A mass serial killer that only targets "bad" people is evil?

[Punisher069]

One thing about shows with people that kill killers is that we get to see the killers being bad. In real life we don't see that we just hear about the charges on them or suspicions. So even if the people getting killed were serial killers we wouldn't know unless they came right out and said it.

[seebs]

Well if he is murdering those that are evil, then he technically should kill himself, as taking one others life against their will is also considered evil.

What Im saying, is he/she won't be any better than the ones that they are killing, I mean who is to say that the one he/she has killed actually commited a crime? What if that person was innocent and was set up? Then would so called serial killer be killing an innocent person?

Yes and as above, Dexter is a show about that very subject

Any punishment would be against the perpetrator's will.

But as far as the OP, the only difference really is that it is state-sanctioned. Capital punishment by the state vs a serial killer.

[Salandrin]

So you guys would still mind the fact that it is murder, even if the person slaughtered in question was a child molester and murderer?

[lavafoxx]

There's a difference between self defense and vigilantism.

It is an extremely thin line.

[Deleted]

I just want to know your opinion on this. If there existed a serial killer(s) who only, and specifically targets rapists, criminals, terrorists, gangsters, etc as his victims, and made no feasible attempt to harm anyone else, do you still believe that person deserves to get caught by law enforcement and deserves to be punished? While it is true that according to the principles set by humanity that state no human has the right to take another life, do you see anything wrong in cleaning out the world of all the people who commit such atrocities like that?


I am writing a minor topic regarding this for a project, so I would like an in-depth analysis on what you might think of the topic at hand.

You have to understand that not only the caughting of criminals strenghten the society but it's practices as well. Comtemporary societies' jurisdical institutions and their judgements: prisons and lifetime sentences are there for the "bad people".

[Vizardlorde]

A single person is more easily corrupted than a system comprised of several people. The movement that person believes his/her justice is greater than the establishment's anyone not fitting his/her definition of justice could be a potential target.

[Truenorth069]

I'm ok with Batman style. To the Batmobile!

[Kalis]

So you guys would still mind the fact that it is murder, even if the person slaughtered in question was a child molester and murderer?

I'm British, we got rid of state sanctioned death penalties, so I wouldn't condone private ones.

[rhandric]

It is an extremely thin line.

It's a matter of active vs reactive.

[Goresh]

So Deathnote?

[Romanesca]

But law enforcement have the authority to take lives at will.

Curious on that. Are they evil? Since we are supposed to see them as the heroic protectors of society.

For the greater good, and to protect and serve.

[Inay]

Society needs rules and people should follow them and if you break those rules to get those who broke them you are essentially abandoning the belief in to your system. Now without hope in it, it comes crumbling down.
Is he better than those bad people for taking them out on his perceived ideals of justice? No man should have the power to act as judge, jury and executioner.

This topic reminds me from Darkly dreaming Dexter ^^

[Yunru]

Depends on situation.

IF for example some mafia boss killed 10 peole and he got away with it by bribing every1 in cort, them the guy who would kill him would be a hero in the victim eyes.
IF some mafia boss killed 10 people and he was set on a max prison time and the vigelantie kills him, then its wrong.

[PBitt]

I think it's looking at it too black-and-white. In theory, it sounds great (and the guys in The Boondock Saints did this kind of shit too). It works in fiction (sometimes) but in the real world...yeah, not going to work. How would he know for certain the person is guilty? How severe does the crime have to be? Etc, etc. I mean, while I think it's great if said guy walks in and shoots a guy in the head that was about to stab his wife to death and all that shit, I see it far more likely to have far more negative factors that positive ones.

[Deleted]

Any living person has a (tiny) chance of improving and pulling others with him/her.

It also causes slight inflation on food and life supplies, as 1 less demands it per kill; except (maybe) for serial killers.

Apart from that, it DOES make you a serial killer, so I guess you should kill yourself next if you're serious about it..you ARE going to kill, after all.

[lavafoxx]

It's a matter of active vs reactive.

Unless you are in a state that has some sort of "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" laws.

[Forgettable]

Although I think people should be judged for their actions, I don't think having another person mete out those judgements is ideal. I can't see inside of people and see their hearts, and who is guilty and who is not. That's why I believe in God - He will fairly judge the people of the world and reward or punish everyone accordingly.

Someone with this power would just be playing god, and would eventually make poor choices, ie Death Note's Light.

[Velaniz]

It is an extremely thin line.

Not in the least. They are worlds apart.

[rhandric]

Unless you are in a state that has some sort of "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" laws.

You see castle doctrine (definitely reactive) as vigilantism? Stand your ground is a bit more of a grey area. Theoretically SYG is reactive, but it's a matter of proper use (and evidence).

[Tierbook]

Unless you are in a state that has some sort of "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" laws.

if you are actively searching out someone to kill its neither if they attack you its both