| > > I brought this up in one of my previous posts, there was a case in Amsterdamn where a retired boxer beat a pedophile to death. When the police came to arrest the boxer the people said that he was a hero and that he actually saved future victims......So my question is if you were the on the jury how would you find the boxer, guilty or not guilty?|
> Unfortunately I also don't know all the details of the case or how it ended but let's assume that the boxer caught the pedo right before he was about to abduct a young child, and then killed the pedo. Would you still find the boxer guilty?
> If I was on the jury I would find him guilty but with no jail time and maybe get him some counsling to deal with the fact that he took a life..
in a situation like that, it's hard because your emotions would so high that your judgement would be clouded. the first thought that would come to most rational people's mind would be to save the child. if saving the child means killing the perp (perp? it's confirmed: i watch WAY too much Law and Order SVU) then i think the killer should be completely excused. if you can save the child without killing the perp, but you just think the perp should die and you kill him anyway, then it gets a bit murky, because that's vigilantism, something i don't think any society should endorse. IF
you can save the child without killing, then that's the best option to getting the most out of justice. the child would be saved, the perp (hopefully) will be brought to trial (and hopefully get a life sentence at least), and you won't have to worry about killing someone being on your conscience for the rest of your life.