Isn't Success in D&D Dependent Upon Murder?

[Wulf Ratbane]

Legally false. If a policeman lets some innocent person die when they could have saved that person, the policeman is in trouble.

Really? You might want to let the Supreme Court know (South v. Maryland, Bowers v. Devito, Castle Rock v. Gonzales).

"...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

 

[delericho]

Allow me to more fully explain the ridiculousness of this extreme position:

A father who comes across a child molester or rapist in the act with his daughter or wife would be EVIL to kill the "monstrous criminal."

Good luck getting that to play with everyman. That position is weak, it is cowardly, and it is wrong, and the average man instinctively knows it on a visceral level.

In the scenario described, the father in question would not be acting out of revenge - he would be in the immediate pursuit of protecting his family*. If the father instead waited until some later time (whether through choice or necessity), then hunted down and killed the criminal when he was not an immediate threat then yes, that would be Evil. And he would be prosecuted as such.

And while the everyman may reject that as being wrong on a visceral level, the everyman also generally doesn't consider the case where the father, hunting down the rapist in question, actually locates and kills the wrong man - perhaps the light was bad, or the rapist had a brother, or... Suddenly the position becomes much harder to justify. If you can demonstrate that allowing that sort of vigilante justice will lead to fewer dead innocent men than the court system then I'll change my position. If not, then I stand by it.

* And, in fact, even acting in the immediate protection of the family is a position fraught with risk - there was at least one case discussed on Circus Maximus recently where a husband returned home and killed a man who was 'raping' his wife. Unfortunately, the wife was having an affair and cried rape to protect herself. However, in this case I will maintain that the man's actions weren't Evil as he was acting to protect his family from an immediate threat... but was working with imperfect knowledge. Absent the immediate threat, then he lacks that mitigation.

But we certainly can allow the individual to impose his view of justice on monstrous criminals.

But, as you know, the vigilante begins his journey through our justice system from a position of presumed innocence, as well.

And heaven help the vigilante who makes a mistake. However, you are quite right that the vigilante will be presumed innocent as well, which is certainly as it should be.

"Monstrous criminal" sounded pretty extreme. Perhaps you would care to revise that characterization?

No. You have to give the "monstrous criminal" the right to his day in court for the sake of all the individuals who look like monstrous criminals but are, in fact, innocent. You'll note I didn't say we should be lenient in our handling of them - a fair and impartial trial may well end in the electric chair.

But for the man who only looks guilty, a fair and impartial trial ends in an acquital, but vigilante justice ends in the grave.

Well, there's a ringing endorsement for giving the monstrous criminal his day in court. Does that serve the greater good?

You cannot sacrifice the lesser goods in favour of the 'greater good'.

And no, saying the courts get things wrong far too often is not a ringing endorsement of the system. The system sucks. But it is infinitely better than the alternatives. And I'm going to maintain that it's better to see a guilty man freed for lack of evidence than it is for an innocent man to die for nothing.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If you can demonstrate that allowing that sort of vigilante justice will lead to fewer dead innocent men than the court system then I'll change my position. If not, then I stand by it.

I'm not trying to defend that sort of vigilante justice. I'm saying it's patently ridiculous to claim it is IMPERATIVE that the MONSTROUS CRIMINAL be given a FAIR TRIAL.

There's nothing imperative about it, at all. What, exactly, is the adverse threat to the fabric of society if monstrous criminals aren't given a fair trial?

There is nothing inherently good, moral, or superior to allowing a fair trial of a monstrous criminal whose fate is already decided.

Again, perhaps monstrous criminal is too strong? Would you care to revise your remarks? You said nothing to mitigate the seriousness of the alleged crime or any doubt as to the criminal's guilt until pressed to clarify your position.

I'm also not clear on whether or not you are arguing from the position that "Saving the most innnocent lives" is the ultimate good or not. I can't sort out what you're trying to say.

It sounds like you are saying that saving innocent lives is GOOD if it happens in the course of a trial, in the sense that you are saving a possibly innocent man from the death penalty; but on the other hand saving innocent lives is BAD if it means blowing some homocidal prick away without benefit of a trial, in order to keep him from killing more innocent people.

You cannot sacrifice the lesser goods in favour of the 'greater good'.

The sacrifice of certain lesser goods is implicit in the term "greater good."

And no, saying the courts get things wrong far too often is not a ringing endorsement of the system. The system sucks. But it is infinitely better than the alternatives. And I'm going to maintain that it's better to see a guilty man freed for lack of evidence than it is for an innocent man to die for nothing.

In fact what you are saying is that you would rather that unknown numbers of innocent people die at the hands of monstrous criminals, rather than risk the possibility that one monstrous criminal not get his day in court.

 

[Rel]

It's time for everybody in this thread to take a big, deep breath and calm down a bit. The tension is starting to bug me.

You people don't wanna bug Rel (who's not afraid to refer to himself in the third person!) do ya?

 

[delericho]

I'm not trying to defend that sort of vigilante justice. I'm saying it's patently ridiculous to claim it is IMPERATIVE that the MONSTROUS CRIMINAL be given a FAIR TRIAL.

There's nothing imperative about it, at all. What, exactly, is the adverse threat to the fabric of society if monstrous criminals aren't given a fair trial?

There is nothing inherently good, moral, or superior to allowing a fair trial of a monstrous criminal whose fate is already decided.

If you deny a fair trial to the monstrous criminal, then sooner or later the system is going to deny a fair trial to the man who looks like a monstrous criminal but is, in fact, guilty of no crime. I find that dangerous.

Again, perhaps monstrous criminal is too strong? Would you care to revise your remarks? You said nothing to mitigate the seriousness of the alleged crime or any doubt as to the criminal's guilt until pressed to clarify your position.

I didn't mitigate the seriousness of the crime because I don't think it's relevant. As for the guilt of the suspect, I consider that to be automatically in doubt until the evidence has been presented.

In the extreme case, I'm concerned about the identical twin of the serial killer. He looks, sounds and in mannerism and stance is just like the killer. Even the DNA evidence matches... but he's not the guilty party. That likely doesn't matter to the grieving father whose daughter was abused, but it's a crucial difference. (And, yes, I'm aware that reality never provides a real case so extreme. I'm using it for illustration only.)

I'm also concerned about the vigilante who overreacts. At the moment, our societies don't consider child abuse to be a crime deserving the death sentence. That may well be wrong of us, but there it is. However, if you were the father of the child, would you not kill the man who did the deed? (Again, an extreme example, but you can step it back to a point where the vigilante's response is likely to be excessive given the details of the crime.)

I'm also not clear on whether or not you are arguing from the position that "Saving the most innnocent lives" is the ultimate good or not. I can't sort out what you're trying to say.

It sounds like you are saying that saving innocent lives is GOOD if it happens in the course of a trial, in the sense that you are saving a possibly innocent man from the death penalty; but on the other hand saving innocent lives is BAD if it means blowing some homocidal prick away without benefit of a trial, in order to keep him from killing more innocent people.

How about this: I take the view that we as a society cannot prevent the deaths of innocents at the hands of villains and madmen (since there's no shortage of those, and since we cannot detect them until they strike), but we CAN determine which lives we are responsible for taking. And the ultimate good, then, would be to minimise the innocent lives we ourselves are responsible for ending.

Does that make my position clearer?

(It would appear your mileage varies, and that you would take the view that it's better to see the deaths of the smallest number of innocents, regardless of who does the actual killing. Would that be fair? Either way, it's a valid position... but not one I agree with.)

The sacrifice of certain lesser goods is implicit in the term "greater good."

Indeed. I object to making that trade-off. Take it too far and it becomes a pure numbers game - if we determine that 90% of criminals come from a portion of society (let's say 5% of the whole) then it could be considered acceptable to just wipe out that portion to remove the problem. (Yet again, extreme example to illustrate a point.)

In fact what you are saying is that you would rather that unknown numbers of innocent people die at the hands of monstrous criminals, rather than risk the possibility that one monstrous criminal not get his day in court.

See above. I would rather society not take more innocent lives than we absolutely must.

There's yet another consideration: if we get it wrong and kill an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit then not only have we killed an innocent, but we have also failed to save any lives. In fact, we might well have made things more dangerous for the innocent, since the case is now closed and we're not on the lookout for the killer on the loose.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

If every individual is responsible for their own actions, as your exemplar partisan, then any attempt to shift inordinate blame to the authority who killed him is an attempt to wrest from the individual the responsibility for their own actions. And if some individuals are not responsible for what they do, then why should anyone be? Why should governments be?

Correct. If he's making the choice to engage in armed combat, one should assume that he's thought through the consequences of his actions. If he hasn't, well, he's a fool, and life's not kind to fools.

There can be moral gradations (he was pressed into service, the noble is actually a punk, etc), but even with those he still has his choice to make. There may not be any choices with objectively or subjectively good results, but he still has a choice.

Brad

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If you deny a fair trial to the monstrous criminal, then sooner or later the system is going to deny a fair trial to the man who looks like a monstrous criminal but is, in fact, guilty of no crime. I find that dangerous.

You find the possibility that a monstrous criminal might be denied a fair trial more dangerous than monstrous criminals.

I didn't mitigate the seriousness of the crime because I don't think it's relevant. As for the guilt of the suspect, I consider that to be automatically in doubt until the evidence has been presented.

So the monstrous criminal need be neither monstrous, nor criminal.

Well, that does put a new spin on your position. I think we can all get behind the fact that vigilantes shouldn't be offing non-monstrous non-criminals. Feel free to stake that one out; I'm right there with you.

So let's make this as simple as possible:

You are witness to a crazed gunman shooting up a school. He is both clearly monstrous, and clearly criminal. You have a gun in your car. You have the opportunity to run back to your car, get your gun, and kill the madman.

Are you maintaining that it is MORE GOOD to wait for the police, the duly appointed arbiters of justice, so that they might attempt to take this man alive and ensure that he gets a fair trial, regardless of how many children he might kill in the meantime-- than for you to kill him quickly and prevent further loss of life?

You have previously said that it is EVIL to kill this man-- this monstrous criminal-- and that it is IMPERATIVE that he receive a fair trial.

Is that a fair assessment of your position, and is it really morally superior to the vigilante who kills this prick?

How about this: I take the view that we as a society cannot prevent the deaths of innocents at the hands of villains and madmen

Yes, you can. That's exactly the hypothetical being presented.

, but we CAN determine which lives we are responsible for taking.

No, I can't determine which lives I am responsible for taking. You assert that only society can morally shoulder that responsibility. Individuals cannot. Individuals are incapable of judging good and evil, guilt and innocence.

In fact you have stated that an individual who makes this determination, outside the blessings of society, is de facto EVIL.

And the ultimate good, then, would be to minimise the innocent lives we ourselves are responsible for ending.

Does that make my position clearer?

I honestly believe you are saying that it is morally superior to allow this madman to kill more people-- since you are not the one actually responsible for taking those lives-- than it would be for you to kill the madman and prevent further loss of life.

It seems that your moral imperative is to keep society's hands clean. The individual may not kill, ever; only kill when it is "socially sanctioned" and only then when the guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There are people who will run to the car and shoot the madman. These people are GOOD.

There are people who, with the ability to help, will instead stand by and call the police. These people are, at best, NOT GOOD.

There are also people who, even lacking a gun, will attempt to tackle the armed gunman and kill him with their bare hands. These people are HEROES.

You can pretend otherwise but every man knows the truth in his gut.

 

[Rel]

delericho and Wulf Ratbane are now invited to leave the thread.

 

[delericho]

Sorry Rel, posted before I saw your latest comment.

 

[Rel]

Sorry Rel, posted before I saw your latest comment.

I figured as much but, as I said, go find another thread to post in and leave this one alone.