Quote Originally Posted by denuseri View Post
Truely spoken like someone who has never been the victim of a violent crime or had a loved one who has.

Go through something like that yourself and then come back and tell me I need to have my head examined for thinking some bastards get what they deserved when the switch was thrown.

Depriving someone of their freedom for horendous acts against another just simply isnt enough sometimes.

In many things the ancients got it right the first time.
I think you add emphasis to my argument, den. You seem to be arguing for the execution of people who haven't even killed.

Someone who has been the victim of a violent crime must be so wrapped up in anger and hatred for the perpetrator, and perhaps self-pity too, that his desire for revenge will skew his perspective and cloud his judgement. He would reduce a sophisticated legal system to the level of a primitive tribal council, or abandon it completely in favour of vendattas or mob law.

That is why I feel that punishments for such crimes must be set in a dispassionate forum and when the crime is committed, and they should never be greater than the crime itself. Furthermore, punsihments must be handed down carefully by people who are not involved in or affected by the crime. You say the ancients got it right first time. Even they relied upon tribal/village elders to deal with such matters with a degree of impartiality, but often they were too closely involved for a fair punishment to be delivered.

If I am wrong, why has the "law" changed everywhere society has developed beyond antediluvian communities?