Jul 9th, 2003, 05:11 PM
There are various shades of crimes Max, but in general, I believe they fall into two categories: The majority of laws are engineered to protect individuals from direct interference with their lives, the rest are to protect people from themselves. There are many laws which fall into neither category, and others that fall somewhere in between, but for the sake of argument allow me to work with this assumption for I am only concerned with the former cases at the moment, the latter is in deed of revising.
I maintain the government has no right to protect a person from themself -wearing a motorcycle helmet, drug use et cetera ad infinitum. Now, when it comes to acts which interfere with others, murder, theft, rape, battery assault and the like, the government must protect the innocent from such predation. What purpose does government, on a state, local or federal level, exist but to maintain the secuirty and peace of its own society?
Does this man deserve life for spitting? No, but he has earned it for a burtal way of life which has adversely affected the public around him. Why is it his right to freedom is more valuable than the publics right to security Burbank? I really don't see it.
Crime of this sort is cruel, its very nature is predatory or abusive, depending upon how one views the beating of a spouse. It is also unusual, and God help us when it ceases to be so, therefore the ramifications must likewise be equally severe. Mankind does not possess an inherent morality, there is no better nature in people one can appeal to. The hand of justice must be swift, unwavering and firm.
|