Saturday, June 26, 2010

Two killers will be plenty young enough to kill again when they get out! What were the DA & judge thinking?


hannah said...

Intent is an important component of the criminal law -- the intent to deprive someone else of something of value for one's own use. That's why the members acting on behalf of a corporation are rarely considered guilty of crime, regardless of the injury or public harm that results from their behavior.
In the instant case, it's quite likely that the intent to do anything -- i.e. make a plan and carry it out -- is entirely lacking and the individuals relied on instinctive predatory behavior. Predation is a behavior which remains as a default, when the capacity to engage in trade and exchange is missing.
How does social behavior end up missing in humans? That's a good question.

Jay Moreno said...

That must be comforting to the victim's relatives - to know that there was no mens rea involved, just animal instincts.

hannah said...

The comfort of relatives is not the object of the law. Under our system, the taking of a human life is reserved to the state. Consequently, the taking of a life by a non-agent of the state, is considered an insult to the state, deserving of punishment, depending on the gravity of the insult. Which is why "manslaughter" is only lightly punished and "accidental" killings that aren't associated with another crime (insult) aren't punished at all.
Relatives may believe the state is exacting retribution on their behalf and preserving them from the effort, but what people believe is not necessarily what is.
Personally, I would like to see all anti-social persons permanently restrained. But, that's not how our system works. Besides, anti-social individuals have long been relied on to provide an example of what happens to people who aren't adequately "protected." If there's no threat to individual security, there's no role for the "protectors" is there.

Think of hunters and herders. Both kill for their dinner, sooner or later.