Killing people who commit muder or any serious crimes - IE Dexter the TV show - General

I personally think it is okay to have someone killed for killing another or someone who has no right to even live in the world we do. What value does that person hold to be kept alive for killing or committing a serious act to an innocent person? Why must we spend our taxes (From America btw) to keep that person in a place where he can get free food, a free home, and free medical care? This idea sprung from me seeing the News section where people who murdered a child molester are going to prison for something I think was right. To me it was right because why do we need someone like that in our world. Those kind of people are monstrous, you know they will never stop just like someone who smokes cigarettes.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Because if we as a society don't uphold a standard of laws and simply sink to vigilante 'justice' then it relies on vigilantes to decide who is allowed to live and die. If this is outside of the system then objectionable deaths would be more common. As well as that, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. What if vigilantes decide that drug dealers are of no benefit to society? What about drug consumers? What about alcoholics? What about religious fundamentalists or unholy atheists? If you give all of the power of justice to the people, how can we trust them to make the informed decision? This is why we have a system of laws set up in the first place. You may find it abhorrent that we keep child rapists alive but their punishment is set out in your state's laws. It's my belief that you should change that from in the inside, not give the powers of punishment to the public at their discretion. [editline]4th October 2011[/editline] P.S. the cigarette comment is silly. I have plenty of friends who have quit smoking. That's a ridiculous comparison.

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;32620447]I personally think it is okay to have someone killed for killing another or someone who has no right to even live in the world we do. What value does that person hold to be kept alive for killing or committing a serious act to an innocent person? Why must we spend our taxes (From America btw) to keep that person in a place where he can get free food, a free home, and free medical care? This idea sprung from me seeing the News section where people who murdered a child molester are going to prison for something I think was right. To me it was right because why do we need someone like that in our world. Those kind of people are monstrous, you know they will never stop just like [b]someone who smokes cigarettes[/b].[/QUOTE] Your argument is invalid people stop smoking all the time.

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;32620447]I personally think it is okay to have someone killed for killing another or someone who has no right to even live in the world we do.[/QUOTE] Question: Do you even know the definition of the term 'right'?

[QUOTE=Mlisen14;32620553]Because if we as a society don't uphold a standard of laws and simply sink to vigilante 'justice' then it relies on vigilantes to decide who is allowed to live and die. If this is outside of the system then objectionable deaths would be more common. As well as that, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. What if vigilantes decide that drug dealers are of no benefit to society? What about drug consumers? What about alcoholics? What about religious fundamentalists or unholy atheists? If you give all of the power of justice to the people, how can we trust them to make the informed decision? This is why we have a system of laws set up in the first place. You may find it abhorrent that we keep child rapists alive but their punishment is set out in your state's laws. It's my belief that you should change that from in the inside, not give the powers of punishment to the public at their discretion. [editline]4th October 2011[/editline] P.S. the cigarette comment is silly. I have plenty of friends who have quit smoking. That's a ridiculous comparison.[/QUOTE] I agree. Sometimes when I hear of a horrible crime comitted (murder, rape, torture) I think how awesome it would be if the people who did these things had the tables turned and were given a taste of their own medicine. I wouldn't exactly be sad or feel sorry for said people if it happened. However in reality I don't think the whole "an eye for an eye" system would work, it could be taken too far.

Maybe killing a murderer is ok, but what is defiantly not ok is killing an innocent person. No matter how thorough you are, there is always the possibility of killing an innocent person. On that, with even the tiniest chance of killing the wrong person, execution is not right. You can apologise and set someone free when new evidence comes to light if you've killed them

[QUOTE=ksenior;32621076]Maybe killing a murderer is ok, but what is defiantly not ok is killing an innocent person. No matter how thorough you are, there is always the possibility of killing an innocent person. On that, with even the tiniest chance of killing the wrong person, execution is not right. You can apologise and set someone free when new evidence comes to light if you've killed them[/QUOTE] Which is why I am against the death penalty. Even if it's years and years in the future, a wrongly arrested prisoner can be pardoned if new evidence proves his innocence. If he/she is dead then that's it, there's no going back.

[QUOTE=xXDictatorXx;32621195]Which is why I am against the death penalty. Even if it's years and years in the future, a wrongly arrested prisoner can be pardoned if new evidence proves his innocence. If he/she is dead then that's it, there's no going back.[/QUOTE] Agreed, risking the life on an innocent person for revenge or punishment is not on

[QUOTE=xXDictatorXx;32621195]Which is why I am against the death penalty. Even if it's years and years in the future, a wrongly arrested prisoner can be pardoned if new evidence proves his innocence. If he/she is dead then that's it, there's no going back.[/QUOTE] Couldn't agree more.

There is no way to ensure absolute accountability and motive as we cannot look inside people's heads no vigilantism, no corporal punishment

[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;32620547]An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.[/QUOTE] No, not really. An eye for an eye makes the wrongdoers blind. If I murder a murderer then only the wrong doer is harmed.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;32622025]No, not really. An eye for an eye makes the wrongdoers blind. If I murder a murderer then only the wrong doer is harmed.[/QUOTE] You're not some impartial arbiter here. By killing a murderer outside the judicial system then you're committing just as serious an offence - even more serious perhaps than the original crime. Vigilante justice breeds vigilante justice and that would degrade society thoroughly. So no, everyone is harmed.

[QUOTE=Mlisen14;32622118]You're not some impartial arbiter here. By killing a murderer outside the judicial system then you're committing just as serious an offence - even more serious perhaps than the original crime. Vigilante justice breeds vigilante justice and that would degrade society thoroughly. So no, everyone is harmed.[/QUOTE] Correct, but I'm not really arguing per se with the idea, just that quote. It pisses me off. I don't condone vigilantism, but the quote suggests that if one person wrongs another than everyone then get's fucked, which isn't true at all. What If i kill the murderer and he kills me at the same time? Then only we are "blind" and society is all fine and dandy.

Murder (knowingly causing or taking an active part in the death of another human being) should be illegal on all counts. Whether that be the team of doctors taking part in the process of administering a lethal injection or whether it be strangling a spouse to death to gain their wealth. You are ending the life of another human being and you should be locked away because of it. Obviously there are varying "degrees" of murder and there needs to be lines drawn and specific things dictating when something is murder. However what I whole-heartedly am against is the idea that it is ok to take someone's life for taking someone elses. Knowingly and actively taking the life of another human being is murder, regardless of what laws and stipulations cover your ass (e.g. death penalty grim reaper workers).

[QUOTE=Benf199105;32622025]No, not really. An eye for an eye makes the wrongdoers blind. If I murder a murderer then only the wrong doer is harmed.[/QUOTE] If you kill a murderer, you become a murderer. Another vigilante comes and kills you for murdering and so on. [editline]4th October 2011[/editline] Vigilante killing is still murder. It should definately be against the law. Maybe with a slightly reduced sentence depending on the case.

[QUOTE=ksenior;32621076]Maybe killing a murderer is ok, but what is [B]defiantly[/B] not ok is killing an innocent person. [/QUOTE] GODDAMNIT In all seriousness though, while they manage to bring it in a fun and satisfying way in Dexter, it just wouldn't work in this society. Who decides if someone is wrong enough to die? What if people who commit these crimes are truly sorry and can change?

He's trying to justify China's capital punishment laws after GunFox owned him in another thread.

If you kill some psycho dumb fuck who hurt you or some people around you really bad, then you are not a bad person. Just a strong individual who is capable of killing, which can be good and bad. But knowing the system, basically any murderer is seen as truly evil. So you're either an innocent person (who has killed people but no one has proved it) or you go to prison for a long time.

There's no such thing as freewill, so they don't deserve to be punished any more than you or me. We still have to prevent crime and rehabilitation works better than anything else. Justification to punish them doesn't exist and rehab has shown to lower crime rates the best, so it's obvious we should use rehabilitation. [QUOTE=Shiftyze;32620447]I personally think it is okay to have someone killed for killing another or someone who has no right to even live in the world we do. What value does that person hold to be kept alive for killing or committing a serious act to an in... words ...ester are going to prison for something I think was right. To me it was right because why do we need someone like that in our world.[b]Those kind of people are monstrous, you know they will never stop[/b] just like someone who smokes cigarettes.[/QUOTE] Proof? You should probably read the section rules on stating something as fact.

Wanting to kill someone against their consent is simply a lack of empathy; you don't understand what it's like to be them. If you did, if you truly understood them, then you would see that person as a image of yourself, and unless you hate yourself, you could not harm them. So, what I'm saying is, only ignorance would lead someone to punish another individual for being "different"

Just a little side note, something that always annoys me a bit: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is such a misunderstood concept. It's an ancient law, probably one of the first recorded laws in human history, long before the ten commandments. It's actually a law of proportional retribution, not justification for revenge. Today people read it as: You should take an eye for an eye Originally it meant: You may not take more than an eye for an eye There's quite a difference. If your neighbour comes into your house and steals your TV, you shouldn't go and burn his house down. Punishment should be proportional to the crime. Back to the subject, I think that killing is a different matter. I feel that nobody has the right to say whether somebody lives or dies.

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;32623435]Back to the subject, I think that killing is a different matter. I feel that nobody has the right to say whether somebody lives or dies.[/QUOTE] True... true.. but some people prove themselves to be worthy of death. Death or incarceration I mean.. but there's a thin line between those two.

[QUOTE=xXDictatorXx;32621195]Which is why I am against the death penalty. Even if it's years and years in the future, a wrongly arrested prisoner can be pardoned if new evidence proves his innocence. If he/she is dead then that's it, there's no going back.[/QUOTE] I.E. The Thin Blue Line.

I say go for it, unless it was a complete accident or the person is genuinely sorry for it I feel this strongest to drunk drivers that kill, go to prison for 35 years, get parole at 15, then go out, get drunk, and repeat the same shit they were put in for.

Morality is an opinion.

I think it has to be a VERY gruesome crime from a person who's basically pure evil and beyond rehabilitation for me to be for a death penalty.

It's already been proven through various studies that positive reinforcement succeeds over negative reinforcement. Beating up your kid because he got in a fight at school will not teach him to stay out of fights. Maybe for a while, but in the long run, he will devolve back to fighting because it's what he experienced.

Getting away with things, is the worlds way of saying, that you deserve a second chance. Dexter ruins that by being a justice-whore and a hypocrite.

[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;32620547]An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't, it makes two people half-blind [editline]4th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Secrios;32629896]Getting away with things, is the worlds way of saying, that you deserve a second chance. Dexter ruins that by being a justice-whore and a hypocrite.[/QUOTE] not everyone deserves a second chance