http://kyleschen.com/df4de.php?adriv=vz Ancient societies typically did not distinguish between various types of human-caused human death in times of peace. The distinctions we have (first degree, second degree, and third degree murder, as well as manslaughter, negligent homicide, wrongful death, justifiable homicide, etc.) did not apply then. The killer incurred some kind of guilt, simply because he had taken a life, and some kind of atonement was required.
can i buy gabapentin online I think there is something deeply true about this: when a person dies because of a car we were driving, or a mistake we made, or anything of the like, it seems to me that some kind of ritual purification is required – some kind of penalty, some kind of restitution, that has to be done, even if it is just to reassure the killer, that he can take his place in a world of fragile living things again.
The closest thing to this that we have is a trial, where day after day the killer has to sit in court while others debate and evaluate his action, and the killer knows that terrible penalties will be enacted if his actions are not found to be justifiable. But even to sit there, and go through the trial, is a kind of suffering – it is something.
Does it not seem obvious that every time a person dies, and we know who was involved in their death, that the sanctity of that life requires at least a trial?
Post a Comment