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
mental
condition, almost certainly curable a bit down the line.
"Proper punishment" presumes that punishment actually accomplishes
something
worthwhile. Yet it has been demonstrated that execution is not a real
deterrent and a punishment that kills the offender certainly cannot be
said
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?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT