Two days ago a mutilated body was found in a Mayasari Bakti bus heading to Kali Deres and this is not the first. Others took place weeks earlier and this time the doer boiled the poor guys after killing them. Does killing now venture a new line, no longer stoppong at the point of someone's life being taken away???
It seems the law charges someone more for his planning than his executing.
If a planned murder was executed then the executor must face the death penalty. Planning and then taking someone's life is believed to be the most evil act and it deserves the direst punishment. However, one who stabbed someone else to death immediately for he couldn't take the other man's undermining joke on him will likely face a lighter sentence. It produces the same end but different legal action; the presence of foresight of the action really counts.
But what I wanna state is why mutilation cases do not produce a capital punishment? People say that one mutilation with no planning attached does not qualify for this kind of punishment. True, but does dismembering a dead body show the same sadistic stance with planning to kill one? It might be inevitable that someone lost his cool and produced a lethal action he would regret but continuing this action by butchering the dead shows that the logic or foresight of what an ordinary man would have perceived can not be certainly deemed "something unplanned".
Or could they say that whatever a living one does to a dead body is not legally the same with what he could have done to a living one? If that is so, then chopping time is like a legitimate extended pleasure.