Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
@AKA Smith
[Read the article: The question of self-defense in domestic violence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's a bit too dispassionate for my tastes to judge the seriousness of a crime based on how it impacts "society at large" rather than the victims.
One very popular method of making such determinations about "what's worse?" is to simply ask yourself which you'd prefer to have done to you.
You can't really talk about "genocide" as an individual victim--it's the same as murder in the singular. And I suspect you'll get different answers from time to time on questions like, "would you rather be raped or killed?"
But that is a pretty straightforward way to think about what crimes are the worst. In the case of kids (molestation), this probably won't work, because there's no way to judge whether the potential victims would properly understand the nature of the question.
-
Collateral
[Read the article: A sad day for Anglo-Saxon capitalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obviously some posters here really know about this stuff. So...I submit a chance to try to answer this dummy's questions...
How exactly does this financial crisis result in effects on the rest of society?
I have no house, no money, and no credit. Are prices going to go up? Are jobs going to be lost? How many, and whose?
If a huge number of people are going to be kicked out of their houses, they won't have to pay off those mortgages. So that's all just paper loss for investors, right?
Doesn't everyone rich eventually just wake up one day and realize they're not as rich as they thought they were, and get over it?
-
ok, fetboy
[Read the article: The question of self-defense in domestic violence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So I ask you; which one should we throw the key away on, the abused wife who killed her husband to prevent future abuse, or the sociopathic/psychopathic man who raped children without a conscience?
I don't favor throwing away the key on ANYONE, personally, in that I believe that human beings can change their behavior. If you're talking about people already convicted/imprisoned/released who then go on to commit similar crimes, I'd tolerate "throwing away the key," but only because someone already blew their chance at rejoining society.
And the abused woman who kills a man shouldn't be considered a "murderer" in the first place. See other posts here for my opinion on that--it goes back to self-defense. I'd suggest this person be charged with "justifiable homicide" and sentenced relatively lightly.
That should apply to any other self-defense case, too. If I kill a burglar in my apartment, and it turns out he was unarmed, I wouldn't want to be charged with murder, but rather "justifiable homicide," and out in 2 years. (Or whatever it turns out to be for that crime.)
I don't think anyone should have any "legal right" to vengeance, but I certainly understand it as motive. Hence, light sentences for abuse victims who kill their abusers, but certainly no pardons or commutations.
-
Better Approach: Standards Labeling
[Read the article: Opera's misguided antitrust charges against Microsoft]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just have the browsers evaluated by the standards board to determine whether they are "standards-compliant" or not.
IE isn't, and never will be, so it gets no "standards-compliant" label.
Opera shouldn't be worrying about the effective monopoly of Windows, they should be focused on making a better browser. (A better browser than Internet Exploder isn't much of a challenge, I admit.)
Just let people decide whether they want standards-compliant software, or if they want MS's "custom" crap.
Much cheaper, and likely more effective, than trying to sue MS.
-
@AKA Smith
[Read the article: The question of self-defense in domestic violence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I said: "If I kill a burglar in my apartment, and it turns out he was unarmed, I wouldn't want to be charged with murder, but rather "justifiable homicide," and out in 2 years. (Or whatever it turns out to be for that crime.)"
AKA Smith said: "Can you tell why you should charged with anything?"
Yeah. It would depend pretty dramatically on the circumstances whether I should be let free or not.
If a thief has broken into my home to steal my ...ok, I'll pretend I have a TV... and I catch him and kill him before he manages to run away, I have overreacted, and I deserve to be charged/tried just like anyone else.
This is NOT the same circumstance as if someone broke into my house and threatened me with a knife, and I kill him.
That second case is "self-defense." Killing a burglar isn't necessarily self-defense (he might just have left if I gave him the chance, for example), and if I screwed up, I'm perfectly willing to be subjected to prosecution.
BUT--the charge shouldn't be murder/manslaughter/whatever. It should be a "new" formulation of crime which applies in cases where the killing was predictably and justifiably motivated.
Simply: I don't agree with you AKA. I contend that if a woman is abused for years, then one night kills her abuser while he sleeps, she is guilty of a crime. BUT, that crime is not murder. It is "justifiable homicide," which would be a relatively light sentence if she were convicted.
If a woman is abused for years, and her abuser is approaching her to hit her, and she kills him, THAT is self-defense, and she need not be charged at all.
These are different cases, and I believe they should be treated differently by the court.