Because a serial killer raises two questions:
1) How many deaths by a criminal - a repeat offender evidently addicted to murdering fellow human beings) - warrants similar punishment (if any)?
2) If none, in other words if government and police allow criminals back on the streets (for whatever reason), or if law and order simply cannot solve or contain such wanton criminality, when does vigilantism (a la Batman) become a logical last form of defence/resistance? Never?
If your position is that capital punishment is wrong no matter what, then you have to have something in place to contain the criminal who, because he remains alive, continues (or potentially continues) to exact an increasing toll of lives. The person who defends a serial killer's right to life eventually becomes culpable for the lives subsequently lost - where, for example, the serial killer was jailed temporarily and then released - something that it is quite common.
Seven women and a man were killed by the same handgun in a three-year period starting August 1985. The women had been sexually assaulted and their bodies were often dumped in the same alley in South Los Angeles. - Yahoo
|
No comments:
Post a Comment