TConnor_Demonic

Jun 9 2014, 03:04 AM

At what point do we draw the line though? Sure there are the outliers like once versus thirty times. And then there are the cases of self-defense as long as it is proved. I guess I should've been more specific in my modified term for an eye for an eye. If said person has proved that it was in Self-Defense then obviously the person shouldn't be sentenced to death since they would've likely had been killed themselves hadn't they gone to the extent of defense they did. But this brings up another thing, at what point do we draw the line? At what point do we decide enough is enough and this person is a danger? 2? 3? 4? 5? At what point is he TOO much of a murderer? Can there be different tiers of murderers? What's the difference between the mindset of a serial killer and someone who has murdered only once and not out of self-defense?

Copy_Ninja

Jun 9 2014, 09:35 AM

TConnor_Demonic

Jun 9 2014, 03:04 AM

At what point do we draw the line though? Sure there are the outliers like once versus thirty times. And then there are the cases of self-defense as long as it is proved. I guess I should've been more specific in my modified term for an eye for an eye. If said person has proved that it was in Self-Defense then obviously the person shouldn't be sentenced to death since they would've likely had been killed themselves hadn't they gone to the extent of defense they did. But this brings up another thing, at what point do we draw the line? At what point do we decide enough is enough and this person is a danger? 2? 3? 4? 5? At what point is he TOO much of a murderer? Can there be different tiers of murderers? What's the difference between the mindset of a serial killer and someone who has murdered only once and not out of self-defense?

I don't think these are questions that are all that conceptually difficult to be honest. The test for self-defence is whether the person believed they, another or their property is in danger and if that fear was reasonable (e.g. if someone fears for their life because a toddler was running up to them with a plastic sword that wouldn't allow them to use self defence, obvious exaggeration but you get the idea). And there's a LOT of law that's built up on objective tests to measure when that belief is reasonable.

Most modern countries have pretty solid legal systems. Not perfect by any means but perfect legal systems do not exist. Our legal systems are based off being innocent until proven guilty and you cannot be proven guilty unless you prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. It's a high standard and is so for a reason. Locking someone up is denying a basic human right and shouldn't be done lightly. So the way the system is designed it gives a higher chance of someone guilty going free as opposed to someone innocent being found guilty.

Naked Snake

Jun 9 2014, 09:09 AM

So we should circumvent the law to punish those who've broken the law? That's wrong on a fundamental level. Laws are there to be followed. Criminals wont follow it, so it's up to the other citizens to do so. Why lower yourself to the level of a criminal? Even if they've wronged you, we have a system in place for cases to be brought against them. It isn't perfect, but that's why there are appeal courts. Even if the system fails you, you can continue fighting your case and garner public support, which would result in either the case being reconsidered, or the individual in question being publicly shamed, shunned and condemned.

The legal system of today can lead to quite a few injustices, nobody can deny that. However, would a better alternative be that people are capable of seeking revenge for those injustices, and that those pursuits would be deemed acceptable by the law? I don't think so. In a society where people can 'take justice into their own hands', the law becomes meaningless. To what extent would this vigilantism be condoned? Would cases involving finance be acceptable? Or what it be contained purely to cases of severe personal harm? Such a grey area is an extremely dangerous thing.

Master Saberoph

Jun 9 2014, 05:23 PM

Naked Snake

Jun 9 2014, 09:09 AM

So we should circumvent the law to punish those who've broken the law? That's wrong on a fundamental level. Laws are there to be followed. Criminals wont follow it, so it's up to the other citizens to do so. Why lower yourself to the level of a criminal? Even if they've wronged you, we have a system in place for cases to be brought against them. It isn't perfect, but that's why there are appeal courts. Even if the system fails you, you can continue fighting your case and garner public support, which would result in either the case being reconsidered, or the individual in question being publicly shamed, shunned and condemned.

The legal system of today can lead to quite a few injustices, nobody can deny that. However, would a better alternative be that people are capable of seeking revenge for those injustices, and that those pursuits would be deemed acceptable by the law? I don't think so. In a society where people can 'take justice into their own hands', the law becomes meaningless. To what extent would this vigilantism be condoned? Would cases involving finance be acceptable? Or what it be contained purely to cases of severe personal harm? Such a grey area is an extremely dangerous thing.

I said when justice fails and the local law does nothing but drag their feet and don't give a s***.

They did that with me, they never found the knife and waiting almost a week before they even tried looking for it.

I'm not saying some random person should take the law into their own hands for someone they don't even know or a friend of the family should over someone that was killed and they got away with it. But, I do believe if someone is killed and justice completely fails... someone from that family should take the law into their own hands. If they get caught, they get caught. So, if someone is going to do that then they should cover their a*** and make sure they can get away with it.


Like with me... when I find the guy who hurt me, I'm going to hurt him bad enough where he'll suffer for the rest of his life like I'm going to. Now, I'm not saying killing the person is the only way... I think a proper beating is just fine.

Master Saberoph

Jun 9 2014, 03:07 AM

I'm not talking about Prison... I'm talking about revenge, as in when justice fails.

Pyrus

Jun 10 2014, 02:27 AM

That's why the system isn't "fair." Someone could murder your entire family and get away with it based on lack of evidence. That isn't fair to you, but that's "justice."

The Assassin

Jun 10 2014, 02:18 AM

Master Saberoph

Jun 9 2014, 03:07 AM

I'm not talking about Prison... I'm talking about revenge, as in when justice fails.

The problem with the "Justice" in modern culture is that it's not about what the person actually did, it's about what the opposition can prove that they did.

For example, this is the reason why George Zimmerman got off. Everyone knows he killed Trayvon Martin in an unjustified way, but Martin's defense just couldn't prove that's what happened because the evidence simply wasn't there.

Quote:

 

I would be fine if killing wasn't part of it and was never the choice. This happened in my home town... my friends sister was killed in cold blood and the a*** got 90 days in jail and that's it, he got away with the murder and was found not guilty due to technicalities even though the evidence pointed to him.

Her brother found him and beat the holy hell out of him, and then let it be.

Master Saberoph

Jun 6 2014, 06:33 PM

I think if someone kills another or rapes someone, then I think the person who was raped has the right to seek their own justice, no matter what it is. Now, if someone is murdered then I believe someone from their family has the right to seek with own justice.

Other than that... I don't think people should kill.