well if its justifiable homicide (ie the person was trying to kill them/their family) then straight away.
Since this is somewhat off-topic, I'll try to keep it brief, but I agree with you that pedophilia is a disorder which needs to be cured rather than condemned. Also interestingly when you look at the statistics (I found all mine through Wikipedia), between 3 and 9% of the population have the disorder but the estimated number of child abusers stands between 0.5 and 1%, the actual percentage of those convicted are less than a tenth of that. Add to that the fact that around 15% of child sexual abusers don't meet the psychological criteria for pedophilia and it appears then that only a minority of those attracted to children are actually weak enough to give into their urges. If we could find out why that percentage give in and how others don't, then maybe we could actually get to and treat potential abusers before they commit a crime.i7omahawki said:Good example of where the issue gets tricky for me, I think it is justified in that I could not blame any one person in any way attached to that situation for that resulting action. However, I don't think it is 'justice', so to speak. As in, I don't think anything like that should be sanctioned by law or even be recommended by those not personally affected.DanielBrown said:It all depends on who you kill and why.
My mom once told me about a friend she had who murdered a man because he had raped his five year old niece(iirc). Totally justified in my opinion.
I don't think pedophiles should be killed, mostly as I think by killing them we are exterminating the possibility for understanding them. Not understanding them in the sense that they are misunderstood, good people, but understanding why this fucked up thing happens and why, when it does, people do actually act on it.
I'm of the controversial opinion that pedophiles should be treated, not jailed, and the public should look on it as a disorder, not as simply being a monster. That said, if that situation occurred and resources available to them, AND they still acted upon them by rape or even molestation, we could truly condemn them.
Are you f-ing kidding me, or what?! And please excuse me, if it that's meant to be sarcastic, but it doesn't matter what the motive is, if it's intentional, then 4k you!jeretik said:What? Of course! There are many reasons why murder would be forgivable - for example if it is committed out of revenge.retyopy said:Just give me any thoughts you have. Personally, I hold to the idea that any act is forgivable, with the exception of first degree murder. To me, once you kill someone else, planned it out and executed them, you have crossed the line between human and monster.
Not really, I did it in priority order.Sparrow said:Depends on the circumstances, I would think. What's the difference between killing someone on death row and letting the government do it?
But what if you killed a little kid that was a serial killer? BAM, got you now!omega 616 said:If I kill a serial killer am I a monster? No, I killed one to save more and maybe revenged a few.
If I killed a little kid, then I am a monster.
It just depends on circumstances.
But unfortunately life isn't that simple. If I planned out to kill Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, or even more modernly, Osama Bin Ladin, would I really be a monster? Or would I be a hero for saving people's lives?retyopy said:Just give me any thoughts you have. Personally, I hold to the idea that any act is forgivable, with the exception of first degree murder. To me, once you kill someone else, planned it out and executed them, you have crossed the line between human and monster.
The way I see it, is that we should still forgive and forget the man who did it and didn't regret it, but keep him locked up or whatever since he has obviously proved himself to be danger to society.tstorm823 said:I disagree with the general consensus of "depends on why."
Is murder forgivable? I'd say yes. I'd say that all things are forgivable, no matter how terrible. No, I neither have proof, nor explaination for this.
Based on my experience and gut instinct, I'd say that the only time something is unforgivable is when the perpetrator doesn't want forgiveness. A man could bomb a building and kill a thousand people; their loved ones probably won't forgive him, but if he truely regrets the action, they could. Whereas a person could do so little as slapping you in the face, if they never care to be forgiven and would gladly do it again, you probably aren't ever going to think anything nice about them.
question, would you consider torture worse than murder?Zeekar said:It's complicated. Obviously, murder isn't forgivable to you, so obviously on some levels and to some people it must not be "forgivable" -- But why draw the line at murder? What about rape? In my eyes, that's worse than murder, as murder can be justified to some degree.
Take these as examples: It's possible the person you murdered did something far worse and would do it again if not stopped. War is mass-murder, yet we justify it every single day, every single time. Should all parties involved be given the death sentence because they are unforgivable? Would that act in itself be murder?
In the end, I could forgive a true friend for anything they did. I have no right to be emotionally involved in anyone else. It's none of my business and I'm no judge or jury.
I don't know.zehydra said:question, would you consider torture worse than murder?Zeekar said:Snip.
What about rape? Is that forgiveable? Child abuse? Human Trafficking?retyopy said:Just give me any thoughts you have. Personally, I hold to the idea that any act is forgivable, with the exception of first degree murder. To me, once you kill someone else, planned it out and executed them, you have crossed the line between human and monster.