Widow Testifies at a Military Court

[--Pete]

Well, hi, Shadow,

There are two problems with that analysis. First, you have conflated American inner city gang violence with the the conditions of warfare.

Not that much difference between the two for the people living there.

And secondly your facts are in error. There are thousands in his situation. I wish that were not so.

Actually, my facts are not in error. We are not talking about a child abducted from his family and forced to become a soldier. That is what that report is about. That condition is terrible, but not pertinent to this case. This case is more like the 'child' terror bombers that walk into a crowded place with a body bomb and 'sacrifice' themselves for their beliefs. You may argue that they are 'brainwashed' into their beliefs, but not that they are coerced. Unlike the child soldiers of your link, these go willingly, even avidly, into battle or martyrdom.

That you would refuse to sympathize with these children bothers me.

I don't 'refuse' to sympathize. You make it sound like I choose my emotions. I do choose my philosophies (or, at least, I'm under the illusion I do), but I am not in control of my emotions, only whether or not I display them.

Should you wish to discuss the rationale for zero flexibility in sentencing (i.e. 'punishing the guilty without consideration of whether they're saints or sinners') I invite you to start another thread. This one is already messy enough.

Isn't how this thread started? About the inherent wrongness of victims statements? I don't believe in zero flexibility in sentencing, but I do think that the punishment should fit the circumstances of the crime and not of the criminal (or of the victim).

--Pete