Snippets from today’s NY Times (you’ve got to register to read it I think).
I don’t even know what to say. Sometimes the “justice” system in this country makes no sense at all. So the victim’s family has been suffering mental anguish for 27 years. So what? If they had caught him 15 years ago should he have gotten a lighter sentence, since the family would have only suffered half the grief? Or maybe there should be a limit on grief; say 10 years of grief, and depending on the deepness of the grief and heinousness of the crime the accused should get between 1-4 years for each year of grief for each person suffering from the time of the crime to the time of the perpetrator’s conviction.
Yes, eye for an eye and all that.
And this man’s character has exactly what to do with his guilt or punishment? Oh, he lived his last 25 years well? In that case he should be given a medal for being such a good person. :rolleyes:
So is this what our criminal justice system is all about? It sounds more like a cheesey movie than an actual trial (yes, I am taking it with a grain of salt, considering it’s a news report and not a trial transcript). What do people want, and what are we trying to do? Are we satisfying the victims, (and the families’ of victims) need for vengance? Need for closure? Are we punishing a crime? Are we basing judgment on the character of a person as opposed to actual evidence?
It’s very frustrating and scarry how many crimes these days (at least the ones in the news) seem to be prosecuted based on emotions and how sad the victims are (maybe they should learn to be more resiliant. 27 years and you’re still a wreck? That sounds like your problem more than the killer’s) as opposed to evidence and fact.
That’s all. Kind of weak, but I just read the article and felt like it was a TV drama as opposed to something real.