Judges should not make exceptions to laws.They have to weigh whether there are mitigating circumstances and the personal circumstances weigh in the determination of a punishment.
Laws are rules that everyone in a particular society must abide by.Without laws, there can be no rule of law. In the making of laws, it is necessary to take measures to ensure that there is a balance between the general and individual interests, between limiting the freedom of the one versus the right of others to be able to live unhindered. Laws should be adapted to the developments in a society. What is good in a given period and in a certain development phase, in other circumstances, does not have to be just any longer. An example is that almost all countries have different rules for wartime and a proclaimed state of emergency. Where in a certain culture 16 years can be all acceptable as a boundary between less and majority, in another culture that border can lie sooner or later.
More specifically.As the interest of a people is greater that everyone contributes to the defence of the country, it is more justified to deal strictly with exceptions. For example, the US has a president who has withdrawn himself from that duty. It would be ininteger if that would put higher demands on others than for themselves. Integrity is obviously not high in that society. Then you will get laws that reflect that.
> E.g.In the past, Jehovah’s Witnesses-total rejectors were acquitted
Not true.When someone gave a witness to Jehovah during the inspection, the person was disapproved as a result of a ministerial directive from 1970. For that time, total weiving Jehova芒 鈧劉 s just got a prison sentence of 18 months and 20 days, like any other total refusal.. The government wanted to avoid the costs of legal proceedings concerning up to Jehova芒 鈧劉 s, since for every 芒 鈧?虄not Jehova芒 鈧劉 total refusal stood about 100 Jehovah total Rejectors.
What, of course, is still just as wrong, but it has nothing to do with the case-law.Jehova芒 鈧劉 s never came to court.
With regard to the question in general (I have no idea what the situation is in relation to Santo Daime and I do not therefore make any statements about that), I think that for all, irrespective of religion or other philosophical beliefs, the same laws must Apply.
I do not have a ready answer to this, but I have thought about it for a long time and take the liberty to make some considerations with my own question.
Intuitive, it seems fair that believers and infidels are treated the same by law and justice, but I believe there are good practical reasons for making some exceptions.
The court’s reasoning in the case of acquittal for total refusal of military service for Jehovah witnesses was that criminal law was not intended for people with conscientious problems.(If I remember correctly.)
In general, it seems to me right that motivation plays a major role in criminal law; A psychiatric patient with delusions that wildplast must of course be treated differently by the police than a healthy person.
One can regard a religious grouping as people with collective delusions.In fact, according to DSM 5, someone with a delusional image has no psychiatric diagnosis if this delusional image is shared by the group.
I believe that a consistent exercise of criminal law can make enemies of the government of religious groups who, except for a single exception, want to live according to the law and in peace.That would be in nobody’s interest.
A swift and rigorous application of the law or government interference can lead to violence especially in paranoid groups or groups that feel threatened in their existence.I do not know examples here in the Netherlands but I think that has played a role in the collective suicide of the Peoples Temple-Wikipedia ,Branch Davidians- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and The Moor Plans Of rajneeshpuram Leadership-Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .It strikes me as a task of justice to prevent unnecessary violence.
I also believed that religious groups may discriminate; A church society may refuse an atheist pastor a contract of employment.I believe this falls under sovereignty in its own circle-Wikipedia.
Furthermore, this question also plays in the discussion about ritual slaughter-Wikipedia.
The Netherlands has a centuries-long tradition of religious freedom, just like the United States.For info, the United States make a lot more exceptions than the Netherlands. https://www.washingtonpost.com/n…
Jehovah’s witnesses in Europe were saved from total destruction by the sacrifices of Soviet TROEPN commanded by a Godlochende government.All so-called pacifist groups, be they religious or not, must receive the same treatment. Freedom (total) of religion has had its longest time. Why is the Pastafarian faith not recognized everywhere in the Netherlands? Is this decided by a group of people who had previously been using decades with some bottles of jajum in between them?