Three stories appear in your local media. A brief summary of each - city businessman found murdered, electrocuted by way of being wired up to his own PC. Pensioner, aged 65, bludgeoned to death, on walk home. Man mid 20's dies after being set ablaze. Three very brutal deaths, three very series crimes. Now permit me to give each one some more context. The city businessman, who on the outside was a respected member of the community, was privately running a human trafficking operation, which involved the routine sexual abuse of minors. The pensioner beaten to death last week, he had just been released from prison, following ten years inside, for sex offences, against minors. The man in his 20's, he had gone to a youth prison, at 18, for shaking a baby to it's death, however, owing to a technicality, he was not found guilty of murder, but of a lesser charge. Pretty soon, police officials admit that someone is literally going around, exacting these actions, on men and women of this type. There is a twist. You KNOW who it is. What do you think you would do? POLL TO FOLLOW!
Tough one, imo. On one hand, the crimes of those he killed, they were terrible, but in at least one case, the country had already decided that he had paid his penalty to society, so I am not sure if I can endorse a second penalty, esp one more harsh than the first, and handed out by person unknown. Moreover, there really always would be a good chance of error by this person, that is why we do have a legal system, not perfect, but the best thing we have right now. You cannot have a person running loose, deciding he knows the full facts, let alone permitting one person that sort of power. It is dangerous to know this, and let it go on, imo. So, with mixed feelings, I would report it. I think.
The only way to truly KNOW if the person committed the crimes would be if the person confessed to you or you were there. Thus, a suspicion is worthy of investigation, even if the felony is in response to another felony.
That's your view, some others think different. If you do not like a thread, you do not have to take part in it. I never understand why people like you cannot grasp that.
Is that really true though? Can you really not think of a situation in which you might possibly be driven to it? I think every person has the capacity to kill, it's just that most never have to face their own breaking point.
LOL...one voter would try to sell his story to the press. Would it not be illegal to go to the press, before the cops, if you had info like that?
I might be driven to keep silent, but in the end, I would have to dob the person in anyway, because the guilt would eat me up inside. I still feel guilty about helping my friend steal a packet of bubblegum from the local corner store when I was about 12. That was 16 years ago and the guilt still eats away at me!
'Guilt' is an interesting emotion, from an evolutionary perspective, imo. Why do we feel guilty, and what benefit might it have had, in evolutionary terms? Well, I think 'guilt' (I would prefer another word), can often be a negative or a positive. Someone who destroys themselves with guilt, over something that they cannot change, or that happened a long time ago, really needs to deal with the guilt, but manage it much better, for instance. So, that is one example of it being negative. Yet, it can often act as an emotion that leads to positives. If we can feel reasonable guilt, and not that which is irrational, then it can act as a barometer for future behaviour. So, maybe from an evolutinary angle, those capable of feeling guilt, in that manner, maybe they did better because they were able to learn from mistakes faster and better, than someone that cannot feel guilt? Just a thought...
