All the key characters in the novel are better off without Cameron. Do you think this justifies his death in any way?

In spite of the influence Cameron had on those around him, all the other characters in the novel benefit in some way from his death. In what ways are they now better off? Do you think this justifies Cameron's death in any way?

The other characters may be better off without him, but that does not justify killing him. However, it’s hard to seen how else they could be free of the threat he posed. It seems like a true dilemma.

Conventional justice didn't seem to even have Cameron on a watch list. He was a danger to those closest to him, and they all bought into keeping his abuse a secret. I feel that we should be weighing in on the side of the law, but I think his family's safety and lives benefited from his death. Do I want to see the perpetrator punished for causing his death? No. I think it was the only option.

It's hard to say that Cameron's death is justified yet in the outback setting, so much of punishment and retribution seems to be of the grass-roots nature and so his demise seems to fit the setting. I guess the other alternatives would have been for Liz, Ilse or Katy to come forward but that would have put them in jeopardy with Cameron while limited law resources could have investigated and with questionable outcome. I see Liz as a hero for being able to take the tough step to end the cycle of abuse.

Justified it? No. Made it understandable and forgivable? Definitely.

That is a difficult moral judgement to make. In a perfect world I would prefer to have Cameron suffer from that abuses that he inflicted on others. Or even be imprisoned for his crimes. However, since these options would not be a possible due to the dangers that Liz, Ilse and Katy could face if they sought legal assistance, I believe his death was the only option and therefore it was justified.

I think that most of us would agree that in modern, civilized society we are taught that killing without legal conviction is morally wrong. But sometimes if the crime is so atrocious, our raw, angered, inner self, can understand the need for vigilante justice. We convince ourselves that the person who did wrong deserved what they got.

I can't see murder being justified, but in this case, and without the law helping, I believe it was deserved. You don't get to abuse people and young children, and get away with it.

I do not believe killing Cameron was right. People, who are abused, sometimes feel they are at fault and will not report abuse. Cameron felt he had everyone under his thumb and he could act as he pleased. In the Outback, there was not help for his family. This may have been the only option

In the world in which this novel takes place, there does not seem to be any other way to correct the unjustness of Cameron's actions, and to do nothing would only lead to further wrong and even greater harm on his part. Still, this does not justify his death and unfortunately made it a necessity.

This is a tough one to answer but I’m with elyseg. Justified? No. Understandable & forgivable? Yes.

I don’t think Cameron’s death is justified. I realize he was not a good person; however, I think I would come up with another plan. It may have been difficult and even dangerous to leave with his wife and children, but I couldn’t live with myself knowing I killed my own son.

I don't think Cameron's death is justified either. There could certainly have been a more some sort of intervention. Every person living on that property was aware of what Cameron was doing and how wrong it was. There is power in numbers. Of course it would not have been as good a book.

I don't feel that killing Cameron was justified. Murder is never legally justified. Even though the outback is a mostly primal environment, it is still part of civilization. We can't exist in a world where people are allowed to murder.
Having said that, I completely understand the desperate black hole the family felt they were sinking into. Abuse is such a horrible stigma that unfortunately, warps its victims into thinking there is no way out and that somehow, it's the victim's fault. Truthfully, I can't say what I would have done in the same situation.

I agree that it is difficult to say what you would do when put into a situation such as that. I just have a difficult time seeing the murder of child as my best option.

I think it did justify his death in one way because his aggressive, violent behavior was escalating. Liz became increasingly concerned for the safety of her grandchildren after she realized Sophie did not fall off her horse but was injured by Cam. When she saw how angry Cam was after he found the envelope Ilse had hidden with her passport and money, Liz knew Cam might become violent enough to kill Ilse. By causing his death, I believe she felt it was justified to save her daughter-in-law and grandchildren.

Nothing is black or white. There is no black or white answer to this question. The law says it is wrong to kill someone. No one KILLED him. But his mom could have prevented it and there is an unwritten rule in this community that you help some one in the out back. You don't leave them to die. But to answer the question, yes they are better off without him, so in a way, it does justify his death.

The author does seem to paint such a hopeful ending where everyone is happier after burying Cameron and coming to terms with his death. Nothing justifies murder, but we can see why Liz did it. She was acting proactively DEFENSIVE to keep any harm coming to Ilse or the girls.