Is Killing criminals wrong?

[Wolfus]

You're talking about letting them go, I never said anything about that. Most prisoners with life sentences die in prison before there sentence is up anyways, letting them go would be pointless.

But should someone else be able to decide if someone else should die? No I don't think so, that's murder in itself. Most prisoners in maximum security with life sentences want to die anyways, why not just ask them. Executing people is wrong either way I'm saying. But that's why they pick people that can handle the weight of taking a lot of lives easily. I couldn't.

So you can look at it however you want but at the bases it's just murdering someone for murdering someone. Which is a contradiction.

That's your mistake, Your whole point is the same I've heard, and countered, many times. "They're people, no one can't kill them". They're not people, not like us, not after what they've done.

They are threats. People are our citizens, who live everyday trying to have things in an honest way. People don't murder for fun.

So, don't treat them like one of our fellow citizens, because they are NOT. They are a threat, dangerous. And after all your speech, they would put a bullet in your brain if you don't handle your wallet.

Protecting them is putting us, citizens, in danger. It's risking inocent people's lives. And I'm still waiting for that good reason.

By the way, read the edit in the thread, please.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

That's your mistake, Your whole point is the same I've heard, and countered, many times. "They're people, no one can't kill them". They're not people, not like us, not after what they've done.

They are threats. People are our citizens, who live everyday trying to have things in an honest way. People don't murder for fun.

So, don't treat them like one of our fellow citizens, because they are NOT. They are a threat, dangerous. And after all your speech, they would put a bullet in your brain if you don't handle your wallet.

Protecting them is putting us, citizens, in danger. It's risking inocent people's lives. And I'm still waiting for that good reason.

By the way, read the edit in the thread, please.

I mean honestly I don't care what you think man, no disrespect but you can view life however you wish.

I'm not gonna sit here and argue this though, it's pointless.

 

[ekichi onizuka]

i believe this is the right answer to your question,when someone takes a life of someone else with full awareness of the Consequence which means it would lead to death,he should pay it with his own death

 

[oShux]

That's your mistake, Your whole point is the same I've heard, and countered, many times. "They're people, no one can't kill them". They're not people, not like us, not after what they've done.

They are threats. People are our citizens, who live everyday trying to have things in an honest way. People don't murder for fun.

So, don't treat them like one of our fellow citizens, because they are NOT. They are a threat, dangerous. And after all your speech, they would put a bullet in your brain if you don't handle your wallet.

Protecting them is putting us, citizens, in danger. It's risking inocent people's lives. And I'm still waiting for that good reason.

By the way, read the edit in the thread, please.

They are still people whether you want to admit it or not. Everybody is the way they are because of the way they were brought up. (Specifically childhood memories) People can change. No one murders for fun, they have their reasons(I'm not justifying murder), and for the ones who do think of it as fun are usually put in mental asylums.

 

[oShux]

I mean honestly I don't care what you think man, no disrespect but you can view life however you wish.

I'm not gonna sit here and argue this though, it's pointless.

Yea it really doesn't matter. Cause no matter what he says the world isn't gonna change just cause he doesn't like the way things are.

The OP has a very degenerated view of life. Send this guy back to the middle ages or something if he can't deal with society's rules.

 

[Wolfus]

1. No that wouldn't be my fault, that'd be his fault and the prison's fault for letting him escape. And what percentage of people who go to prison actually escape? Exactly.

2. If the powerful person is dead, does that mean the people he would have contacted are no longer murderers? Let's say a mafia leader or some shit goes to jail. Will the murderers who listen to him stop being murderers because he is now dead? Chances are, they're gonna murder anyway, people will still die, so you really accomplished nothing. Criminals will be criminals.

1- Isn't it? Who let him live? I agree, the numbers are low. But they are not 0. And how many innocents should pay for that mistake? Why is a murderer's life more imporant?

2- Yes, but he is not ordering them anymore. The targets he wanted dead, will live. Hired assasins don't have random targets, I believe. So the boss's death would bring protection for other citizens, even if few.

 

[Wolfus]

I mean honestly I don't care what you think man, no disrespect but you can view life however you wish.

I'm not gonna sit here and argue this though, it's pointless.

But I care about what people who think like you are doing. Because innocents are dying. And THAT is pointless.

I don't view life how I wish. I find arguments to defend my point. And that makes me more likely to be correct.

This is a debate, not an argument.

 

[Wolfus]

Well let me throw this scenario at you: A man's wife is killed. A few months later, he kills the killers and is sentenced to death because he committed murder and is now a criminal. However, he killed criminals who are harmful and dangerous and who don't care if it's right or wrong to kill people. Yet, it was still considered murder, it is still considered wrong. So what makes it right when a jury or judge does the exact same thing this man did to a criminal, but was wrong for doing so?

That supposed trial is the point of my thread exactly. Why should that man be considered guilty? He did out of revenge, and I agree that it shouldn't be done constantly. But still, he ended a threat, and potentially saved many lives. So, should we end his because of some scum that died?

What are we winning exactly protecting murderers by all means?

 

[Punk Hazard]

That supposed trial is the point of my thread exactly. Why should that man be considered guilty? He did out of revenge, and I agree that it shouldn't be done constantly. But still, he ended a threat, and potentially saved many lives. So, should we end his because of some scum that died?

What are we winning exactly protecting murderers by all means?

That's a double standard.

 

[Wolfus]

That's a double standard.

Is it? How? Because one case, is the man who killed a murderer, ending a threat and potentially saving lives. The other is an ass*ole who kills people for fun, for please, or because they are in the way.

I don't see how that's the same. And your incomming "They're people/humans" arguments was debunked already.

 

[Black Mamba]

Killing criminals is wrong. Leaving them alive is also wrong. There is no right answer to questions like these. Life, morals and justice are very fragile things and constantly changes throughout the course of time by those at the top who govern us. If you think its wrong then its wrong. If you think its right then its right. Honestly, justice and true morals doesn't exist.

thiiiiiiiissss.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Is it? How? Because one case, is the man who killed a murderer, ending a threat and potentially saving lives. The other is an ass*ole who kills people for fun, for please, or because they are in the way.

I don't see how that's the same. And your incomming "They're people/humans" arguments was debunked already.

You missed the point of everything I said. The man who killed those criminals, despite the reasons he did them for, still received the same penalty they would have. This shows that regardless of reason, murder is murder, and murder must be punished.

So then, shouldn't the same apply to those who execute criminals? Regardless of reason, murder is murder, so they should also be in the wrong.

That's why it's wrong.

 

[Wolfus]

You missed the point of everything I said. The man who killed those criminals, despite the reasons he did them for, still received the same penalty they would have. This shows that regardless of reason, murder is murder, and murder must be punished.

So then, shouldn't the same apply to those who execute criminals? Regardless of reason, murder is murder, so they should also be in the wrong.

That's why it's wrong.

And you're missing the point of what I'm saying, of what I said: You just keep saying that murder is murder. My point is that It us entirelly different from when an innocent citizen is murdered and a murderer is killed.

You're telling me it's not, But you're not telling me why. I already supported my point. But what about yours?

 

[Punk Hazard]

And you're missing the point of what I'm saying, of what I said: You just keep saying that murder is murder. My point is that It us entirelly different from when an innocent citizen is murdered and a murderer is killed.

You're telling me it's not, But you're not telling me why. I already supported my point. But what about yours?

It's not different because both are just cases of taking a life. You can find all the different locations, different people, different reasons, but unless it's self-defense, it's not right. No one has the right to take a life because no one owns life, no one can replace it, and no one can breathe life into something, so no one has the right to take that life.

 

[Wolfus]

It's not different because both are just cases of taking a life. You can find all the different locations, different people, different reasons, but unless it's self-defense, it's not right. No one has the right to take a life because no one owns life, no one can replace it, and no one can breathe life into something, so no one has the right to take that life.

The same(already debunked) argument. You say as if both cases are all the same. There are MAJOR differences to it. You have a point, usually, whoever is killed, it doesn't matter.

But it matters when a murderer is the one who is murdered. It's a completelly different case. Because a murderer, alive, is a threat to society, is a threat to our safety, to our lives and our families' and our friends' and any other innocent person.

When a murderer is killed like that, it's an end of a threat, and lives are potentially saved.

So, that is entirelly different from killing a regular citizen. So, I recommend you bring something else other than "they're both people", because that doesn't disprove what I said.

 

[Jas]

If you ask me.. Killing is just wrong in general. If they go to prison, they will suffer even more.
- Also we're no one to take someone else life, that is up to God. I mean seriously.. Wtf.. Taking a persons life whatever he is criminal or not.. We're no Gods.

 

[Wolfus]

If you ask me.. Killing is just wrong in general. If they go to prison, they will suffer even more.
- Also we're no one to take someone else life, that is up to God. I mean seriously.. Wtf.. Taking a persons life whatever he is criminal or not.. We're no Gods.

The same thing. You say "a person" as if the killer was just like us, innocent citizens. But he is not, and I proved it.

Again: I'm not telling you to go out there and kill every murderer you find, no. I'm not telling you to mass murder everyone in prison, no.

I'm talking about a cop shotting a murderer. I'm talking about a civilian reactin to some criminal and killing him, her. In My country, these things bring a lot of headache for the innocent citizens. Because of the dumb moralists.
Some cops I'm fired, some innocent people are sued or arrested.

What is wrong with the actions I just described.

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

It's perfectly alright, truth be told, today's executions are milder than before, why can't we have some good ol'fashion Hanging,Drawing and Quartering like in the old days?

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

 

[Wolfus]

It's perfectly alright, truth be told, today's executions are milder than before, why can't we have some good ol'fashion Hanging,Drawing and Quartering like in the old days?

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

Funny, but I can indentify sarcasm. So, why, other than the reasons already debunked in this thread, do you disagree?

 

[Conspirator.]

I actually agree with you. My only problem with the death penalty(of course this isn't the full scope of your thread) is not the moral aspect of it, but the justice system. Every now and then the justice system errs, and on those occasions you may end up killing/executing an innocent man/woman. But I agree, some mass murderers need to dealt with swiftly. The whole "people hating cops" thing happens all over the world, although it's probably more extreme in some countries.