Saturday, January 15, 2011



Here's one I really don't get. Some guy murders another guy, then goes to court and pleads "insanity".

Huh? How does that work? I mean, don't you have to be insane in the first place to murder someone?

While I'm thinking about it, what's the deal with this "crimes of passion" malarkey? OK, murderer "A" gets the maximum penalty because they prove in court that he "planned" to murder some poor schmoe. Murderer "B" gets off easy because they prove he just all of a sudden went off the deep end and started blasting away.

I mean, what possible difference would it make if you "planned" to murder someone or just got a wild hair? For that matter, why would society enact laws which are more lenient for people who are "insane" and tend to start shooting at the drop of a pin? Shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, if the aim of our justice system is to "rehabilitate" people, wouldn't it be better to start out with a sane person who plans ahead instead of some whack job who doesn't even know what day it is?

One more thing. How come most of the time when a murderer causes death they sentence him to life? This makes no sense to me.

Now I assure you I'm not a big revenge guy. But doesn't it seem a little ridiculous that when some creep murders somebody they turn around and "punish" him by giving him three squares a day and a warm bed to sleep in for the rest of his life? Wouldn't it make better sense to let Hell foot the bill for the dude's room and board rather than the American tax payer?

If you've got an explanation for any of this, I'd love to hear it.


No comments:

Post a Comment