How would an Objectivist society deal with this?

[Jennifer]

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/teen-life-sentence-raped-13/

I ran across this on another persons internet page and I was curious as to how an Objectivist society would handle this situation. I know that Objectivism holds life (existence) as the ultimate value and, in effect, a persons right to it. That the use of force is completely inappropriate unless in self-defense (i.e. against the inititiation of force). However I am confused how this situation would be handled.

Would it be appropriate for the teenager to be jailed for a short period of time at least due to the fact that they enacted *premeditated* murder, or is the fact they are in a coerced and oppressive situation where they are severely affecting the persons life and of which other avenues from that of killing the person (attempting to get law enforcement involved etc. instead) are dubious at best. On the other side of things, should they get no jail time at all and just mental/psychological treatment? This seems to be the most reasonable but there seems something wrong without allowing premeditated murder when there are still possible options for other ways to fix the issue to get off scott free. I understand the basics of what an Objectivist justice system would be like but things like this make it difficult for me to understand how it would be handled. I would appreciate any off-site sources for better understanding how these things would be handled also in supplement to the answer.

[ex_banana-eater]

In general, if a woman is a hostage to a pimp or to an abusive husband, where she is under the threat of murder if she leaves or tells the police, I think it is a clear case of self-defense to kill the slaveholder, and that killing would certainly have to be "pre-meditated."

[RationalBiker]

and of which other avenues from that of killing the person (attempting to get law enforcement involved etc. instead) are dubious at best.

Hold on a second. The quote above is a HUGE assumption based on the details in the article. I can say with a high degree of certainty that if a 12 year old came up to a police officer in the jurisdiction where I worked and said; "Joe Schmoe over there is forcing me to sex with people and then he makes me give him the money", the officer is not going to simply say, "Run along you kooky kid." We would be compelled to investigate the complaint first, and failing prosecution we would still be required to get her off the street and into either her home or some other place where she has some responsible adult supervision. She MAY have operated under some such belief and therefore never tried, but that does not mean the actual effort would have been dubious.

In other words, I question whether seeking law enforcement assistance in this case was "dubious at best".

[Grames]

The story of Sarah Kruzan (as reported in that story) is a mess. But she was not acting in self defense when she committed this murder, she was acting on the behalf of another pimp. Someone adult enough to commit murder should not also get to plead minor status. On the other hand, this is definitely a case with mitigating circumstances that make a life sentence an injustice.

There is not much specifically Objectivist writing on sentencing guidelines, but it is pretty clear when standard law articles are arguing from a premise of individual rights and objectivity in law and when they are engaged in special pleading. WHAT IS OBJECTIVE LAW? by Harry Binswanger does not delve into sentencing, but it does have this paragraph:

Nor does the law against murder ignore such distinctions as that between first-degree and second-degree murder. Objective law makes legal distinctions according to context and circumstance---i.e., according to the specific nature of the act (including its level of intent) and of the surrounding facts---not according to the race of the accused, the eloquence of his pleas for "mercy," or the mood of a judge.

California's three strikes rule is arbitrary and unjust, but its judges were corrupted by the 'justice as rehabilitation' theory before it was enacted.

[Bourcet]

According to the article and the link within that, she worked from 6pm until 6am, returned to his house and hand over the money, for 3 years.

What prevented her from using that money to escape?

[Jennifer]

So basically:

1. She should not be tried as a minor.

2. She should get time in jail for the murder because it seems there were good options to escape or should we account for a suggestion that she was "not in right mind" to understand that such an alternative was reasonable or even possible.

3. One person here seems to think that this was reasonable and that it required pre-meditation and the requirement to kill him to escape.

So basically sentence her for some jail time is the conclusion here? There seems to be a little bit of disagreement. This seems to rest mostly on the plausibility of escape by o ther means and if she was psychologically fit to understand that option to be reasonable enough to act on it.

[ex_banana-eater]

3. One person here seems to think that this was reasonable and that it required pre-meditation and the requirement to kill him to escape.

I was not commenting on the story itself, just on situations that may be similar. I don't know enough about this case obviously, and the fact that most of the information only comes from her side doesn't help, but the fact that she mentioned she was brainwashed and molested by him since she was very young makes her inculpable. There are similar cases of rape, where the girl somewhat "willingly" has sex with a family member for years, because she has been extremely abused since childhood and trained to have sex with the family member. In those cases, it is certainly still rape even if she seems to "willingly" do it as a teenager.

Obviously this is a case where an 'Objectivist society' just like today's regular society, should have a psychological expert present.

Edited November 3, 2009 by ex_banana-eater

[Bourcet]

So basically:

1. She should not be tried as a minor.

2. She should get time in jail for the murder because it seems there were good options to escape or should we account for a suggestion that she was "not in right mind" to understand that such an alternative was reasonable or even possible.

3. One person here seems to think that this was reasonable and that it required pre-meditation and the requirement to kill him to escape.

So basically sentence her for some jail time is the conclusion here? There seems to be a little bit of disagreement. This seems to rest mostly on the plausibility of escape by o ther means and if she was psychologically fit to understand that option to be reasonable enough to act on it.

If she was locked in his home and "clients" were brought to her to have sex, and then she tried to escape by killing him then that would be justified self defence since he has imprisoned her and force is the only means to gain her freedom.

But in this case, she was free to escape when she went out on "business" and nothing was preventing her. Unless he had minders follow her.

I don't know what you mean by her not being psychologically fit to understand the option of escape or being reasonable enough to act on it. The fact that she killed the man meant that she saw him as a threat and therefore she wasn't completely brainwashed in the sense of seeing the man as someone good to her.

I have no idea what her state of mind was. Are you claiming that she was not responsible due to a psychological illness?