Originally Posted by miceelf
I think in almost every context "open season on X" is taken to mean that X is routinely victimized.
I don't see how one can say it's open season on innocents in Norway and NOT on innocents in the US.
"Open season" is entirely illogical. It confuses retribution with deterrence. Or, if you are going to murder 70 people, you sure as hell don't think, "Well, I'll only get 20 years for it, so why not."
Which goes to the idea of how a mass-murderer could be considered sane, and the weird line that gets blurred between our colloquial intuition and the legal definition.
I would argue that if there isn't something genetically wrong with them, the social conditioning has wired them very badly. In either case, they aren't in their right mind.
Here's what I find odd: I see no reason to feel personal anger or resentment towards them. They did something wrong, yet like a wild animal out of its cage, I see no reason to feel bitterness towards them. If anything, I feel sympathy for them and their family (and obviously the families of the victims) - what a waste.
Yet many would see my response as somehow not holding them accountable, or responsible for their actions. But how can I? Who are "they", but a broken mind? Their body has committed the crime, a body with a mind that has stopped working the way we feel it should.
So lock it up, probably for life. But why kill it? Why torture it? Why not make it comfortable while it waits in its troubled shell?