This is a genuine question.

I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.

P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.

And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.

  • stiephelando@discuss.tchncs.de
    321·
    20 days ago

    Yes, in a rule-of-law state a fair trial with a just outcome is mandatory. You can’t just go around and kill people. If he lost a loved one to unfair practices of the insurance, that needs to be taken into account during trial.

    The best example for a justice system working is a case we had in Germany in the 70s. A child rapist and murderer was shot in court by the mother during trial. She was then prosecuted but didn’t have to go to jail due to the circumstances of the case. Her being tried and prosecuted means the case was closed without any loophole having to be used.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      92·
      20 days ago

      Sadly, we don’t live in a fair rule-of-law state in the US, so if they go to trial that’s probably not how this will go. If the justice system were fair the assassin never would have needed to do what he did in the first place. Until the justice system is repaired, I don’t think this person should face a trial. It wouldn’t be fair.