had principle of "innocence unless proven guilty"?   
      
   The point is that without being able to make the connection that the harm   
   was indeed caused by the person believed to have supernatural powers,   
   the punishment is not justified. And since we're talking about supernatural   
   powers, there's no way to actually make such a connection. Unless   
   by association.   
      
   > The anecdote is told of a man who was charged with brewing and selling   
   illicit   
   > liquor. He argued in court that the police had not caught him in the act of   
   > selling it. The judge said, "But you had the apparatus".   
   >   
   > He was found guilty, and the judge asked, before he was sentenced, if there   
   > were any other offences he wanted to take into consideration.   
   >   
   > "Yes, Your Honour, rape."   
   >   
   > "Rape? When did you commit this crime?"   
   >   
   > "I haven't yet, but I've got the apparatus."   
      
   The difference is of course that the man can use his still only for   
   illegal purposes, but his other apparatus has also legetimate purposes.   
   As have supernatural powers (healing, etc.).   
      
   - Dirk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)