Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Right, so the person who gets to determine if he's suffered adequately for the wrong he committed is the victim of that wrong. It's an interesting way of doing things, certainly. Our justice system doesn't put the onus on the victim to determine when the perpetrator has been adequately punished, and there's a reason for that, but some people think that should play more of a role. I'm not really sold, because restorative justice models seem a bit utopian to me.
|
Not really, my comment wasn't about justice, punishment, or suffering.
Simply that, as a spectator who knows nobody personally in this situation, and has nothing more to go on than what we know, which is limited, and given that this does not appear to be a victim incapable of forgiveness (which gives weight to Isaiah's character here), I side with the victim.
That's all. I leave it up to the actual courts to pick the legal punishment appropriate of the crime, I leave it to the NHL teams to decide the opportunities he's granted, and I leave it to the University to decide the state of his scholarship, not Isaiah, and certainly not me. But in terms of judgement of character, which has as little or as much weight as you want to give it (and in terms of mine as a random spectator who will never meet this person, very little), I simply side with the victim, and will root against Miller until the point he's given me sufficient reason to think otherwise.
At the end of the day, people talk about the mob, "internet justice" all that stuff. But as an individual, I have every right to take what I know and form an opinion on someone. I'm not asking that opinion to be acted on and I'm not asking that opinion be above disagreement. And I truly do not care if that opinion is similar to the "mob" or "internet justice" or whatever. It's my own. But I do ask that it not be diminished and disregarded as such.