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

[smelltheglove]

Not in the least. They are worlds apart.

morally they are very different. legally they can be problematic

[Kalcheus]

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?

How would we know they were a child molester and/or murderer? How would your "hero" know?

[Raptor With a Saber]

Evil nope, Chaotic good. Would be a Service to mankind

[WskyDK]

Certainly, and he should have to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement. Such a person would be immeasurably worse than 3/4 of the kind of people you listed.

This pretty much sums it up.
Someone who serial kills, but feels justified, is farrrr more dangerous than a person who kills for shits and giggles.

[Deleted]

He could mistake innocent people with bad ppl?

[Deleted]

Lets consider for a moment that the guy exclusively kills mass murderers/terrorists.

It all goes back to the age old question: If by losing one life you save many, would you do it? or more specifically, if killing one person saves say, 20, or 100 lives, is that a bad thing or a good thing? Personally, if I knew he was only targeting mass murderers/terrorists and his actions were saving more lives than would be lost by inaction, I would support it.

The line blurs when you talk about "bad people" in general. I mean, a rape victim still can have a life after the event. A molested child, while likely massively affected by the event, can still live a life. I think it's really a case of where do you draw the line. Do you only kill people who physically kill others? Or those who ruin lives? How about those whose lives are inconvenienced in such a way that it holds back their plans a few years? Somebody who kills animals? And what about proof? What if the guy could read minds, killing people before they commit the acts, would that affect how people felt about it?

[Inay]

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.

Well its fairly different thing. Law enforcement don't actually have the authority to take lives at will. It is last resort to them where every other measures they have have been exhausted without results.
Now the killer wouldn't probably bring the criminal to the police for the usual procedure before taking his life.

[Gegan]

He'd have to kill himself, as he'd qualify as a 'bad person'.

[Wildmoon]

Killing people is never a right thing. Sometimes, it must be done though.

[Yattz]

IMO such a person would be awesome and he would have my full support!!
Let the dirty criminals be the ones in fear for a damn change!!

[Locruid]

Death Wish.....one of my favorite movies...

[WskyDK]

Where does he draw the line? Clearly he's ok with killing, so what isn't he ok with? Maybe he really hates jaywalkers.
double parkers beware, you're gonna get shanked

[Cthulhu 2020]

If it were some super human who could tell all criminals from innocent people, sure.

If it were some normal serial killer who was out killing who he thought was bad guys... his judgement wouldn't be infallible. He might kill innocents.

[BreathTaker]

He's a Hero. Robin fukin Good

[Shinaniganz]

You mean "Dexter" ? Cause I am sure there are numerous topics and discussions that went on about that show when it first appeared relating exactly to this topic in one way or another.

A good thing to point out though using this example from Hollywood, even Dexter has made mistakes and killed someone that didn't necessarily deserve to die. The point being that even if someone like that did exist, the reality is that it's unlikely one could guarantee that he would only get those who "deserved" it and then if it was known he was out there and the police weren't pursuing them, i.e with a task force of something, then it might open up the idea of vigilantly justice would be tolerated. If that starts to happen then when does it stop?

The simply idea is that society can't allow any one member to be judge, jury and executioner. The fact that the character of Dexter deals with this "burden" and doesn't let it take over his thoughts so much so that he just kills at random is one of the central points to that series. In that regard, we have an example of how writing and story can play a key role in developing a character that stays within a sort of "wishful space" that society has without alienating everyone with the gruesome acts one is witnessing while watching the show.

To your question, "do you see anything wrong in cleaning out the world of all the people who commit such atrocities like that?", no, obviously I do not. Do I think that "cleaning out the world" means they are all killed, no, I don't believe that either. There are definitely things in our world, people in our world that are evil. Evil by whatever means you want to claim, nature vs. nurture, etc, exists, and dealing with it is one of the fundamental issues of our society. When does compassion go to far for those that don't deserve it? Are there those that are so evil they can't be "fixed"? Can bad seeds be made good? Is it best to rid the world, either by killing or locking away, of these people?

In the end, should one person be able to make that decision absolute? And when all the bad people are gone, does that person have to kill them self?

[Kalcheus]

The line blurs when you talk about "bad people" in general. I mean, a rape victim still can have a life after the event. A molested child, while likely massively affected by the event, can still live a life. I think it's really a case of where do you draw the line. Do you only kill people who physically kill others? Or those who ruin lives? How about those whose lives are inconvenienced in such a way that it holds back their plans a few years? Somebody who kills animals? And what about proof? What if the guy could read minds, killing people before they commit the acts, would that affect how people felt about it?

What if he killed you for breaking any law? Like Jaywalking? Or eating peanuts in a Boston Church?

[Moon-Man]

Justice system often fails than succeeds. So why not, let those type of people made into a legal manhunters, or better yet, a bounty hunter.

If I were to become a serial killer I would not hesitate to slaughter those bad people, even if it makes me bad. If justice won't work, then you should take the matter on to your own hands.

Why pity those rapists, murderers, robbers? They should have straight up execution without debate, or court. Only rare of these folks is redeemed, if any at all.

[rhandric]

Justice system often fails than succeeds. So why not, let those type of people made into a legal manhunters, or better yet, a bounty hunter.

If I were to become a serial killer I would not hesitate to slaughter those bad people, even if it makes me bad. If justice won't work, then you should take the matter on to your own hands.

Why pity those rapists, murderers, robbers? They should have straight up execution without debate, or court. Only rare of these folks is redeemed, if any at all.

Define "justice won't work".

[Vizardlorde]

How would we know they were a child molester and/or murderer? How would your "hero" know?

How about in the "Law abiding citizen" way, confirmed criminal struck a deal with law enforcement to get a reduced punishment that allows him to be free.

[Kalcheus]

How about in the "Law abiding citizen" way, confirmed criminal struck a deal with law enforcement to get a reduced punishment that allows him to be free.

There are actually a good number of people (and honestly, it only takes one to disprove this entire concept) who plead guilty for crimes they didn't commit for financial or other reasons (can't afford a lawyer, possible jail time would mean loss of job, etc).