The sad case of Polly Klaas comes to mind. Her murderer taunted her father in the courtroom, and most people would have looked the other way if the father chose to dismember that fucker right there on the bench.
But he resisted the urge, which is what most people in civilized society would have done.
For fun I’ll play along. Is it in fact the case that rape is a highly successful reproductive strategy? Do rapists actually impregnate many women? Do most of these pregnancies go to term? If not, then it does not appear likely after all that we must sanction the burning alive of rapists as a necessary measure to prevent the propagation of their genes, and we are forced to conclude that your eugenic thought-experiment is nothing more than sophistry intended to justify your blood-thirst against rapists.
Don’t try to weasel out of it. If you’re calling for punishment, you have to say what you think is fair.
Same as any cold-blooded murderer in her jurisdiction would get. And if you’re going to try to tell me it was a crime of passion and she just snapped on the spur of the moment because of his “taunt”, you tell me how many elderly women carry around bottles of gasoline in their purses. No, she had to go and find a bottle, find a gas station and fill it up and go back to where the guy was–plenty of time for cooler heads to prevail.
I think Malacandra provided a far more eloquent response to this than I can manage on page 3, so I’ll just add that the way to change what you perceive to be an unjust law is not to act dishonestly as a juror. Why not cast your jury vote in accordance with the current law and the facts of the case, and then campaign for the law to be changed outside the courtroom? Arguing about it in court is about as likely to get the law changed as arguing over a decision with a sports referee is going to change their decision, or shouting the loudest in the audience at the conclusion of a reality TV contest will change the result of the telephone vote.
Secondly, it is common in the UK for a person to be convicted of a crime, but the judge decides (for example) not to impose the jail sentence that would normally be given due to mitigating circumstances. This case seems like a prime candidate for that sort of thing, although if I were the judge I would still send the woman down for at least some time.
And I think you would be wrong to do so in this case, otherwise we are on the slippery slope to vigilante justice.
But for the fact she did this in a crowded pub, I’d be happy to have her escorted around a few hospital burns units, just to remind her of the magnitude of her offence against public civilty. As it stands, she could do with some time in a mental institution, as a prison sentence would not benefit anyone… unless she has took a liking to this form of expression!
The noun that is the third word in your sentence here may be entirely too kind. Or, to put it another way, a completely unjustified “promotion.”
IOW, I’m with you. 
Of course she broke the law, and a trial is in order. Or at least a hearing. I mean, where would you draw the line in immediately dismissing “understandable” vigilante actions? (Heck, there has to be at least a hearing in most of the clearly self-defense cases.)
Having said that, I hope she has an excellent attorney and she is declared not guilty. By the line Giles suggested, that is, perceiving a threat, (I add whether or not a real threat was intended), temporary insanity, whatever the local law will bear.
Some here have spoken of proportional response. Yes, there is a proportional legal response, and she clearly (should I add “allegedly” here?) went beyond that. Now that she has done what she did, though, the proportional **real-world **response is for her to get off. Anyway the legal defense can manage.
What about in self defense?
The situation might arise (rarely) that you need to kill someone in self defence. This doesn’t mean that the action is “OK” and not to be regretted.
What’s with you lot? How come you regard taking a life so lightly?
Ah, yes, the magical land of Aibara Aiduas. Let’s analyze the unintended consequences of various forms of punishment.
Punishment for rape is less than the punishment for murder. Unintended consequence: sometimes outraged citizens wish to take the law into their own hands to exact a harsher punishment.
Punishment for rape is equal to that of murder. Unintended consequence: there’s no downside to murdering your rape victim, because no further punishment could be added. In fact, it becomes smarter to kill the victim, because then she can’t testify against you.
Punishment for rape is always death. Unintended consequence: false accusations of rape will skyrocket, along with the use of threats to accuse as a means of extorting someone to do what you want. “If you don’t do XYZ, I’ll tell everybody that you raped me, and you’ll die.” Law leverages women into power and men become permanent second-class citizens.
Same as 3, but only for men. Unintended consequence: Women may feel free to rape men. Men become afraid to report rape, because she can say “I’ll just tell everybody you raped me instead! Take that.” Worse.
I still think 1 is superior for a functioning civilized society. If you can make the case otherwise, feel free.
How elderly is she? Young enough to have had a 13yo daughter seven years previously? If she’d felt able to beat the shit out of a 69-year-old man with her bare hands or, hell, even the nearest non-lethal weapon within reach, I’d happily wink at that. Burning someone to death is another story. I don’t buy “temporary insanity” either. I don’t believe anyone can be temporarily insane enough to forget that dousing someone in lighted petrol will probably burn them to death, or that burning people to death is wrong.
If people want it to be legal to burn rapists to death then they should lobby for rapist-burning to be legal and assume the moral consequences of having such a law on the statute books.
Because the world is better off if people who think it is okay to prey on innocent people are incapable of doing so.
Killing an assailant in self-defense or defense of an innocent is regrettable, sure. In the sense that the person doing it is likely to feel bad.
But it’s okay. It’s ENTIRELY okay. The feeling of guilt and regret for killing the assailant, though natural, and probably unavoidable for most people, is misguided and erroneous, because if you kill a person who has attacked you without justification andwith evident intent to kill, maim, or rape you, you have done nothing wrong.
Taking a life isn’t an easy decision to make, nor is ordering a life to be taken, but in the case of self-defense I don’t see there’s a reasonable choice.
In order words, fight or flight. These are biologically programmed responses. It makes no sense to try to legislate against our own biology. Might as well pass a law saying it’s illegal for a man to get an erection without a woman’s consent, or illegal to fart in a crowded room.
And so the situation does arise: if you kill another, we call it murder, unless he started it, in which case it’s self-defense. If a whole bunch of someones try to kill your country we call it war. Fine distinctions between types of death. What’s the alternative?
Strangely, considering how old news this is, this seems to be getting discussed a lot to judge by the Google hits. Can’t seem to find out what happened to Senora X, though.
That’s not the only aspect of our world that is affected by these actions. Society in general is harmed when we allow our world to be ruled by emotions. We become collectively less as humans if all our responses are driven by rage.
The world would be better off if burglars were incapable of committing crimes. Should we off them too? Perhaps pre-emptive action is in order?
Ok, I’ll try again. The problem is where you draw the line, and who draws it. You say “maim”. What do you mean? Who decides?
I don’t think I’ve said anything contrary to this, or to the other points you raise.
If a man wants to throw hands and I cannot defuse the situation, I am justified at throwing hands in return, but assuming I manage to overcome him I am not justified in inflicting killing damage.
If a man comes at me or an innocent with a weapon that can reasonably be thought lethal–a gun, a butcher knife, an axe–I am justified in killing him to defend myself, and it is not necessary to know whether he intended to kill me, cut of my arm, or just remove my pinkie finger. As it is also impossible for me to know that, the act of attacking with potentially lethal force means the person has sacrificed his right to life if I must kill him to protect myself. However, if I manage to subdue him, I may not arbitarily kill him under most circumstances. But I’m not going take any special risks to preserve his life until I know I and the innocent are safe.
No. Quite the opposite, actually.
…