Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Catwoman
Your point about justice - one life for another - is valid. But what you must realise is that not all crimes are the same. Not every murder is a cold-blooded killing with no regard for their actions, no conscience and no sense. What would you do if you were alone with a guy who had locked you in a room, spent 3 days torturing you, raping you, shitting on you, and you saw a knife and your opportunity. Would you kill him and get the fuck out of there? Or would you, calmly and rationally, think 'oh I couldn't possibly do that, killing is wrong, and therefore every killing is wrong, so I can't kill him. I wouldn't want to risk the death sentence.'
Come on Lady S, I can get over your dogmaticism if you have a point, but please recognise crime is not black and white (nor is it predominantly black if that's your next joke) and sometimes there is margin for error.
If you recognise there is variation in crime you cannot wax lyrical about standardised punishment or justice.
|
I DO realize that all crimes are not the same. I don't consider killing in self-defense or the defense of another to be cold-blooded murder. We have the right and the duty to protect ourselves against an unprovoked attack. That's not what I'm talking about at all.
I'm talking about serial murderers, spree killers, mass murderers, child killers, child rapists....people who are in and out of jail for the same thing over and over and over and who present an ongoing threat to society.
I know that crime is not black and white, but neither is it ALWAYS gray. If you have a guy who has a lengthy history of child molestation, then he should never, EVER be released. Obviously he cannot be rehabilitated, and the next time he may decide that it would be better to kill the victim so he wouldn't get caught. What then? Or a rapist who's in and out of jail on rape charges may decide the same thing. Kill the victim, and they can't tell on you.
I'm all in favor of mandatory DNA testing. I feel bad for the people who've spent years in jail only to be proven innocent on DNA. That's why I think it should be mandatory for all capital cases. Any kind of testing that may prove a defendant in a capital case innocent should be used, even if the court must pay for it. I also think that the jury should be able to hear ALL of the evidence, including past history of the defendent, so that they can determine propensity. The jury too often only hears certain parts of evidence, so they don't have all the information that they need to make a fair decision.
Many times, I've read where jury members find out that a defendant that they let off, or gave a light sentence to, actually had a history of the offense for which he was being tried. They were not allowed by the court to know about the defendant's history, and say that if they had known, they would have made a different decision.
If a woman kills her rapist, good for her...she saved the state some money. Give her a medal for helping to protect society and send her on her way. Too many times, the victim is put on trial and dragged through the mud by a lawyer who doesn't care about anything except winning cases. Where's the morality there? Just because OJ had the best lawyers and a biased jury doesn't mean he's NOT guilty. Just because Robert Blake was found not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it. They may never do it again. But they did it once, and that was enough to destroy two families. What about them?
Our justice system is biased in favor of the accused. The courts lean over backwards to ensure that the accused gets as fair a trial as possible so that a higher court won't reverse their decision.
For instance, if a juvenile has a history of assault, as soon as he becomes an adult, his record is sealed. Therefore, if he assaults again, or rapes, or kills, the prosecutor cannot give the jury all of the information that they need to make a fair decision. He can't say, "Look at this...he has a history of this kind of behavior. This shows propensity." How is THAT fair? The jury lets the guy off with a light sentence, IF they find him guilty, because they think it's his first offense, when actually it's not.
And rape or murder? A defense lawyer can drag the victim through the mud, (this happens a lot in murder cases, and the victim is not there to defend themselves) but a prosecutor cannot do the same with regards to the accused's history. How is THAT fair?
No, I know that crime isn't black and white. But when it comes to admissions, DNA evidence, eyewitness or earwitness evidence (which I give only half-consideration to, knowing the questionable reliabiltiy of it), video or tape recordings, or other things that point to the individual's guilt, I think that they should be punished, whether you want to call it societal retribution or justice--I consider them the same thing--according to the severity of their crime.
Vandalism? Get a fine, maybe spend a night in jail if it was extremely destructive. Rape? Put you in a cell with Bubba who hasn't seen a woman in thirty years, and let you see how you like it. Child molestation? Put you in a cage and never let you out. Rot in there for all I care. Child abuse? Fix you like an animal so that you can't create more little ready-made victims. Put you on a list so that you can never adopt or babysit or teach or have any access to kids. Murder? A life for a life.
I think that's fair.
Sidhe