Is compensation justice?
A Japanese millionaire has been found not guilty of murdering the British woman, Lucie Blackman - who died 7 years ago.
In the trial jurors where shown 100s of home-made videos of the defendant, Joji Obara, raping other women; heard how he had been with Lucie on the day she died and that her body was found on his estate.
In the same trial he was convicted of nine other rapes (one resulting in a death, source) but not of murdering Lucie.
Unjust perhaps? Until you find out, prior to the verdict, Lucie’s father accepted nearly half a million pounds in compensation (source).
Was this blood money the reason Obara was found not guilty of Lucie’s murder?
If so, by accepting the money has the father greedily stood in the way of justice for his daughter?
No, he hasn’t.
The monetary and psychological cost of the last 7 years to the Blackman family has been high. By imagining that justice is a conviction and prison sentence, we take an archaic and simplistic view.
Given the facts, Obara is most likely the murderer and he is in prison. And the family have probably received more compensation than if he had been found guilty of her murder.
Ask yourself, what would Lucie have wanted?
So, penguin island is left thinking once again: with prison numbers at an all time high, surely there is a better way of deterrent justice than the retributive and utilitarian form of steel bars?
END
See Lucie Blackman Trust
Ask Rachel North about Compensation and 7/11
Read about the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission
2 comments:
I agree. That is a well thought out point. The rich should be able to buy their own justice.
He he, not in this case though, he's still going down for nine rapes.
Reminds me of Wacko Jacko, "who's bad"?
I think the point is more about prison not being a suitable form of justice, not that money should be able to buy it.
But you knew that anyway.
Post a Comment