The Icemen had no emotion when killing. It was still murder.
Wait. What!?
No, no, no.
One of the premises offered is that it is valid to increase the offense for certain attitudes or emotional states. Well, then, it necessarily follows--and fairness requires--a
reduction of the offense for certain other attitudes or emotional states. If the Icemen had
no emotion while killing, then it is hardly fair to categorize them as murderers.
And, what of Jeffrey Dahmer? He actually
liked the people he killed--the same way hunters like venison. Surely, fairness requires that a killer who actually likes his victim have his offense reduced to, say, voluntary manslaughter.
These are perfectly rational conclusions based on the offered premise. Why, they just naturally follow. I'm not sure what to do under the offered premise with a cannibal who loves his wife as a spouse, and likes her as a snack. But, I am sure the offered premise will have the breadth to compass the question.
