Proportional? Lex talionus? This is simple, primitive vengeance, not tailored to repair the psychopathology of the offender, but to assuage the ire of the offended, and perhaps deter crime through fear of consequences. Compassion plays no part in your objective justice.
In your opinion. Compassion plays ZERO part in your skewed perspective. Evidenced by your repeatedly miscategorizing any regard for the families over the murderers as "anger" "hate" etc. Which is not remotely true, you're simply repeating a falsehood. But you have to miscategorize it in order to sound "compassionate".
I notice you consistently ignore the question, "Where is the compassion for her victims and their families". How about answering that question? Where is your compassion for them,
they are part of the society that's somehow going to benefit from her release. Tell me how this benefits them. Please, I am genuinely interested in an explanation.
Where is compassion for the victims and their families? Unless and until you actually address that, your argument is hollow.
Indulging the retributive anger of the offended by hurting the offender is not what I'd call either just or compassionate. Hurting a second person in retribution for the original hurt just multiplies the total hurt, and would please only the compassion-challenged. It would not repair the harm done.
Again, not anger. Again you deny any legitimacy to the victims and base your argument on falsifying the underlying reasons that oppose your opinion. Not all harm can be repaired but that doesn't mean justice needs to be sidelined and a person absolved of their responsibility to pay their debt.
Harming the offender does not benefit the offended. It indulges their vindictiveness and primitive sense of "you hurt me so I'll hurt you." This is a child's level of morality.
Who said anything about harming her? How is holding her fully accountable for her actions "harm"? Her tribulations are her own doing. She put herself in that situation, she chose to hold down Rosemary LaBianca as she tried to get to her husband whom she could hear pleading for his life as he was being brutalized. She chose to put the pillowcase over Rosemary's head and tie it with a lamp cord. She chose to hold Rosemary down so Krenwinkel could stab her. She chose to call Watson in so he could attack Rosemary with a bayonet. She chose to take the knife Watson gave her and stab Rosemary 30 times. But somehow it's harming
her to say her crimes forfeit freedom in society? Unbelievable.
No
This is Jesus' take on justice: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Matthew (5:38-42)
And Gandhi's: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Well, when Jesus and Gandhi take over the legal system, I'll be more than happy to hear their take on civic law. If we had an eye for an eye, she would have been deleted decades ago and in as brutal a fashion as how she killed others. I'll point out yet again the other cheek was turned when her sentence was commuted. By your stance, no one should ever be held accountable nor made to atone for their actions since it'll "harm" them. smh
Your 'compassion' seems like deliberately hurtful retribution. Any benefit to the offended must need be feeding his vindictiveness.
My position is compassionate and utilitarian.
Your position is anything but compassion nor is it utilitarian and is for anyone other than the parties that actually should have it. If she managed to make herself useful in prison then she would best serve society by staying there and continuing to do so. Perhaps help someone convicted of lesser offenses to change their ways lest they end up like her and find a way to contribute to society upon
their release.
