Exactly. But why is it ok for some people to break those laws?
Define ok.
Codifying minutiae is impossible. She should be tried.
I wonder if she was able to think about the consequences of her actions or just went batshit crazy when she saw him. Probably the latter. Doesn’t justify it one bit, but would that make it truly a revenge killing, or just temporary insanity? Interesting defense possibilities.
As for the long term effects of violent rape, I’d have to disagree with ya on the “most” part. I don’t have access to the full article, but a quick Google found a few more along these lines:
OK, since we’re pulling numbers out of our butts.
Let’s say that a crime that results in the death of the victim is 1000 evil points and a crime that the victim doesn’t even remember seven years later is 100 evil points.
Using this with your percentages the rapist earned 100 evil points where the rapist burner earned 936.4.
The article said she went a little buggy from it, so I think an insanity plea might help her in court, but I don’t recall the time between when he taunted her and when she torched him. That would have everything to do with how the court interprets it, I’d think.
Regarding your take on the long term effects of violent rape, there’s violent, and there’s violent. There are degrees to consider and I absolutely agree that a violent rape, as opposed to a forced rape with no actual physical harm involved, will have different long-term outcomes.
Where’s this bloody ‘liberal bias’ I keep hearing about?
I should have made it clear that I was speaking in terms of being called for a U.S. jury. In the USA, juries are the ultimate triers of fact and we still have the right of jury nullification. Under that concept, if the jury thinks the accused was charged with the wrong crime or something similar, they can vote to acquit no matter what evidence was presented.
IMO lighting someone on fire is not OK.
Lessee, the woman’s son who was harmed was a rapist who assaulted a 13-year-old girl at knifepoint
The woman’s daughter who was harmed was an innocent 13-year-old girl …
:::singing an old Sesame Street tune::: One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not like the other …
No, it’s not the same. But to someone whose child has been murdered, the rage would be more intense than what the mother of the little girl felt.
Man, that’s sure a controversial stand you’re taking there. 
I doubt we need to worry overmuch about the mother of a 69-year-old man, but in general, I think you’ll find mothers of sons who have been deliberately burned to death might not be too inclined to ask if said sons deserved it.
I wasn’t talking about the mother’s feelings, I was talking about the moral basis for the two women’s hypothetical responses. The mother of the raped girl is in a far more just position than the mother of the rapist. Her daughter did nothing to deserve what was done to her. The rapist, well, he did some seriously evil stuff.
And, sure, you always love your kids in a basic sort of way. But I strongly suspect that if your kid goes out and rapes 13-year-old girls your feelings about the kid are … somewhat tempered. You can love a kid and still understand why someone might set fire to him.
Frex, Jeffrey Dahmer’s father wrote a book about what it’s like to love a son who’s committed outrages and subsequently was interviewed about it on NPR a few years ago. It was a striking interview. There was never any sense that he blamed the people who hated his son. He understood what they must have felt like. When your kids commit outrages, it tempers your feelings.
The original crime was morally wrong, but that doesn’t mean the child’s mother’s reaction is morally right or just. It doesn’t work that way. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and all…
I do agree, however, that the parent of “a child gone terribly wrong” can understand the rage people feel toward their child.
Yes but I’ll stand by it and burn to death anyone who disagrees with me using acid
All right, put down the vinegar.
Yup. If the encounter occured as the article says it did, I might well have reacted the same way in her position, and wouldn’t try to get out of the jail term nor regret my actions. I might enter a plea of temporary insanity or something similar, and perhaps hope that the judge would be lenient with his sentence, but I wouldn’t expect to just get away with it completely. I’d know that, well, you can’t just burn people to death and expect no punishment for it.
A society that said it was OK to burn rapists in some situations is most likely the same society that would condone rape in some situations, because if you can condone murder, why not rape?. I wouldn’t want to live in that society, nor would I want my daughter to live there.
@Lance: why do you think the raped girl wouldn’t even remember the rape?
I can understand why the woman would be tempted to do something like this when taunted by the man who raped her daughter.
But no matter my sympathy and understanding, that doesn’t give anyone license to burn people to death.
She needs to be arrested, and tried for the crime. Mitigate the sentence for some of the circumstances, sure. But don’t let her off with just a slap on the wrist. Not only do I object to vigilante justice, I also can’t help but think of the hazard she put other people to by using thrown gasoline for her accelerant. Unless she had a fire extinguisher at hand, I don’t see how she could have been assured that no one else, or no other structure, would be burned.
Fire is dangerous, and mercurial.
She needs to be punished. A gentle slap on the wrist ought to do it.
By “ok” I mean “won’t be tried or punished”. If people want to take the law into their own hands, they shouldn’t expect leniency from it.
“Just” doesn’t enter into it - revenge is entirely different from justice. One is perfectly capable of existing without the other.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I don’t understand why the woman wanted to set fire to the guy. It’s very easy to see that. I just think she shouldn’t have acted on such a thought.
Like Kalhoun mentioned above, it’s the whole “two wrongs don’t make a right” thing. It might make you feel better, on an animalistic level, but it is most certainly not moral.