I'm torn.
Yes, I believe that woman murdered her children.
I'm also aware that government lies to get the verdict it wants. My belief that she did it, based on hearing that she confessed and that there's plenty of evidence, is only that: a belief. I wasn't there, so I can't know for certain- and I never will.
I still believe she did it, for what that's worth.
Yes, I believe she is/was insane. Insane, but guilty. I don't believe insanity or hormonal issues absolve a person of responsibility for their archation.
If that were the case, a lot of convicted and admitted rapists should get a new trial since testosterone is sometimes called the violence hormone.
I'm in favor of jury nullification. I think it applies when you believe the person did what they are accused of, but "laws" prohibiting the action are illegitimately prohibiting something every individual has a natural right to do. I don't believe that fits in this case because no one has a right to kill their defenseless offspring.
I also believe a government court is the least credible place to seek justice. They are designed to punish, not to provide justice. Those children will never receive justice by caging ot killing the woman who killed them. Justice is out of reach; it's not an option here.
I wouldn't mind too much if every jury trial resulted in a mistrial to demonstrate the absurdity of the ritual. Of course, if government can't get the outcome it seeks through a jury trial, I expect they'll dispense with that in the small percentage of cases that still go that route. They'll skip right to the punishment phase. Maybe a jury trial complicates this.
As always, I'm against imprisonment, partly because it is funded by theft, thus leaving the victim victimized twice. Also, because it is Crime University. Third, because it is too easy to use for political purposes. Plus, it doesn't provide restitution, but punishment.
I would much rather leave bad guys out among the general population, who are completely aware of what they did. Don't attack them to punish them, but watch them (not with government spyware, though, since that isn't public), and if they try to violate anyone else, they (like the others who do the same) would likely be Darwinized from a free society. That's usually the best outcome, even if some think it's harsh. Otherwise, as long as they never archate again, leave them alone.
As always, there's a possibility that I'm completely wrong in my views on this case and everything else.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?
How come you are exactly right, and 'most everyone else is dead wrong?
ReplyDeleteRight again Ken. The only thing guilt or innocence for any specific act depends on is if the accused actually committed the specific act. Extenuating circumstances are only relevant in determining the response to that action. Governments do not administer a ‘justice’ system but only a ‘law and order system in which ‘justice’ is rarely even intentional and usually absent or at best accidental. I concur that true justice is most often the result of a victimized individuals exercise of their natural right to self-defense during any potential assault or robbery. The States ‘law & order’ solely serves its interest in power and control; in rulership.
ReplyDelete