Getting even.

I consider myself relatively open-minded. I enjoy arguing and I suppose I am as happy as anyone when someone switches to my point of view (rare), but argument is most rewarding when I can learn and my own point of view can change. I even read right-wing editorials, although that has been less useful since the GOP switched from principles to mindless opposition to anything the Obama administration does (see Healthcare -- Romney, Mitt). When thinking about this blog post, I lost an argument with myself and my opinion about the topic changed.

Vengeance is among the worst of all human motivations. To pursue revenge puts us at a level not much higher than our enemy, and it is profoundly unrewarding. I do understand the appeal. If someone did something awful to Twila, I can see myself transmogrifying instantly from slothful and unmotivated to armed and dangerous. Hopefully I would come to my senses before doing anything regrettable.

Some years ago courts of law began to allow relatives of a victim to speak before sentencing. I've long considered that practice unseemly, at best. Imagine a family wailing and then a judge, with a tear in his eye, saying, "I was going to sentence you to 30 days, but I changed my mind. Life in prison!"

I assume, though -- and everything changes if my assumption is incorrect -- that the appeals of a victim's relatives have no effect upon the sentence rendered. So what is the point of all the weeping and gnashing of teeth? It was my intention to say in this post that there is none, and that the practice is demeaning. But then I thought about it.

The point is closure. The statements allow the indirect victims of a crime to speak to the court and, more important, the criminal. They are relief, however meager, for pain and frustration, and an expression of love for the victim. Whether they have an affect on anyone else is irrelevant.