Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fire
on the one hand, I find it somewhat just that this man will serve as a warning to the pedophiles of cleveland, on the other it seems a bit harsh as he had no direct contact with the child- obviously the people who did the beating are not bright bulbs on the tree- looks like a double warning, against drunken stupidity, and perverts- no one wins, and everyones life is ruined.... even, probably, the kids.......
|
agreed, having her mother put to jail is probably worse for the kid than having a guy look at while asleep. from an utilitarian stand point, the "pervert" didn't hurt anyone by looking at the girl; though his sexual preference may have driven him ultimately to cause harm the little girl and to many, including me, his action is sickening, at the time of his death, he has yet caused any harm but perhaps to himself mentally (if we define his sexual preference as a problem). Furthermore, if you DO believe that one has the right to harm another because of his/her "problems" or that justice should be served, than killing another man is never justified under that belief. To harm another for his/her problem should only be to help him/her. to condemn someone for a "harmless" problem, I believe, is not correct. (harmless in a liberalterian way). I am in no way promoting peeking on another person, especially a defendless/innocent girl, but either way put, you cannot kill him for it.