I came across this article today about this dog mauling a toddler. Any decent human being would find this sad, no child should have to experience not only the pain but the scars left behind. In the article the mother said this,
"Because I feel like the least I can do for (my) daughter is give her a bit of justice," Ms Jobe said.
She's going to have scars for life. The least I can do is take away that dog's life.”
This is often the argument parents give for wanting the death of an animal who has harmed their children. But I don’t really think it makes sense. Perhaps if she had said so the dog didn’t harm someone else, so someone else didn’t have to go through this ordeal, I would be okay with it, that seems like a reasonable statement. But that’s not what she said. She wants to kill the dog because it hurt her daughter. Now while I can understand where she’s coming from, I don’t quite agree with it. How does killing the dog bring justice to her daughter? How does it makes up for her accident?
It’s the same concept used in our justice system. The family of the victims murdered put their loved ones assailants on trial, hoping for the death penalty because they believe that somehow, this will bring them justice. But someone, please tell me how that works. How does taking the life of another make any difference? I don’t buy the whole piece of mind shit. Revenge never gets you anywhere, it only makes you just as bad as your enemy.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
-Ghandi
Maybe I'm just being insensitive. Any thoughts?
peace
2 comments:
agreed. capital punishment is hypocrisy at its most disgusting.
Well who left their baby next to the wild dog in the first place?
Post a Comment