Ethical debate anyone?
- Thread starter ACooper
- Start date
How about, for the sake of argument here, we replace "gangbanger" with Woman Protecting the Reputation of her Corgi". Now whose killer would you be more inclined to go after? 
There certainly are plenty of serial killers out there who go after adults. And perhaps the child was killed by a parent who went off the deep end. But now you're going after the parent who has no motive to kill someone else's child, while the serial killer is going to continue killing.
There certainly are plenty of serial killers out there who go after adults. And perhaps the child was killed by a parent who went off the deep end. But now you're going after the parent who has no motive to kill someone else's child, while the serial killer is going to continue killing.
As I already noted, based on the extemely limited information available in this thread, that would be my call. I'm assuming we're pretty much talking about a dead adult in a ditch by the side of the road and a dead kid in a ditch by the side of the road, and no other evidence. Assuming there was other evidence, I would dedicate the most energy to pursuing the murderer that the basic circumstances of the crime indicated was most likely to kill again. As a dramatic example, if the kid was shot once in the head, and the adult had been sexually mutilated, you had better believe I'd be looking for the adult's killer first.
THat's the only real point I want to make . . . to me, its not the value of the victim, its the dangerousness of the killer, at least as far as the evidence shows. No matter how many resources I dedicate, I cannot bring back the dead. Spreading them evenly may risk loosing both. What I can do is try to prevent anyone else from dying.
Now, all things being equal, with both killings looking like run of the mill personal disputes unlikely to result in further kilings, I'd probably dedicate roughly equal resources.
Edit: And as a fellow corgi owner, if the victim died defending the honor of her corgi, then I would of course dedicate all resources towards finding the corgi-hating &"#(*^#)^#&) who killed her.
I do see the point your trying to make, I really do
I just dont think that one is a "greater threat" than the other and I dont think one deserves more precedent over the other.. I think they deserve the same resources / treatment REGARDLESS of who kills who...
I just dont think that one is a "greater threat" than the other and I dont think one deserves more precedent over the other.. I think they deserve the same resources / treatment REGARDLESS of who kills who...
I "know" there is always a "greater threat" BUT at the same time, regardless of how great the threat is.. no matter what dirt the victim did in their lifetime they are someones' son / daughter / father / mother / aunt / uncle / cousin / niece / nephew and yada yada yada..
I had a friend (that was a in all fairness I will just say troublemaker) that was killed, and there were a lot of people that liked that "the scum" was off the street now, and him being killed was the best thing that couldve happened to the streets where I live cause he is nothing but trouble and blah blah...
that happening really changed my mind about a lot of things concerning this subject, because he WAS my friend, I cried for weeks after it happened and Im tearing up now, and no one seem to think it mattered cause of what he was, and while, yeah he was trouble and did his dirt, he was a son, a brother, and a father and friend that was ALWAYS there for me when I needed him...
I had a friend (that was a in all fairness I will just say troublemaker) that was killed, and there were a lot of people that liked that "the scum" was off the street now, and him being killed was the best thing that couldve happened to the streets where I live cause he is nothing but trouble and blah blah...
that happening really changed my mind about a lot of things concerning this subject, because he WAS my friend, I cried for weeks after it happened and Im tearing up now, and no one seem to think it mattered cause of what he was, and while, yeah he was trouble and did his dirt, he was a son, a brother, and a father and friend that was ALWAYS there for me when I needed him...
I "know" there is always a "greater threat" BUT at the same time, regardless of how great the threat is.. no matter what dirt the victim did in their lifetime they are someones' son / daughter / father / mother / aunt / uncle / cousin / niece / nephew and yada yada yada..
I had a friend (that was a in all fairness I will just say troublemaker) that was killed, and there were a lot of people that liked that "the scum" was off the street now, and him being killed was the best thing that couldve happened to the streets where I live cause he is nothing but trouble and blah blah...
that happening really changed my mind about a lot of things concerning this subject, because he WAS my friend, I cried for weeks after it happened and Im tearing up now, and no one seem to think it mattered cause of what he was, and while, yeah he was trouble and did his dirt, he was a son, a brother, and a father and friend that was ALWAYS there for me when I needed him...
I had a friend (that was a in all fairness I will just say troublemaker) that was killed, and there were a lot of people that liked that "the scum" was off the street now, and him being killed was the best thing that couldve happened to the streets where I live cause he is nothing but trouble and blah blah...
that happening really changed my mind about a lot of things concerning this subject, because he WAS my friend, I cried for weeks after it happened and Im tearing up now, and no one seem to think it mattered cause of what he was, and while, yeah he was trouble and did his dirt, he was a son, a brother, and a father and friend that was ALWAYS there for me when I needed him...
Yeah, I realized after I posted that we're all kinda filling in our own blanks here for the sake of discussion and we're filling them in differently.
On the plus side of that, I'm getting food for brainstorming book ideas.
:hail::hail::hail:
IMO, that doesn't make either of you better, just different.
On the plus side of that, I'm getting food for brainstorming book ideas.
:hail::hail::hail:
You seem to focus on justice for the victim and their family . . . I tend to focus on preventing any further harm. That probably makes you the better person
The logical part of me says that, yes, every human life has value and every murder should be given the same priority.
However, there is a darker, much less logical part that says that if the person was a known gang member who chose a lifestyle in which they harmed others and terrorized their communities, that their death is just not quite the tragedy that the death of a young child is.
Maybe that makes me a bad person, but it is what it is.....
However, there is a darker, much less logical part that says that if the person was a known gang member who chose a lifestyle in which they harmed others and terrorized their communities, that their death is just not quite the tragedy that the death of a young child is.
Maybe that makes me a bad person, but it is what it is.....
I'm going to mostly agree with this. It is more important to me that they prioritize their resources. If it is an overworked, short staffed precinct and these crimes occurred simultaneously then I would say they should prioritize the child's murder b/c of the reason listed above. If they are sitting around twiddling their thumbs when a gang member is murdered I would expect all their resources o be applied to solving/taking care of that crime.
I say a life is a life, and I agree with whoever said all humans have equal intrinsic value.
But this made me LOL!!
On a personal note, I am a high school teacher, and I teach gang members, and I bet if any one of you walked in to my classroom you wouldn't be able to pick the "gang bangers" out from the other "straight laced" students.
Most of these kids are decent human beings who have gotten themselves in to situations they can't quite figure out how to extricate themselves from. They are creative, bright, caring, loving, misguided *valuable* human beings.
And yes, some are also gaping anuses, but just because *I* don't particularly like someone, doesnt' mean their life has less value.
When a 10 year old goes missing or is killed, its not so much that the police are putting extra time in, its that the community also rallies, the media gets involved, people offer their services, and the situation in general gets more attention. In other nations 10 year olds get sold as child brides or indentured servants, and no one bats an eye.
But this made me LOL!!
On a personal note, I am a high school teacher, and I teach gang members, and I bet if any one of you walked in to my classroom you wouldn't be able to pick the "gang bangers" out from the other "straight laced" students.
Most of these kids are decent human beings who have gotten themselves in to situations they can't quite figure out how to extricate themselves from. They are creative, bright, caring, loving, misguided *valuable* human beings.
And yes, some are also gaping anuses, but just because *I* don't particularly like someone, doesnt' mean their life has less value.
When a 10 year old goes missing or is killed, its not so much that the police are putting extra time in, its that the community also rallies, the media gets involved, people offer their services, and the situation in general gets more attention. In other nations 10 year olds get sold as child brides or indentured servants, and no one bats an eye.
Again I dont see the law as a barometer of justice. My ethics don't come from the writings of lawmakers or lawyers. The law is typically a bunch of rules established by the majority for living within their communities. If you live outside of the law all your life do you have the right to expect the law to come to your aide when you want it? If the person who murdered a gangbanger is doing it to avenge the life of his child and the law failed to deliver justice I would consider the killer a hero, not someone who should be in a cage. There are way too many possible circumstances and too little information on the case for me to apply what I would think is ethical. If this kid was shot because he was wearing a blue shirt that is a different situation entirely. Not all people in gangs have no sense of right and wrong it is merely a means of survival. It is way too easy for the siverspoon crowd to pass judgement on people who dont have the silver spoon.
To me, it has little to do with liking or not liking someone. It has more to do with the fact that some individuals are cancers to their communities. Not just gangs, but acting pedophiles, rapists, people who destroy others lives for the sake of personal gain, etc.
I don't think that law enforcement should just give free passes to the people who may kill them and I don't think that it is good practice to only put away the killers of certain people, but I'm not going to bemoan the death of any of the above or pretend that I don't think that society was done a bit of a favor.
I'm curious--for those that believe that every life has equal value, what do you think of the death penalty?
I don't think that law enforcement should just give free passes to the people who may kill them and I don't think that it is good practice to only put away the killers of certain people, but I'm not going to bemoan the death of any of the above or pretend that I don't think that society was done a bit of a favor.
I'm curious--for those that believe that every life has equal value, what do you think of the death penalty?
Hey, I'm all for that. However, not all problems can just be "fixed." Every society has those that prey on others.
Sorry, I'm not going to be all heartbroken if someone who makes a lifestyle of destroying the lives of others is killed. This doesn't just apply to gang bangers or sexual predators but also con artists that bilk the vulnerable out of their life savings leaving them with nothing, abusers who systematically torture those around them, etc.
I know that as the member of a "civilized" society I'm not supposed to feel that way, but I do.
Sorry, I'm not going to be all heartbroken if someone who makes a lifestyle of destroying the lives of others is killed. This doesn't just apply to gang bangers or sexual predators but also con artists that bilk the vulnerable out of their life savings leaving them with nothing, abusers who systematically torture those around them, etc.
I know that as the member of a "civilized" society I'm not supposed to feel that way, but I do.
Well, since someone brought it up, I don't approve of the death penalty, mostly for procedural reasons. I don't see anyway it can be made fair, and no way we can be certain of not executing an innocent person. (we have definately come very close, and there's at least one case where I'm pretty sure than the accused was innocent, and CERTAIN he should never have been convicted). So that's my biggest reason. IF the death penalty is legal, it will be used. And if it is used, there is a very good chance that sooner or later, our justice system being what is it (and human beings being how they are) that we will execute an innocent person. That is intolerable. Then there's the fact the application of the death penalty has very little to do with the viciousness of the crime . . . there are so many factors that are just chance; that's unfair. Particularly, the felony murder laws have resulted in some horrifically unfair applications of the death penalty.
Moreover, I think that most people, even murderers, have some redeeming value. Maybe not much, but there's something worth saving there. I'll concede that there are people who, in fact, have NO redeeming value . . . but I don't see how a court can figure that one out.
Basically, if we don't execute anyone, we can't make any mistakes, and don't take upon ourselves to judge the value (or lack there of) of a human life while we are, justifiably, enraged.
I also have issues with the methods of execution used in this country. I don't like the medicalization of execution . .. frankly, if you want to execute someone, hang the SOB. Don't pretty up what you are doing . . . it takes away from any deterrent value and makes us all hypocrites.
Its not that I don't think certain people deserve to die. I do, actually. There are people who not only deserve to die, they deserve to die slowly and painfully. They deserve to be torn apart by the family of their victim using red hot tongs. I just don't think that we should be in the business of making that call.
There is one situation in which I fully support the death penalty: genocide and crimes against humanity. I take this view because not only have those who have engaged in them forfeitted their membership in the human race (and we usually have execellent evidence), but because such crimes much be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
Moreover, I think that most people, even murderers, have some redeeming value. Maybe not much, but there's something worth saving there. I'll concede that there are people who, in fact, have NO redeeming value . . . but I don't see how a court can figure that one out.
Basically, if we don't execute anyone, we can't make any mistakes, and don't take upon ourselves to judge the value (or lack there of) of a human life while we are, justifiably, enraged.
I also have issues with the methods of execution used in this country. I don't like the medicalization of execution . .. frankly, if you want to execute someone, hang the SOB. Don't pretty up what you are doing . . . it takes away from any deterrent value and makes us all hypocrites.
Its not that I don't think certain people deserve to die. I do, actually. There are people who not only deserve to die, they deserve to die slowly and painfully. They deserve to be torn apart by the family of their victim using red hot tongs. I just don't think that we should be in the business of making that call.
There is one situation in which I fully support the death penalty: genocide and crimes against humanity. I take this view because not only have those who have engaged in them forfeitted their membership in the human race (and we usually have execellent evidence), but because such crimes much be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
But that creates a slippery slope doesn't it?
The guy raping a 2 year old is clearly a pedophile right? What about the 40 year old in a consentual relationship with a 16 year old? What if that 40 year old is a teacher? A priest, and the kid is a boy? Is that worse than a 40 year old hottie like Brad Pitt dating a 16 year old girl?
How do we get to decide who's the cancer to the community and who isn't?
Gangs in many ways are no different than fraternities and sororities aren't they? But because one is cloaked in the "propriety" of a college kid its more socially acceptable. And don't tell me fraternities and sororities aren't dangerous to society - how many girls are raped by frat boys? What about the kids killed in alcohol related accidents while at frat parties?
I'm not defending gangs BTW, just trying to show that often our perceptions of a person (or group) are not based in logic and facts but in our own social biases.
The guy raping a 2 year old is clearly a pedophile right? What about the 40 year old in a consentual relationship with a 16 year old? What if that 40 year old is a teacher? A priest, and the kid is a boy? Is that worse than a 40 year old hottie like Brad Pitt dating a 16 year old girl?
How do we get to decide who's the cancer to the community and who isn't?
Gangs in many ways are no different than fraternities and sororities aren't they? But because one is cloaked in the "propriety" of a college kid its more socially acceptable. And don't tell me fraternities and sororities aren't dangerous to society - how many girls are raped by frat boys? What about the kids killed in alcohol related accidents while at frat parties?
I'm not defending gangs BTW, just trying to show that often our perceptions of a person (or group) are not based in logic and facts but in our own social biases.
Really???
Gangs are not just a "social club," they are criminal organizations. They are in the business, very literally, of selling drugs, illegal guns, etc. Now, whether or not guns and drugs should or should not be legal is another story, but the consequences of this is that communities that they reside in and divide up into territories suffer greatly. There are areas in some cities that are for all practical purposes run by gangs. To equate these organizations with fraternities is insulting to the people to have to deal with these dangers every day.
Beyond that, people can throw "slippery slope" arguments at me all day long, and it's not going to change my mind. I don't think that our legal system should be based on personal beliefs by any means, and I'm not saying that the person who murders the toddler rapist in cold blood should not be brought to trial for murder just like everyone else. I just don't think that I could be an objective member of that jury and I'm not going to pretend that I could be just because it's more socially and ethically acceptable to do so.
Gangs are not just a "social club," they are criminal organizations. They are in the business, very literally, of selling drugs, illegal guns, etc. Now, whether or not guns and drugs should or should not be legal is another story, but the consequences of this is that communities that they reside in and divide up into territories suffer greatly. There are areas in some cities that are for all practical purposes run by gangs. To equate these organizations with fraternities is insulting to the people to have to deal with these dangers every day.
Beyond that, people can throw "slippery slope" arguments at me all day long, and it's not going to change my mind. I don't think that our legal system should be based on personal beliefs by any means, and I'm not saying that the person who murders the toddler rapist in cold blood should not be brought to trial for murder just like everyone else. I just don't think that I could be an objective member of that jury and I'm not going to pretend that I could be just because it's more socially and ethically acceptable to do so.