|
Edited on Fri Dec-08-06 05:04 PM by sui generis
sorry.
My views on this are well known.
"we owe" the victims nothing, unless we somehow own them. If we want to punish murder by taking a life, we are deep into the absurd when we make a claim of moral superiority. If we're doing eye for eye stuff, why do we think murder is the worst crime? What other "eye for an eye" punishments can we think of. Well, an eye for an eye, certainly. Also, if your guy kills my brother, I think it's only fair to kill his brother. Oh wait, that's Iran and some parts of Pakistan.
However, I am not at all against locking someone up for life that we would normally give a DP sentence to, throwing away they key, and giving them a friendly little pill to use on themselves whenever they feel like it. Somehow that horrifies us more than killing them. Absurdity.
Pain? We are such a weak and terrified of pain society. We need to grow a pair. Pain isn't the worst thing you can endure. We worry more about causing physical pain while we kill someone than about the fact that we're killing someone. Absurdity piled upon absurdity. Dead is dead, no matter how you get there. A bolt gun works just as well as long as we're trying to avoid pain, therefore I read accordingly this lawyer would have given the victim's family some real closure, exploding eyeballs, a Jerry Bruckheimer ending, plus no pain for the criminal.
Oy.
|