In cases as gruesome and public as this, the National Interest is to make a public spectacle of the punishment in order to prevent copycats. This is the utilitarian justification for public execution.
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
1
I'm not saying this is wrong, and frankly I don't give a shit about some shitlib from Massachusetts. But people need to be clearer in their message. Just say you want her convicted to make normie foids who make stuff up shut up.
Replies
1
Every criminal can be represented as a poor soul who was misunderstood. But of course we know from experience that accepting this argumentation is NOT harm-reducing whatsoever.
I think a better question is whether we're better off for EVER tolerating a "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense. If someone commits murder because they're insane, perhaps they'd better be treated like a rabid dog.
If "not guilty by reason of insanity" is justifiable, then we should have data to show that insane murderers become beneficial members of society once they gEt ThE tReAtMeNt ThEy NeEd.
And if "not guilty by reason of insanity" is a reliable defense, then there is no longer law...
So I think it comes down to this: If you are not willing to burn witches for civilization, then you do not deserve civilization.
I think a better question is whether we're better off for EVER tolerating a "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense. If someone commits murder because they're insane, perhaps they'd better be treated like a rabid dog.
If "not guilty by reason of insanity" is justifiable, then we should have data to show that insane murderers become beneficial members of society once they gEt ThE tReAtMeNt ThEy NeEd.
And if "not guilty by reason of insanity" is a reliable defense, then there is no longer law...
So I think it comes down to this: If you are not willing to burn witches for civilization, then you do not deserve civilization.