Note Well:
This blog is intended for rational audiences. Its contents are the personal opinions of its author. If you quote from this blog, which you
may do with attribution, please assume personal accountability for any consequences of mischaracterizing these expressed intentions.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Cruel? Unusual? Appropriate?

Woman stole and killed pet goat in mock Satanic ritual:
Arnold's lawyer told the Brisbane Magistrates Court yesterday that his client did not have a "macabre disposition" but that when she drank alcohol, she made poor decisions.
Indeed.

The American Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but this prohibition derives from the earlier English Bill of Rights 1689. Perhaps our Third Millennium society needs to revisit this eminent concept.

The wording is, undoubtedly, intentionally vague so as to provide ample leeway for judicial discretion to protect against sadistic human ingenuity. But people, attributing such vile abrogation of accountability to "alcoholic misjudgment?" Break me a f*cking give. I think the time has come to update the eminent prohibition with an equally vague discretionary exception: appropriate.
An Australian woman who stole a goat and was involved in slaughtering it in a mock Satanic ritual in a church has been ordered to apologise to the church and the pet's owners.
Apologise. What would be an appropriate apology? I would love to be on the jury charged with suggesting an appropriate form of apology. Wouldn't you? I invite your appropriate ideas via comments to this post.

1 comment:

  1. I'm glad to read she was required to pay the owners for their goat. She should also be charged with theft and given appropriate punishment for that offense.

    ReplyDelete