A decision can't really be made outside of context.
Justice is for each individual not the whole of people. Saving those 1000 people did not affect the 1000 killed therefore justice must be served.
If you save one person's life, is it right to go out and murder someone? Does that change you from a life-saver to "neutral"?
Most would say it doesn't make it right. I'd agree.
If you extend that to the thousands you were talking about, how does it differ?
Society doesn't work on a score-based moral dichotomy. Unacceptable behaviour must be suitably punished. Something like murder can't be excused with whatever number of lives you save.
In regards to your example, if one did not commit murders, would that mean that one would have no obligation to save those aforementioned lives? If I save a life do I get one free murder?
Crimes are more significant than good deeds.
Firemen save lives everyday, does that make it okay for them to murder anyone they want?
Causing a death and preventing a death are not inverse actions
Your logic is NUL..BEEP...BOOP...BEEEEEEP.KELDONG.KELDONG.DASH..WOOOOOOOOOOOSH.
Also, I'm a lifeguard. I have prevented death before. Does that mean I get a free murder card?
Depending on conditional stuffs, here are the ones I can think of:
If those 1000 people that he killed were all genetic clones of the 1000 people and each of the people he saved and killed lived their lives exactly the same, then no he should not be killed.
Reason being he hasn't caused any real change in society, families, or life on the whole. He could repeat his actions and not much should change.
If the 1000 people were genetically different than those he killed and they lived their lives differently, then yes he should [b]probably[/b] be killed but not necessarily as there are more conditions.
If those people he [b]killed[/b] where generally "bad" people (perhaps murders, thieves, and generally barbarians) and the people he saved where generally "better" than those he killed (perhaps upstanding citizens, not murders, ect) than society has actually net gained and he should not be killed as repeating these actions should continue to better society provided there is a threshold for what is deemed "bad".
If the opposite is true, being those he killed where "good" and those he saved where "bad", then yes he should be killed as he has damaged human society and repeating this would further damage society.
Some of you might see "good" and "bad" as extremely relative to each person, but I use them relative to society or perhaps evolution. I am not using "good" and "evil", but "good" and "bad" as they relate to prosperity via society or evolution.
If those people he [b]killed[/b] where generally "bad" people (perhaps murders, thieves, and generally barbarians) and the people he saved where generally "better" than those he killed (perhaps upstanding citizens, not murders, ect) than society has actually net gained and he should not be killed as repeating these actions should continue to better society provided there is a threshold for what is deemed "bad".[/QUOTE]
So you are supporting vigilantism?
That's not an easy task here.
Sure, saving 1000 people is a huge effort and must be rewarded in some kind of way. But killing another 1000 greatly reduces this reward; So there must be some kind of correlation between both cases in order to find a solution for this.
Saying to punish him, for example death sentence, would ignore the fact that he saved 1000 people.
Setting him free would just be ignorant to the case of this serial murder thing.
This case cannot be solved without further information. Why did he kill? Who were the people he killed and why did he save those other people? Who are those he has saved? In which relation is all of this linked? With these information it might be easier to come to a solution - or maybe it would get just worse. Or we don't get a step further to the solution
Intent and/or motive is more important than the facts of the crime itself, when determining a sentence.
We have to decide how society will best benefit from the sentence given, no matter what the crime.
If saving these people was a demonstration of the fact that he had repented his previous sins, then what good would punishment do? On the other hand, can we be sure that he will not sink back and do the nasty deeds again?
Saving 1 person's life does not allow you to kill one other person.
So why should you be able to kill 1000 and save 1000 and not get (at the very least, very severe) punishment?
edit: oh and murder is murder, period.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.