Talk:Trokosi

The word "allegedly" seems out of place here. The practice of trokosi is for compensation of crimes actually committed. You may as well say people are executed in some parts of the USA for allegedly commiting serious crimes. But they are actually executed for serious crimes that they actually commited. There will be mistakes in any criminal/justice system, but this is obvious and pointing it out especially carries some connotations.

Essentially, I'm saying that this article violates NPoV, wrongly suggesting that the "alleged crimes" are being used as a vain justification of these evil practices.BenBildstein 05:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Dogbadzi spent 17 years in slavery because her grandfather had "allegedly" stolen two dollars. Maybe we can look at the facts: Girls and women are punished for a crime someone else (might have) committed. This is not, as far as I know, something that is practiced in the US.

The "crimes" are being used by fetish priests as an excuse to keep women as slaves, according to tradition. The women work for the priests and are also raped as part of rituals. They are not allowed to feed themselves or their children.

I am saying that the article in question points out the problem with trokosi in an accurate way.

The term alleged is valid because the priest receives the revelation of crimes supposedly committed through a process called divination, that is, by contacting the spirit of the shrine. No objective proof is ever sought to confirm or disprove the validity of his claim that a crime has been committed. Unlike those tried by a court system where evidence is presented and weighed by a jury or a judge, the only "proof" of the alleged crimes for which trokosi suffer is the unchallenged word of the priest, a word obtained through consultation with spirits. Therefore, to say that the it is a real crime and not just an alleged crime for which the girls suffer would be a dramatic overstatement at best. Any crime is alleged until it is proven or verified in some unbiased way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musoniki (talk • contribs)

Your argument seems to be based on the fact that their religion is wrong, and therefore that any crimes identified by divine means must also be false. We can't say "supposedly" etc, we state the facts - whether the reader believes or not is up to them. Wikipedia doesn't believe or not believe in any particular religion. Secretlondon 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged this article to Ritual servitude. Some cleanup may be in order there. Kevin 05:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]