Should the families of murder victims be given the chance to "HANDLE" the murderer?

[Zoldam]

Tough choice, I would say no ideally, let the state and it's justice system resolve it and. However, with how corrupt the justice system has become, I am honestly not completely turned off from vigilante justice like I used to be. I say clean up the justice system and stick with that.

[Deleted]

I bet you wouldn't. If you did, you're just as evil as the person who murdered in the first place.

I never claimed otherwise.

[mizeri]

no because emotional people should not be making live or death judgments

[Speaknoevil]

No, not because it would be wrong own it's own, but because of the kind of thing it would lead to in the public thinking:

"The doctor could have saved my son, but didn't, it is my right to kill them."

"That trucker hit my daughter when her tire blew and she swerved into oncoming traffic, it is my right to kill them."

Some people wouldn't wait for the court to decide, but would feel validated by the existence of the vendetta laws.

[Forogil]

No, and not only because the revenge part - but due to the simple fact that a large fraction of murders are within families.

Do you expect people to beat themselves up?

[Elim Garak]

Would that mean that the family of a legally executed man should be able to kill the executioner?

If they are in rage over it - then yeah, of course. As per OP proposition. Hence why it's silly to even consider it.

[HumbleDuck]

Emotions should not effect the process whatsoever. as it is hard to not be emotional for the victim family, its a much better choice to take it to the judge.

[Deleted]

Actually, I have a better solution.

When someone makes any kind of crime against someone else, there is a trial first. If the person is found guilty, the judge then presents the punishments possible to be applied to that criminal to the victim, from the lowest penalty to the highest. And then the victim decides the punishment from within the margin of punishments.

So let's say a thief stole from you. It's his first crime. He's found guilty.
Now you, the victim, can choose the punishment. It can be something between the thief paying you back and serving 6 months and the thief paying you back and serving 15 years. You can choose somewhere in between, like the thief paying you back and serving 6 years for example, you can forgive him and he gets 6 months and paying you back or you can have him pay and serve maximum punishment, 15 years and paying you back. It's all confidential of course.

[Noradin]

Obviously you wouldn't allow it unless there's absolutely no question that person is guilty. Guilt by conjecture wouldn't qualify.

There have been countless cases where there was "absolutely no question that the person is guilty" and then proof showed up that they were innocent.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't forget the jury!

What about the ones who made the laws? And those who voted for them and made them their representatives?

- - - Updated - - -

idk someone stabbing someone else on camera face uncovered and all, pretty damn guilty.

Because such proof was never faked before.

- - - Updated - - -

Question of the day, should the relatives or greiving family be given the chance to "take care" of the murderers?

So that would essentially make killing people without family less of a crime than killing those who have family?
In fact, it would killing someone and then making sure all family members are physically unable to swing a bat less of a crime than just killing that one person and leaving the family alone.
What is your proposed justifiaction for that?

[XangXu]

I think so yeah. The justice system these days lets murderers and rapists get away with their crimes, or they end up locking them in a cell and wasting taxpayer money.

If someone disrespects life to such a high degree, then yes, they should burn forever in the void between worlds, and all manner of horrors will flood his consciousness and push them into eternal torment. Any other punishment would not be fitting. Death and making sure that the killer feels as low and depressed as humanly possible, is not even enough.

If a way was discovered to preserve this man's consciousness in a way where we could torture him until the end of time itself, I would be for that.

disgusting wretches...

[JohnBrown1917]

So let's say a thief stole from you. It's his first crime. He's found guilty.
Now you, the victim, can choose the punishment. It can be something between the thief paying you back and serving 6 months and the thief paying you back and serving 15 years. You can choose somewhere in between, like the thief paying you back and serving 6 years for example, you can forgive him and he gets

Emotions should have no place in a justice system, thus the victim should have no say in the punishment.

[apples]

I think so yeah. The justice system these days lets murderers and rapists get away with their crimes, or they end up locking them in a cell and wasting taxpayer money.

If someone disrespects life to such a high degree, then yes, they should burn forever in the void between worlds, and all manner of horrors will flood his consciousness and push them into eternal torment. Any other punishment would not be fitting. Death and making sure that the killer feels as low and depressed as humanly possible, is not even enough.

If a way was discovered to preserve this man's consciousness in a way where we could torture him until the end of time itself, I would be for that.

disgusting wretches...

this post is exactly why the justice system is so frothy and its search for justice is tenuous

there are tons and tons of people who are too shortsighted, too stupid, or too uncaring to see past their own nose

[JohnBrown1917]

I think so yeah. The justice system these days lets murderers and rapists get away with their crimes, or they end up locking them in a cell and wasting taxpayer money.

If someone disrespects life to such a high degree, then yes, they should burn forever in the void between worlds, and all manner of horrors will flood his consciousness and push them into eternal torment. Any other punishment would not be fitting. Death and making sure that the killer feels as low and depressed as humanly possible, is not even enough.

If a way was discovered to preserve this man's consciousness in a way where we could torture him until the end of time itself, I would be for that.

disgusting wretches...

You should really watch out with all that edge.

[slime]

Probably not. Eye for an eye really should apply here, but I guess most won't see it that way. But I do believe there is no such thing as rehabilitation for a murderer. And if 1 in 1000 convicts is somehow miraculously rehabilitated, it isn't worth it. They should all burn or never see the light of day again, harsh but not nearly as harsh as murder.

- - - Updated - - -

You should really watch out with all that edge.

your pointing out his edge is so edgy.

[Phlegethon]

Question of the day, should the relatives or greiving family be given the chance to "take care" of the murderers? Possibly be given a bat and 10 minutes alone? Maybe even broadcast it as Pay Per View and all proceeds can go towards restitution to the family to help pay for funeral cost and such?

Would giving these grieving people help them over come their rage? Would it help them move forward knowing they brought their loved ones killer to death?

Or would this do nothing? Possibly even further hurt them by making them into murderers themselves?

Why or why not?

Well, they have something like that, they call that a caliphate. For some reason a big part of the world thinks they are degenerates and barbarians. (I'll tell you a secret: that part of the world is right.) I know right, who woulda thunk, eye for an eye is what they did before medieval times. The suggestion alone is beyond stupid. The pay per view suggestion is even worse. Back to the Roman era, you'd think humanity evolved. You seem to be an example of the Trump evolution. Evolution going backwards.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably not. Eye for an eye really should apply here, but I guess most won't see it that way. But I do believe there is no such thing as rehabilitation for a murderer. And if 1 in 1000 convicts is somehow miraculously rehabilitated, it isn't worth it. They should all burn or never see the light of day again, harsh but not nearly as harsh as murder.

- - - Updated - - -



your pointing out his edge is so edgy.

You can move to the IS caliphate for that. They use said methods.

[apples]

IF WE KILL HITLER, WE'RE JUST AS BAD AS HIM!

Liberals, everyone!

theres no difference between the state and your average citizen!

ignorants, everyone!

[JohnBrown1917]

IF WE KILL HITLER, WE'RE JUST AS BAD AS HIM!

Liberals, everyone!

Oh, the joy of hyperboles.

Oh wait, you're serious.

[Phlegethon]

Actually, I have a better solution.

When someone makes any kind of crime against someone else, there is a trial first. If the person is found guilty, the judge then presents the punishments possible to be applied to that criminal to the victim, from the lowest penalty to the highest. And then the victim decides the punishment from within the margin of punishments.

So let's say a thief stole from you. It's his first crime. He's found guilty.
Now you, the victim, can choose the punishment. It can be something between the thief paying you back and serving 6 months and the thief paying you back and serving 15 years. You can choose somewhere in between, like the thief paying you back and serving 6 years for example, you can forgive him and he gets 6 months and paying you back or you can have him pay and serve maximum punishment, 15 years and paying you back. It's all confidential of course.

That doesn't work. The punishment is done by judges. Besides, your confidentiality is a joke. The thief KNOWS who he stole from.

[JohnBrown1917]

Probably not. Eye for an eye really should apply here, but I guess most won't see it that way. But I do believe there is no such thing as rehabilitation for a murderer. And if 1 in 1000 convicts is somehow miraculously rehabilitated, it isn't worth it. They should all burn or never see the light of day again, harsh but not nearly as harsh as murder.

- - - Updated - - -



your pointing out his edge is so edgy.

Since the re-offend rate for murder is way lower than that in countries like Norway, that is not true.
Unless you're talking about the US, which is rather bad at the whole rehab thing.

[apples]

Law ≠ Justice
Often times retaliation is when you're the innocent party.
For example some days ago a man killed another man who tried to rape his wife. He wasn't punished by the law and people saw him as a hero.
Get it through your skull that when bad things happen to bad people it makes people happy.

Here is an example.

A man just raped and killed your dearly beloved sister. The law decided that his punishment is 5 years. After 5 years he is allowed back into society.
Most people would not agree to only 5 years, they would want him dead or in prison for life.
This would be the laws "justice". Hell, perhaps you're such a sheep that you'd even agree with this brand of "justice". But many people would take things into their own hands if they got the chance because fuck the law. The law isn't justice and people have a deep seeded need to get what they define as their own brand of justice, which is usually to kill the person who murdered their innocent child/parent or whatever.

The law we have no often times shits on the victims and doesn't try to help them that much.

you know what else people kill for?

literally anything

where is the line drawn? or are you actually saying that its ok to kill joe because he stole my bread this morning and im really really sad about it

and on what doctrine should we record that this line be drawn?

irony, ladies and gentlemen