Here, I'll give you a "crime" on which to base your statement.
I find my husband in bed with another woman. In a fit of rage, I kill them both. Proceed.
Before we examine society’s response, let’s look at the incident as it is happening. The cuckolded wife has caught the infidelity in progress and grabbed a handgun. ‘BANG’ the cheating spouse takes one in the heart. Now, she swings the muzzle to the naked lady ensconced in her marital bed. Does she shoot to kill?
Prohibitive Law (P.L.) – The jilted woman has killed once. It was a crime of passion but according to P.L., she has committed a murder. There is really nothing to prevent the second death.
Protective Justice (P.J.) – The gun is pointed at the Jezebel, but the conscience has the opportunity to work. It’s not a second law she is about to break, but an additional life to take and she doesn’t even know the other woman. Was she responsible for leading the wayward husband away or just another victim of the now dead cad? Because of her inner voice of goodness or from the high tension of the moment, (we’ll let a judge be the judge) the next shot hits a shoulder.
The police arrive to apprehend the suspect. She seemingly has killed and wounded: under either P.L. or P.J. she would be taken into custody. The police begin to investigate.
P.L. – The inspectors would be trying to gather enough evidence to convict. Their prime concern is that a law has been broken and their job is aligned with the prosecutor. A forensic team is assembled to use all the nifty CSI toys.
P.J. – The scope of the investigation is much wider. They will seek to find why the wife killed, how she came to surprise the couple, whether either spouse had a history of cheating, etc. In other words, they are doing investigation for both the defense and the prosecution. They are utterly non-partisan because they are serving the people and that includes the person currently in their custody.
The media is informed that a shooting and a death occurred. The victim’s name is released after next-of-kin notification.
P.L. - Someone in the police department leaks the perpetrator’s name or they march her in handcuffs in front of reporters. The cops in the P.L. system want the public seeing them in action and they like the headlines. Even if a court finds not guilty, a smear has been indelibly put onto the accused person.
P.J. - A person’s dealings with the police and with justice are not a public entertainment. The killer’s right to confidentiality are protected: her family and friends are not hounded for television interviews.
The trial begins before a judge.
P.L. The P.L. system has only a yes or no answer to whether the murder law was broken. The defendant hires the best lawyer she can afford and the ‘adversarial’ orating begins. The verdict will be a yes/no answer with strict punishment on one side and Scott-free on the other. Expensive legal council will impress the judge and jury into a not guilty verdict, based on some technicality—regardless of the fact that she really did kill her husband and wound his paramour. The good barrister might use battered wife syndrome or self-defense as a ploy to cutting a deal for a reduced sentence.
P.J. – P.J. wants to do the best for society and all persons involved. The state provides the defense at no cost and so all people are equal in front of justice. Since the verdict won’t be a full yes or absolute no, some measures will always be applied. The defense argues for leniency and the prosecution begs for harsher with the judge as the deciding vote.
The verdict comes in.
P.L. – a) The accused is found guilty of breaking the law and is sentenced to jail time. But wait! If she still has some money in her bank account, her lawyers can appeal. If she’s now broke, she must serve her time.
P.L. – b) The judge/jury finds ‘not-guilty’ on a technicality, because the arresting police officer accidentally spelled her middle name wrong on the charge sheet. The wife dances for joy and promptly writes a bestseller entitled ‘How I got away with murder’. Even if she confesses in the book, she can’t be retried for the same offence.
P.J. – a) The court deems that she is a threat to future husbands or boyfriends. She is incarcerated until she has fully participated in anger/jealousy management counseling. A parole board will decide when they deem her safe to conditionally release. If she refuses treatment or is not recalcitrant, she may never be released: (P.J. measures are not set punishments).
P.J. – b) the meticulous and unbiased investigation the police did turned up some details on the murdered husband. It seems that he set up the event to trick his wife into asking for a divorce. The court arrives at a consensus that the widow is not a sufficient risk and she doesn’t receive jail time. Instead, the court orders some relationship education and she’s barred from owning firearms. (The book deal is forbidden because the full disclosure would do harm to the victim’s family/reputation and the surviving witness.)
Remember the wounded mistress on the mattress? In P.J. – a), she testified that the killer had missed her aim. In P.J. – b), she believed the jealous wife shot her in the final venting of her rage. The court doesn’t overlook her participation in the event though. The witness is also assigned some measures to protect society in the future. A course in human relationships wouldn’t hurt her—because the media isn’t broadcasting all the juicy details.
