2 ms·

"When you break the law, say murder, the ultimate victim is the state." This wasn't the case until relatively recently (the 1700s or so, depending on where you

"When you break the law, say murder, the ultimate victim is the state." This wasn't the case until relatively recently (the 1700s or so, depending on where you live), and still isn't case in places that use, say, traditional Islamic law (Iran). Before modernity, people were considered parts of their family/household, and if someone was raped or murdered, the ultimate victim was the family/household, represented by whoever was its head, paterfamilias etc. And the punishment was often a form of blood money (weregild, qisas), to compensate the familial unit for injury or loss of a person. Current reader will likely find this appaling, but, for example, rape of a young girl was considered harmful against the future value of the bride, thus the father got a bag of money as a compensation. The past is truly a different country.

Defletter 1y ago
> This wasn't the case until relatively recently (the 1700s or so, depending on where you live) While that's true, that comes from the secularisation of law and the emergence of the concept of the nation distinct from the King. Prior to this, to break the law was to insult the King. This dynamic was at the forefront of the trial of King Charles I, who argued that he could not have committed treason since treason was to act against the King - the King was the nation. That said, I do take your point that different places in the world have/had different approaches to law. I talk more about Anglosphere-law because that's ultimately what's won out, particularly with the system of the sovereign nation states.