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

[Deranged Nasat]

Besides, I don't believe in killing as a deserving punishment for proven pedophiles, rapists etc etc Too quick and easy.
They should spend a looong time in prison actually suffering for their crime. Maybe getting to experience some prison sex too.

I find it amusing/horrifying just how many people here seem to think murder is a less serious crime than rape or molesting a child. I also find it amusing/horrifying just how eager so many of you are to see someone-anyone-suffer. Just pick up a gun and go out and maim/murder people, already. That's all this attitude is- a way to justify your own violent or abusive urges by finding justification for inflecting it on others. "Oh, they did this, so that means I get to add them to the hit list!!!". Look what you just wrote, SalvorHardin. You apparently object so much to rape that you want to...see people get raped. Right...

I object to the rape of the unsuspecting & innocent, as i assume we all are.
Rapists and pedophiles are not just anyone. They do something terrible and destroy lives.

Innocence is overated. I object to the rape of all people. All people matter;all life is equal. The desire to hiss and spit and throw things is something that violates my conscience. Don't you also think that murdering a criminal destroys lives? If not, that's an odd definition of destroy you're using.

[You should leave my urges alone because you really don't know anything about them.
I don't "want" it or "desire" it or say it "must" happen.
What I'm saying is that if they happen to get some of their own medicine while in prison and see what it's like then you will excuse me if I will not be crushed or particularly sad.

You can shed a tear for them if you like or send them a cake.

Well, if you don't want or desire it, don't say it. I object to seeing pro-rape comments, which yours essentially boils down to. I would indeed shed a tear, as I would for anyone who is suffering. And I stand by what I said- those who enjoy seeing murder, rape etc inflicted on their fellow people MUST have the urge for violence, or they would not desire it to happen. One does not promote these things if one doesn't enjoy or desire it. It's as simple as that.

I apologise if I'm coming across too strongly, but I am always disturbed by just how eager people around me are to find someone they can "justify" inflicting suffering on.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Innocence is overated. I object to the rape of all people. All people matter;all life is equal. The desire to hiss and spit and throw things is something that violates my conscience. Don't you also think that murdering a criminal destroys lives? If not, that's an odd definition of destroy you're using.

How is the innocence of a 9 year old girl/boy being raped or a woman walking home at night getting raped overrated exactly ?

I'm sorry, I just value those people's lives more than I value the life of their rapist. I will shed a tear for them, not for the criminal who deserves to go to prison.
I guess we'll have to disagree on this one.

[You should leave my urges alone because you really don't know anything about them.
I don't "want" it or "desire" it or say it "must" happen.
What I'm saying is that if they happen to get some of their own medicine while in prison and see what it's like then you will excuse me if I will not be crushed or particularly sad.

You can shed a tear for them if you like or send them a cake.

And I stand by what I said- those who enjoy seeing murder, rape etc inflicted on their fellow people MUST have the urge for violence, or they would not desire it to happen. One does not promote these things if one doesn't enjoy or desire it. It's as simple as that.

Once again, I said i will not be sad for the criminal. That does not mean I'll rejoice and break out the champagne. Or that I want front row seats so I can enjoy every moment of suffering.
I believe you realize the difference no matter if you agree or not.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Innocence is overated. I object to the rape of all people. All people matter;all life is equal. The desire to hiss and spit and throw things is something that violates my conscience. Don't you also think that murdering a criminal destroys lives? If not, that's an odd definition of destroy you're using.

How is the innocence of a 9 year old girl/boy being raped or a woman walking home at night getting raped overrated exactly ?

I'm sorry, I just value those people's lives more than I value the life of their rapist. I will shed a tear for them, not for the criminal who deserves to go to prison.
I guess we'll have to disagree on this one.

Indeed. But why a girl/boy but not a woman/man? Why were adult males excluded from your list of people to care about?

As for your question, people's degree of innocence or lack of is often a result of social conditioning and complex factors relating to society's attitude towards those people. This might actually answer my question to you, above.

To me, all life is of equal value. No one of us is more or less important or worthy than another when it comes to our lives.

[

[You should leave my urges alone because you really don't know anything about them.
I don't "want" it or "desire" it or say it "must" happen.
What I'm saying is that if they happen to get some of their own medicine while in prison and see what it's like then you will excuse me if I will not be crushed or particularly sad.

You can shed a tear for them if you like or send them a cake.

And I stand by what I said- those who enjoy seeing murder, rape etc inflicted on their fellow people MUST have the urge for violence, or they would not desire it to happen. One does not promote these things if one doesn't enjoy or desire it. It's as simple as that.

Once again, I said i will not be sad for the criminal. That does not mean I'll rejoice and break out the champagne.
I believe you realize the difference no matter if you agree or not.

I appreciate you clarifying your viewpoint. Yes, I do see the difference, but I personally find lack of empathy just as disturbing as rejoicing. Lack of empathy is often a root cause of violence against another being.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Indeed. But why a girl/boy but not a woman/man? Why were adult males excluded from your list of people to care about?

They were not excluded on purpose.I just didn't think to cover all variations.
We were just talking about rapists and pedophiles and well, boys/girls and women are usually the targets.

I appreciate you clarifying your viewpoint. Yes, I do see the difference, but I personally find lack of empathy just as disturbing as rejoicing. Lack of empathy is often a root cause of violence against another being.

What can I say. That may be true for some people.
You'll have to take my word for it of course since we don't know each other, but I'm probably one of the least violent people you can ever meet.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Indeed. But why a girl/boy but not a woman/man? Why were adult males excluded from your list of people to care about?

They were not excluded on purpose.I just didn't think to cover all variations.
We were just talking about rapists and pedophiles and well, boys/girls and women are usually the targets.

I appreciate you clarifying your viewpoint. Yes, I do see the difference, but I personally find lack of empathy just as disturbing as rejoicing. Lack of empathy is often a root cause of violence against another being.

What can I say. That may be true for some people.
You'll have to take my word for it of course since we don't know each other, but I'm probably one of the least violent people you can ever meet.

Of course. I did not mean to offend you, my friend. It's simply that to me personally non-violence and empathy/love for all go hand in hand. I have difficulty seeing it any other way. Thank you for sharing with me.

 

[Deckerd]

I should point out to Jason that paedophilia is not a crime, in any country. Child sex offences are.

 

[Drogo]

I'd call the police tip line. Who else will they decide to murder next?

 

[Jayson]

I don't think I'd call the Police, but said person is obviously a grade A twat so I'd pretty much want nothing to do with them ever again.

Why would they be a twat for killing someone who is basically evil. Granted I don't beleive in good and evil in the simplifed way, that religion defines but there are some crimes were the word "evil" makes sense.

Jason

Well if you have no set moral standard, then who's to say your definition of evil won't change next week? And if it does maybe you wouldn't want that person killed after all.

This is a argument as to why vigilante justice, shouldn't be legal. I agree that you don't want people taking the streets as a rule, to settle vendetta's. You can't trust people in general to show common sense or behavior that follows a constiently moral pattern in these type of situations because alot of times they will be more fueled by anger or more disturbing emotions they may have, that has nothing to do with the feelings of wanting justice to happen to the victim. Not to mention the fact that most of these people proably wouldn't have the skills needed to gather the proof. Without proof you got nothing.
With that said I asume there would a few who did this, that actually would hold themselves to certain moral guidlines or you could call it the Batman or Dexter type. If my friend had real evidence, such as picture's of his victim raping a child or maybe he saw the guy with his own eye's commit rape, then I would have a hardtime turning him in for what he did.

Just imagine if he had killed the pedophile who raped your child or the guy who raped your wife,mother etc. Are you telling me you would turn a guy in for basically killing someone who committed acts of evil on people you love? To me it isn't about the murder. It's about the victim's crimes(or lack of crimes) and what was truly inside my friends/co-worker's heart. If you kill someone they should truly deserve it, and if you break one of the 3 unforgivable(urder,rape,pedophilla) sin's then those people deserve whatever horrible fat happens to them. It is also important for the killer to have done it for the right reason. If I felt my friend was still a good person and not just some deranged pyschopath, with a lust for blood then I could look the otherway, though our friendship would proably be over since I would be pissed at being put into such a dilemia.

Jason

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Why would they be a twat for killing someone who is basically evil. Granted I don't beleive in good and evil in the simplifed way, that religion defines but there are some crimes were the word "evil" makes sense.

Jason

Well if you have no set moral standard, then who's to say your definition of evil won't change next week? And if it does maybe you wouldn't want that person killed after all.

This is a argument as to why vigilante justice, shouldn't be legal. I agree that you don't want people taking the streets as a rule, to settle vendetta's. You can't trust people in general to show common sense or behavior that follows a constiently moral pattern in these type of situations because alot of times they will be more fueled by anger or more disturbing emotions they may have, that has nothing to do with the feelings of wanting justice to happen to the victim. Not to mention the fact that most of these people proably wouldn't have the skills needed to gather the proof. Without proof you got nothing.
With that said I asume there would a few who did this, that actually would hold themselves to certain moral guidlines or you could call it the Batman or Dexter type. If my friend had real evidence, such as picture's of his victim raping a child or maybe he saw the guy with his own eye's commit rape, then I would have a hardtime turning him in for what he did.

Just imagine if he had killed the pedophile who raped your child or the guy who raped your wife,mother etc. Are you telling me you would turn a guy in for basically killing someone who committed acts of evil on people you love? To me it isn't about the murder. It's about the victim's crimes(or lack of crimes) and what was truly inside my friends/co-worker's heart. If you kill someone they should truly deserve it, and if you break one of the 3 unforgivable(urder,rape,pedophilla) sin's then those people deserve whatever horrible fat happens to them. It is also important for the killer to have done it for the right reason. If I felt my friend was still a good person and not just some deranged pyschopath, with a lust for blood then I could look the otherway, though our friendship would proably be over since I would be pissed at being put into such a dilemia.

Jason

There is never a justifiable reason to kill a fellow being, except in urgent self-defense or in immediate and urgent defense of others; that's my view. Even then, killing is a last resort. I personally simply cannot understand why someone would wish any sort of suffering on anyone. I've certainly never experienced such a desire, and it confuses me why other people do.

 

[Jayson]

Well if you have no set moral standard, then who's to say your definition of evil won't change next week? And if it does maybe you wouldn't want that person killed after all.

This is a argument as to why vigilante justice, shouldn't be legal. I agree that you don't want people taking the streets as a rule, to settle vendetta's. You can't trust people in general to show common sense or behavior that follows a constiently moral pattern in these type of situations because alot of times they will be more fueled by anger or more disturbing emotions they may have, that has nothing to do with the feelings of wanting justice to happen to the victim. Not to mention the fact that most of these people proably wouldn't have the skills needed to gather the proof. Without proof you got nothing.
With that said I asume there would a few who did this, that actually would hold themselves to certain moral guidlines or you could call it the Batman or Dexter type. If my friend had real evidence, such as picture's of his victim raping a child or maybe he saw the guy with his own eye's commit rape, then I would have a hardtime turning him in for what he did.

Just imagine if he had killed the pedophile who raped your child or the guy who raped your wife,mother etc. Are you telling me you would turn a guy in for basically killing someone who committed acts of evil on people you love? To me it isn't about the murder. It's about the victim's crimes(or lack of crimes) and what was truly inside my friends/co-worker's heart. If you kill someone they should truly deserve it, and if you break one of the 3 unforgivable(urder,rape,pedophilla) sin's then those people deserve whatever horrible fat happens to them. It is also important for the killer to have done it for the right reason. If I felt my friend was still a good person and not just some deranged pyschopath, with a lust for blood then I could look the otherway, though our friendship would proably be over since I would be pissed at being put into such a dilemia.

Jason

There is never a justifiable reason to kill a fellow being, except in urgent self-defense or in immediate and urgent defense of others; that's my view. Even then, killing is a last resort. I personally simply cannot understand why someone would wish any sort of suffering on anyone. I've certainly never experienced such a desire, and it confuses me why other people do.

Because the people who would be killed, are people who cause suffering and misery on the world. Human life is sacred, so to damage it, or take it away is a sin that is beyond the pale. We only have once chance at life,,so for one of these monsters to come and destroy it, means that as far as I am concerned their lives have no worth anymore. Once you commit these sins, your life is no longer sacred, like the rest of humanity. The crimes they do is simply to much.

Jason

 

[Deranged Nasat]

This is a argument as to why vigilante justice, shouldn't be legal. I agree that you don't want people taking the streets as a rule, to settle vendetta's. You can't trust people in general to show common sense or behavior that follows a constiently moral pattern in these type of situations because alot of times they will be more fueled by anger or more disturbing emotions they may have, that has nothing to do with the feelings of wanting justice to happen to the victim. Not to mention the fact that most of these people proably wouldn't have the skills needed to gather the proof. Without proof you got nothing.
With that said I asume there would a few who did this, that actually would hold themselves to certain moral guidlines or you could call it the Batman or Dexter type. If my friend had real evidence, such as picture's of his victim raping a child or maybe he saw the guy with his own eye's commit rape, then I would have a hardtime turning him in for what he did.

Just imagine if he had killed the pedophile who raped your child or the guy who raped your wife,mother etc. Are you telling me you would turn a guy in for basically killing someone who committed acts of evil on people you love? To me it isn't about the murder. It's about the victim's crimes(or lack of crimes) and what was truly inside my friends/co-worker's heart. If you kill someone they should truly deserve it, and if you break one of the 3 unforgivable(urder,rape,pedophilla) sin's then those people deserve whatever horrible fat happens to them. It is also important for the killer to have done it for the right reason. If I felt my friend was still a good person and not just some deranged pyschopath, with a lust for blood then I could look the otherway, though our friendship would proably be over since I would be pissed at being put into such a dilemia.

Jason

There is never a justifiable reason to kill a fellow being, except in urgent self-defense or in immediate and urgent defense of others; that's my view. Even then, killing is a last resort. I personally simply cannot understand why someone would wish any sort of suffering on anyone. I've certainly never experienced such a desire, and it confuses me why other people do.

Because the people who would be killed, are people who cause suffering and misery on the world. Human life is sacred, so to damage it, or take it away is a sin that is beyond the pale. We only have once chance at life,,so for one of these monsters to come and destroy it, means that as far as I am concerned their lives have no worth anymore. Once you commit these sins, your life is no longer sacred, like the rest of humanity. The crimes they do is simply to much.

Jason

So, your response to me saying I don't understand why you would wish suffering on anyone is...because they caused suffering. Where is the logic in this response, I respectfully ask?

As for the real answer:

No. I would suggest strongly that we cannot go around picking and choosing who is worthy to live and who is worthy to die. We are all precious, and to suggest you have the right to decide who is worthy and who isn't is to set yourself apart from our race and claim some higher position. One thing you overlook is that people commit crimes- including violent crimes- for a number of reasons. The pressures and conditioning and experiences affecting each and every one of us cause us all to grow and develop and respond differently. To hold a person in a vacuum and say "their action means we must discard or reject them" is to take a shallow and flawed view of our societies.

You speak of monsters. Monsters are in the eye of the beholder. Look at it this way- consider a young man who goes out and stabs someone to death. Under your worldview, he is a monster and now forfits your care and empathy. Well, consider your nation's drafting of its young men during the Vietnam war, say. So, let's say this young man had his freedom taken from him, his people made it quite clear his life meant nothing to them, that his job and duty was to put himself in harms way in place of more valuable people. Then lets say he comes back...and stabs someone to death, having learnt his own life means nothing, so why should anyone elses? He's probaby not consciously justifying it in these terms, but that's how he's likely come to see things. Your response? Apparently, to continue the attitude of dismissive non-empathy that helped create this problem. If we have monsters, then as a society I can only say "look in the mirror, Doctor Frankenstein". Treat a fellow being as disposable, convey an attitude lacking in empathy or care, and you encourage others to do the same.

Imprisoning criminals, for life in many cases, is necessary: to keep them off the streets and so keep others safe, to discipline them in order that they may learn control, and hopefully to rehabilitate them (though this is not always possible). But to abandon our duty to them as fellow beings, to abandon our care for them and respect for their status as sapient beings: this to me is unthinkable (and it's not often I use a word like that). To ignore general society's role in creating their criminal tendencies is equally unthinkable. My goal is to educate others, through example, never imposition, that my way is better. If you respond to hate with hate, it grows and becomes more powerful. Violence begets violence. Each life and being we turn from breaks down our civilization further.

Someone who truly cares about human life does not dismiss it- EVER- and certainly not on the justification that "oh, they didn't share my moral belief in the sacred nature of sapient life". Our people are what we make them. You cause suffering and misery- or at least contribute to and justify it- with your beliefs that criminals are sub-human and should be treated as such. Should I then say you should be killed for that? Where does it end?

I have never understood why anyone would hate or dismiss someone who has wronged them, or those they care about. Deep anger, rage, regret, sure. But hate? Dismissal? A ceasation of caring? If their crimes and lack of empathy affect you so profoundly, why do you wish to see such behaviour or attitudes repeated?

Sometimes, I think I will never, if I live to be 120, understand the way other people's minds work. To stop caring for another being is simply not something I can understand, let's just put it that way.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Well said.

I would turn them in. Even if they killed a murderer or serial killer. This is why we have laws and courts; not just to deal with crime but to ensure that crime is dealt with in a civilized manner. No revenge or vigilante killing can be allowed or excused; it can be understood, of course, but then so can any crime.

Because the people who would be killed, are people who cause suffering and misery on the world. Human life is sacred, so to damage it, or take it away is a sin that is beyond the pale.

Anybody who caused suffering and misery? So it goes beyond rapists and child molesters? If somebody blinded a person, it would be okay to track them down and kill them? If they broke somebody's back and paralyzed them? Swindled them out of their life savings and caused them to have a mental breakdown? If you can justify one, you can justify anything.

 

[Amaris]

^^ Well said.

I would turn them in. Even if they killed a murderer or serial killer. This is why we have laws and courts; not just to deal with crime but to ensure that crime is dealt with in a civilized manner. No revenge or vigilante killing can be allowed or excused; it can be understood, of course, but then so can any crime.

Because the people who would be killed, are people who cause suffering and misery on the world. Human life is sacred, so to damage it, or take it away is a sin that is beyond the pale.

Anybody who caused suffering and misery? So it goes beyond rapists and child molesters? If somebody blinded a person, it would be okay to track them down and kill them? If they broke somebody's back and paralyzed them? Swindled them out of their life savings and caused them to have a mental breakdown? If you can justify one, you can justify anything.

Exactly. Like the Salem Witch Trials, it is far too easy to accuse someone of rape and murder. Mob justice is a misnomer. Mob revenge is the actual terminology because there is no justice involved whatsoever.

J.

 

[Goliath]

I think the term you're looking for is "lynch law".

Which, as you say, is no law at all.

Dave, overeducated.

 

[Amaris]

I think the term you're looking for is "lynch law".

Which, as you say, is no law at all.

Dave, overeducated.

I bow to your superior perspicacity.


J.

 

[Gil T.Azell]

Call Crime Stoppers, and try to collect the $$$.
I probably wasn't the first person this vigilanty had told.

 

[Jayson]

There is never a justifiable reason to kill a fellow being, except in urgent self-defense or in immediate and urgent defense of others; that's my view. Even then, killing is a last resort. I personally simply cannot understand why someone would wish any sort of suffering on anyone. I've certainly never experienced such a desire, and it confuses me why other people do.

Because the people who would be killed, are people who cause suffering and misery on the world. Human life is sacred, so to damage it, or take it away is a sin that is beyond the pale. We only have once chance at life,,so for one of these monsters to come and destroy it, means that as far as I am concerned their lives have no worth anymore. Once you commit these sins, your life is no longer sacred, like the rest of humanity. The crimes they do is simply to much.

Jason

So, your response to me saying I don't understand why you would wish suffering on anyone is...because they caused suffering. Where is the logic in this response, I respectfully ask?

As for the real answer:

No. I would suggest strongly that we cannot go around picking and choosing who is worthy to live and who is worthy to die. We are all precious, and to suggest you have the right to decide who is worthy and who isn't is to set yourself apart from our race and claim some higher position. One thing you overlook is that people commit crimes- including violent crimes- for a number of reasons. The pressures and conditioning and experiences affecting each and every one of us cause us all to grow and develop and respond differently. To hold a person in a vacuum and say "their action means we must discard or reject them" is to take a shallow and flawed view of our societies.

You speak of monsters. Monsters are in the eye of the beholder. Look at it this way- consider a young man who goes out and stabs someone to death. Under your worldview, he is a monster and now forfits your care and empathy. Well, consider your nation's drafting of its young men during the Vietnam war, say. So, let's say this young man had his freedom taken from him, his people made it quite clear his life meant nothing to them, that his job and duty was to put himself in harms way in place of more valuable people. Then lets say he comes back...and stabs someone to death, having learnt his own life means nothing, so why should anyone elses? He's probaby not consciously justifying it in these terms, but that's how he's likely come to see things. Your response? Apparently, to continue the attitude of dismissive non-empathy that helped create this problem. If we have monsters, then as a society I can only say "look in the mirror, Doctor Frankenstein". Treat a fellow being as disposable, convey an attitude lacking in empathy or care, and you encourage others to do the same.

Imprisoning criminals, for life in many cases, is necessary: to keep them off the streets and so keep others safe, to discipline them in order that they may learn control, and hopefully to rehabilitate them (though this is not always possible). But to abandon our duty to them as fellow beings, to abandon our care for them and respect for their status as sapient beings: this to me is unthinkable (and it's not often I use a word like that). To ignore general society's role in creating their criminal tendencies is equally unthinkable. My goal is to educate others, through example, never imposition, that my way is better. If you respond to hate with hate, it grows and becomes more powerful. Violence begets violence. Each life and being we turn from breaks down our civilization further.

Someone who truly cares about human life does not dismiss it- EVER- and certainly not on the justification that "oh, they didn't share my moral belief in the sacred nature of sapient life". Our people are what we make them. You cause suffering and misery- or at least contribute to and justify it- with your beliefs that criminals are sub-human and should be treated as such. Should I then say you should be killed for that? Where does it end?

I have never understood why anyone would hate or dismiss someone who has wronged them, or those they care about. Deep anger, rage, regret, sure. But hate? Dismissal? A ceasation of caring? If their crimes and lack of empathy affect you so profoundly, why do you wish to see such behaviour or attitudes repeated?

Sometimes, I think I will never, if I live to be 120, understand the way other people's minds work. To stop caring for another being is simply not something I can understand, let's just put it that way.

Ethic's isn't about compassion. Ethic's is about judging, behavior. I can feel bad for a criminal, in that I understand how horrible things can lead people down a path of evil but we also have empathy and free will. No matter how bad things get for you, it's no excuse to cause equal suffering to those who are inocent.

When I look at victim's, the only thing I can think of is, what if it was someone I loved, or me who was the victim." The idea of having empathy for someone who just raped my niece, seems inhuman to me. Some crimes are so bad, thati t changes to rules in how we treat them, as oposed to most humans. LIke I said I don't think somethings can be forgiven and are so bad no punishment is to much.

Jason

 

[Goliath]

I think the term you're looking for is "lynch law".

Which, as you say, is no law at all.

Dave, overeducated.

I bow to your superior perspicacity.


J.

Whoa, whoa--hold on there J.

I mean, sure, I'm flattered--maybe even a little curious.

But honestly, I don't think of you that way.

Plus, I'm sure your perspicacity is more than a match for mine.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Why would they be a twat for killing someone who is basically evil. Granted I don't beleive in good and evil in the simplifed way, that religion defines but there are some crimes were the word "evil" makes sense.

Jason

Well if you have no set moral standard, then who's to say your definition of evil won't change next week? And if it does maybe you wouldn't want that person killed after all.

This is a argument as to why vigilante justice, shouldn't be legal. I agree that you don't want people taking the streets as a rule, to settle vendetta's. You can't trust people in general to show common sense or behavior that follows a constiently moral pattern in these type of situations because alot of times they will be more fueled by anger or more disturbing emotions they may have, that has nothing to do with the feelings of wanting justice to happen to the victim. Not to mention the fact that most of these people proably wouldn't have the skills needed to gather the proof. Without proof you got nothing.
With that said I asume there would a few who did this, that actually would hold themselves to certain moral guidlines or you could call it the Batman or Dexter type. If my friend had real evidence, such as picture's of his victim raping a child or maybe he saw the guy with his own eye's commit rape, then I would have a hardtime turning him in for what he did.

Just imagine if he had killed the pedophile who raped your child or the guy who raped your wife,mother etc. Are you telling me you would turn a guy in for basically killing someone who committed acts of evil on people you love? To me it isn't about the murder. It's about the victim's crimes(or lack of crimes) and what was truly inside my friends/co-worker's heart. If you kill someone they should truly deserve it, and if you break one of the 3 unforgivable(urder,rape,pedophilla) sin's then those people deserve whatever horrible fat happens to them. It is also important for the killer to have done it for the right reason. If I felt my friend was still a good person and not just some deranged pyschopath, with a lust for blood then I could look the otherway, though our friendship would proably be over since I would be pissed at being put into such a dilemia.

Jason

Yes, I am telling you I would turn them in. Instantly.

 

[Amaris]

I think the term you're looking for is "lynch law".

Which, as you say, is no law at all.

Dave, overeducated.

I bow to your superior perspicacity.


J.

Whoa, whoa--hold on there J.

I mean, sure, I'm flattered--maybe even a little curious.

But honestly, I don't think of you that way.

Plus, I'm sure your perspicacity is more than a match for mine.

It takes true intellectuals to make a dirty joke out of that.

J.