THE PACK Message Boards

Ok I have really wanted to make a thread on this for ages. I think it was the "Werewolf vs Rapist" thread that finally sparked it and I really wanted some discussion on it.

Ok, when I was reading about some of the posts in that thread I thought about that concept of the were killing the rapist because he deserved it for his crimes. Its a common way as also mentioned to see someone go apeshit and kill someone in a horrible way without stirring up negative feelings to that person. It works with many and if a news report was posted on here about a rapist getting killed my the victims dogs or something of that nature; despite the fear of how safe those dogs are I think the most common responce would be "He deserved it". Now for some reason I feel different. Whenever I see read, hor hear about something of that ill and how people are happy about the person getting what was coming to him/her, I tend to feel repulsed and a bit angry towards those people. For some reason in its own twisted manner I either feel or for the person or have some empathy and I get a strong sense to attack those people finding it good. This can be adapted to anything from a bully getting knocked out to someone getting humilated. I tend to always feel angry for the person rightfully hurt/humilated and attack. Its one of the reasons I sometimes snap.

Now I wanted to ask you all this? Is this normal and if not, how can say to someone that they do not have a enough hate for the said persons to find them getting theirs good or funny? I hate rapists sure but my mind just feels against them getting beaten/killed etc.

Just as a quick note - not too sure what it would take for this thread to get locked - but the subject itself is one of thin ice.

There are several pieces I perceive in your post:

1) The morality of Capital Punishment
2) Labels applied by society to define a person regardless of who they are.
3) The distinction between you and the fate of a socially labeled person who you don't know, and when it's someone you know and their fate.

I'll reply to each of these, in turn.

Capital Punishment: What many don't realize is that people are capable of change. However unforgiving society is towards criminals and as a whole, fails criminals to the point where crime becomes a way of life. Capital Punishment is a good deterrent against capital crimes (which at present, iirc, it isn't rape charges that get people death row, it is the murder charges, manslaughter or intent-related charges).

Society applies labels to you (I try to apply three to myself: Gamer, Geek and Freak). If you are penalized for something you do, they give you a label. Criminal is a fairly popular one. Weirdo might apply to most of The Pack. Lunatic might also apply to those who howl at the moon.

It's one thing when Joe Blow gets convicted of a crime and sent to death row. It's quite another when you find out your best friend, or a relative, did something bad years ago and now has to pay for their actions with their life (or with prison time, or whatever). When someone close to you becomes a convict (see, another label), does that make them now less of a person? If they are a convict of a capital offense, does that mean that they should not be a person anymore at all (except perhaps as a cadaver donated to science)?

"We kill people who kill people."

I think perhaps the problem you're finding with a statement like that is the fact that it's hypocritical. Thus you want to beat the stuffing out of whoever's saying it, making you a hypocrite as well. Lovely innit?

Society's twisted views of morality aside, it's a natural instinct to be protective of the people you care about. Helps species survive. "He deserved it" is merely an expression of this.

Why kill people who kill when you can break them here and there, anyway? That and redeem themselves despite the risk of being shun.

Eye for an eye. One of the reason our (America's) society is so screwed up is because we have very tame punishments compared to that of the days of yore.

What was that? You stole some bread? Well, good thing you have (or...had) TWO hands...

The way I see it...if you mess with someone...you are fair game to them and all of their family and friends.

But only with big things. I dont mean if a bully steals your ipod, your mother has the right to murder him. I mean if someone gets rapped, his or her family should be allowed a free pass at the man/woman without getting in trouble. And if the family cant or wont do it...the law steps in and does what it thinks it appropriate.

Then again, Ive been told that Im a fairly cruel person. But life is too short and jails are too crowded for sitting around trying to make people see the wrong they've done.

Trying to get back to Silent Hunter's original point here... the notion of werewolves "seeing to" rapists, murderers and the like would by necessity include the fictional type of werewolves - shape-shifting beast-people who hunt at night or during the full moon.

Now, fiction, fantasy, call it what you will, involves situations where morality is very much more clearly defined than it is in real life. Fictional rapists and murderers don't need to have the annoying shades of grey in their character that criminals in real life do (questions such as "did they really do it?" "are they falsely accused?" or "are they covering for someone else?")

That said, if I ever did hear of a rapist or murderer being savaged by some mysterious beast during a full moon I'd find myself very hard pressed to have any sympathy for them...

ShadowFang wrote:Eye for an eye. One of the reason our (America's) society is so screwed up is because we have very tame punishments compared to that of the days of yore.

What was that? You stole some bread? Well, good thing you have (or...had) TWO hands...

...

Tame... 3-8 years for a common assault charge. Right.

Come and live here and you'll see what "tame" sentencing really means.

I don't see anything wrong with it. It's perhaps not the best reaction but, hey, if you do something wrong you can't exactly expect something good to come of it. I view it kinda like sueing Dunkin Donuts over burning yourself with coffee. I mean, c'mon - you knew it was hot...

Same thing with like, rape. You know it's wrong, but you went and did it anyways and can you honestly expect people to be sympathetic when something bad happens to you? You could easily have avoided this by not breaking the law but hey - let's forget about that right?

This is not to say I encourage vigilantism (even werewolf vigilantism) though. Let the law sort out the rapists, murderers, theives, whatever you have. If it says they're innocent, then, well, we must abide by that ruling as best we can - it is better an evil man go free, then an innocent be locked up (or worse!).

Historical note here:

Comittees of Vigilance, etc. came into existence for one of two reasons.
1: There was no established law in the community. This is more a Posse Comitatus that vigilantism; but it does fit.
2: When the law was there, it was totally incompetent or so crooked it resembled a snake having a siezure of some sort.
This is the common form of the Vigilante, and actually worked for a while in the mining camps of the Western U.S. Problem was, people started not only enforcing existing laws, but also started making up some of their own, which was a big no-no.
Generally the Vigilante was someone who served as an ad-hoc deputy for a non-existent town government.

I heard of a story once about a tripe or something dawn in Africa, don't know if its true or not..
but anyway, when a person get caught afther killing someone, the tribe tie's his/her feet and arms and trow him/her in the water. The victoms family gets to decide if they want to swim out to save him/her or let him/her drawn, depending on what they feel is right.

When it comes to prison law I think US have some of it right. Here in Norway, a persone can't get more than 21 years, even if he kills alot of people, and it's very rare that someone gets 21 years, and even if they get 21 years they rarly stay in prison all those years. In Norway the roadlaw is the most stricted law, ca 25 over the speedlimet and you can lose your diverlicence, if you drive on red light you get a 950$ penalty.. so if you are going to murder someone in Norway DON'T do it with your car and yep, you have to be 18 to get your drivelicens.. just stared on mine today actually

I think that Norway belives that all people can learn from there mistakes and can be "good" but I think Norway is a bit too "nice" and belives to much in some people.. I belive when a person do something wrong he have to stand up for his mistakes, but it's different if it was a accident, but even so he have to learn from them and take responsibility for it but in a bit different way than if the person ment it.. god, this was hard to explain! even in Norwegian



This was a bit off tropic but I just got caught up sorry

It depends. Do you want to avoid a Hobbesian state of war, and do you trust authority to keep you out of it? Or do you agree with Locke that it is your right to punish others? Any alternative views hinge on a rejection of power structures.

If each one of us "got what we deserved" is not the question to ask...

It's how is the Universe going to restore the balance we should be worried about.
"The mills of the Gods grind slowly, yes; but they grind exceedingly fine."

"and NOBODY gets out alive!"

So much of humanity still has a revenge-based sense of morality. I look forward to a more enlightened age, in which laws and ethics focus less on getting even and more on logic and reason. I feel that the question of what do do with criminals should be based on what it would take to rehabilitate. Those who are repeat offenders are not going to get better simply shoving them back in jail without some sort of boot camp-styled intense overhaul. Likewise, those who made an honest mistake, such as a nineteen-year-old who slept with a sixteen-year-old who lied about one's age does not deserve the life-long stigma of being a "sex offender."

If one absolutely has to have a death penalty, then it should be done expediently, with the intention of eliminating the problem, rather than generating agony. In some conversations, people will tell me how they "want the criminal to suffer." Why? If you're planning on killing the person afterward, there is no point to creating suffering first and then killing them. That is barbaric. I don't care if the person was Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong put together; there is no logic in trying to "teach a lesson" someone that one intends to kill.