Dan is a retributionist, meaning, a criminal gets something he deserves, and no more. An eye for an eye. I am not sure of these characterizations. When he opens his mouth, no one can understand that Harvard Law way of talking, not even other Harvard Law grads. He needs to disclose his retributionist bias in the abstract. Everyone can understand utilitarianism. 123D. Your life for three eyes, because we do not want you poking any more people in the eye.

This was a trivial offense, of hurt feelings. No one is apologizing for the 5000 lynchings that took place. These had a business model. They went after the prosperous black merchant or professionals. The KKK was lawyer and judge founded and led. It is impossible to kill 5000 people without immunity and collusion of prosecutors, judges, and police. These had to be paid off. Lawyer question. Can a deed obtained by murder ever get quiet? Instead of dumbass reparations movement seeking to attack our corporations and banks, the compensation of the heirs for the seizure of all those properties by murder awaits the right lawyer.