Can killing be justified?

[wordsmith]

Her side of the story:

Mandy's not having a good day. With only 6 weeks until she's set to marry her boyfriend, they have a blazing row. She storms out of the house, ends up meeting with some friends at a bar. She has a drink to steady her nerves, one drink turns to four, and suddenly thoughts of discontent turn to thoughts of revenge. She catches the eye of a guy in the corner, and decides that if her boyfriend is going to be in a bad mood when she arrives home, she may as well have fun whilst she's out. A couple more drinks, half an hour on the dance floor and she has a better idea: What if she doesn't go home tonight? That'd show him, let him stay up all night worrying about where she is. She grabs the guy who she's dancing with and tells him she wants to go back with him.

Mandy wakes up, the events of last night are all a bit blurry. She's got a thundering hangover, and she's... wait, where the hell is she? All she knows is that it's not her boyfriend, it's not her bed... Damn, what happened last night? I mean... She loves her boyfriend, there's no way that she'd go with a guy willingly, right? That means... Oh no! That means it must have been rape! She's off to the police station, he must have slipped something in her drink, there's no way that she'd have consented otherwise!

I was always of the assumption that a rape kit would have to be carried out as well as a blood tox-screen to check for foul play. Especially a rape that is supposedly suppose to of happened within the last 24 hours. If he hadn't raped or drugged her it would show in the results.

She was drunk, she'd had sexual intercourse. Whilst the guy in the scenario hadn't roofied her, giving someone enough alcohol can have the same affect. Basically if she instigated it, then the next morning says "I can't have consented, I don't remember it", the guy is fucked.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Would you let Hitler live? Exactly

they let stalin live

Not exactly Hitler died cos he lost the war stalin lived because he won the war.

plus hitler kinda killed himself

 

[mrF00bar]

Would you let Hitler live? Exactly

you just won the topic.

 

[tombman888]

Would you let Hitler live? Exactly

Christ, ninja'd in the first post.

 

[Rhymenoceros]

I believe that killing someone in self defence is acceptable if it is a matter of life or death. However I don't believe that killing someone in coldblood is ever acceptable. Even if they are being exscutes for some heinous crime. If they are unable to defend themselves then it is wrong. Also to execute someone for a crime is like admitting that society has given up on them. I believe that everyone can change so it is wrong for anyone to be executed. Somtimes it's necessary to lock some one up to keep them away from society it is wrong to kill them just to make life easier or to make it seem like the government is cracking down on crime.

 

[crudus]

I'm not the best at moral conundrums....but if say you know who a serial killer or similar criminal is,is it wrong to bring him to the justice he deserves?Can you justify it?If not what makes it wrong?Is it right to let muderers live while their victims die?Like I said I'm morally grey,What do you all believe?

"Murderers don't deserve to live. Traitors don't deserve to live" (Jack Ensall)

If a person kills for fun, profit, etc then they don value life therefore they forfeit their right to live. They shouldn't rot in a cell to take up resources and give nothing back.

 

[Gingersalt]

She was drunk, she'd had sexual intercourse. Whilst the guy in the scenario hadn't roofied her, giving someone enough alcohol can have the same affect. Basically if she instigated it, then the next morning says "I can't have consented, I don't remember it", the guy is fucked.

Rape kit would show whether it had been forced entry or not. Would also show whether a condom had been used or not. If it had, it would severely lower the likeness of rape, as who has the time? Of course to argue that it could be said she was tied up but then she would have to have lacerations on her body from where the bindings where. Would also be highly suspicious that he took her back to his own home to rape her and she was able to leave so easily in the morning without out threat not to tell.

I just have no sympathy for people who cry rape. Its an utter insult to any one who has been.

 

[wordsmith]

She was drunk, she'd had sexual intercourse. Whilst the guy in the scenario hadn't roofied her, giving someone enough alcohol can have the same affect. Basically if she instigated it, then the next morning says "I can't have consented, I don't remember it", the guy is fucked.

Rape kit would show whether it had been forced entry or not. Would also show whether a condom had been used or not. If it had, it would severely lower the likeness of rape, as who has the time? Of course to argue that it could be said she was tied up but then she would have to have lacerations on her body from where the bindings where. Would also be highly suspicious that he took her back to his own home to rape her and she was able to leave so easily in the morning without out threat not to tell.

I just have no sympathy for people who cry rape. Its an utter insult to any one who has been.

The problem is you're expecting all rape to be violent. That's the whole reason that rapedrugs like roofies are used- the victim doesn't struggle, the rapist doesn't have to tie her up, and won't have to force entry. Even whilst unconscious, the body still reacts to imminent intercourse in the natural way. Technically any act of penetration where at least one of the participants doesn't consent is counted as rape. Hell, if she says "yes", you get going and she changes her mind, as soon as you're out, if you try to put it back in, it's rape. Also, how does the use of a condom prove or disprove anything? If you're going to rape someone, surely you'd use a condom so that you don't leave DNA evidence behind?

 

[Goro]

WHaT!!
If a condom has been used it lowers the likeliness of a rape?!!
WHAT!?!
Who has the time?
Are you serious? Or just unbelievably dumb.
I've worked 3 rapes THIS YEAR, and condoms were used in 2. Rapists have plenty of time, and in a lot of cases they're smart enough to try and reduce the amount of physical evidence they leave. And FYI, 2 of mine were malicious allegations and one was genuine 'forced entry'. Forced entry.... Your whole post is just so wrong....
You gotta spend less time watching CSI.....

 

[Gingersalt]

The problem is you're expecting all rape to be violent. That's the whole reason that rapedrugs like roofies are used- the victim doesn't struggle, the rapist doesn't have to tie her up, and won't have to force entry. Even whilst unconscious, the body still reacts to imminent intercourse in the natural way. Technically any act of penetration where at least one of the participants doesn't consent is counted as rape. Hell, if she says "yes", you get going and she changes her mind, as soon as you're out, if you try to put it back in, it's rape. Also, how does the use of a condom prove or disprove anything? If you're going to rape someone, surely you'd use a condom so that you don't leave DNA evidence behind?

Think I wasn't explaining myself very well. I wasn't suggesting that this disproves that he raped her. I was saying that in front of peers with lack of evidence for her accusation and reasonable doubt that he did it then he may not be as fucked as you think he is.

Also fair shout with the condom thing. I was thinking more along the psychological depravity of rape but like you said doesn't always have to be violent.

 

[Socius]

Would you let Hitler live? Exactly

they let stalin live

Really? Holy crap well... Erm yeah

What about Mao? Was he allowed to live?

Mao wasn't a douche. Bad things happened under his rule, but he punished the ones who abused their power. he was a good man, with a little lack of controll over his subjects.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I'm not the best at moral conundrums....but if say you know who a cerial killer or similar criminal is,is it wrong to bring him to the justice he deserves?Can you justify it?If not what makes it wrong?Is it right to let muderers live while their victims die?Like I said I'm morally grey,What do you all believe?

Well, first of all...

Spoiler

[/spoiler]
Now. On to the issue at hand. Actions of a SERIAL murderer can not be justified unless all of his victims attacked and tried to kill him.[/quote]

Well I was only off by one letter which I promptly fixed and it didn't quite spell cereal either,

But would killing the unjust serial killer be just?[/quote]

I think he just really wanted to use the picture.

I think it would only be just if there was the possibility of them ever killing again.

 

[Crazycat690]

Ha! Of course it can, we kill animals don't we? What's so special about humans? NOTHING! I say that if there was no law, we can kill each other for any reason, simply cause we don't like the person. I don't see why so many think life is something worthy to protect, who exactly is going to care in 100 years if I live or not? Life is overrated, so I don't see any problem with killing someone, of course it's not very smart but I'm just saying nothing says it's wrong.

I'm not saying we should start going around killing each other for the smallest things, were doing that already! You have any idea how many people have been killed in the name of politics, religion or power? Life is just a mutation anyway, if this planet would explode and everyone would die, would it be a big deal?

 

[thePyro_13]

Can killing be justified? In certain circumstances. Such as what to do with Hitler.

Should you ever try to justify killing? Never, lest you become Hitler.

This doesn't effect whether or not you should do it, killing one person to save a hundred for example. But you should never try to convince yourself you made the right choice, you just made the choice that was least wrong.

This is my philosophy on the subject.

 

[MercurySteam]

Would you let Hitler live? Exactly

If Hitler never started that War my grandfather would've never fled England and would never have met my grandmother in Australia, so.........

 

[MrGuy]

At the risk of being controversial, no. Killing someone else because you think they deserve it is not justifiable. Because the attitude that it is something you can justify is an incredibly dangerous attitude.

Human beings just aren't purely rational selfless actors. We're incredibly good rationalizers. And once you can accept "there are some people that it's OK to kill," it's hard to stop. Hey--we're on the internet, how long does it take some dumbass to compare someone they don't like to Hitler?

"If it would have been OK to kill Hitler, it's OK for me to kill this abortion doctor."
"If it would have been OK to kill Hitler, it's OK for me to kill this researcher who tests products on animals."
"If it would have been OK to kill Hitler. it's OK to kill that man who I think is beating his wife."
"If it would have been OK to kill Hitler, it's OK for me to kill this CEO of a polluting company."

 

[Searleski]

I believe that killing should be reserved for people who commit the worst of crimes like murdering several people and paedophiles.