Okay, we certainly sound in agreement on that point, then.
I am not saying this girl is lying. She could still believe her life is in danger when in fact it is not. These two things are not contradictory.
This is true. However, I personally believe her fear is rational and reasonable.
If you point an unloaded gun at me that I think is loaded, I could feel my life is in danger even though it is not.
If I deliberately point an unloaded gun at you and you have reason to believe my intent is to do you harm, then you are justified in promptly blowing my fool head off.
My larger point is that you must treat law abiding citizens from suspect ethnic or religious groups just as you would anyone else.
Certainly, in the general principle. However, if a person is from an ethnic, religious, social, cultural or business group or affiliation that has a known and confirmed history of commiting a certain kind of crime in disproportionate numbers, particularly if that crime is a serious one such as murder, then I would argue that this particular rational suspicion is a relevant bit of information that can and should be considered in making the appropriate determination. I'm not necessarily saying that it should be considered a basis for making a decision, or that it can be justified as a basis for final decision, but it should certainly be considered a basis for careful further investigation as to whether there may be a problem in that particular area.
Put another way: If employees of ACORN have a history of voter fraud in disproportionate numbers, and I am an ACORN employee engaged in voter registration actitivies, then the law is justified in taking a closer investigative look at me than might be justified for an employee of Wal-Mart.
Similarly, if we have dozens of case files of child abuse involving members of Bob's Church of Fun (when Bob's Church of Fun only has a total of 1,100 members), then if a case involving a child comes before the court, and an allegation of child abuse is raised, the court is justified in taking a closer look at the issue of possible child abuse in this particular instance than they might be if the couple were members of First Baptist Church.
At least, that’s my thoughts off the top of my head. Not certain whether I can fully justify that, but it certainly seems reasonable at first glance.
The problem here is that “honor killings” (a loathsome term) are known to be a problem among people of certain cultures. They are virtually nonexistent among people of other cultures.