This is in accordance to my question about is it wrong to kill pediphiles drug dealers and rapist etc... ones that wont be prosecuted for their crimes...
Is it also wrong to kill them to rid society of creatures such as these? Ones that prey on people from dark corners... hiding for a time to strike...
2006-07-13 23:03:55 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
If you executed every single criminal....that would not cure crime. But it would keep that individual from repeating the crime.
2006-07-13 23:07:53 · answer #1 · answered by toe poe gee gee oh 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lingering fear and agony is probably worse. Quick death may be the better of two undesirable alternatives. Choosing between worse and even more worse is hardly a healthy choice. The criminals should be eliminated so they cannot repeat their crimes.
There are societies where this is done already, where these "creatures" are put to death, usually Third World type of places. Adolf Hitler went further. He was in favor of ridding society of the useless: the crippled, deformed, mentally ill, the sick, all those who could not contribute from society but who instead drained away its energy. Hitler's approach was more in keeping with the way animals deal with these type of individuals.
As human population continues to explode and overcrowding becomes unbearable and food and water become major issues, the view towards allowing vicious pathological criminals to live will become more and more of a minority opinion. Eventually society will simply not be able to tolerate these dregs; not only do they not make a meaningful, positve contribution to society, they actually attack it, raping, maiming, killing. There will be no room for them and these beings will be eliminated.
But it goes beyond dealing with only the criminal deviates in a society. Eventually, as competition for ever dwindling resources becomes critically acute, the issue of the crippled, sick, deformed and mentally ill must be addressed.
We should take a cue from the animal kingdom, where the sick, crippled and dysfunctional are routinely culled from the herd as a matter of course. What gives us the audacity to think we are somehow better than a baboon?
2006-07-13 23:14:40 · answer #2 · answered by Kokopelli 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't put one against the other. They are both crimes that are tragedies for the people who gets involved. I don't think there is many pedophile drugdealer though, but there are pedophiles and there are drugdealers. Both represent something that our society cannot accept. A drugdealer can result in another persons death, or at least contributing to the persons way of life, getting money for the drugs, prostitution and so forth. A pedophile is abusing children, and is causing a serious tragedy for the children involved, long term problems. Both are serious crimes and they should be punished with maximum penalty.
John
2006-07-13 23:27:10 · answer #3 · answered by Scorpion 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you kill in self defense, then that's jusifiable. Only the government can execute someone. It would be choas if vigilante justice was allowed. It's awful when these people aren't brought to justice, but that doesn't give anyone the right to take the law into their own hands. They would be just as guilty of a crime.
2006-07-13 23:11:15 · answer #4 · answered by First Lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Justice does not work on theory of repeat offense. To do so is to play god. We punish based on evidence and our best attempts at reasoning what it means. We punish to fit the severity of the crime while also keeping our humanity. We do, in part, imprison to prevent a repeat offense, but not solely for that purpose. It is secondary to punishment crime equitability.
It is wrong for us to kill in the name of vigilantism when the person we kill is not a clear and present threat, acting in such a manner. It is murder.
As for executions, I don't believe in them, because they are irreversable.
2006-07-13 23:09:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
nicely this question is style of troublesome to respond to it really is a sophisticated one and hears why if a baby is molested that somtimes should be as undesirable as homicide as a results of the undeniable fact that child ought to hate women even as he grows up because he replaced into molested with the help of a women their for killing a women in case you spot my element. also i wager killing the youngster should be worse i see what you advise. and also what im about to assert now's somewhat unrelated yet shall we are saying a guy kills his spouse and a women molests a 5 year old toddler i imagine the girls is a lot worse because as undesirable as a guy who kills his spouse is theirs not some thing sicker then a grown guy or women molesting a 5 year old i'd opt to stay next to the spouse killer sorry the fellow who molested the 5 year old is sicker and far a lot extra hateable in my e book.
2016-11-02 01:13:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A dead person cannot heal. It is final. I vote that the second case is not as bad because there is still hope of improvement and hence a life to live out to conclusion.
You are very obsessed with pedophiles and dealers...... Why?
2006-07-13 23:10:32 · answer #7 · answered by pieter U3 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think one where the person suffers is worse because a dead man can't feel anything.You can't kill them to rid society of them because you would then be a criminal.Anyway I love your questions.Keep it up!
2006-07-13 23:12:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't condone any crime and the people that you just described need to serve long sentences. I don't like the death penalty.
2006-07-13 23:08:18 · answer #9 · answered by amissybell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
one where someone dies, because when a victim survived a nasty ordeal, it would only make him stronger,there are alot of chances to forgive and to rebuild those that may have been broken or destroyed
2006-07-13 23:46:38 · answer #10 · answered by bernadette 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋