http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17040111

In DRC, what they did would probably be considered legal and not murder. I will make a prediction that the DRC will eventually recognize that witchcraft is not a valid reason for killing someone and change the laws. This would mean the morality of that country will change and the current perception is undoubtedly wrong.

What if you didn't kill them but you just murdered them?

I understand why you would want to murder a murderer.

However, that doesn't make it right.

If someone killed my parents, my gf or my friends and you'd put a gun in my hands, I'd like to think that I'd be a grounded enough individual not to shoot him dead, but truth be told, odds are good that I would shoot him dead.

And for that reason, cases where it is up to the victim to determine/serve punishment should be avoided like the plague.

Do I sincerely believe that the most badass stone cold murderers are human? Not really... at least not where it matters.

Being human involve having enough empathy to be an enabler and a supporting pillar for the construct that is human society.

That's how we evolved and that's how we work best.

Some of those individuals are just wired wrong at a fundamental level that pretty much cuts them off from the rest of humanity emotionally.

However, I also think that cutting all empathic bonds with them and treating them inhumanly would undermine our own ability to form and maintain those positive connections with each other so it's a self-damning course of action.

In the end, I think the best path is to salvage those who can be salvaged and contain those who can't.

Frankly, the only 2 scenario were I'd rationally consider murdering a murderer would be in self defense or if the police/justice system demonstrated a chronic inability to contain dangerous elements to the point where our daily environment could no longer be considered relatively safe.

No such thing as absolute morality, unless you define it as "whatever God says is right is right", or something equally silly.

You asked two questions:
Is it bad to kill someone who has willingly killed someone else?
or
Is it wrong to murder a murderer.

As in all philosophy and morality discussions, you have to be careful with your wording.

Bad does not mean wrong.
Kill does not mean murder.
Willingly killing someone does not make them a murderer.

If you are asking if vengeful killing is wrong, then yes. I'd have to say yes it is using my moral compass.

As some folks said, morality (right or wrongness) has multiple ways of looking at it. There are modernist and post-modernists. There are natural law-ists in the modernist category who would say something that might be different than a Christian, a Mormon a Muslim or a Hindu, who all have fairly modernist views on morality.

Most users of this forum are probably post-modernists (considering the general anti-religion and young average age of the forum's population). To those people, they'd often indicate that it's a personal view and that no absolute right or wrong exists.

So your answers, as complex or trivial as they might come, will be as varied as I've stated. Some folks claim yes. Some no. Some personally. Some absolutely.

But the question you have to ask yourself is: Is there an answer? And how can I know for sure?* You may be able to talk to a veteran or a police officer to begin to understand the repercussions. Often times the result of an action can help you learn about its appropriateness, if not its goodness or wrongness.

A good time to think morality. Thanks.

*Note: Do not kill someone to find out.

Ahh, the sweet smell of argument.

I'm not sure if you're asking for quantitative proof of an absolute justice but that seemed to be the most common theme in your responses. I suppose the closest one finds to that concept is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights but because that is not universally agreed upon or enforced it can hardly be considered indisputable fact. And although it does outlaw murder the practice still goes on in state sanctioned environments. So if you are still looking for absolute truth in the killing of another human being then I'm afraid you will also be disappointed.

As for quantitative evidence I can point to any number of statistics, number of civilians killed in Syria (state sanctioned military murder), homicide rates by country (murder in general), state executions in the US (murder by government), in two of those three instances it is perfectly legal under national law. So, what is the difference between an Amazonian tribesman killing a member of a rival tribe and the US government executing convicted murderers? Cultural context. What's the difference between the Syrian government killing civilians and the American government killing Iraqi insurgents? International Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/28/us-syria-idUSL5E8DB0BH20120228
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-united-states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization - As per your request for citation. This is the wikipedia page for the prime source of ancient conflict scholarship. You might be able to find the book at your local library or, more likely, your local university library, though I'm not sure how common it might be in Poland. I highly recommend it as it is both a good read and well researched.

Why murder a murderer when he/she/it can be made to spent every single day of the rest of the only life he will ever have being confined to a microscopic uncomfortable cell with no hope of ever getting out while the rest of the world moves on without him?

Murdering him would be letting him out easy. Im all for a long drawn out neverending life of misery and despair for them.

And then being turned into Soylent Green.

Why? It won't make the world a better place. It will most likely make the murderer want to escape(making the job of prison guard more dangerous) and shank other prisoners for not giving up their fruit cocktails. And wishing a lifetime of misery and despair on someone, even if that person is scum, puts you in the same category as people who want murderers to be murdered, in my opinion.

x_x
BBL, I'm off to kill myself.

I'm not asking for anything. I'm simply annoyed by the air of obviousness that surrounds certain theories.

lol
I do commend you for trying, though. I appreciate the effort you put into both the form and the content of your response. Unfortunately, given the circumstances, I believe I have nothing more to add myself. Sorry.

It's actually kind of enlightening and I found out a lot of weird stuff. For instance the guillotine was a legal method of capital punishment in France until 1981. In the Saudi Arabia beheading is most common and in Indonesia a majority of people think stoning should be a legitimate form of execution.
Ahh, I thought you were taking the opposite perspective :S

Hey, that's murder!

I do hope you don't suggest capital punishment for thieves as well...

In any case, as I personally object to the death penalty for the simple reason that I don't trust our justice system to only convict the guilty. Too often we hear of convicted murderers being finally proven innocent after 15+ years behind bars. And some states actually refuse to release DNA evidence for testing after the conviction, especially after execution for worry it will upset people.

Source: http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/dna-testing-and-death-penalty

Most murders aren't sociopaths. Most criminals in general aren't so different from you or me. It's actually not too difficult to derail your life so much (doesn't even have to be your own fault) that you get mixed up in all sorts of illegal activities. Heck you might even have been born or grew up in a situation where violence is all you know and it's what's been keeping you alive all these years. This isn't really something you can blame on the individual because it's usually a symptom much larger socioeconomical problem. They're not bad people, just terribly misguided.

This is true. Prisons usually don't do much in terms of rehabilitation. And here's the unfortunate part - I doubt there's enough resources to actually be able to create rehabilitation programs for all the inmates, especially in a country with a large population such as the US. I don't think simply locking them up is the best answer either, but instead of taking the easy way of saying 'alright, just kill them, they don't deserve to live anyway,' I'd rather that we keep working towards an employable rehabilitation system.

Depends where you live. In a very poor, war torn area, maybe.

But in a Western country, living conditions are such that you are way better a free man, even with minimum wages, at least if you have no dependents.

I know the job market is not what it's used to be, but let's put things into perspective regardless.

Like GoJays2025 mentioned, most of them are not lost causes and are actually salvageable for society.

However, I agree with you that the incarceration system does a pretty lousy job at salvaging them.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that rehabilitation makes for sounder long term economics.

However, right wing junkies tend to use the unrepentant sociopath as a poster child for how the remaining 99% of the inmates should be handled.

One size fits all solutions of this kind makes for a broken state.