We have sorted out 2 things. My bio for a poetry blog and my thoughts about the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris.
Sarah loves going to readings and absolutely adores all the chat afterwards. She blogs at (here).
It is about 3 things.
1 What counts as a crime in each country and what counts as the various levels of crime? This shifts.
2 What kind of punishments do we agree are given and what limits do we have to the punishments we impose? This shifts with time.
3 The relationship between the 2 concepts, what punishment is allocated to what crime? This shifts over time too.
So here we do not have capital punishment, however we do have unintentional killings by armed police at the time of the crime or afterwards. We also have unexplained deaths in police custody. Those are not actions I have ever voted for. They need to be reduced to zero.
Does the permission to behave in ways which are offensive degrade the whole culture? Of course. But how to limit jokes in bad taste and the casual cruelties of communal life? Do they act as lightning conductors to release tension and prevent something worse, or do we collectively think we can't handle the responsibility of improving our communal life and throw up our hands at that point?
Is it better overall to know that we do not have the death penalty and are able to react as a community relatively calmly to very bad behaviour? I suppose I agree with that. It holds up a standard of calmness and professionalism for me to aspire to.