I wouldn't want to force the family to take that third step. I'd want to do whatever it is that gives them the best closure possible under the circumstances. But more importantly I just don't want the government to do it.
They don't want to? Then the state does it. I'm willing to let them join in the process if they want, in a small but noticeable way.The state sentences and tries him. It should have most of the hand in killing, otherwise there's a disconnect between sending someone off to die versus actually killing him. Whoever determines punishment needs to be aware of the gravity of their decision. Letting someone else zip up the body bag is a cop-out on that end. If the gov't does the catching and trial, they do most of the killing or at least set it up for someone else to spike it home.
If the wronged get to do the killing, then they do sentencing and trial. I'd maybe let them out of the "catching" part (I'd actually prefer they didn't do that). This is not a multi-party process in this case; the Batman shooter couldn't help but be brought up on charges even if none of the victims' families pressed them. One group of people in chief make the push and follow through. No disconnect. As much as people get sent to death row, some rightfully don't deserve to be there. You'd need to assume there will be fuck-ups because sometimes previously unknown witnesses keep their mouths shut until their deathbeds or somebody finds a lost evidence bag from an ancient storeroom. Wrongly sending someone off to a mob makes it too easy to wash one's hands after that. "Hey, it's not like I killed him, I just made it possible for some other pissed off person to do so." You make the decision, you live with the consequences, be it the state or the wronged.
I submit human beings are too easily goaded into being overly harsh for no rational reason to be trusted to dispense punishment in general without an emotional stake in something, let alone under duress. Your brain is not working properly in that state. It's difficult enough to figure out a sane punishment when the convicted dude shot someone you don't know. If you want irrational justice, then fuck jury trials, fuck the state, and fuck the government courts entirely. All in or all out.
Edited By Malcolm on 1355795248
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
You make the decision, you live with the consequences, be it the state or the wronged.
That's the problem, the state never lives with the consequences, at least not in the way you mean it here. At most if some state official loses his stomach for the job, then someone else takes over. At worst the state starts to write off killing citizens as a bureaucratic nuisance and finds more efficient ways to do the paperwork so they can do more of it without bothering about citizen's rights.
As you say, leaving the ultimate fate up to someone who doesn't have a personal stake in the matter can be messy. Leaving it up to the wronged (once an impartial jury and judge have ruled guilty and enough severity in the matter to justify it) makes more sense to me.
This sounds like something we will not be agreeing on.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Taking this thread back to the WBC, did you notice that the KKK has been counter-protesting them?
How fucked do you have to be when the KKK says, "You fuckers are crazy"?
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
That's the problem, the state never lives with the consequences, at least not in the way you mean it here.
There's a change that needs to occur. If you're willing to sentence someone to death and finish them off, that means you're willing to put your name on a line that says, "I contributed to ending someone's life." If you're wrong in your findings, and the executed is later proven to be innocent, then you've got the potential to answer for some portion of the murder. If you don't have the balls to state that, then you've got no biz sending someone off to die or killing them.
As you say, leaving the ultimate fate up to someone who doesn't have a personal stake in the matter can be messy.
Proper punishment isn't an easy thing to decide, even when you don't have anything in the game. If you do, you're in an even lesser state of rationality.
How fucked do you have to be when the KKK says, "You fuckers are crazy"?
I'm just going to assume the WBC showed up to a military funeral and tried to start shit. I can't imagine the KKK showing up to a pride parade or something. But that is fucking out there.
Edited By Malcolm on 1355855930
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."