Flaws in Laws

[greenintp]

Why are the most serious sentences for killing another person?

Why are sentences not based on the amount of pain, suffering and terror one endured up until the time of their death? The death itself could carry a mandatory sentence. I'm sure a person that was shot once in the back of the head (without warning) did not suffer like a person that is severely tortured and abused for years until their merciful death or, their rescue.

[greenintp]

I agree, it does.

Why doesn't the pain , suffering and terror affect so many? I believe it does. People just don't know how to recognize the effects of it. Ignorance is bliss. People only care when someone dies, not about how they lived.


I wouldn't know, but killing just one person affects many.

[Edit] Paul Cooijman has written an interesting article (http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/essay/crime.htm) about this very thing.

[Claverhouse]

Why are the most serious sentences for killing another person?

Why are sentences not based on the amount of pain, suffering and terror one endured up until the time of their death? The death itself could carry a mandatory sentence. I'm sure a person that was shot once in the back of the head (without warning) did not suffer like a person that is severely tortured and abused for years until their merciful death or, their rescue.

Because to make these value-judgements and then to graduate the penalty accordingly, one would have to sentence the offender to suffer tortures, since between imprisonment and a quick death there are no additional penalties possible.

Therefore, since we are not equipped to make these distinctions, and since it is wrong to use torture as a penalty, no matter how evil the perpetrator: sentencing them to a quick death covers everything needful.



Claverhouse :ph34r: