Dexter, Death Penalty, Killing Criminals, etc.

[DerDrache]

In the TV show Dexter, the main character kidnaps and kills murderers (and on one occasion, a child-rapist). I've found that some people seem to think he's bad simply for killing, yet these same people wouldn't care if the serial killers were executed by the government. Irony, much?

Obviously, due process is very important in the real world, but fictional media lets us see the big picture and directly explore moral issues. If our morality dictates that killing innocent people is bad, why is a person often villainized for killing a guilty person, even if he's ultimately saving many innocent lives? If someone went and shot John Wayne Gacy in the face after he had killed his first two children, that person would undoubtedly end up in jail. What's worse is that many people would think he really deserves to be there. What is wrong with people? It's like...they have blind morality that stops them from seeing the big picture.

[RabidZombie]

Well it's simply a question of rights, everyone should have the right to a fair trial and should be innocent until proven guilty. A vigilante might kill someone without having much evidence of their guilt. True, the system is flawed, but it's less flawed than having a bunch of random people with no qualifications running around, deciding on their own who to kill and who not to. Vigilantism sounds alright in theory but when it gets down it, you must realize that they're only human and they might make a mistake and kill someone innocent.

[trumbly]

but, that is what the jury system is "a bunch of random people who decide who should live and who should die" that is adlib... I have no faith in the court system, maybe living in a small town with small town politics has caused my distaste for kangaroo court. Have you ever been in court or had to go through the court system. It has been my experience it is not about jurisprudence, innocent until proven guilty, it is about attorneys, who has the most clout, money and other social things.

[Zay]

It's because a government made by the people for the people is given an artificial status of being "above" people. Every politician has the same flaws that we do(which is why it's a big deal when one cheats on his wife or snorts cocaine), but again, there is a gray area between personal morals and government(human) morals. Clearly the government can decide who is good. You're absolutely correct, people get so abstractly misled that they let emotions get in the way of reality. Hardly anyone would hesitate to kill in self-defense. Vigilantism is a way of self-defense that merely gets done a lot faster what a government would do in the first place, if it really is the will of the people to have a deserving(say, child rapist) criminal dead.

[DerDrache]

Originally Posted by Zay

It's because a government made by the people for the people is given an artificial status of being "above" people. Every politician has the same flaws that we do(which is why it's a big deal when one cheats on his wife or snorts cocaine), but again, there is a gray area between personal morals and government(human) morals. Clearly the government can decide who is good. You're absolutely correct, people get so abstractly misled that they let emotions get in the way of reality. Hardly anyone would hesitate to kill in self-defense. Vigilantism is a way of self-defense that merely gets done a lot faster what a government would do in the first place, if it really is the will of the people to have a deserving(say, child rapist) criminal dead.

Fuckin' A.

Of course, vigilantism can lead to a lot of undeserving people getting killed, so I definitely see the practical problems associated with it. But in the situation where someone who was undoubtedly guilty gets murdered, it really angers me to see just how stupid much of the public is. "Oh god no, you can't kill him. Only the government can."

Ugh.

[Slave of the Beast]

Originally Posted by DerDrache

... why is a person often villainized for killing a guilty person, even if he's ultimately saving many innocent lives?

Guilty of a crime which would already warrant the death penalty, or guilty of a crime indicating that he may commit a future death penalty crime?

[Spiphel Rike]

It is appealing to think about vigilante justice, but they will usually have LESS evidence than the courts/police. If you know for sure then I don't think it's a bad thing. My take is that if you commit vigilante justice (kill some psycho, murderer, rapist e.t.c) and it turns out that you were correct you should be let go. Your actions should be investigated, but you shouldn't be dragged through the mud because you did the state's job at a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.

I think the fact that jurors can be dumber than a box of rocks is one of the weakest points in the legal system, that fucks things up quite badly.

[JustAnotherAsshole]

Killing somebody for killing or hurting others doesn't seem right.

It's legal because the state does it?

I don't see why we can't lock the person away forever and ever instead. I mean, if for no other reason, do it simply because on many occasions, people on death row have been set free due to new evidence that proves them innocent. However, sometimes they find the evidence and it's too late.

[Martian Luger King]

it doesnt seem wight.. i dont dank its wight.. im a fuckin wiberwuhl pussy dat hates logic and intelligence.. i dont want nobowdy to die im a fuckin fwaggot.. im gon go watch looney toons and continue to never understand weality, den nap time.. bwyee... ^___^

[JustAnotherAsshole]

Originally Posted by Martian Luger King

it doesnt seem wight.. i dont dank its wight.. im a fuckin wiberwuhl pussy dat hates logic and intelligence.. i dont want nobowdy to die im a fuckin fwaggot.. im gon go watch looney toons and continue to never understand weality, den nap time.. bwyee... ^___^

You've really got no clue how fucking stupid you are, and for that, I take pity on you.