Last night, my brother was watching a new series called "Dexter," in which the main character is a serial killer.
When I asked my brother how the protagonist could be a serial killer, he said that Dexter was still a good guy because he only killed bad people, like convicts and rapists.
Is it safe to assume that someone, such as my brother, who condones murder on a television series as long as it's the "good guy" killing the "bad guy" would support capital punishment in real-life situations?
2006-10-17 07:22:28 · 6 answers · asked by Magic 8 Ball 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Not necessarily. It is just a TV show. However, it does show a certain penchant for justifying violence in the name of justice. Characters such as 'Dexter' exist in real life. They recently arrested a man on the east coast who was doing the rounds of known sex offenders and killing them. It's a convenient excuse to say those were bad guys and they deserved it - I'm honestly not sure whether society is worse off - but it certainly shows an appetite for revenge, murder and violence.
2006-10-17 09:23:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am strongly opposed to capital punishment for a number of reasons: 1 Capital Punishment is not effective at controlling crime, 2 If an innocent person is executed he cannot be brought back to life The Bible says thou shalt not kill, which applies both to people and governments, some criminals can be rehabilitated, in the United States most death row inmates are poor, Hispanic or Black, because the wealthy can afford good lawyers, it destroys further the USA's image because most industrialized countries like Russia and the Ex Soviet Bloc have abolished it. When an injection or electrocution malfunctioned prisoners were subjected to a great deal of pain and discomfort , Capital punishment trials are very expensive because of the numerous appeals and litigation, so people are executed 5-15 years after sentence has been pronounced. Bush as Governor of Texas executed about 150 persons during his 4 year term.
2016-05-22 09:02:05 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have formed a nonsequitur. "Dexeter" Is a vigilante. Giving justice as he he sees fit. The basic flaw lies in the brainwashing of the legal profession.
A vigilante takes the law in his own hands. However, in our society, the law is the hands of the people. We just hire people to administer it for us. These people are frequently confused and think they, as the adminstrators, are the keeper of the law to the exclusion of all else. NOT THE CASE! Vigilantism is a viable form of law and has been much used in the past. Much to the dismay of the Adminstrators (authorities). They have managed to make most forms against the law. However, this has not been challenged on the grounds I've outlined to my knownkedge. Since the judges sping from the legal profession, it would probably fail. Just as it did in King George's time.
Capital punishment is working within in the system. Therefore both are an expression of law.
2006-10-17 13:05:27 · answer #3 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Give people some credit.
People like horror movies -- does that mean that they want to see people killed with chain saws in real life?
I don't think so.
2006-10-17 09:56:03 · answer #4 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i agree with HQ3 in that people have a certain taste towards entertainment that may not necessarily reflect their personal ethics when it comes to moral dilemmas...
but regarding your question literally, i think there is a difference between legal justice... and vigilante justice.
2006-10-17 12:14:17 · answer #5 · answered by shatzy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, by watching it there is unconscious affirmation in your head..
2006-10-17 10:49:35 · answer #6 · answered by ol's one 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋