"Mordechai T. Abzug" <morty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:McSdnRIvT78v_FnanZ2dnUVZ_tCrnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <kf6dnSEHKty9q1nanZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Chuck" <somewhere@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
edgeofthings.info> spake thusly:
>
>> >> 5) Do you think Roszca had changed in the two years since he killed
>> >> Tessa? Was Richie doing the right thing by sparing Roszca?
>
>> > If Roszca is no longer a druggie, then he has changed. Killing him
>> > would do no good.
>
> [snip]
>
>> in my mispent catholic youth I was taught that God will forgive all
>> sins if you are sincere in your contrition. however you were also
>> obligated to accept just punishment from civil authorites for those
>> sins if they were also crimes. in other words, a robber cannot be
>> forgiven if he does not make restitution and a murderer cannot be
>> forgiven if he does not accept the just punishment of civil
>> authorities.
>
> Richie is not a civil authority. If Richie would testify against
> Roszca, then perhaps Roszca would go to jail. But in the modern-day
> world, Roszca would almost certainly not be sentenced to death.
> Killing Roszca is not justice equivalent to civil authorities.
>
> Meanwhile, restitution for thievery is very different from a death
> sentence for murder. A thief's crime is wrongful transfer of
> property. By repaying the property, the original crime is effectively
> cancelled. A murderer cannot make restitution. Even if you kill the
> murderer, you end up with two dead people instead of none.
>
> So, what are the reasons that we punish people in a secular society,
> and how do they apply to Roszca?
>
> * incapacitation: not applicable to Roszca, who clearly had no
> intention of committing murder again.
>
> * rehabilitation: not applicable to killing anyone. And Roszca
> apparently had rehabilitated himself.
>
> * restitution: not applicable to any murder case, where restitution is
> not possible, as per above. [Well, you can have the murderer pay
> the family for lost wages and such as a partial restitution, but
> killing the murderer is not restitution.]
>
> * deterrence: not applicable, since the larger population would not
> know why he died.
>
> * vengeance: this is really the only reason that one would want to
> kill Roszca, in a lex talionis kinda sense. But this is not what
> civil authorities in modern nations do for unpremeditated murder.
> And while DM and Richie both felt they had the right to exact
> vengeance, as the injured parties, both also chose not to exercise
> their right. IMHO, this was for all the right reasons.
>
>> I'm reluctant to accept that murderers should get a pass just
>> because they "changed" their life.
>
> That's not the issue. The issue is if *Richie* should take action,
> and in particular, should kill Roszca. There is a huge difference
> between society holding a murderer accountable, vs. a friend of the
> victim taking an eye for an eye.
>
> - Morty
in my other post in this thread I stated "in any society, there is the
rule
of law. those who take the law into their own hands are every bit as
dangerous and destructive as those who break the law."
which brings me to this: that on the whole, the whole immortals' "game" is
intrinsically evil at its core.
I enjoyed reading your argument. nicely laid out.
..
|
