India Rapist Burned Alive by Victim

[Razgovory]

Oh, the dreaded pigeonhole!   Presumably then, you are of the opinion that a revenge killing can be acceptable.  Or are do you just wish to avoid making a concrete statement?  This is absurd Fahdiz.  This thing about whether or not I meant that Fahdiz could change the legal system is equally absurd.  My point was that taking the law into your (not necessarily Fahdiz's) own hands and killing people because of perceived imperfections in the legal system only serves to exacerbate problems within said legal system.  I thought that was fairly clear.  This may shock you (Fahdiz), but every time I say the word "you" (not necessarily Fahdiz), I'm not actually talking about you (Fahdiz).  For instance if I say, "You (not necessarily Fahdiz) can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, I'm not actually commenting on your (Fahdiz) culinary skills.

[fhdz]

This is absurd Fahdiz.

On this, at least, you are absolutely correct.

I am again (alas, for I seem incapable of learning this lesson) reminded of why conversing with you is frustrating, one-sided, and not at all edifying.

[Razgovory]

I'm sorry that I can't see what a unique and special snowflake you are.

[dps]

There's a time and place for vigilantism to step in when the state has failed to protect its citizens. I prefer the "finding a better state" approach, but that's not always an option.

Agree.

[fhdz]

I'm sorry that I can't see what a unique and special snowflake you are.

You'll continue to fail to see that in everyone so long as your moral reasoning process stays where it is.

[Razgovory]

Or maybe people aren't just as unique as would like to think.  A moral process that is so sharp that I'm incapable of deciding if killing a person in revenge is acceptable or not does not seem appealing to me.

[fhdz]

*shrug*

[jimmy olsen]

So extralegal murder is acceptable in a society that doesn't have equal rights?

Yes, I believe we had this conversion already in the John Brown thread.

[Martinus]

It's hard to prove rape because she killed him and burned down the house and I don't think providing a motive is required for a conviction.

What the hell are you even talking about? Of course motive is required for conviction - motive is often central to determining whether a crime occured or not, and even if not, it is relevant for determining what kind of crime occurred.

[Martinus]

*shrug*

You made a mistake of trying to make a reasoned argument with Raz, rather than calling him an idiot a priori. It just doesn't work.

[Iormlund]

No, the monopoly of violence by the state is a cornerstone of western society.

We're not talking about a western society here.

I see nothing immoral in killing a rapist if that's the only defense open to you.

[Eddie Teach]

*shrug*

You made a mistake of trying to make a reasoned argument with Raz, rather than calling him an idiot a priori. It just doesn't work.

In what sense does calling Raz an idiot "work"? Makes you feel better? I mean, it sure doesn't seem to faze him.

[grumbler]

In what sense does calling Raz an idiot "work"? Makes you feel better? I mean, it sure doesn't seem to faze him.

Exactly.  That's why it is best just to not respond to him at all.

[grumbler]

I see nothing immoral in killing a rapist if that's the only defense open to you.

Indeed.  That's what makes the case so complex.  While some don't comprehend the role of motive in determining guilt (or even relative guilt), I think that most people can see that, if this was a "revenge murder" as some absolutely insist it was, then it is immoral and should be severely punished.  If the motive was a reasonable fear that a person who had just proven themselves ready, willing, and able to rape would rape her again, because the police wouldn't stop him, then the killing was not immoral and she should get acquitted.  On the charge of torture, it again depends on her motive:  if her motive in choosing to burn him to death was to make him feel pain before he died, then she is guilty of torture (even if not of murder).  If she chose that method because of a reasonable fear that the other methods available to her were too dangerous, then she is not guilty of torture (even if guilty of murder).

I don't think we have enough facts to make even a reasonable guess as to her motive in either case.

[Rasputin]

im still ok with her act even were it both motivated to be toruture and a revenge killing

some people just need killing

if we believe her version of events, (which i accept for the sake of argument) this dude needed killing

perhaps not a great legal argument but it remains the cornerstone of all jury nullifications