Ethical debate anyone?

[jess2416]

I don't believe I said anyone deserved to die.

A rape is done for the same reasons whether it's done to a prostitute or straight laced college student.

Someone killing someone else for some deep personal reason... or for theft or w/e... is different than someone who preys on children.

Are either of those people good people to have in a society? No. But I think it is more vital to lock up the person who (most likely) derived some sort of pleasure from killing a 10 year old.

The nature of the crimes is in most cases pretty different. Say I had a police department that and I had to choose to allocate resources to finding the murderer of a gangbanger who was shot because he stole a bunch of money from someone or the murderer of a 10 year old that was exsanguinated... I would allocate more resources to finding the 10 year old's murderer.

No where did I say that you said anyone deserves to die...

IMO I just think its silly to basically say that, because of the "what the person did" (gangster) means that they shouldnt have all the same resources that a 10 yr old did...

 

[Dizzy]

*is wondering if you know what the UK definition of a gang bang is and that its just taken me 5 mins to work out what this guy did*

"We're 'avin a gang bang, we're 'avin a ball. We're 'avin a gang bang against the wall"

 

[ACooper]

*is wondering if you know what the UK definition of a gang bang is and that its just taken me 5 mins to work out what this guy did*

"We're 'avin a gang bang, we're 'avin a ball. We're 'avin a gang bang against the wall"

Gang Bang and Gang Banger = two different things here Dizzy :lol-sign:

One (the first) is a verb........the second is an adjective describing a person who's in a gang, LOL.........er, or maybe it's a noun for someone who's in a gang? IDK...

 

[Dizzy]

YouTube - Black Lace - Gang Bang

 

[Laurelin]

Sort of like everyone else, my gut reaction is "Of course not!"

My next thought is "murder is murder", and furthermore, how do we know the victim is a gangbanger for sure anyway? Or that the next victim might not be a little girl caught in the cross fire? And besides, the victim had a family too, and they deserve to have their loved one's killer brought to justice, even if their loved one was nothing to brag about himself.

But my next thought after that is that gangbangers generally kill for a reason, and the people they kill are often (though not always) themselves caught up in crime. It might be a rotten drug deal, or a revenge killing, or a fight between gangs . . .but the victim likely played some role in leading up to his death, and the motive of the killer, however inadequate to justify murder, is likely comprehensible.

People who intentionally kill children, however . . . not only do most people not understand their motives, but their victims are pretty much by definition innocent. And they often kill again.

So . . . yeah, in a world of limited resources, more effort should be expended figuring out who killed the kid than who killed the gangbanger. 1) because the child-murderer is probably more dangerous (at least to innocent people minding their own business) and 2) because the victim in that situation likely did nothing to provoke or bring out his own death.

This sums it up nicely.

 

[release the hounds]

all murders aren't created equal to me.

 

[sparks19]

all murders aren't created equal to me.

I agree with this.

if it were between searching for the murderer of a 10 year old girl or searching for the mruderer of the gangbanger....

Well my choice would have to be the child killer.

But most of the time it's not one or the other so I don't think they should just ignore gang killings

 

[M&M's Mommy]

Yes. Because a murderer should be caught and trialed for his crime regardless of who his victim is.

We may want to believe that some people's lives are not worth as much as others.. but fact is, they all worth the same.

 

[Brattina88]

I do, too. Murder is Murder -- I very much agree with that statement

And also because he's a person. He may have family, and you can't choose your family... who's to say he doesn't have family that's "good" , and they care about him, even if they don't agree with his choices/lifestyle.

But, "trumping" a child? That's really hard to say... but yes, finding a child's murderer should be top priority. IMHO. Whoever murders an innocent child has some SERIOUS issues and they don't need to be on the streets any minute longer than they have to be

 

[Lilavati]

The break point for me is that I'm pretty sure that the child killer is more of a threat to the general population, and in particular to other children, than the gangbanger killer. So its not the value of the victim's lives . . . its how likely the killer is to kill again, and moreover, kill without provocation.

 

[jess2416]

The break point for me is that I'm pretty sure that the child killer is more of a threat to the general population, and in particular to other children, than the gangbanger killer. So its not the value of the victim's lives . . . its how likely the killer is to kill again, and moreover, kill without provocation.

but the 10 yr old could have provoked the person... 10 yr olds are bratty people..

what if the 10 yr old was an animal abuser and had drowned the persons puppy.. that would "technically" be an animal abuser off the streets if it was killed right?

What if the killer of the so called gangster was called by God to kill all the Gangsters, then he would be more likely to kill again also... and he would be more than likely to be a NUTJOB lol

Anyhoo, there are thousands of scenarios that could play into this...

Its easier to deal with when you (general you) say a murder, is a murder, is a murder, no matter WHO did it...

but thats just my crazy thinking lol

 

[Lilavati]

but the 10 yr old could have provoked the person... 10 yr olds are bratty people..

what if the 10 yr old was an animal abuser and had drowned the persons puppy.. that would "technically" be an animal abuser off the streets if it was killed right?

What if the killer of the so called gangster was called by God to kill all the Gangsters, then he would be more likely to kill again also... and he would be more than likely to be a NUTJOB lol

Anyhoo, there are thousands of scenarios that could play into this...

Its easier to deal with when you (general you) say a murder, is a murder, is a murder, no matter WHO did it...

but thats just my crazy thinking lol

Sure, all those things are possible, but if I'm the police chief, I need to go with the most likely scenerio, because my decision is not a philosophicial experiment . . . I have a responsibility to protect the public, and that means going after the person more likely, based on the information I have, to kill again, and more likely to pose an immenent threat to the general public. Because other lives may well depend on my judgment, and that's more important, IMHO, than punishing someone for a murder that already occured.

 

[jess2416]

Sure, all those things are possible, but if I'm the police chief, I need to go with the most likely scenerio, because my decision is not a philosophicial experiment . . . I have a responsibility to protect the public, and that means going after the person more likely, based on the information I have, to kill again, and more likely to pose an immenent threat to the general public. Because other lives may well depend on my judgment, and that's more important, IMHO, than punishing someone for a murder that already occured.

I can completely see your point

but

I just don't think one should be put before another one, because you never know, that ONE kill could have the person that you would have never thought would kill again, kill again..

(I think Ive been watching too much Criminal Minds) :lol-sign:

 

[corgipower]

Personally, I'm not going to cry over news of a murdered gangbanger.

But I do think they deserve equal effort to find their killer. If for no other reason than what gives the police department the right to judge who is more deserving?

 

[GipsyQueen]

Gang Bang and Gang Banger = two different things here Dizzy :lol-sign:

One (the first) is a verb........the second is an adjective describing a person who's in a gang, LOL.........er, or maybe it's a noun for someone who's in a gang? IDK...

Wait what? lol SO he isn't what I orignally thought he was? Bajeezus english speaking people :lol-sign: Stop confusing others with your words. I thought a Gang Banger was someone who likes to you know.. bang in a gang, as in the dirty with a bunch of people. I was kinda like, meh? What ever floats you boat.
So the other thing is a guy whos in a gang? Im confused.

 

[Xandra]

I've only heard "gang" and "bang" together IRL in like... the sexual sense.

But online (I guess because of increased contact with Americans?) those two words together can mean a gangster. lol I think.

 

[-bogart-]

Gang bang = one woman lots of guys right after another , er the other way around lol
Gangbanger = person involved with a gang (as in group of people doing criminal activities)

heheheh and i thought British English was hard to understand!

 

[jess2416]

I've only heard "gang" and "bang" together IRL in like... the sexual sense.

But online (I guess because of increased contact with Americans?) those two words together can mean a gangster. lol I think.

thats why I changed it in my posts to Gangster :lol-sign:

 

[Laurelin]

Lmao, so you guys thought we meant people who like to gang bang?

 

[Dekka]

I knew what the topic was. If it had been posted by anyone other than an American and I would have guessed sexual connotation. (vs gang bang.. I think most people use that the same)