Brian D Williams wrote:
> What about a murderer who is not a caring sentient person, but a
> monster, annoyed with being incarcerated for what he see's as
> something the victim deserved for rejecting him, and never showing
> the slightest remorse. (yes, this is from personnal experience)
> You fail to address the issue of proper punishment.
A person of the type described is suffering from a possibly curable
condition, almost certainly curable a bit down the line.
"Proper punishment" presumes that punishment actually accomplishes
worthwhile. Yet it has been demonstrated that execution is not a real
deterrent and a punishment that kills the offender certainly cannot be
to rehabilitate them.
In the case of a non-psychotic person a "proper punishment" or rather
"making what restitution is possible" might involve picking up most/all
of the slain person's debts and obligations or being indentured to the
family for a period of time. Or not. The question I was attempting to
address was as in the topic line. Not what the proper response to
murder outside of execution vs. suspension is.
> >How can a sentient, caring person condemn another human being to
> >irreversible and irretrievable death?
> When that human being has committed an irreversible crime.
All irreverisble crimes? Like damaging property irreverisbly for
instance? Again, how does creating another irreversible loss in any way
balance out the original one?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT