07-09-2015, 05:12 AM
Mitch Roth is a politician. In my cynical world, acts by politicians almost always involve some calculation of the political risk vs. benefits. Roth got into office by a margin of 125 votes (two tenths of one percent of the vote) in an election where 7285 blank votes (11.4% of the total) were cast. That is a pretty large vote for "none of the above." He may be miscalculating that risk vs. benefit ratio in this case.
My problem with hooponopono in this case is what HOTPE begins with in the post above, which is that it traditionally is a family dispute resolution method. I've done several searches and found no validity for this in relation to Hawaii criminal law. In such a scenario, all affected parties (or their representatives) would have a place in the process. Of course the arrested protesters will be there, as likely will be their leaders and lawyers. Who is going to represent the citizens who are aggrieved by the disregard for the TMT's scrupulously followed legal process? Or more in line with the underlying concept of cultural respect, who will represent those whose personal beliefs and spirituality are trodden upon by the protesters? Mitch Roth? No, thanks. He has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the United States and the State of Hawaii. So how is this process supposed to be justice? Is this a way to establish a defacto parallel legal system for Hawaiians without the bother of getting the law changed? If anyone knows of a legal code or law allowing hooponopono in criminal cases, please correct me, and I will rethink this.
Now before some of you jump all over me, let me say that I don't think the first round of arrested protesters should all be thrown into prison or anything like it. There should, however, be a process which follows the law. If the judge wants to hand out probation, token fines, or community service, no problem. When they took up civil disobedience, a time-honored Western tradition, they knew they were engaging with a Western legal system. In a lot of non-Wesstern countries, they would still be in jail awaiting trial without bail . . . that is if they ever got a trial. So now the rules might be changed for their benefit. I don't think this is a good idea.
My problem with hooponopono in this case is what HOTPE begins with in the post above, which is that it traditionally is a family dispute resolution method. I've done several searches and found no validity for this in relation to Hawaii criminal law. In such a scenario, all affected parties (or their representatives) would have a place in the process. Of course the arrested protesters will be there, as likely will be their leaders and lawyers. Who is going to represent the citizens who are aggrieved by the disregard for the TMT's scrupulously followed legal process? Or more in line with the underlying concept of cultural respect, who will represent those whose personal beliefs and spirituality are trodden upon by the protesters? Mitch Roth? No, thanks. He has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the United States and the State of Hawaii. So how is this process supposed to be justice? Is this a way to establish a defacto parallel legal system for Hawaiians without the bother of getting the law changed? If anyone knows of a legal code or law allowing hooponopono in criminal cases, please correct me, and I will rethink this.
Now before some of you jump all over me, let me say that I don't think the first round of arrested protesters should all be thrown into prison or anything like it. There should, however, be a process which follows the law. If the judge wants to hand out probation, token fines, or community service, no problem. When they took up civil disobedience, a time-honored Western tradition, they knew they were engaging with a Western legal system. In a lot of non-Wesstern countries, they would still be in jail awaiting trial without bail . . . that is if they ever got a trial. So now the rules might be changed for their benefit. I don't think this is a good idea.
