Poll: Are murderers forgivable?
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What? WHY? Why would they... God, the world is a fucked up place, isn't it?questionnairebot said:
And now, I really, really don't want to point this out, because this sort of thing should be met with nothing but utter shock, but... The amount of time spent planning is immaterial. The very thought, "hey guys, lets go kill that dude" is a plan.
And now I feel like a douche.
The questions whether first degree murder is forgivable morally and whether it should be forgiven legally are two different things I think. On the moral standard, a person who murders a criminal is forgivable. For example, a father who murders his daughters rapist would be forgivable in my mind. I would not hold resentment towards such a person.
However, the law should still punish such people. It does not matter what the victim did to deserve it, first degree murder is still murder. Note first degree doesn't apply to self defense or spur of the moment murder. My reasons for this is simple. Vigilante justice is entirely subjective. What one person considers to be extremely wrong could be completely different to what another person considers to be extremely wrong. The reason we have courts is to create a relatively consistent and objective system of judgement.
Say for example I murder a murderer. Most people would view this as a good thing probably. However, lets say that murderer had children. Those children would not only see me as the murderer of a murderer, but as the murderer of their father. So when they murder me what have they done? They have murdered another murderer.
Since Norman England we have been developing a system where people should be relying on the court. You don't just stab someone who wrongs you. You take them to court. Vigilante justice undermines this system. For that reason motive, is irrelevant in conviction and can only help color the defendants guilty mind. By allowing a single case of vigilante justice to go unpunished we are opening the door to repeats and everyone who has been wronged will personally seek to correct the wrong.
However, the law should still punish such people. It does not matter what the victim did to deserve it, first degree murder is still murder. Note first degree doesn't apply to self defense or spur of the moment murder. My reasons for this is simple. Vigilante justice is entirely subjective. What one person considers to be extremely wrong could be completely different to what another person considers to be extremely wrong. The reason we have courts is to create a relatively consistent and objective system of judgement.
Say for example I murder a murderer. Most people would view this as a good thing probably. However, lets say that murderer had children. Those children would not only see me as the murderer of a murderer, but as the murderer of their father. So when they murder me what have they done? They have murdered another murderer.
Since Norman England we have been developing a system where people should be relying on the court. You don't just stab someone who wrongs you. You take them to court. Vigilante justice undermines this system. For that reason motive, is irrelevant in conviction and can only help color the defendants guilty mind. By allowing a single case of vigilante justice to go unpunished we are opening the door to repeats and everyone who has been wronged will personally seek to correct the wrong.
Anything is forgivable. No one is beyond redemption. Hooray for Christan values!
I don't think there is any one act that makes a person so vile they can't come back. Maybe I'm just a misty eyed romantic optimist though.
I don't think there is any one act that makes a person so vile they can't come back. Maybe I'm just a misty eyed romantic optimist though.
A murderer is by definition, a criminal who commits homicide (who performs the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being).
The law doesn't decide what is morally right or wrong because these beliefs differ from person to person, it just tries to maintain order based on what the majority of society or as some would argue the ruling powers agrees on.
What I am trying to say is, they may have broken the law but I may be agree with their actions or at least as the thread asks, forgive them. However I can understand why those who do commit murder must be punished as we can't break law and order based on our own feelings towards the murder e.g. believing a mother shouldn't be prosecuted for killing an abusive EX to bother her and her kids.
Anyway, yeah they can be forgiven based on their actions or/and who they become.
The law doesn't decide what is morally right or wrong because these beliefs differ from person to person, it just tries to maintain order based on what the majority of society or as some would argue the ruling powers agrees on.
What I am trying to say is, they may have broken the law but I may be agree with their actions or at least as the thread asks, forgive them. However I can understand why those who do commit murder must be punished as we can't break law and order based on our own feelings towards the murder e.g. believing a mother shouldn't be prosecuted for killing an abusive EX to bother her and her kids.
Anyway, yeah they can be forgiven based on their actions or/and who they become.
I think it is entirely relative to circumstance. There was a Louis Theroux documentary about a prison in the United States (I believe the title as U.S. mega-jails), where he met a man awaiting trial for the triple murder. He had gunned down three men as part of gang retaliation as they left a court hearing.
On the face of it, this is the definition of first degree murder. However, the reason he killed them was because these men had intentionally killed the child of a close friend. While incarcerated, he had requested to be placed in solitary, because he didn't want to get involved in the gang and turf rivalry which took place in the larger cells. He devoted his time to reading through the dictionary, because he was aware he was not well educated, and had written books which he then sent to his girlfriend in an attempt to get them published, and even advised guards on which parts of the cell could be made into makeshift knives by other inmates. Whoever he had been when he went in, it was clear he was no longer that same man now.
That's why I don't think ALL killers should be lumped under the same banner. There may be mitigating circumstances, I think if anyone had murdered a child of my friend I would kill them as well. And over time, there is a chance for people to change.
On the face of it, this is the definition of first degree murder. However, the reason he killed them was because these men had intentionally killed the child of a close friend. While incarcerated, he had requested to be placed in solitary, because he didn't want to get involved in the gang and turf rivalry which took place in the larger cells. He devoted his time to reading through the dictionary, because he was aware he was not well educated, and had written books which he then sent to his girlfriend in an attempt to get them published, and even advised guards on which parts of the cell could be made into makeshift knives by other inmates. Whoever he had been when he went in, it was clear he was no longer that same man now.
That's why I don't think ALL killers should be lumped under the same banner. There may be mitigating circumstances, I think if anyone had murdered a child of my friend I would kill them as well. And over time, there is a chance for people to change.
"Killing is badong!"
Shouldn't be too hard to figure out the referance.
I would normally say that killing should never be an option, but it's kind of a naive mindset i have. Sometimes it's necessary for your own survival or to protect those we care about.
"They stand up for the people they care about, they pick up sword for those who shed tears"
Not referanced from the same place.
It just goes to show that we'll do anything to protect what's important to us, and if you're killing to protect a life then i'd say you've killed for a just reason.
Shouldn't be too hard to figure out the referance.
I would normally say that killing should never be an option, but it's kind of a naive mindset i have. Sometimes it's necessary for your own survival or to protect those we care about.
"They stand up for the people they care about, they pick up sword for those who shed tears"
Not referanced from the same place.
It just goes to show that we'll do anything to protect what's important to us, and if you're killing to protect a life then i'd say you've killed for a just reason.
I could see justified. Forgivable is a stretch, but certainly they can be justified.
Then again, any wwar hero whos ever killed someone is a murderer int he first the degree, and we seem to give them a pass (which is good cause my uncle would have gotten the chair or at least no less then fifty consecutive life sentences for all the Korean, Chinese, Russian and Vietnamese soldiers he killed during the korean and Vietnam war.
Then again, any wwar hero whos ever killed someone is a murderer int he first the degree, and we seem to give them a pass (which is good cause my uncle would have gotten the chair or at least no less then fifty consecutive life sentences for all the Korean, Chinese, Russian and Vietnamese soldiers he killed during the korean and Vietnam war.
I never said being forgiven means there wouldn't be any punishment. I said that someone who did something for a forgivable reason shouldn't be jailed since that lock him up in a bad position where he's most likely going to continue a life of crime because he wont have a choice.JoJoDeathunter said:
I also know one guy who's likely to kill someone in a drunken fit because he's almost done it already. Sure he was angry and he was drunk. He was angry because he was drunk and no other reason. He always end up beating up someone while drunk, but he keeps drinking. If he kills someone while he's drunk it's his fault for drinking while being aware of the possible consequences.
I wont forgive someone who did something while unable to control himself if he was the one who made him unable to control himself.
Romanticize? I'm not sure what the hell you mean by that, where did I say child rape wasn't child rape?Fawxy said:
Anyway, I wouldn't argue that they are worthy human beings, but I consider the possibility that we like to differentiate ourselves from pedophiles by almost casting them out of humanity itself. In similar way to how people use the word 'evil', to suggest that this person wasn't a human being with choices who made a terrible choice that will damage somebody for life, but rather a monster who, as you say, should be exterminated.
I think this attitude is part of the problem, and I'm really not trying to romanticize the issue, I'm not really sure what that even means, but I'm mostly thinking about the victim's life hereafter anyway, with the rapist coming a distant second. But, is it really the case that these people are instrinsicly different from us? Not merely that they develop a perversion that is obviously unhealthy to them and others and, we assume from free choice but given the pressures and denials people face from pedophilia, as though developing this terrible but (and this might get me in trouble) natural inclination, which is indisputably unhealthy and, to use the common phrase 'sick', makes one totally different from the rest of humanity, such that they aren't really human but sub-human.
Aren't people who are treated like that, instead of being treated by what is in fact a perversion, MORE likely to consider acting as inhuman as they are labelled and thus feel? If so if we want to reduce the number of child rapes we should be more compassionate about the illness, and when and only when that situation has occurred in society can we truly condemn those that choose this sick act.
As for the now, I think purely on the victims/potential victims side, we should want to help the pedophiles, even the ones who commit these terrible crimes. By doing so, we would learn more about what causes it, and hopefully find a way to stop it from happening that doesn't involve extreme levels of guilt (which as any good psychologist will tell you is a great way to spur on a sexual deviancy rather than quell it). In the end, we want fewer children to be raped, that is the simple end to which we aspire, but bringing it about is literally impossible.
I don't think we could ever totally destroy it as a social phenomena, but it can almost definitely be reduced from what it is now, not by calling people monsters and punishing them until the end of time, but by treating the initial inclination as something natural but deeply, deeply unhealthy. That, and studying child rapists, what makes them better/worse, what situations are similar for those who commit this crime. Majorly I think, if you could treat a child rapist, and it worked, it would look good for reducing the problem of child rape massively.
Anyway, this is only a side-issue to the actual topic, so I'll end by saying that I don't even consider child killers and child rapists deserving of death. I would rather we used them to find out more about why this happens, as I think it'd be a better means of stopping these things happening in the first place. Which is what is important after all.
Depends. If they killed someone innocent because they panicked or because they're desperate, then they can be forgiven. Especially if they feel remorse/regret for the killing. Murderers who kill killers/evil people are forgivable as well.
If the murderer is a cold blooded bastard who takes pleasure in killing innocent people and probably makes a living out of it, then no. I hope these people die a slow, painful, and horrible death.
If the murderer is a cold blooded bastard who takes pleasure in killing innocent people and probably makes a living out of it, then no. I hope these people die a slow, painful, and horrible death.
Some things can be forgiven. But forgiveness must be sought, and earned, and is not given freely. It is not a matter of regret, or pride, or repentance, but a matter of person.
I would put to you a question in a similar line--if someone commits murder, but such was not the intended outcome, would you let them be there at the funeral?
I would put to you a question in a similar line--if someone commits murder, but such was not the intended outcome, would you let them be there at the funeral?
Who are you to judge an act unforgivable? Apart from that I recognize murder and killing as a fundalmental act that defines our species. As far as I know every civilization has known war murder and execution. Like it or not killing is human.
Also you don't define first degree murder very well. What's is the difference between that and a soldier?
As a final note I want to adress the many people who said things like: "Killing bad people is okay." For that I want to cite Christopher Dawson. "As soon as men decide that all means are premitted to fight an evil, their good becomes indistinguisable from the evil they set out to destroy." When you fight bad people you ought to be better then them, killing them is stepping down to their level.
In conclusion I find that we are not fit to judge an act unforgivable, certainly so if such an act is so familiar to us. But I find it arrogant naive and dangerous when people say it's okay to kill bad people.
Also you don't define first degree murder very well. What's is the difference between that and a soldier?
As a final note I want to adress the many people who said things like: "Killing bad people is okay." For that I want to cite Christopher Dawson. "As soon as men decide that all means are premitted to fight an evil, their good becomes indistinguisable from the evil they set out to destroy." When you fight bad people you ought to be better then them, killing them is stepping down to their level.
In conclusion I find that we are not fit to judge an act unforgivable, certainly so if such an act is so familiar to us. But I find it arrogant naive and dangerous when people say it's okay to kill bad people.
No I don't think he should have gotten away with it. I'm not saying what he did was wrong, in fact I think what he did was the right thing. He shouldn't have gone to to cops or something. police have no juristaction here, this is about a man protecting his family. But that does not mean there shouldn't be consequences for what he did. One must also bear the responsibility of his actions, and recognize that one lives in a society that needs rules and laws.PlatonicRapist said:
Because what he did what he did in front of withnesses and not be sneeky about it, I think he is great, and have great respect for this man. But a civilization can not allow murder and killing to go unpunished, not even when the victim is such a lowlife.
Joe should go to prison, with his head high rightfully proud of what he did. But he still ought to go to prison for it.
Visite him in prison once in a while.
Ah I see, thanks for clearing that up.Fawxy said:
And well - I think the reason you disagree with me so much is because you chose to put loads of stuff into my argument that wasn't there and use terms I didn't even hint at.
Of course they should be punished, but punishment should always be a part of rehabilitation. That doesn't mean coddling or protecting, as such, but means making sure they get better and don't do it again. And also helps prevent others from committing the crime too. Less child rapes is what we want, right? Well studying rapists is by far the best way to do that, understanding why it happens, as all human actions have motivations and are always within a context, is by far the best way to make sure those motivations don't grow to that scale and those contexts don't occur as often. Killing them solves absolutely fuck all, the child was still raped, and there's no getting away from that, and we can't learn anything about the rapist because, shit, they're dead. However hard you want to bang the drum of justice, demanding that revenge should be taken out on those that commit horrible crimes, you will do nothing to serve the cause of helping and preventing child rape.
I would also like to air this point, though it is far from conclusive and more speculative. How far do we say "This child is now beyond hope, their life has been taken, and they will never have a good life," when we put someone to death for that crime? Are we saying the child is beyond hope and thus the rapist should die to make up for it? While I cannot imagine anything more terrible than that act, and have little experience with those that have been affected by it, I would never, ever suggest that they were totally beyond repair. I don't think many would like to say that, or believe it, either.
Rapists of course shouldn't be coddled or protected, to say that is my argument, and that it is either that or death, is a fallacious distraction from the argument at hand. We don't want to admit they are human, we want to say they are monsters. But humans can be monsters, and I think whether we like it or not, in some possibilities I think the capability for such 'inhuman' acts lies within all of us.
I'm gunna have to sit on the fence on this one and say it's all very... circumstantial depending on who, when, why etc.
Like for example, if (going on the example from a film I saw) a man murders your wife, planning revenge (to me) is compeltely justified.
Assassins get paid, so at the end of the day, no matter who they're murdering, to them it's just business. And, it's not necessarily the most forgivable occupation, but at the same time, it is just another occupation, and whoever it is they're killing probably has a reason to have had someone put a hit contract out on them.
And if you're only talking about planned murders then I guess that's me out of ideas. From this I guess overall it kind of is okay to forgive murderers... But that's from an onlooker's perspective after all. If a murderer affects you personally (by killing a friend, family, household pet...) then I think it's completely impossible to forgive them, because it's almost like saying to yourself that you don't care what they've done, what they've taken from you.
(No I didn't mean the pet bit seriously)*
Like for example, if (going on the example from a film I saw) a man murders your wife, planning revenge (to me) is compeltely justified.
Assassins get paid, so at the end of the day, no matter who they're murdering, to them it's just business. And, it's not necessarily the most forgivable occupation, but at the same time, it is just another occupation, and whoever it is they're killing probably has a reason to have had someone put a hit contract out on them.
And if you're only talking about planned murders then I guess that's me out of ideas. From this I guess overall it kind of is okay to forgive murderers... But that's from an onlooker's perspective after all. If a murderer affects you personally (by killing a friend, family, household pet...) then I think it's completely impossible to forgive them, because it's almost like saying to yourself that you don't care what they've done, what they've taken from you.
(No I didn't mean the pet bit seriously)*