Humans have a peculiar way of thinking that sometimes influences our justice system. They make associations where there are none. Take the idea of blood money. That money is forever tainted with stain of the original crime. In the gospel according to Mathew, Judas betrayed Jesus for 13 pieces of silver. And when he threw the money down to the high priests, they said we can't use this money, not even for good. Because it is forever tainted with blood. If you accept someone's money in a way that makes you an accessory to their crime, that's one thing. But money is not forever tainted with blood, or the guilt of the original crime. Actually, the whole idea of accessory is kind of flawed. An accessory after the fact is guilty of the original crime too, because he helped hide the crime. Helping to hide a crime should be illegal. But it has nothing to do with the original crime. Also, in the 1980's there was a controversy. Doctors were using data collected from Nazi medical experiments involving hypothermia and the human body. How long it takes a human to freeze to death, in other words. And the victims of Holocaust survivors were outraged. They shouldn't be using that information, they said. My relative died that way. But, the doctors pointed out, I had nothing to do with that. And there's no other way to have that information, because animal experiments wouldn't work. And plus that information saves lives today. Also there is the idea of what is true cannibalism. The Donner Party back in 1846 had to eat other humans to stay alive. And everyone was shocked and said they were guilty of cannibalism. Not really. The people had already died of natural causes, and they had to do that to survive. That's actually called necrophagy, not true cannibalism. In conclusion, the law should protect people by outlawing harmful behavior. But it should never just punish people, especially severely, just on the basis of sentiment. Not even if people feel strongly about it. Those cases are actually called hard cases. And as Oliver Wendell Holmes pointed out, hard cases make bad law.
