I’m equally glad both doucet and Babbitt are rotting corpses. I dont view morality through the lens of the American legal system because I’m not a moron.
This isn't new. People have had their own opinions on guilt from reading stories for decades. At least now they get more than just what the DA wants them to hear. DA's have done their best to make defendants guilty by trying them in the media prior to the trial for decades.
I'm just imagining Myakka State Forest right now. It's 90+, Humidity is 90+ with a shit ton of rain and mosquitos. he's dead or worse.
extrajudicial justice is bad as a policy, but sometimes it works out. Whether or not it’s legal has zero to do with whether it’s moral.
I don't think anyone is calling for him to be lynched today but miss me with the "whoa whoa whoa we need to wait for all details before forming forming opinion bc he could be innocent" bullshit too.
you’re right, of course. I mostly mean I’ll save my tears for people who get rail roaded by the system for crimes they didn’t commit instead of child rapists who got their just rewards even if it happened extrajudicially
extrajudicial justice killing innocent people is kind of why we don't do it i don't really care how "sure" you think we as a society are about someones guilt
*unrolls scroll of innocent people killed or wrongly imprisoned by the state* *scroll continues unrolling* *rolls off the website into the void*
I think the point is that absolute terms always have exceptions. If there is someone actively murdering people and they get killed in the process, I'm fine with that. It's a technicality, sure, but exceptions exist.
All of that is bad, sometimes bad systems lead to good outcomes. edit: individual good outcomes, not societal good outcomes.
You can have a completely hard line on a lot of things (I know I do in a few circumstances) but if you think that won’t set yourself up to somebody pointing out a negative to your positive you’re kidding yourself. Those concepts are difficult for all of us to put down. It’s mostly why I try to separate religion from this world to start with and go from there.
Ethical? Sure. But, killing is inherently immoral, even if the ends justify the means. I think the strongest argument for “moral killing” is the instance where someone is mortally wounded and suffering.
that the value of life in and of itself is more valuable than ending the person’s suffering. And by extension their free will.
And recent times (the past elections and covid vaccines) have shown that the problem is worse than it ever has been. Social media being the biggest catalyst. Dismissing a problem because it’s been an issue forever doesn’t really help anyone. So as unlikely as it is, even Joe Randoms should hesitate before calling for the heads of a man and his entire family. But despite all that, like you said it’s always been an issue. And it always will be. Not really any realistic way to avoid it. Unless we have like a “The Village” situation and have a group of people isolated from the rest of the world with everything taken care of for them with the only catch being they must serve as the impartial jury all major court cases. Again, not realistic.
Oversimplified, the argument is that no human has a natural right to kill another human. Even a perceived just purpose doesn’t confer such a right.
That’s dumb. If their free will is to die, and it’s gonna happen in 10 mins, and they’re suffering, you’d be an asshole not to help them out. I’d see it as immoral not to in that instance.