What if someone told you they killed a pedophile,rapist etc?

[Pingfah]

I do not believe that you could say that the person did it for anything but self gratification. Not pleasure per se, but it's all the same thing. Don't give me this "altruistic murder" bullshit. It is not normal to want to kill someone for their crimes against others so badly that you actually carry that out. That is insane.

 

[Darth Duck]

Your basically making the argument that murder is inheritantly wrong.

Yes I am.

If that is the case then soldier's and people who kill in self-defense are just as guilty as any random serial killer.

If a soldier walks around shooting random people then yes, they're just as guilty. If they're fighting combatants in a war zone it is different, it's war. Which is another moral conundrum, and I believe that war should be avoided at all practical costs.

Self-defence is another thing, and in a "him-or-me" situation it can be justified and rationalized. If there is a way to defend yourself without killing, that would be an ideal situation. If you have to shed blood to survive then do it. I would most certainly loose a decade of sleep afterwards, because I would have murdered someone and gotten away with it.

Problem though, is society has already decedied some murder is acceptable. During war,or self-defense. I'm not sure how, killing a someone we knew was %100 guilty of his crime would not be seen as another accceptable exception to the rule.

Yeah, society decides some pretty dumb things. Paris Hilton is newsworthy? Gimme a break.

Killing someone in the way you describe is calculated cold-blooded murder.

Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald who was "100%" guilty of killing Kennedy, but Ruby still stood trial, because vigilantism isn't acceptable.

At least from a moral perspepective. I understand the pratical concerns as to why you would never want this behavior to be made legal.

Good. We can agree on something.

I guess I just don't see the moral distinction from someone killing a pedophile in his home, from someone who kills a pedophile who is about to break inside your house and rape your kids.

If someone is breaking into your house you call the cops, hit 'em over the head with a baseball bat, something, anything, but kill them. There are police and lawyers and judges to sort out the rest.

Why is it wrong to kill criminals,only when their in the act of commiting crime?

It's wrong to kill criminals. Rehabilitation, mon ami.

The pedophile that is killed by the vigilnate isn't all that morally different from the one, breaking into your house.

Yeah, except the dead one is dead and the one breaking into my house will get the fair trial that he is entitled to because I wouldn't kill him.

At least in my scenario, there not. LIke I said, we got rock solid proof that the vigilnate killed someone that has molested and raped kids. He didn't follow a hunch, or make a asumption. He looked at the proof and acted.

Jason

Then he acted like an idiot. Let the police handle it, let the courts handle it. If he has "rock solid proof" than the rapist goes to jail, maybe he even gets some psychiatric help.

 

[Jayson]

I do not believe that you could say that the person did it for anything but self gratification. Not pleasure per se, but it's all the same thing. Don't give me this "altruistic murder" bullshit. It is not normal to want to kill someone for their crimes against others so badly that you actually carry that out. That is insane.

That might be true, to a degree but i'm not sure the altrustic murder, thing is bullshit, though because, frankly who really knows, what is inside the mind of human beings. People are to complex to simply say "this is the reason" they did something. Truth is, I think everything we do is impacted by a vast amount of emotion's and viewpoints we have. I don't think people do thing's, simply because they simply have bloodlust or there altrustic, or any one single thing you can think of . It's a combination of many different things,coming together to make a human being make the choices they make in life. That's why people should be judged on their actions, mostly and not what is inside their minds. From the perspective then the murder of a child isn't the moral equilvelent of a murder of the person who murdered, the child.

Jason

 

[Jayson]

I do not believe that you could say that the person did it for anything but self gratification. Not pleasure per se, but it's all the same thing. Don't give me this "altruistic murder" bullshit. It is not normal to want to kill someone for their crimes against others so badly that you actually carry that out. That is insane.

That might be true, to a degree but i'm not sure the altrustic murder, thing is bullshit, though because, frankly who really knows, what is inside the mind of human beings. People are to complex to simply say "this is the reason" they did something. Truth is, I think everything we do is impacted by a vast amount of emotion's and viewpoints we have. I don't think people do thing's, simply because they simply have bloodlust or there altrustic, or any one single thing you can think of . It's a combination of many different things,coming together to make a human being make the choices they make in life. That's why people should be judged on their actions, mostly and not what is inside their minds. From the perspective then the murder of a child isn't the moral equilvelent of a murder of the person who murdered, the child.

Jason

 

[cultcross]

Still your talking about sending someone to prision for what can be argured was "good intentions" over the death of a human monster.

Hmm, remind me what the road to hell was paved with again?

If you do that it's almost like the pedophile,killer,rapist has scored another win. Destroyed another life, and you helped him do it.

No, the murderer destroyed his own life when he killed the paedophile/rapist/whatever. You don't get to take the law into your own hands and act as arbiter of others' fates. That's too much power for one man. I'm against the death penalty anyway, but even if I wasn't, I wouldn't be for summary execution by citizens.

It's possible he could turn on you, but that is why the issues of trust and faith come into play, just as much as the evidence the guy had. It all comes down to, how much trust you have in your friend, that is a good person, inside. If you feel like he is good inside,despite the killing of a harcore criminal, then should you trust your instinct's over the law?

If he can take a life in that manner, he's not a good person, 'inside' or not, however much I might wish to believe otherwise. Taking a life in cold blood like that is wrong, and not the actions of something in whom I wish to place my trust. He should face a jury of his peers like any other killer.

 

[miraclefan]

If I met one on the street I'd think he/she was saying it just to get attention thus ingore them.

 

[Goliath]

Your basically making the argument that murder is inheritantly wrong.

Of course it is.

Murder is wrong by definition. If it wasn't wrong, it wouldn't be murder.

If that is the case then soldier's and people who kill in self-defense are just as guilty as any random serial killer.

Killing in self-defence and in war isn't murder.

You're committing the fallacy of over-narrow definition here, by confusing the particular--murder--with the general--killing.

What you're actually arguing is that a certain type of killing should not be considered murder.

If you seriously believe that, then you have to consider the following question: why shouldn't I be allowed to kill you, at my own discretion?

You might reply, because you haven't done anything to deserve being killed.

But that's just your opinion. Suppose I disagree? Suppose I think you have done something to deserve being killed?

Suppose, for example, that I find your position on this subject so dangerous, so poisonous, so potentially devastating to society, that I consider it justifiable to kill you in order to shut you up?

To whom would you appeal, in this case? On what grounds could you object to being killed, and still remain consistent?

If you should be free to kill others at discretion, according to the dictates of your conscience, then why shouldn't I have the same freedom?

The problem with your position is that it's reducible to an absurdity. The same principles that you're using to justify the killing of pedophiles and murderers could be used to justify killing anyone, at any time. You're essentially arguing for the legalization of murder.

But if murder should be legalized, then what have murderers done to deserve being killed? If murderers have committed no crime, then why should you be allowed to punish them?

 

[Jayson]

Your basically making the argument that murder is inheritantly wrong.

Of course it is.

Murder is wrong by definition. If it wasn't wrong, it wouldn't be murder.

If that is the case then soldier's and people who kill in self-defense are just as guilty as any random serial killer.

Killing in self-defence and in war isn't murder.

You're committing the fallacy of over-narrow definition here, by confusing the particular--murder--with the general--killing.

What you're actually arguing is that a certain type of killing should not be considered murder.

If you seriously believe that, then you have to consider the following question: why shouldn't I be allowed to kill you, at my own discretion?

You might reply, because you haven't done anything to deserve being killed.

But that's just your opinion. Suppose I disagree? Suppose I think you have done something to deserve being killed?

Suppose, for example, that I find your position on this subject so dangerous, so poisonous, so potentially devastating to society, that I consider it justifiable to kill you in order to shut you up?

To whom would you appeal, in this case? On what grounds could you object to being killed, and still remain consistent?

If you should be free to kill others at discretion, according to the dictates of your conscience, then why shouldn't I have the same freedom?

The problem with your position is that it's reducible to an absurdity. The same principles that you're using to justify the killing of pedophiles and murderers could be used to justify killing anyone, at any time. You're essentially arguing for the legalization of murder.

But if murder should be legalized, then what have murderers done to deserve being killed? If murderers have committed no crime, then why should you be allowed to punish them?

That's a intresting point, but if we can make a argument the murdering a pedophile is wrong, then why isn't it wrong to hold them agaisnt their will for their crimes? If we took a inocent person and locked them behind bars it would be obscene. SO it's okay to do some bad things to these people,but not all bad things?

You could argue it's okay to lock criminal's up for society's protection but why is your protection more important than another citizen's freedom or in the case of the victim's their right to see justice happen for what has happened to them? It's because the criminal did something the justified his lost of freedom. It's true that anyone can justify, anything to support any view they want. That's why you need laws, but i'm not talking about what's legal. I'm talking about ethic's. If someone wants to make a argument that this thread, for example, would justify my death then but they would need evidence the thread did harm to society. If they got the proof, then I guess you could make the argument i should be shot or arrested, but then again since that wasn't my intention it still wouldn't be the moral equvilent. When someone kills or rapes or molestes someone I think it's naive to think they don't have a inkling of what they will do to their victim's.

Also I am not saying this should be legal. I've mentioned this a few time, but most people can't be trusted with this kind of power over people. hell,I don't even trust the people who do have it such as government and the police. I simply think their are loopholes were it is acceptable from a moral perspective. I simply couldn't make a legit argument that if someone killed a pedophile that raped their child and they killed the pedophile, that they would be morally the same as the pedophile jst because we have deceided murder is evil most of the time. Except a few exceptions but sorry parent of molested child. We will make moral exceptions for some but not you in your situation. It just doesn't fit.

Jason

 

[pookha]

just wondering if in the example what was the level of evidence the killer was working on..
actual conviction? word of mouth?

and some convictions are reversed as new evidence comes to light.
so going around killing might not be a good idea.

sorry i only read part of the thread.

has this case been mentioned.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I simply think their are loopholes were it is acceptable from a moral perspective.

If you can make one exception, you can make any exception. And why stop at rape and child molesting to justify killing? Why not arson, or assault that leads to paraplegia or blindness? And why stop at justifying murder? Why not say it's okay to track down the guy who stole your laptop and break his kneecaps?

You're basically arguing against the existence of law.

 

[cultcross]

SO it's okay to do some bad things to these people,but not all bad things?

Well obviously, yes. That's what proportionate punishment is. We don't hang people for shoplifting, either - the punishment should fit the crime. And that punishment is given by the legal system, which is (or at least tries to be) impartial and fair. Not by an enraged victim bent on vengeance, not justice.

I simply couldn't make a legit argument that if someone killed a pedophile that raped their child and they killed the pedophile, that they would be morally the same as the pedophile jst because we have deceided murder is evil most of the time. Except a few exceptions but sorry parent of molested child. We will make moral exceptions for some but not you in your situation. It just doesn't fit.

If they know who raped their child and have such good evidence that you are willing to grant them the right to murder them, why did they not bring said paedophile to justice, instead of playing vigilante and killing them? It's not as if they had no other way to get justice, is it? They don't deserve an exception to murder because the death was unnecessary and disproportionate when other avenues were open to achieve justice.

 

[Jayson]

just wondering if in the example what was the level of evidence the killer was working on..
actual conviction? word of mouth?

and some convictions are reversed as new evidence comes to light.
so going around killing might not be a good idea.

sorry i only read part of the thread.

has this case been mentioned.

I've always been working of the idea that my friend in this scenario has either pictures of the crime taking place or was a eye witness to them. Well that or DNA evidence as well, but then were getting into levels of evidence the average citizen wouldn't have access to. Basically I was just considering evidence that proves %100 that the person my friend has killed is, guilty of the crime. Hunch's and circumstancial evidence and word of mouth might be enough for me to beleive, someone is guilty of something but it wouldn't be enough for me to think they should die for their crimes, because there would always be the possibility that he/she was inocent, no matter how guilty he/she looked.

Jason

 

[Jayson]

I simply think their are loopholes were it is acceptable from a moral perspective.

If you can make one exception, you can make any exception. And why stop at rape and child molesting to justify killing? Why not arson, or assault that leads to paraplegia or blindness? And why stop at justifying murder? Why not say it's okay to track down the guy who stole your laptop and break his kneecaps?

You're basically arguing against the existence of law.

In away I am arguing against the law, if you want justice. Law is not about bringing people to justice, it's about maintaining order to society.

The reason law is needed is not because it's the most ethical way of dealing with some criminals but because it's the most pratical way of keeping society from spinning out of control. It could even be called a necessary evil. Most people who take the law in their own hands wound't care if the "proof' they have is %100 acurate. They would be guided mostly from anger or a need to make someone pay, even if the person involved doesn't deserve it. While I support revenge in theory, it would really be depend on who is carrying out the revenge.

Technically speaking, when it comes to revenge I would have a hard time accepting vigalate's who think their cleaning up the streets, as oposed to people who are avenging a crime that happened to them ,personally. To me their is a big difference from a guy who kills a rapist because he see's himself as a protector of women, and a women who goes out and track's down the person who raped her and kills him.

Revenge is at it's most ethical purity, when it's someone avenging something that happened to them, as oposed to someone trying to avenge society's ill's. As for you example then yes if someone couldn't walk or was blinded by a arsonist then I wouldn't care what they did to the guy who did that to them. In this scenario I would have a problem with a friend, doing it,but i think personal revenge is always acceptable because only a individual can know the true sufferring there going through, and only they can judge what is equal punishment, witihin reason. Oviously killing someone, because they keyed you car is to much. People do need perspective.

I just have a problem with society trying to tell someone that their suffering can me measured in how much jail time a person get's. If someone raped my niece, a guy going to jail for life, doesn't seem like a equal punishment for what they did to my niece. My niece would have to face a lifetime of pain. The idea that the pedophile might reform or find even small amount of happiness seem's offensive to me. It's even worst in crime's were they aren't locked up for life because that mean's the crime they did only measure's out to having their lives being inconvienced for a few years, then they get out and it's back to business as usual, while the victim still is dealing with the pain.

Jason

 

[Jayson]

SO it's okay to do some bad things to these people,but not all bad things?

Well obviously, yes. That's what proportionate punishment is. We don't hang people for shoplifting, either - the punishment should fit the crime. And that punishment is given by the legal system, which is (or at least tries to be) impartial and fair. Not by an enraged victim bent on vengeance, not justice.

I simply couldn't make a legit argument that if someone killed a pedophile that raped their child and they killed the pedophile, that they would be morally the same as the pedophile jst because we have deceided murder is evil most of the time. Except a few exceptions but sorry parent of molested child. We will make moral exceptions for some but not you in your situation. It just doesn't fit.

If they know who raped their child and have such good evidence that you are willing to grant them the right to murder them, why did they not bring said paedophile to justice, instead of playing vigilante and killing them? It's not as if they had no other way to get justice, is it? They don't deserve an exception to murder because the death was unnecessary and disproportionate when other avenues were open to achieve justice.

I beleive in proportionate justice, but I would argue some crimes that cause a lifetime of suffering for a individual is proportionate to a death penalty. Like I said in the other thread though I don't think their is justice in the court system. Law is about maintaining order, not giving victim's any justice for their crimes, and it proably shouldn't be that way. What does a judge or jury, know about what kind of suffering a victim is going through. They will never know, because there not in the victim's shoes. The law has it's place. It's good at maintaining order and figuring out who is guilty of a crime, but if I was a victim or one of my loved one's was a victim I would not feel like the court did right by me, when it comes to dealing with the person who caused so much suffering for me and my family. I would feel like I was just another cog in the machine, that had to be dealt with so society can stay on course.

Jason

Jason

 

[RJDiogenes]

People do need perspective.

There you go right there. People need perspective. And when they or their loved ones have been hurt, they don't have perspective. And that's why we have laws.

As for justice, a lot of times there isn't any. If your Niece got hit by lightning or drowned in a flood, where would there be justice? By the same token, if she's raped by some guy who was born with a certain cluster of brain cells turned inside out, there's also not going to be any justice. The law is there, as you say, to keep control in various ways-- and that includes keeping a lid on gang violence of any kind.

 

[Jayson]

People do need perspective.

There you go right there. People need perspective. And when they or their loved ones have been hurt, they don't have perspective. And that's why we have laws.

As for justice, a lot of times there isn't any. If your Niece got hit by lightning or drowned in a flood, where would there be justice? By the same token, if she's raped by some guy who was born with a certain cluster of brain cells turned inside out, there's also not going to be any justice. The law is there, as you say, to keep control in various ways-- and that includes keeping a lid on gang violence of any kind.

They way I see it, a person can't truly have a acurate perpsective, unless they have been faced with a trama on this issue or find them in a postion were their ethic's are challenged, in someway(such as finding proof, that someone is a horrible and evil person). Until then,people's view will always be in the abstract. Like a ethic's debate in college were your not dealing with real people, but hypoethical people.

I think my OCD has helped me get some perspective on this, that most people might not have. Because of of some of the horrible and distrubing thoughts I've had to deal with it has had to make me examine my own morals and ethic's in away most people don't have to do. I know when I first had OCD I was terrifeid of becoming a really bad person. Back then I didn't know the difference between OCD and BI-Polar disoder. I was afraid I would,become a violent criminal. The thing is,it never happened. Because no matter how dark my thoughts would get, I knew I didn't like the idea of hurting inocent people.

What it did do, though is help me understand just how horrible this stuff is. It's one thing to know something is bad, ad it's another is to feel like you know what it feels like to do these awful things. It's a terrible feeling, and frankly I don't see how people who actually do these things in reality, live with themselves. If I ever did something as horrible as these crimes I could never live with myself. That's why I don't mind if they get killed, especially if it's done by the actuall victim's of their crimes. The things they do is just so horrible to be tolerated, on any level IMO. Except for those situations were free will is overridden like things such as mental illness,being retarded or a child.

Jason

 

[RJDiogenes]

They way I see it, a person can't truly have a acurate perpsective, unless they have been faced with a trama on this issue

It's unlikely that a person who has suffered a trauma can have an accurate perspective on that trauma. Trauma takes your perspective away. That's why we have judges and juries and so forth, to maintain perspective.

Except for those situations were free will is overridden like things such as mental illness,being retarded or a child.

That's always the case. Nobody who commits crimes such as these can be in their right mind.

 

[Kirk's_Tights]

Why would they be a twat for killing someone who is basically evil

Because you'd have to be a pretty messed up individual to go out and kill another human being, regardless of motive.

Cops and military people have had to kill before in their line of work. Are we saying there is something inheritantly messed up with them? I tend to think all people are wired differently. Some might kill like Dexter on "Dexter" because they feel pleasure in the act. Other's might do it because they simply feel like it's justice. Also if we are talking about personal revenge, then that is something else. Would a feamle be a twat for killing the man who raped her? How about someone who kills a pedophile who harmed their kid?

Jason

Comparing someone of law to a regular joe is a fail argument. Police officers/military do what they have to do because it's part of their job. The rest of society doesn't have a job description that requires them to go out and kill someone else, regardless of the reason.

A pedo/rapist/etc. is a sick individual but none of us have the right to go and take a life, just like they don't have the right to rape/kill/etc. someone. If you decide to go and take matters into your own hands and kill someone, you're no better than they are.

A normal person doesn't have it in them to just go outside and murder someone. All of these pedos, rapists and killers have mental issues. They need help. Let the law take them and do what they need to do with them because you don't have the right.

Stop comparing cops and military to regular members of society. It's two different worlds.