🚀 go-pugleaf

Jon <asterix@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:8c2oq4$p08$1@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu...
> mred (mred@netrover.com) wrote:
>
> : Nobody forced him to drink . nobody forced him to drive. He did both of
his
> : own free will, and now three innocents are dead.
>
> Assuming he is (normally) a rational individual, that is a pretty nasty
> punishement, knowing that you, through your own negligence, caused the
> deaths of 3 innocent people.  But, society must administer it's own
> justice as well...  You must face the consequences for your actions as
> dictated by society (read laws and justice).
>
> :  I don`t understand your thinking about these murders and that`s what
they
> : are , regardless of how you try and cloak them in respectability,
because he
> : was drinking.
>
> :  If you kill you should be killed unless self-defence.
>
> Youch.  How do you define "kill"?  I am sure that it can be warped
> horribly to mean that if you are a doctor, trying to save someone's life,
> but the scalpel just so happens to slip, and you just so happen cut
> something that shouldn't necessarily be cut, though under normal
> circumstances would not kill a person, however, due to the advanced nature
> of the patience illness does kill the patient, then should the doctor
> die?  By your statement, the answer is a resounding YES.  Well, I got some
> news for you:  there won't be any surgeons left in the world if that
> happens.
>
> Lets say you are driving home from the car dealer's in a brand new
> car.  On the way home, you hit a large nail, or a field of nails.  Your
> car skids out of control (no more tire left on any of the wheels), and you
> spin off into oncoming traffic, hitting another car.  Let's say that that
> other car's passengers are unbelted, they fly through their windshield and
> are decapitated (which usually results in death).  Now, should you be
> ckilled because you caused the accident that killed the other
> passengers?  or should the person that left the nails on the road be held
> responsible and be killed?

Strictly Rhetorical. You didn`t put the nails on the road so you would not
be liable, If you were drinking and drove is a different scenario.



> If you kill then you should be killed is just society approved
> murder.  Who kills the killer of the original killer?  They have taken a
> life, and not in self defence.  Smacks of barbarism.. :)

sounds more like justice to me


> : Too bad it wasn`t members of your immediate family he offed. You would
sing
> : a different tune then.
>
> Revenge always clouds judgment.  If he were to kill a family member, you
> are darned sure that I would be angry and upset.  However, I wouldn't want
> that other guy's blood on my shoulders.  I would want society to
> administer proper justice.  Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth, eh?  That
> isn't justice, that is revenge.

Nothing wrong with revenge.It is the ultimate justice.

ed.ontario.kanada