Larry the Legend wrote:
How she justifies her decision to her children is her issue. Maybe her children would agree that the payment is equitable and maybe not. That would be for them to argue with their mother and not for outsiders to judge.
[“So this guy is smart enough to amass a sizeable fortune but too stupid to pay someone else to do his dirty work for him.”]
No need to bring someone else into the picture and risk getting caught that way when they already have the perfect plan. He does the deed intending to get caught. That’s the beauty of the scam. Plus we don’t know where he got his fortune. He could be an idiot who inherited it from parents who bought his way into an elite university.
[“This is not about what you agree or disagree with but what a hypothetical victim considers equitable. You can cite 'need' or 'greed' as factors influencing a given decision, and rightly so, but you do not get to make the determination because you are not the victim.”]
Exactly. That is your premise: The victim decides, and each victim sees punishment from a different perspective. Each victim gets to decide what reparations will ease their pain. I get that. Again, my point is that this is not equal justice under the law. People of wealth would most likely get preferential treatment because they have something to offer. And, of course, some bleeding heart victims might not be able to bring themselves to mete out the punishment they think is truly deserved because they are merciful.
[“I don't know about you, but if I were affluent, and someone in my position was stripped to the level of pauper, I'd be suitably deterred from making the same mistake, for sure. Starting all over again from scratch is not my idea of 'fun.” .... “Sure would make him sit up and pay attention, wouldn’t it?”]
What you or I might do or not do doesn’t apply to everyone. I wouldn’t kill someone over a noise disturbance to begin with. So whether or not that individual would “sit up and pay attention” and not “make the same mistake again” because of what that type of behavior had cost him is anyone’s guess. It could cause him to escalate and do more damage. And, if he does kill again, then yes, I do believe the widow is partly responsible because he would not otherwise have been returned back into society. She chose money instead.
[“Saying that 'he now will receive his just punishment because he cannot buy his way out again' infers that he was not punished justly on the first offence, but you do not make that determination.”]
Under your plan, yes, it is true that I do not get to make that determination. That is why I disagree with it. I want to rule!