Monday, July 14, 2014

Criminal family assaults victim, seeks protection

Here’s a quiz. It isn’t difficult. It’s based upon current news reports from the Middle East.

Take a few moments. Test yourself.

This quiz describes a test case. Read the case. Then answer the questions below, according to the instruction given below.

The case: a family (‘family one’) is known to hate another family (‘family two’). Family ‘one’ continuously incites its family members to attack family ‘two’. Family ‘one’ continuously calls members of family two, ‘apes’ and ‘pigs’.

Leaders of family ‘one’ (the attackers) tell their family that family ‘two’ (the victims) must be driven from its homes. Sometimes, in the heat of passion, these leaders call for family ‘two’ (the victims) to be ‘slaughtered’.

Family ‘one’ educates its children to kill members of family ‘two’. Family ‘one’ teaches its children songs about killing members of family ‘two’. Family ‘one’ teaches all its children --through High School--that family ‘two’ is illegitimate and has no legal, moral or religious right to live in the same neighbourhood as family ‘one’.

Family ‘one’ honours every family member who attacks someone from family ‘two’ (the victims). If someone from family ‘one’ dies during an attack against a member of family ‘two’, he is honoured as an outstanding family hero whose actions should be emulated by all. If someone from family ‘one’ is killed trying to murder someone from family ‘two’, family leaders name a street, building or public square after him—then accuse family ‘two’ of murder.

Family ‘one’ (the attackers) has worked for three generations to create a family culture that identifies the killing of members belonging to family ‘two’ (the victim) as the greatest achievement one can achieve in life. Members of family ‘one’ (the attackers) are encouraged to attack members of family ‘two’ (the victims) any time they please. Whenever such attacks occur, the entire family celebrates.

Sometimes, when attacked, family ‘two’ (the victim) strikes back in self-defense. At other times, family two (the victim) does not strike back.

Any time family ‘two’ does not defend itself, family ‘one’ (the attackers) increases its attacks against family ‘one’—until family ‘one’ strikes back in self-defense.

At that point, a brawl unfolds. However, since family ‘two’ (the victim) is much stronger than family ‘one’ (the attackers), whenever such a brawl breaks out, family ‘one’ (the attackers) gets mauled.

As a consequence, family ‘one’ (the attackers) runs to the police. At the Police Station, family ‘one’ (the attackers) accuses family ‘two’ (the victim) of assault. It also accuses family ‘two’ (the victim) of a multiple number of additional crimes: attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, attacking women, attacking children, vandalism, aggravated assault and battery.

The quiz (instructions below): please answer the following questions:

  1. Who is responsible for the brawl?
  2. How should you judge the accusations of family ‘one’ (the attackers)?
  3. Would you say that, given the culture of family ‘one’, members of that family believe in  committing crimes against family two?
  4. Given the details about family ‘one’ within the test case, is it fair to say that family ‘one’ bonds together with the common purpose of committing crimes against family ‘two’? Explain.
  5. Should the law attempt to address the hate and incitement within the culture of family ‘one’ (the attackers?
  6. If yes, how?
  7. If no, why not?
  8. If you had to identify a single victim in this situation, who would it be--family ‘one’ (which make the accusations), or family ‘two’?  Explain.

The instructions: you have thirty minutes from this point to write your answers. Do not use blue ink.


No comments:

Post a Comment