Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Thoughts for the day (warning: extremely random)

When does wanting justice shift to revenge?

This crossed my mind as I read an article about a woman whose daughter was killed in a car accident and the driver of the car - who was intoxicated - left the country, returning to her native Peru, thus avoiding prosecution.

The driver was a college friend of the girl who was killed. A group of them had been out partying, and the driver was drunk. The accident killed one girl, paralyzed another. The penalty that was in plea bargaining negotiations was for manslaughter, which the mother wanted to reject.

I understand all of this - the mother's feelings, the outrage that this girl (now woman) is back in Peru and facing no consequences for her actions - she did kill someone (extradition did not cover her specific crime). But I also know her daughter was in the car and had also been drinking. Underage. Had she been the one behind the wheel, would the mother feel the same way?

I'm not suggesting people should get away with drunk driving - we need to educate our kids better, and penalties need to be stiff. But I'm just curious about the mother's motivation.

And while I'm at it, why is the death penalty seen as justice? Isn't it more about revenge? I am surprised at how many Christians I know are all for executing criminals, when the Bible I read seems to stress forgiveness ...

Further, I'm not blaming Mitt Romney for the ex-con who killed two people, just because he was furloughed (or released or paroled or whatever) by a judge who was appointed by Romney; I am not going to hold him personally responsible. If he were using his crystal ball then OK, he's to blame. My guess is we're all human and tragedies happen - if we could all act differently and make amends I'm sure we all would - who hasn't made a decision that in retrospect may not have been the best one? Yes, this one is more tragic, but as I said, I'm sure it was unintentional. Should someone pay? The criminal, sure. But how high do we want to go? Should we hold responsible all the voters who put Romney into office? His campaign manager?

Hillary (does she even need a last name?) is in town today. (It's Clinton, in case you're not sure.) I am not going. I kind of wanted to hear her speak, but I'm on the fence about her. I don't hate her, don't even mind her. But she isn't my No. 1 choice at the moment. And seeing/hearing her was going to require a hefty donation, and I'm not sure I'm prepare to shell out that sort of money for her. Yet.

I was, naturally, flattered to get a personal invitation. But I'm not so deluded that I think I'm really that special - please, anyone they thought might pay got one, I'm sure. But I can pretend, just for a moment, that they went to only an elite few.

And for my final thought: Thank GOD that Marie Osmond got booted off first last night. Dancing with the Stars - sorry. At first, I thought she was fun to watch. But she began to get on my nerves. I watched her on Larry King and she bugged the hell out of me - she is all about not taking any responsibility for what goes wrong in her life. The twice-divorced Ms. Osmond said, If only her parents could rear all the men in the world ... OK, I get it - you are divorced - twice - because the men are to blame. You are without fault. Nice. Spoiled brat, more like it.

And on DWTS, she could not accept criticism graciously - she would defy the judges, saying, I refuse to accept that. Excuse me? And as one blogger pointed out, I do not want to hear her say, I'm a doll designer! I'm nearly 50! or I have 50 kids! ever, ever again. Good riddance!

And even worse, people who watched that show live had to endure Celine Dion singing not once, but TWICE! Thank goodness for TiVo ...

Happy Wednesday, all!

No comments: