I was reading an article in this morning’s paper about how Mexico won’t extradite criminals to the US if they will face the death penalty in the US (if they will only be given life without parole, that’s a different story). Reading the article, it kind of reminded me a little of the “cities of refuge” in the bible.
“Okay, so if you can make a run for it, and flee to the place of refuge before your accusers do, you will be safe until you die, unless you leave the place of refuge.”
Kind of a very similar thing–if the criminals can flee to Mexico (or certain other much farther away countries), they’re sheltered from the death penalty unless they ever come back to the US (or another country that will extradite).
I think the biggest difference, however, is not the scale (that Mexico is a country and the cities of refuge, cities), but rather that the cities of refuge were for *unintentional* criminals, where there was no premeditation of the crime and no existing hatred toward the slaughtered. Murderers, it seems, *after* standing before the congregation of the the city for judgment, could be “delivered into the hands of the manslayer” (the person sent to come for the criminal’s life), unlike those who committed involuntary manslaughter for whatever reason. Kind of a trial by jury right it seems.
One other little detail in the cities of refuge was a secondary clause that the exception to the rule about having to remain in the refuge city for life was if the high priest died, in which case, he was free to go. I could draw try to draw some parallels between than and major upheaval within the political system meaning its okay to return. But, I suspect that the waiting until the high-priest died was more symbolic of blood (death) being required for the remission of the (unintentional) sin. Death of the high priest could atone for the sin of all who needed atonement.