Hello all,
I just read up the the Homolka case. Justice, or more pertinently punishment for a capital crime, is rarely ever going to be satisfying. I don't think it's even possible. I am not arguing here for or against the death penalty, but there is no way the death of another person is going to compensate for the death of a loved one. At best justice in such cases is fair payback, nothing more. The original loss is permanent and endlessly painful no matter what you do to the killer.
So Karla Homolka served 12 years being sentenced before new evidence proved she deserved the "ultimate penalty." No it's not enough. But would it be enough if she had been ripped apart by horses, hanged-drawn-quartered, burned at the stake??? And for whom? You? Is it you who is supposed to receive justice or the family? How can the family be compensated for the loss of a loved one, especially a child, no matter what the execution of the killer?
You can call it justice, and in this case execution probably would be, but all you are really arguing about is keeping the score even between killers and victims. That would be fine, but it's not to be in this case and there is no use wishing otherwise. At least some significant time was served, not enough for us, but significant. Remember there are a lot of murderers out there who serve no time. That won't make anyone feel better about this result, but there was some lesser measure of justice rather than none.
Those of you advocating and pining for the Chinese system of justice should remember the situation is often the reverse when they are more likely to execute innocent people, often without what we consider a legal process or rights of the accused, to compensate for a murder so they can say they brought justice whether they executed a guilty person or not.
Cheers,
Merlot