Sure.
An anarchist would change their prospective. There is no spoon, and the spoon will bend to their will.
When you repress desire, it explodes in your face.
Discussion
And what of the victim father's need for justice?
Justice is both an outcome and a process, and false accusations would be rife. Yes, sometimes the wheels of justice turn slow, but it's the best system we have. Victims of false charges must also be protected.
Once proven guilty, though? Hang 'em high in public, or father-led firing squad 💯
Make public executions great again
Abstract power corrupts absolutely.
Spooner, "Trial by Jury"
Show me in nature where this problem exists. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
We are part of creation--its pinnacle, actually--and it exists with us.
If there is such a thing as justice--and there is--then protecting the innocent is just as important as punishing the guilty.
> Eye for an eye
...but no more, and no less.
Eye for an eye doesn't exist in nature.
BUT, an eye for an eye that allows for mistakes does exist in nature. The bat, specifically, per Robert Sapolsky's research.
However, I call 'eye for an eye' a false equivalence to my question about the scenario given in Trial by Jury.
Men don't look to beasts for ethical standards. We are rational, they are not. We are their masters--the lords and undershepherds of creation.
I will suggest a second time to read Spooner on this question.
Let me know when you have domesticated the Lion.
Ever been to a zoo?
Or a circus?
We are here to guide nature, not to be guided by it.
Humans are the greatest predator on this planet, and domestication is a form of predation. The legal system is a form of domestication. Throw a random selection of domesticated lions, cats, and humans in the wild. Then check the survival rate. Who is more domesticated? You wouldn't be able to sit in your comfortable chair behind the keyboard if some undomesticated killer didn't come before you, and continue to have have the capacity to exert power over other predators.
