In the TV show Dexter, the main character kidnaps and kills murderers (and on one occasion, a child-rapist). I've found that some people seem to think he's bad simply for killing, yet these same people wouldn't care if the serial killers were executed by the government. Irony, much?

Obviously, due process is very important in the real world, but fictional media lets us see the big picture and directly explore moral issues. If our morality dictates that killing innocent people is bad, why is a person often villainized for killing a guilty person, even if he's ultimately saving many innocent lives? If someone went and shot John Wayne Gacy in the face after he had killed his first two children, that person would undoubtedly end up in jail. What's worse is that many people would think he really deserves to be there. What is wrong with people? It's like...they have blind morality that stops them from seeing the big picture.

Well it's simply a question of rights, everyone should have the right to a fair trial and should be innocent until proven guilty. A vigilante might kill someone without having much evidence of their guilt. True, the system is flawed, but it's less flawed than having a bunch of random people with no qualifications running around, deciding on their own who to kill and who not to. Vigilantism sounds alright in theory but when it gets down it, you must realize that they're only human and they might make a mistake and kill someone innocent.

but, that is what the jury system is "a bunch of random people who decide who should live and who should die" that is adlib... I have no faith in the court system, maybe living in a small town with small town politics has caused my distaste for kangaroo court. Have you ever been in court or had to go through the court system. It has been my experience it is not about jurisprudence, innocent until proven guilty, it is about attorneys, who has the most clout, money and other social things.

It's because a government made by the people for the people is given an artificial status of being "above" people. Every politician has the same flaws that we do(which is why it's a big deal when one cheats on his wife or snorts cocaine), but again, there is a gray area between personal morals and government(human) morals. Clearly the government can decide who is good. You're absolutely correct, people get so abstractly misled that they let emotions get in the way of reality. Hardly anyone would hesitate to kill in self-defense. Vigilantism is a way of self-defense that merely gets done a lot faster what a government would do in the first place, if it really is the will of the people to have a deserving(say, child rapist) criminal dead.

It's because a government made by the people for the people is given an artificial status of being "above" people. Every politician has the same flaws that we do(which is why it's a big deal when one cheats on his wife or snorts cocaine), but again, there is a gray area between personal morals and government(human) morals. Clearly the government can decide who is good. You're absolutely correct, people get so abstractly misled that they let emotions get in the way of reality. Hardly anyone would hesitate to kill in self-defense. Vigilantism is a way of self-defense that merely gets done a lot faster what a government would do in the first place, if it really is the will of the people to have a deserving(say, child rapist) criminal dead.

Fuckin' A.

Of course, vigilantism can lead to a lot of undeserving people getting killed, so I definitely see the practical problems associated with it. But in the situation where someone who was undoubtedly guilty gets murdered, it really angers me to see just how stupid much of the public is. "Oh god no, you can't kill him. Only the government can."

Ugh.

... why is a person often villainized for killing a guilty person, even if he's ultimately saving many innocent lives?

Guilty of a crime which would already warrant the death penalty, or guilty of a crime indicating that he may commit a future death penalty crime?

It is appealing to think about vigilante justice, but they will usually have LESS evidence than the courts/police. If you know for sure then I don't think it's a bad thing. My take is that if you commit vigilante justice (kill some psycho, murderer, rapist e.t.c) and it turns out that you were correct you should be let go. Your actions should be investigated, but you shouldn't be dragged through the mud because you did the state's job at a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time.

I think the fact that jurors can be dumber than a box of rocks is one of the weakest points in the legal system, that fucks things up quite badly.

Killing somebody for killing or hurting others doesn't seem right.

It's legal because the state does it?

I don't see why we can't lock the person away forever and ever instead. I mean, if for no other reason, do it simply because on many occasions, people on death row have been set free due to new evidence that proves them innocent. However, sometimes they find the evidence and it's too late.

it doesnt seem wight.. i dont dank its wight.. im a fuckin wiberwuhl pussy dat hates logic and intelligence.. i dont want nobowdy to die im a fuckin fwaggot.. im gon go watch looney toons and continue to never understand weality, den nap time.. bwyee... ^___^

it doesnt seem wight.. i dont dank its wight.. im a fuckin wiberwuhl pussy dat hates logic and intelligence.. i dont want nobowdy to die im a fuckin fwaggot.. im gon go watch looney toons and continue to never understand weality, den nap time.. bwyee... ^___^

You've really got no clue how fucking stupid you are, and for that, I take pity on you.

damn nigga u comin at me wit that tsang tsung shit

I'm not quite sure if there is any coherent discussion going on, so I'll just throw this is to make things clear for those that don't watch Dexter.

He kills only people (well almost only, but I won't throw in a spoiler) that have already gone through the system, but slipped through and have continued on their path of killing/raping/child-molesting, etc. So it's not synonymous with the government's choice of prison-for-life or the death penalty. Instead it is free-for-life, unless caught again, or the death penalty. So really, from a utilitarian perspective, he is doing a much better thing than that what the death penalty does.

I'm not quite sure if there is any coherent discussion going on, so I'll just throw this is to make things clear for those that don't watch Dexter.

He kills only people (well almost only, but I won't throw in a spoiler) that have already gone through the system, but slipped through and have continued on their path of killing/raping/child-molesting, etc. So it's not synonymous with the government's choice of prison-for-life or the death penalty. Instead it is free-for-life, unless caught again, or the death penalty. So really, from a utilitarian perspective, he is doing a much better thing than that what the death penalty does.

It's better to let the bad guy offend again before you kill him?

Anyone who doesn't support the death penalty is a downright faggot and a victim susceptible to narcissists and psychopathic manipulators, who make up a majority of the criminal population I might add.

Anyone who doesn't support the death penalty is a downright faggot and a victim susceptible to narcissists and psychopathic manipulators, who make up a majority of the criminal population I might add.

It does need a reform though. More hard evidence, like DNA, and less unreliable shit like eyewitness accounts. If you can make the death penalty accurate enough it will be possible to increase the number of criminals on death row.

dexter is a great show. i bought my mom season one on dvd for chanukah.

as for the death penalty. i am not in favor of it for 3 reasons. one, it does not stop crime. two, it does not prevent crime. three, i dont think the state should have any say in who can live an who can die.

I'm not quite sure if there is any coherent discussion going on

lol lol, I was just thinking that.

On topic:

If I am not mistaken, I believe OP is talking about how the State has a monopoly on the executing of murderers/felons.

Here's my two cents: I don't have a problem with the regular people doing the killing of criminals, provided that it's been established beyond reasonable doubt that they indeed committed crime. However, this (referring to the establishment of guilt) is currently done through the judiciary, which is a part of the State. And this is where confusion arises. Currently we can't separate the establishment of guilt from execution, which is why we leave in the hands of the government to do the killing of murderers. I would imagine that if it were ever possible for the common people to properly establish the guilt of felons/murderers etc, I would not have a problem with civilians doing the executing.

Guilty of a crime which would already warrant the death penalty, or guilty of a crime indicating that he may commit a future death penalty crime?

This isn't directed towards you per se, Slave, so please don't take it personally.

It is rude, cuntish, and useless to answer someone's question with another question. Not to mention it might not be easily understood/your point might not be readily apparent to the audience. Example. I read that sentence a few times and still couldn't figure out what you were trying to say.

Anyone who doesn't support the death penalty is a downright faggot and a victim susceptible to narcissists and psychopathic manipulators

There are people who oppose the death penalty for good reasons (this is not to say I am one of them). You might not agree with them but it doesn't necessarily mean they are "faggots susceptible to narcissists and psychopathic manipulators".

oh and you might want to ease up on your trolling, it could cause stress.