Is revenge justified?

Question

If two men of one particular race rape a little girl of another, and then her father shoots the men as they walk to their trial case, should the shooter be found not guilty? Why or why not? Is it just? Would it be any less just if the shooter waited to kill them after the trial? Should USA have a detailed code book on revenge like Albania does? This all comes from the movie "A Time to Kill"

Race is included in the question because the shooter felt he couldn't get a fair trial due to his race.

Answer 1

A tricky subject; can be viewed from many possible p.o.v, religious - bible tells us not to throw stones unless we are free of sin (why Jesus did not start pelting rocks at the sinner is a question to ask?) But it also tells us that this is our world to govern and we can make laws to live by? so that is where an eye for an eye approach comes into it. Race should not be of relevance in this question unless we are considering cultural and psychological factors. I do not believe the crime nor the punishment was just. Taking, however the father's psychological state his actions understandable, though I don't believe any human has the authority t decide whether it was just or not. What did the shooting acheive? well the rapist f*##ks were shot instead of going to prison, (which punishment is the worst, the one they deserve? again we have no idea - unless we believe in hell, or know what is in the afterlife) The little girl's suffering was not eased, the only outcome was the father venting his feelings and frustrations (and if he went to jail and little girl still alive only makes things worse as she grows up without a Dad) The basic theme in this question is the lack of control over emotions, logic, rules, a genuine lack of concern, this is seen in both the rapists and the father, they become animals, so your answer can be found perhaps in looking at animal law and behaviour. No human has the right to judge but know human has the right to hurt another. If a code book were to be created it would have to consider the cultural, religious, psycholgical, biological, philosophical aspects of the case and humanity as a whole, power, money and politics would be sure to influence what is written - we can not trust anyone or anything.

Answer 2

What is the Net Creativity of the situation? The statutory laws which we follow are an agreement between individuals and society that say "If I choose to be part of society, I won't kill" and "If you choose to be part of society, we won't kill you". When someone breaks a law of society, then they are choosing to live outside of the statutory agreement. The shooting of the accused without a 'fair' trial means someone else has stepped outside of societal rule also.
The 'right' or 'wrong'-ness of it comes into play generationally. What Net Creative potential did the victim lose from the crime? (not an exact science yet, I'm working on it) What creative potential does a criminal provide to our species? Can we somehow imagine the judgement of our future offspring and decide what is the best course of action for the future of the species? Can we do so with fairness and lack of competitive greed for power?
The system of law is always designed under the premise that the majority will be lawful and honest citizens (a fair trial requires honest and lawful jurors who abide by the protections of the constitution). Without that, the entire system fails, and we have to fall upon more primitive actions. Whether those actions are right or wrong only can be decided by their effects on either the system or the species.
For it to be right 'outside' of the societal system, you need some other reference point. If you judge by system/societal statutes only, then no action outside of the system is right. If you judge it outside of the system rules, then you must judge the system also from outside its own rules. This can go anywhere, from anarchy to patriarchal religious judgement. Nature only judges the effects by the net gain to the universe from the species (how many resources are consumed compared to the creative usefulness added to the environment).

Answer 3

Is it revenge or is it justice? And dose the race of the victim or the rapist really make the crime more horrible ??? I read the original book and one of the re sons that the girl's father felt justified in killing the two rapists was that he thought that the rapists would not be punished because of their race (they were white) verse.his and his daughter's ( they were black). Was he justified in what he did? I felt that no what he did was wrong,but he did it not just to extract revenge but to help his daughter heal,so he could say to her it's over,they can't ever hurt you again. If I was sitting on the jury I would not have convicted him either.

Answer 4

Clearly the father is guilty of murder. Revenge isn't justified and certainly isn't legal besides. If the father had shot the man while he was raping his daughter that would be legally something different altogether. However, he committed a premeditated act in the case you describe which is clearly murder. Issues of legality aside, it is always immoral to kill other human beings even if you had just cause.

Answer 5

I think the worst punishment you can get is to live with the knowledge of the bad you have done. I feel for the child and the child's father so much that I would allow that man to plead temporary insanity and let him go. I am not a judge and not a saint either so to answer this question I think you would have to be totally without sin.

Answer 6

By that logic, all convicted rapist should be killed. At which point do you not kill someone for a particular crime, if it is up to the victim of the crime or their family. What if they feel a crime of less severity deserves a beating or death sentence.

with all that said i feel that someone who commits pre meditated murder, rape or child molesting deserves to die.

also they should wait till they do not get caught

Answer 7

Go to a law library... you be surprised at the court laws of the past... provoking was a no, no. I do wonder about your example that you use do solicit the answer you want. Is murder... as in a bank robbery or else... less of a crime then child sex? I have recovered from child sex... I have yet to see a murder victim recover... ya know.

Answer 8

vengence is mine sayeth the Lord...so no it is never alright...so capital punishment is also wrong. You don`t need to study it...think about it this way...first imagine there is a heaven and hell...then imagine that everyone has a soul...imagine that earth is a trial run for us all...do you want to be held responsible for the damnation of a soul through your actions on earth, thereby damning your own..for eternity....
Or two wrongs never make a right...

Answer 9

great movie btw...
i don't think it is justified we know we have to pay for our actions... I would shoot the person... but i know i would go to jail but it would be worth it...
i don't think anyone should get away with anything unless in defence.
and revenge is not defence it's an action applied from a differnt action... is a responce you had a choice on how to respond there for you must pay for your actions...
if your defending yourself then you really don't have time to make any choices just to save your life!
mad luv!

Answer 10

Your question is WAY to simplified. The south-hater that wrote that book was WAY out of line when he thinks that a white jury would not have thrown the book at those animals that raped that girl.
You know it too, don't you?