re: How did this sorry, low life pos, only get 15 yrs

quote:

---

My take on it with contact with victims and their families, from professional as opposed to personal experience, is that in the case of the victim the homicide victim is worse off because they are dead. In the case of a child homicide victim I would say the family suffers most because although the family will eventually cope with the death (and some cope better than others) the loss of the child leaves a void in their lives which can never be filled.

In the case of sexual assault victims and their families, though both are to some degree going to be scarred for life, with counseling and support they are able and do for the most part resume productive lives. In this specific case there is a post to that effect. In other words they are able to continue their lives with whatever conditions that may remain with them throughout their lives as a result of their victimization.

Both situations are horrible, and one should not be minimized to the detriment of the other, but what has been expressed to me time and again, and what I have observed as well, is that there is no pain like that which accompanies a parent's loss of a child and that's the case whether it is premeditated murder or whether the child is killed by a drunk driver. I have been told in so many words by the parents (by expression and not directed at me) that I cannot truly comprehend their loss and I cannot for it has not happened to me; I can only relate to others what has been conveyed to me.

I do not want to spark an abortion debate on here but in that case as well as in the case of crime victimization at least the question can and should be asked whether it is better to have no chance at life (or no chance to continue life) or a chance to have a life (or to continue life) with whatever consequences, negative or positive, that flow from living it?

---