Your opinion would be appreciated
-
claurianta wrote....
Therefore, to calculate the punishment for theft, the following equation can be used in generalp=g*t/v
(definitions given above).using that equation and the scenario u provided
p = 1 * (10/100) = 1 * (0.1) = 0.1
am i messing up algebra or is that the punishment that comes up?
-
claurianta wrote....
Therefore, to calculate the punishment for theft, the following equation can be used in generalp=g*t/v
(definitions given above).using that equation and the scenario u provided
p = 1 * (10/100) = 1 * (0.1) = 0.1
am i messing up algebra or is that the punishment that comes up?
You're messing up the numbers
t=10 (thief has 10 sheep of his own), g=10 (he stole 10 sheep; in reality, things like time spent in court and other consequential damages should be added, but for simpicity I will leave those out), v= 100 (victim owns 100 sheep), so you get p=10*10/100=1. So the thief would return the 10 stolen sheep plus one of his own as punishment. -
claurianta wrote...
You're messing up the numbers
t=10 (thief has 10 sheep of his own), g=10 (he stole 10 sheep; in reality, things like time spent in court and other consequential damages should be added, but for simpicity I will leave those out), v= 100 (victim owns 100 sheep), so you get p=10*10/100=1. So the thief would return the 10 stolen sheep plus one of his own as punishment.indeed i did mess it up there! u indeed made the theif steal 10 sheep!
but what if the thief steals a single sheep? i cannot possibly make him steal a minimum of 10 sheep, can i? -)
-
in which case we can either make him return (1 sheep + (0.1 * the cost/value of a sheep)) !
or v can round off 0.1 sheep to the nearest practical value possible and make it 1 sheep and make the theif return 2 sheep!
but 2 sheep will be more than the value and thus disproportionate to the crime, while returning the owner (0.1 * value of sheep) may very well be not an enough compensation to the victim! really, what do u suggest is the appropriate punishment here?
-
in which case we can either make him return (1 sheep + (0.1 * the cost/value of a sheep)) !
or v can round off 0.1 sheep to the nearest practical value possible and make it 1 sheep and make the theif return 2 sheep!
but 2 sheep will be more than the value and thus disproportionate to the crime, while returning the owner (0.1 * value of sheep) may very well be not an enough compensation to the victim! really, what do u suggest is the appropriate punishment here?
Well, do realize that if he steals one sheep, he does have to return that sheep, plus (0.1*value of sheep)=1.1 sheep. So you always have to return what you have stolen, plus a punishment.
Remember I wrote about consequental damage? I think that the criminal will have to compensate in full for these. Like say the victim milks his sheep... obviously during the time that the sheep is out of his hands, he is suffering losses, which must be compensated in full. However, compensation and punishment are separate. Compensation is to be done in full, and the punishment is to be awarded in proportion according to the above equation, where g=(total loss to the victim, including direct consequential damage, such as loss of milk or woll which is caused by the theft of the sheep). So the perpetrator has to return g in full as compensation for losses, and then as an additional punishment, he shall pay p as per the above equation.
I personally think that for repeat offenders there is also an additional punishment that is possible, not to the victim, but to the community, due to the fact that there is a certain amount of trust that is expected in a community, and the perpetrator, by his actions, is negatively affecting that trust.
-
yes, indeed! i now see what u are saying! but tell me, do u reckon that seems like setting an example? paying ((0.1* value of sheep) + wool + milk)! the 1 sheep which he returns was in anycase not his own, so what he really pays is ((0.1* value of sheep) + wool + milk)! so does that really serve as a deterrent?
again, if u may allow then may we move to some other scenarios? -)
-
yes, indeed! i now see what u are saying! but tell me, do u reckon that seems like setting an example? paying ((0.1* value of sheep) + wool + milk)! the 1 sheep which he returns was in anycase not his own, so what he really pays is ((0.1* value of sheep) + wool + milk)! so does that really serve as a deterrent?
again, if u may allow then may we move to some other scenarios? -)
Yes, as you can see in my first post where I elaborate the equation, I do raise the question of sufficient deterrent. It is something I cannot answer as yet, but I'm sure there is an answer in the Koran. My guess is that there is an element of trust between the members of a community that is broken in committing a crime, and thus there should be some kind of additional attonement with respect to the community (public apology? community service?)
I am of course open to discussing other scenarios.
-
as u state, the punishment is (0.1*value of sheep + wool + milk +... +)! in this case could it be that the actual punishment is still (0.1 * value of sheep) as the time for which the thief had possession of the sheep, he could have easily fleeced and milked it! and i agree with u that does seem to be too less of a deterrent.
thanks for agreeing to discuss other scenarios, but lets wait a while and see what inputs do others have to offer regarding our sheep scenario. -)
-
Now the questions turns to what is an appropriate punishment for theft... that is what is the operationalization of cutting off someone's resources.
Using the proportionality principle of 16126, I think it highly unreasonable to take all the thieves property in response to a theft. On the flipside, this cannot simply mean a restitution of the goods, because that is simply restitution and not punishment. So there must be a punishment beyond restitution, as also eluded to by 538.
When a person commits theft, he is in essence cutting off the resources of the victim... depriving him from the enjoyment of his property. So with regards to proportionality, this brings up an interesting question. Should the punishment be equal in value to the stolen goods, or should the proportion of the punishment in relation to the thiefs own goods equal the proportion of the stolen goods in relation to the victims goods. Mathematically, these two options are as follows- p=g
- p/t=g/v
where
p=value of punishment (how much resources to take from the thief)
g=value of stolen goods + any direct consequential loses (how much resources was the victim deprived of)
t=thief's total resources (what he owns, excluding g)
v=victim's total resources (what he owns, including g)
As a concrete example, say person A has 10 sheep and person B 100 sheep. If A steals 10 sheep from B, should he be punished to pay 10 sheep (=to sheep stolen) or one sheep (1/10 sheep = 10/100 sheep) in addition to restituting the stolen sheep. So as an end result, should A be left with 9 sheep and B with 101, or A with none and B with 110.
Seeing as 16126 uses the word proportionate as opposed to equal, I will have to answer that in the above example, we should take away 1 sheep from the stock of A, as opposed to his entire stock. Proportionality cannot mean that the punishment for stealing 1/10 of someone's livestock is the confiscation of one's entire stock... but rather the confiscation of 1/10 of the stock (in addition to the restitution of the stolen goods). If the punishment was supposed to be equal and not proportionate, then the Koran would say so, but it doesn't. This would also make sense in the sense of 538... if you cut the resources, that means your dividing them, and taking as punishment the part you've cut off.
Therefore, to calculate the punishment for theft, the following equation can be used in general
p=g*t/v
(definitions given above).This does raise the question of a very poor person who steals from a rich one... is there enough of a deterent given the risks of getting caught? Am I perhaps missing some part of the equation?
Salaam Alaikum and peace to all ..
Allah has said that He has made the Qur'aan easy to understand. And indeed it is easy, Alhamdulilah.I implore my brothers and sisters to please refrain from interpretations involving such unnecessarily complicated analysis. This is totally needless and might only confuse the minds of the common people. Most importantly, it will encourage the adherents of Hadeeth to reiterate the Qur'aan's "dependency" on Hadeeth for explanation which is again completely false.
Please let's be focused on keeping the tafseer to the best of our conscience .. correct, consise, to the point and simple.
This is just my opinion, mean no offence to no one.
Shokran and thanks.
JazekAllah Khair .. -
Salaam Alaikum and peace to all ..
Allah has said that He has made the Qur'aan easy to understand. And indeed it is easy, Alhamdulilah.I implore my brothers and sisters to please refrain from interpretations involving such unnecessarily complicated analysis. This is totally needless and might only confuse the minds of the common people. Most importantly, it will encourage the adherents of Hadeeth to reiterate the Qur'aan's "dependency" on Hadeeth for explanation which is again completely false.
Please let's be focused on keeping the tafseer to the best of our conscience .. correct, consise, to the point and simple.
This is just my opinion, mean no offence to no one.
Shokran and thanks.
JazekAllah Khair ..Yes, the Koran is quite simple... ayat 16126 is quite clear on maximum punishment being proportional to the damage done. So it limits the punishment that can be demanded. It has often been interpreted as meaning that the punishment can be equal to the damage done, and I was simply showing how proportional does not always mean equal, and that it is the proportional criteria that is expounded in this away. There are other ayat which talk about the equality principle, and as I have stated elsewhere, this would seem to indicate that both must be followed in determining the maximum punishment (that is, you can break neither the proportionality nor the equality criteria in setting a maximum punishment).
As for the equation I gave, it is translation of the word "proportional" into the language of mathematics, nothing else.