So, today, one of my friends posted an article on my wall. It was called …And Justice for all. Some excerpts of the same are as follows:
“Guilt is premised on an individual being conscious of his actions and of its possible repercussions when he commits the act. So the individual ‘knows’ that he doesn’t have any right to harm a fellow human, yet in a moment of weakness, does it. Would that moment/those moments define the entire personality of the individual?“
“Should taking someone’s life — reducing someone to a state of nothingness, after following constitutional due process — to further law’s ends, find a place in twenty-first century lawbook then?
Should there be a component of retribution at all? Who stands to benefit from this? In retaliation against one act of madness, perhaps a few moments, does anyone have authority to take someone’s life?
Can’t there be a better way of accommodating the person in society, the one labeled criminal by law?
Perhaps there can be. The perpetrator can be turned into an asset for the society. This can happen only when the law attributes criminality not to the individual as such, but to a criminal component in him. It would follow that once ‘that component’ is removed, the individual can be of benefit to the society.”
Hmm… I don’t think my heart is big enough. But, this is why I would prefer to stay separate from the system. I think this article makes a lot of sound, valid points… but when someone crosses a line with me, they are as good as dead. To me. And, we’re talking silly lines here. If someone were to hurt or kill someone I cared about, the only reason I would pray that the Courts let them go is so that I can kill them myself.
It’s like Sanzo says, when you first kill someone, you undertake the probability of being killed yourself.
Also, this article speaks of crimes done in moments of weakness. For which, most legal systems have adequate defenses in the form of grave and sudden provocation, and the like.
Further, there’s nothing forgivable about stalking a 4 year old child, then raping and murdering her. In that case, the victim is chosen because the perpetrators know that she can’t fight back. It is our duty to her, as well as to all surviving innocents everywhere, that people who commit such heinous crimes are not just punished for it, but utterly removed from society [whether through Death, or exile to space, or as human experiments (though that probably won’t end well) is all a matter of debate]
Point being, it isn’t just about the criminal or the victim’s family. It’s about the victim, and all other potential ones. And the fact that if you can’t protect a child’s life, you better be prepared to avenge it, otherwise what use is our existence? It means less than nothing.