The author clearly knows more about the Christian practice than the Hebrew (Jewish) one.
> while Hebraic tradition went bigger, declaring six whole cities as places where criminals could take refuge
This is not true. The only sanctuary offered in those cities was if someone accidentally or via negligence killed someone. The relatives were not able to extract blood vengeance in those cities.
That's it. It was not for criminals. It was a way of discouraging blood vengeance, while also punishing the perpetrator.
The perpetrator would also be required to be tried in court after claiming refuge.
> These early asylums were established under the belief that the gods (or god) were inviolable, and thus their temples and holy sites shared this untouchable aspect.
Absolutely not true. If someone committed murder he could be dragged away from the holy of holies if necessary.
You're right. There was no sanctuary for cold-blooded killers and traitors.
Example: In 1 Kings, Chapter 2, Joab flees to the tent of God and grabs the horn of the altar. He had participated in Adonijah's failed coup d'etat and killed two commanders of the Israeli army.
King Solomon doesn't even bother to drag him away from the altar before killing him.
The first image in that article is labeled Notre Dame, but that's the title for lots of cathedrals in France. That particular one is Notre Dame de Reims. The reproduced old image towards the bottom is jokingly called "Notre Dame back in the notre day", but that is clearly Westminster Abbey.
In his biography of Charlemagne, historian Richard Winston advanced the idea of sanctuary and similar privileges being granted to the clergy to give them a useful function to native Pagan populations (Frankish -- modern day France and Germany) that would otherwise be hostile to clergy.
Charlemagne also used monks and priests in something that looks like a proto-civil service role... the registry of births, deaths, sacraments (marriage, etc) could be used for taxation, sorting out property, etc.
It's an interesting book. Charlemagne comes across as very realpolitik-ish despite the outward shows of piety, and also an excellent administrator.
Interesting, I'm very curious about the politics of structures (kingdoms and such) before the revolution/democracy era. Pardon the cynicism, but many times I end up doubting today's democracy is pragmatic enough, instead becomes a thin cult absolving the need for good sense by trusting the 'public choice every N years' system. Like believing the invisible hand of the free market will balance things out gracefully.
>> [Church Asylum] surprisingly survived (in a much changed form) into the 17th century.
Longer than that. There was a case this year in Denver where an illegal alien was given sanctuary in a church to prevent his deportation. After nine months, a deal was worked out and he was allowed to leave without fear of deportation.
And of course the other big Asylum story is the recent case where a criminal was given "sanctuary" in San Francisco where he proceeded to randomly murder a tourist taking a stroll. Maybe there was reason that the practice was formally dropped in Europe centuries ago...
I suspect you're just trading on the multiple meanings of "sanctuary" to inject your political views into this conversation. The modern practice bears only superficial similarities with the medieval practice.
Yes, people use the word "sanctuary" to describe the practice explained in the article, and also to describe modern U.S. localities' policies of selectively enforcing federal immigration laws. (I say "selectively" because sanctuary cities will typically hand over known criminals for deportation.) But the modern practice, based in the differing jurisdictions and legal obligations of various levels of government in the U.S. federal system, does not have a lot to do with medieval sanctuary laws. Medieval sanctuary practices, as described in the article, largely took the place of (or served as) criminal punishment, at every level of government, due to an interesting commingling of church and secular law to which there is little analog in the U.S. Sanctuary cities also, of course, only decline to enforce immigration laws, not other criminal laws as was the case in medieval England.
And while I suppose it is slightly interesting to ponder the difference, I'm not sure this slight relevance justifies injecting this flame-war inducing topic (especially in such glib terms as "a criminal was given 'sanctuary' in San Francisco where he proceeded to randomly murder a tourist taking a stroll").
> The modern practice bears only superficial similarities with the medieval practice.
The Denver church instance bears a very strong resemblance to the mediæval practice, as did the time when the Vatican gave sanctuary to Manuel Noriega.
To point out that there is a modern practice that is similar is relevant to the conversation and not particularly inflammatory.
The proper way to converse on HN is to address the content of the comment, not complain that it exists, like speech police. Unless the comment is clearly WAY over the line, like if it were full of racial slurs. This case is not at all like that.
These kinds of speech police comments---and there is more than just this one---are what is turning this thread into a flame war.
Only a very small part of the political specturm would interpret the comment in question as contra their political views and thus "inflammatory," and I'll leave it to implication which part that is. Hint: It's the part that is the usual culprit for wanting to restrict speech.
The speech-police impulse must truly be powerful, because apparently even you have been unable to resist it! Or is speech metapolicing somehow more valuable? A wise person once told me that "The proper way to converse on HN is to address the content of the comment, not complain that it exists, like speech police." But I digress.
To your point: I think you'll find that I did primarily address the content of the comment, concluding that it drew a false comparison. My suggestion that the comment was probably more inflammatory than valuable was the conclusion of my discussion of the content. I can't quite see that you've given me the same courtesy, though.
Opposing "speech policing" is standing up for open speech. It is not a variant of "speech policing." To claim that it is is just nasty verbal trickery.
It's exactly like one person saying "Criminals use guns to rob people" and another person saying "But police use guns, too, so they're just as bad as criminals." The proper distinction is that criminals use guns to rob, and police use guns to protect.
There is a technical name for this trick, "equivocation." It's equating things that are different in essence by referencing superficial similarities.
And you've added a helping of sarcasm on top of that, which is never germane to making a rational argument.
> I can't quite see that you've given me the same courtesy, though.
If I'm standing up for someone who is being "attacked" (for lack of a better term), I can't exactly be courteous to the attacker in the sense you are asking, which is "not disagreeing." Which is not the normal sense of the word "courteous." In the normal sense of "courteous," I have been courteous. The post I made doesn't even reference you personally. This is another equivocation on your part---equating actual courtesy and "not getting called out."
Now, I'm going to end this conversation before someone who actually "works at" HN has to come along and ask us to stop. I hope somebody has learned something about equivocation from this comment, which is my intention. Otherwise it would be pointless and I would not post it.
What you read as sarcasm I had intended to be lighthearted, so I'm sorry about that.
But there was also a point buried in there: I think it is clearly not contrary to the ideals of free/open speech to also hold the view that not every comment is productive or welcome in the context of every conversation given the prevailing community norms. This is why it is typically considered rude to bring up religion, politics, or sex at a dinner party, to take just one example.
What is going on here is merely that you think that comments suggesting that other comments are a bit out of bounds are themselves out of bounds. Clearly, therefore, we both believe that a conversation ought to have some subject matter limits, so I don't think its fair to suggest that I am somehow anti speech, while you are just here to defend others' rights. We just disagree about what the proper limits of an HN discussion are, nothing more.
After all, my original comment was itself speech, speech that, apparently, you would oppose.
There are no proper limits. If someone doesn't like a speech, they can just down-mod it. Eventually an algorithm will cull the speech if some obscure amount of down-mods occur.
No. I said "a very small part of the political specturm," and "liberal with regard to migration" is not a very small part of the political spectrum, it's half of it or more. I'm liberal with regard to migration myself.
> It's the part that is the usual culprit for wanting to restrict speech.
You mean assholes, insecure in their convictions?
I don't know that liberals are any more guilty of wanting to restrict speech than anyone else. I do know that, whenever liberals raise issues of free speech, an awful lot of politically-conservative trolls (on this very board! posting in this very thread!) like to come out of the woodwork and bleat on about how free speech was not violated, after all, since Congress passed no law about it, which is all the 1st amendment to the US constitution mentions. As though any violation of free speech requires a literal act of Congress.
So no, despite your hint I'm not totally clear on which part of the political spectrum you're referring to.
The point is that the article claims that practice petered out in the 17th century. I show otherwise. The article also states that one reason the practice was abolished was due to criminals leaving their sanctuary to commit more crimes.
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' George Santayana
The city of San Francisco did not give Lopez-Sanchez (the alleged murderer) sanctuary in the same way as described in the article. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was free to detain Lopez-Sanchez at any time while he was in San Francisco, and then deport him.
What San Francisco did was refuse to comply with the ICE request to detain Lopez-Sanchez, because he didn't have a violent record and because ICE did not get an arrest warrant. In situations like this, ICE apparently does not want to go through the process of getting a warrant, preferring instead to treat local law enforcement as an extension of federal immigration enforcement.
But in the U.S.'s federal system, it is not the responsibility of local law enforcement to simply do whatever the feds them to do. The responsibility of SFPD is to the people of San Francisco, not to ICE. Obviously in this case the result was horrific, but up to this point the policy was in place because the City believed it better served the needs of the people of San Francisco, and the people apparently agreed.
There's obviously a good case to be made for local police departments to comply with ICE requests. On the other hand, I find it disturbing that ICE could simply order my local police department to detain me (a US citizen) without getting a warrant, just on their say-so. As someone with a strong respect for the U.S. federal system, I found your comparison to medieval sanctuary to be cheap and inflammatory. Hence my earlier comment.
> The city of San Francisco did not give Lopez-Sanchez (the alleged murderer) sanctuary in the same way as described in the article...I found your comparison to medieval sanctuary to be cheap and inflammatory.
Every time I touch on an immigration related topic on HN, I swear it is the last time, but because it is so personal to me I just simply can't resist.
OP falls into the classical logical error equating undocumented/unlawful/illegal immigrants as criminals. It is just simply impossible for certain individuals/groups to wrap their minds around the simple fact that ones immigration status does not and can not constitute a crime in and of itself. Almost everyone is aware there is civil and criminal laws, I also think everyone knows immigration law is civil in nature, but you will never stop those with a certain bias from wrongfully projecting immigration status as a criminal issue, hence the existence of terms such as "illegal immigrant" for the mere fact that is sounds closer to a criminal label...its sad really.
I think many people use the term "illegal immigrant" not because it is pejorative but because it seems like a natural way to distinguish from "legal immigrant". And (if true) I wasn't aware that all immigration law is civil. I'd presumed that there was a parallel with "criminal trespass", but perhaps that phrase is itself a misnomer. Could you point to some sources that explain the difference between "unlawful", "illegal", and "criminal" as you understand them?
>And (if true) I wasn't aware that all immigration law is civil. I'd presumed that there was a parallel with "criminal trespass", but perhaps that phrase is itself a misnomer.
"If true"...like I said there are just certain groups/individuals who can not wrap their minds around the idea immigration status is separate and distinct from criminal law. The crazy thing to me is not even where these ideas come from, I guess it just doesn't matter, but the length people go to in order to maintain their present state of thought. Just do a simple Google Search of "is immigration law civil or criminal", you don't even need to click a result, Google gives you the Answer.
>Could you point to some sources that explain the difference between "unlawful", "illegal", and "criminal" as you understand them?
Its not so much as I understand them, as their definitions in a legal context.
"Unlawful"/"illegal" are terms that may be used interchangeably and by definition indicate the violation of a law (either civil or criminal), so all criminal acts are unlawful/illegal but not all unlawful/illegal acts are criminal. For example, the Court ruled that Apple unlawfully/illegally fixed e-book prices[1], yet that is not criminal nor to we go around calling Apple an "illegal company". That is the pejorative nature of "illegal" in the immigration context, where it implies criminality...in fact is likely the reason you didn't know immigration law is civil and presumed a parallel with criminal trespass.
Source: myself, but I can point you to Black's Law Dictionary, I feel confident their definitions will be consistent with my own.
Trespass is a good example. The law is split into civil and criminal law and depending on jurisdiction and sometimes the status of the land owner (i.e. military, etc), trespass can fall into either camp.
If you break criminal law, you are committing a crime and can be prosecuted and punished for that, on the other hand civil law is characterized as a dispute between two parties and the only crime you can then commit is to flout a court ruling on the matter, which may then progress into criminal law if it is serious enough, or may be referred back for yet more civil proceedings. However even if you do flout a court ruling, and the process becomes criminal, what you originally did remains civil, it is your subsequent conduct towards the court that can be judged as criminal.
> What San Francisco did was refuse to comply with the ICE request to detain Lopez-Sanchez, because he didn't have a violent record and because ICE did not get an arrest warrant. In situations like this, ICE apparently does not want to go through the process of getting a warrant, preferring instead to treat local law enforcement as an extension of federal immigration enforcement.
ICE requested San Francisco to notify them when Lopez-Sanches was going to be released from jail in San Francisco so that ICE could pick him up then [1]. All San Francisco was being asked to do was make a phone call. Do you have a source for the claim that ICE asked San Francisco to detain him for them?
An ICE detainer is a request (not a court order) that a state or local police department detain an individual for 48 hours (excluding holidays and weekends) while ICE decides whether or not they want to take someone into custody for consideration for deportation:
In retrospect, I probably exaggerated ICE's power wrt my local police department. Still, compliance with a detainer means an arrested citizen can be detained for up to five calendar days (48 hours + 3 day weekend) without charge, or indeed any sort of judicial review, merely on ICE's say-so.
Your first example is church sanctuary, but is a pretty isolated case, the second is nothing to do with church sanctuary, and both cases seem picked, not to make a point about the practice of church sanctuary, but rather to stir fud about migration.
I think what you are trying to express, in your own quixotic way, is that the phrase "murdered for taking a stroll" belies the complex causes of the murder.
And he's a "troll" because he justified this conversation-prompt with a genuine value-add
We (Denmark) also had a case in 1991/1992 where hundreds of (criminal) rejected asylum seekers occupied a church for a long time, in full cooperation with the priest and plenty of left-wing politicians and musicians. It ended with a special law that granted them asylum -- whereupon most of them continued to inflict crimes upon the natives and so did many of their children.
The extreme left tried to repeat the "success" in 2009 and a new batch of (criminal) rejected asylum seekers and other (criminal) foreigners who had been banned from the country. This time they didn't succeed, despite ready displays of violence from violent blackshirts ( https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifascistisk_Aktion ) and widespread support from the media.
hmmm...I think calling anti-fascists that are trying to protect migrants from fascist violence is a pretty large inversion of terms given the original black and brown shirts.
I can't remember the last time the teams I've worked on ever mentioned making the site usable for people without JS and people with disabilities. "It's not in the scope!" Ugh.
I don't even ask for usable, I'd be glad to even see something. How many time noscript optimized a whole site into a blank html page. It's flabbergasting.
I work for a public university, so when we make new sites or webapps we are obliged to make them usable for people with disabilities and we have at least one person who focus only on testing this... but without javascript? That is not even considered. The web IS javascript driven
I think the idea that you need Javascript to drive a page designed to show an article consisting of text and images is probably worth questioning. Maybe you do, I don't know. But I think you should at least think about instead of falling back on the idea that the web is Javascript-driven.
You (probably) won't be benefiting the people without Javascript because hopefully your page works for them anyway. (Astoundingly, some simple article-type pages do not.) You will be benefiting yourself and almost all users because, without JS, your site will load faster and (often as not on really JS-heavy websites) scroll faster.
If you're creating a webapp, sure, you'd be crazy not to use Javascript.
But it's insane that Internet comment threads or text-based articles can drive yy i7 to 100% usage.
Unlike when serving people with disabilities, which you can't understand and test well if you're not disabled yourself (or specially trained), as a developer you should automatically be aware when you'd exclude people without JS. Nobody special needed for testing, just a resistance to implement navigation with JS only, or worse, JS-only content.
Until now most content-heavy sites (like most university sites) are not problematic for the most part (1). Which I suppose is why there's no complaining till now. By having a healthy community of users with JS disabled, hopefully there will be enough complaints when it gets worse.
(1) the static parts, which is most URLs used during the day. If I encounter a site that requires JS to log in, I'll open a separate browser with JS. If I encounter a page that only shows the content with JS, I just close it unread, unless in the very rare case that it's important to me (most important content is still not relying on JS).
S = 'N';
s = s + 'o';
s = s + ',';
s = s + ' ';
s = s + 'n';
s = s + 'o';
s = s + ' ';
s = s + 'i';
s = s + 't';
s = s + ''';
s = s + 's';
s = s + ' ';
s = s + 'r';
s = s + 'e';
s = s + 'a';
s = s + 'l';
s = s + 'l';
s = s + 'y';
s = s + ' ';
s = s + 'n';
s = s + 'o';
s = s + 't';
s = s + '.';
$("comment_field").innerText = s
That's like saying "turn off the ability to execute programs on your computer". Nobody's going to seriously start gearing web-dev towards a no-javascript world.
Have a look at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_toc.html. It describes a nearly ideal language for technical documentation, and it's fully usable on any web browser ever created. That's how the web worked when authors were competent and not beholden to marketers; before the industry dismantled an outstanding hypertext platform and replaced it with an embarrassingly half-assed application platform.
technical documentation includes information that can't be displayed on VT100 terminals and pretending like that's all the web is is clearly and obviously incorrect
How is it even possible to come to that conclusion? The web was about document and hyperlinks and nothing else when it began. There was no scripting. Tables and inline images were later additions. Some of us were actually using and creating content for the web in '93; you can't ret-con us out of the picture.
some of us like me, and the goal was always to get beyond "a document". If you want to just exchange documents, go back to transferring .txt files via ftp.
Hypertext links was simply the first step, but those existed for us for years before the web: gopher, specialty systems, etc.
A desire to move beyond those systems was part of what made the web work, and the first step was moving the web to graphical systems capable of displaying more than formatted fixed-width text on a VT100 terminal like some of the parents above think it was about. That's what gopher was for, that's not what the web was for.
It's both important and unimportant about what the web originally was, because just like I said earlier, the web is about documents as much as cars are about horses. The web has had javascript longer than the web only supported text and links. Think about that.
> and the goal was always to get beyond "a document".
No it wasn't. The goal was to get documents that could be read by users no matter what software or computer they were using.
In this thread we're talking about a text document with some images. Javascript contributes nothing to the content. All Javascript is used for in this example is to put a fucking huge ad over the content before the content has loaded, and add some social media widgets. These detract from the content, and make the page harder to use.
> read by users no matter what software or computer they were using.
again, where is this notion coming from? even if we scope to just text and no images, we already broken on this idea once we move beyond non-latin scripts and unicode.
But that's not the web, the web is not intended for lynx, it's intended for a browser, and all the foibles that browsers bring along with them.
Go rethink your position a bit, because maybe I'm old, but I remember the way the internet worked before the web and after the web, and "displaying documents suitable for a vt100 terminal" was not what the web was ever about.
From W3C and the like. I dunno, they built WWW, I guess they have some idea what their intentions were.
> even if we scope to just text and no images, we already broken on this idea once we move beyond non-latin scripts and unicode.
Just so we're clear about what my claims are: you don't need javascript for a simple text article with a few images. The submitted article is a simple text article, with a few images. Javascript is used only to make the experience worse.
You're wrong about images and about unicode - neither of those need javascript. I don't know why you mention vt100 terminals (why so redundant?) - that's not a point I'm making.
But since you brought it up a web dev has to be some kind of clueless cunt if they can't display a bit of text with image placeholders on a text mode display.
Of course I meant a graphical browser. Lynx was always a stopgap for people without graphical displays. It's always showed a poor terminal equivalent of the web, but back in the 90s, not everybody had access to the internet via graphical browser.
Lynx was never meant to be an example of what the web was supposed to be.
> Lynx was never meant to be an example of what the web was supposed to be.
You're very bossy. Lynx was a perfectly functional browser, not just a 'stopgap'; nor is it 'poor.' With Lynx it was always possible to download a referenced image and print it or view it in a specialised image viewer.
Then there's something like ewww or emacs-w3m, both of which are graphical browsers, but do not support JavaScript.
Heck, if you want to talk about what the web's 'supposed to be,' JavaScript isn't it, since…there was no JavaScript for the first several years that the web existed.
JavaScript and dynamic web pages are a blight upon the web. They are the only widely-deployed, easy-to-start-with high-level dynamic-language graphical runtime around (the JVM, in comparison, is too low-level and doesn't solve the problem of distributing updates). That's great, but it does nothing for the web.
The web is about documents composed almost entirely of text (yes, with tags referring to images), linked to other documents composed entirely of text. When you break that, you break the web.
When you require me to execute untrusted code in order to read text you break the web, and my security.
There are some really neat things which can be done with JavaScript and single-page apps. But they are not the web.
You describe a whole bunch of mechanisms that don't work on a VT100 terminal. From the start the web was trying to make use of and display everything its original system could do (NeXT systems in this case).
Remember when the web only supported .aiff or .au or whatever sound files? I do, it was terrible. Remember the web before ajax, embedded video, eventing, javascript, etc? I do, it was terrible.
The web has existed longer with javascript than it did without. Things don't have to be stuck in some "well it was originally supposed to be..." rut. People improve things and aggregate features onto well-used favorite things.
What you and I suspect most of the parents here who keep annihilating my karma is what the Internet was before the web, gopher, ftp, etc. All of the things you guys want to do was already invented and working decades ago, and guess what, it still works.
You can still setup gopher and ftp and do all the wonderful non-javascript document reading and media transfer with external viewing things you folks want to do without degrading the web. The web is not what you folks want, you want these older things, or maybe something else that's not the modern web. Hell, you guys can all gang up and just make a network of "vt100 conformant websites" and setup a web ring and only navigate to each other's little niche in the web. The original html, non-embedded graphics, no-audio, no-flash, no-javascript, no-css web still works also. Heck, you should start a push to get the original browser WorldWideWeb ported to modern platforms so you can experience it as it was intended.
My original post way up still stands, nobody is going to take seriously a proposal to stop moving the web forward. You might not like it, but that's the world you live in. Fork your efforts off somewhere else instead of punching at ocean waves.
> The web has existed longer with javascript than it did without.
At least you admit that it existed before JavaScript.
> What you and I suspect most of the parents here who keep annihilating my karma is what the Internet was before the web, gopher, ftp, etc.
I want all that, and the web, the web that I grew up reading, the web that was composed of (wait for it) documents composed primarily of text, linking to other documents composed primarily of text. I want to read news articles which actually link to primary sources; I want to read personal blogs; I want the web.
> All of the things you guys want to do was already invented and working decades ago, and guess what, it still works.
It doesn't work when people like you continually pollute the web with single-page apps and JavaScript-requiring sites. It doesn't work when I have to allow every random advertiser, marketer and nation-state actor to execute random code on my computer in order to read some text.
> You can still setup gopher and ftp and do all the wonderful non-javascript document reading and media transfer with external viewing things you folks want to do without degrading the web.
It's people like you, who create single-page apps and other web sites that do not work without JavaScript who are degrading the web. I recently was looking for a company to ship me pre-boxed meal ingredients: every single site required JavaScript in order to show me pictures of food an text about food; every single site refused to accept a simple HTML form with my name, email addres & so forth. No, they had to use JavaScript to show me pictures of food; they had to use JavaScript to show me text about food; they had to use JavaScript to 'help' me fill out a form I'm perfectly capable of filling out on my own. They didn't use JavaScript to enhance their sites: their sites were nothing but shells to hold executable code.
> My original post way up still stands, nobody is going to take seriously a proposal to stop moving the web forward.
JavaScript-laden pages are not forward; forward would be hypertext, the Semantic Web, intelligent agents, REST and so forth. Forward would be a new, clean markup language; a new, clean programming language; a model which acknowledges the value of more than just the graphical browser (see CLIM for some interesting ideas along that line).
> Fork your efforts off somewhere else instead of punching at ocean waves.
Have you ever read any Norse mythology? They were convinced that they knew how the world would end, with the overthrow of the gods (representing order) by the giants (representing elemental chaos). And despite believing this, they stood with the gods: 'the gods are doomed, but I'm on their side.'
Well, the web is doomed, but I stand with the web. Better to fight for a good and beautiful idea than to live with mediocrity.
> The project is based on the philosophy that much academic information should be freely available to anyone. It aims to allow information sharing within internationally dispersed teams, and the dissemination of information by support groups.
> The web was never about interchange of documents
See also http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/, your perception of what is and isn't viewable in a terminal, and what should be, is strange for somebody who claims to know the web's history.
Nope, it doesn't. TBL wrote WorldWideWeb along with the rest of the early web stack at CERN, and from the start it included a graphical browser which used the NeXT textclass (a richtext class), which could open anything the NeXT systems could open, which included styles, movies, postscript and sounds.
The Web has literallynever been about VT100 text document displays. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. That was gopher.
I'm really serious. I swear you young people sometimes.
![https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westminster_Abbey_-_...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westminster_Abbey_-_Thomas_Hosmer_Shepherd.png"){kind=link}
> while Hebraic tradition went bigger, declaring six whole cities as places where criminals could take refuge
This is not true. The only sanctuary offered in those cities was if someone accidentally or via negligence killed someone. The relatives were not able to extract blood vengeance in those cities.
That's it. It was not for criminals. It was a way of discouraging blood vengeance, while also punishing the perpetrator.
The perpetrator would also be required to be tried in court after claiming refuge.
> These early asylums were established under the belief that the gods (or god) were inviolable, and thus their temples and holy sites shared this untouchable aspect.
Absolutely not true. If someone committed murder he could be dragged away from the holy of holies if necessary.