Brian D Williams wrote:
> I am not hallucinating, nor have I inplied any such technology.
> The debt is paid with the murderer's life even thought it is of
> lesser value. I have no savage lust for vengeance, just a
> completely rational desire for justice.
> The victim is dead, but not forgotten. It is in his/her best
> interest, and ours, that justice is served.
Your still implying such a magical technology because you just re-stated that killing the murderer is in the victims self-interest. I repeat, how can a dead person have self-interest? You have failed to demonstrate this.
> As I pointed out above, the debt cannot be repaid since the value
> of the murderers life is less than that of the victim. Yet justice
> demands he/she pay all they can.
'Justice'?!? I could just as easily say that justice demands that you should die for speaking on a street corner. Certainly China views such penalties as justice for those who buck the Party's dogma. You accept as dogma that justice equals an 'eye for an eye'. I do not share your definition of 'Justice'. Since when is justice written down in stone? Why should I accept your definition over another? Imposing your sense of justice over others is not a very 'just' thing to do.
> You choose to forget the victim, I chose rationally to forget the
How have I forgotten the victim? The victim is dead, but not forgotten. You refuse to acknowledge that the victim is dead. The majority of your argument is resting on the imaginary concept that somehow we are helping the victim by killing their murderer. Are you suggesting that we are helping them in the afterlife? If so, what proof do you have that they live in this afterlife?