 |
| Echo Grid, Unsplash |
About a few moments after church she was missing. Then she was found murdered, part of her face skinned off, exposing her skull, and her tongue, throat, trachea and esophagus likewise missing. Why would any murderer want to do all that instead of just plain kill her? Or, why would anyone want to kill her, for that matter?
Doesn't make sense, even if the killer was enraged to the max--except if he was on drugs--which makes it ten times more senseless. Being on illegal drugs is stupid, I don't know why anyone would do it, or even think of doing it. It can never be an excuse or justification for wasting life away. They say drug addicts on a rampage are just "victims" themselves who lose control when under the ill effects of drugs. Some say they're patients. These stupid remarks only make the heinous offense worse.
How can murderers be victims? Do they understand what they're saying? I murder a guy in a diabolical way and I'm the victim? Patients? I murder someone mercilessly all because I'm sick? Say, a terminal cancer patient murders an innocent kid out of desperation and he goes scot-free just because he's sick? That's justice today?
The poor victim was just 16, said to be a nice girl. I can just imagine how her parents feel. Imagine raising her up from infancy to adolescence, all those years of love and sacrifice, watching her growing up and listening to her dreams, ambitions and stories, hearing her laughter and excited giggles--then that promising, young life is suddenly and violently ended by some worthless guy who got himself hooked in some drug.
I don't know how the Commission on Human Rights can still look after the "rights" of the heinous murderer and simply "denounce" his gruesome act as something unfortunate. That's it? As if denouncing murderers would make them suffer bad enough. Criminals like that have no right. But the CHR can never see things in that light. It insists on protecting crooks' "rights" alone, whatever that means. It says it's limited to watching how government handles people's rights. Then it should be renamed Watchdog of Government's Atrocities to avoid misunderstanding.
And what does it want law enforcers to do? Watch themselves shot to death when crooks decide to grab a gun and shoot it out? Is that how they want rights protected?
Anyone who unreasonably violates someone else's right has forfeited himself of his rights. That's how it should work. If he ends up dead in an alleged "shootout" with the police (whether it's true or not), or whatever, he just reaped what he's sown. Forget about his rights. Rights are for the right-minded, who know they should do right.
God does not respect the rights of offenders. The wages of sin is death. No ifs or buts. That's how he dispenses justice. And even if the offender sincerely repents, God often allows the natural consequences to affect him. Grace saves you from hell if you repent and surrender, but not from the results. Mercy can, but only if grace allows it to. And grace saves you only if you live according to its terms.
God does not postpone or relent from sending sinners to hell because of their "rights." If you really repent, he dismisses your case, but only if you fully surrender to him. And even then, there's no guarantee the consequences of what you did wouldn't come back to you anymore. God has the prerogative to delete the consequences or let it be. He has reasons.
But then they'd say, that's God. We're not God, so we cannot do as he does. Well, the bible says imitate God. It's his standard of justice, and should be ours, too. We cannot make our own justice standards. That would be rebellion against him. He alone sets the standards of justice.
You cannot honestly say Christine's rights are equal to her murderer's. The killer violated her right and then gets his right well secured and protected by CHR. Doesn't makes sense. CHR was not there to protect her right while the crime was in progress, in the first place. It shouldn't interfere when payback time comes, in whatever form.
It's all so stupid.
