Whatever the past "theory," what I meant was that "savage" is generally equated with violence and embracing extreme violence falls into that stereotype:
sav·age (svj)
adj.
1. Not domesticated or cultivated; wild: savage beasts of the jungle.
2. Not civilized; barbaric: a people living in a savage state.
3. Ferocious; fierce: in a savage temper.
4. Vicious or merciless; brutal: a savage attack on a political rival. See Synonyms at cruel.
5. Lacking polish or manners; rude.
n.
1. A person regarded as primitive or uncivilized.
2. A person regarded as brutal, fierce, or vicious.
tr.v. sav·aged, sav·ag·ing, sav·ag·es
1. To assault ferociously.
2. To attack without restraint or pity: The critics savaged the new play.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/savage
Your critics won't care if some theorist(s) of the past actually believed that "savages" were peaceful. If you do hold these extreme views you've been spouting, it might be best to keep them to yourself. I doubt you'll pay any attention to what I or anyone else says, though.
You've only further affirmed my original main point, which was that given your past remarks and quotes it should be no surprise to anyone that you hold these views on presumed guilty, an eye-for-an-eye (which Gandhi followed with "making the whole world blind," by the way), and the like, and that it's pointless to try to convince you otherwise.
And I was not "embracing brutality"...
I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people of that, given your statements in this thread and others. Vegans/vegetarians who claim that meat eaters tend to be violent "savages" would have a field day with this stuff. Who could blame them, really, except that one person does not a rule make. At least it's helpful in demonstrating that not everyone becomes calm and serene after years of eating a RPD and thus keeping us humble and grounded.
The bit about Napoleonic law seems to be quite different from what you claim. That is, Napoleonic law means that judges have far more power than lawyers in common (anglo-phone) law.
That jibes completely with my understanding and what I reported, so I don't know what you're going on about. I merely responded to your claim that the courts of continental Europe hold a presumption of guilt regarding defendants.
Plus, civil(roman/napoleonic) law is more fixed whereas common(anglophone) law is more haphazard, changing randomly. Seems better to have a fixed rule-book than one that changes randomly at the whim of a jury etc.
Nowhere in any of this does it say that the courts of France or Germany or other Western European continental nations
currently have a presumption of guilt. I'm still waiting for a single supporting source on that.
My point is not to let 100 poachers go free to save one innocent. That is clearly an exaggeration.
In days gone by people in power whether they be called Kings or rogues have used the power invested in them by dint of self-created laws, as in the case of kings or laws of the jungle, in the case of rogues or bullies, have used such Draconian laws as you have suggested, to get rid of people that they didn't like or who stood between themselves and money or power or fame.
...
You may be right. My mother told a story that fishing for salmon was completely illegal in my grandfather's youth (it's legal today, within certain limitations) in the early part of the 20th century, per the laws of the colonial government. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this?
There's also the legend of Robin Hood, where the bad king John makes it treasonous for anyone other than himself and his hunting parties to hunt the deer of the royal forests, upon pain of death. Apparently the law goes back before King John, but the corruption of the forresters or the arbitrariness of the laws or the enforcement may have been particularly bad under his rule:
Historically, death or mutilation was the maximum punishment -- often times, offenders were imprisoned and fined. The fines and fees were a great money maker for the crown and forest officials. And the wealthy and powerful often wanted to curb the forest laws as much as the poor did. One 12th century writer wrote "The forest has its own laws, based, it is said, not on the Common Law of the realm, but on the arbitrary legislation of the King; so that what is done in accordance with forest law is not called 'just' without qualification, but 'just', according to forest law."(quoted in Young, p. 66) Many of the barons who rebelled against King John were concerned about the forest laws. (http://www.boldoutlaw.com/robbeg/robbeg3.html)
