Good Lord! I find myself in a position actually to the right of AWIMB's swivel-eyed-loon-in-chief.
I hold that certain crimes are so unforgivably heinous that only the chop will do. My critics at he dinner tables of leafy Buckinghamshire point at that it is a retributionist ideal that will always fail intellectual scrutiny and I agree wholeheartedly. The need for retribution, on those who have callously murdered your children for example, is primal and innate and is the seed of justice itself.
I doubt that the revolting bellicose **** Mladic would be bellowing from the dock in The Hague if he faced the rope.
It's not really, though, is it? It's fair to say that their adherence to the death penalty might also make them a wee bit callous in other areas of their society, don't you think? For instance...
Insulin.jpg
I don't know anything about Bulger's parents, other than the fact that his mum was distracted when he got snatched, which does seem rather unforgivable. I mean, you can sometimes lose track of the movements of a 4 or 5-year-old, but a two-year-old? Nah, you *always* have one eye on a two-year-old when out in public.
I agree about the desire for personal justice, but that is personal. Frankly, if someone takes personal vengeance for the murder of a child and kills the perpetrator, I for one would generally applaud them and hope they would be treated leniently by the judicial system. That, as you say, is a very natural right of justice that exists outside the law.
However, once you forego that option and leave it up to the state to enact justice on your behalf, you can basically fùck off as far as I'm concerned. At that point, your feelings no longer have anything to do with anything. It's just cold, dispassionate law.
Exactly. I remember kids at that age and the idea that you could lose track of them for more than a few seconds without going into panic mode seems unthinkable to me.
However, I'm sure her conscience has punished the poor woman enough for the last 24 years, so I'm not going to kick her.