Why shouldn't we kill the bad guy after defeating him

[Janx]

First, because Humans are not prescient. Nobody knows what someone will or won't do in the Future.

And Second, because it's not as easy a thing as you might think.


..snip...
Killing someone changes you, even when justified or in self defense. Ask any cop or soldier who's ever had to kill someone and they'll tell you, they do not just go home and sleep well. They may understand logically that it was something that had to be done, but it stays with you and weighs upon you, and never really completely goes away...ever.

Taking a life is a monumental thing. You're not just killing them in the moment, you are killing them in the future. Everything they would have been is now gone. And no matter how unemotional a person may be or seem, unless one is a true psychopath, it's virtually impossible to not feel an involuntary empathy for the person they just killed. You see it in the dying persons eyes. You see the end of thought, personality, character, being...LIFE...in those eyes. And in that moment, justified or not, necessary or not, self defense or not, it is an extremely hard thing to see, and impossible to forget. Once the adrenaline is gone, once the rage or fear has faded, the true impact is always felt and cannot be escaped.

There is always a price.

It depends on the person.

Of the people drawn to police work or soldiering, some percentage of them do not posess the "killing people is wrong" gene. They do not have a problem taking a life. Which is some of the reason they were drawn to that work.

So it's not fully true that everybody pays that emotional price.

Certainly, people who empathize with others are going to have this stress and in fact are unlikely to be willing to follow through for the same reasons you cite.

But once upon a time, we used to be able to go over and raid the other tribe and were celebrated as heroes by our village when we returned. We were not haunted by nightmares of the faces of the men we slew.

 

[jonesy]

But once upon a time, we used to be able to go over and raid the other tribe and were celebrated as heroes by our village when we returned. We were not haunted by nightmares of the faces of the men we slew.

Once upon a time? I wish.

And I'm pretty sure they were haunted the exact same way soldiers now are (i.e. some are and some aren't).

 

[Jack7]

If it is legal then I'll kill the unreformable evil man myself. I would have no trouble sleeping. I've simply seen too many innocents killed by men who should have never been allowed a second, much less a third, fourth, or fifth chance.

I don't like killing, but if it's between an innocent and a guilty man I am in no way bothered by it. I see it as my duty. I'm not bothered at all by the killing of guilty, and vicious, and evil men. I have no qualms of conscious about it. I do have many qualms of conscious about allowing evil men to kill innocents. That does bother me. I've seen good men and good women and good children murdered and die through the actions of evil and violent and vicious men. Personally I have no doubts about who I consider to be the problem or what to do about them.

As far as fiction goes I personally don't like to write stories about evil men escaping or justice being prolonged forever for whatever reason. But it does happen in real life that way far too often (I've seen it myself), and I fully understand that this is a moral dilemma that many people desire to see explored in fiction. I've used it myself in stories. (And there is even that rare occasion where vicious or dangerous, or sometimes even far more rare, evil men convert and reform. And I'm certainly all for that. But they better get a real move on as far as reform goes from my point of view)

But as far as I'm concerned the faster men bent on doing bad things are liquidated the better. That's not a moral issue for me.

However, I think there is a great moral issue in letting such men escape Justice and death as long as they often do. To me that is the real moral failing.

I know some disagree with me, and that's fine by me. It's my take on it. The innocent you defend and protect, the guilty and vicious take their chances. And if it's between defender and offender, let the toughest, most cunning, and best-prepared man win.

 

[jonesy]

If it is legal then I'll kill the unreformable evil man myself.

1. It's not legal. Not in your country at least. Killing someone after you've already gained control of the situation (as the topic of this thread says) is manslaughter.
2. Whether or not the person is unreformable is an unknown factor in almost all cases.

 

[Cor Azer]

Two blog posts that are kind of relevant, using real world laws to discuss Batman:Knightfall and the liability of Arkham Asylum

http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2012/02/20/knightfall/
http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2012/03/05/arkham-asylum-and-liability-for-private-prisons/

Doesn't really touch on killing the baddie, but more on the 'baddie keeps escaping'

 

[El Mahdi]

It depends on the person.

Of the people drawn to police work or soldiering, some percentage of them do not posess the "killing people is wrong" gene. They do not have a problem taking a life. Which is some of the reason they were drawn to that work.

So it's not fully true that everybody pays that emotional price.

Whoooaaaa... I didn't say anything about cops and soldiers feeling that what they've done is wrong. And it's definitely not about just "feeling bad".

Taking another life changes you, no matter what. Nobody except pure psychopaths escape that. Only people who have never killed before will say that it's absolultely no problem and they'll sleep fine after. Sure, you can get used to it. It's amazing and scary what a person can get used to. But that first time...you will be a different person after.

The ones who have will tell you, whether justified or necessary, there is an emotional price to pay. In your scenario, it may be worth the price, but it's not something to be taken lightly.

Kill a person and you will be changed forever.


Now personally, how do I feel about this?

If I need to kill someone in the defense of those I love (or as my duty), I will - without hesitation. But I'm definitely not ignorant to the effect it will have. Even if I had no other choice. Thinking otherwise is naive.

2. Whether or not the person is unreformable is an unknown factor in almost all cases.

Exactly.

 

[Umbran]

There is a basic answer here. If you are not The Law, then you have shown willingness to be judge, jury, and executioner. Next time Society may not agree with you, so it cannot allow you a next time.

So killing without cause makes you Society's enemy. Not so good for you.

 

[Jack7]

1. It's not legal. Not in your country at least. Killing someone after you've already gained control of the situation (as the topic of this thread says) is manslaughter.

Sure, it's legal many places here. It's called the Death Penalty. And if it's legal and I were called upon to do it, (and I knew the fellow to be guilty) I'd do it. I wouldn't execute someone I had doubts about. If it's legal though and I was convinced of guilt I'd have no qualms about doing it myself.

2. Whether or not the person is unreformable is an unknown factor in almost all cases.

Philosophically and theoretically speaking that's an absolutely true statement. Statistically speaking it's not true. The kind of men I'm talking about are not serial burglars, I'm talking about men with well developed and well documented tendencies. Serial killers for instance almost never reform.

And if that bothers you I'm sorry, that's not my point. You're welcome to your opinion on the matter. But truth is I'd kill a thousand Idi Amins or a baker's dozen of Leonard Lakes before I'd let them murder a single innocent person, if I could. That's my opinion on their value versus the value of their victims.

I don't square the value of a guilty perp on the backs of the innocent victim. That's just not a valid equation in my way of calculating lives.

Every man is welcome to his own opinion. And I don't reckon I'll change yours, that's fine.

I'm just saying that for me if the threat risk analysis is high enough, then the guilty are not my concern. The innocent are.

 

[jonesy]

Sure, it's legal many places here. It's called the Death Penalty.

The death penalty is your government saying "Do as I say, don't do as I do." If you do it on your own you are acting illegally.

Philosophically and theoretically speaking that's an absolutely true statement. Statistically speaking it's not true. The kind of men I'm talking about are not serial burglars, I'm talking about men with well developed and well documented tendencies. Serial killers for instance almost never reform.

It is true statistically speaking. Serials killers cause a very small portion of murders. Morally they are a great worry, but purely statistically they are hardly worth mentioning. And there are reformed serial killers, as strange as that might sound.

But there's another reason for saving the bad guys. A reason why criminals get deals from law enforcement. To bring in bigger bad guys.

 

[Spatula]

"For even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf

If the irredeemably evil Gollum had been killed, the One Ring would not have been destroyed and the ultimate evil (Sauron) would have triumphed. You won't find that sort of sentiment in many fantasy novels, and I always loved LotR for that.

In most stories, we know with certainty that the bad guys are evil and will always be evil, and so killing them is justified. In real life, the distinctions are less clear.