mustangdriver wrote:
Let me tell you what justice is. A guy is put in jail in Pittsburgh for a killing a woman. 13 years later through DNA testing it is found that he is innocent. THey let him out of jail. The next day, he killed the person that really did it. That my friends is justice.
I have thought hard about this story and I just can't see what point you are making. So I have to ask:
1. Your story ends with two people murdered and one guy who served 13 years for a murder he didn't commit and now must go back to prison for a murder he did commit. Two lives ended plus one wrecked. How exactly is this a good outcome?
2. I searched for this story to find out what happened to the guy who did the second murder, but couldn't find any indication that it really happened. Is it from a comic book? Urban legend?
3. If PA had the death penalty and administered it efficiently, the prisoner might have been executed before he could get out of jail to murder the real murderer. Would that have been better or worse than the outcome you described?
4. Since the "real" murderer was apparently never convicted, what you really mean was that the guy killed the guy
who he thought was the real murderer. Would it be okay if he got it into his head that
you were the real murderer?
5. Seems to me the innocent guy's beef was against the state that wrongly imprisoned him, not the real murderer. Shouldn't he instead have murdered the D.A. who prosecuted him, or perhaps the judge, or the jurors? That would be like a John Grisham novel I once read.
6. Your parable doesn't seem to be an argument for capital punishment, but rather for -- what? Vigilantism? Anarchy?
Lord of the Flies?
August