The "barbarian" includes all societies that fall under what I am arguing.
Who does the law protect more, Criminal or victim (victim's family if victim is murdered). In the event of a murder, should the person who commited the crime be sentenced to death (not he person convicted, I am only talking about the perpetrator, the convicted and perp might not always be the same person unfortunately), should it be the family that decides the punishment. Or should we the civilized ones always value life.
If they violate a persons right to life (and security) should their rights to life then be forfeit.
If a thief breaks a bone in the victims house should he/she be allowed to sue for unsafe work areas (they shouldn't be there in the first place).
Has the justice system gone to absolute pot, where "we" let a criminal get off on a technicality (warrant was not valid at time of search).
Should it not be black and white, he murdered him, his right to life is now forfeit (If it was in defense then obviously it is another ball game, he protected his life by killing he person trying to kill him [would you try convince your killer that you have a right to life while he/she is squeezing the trigger]) just because you have the right to it, it doesn't mean that someone will not try take from you.
Yes these are extremes, but it is just for a point.
To me law should be of the victims choice, within reason, you cannot ask for the persons life in return for them taking your brand shiny new TW game from your hand/car. Let the community carry out the punishment, would you not be scared witless if you knew that you would lose your manhood if a you raped someone and you were found out.
Yes, I know, Eye for an eye and the world would be blind. Would you blind a person if you knew that it would happen to you if you were caught. (Everyone makes mistakes sooner or later, Hannibal, Achilles, Julius Caeser, everyone messed up sooner or later).
So what Are your views
Bookmarks