# Moral question.



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Post SHTF there will be people who turn to killing/raping/stealing/etc. not for survival, but because it now excites them, or gives them a sense of power, or I really don't care why, but they do it.

Once things begin to normalize, and society begins to form, what is to be done about these people?

What place do they have in society? Who will determine this, and how?

I'm not talking about people already incarcerated. I'm talking about SHTF and now everyone has a fresh start. If you were in prison for murder, and you got out during SHTF, and turned your life around and became a "productive member of society" then great, not talking about you.


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

Jakthesoldier said:


> *Post SHTF there will be people who turn to killing/raping/stealing/etc. not for survival, but because it now excites them*


I have a feelin those people will not last long.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Provide they live long enough for things to recovered. We make sure they are not around to enjoy it. Why do you think security is number one in prepping. With out it all your preps are a waste of time.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

Hard labor comes to mind after my thoughts of the stocks from colonial america. Putting someone to hard labor is more useful and productive. If you kill them you get nothing from it. Banishment they may cause problems later.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Grid goes down, those poor souls will be lucky to make it a week. No need for them, no gov $$ , No gov personnel. Guess they're sol. Surely won't let them out on the country side. Good thought though, if power goes down, do all those electronic door locks fail??


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

I think I am more leaning toward the people who intend to run around raiding. Like Mad Max or Waterworld gangs. 

People who group up just to prey on the weak. They will be many, and like bullies in High School, they won't just "go away"


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

1skrewsloose said:


> ...if power goes down, do all those electronic door locks fail??


Hopefully they fail safe!

As to the original question, I vote to exterminate them. Turning them loose isn't an option and I wouldn't want them anywhere near my loved ones doing hard labor or anything else.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Hemi45 said:


> Hopefully they fail safe!
> 
> As to the original question, I vote to exterminate them. Turning them loose isn't an option and I wouldn't want them anywhere near my loved ones doing hard labor or anything else.


I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that people in prison for tax evasion, marijuana charges, public intoxication, or vagrancy should be held in prison and just simply die?

For rapists, child molesters, and murderers, sure.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

World is full of sick Evil people. They will become bolder after SHTF. However there is a large number of others that are not afraid of them and will deal with them. The rules for dealing with them will be much different than they are now. After SHTF dealing with them will be much more effective.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

BANG Flop.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

If they are caught doing vile things such as rape, murder, and pillaging than they should be killed immediately by a posse. If possible taken into custody and strung up in the town square like the old days. I'm not sure about lessor crimes just yet. Perhaps a group of elders can determine their punishment.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

So here is a follow on question, based on responses so far.

Should I encounter such a group, and elect to pick them off until they are gone, would I be justified in doing so?

If I see the evil, could I consider myself morally obligated to remove it, or, in doing so, am I "playing judge, jury, and executioner?"


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

Jakthesoldier said:


> I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that people in prison for tax evasion, marijuana charges, public intoxication, or vagrancy should be held in prison and just simply die?
> 
> For rapists, child molesters, and murderers, sure.


If you're in jail, you made some poor decisions. Sometimes poor decisions get you killed. While I don't think a pot smoker should die, I wouldn't feel compelled to separate the wheat from the chaff and try to free anyone.


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

During a period of TEOTWAWKI, instant justice rules. Need a deep dark hole.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

If you encounter Evil and do nothing what are you? That is why we are in the mess we are in now, to many lock their doors hide away and do nothing. How many times do we hear it somebody needs to do something. Look in the mirror somebody is looking at you. 
Are you a promise keeper or not? Not about Playing any role it is about doing right.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> If you encounter Evil and do nothing what are you? That is why we are in the mess we are in now, to many lock their doors hide away and do nothing. How many times do we hear it somebody needs to do something. Look in the mirror somebody is looking at you.
> Are you a promise keeper or not? Not about Playing any role it is about doing right.


Good point. I refer to deal with it directly, at my own expense, vs gathering a group to deal with it at the potential for greater casualties.

Should I allow myself that authority?


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

jack they will continue to be and live like they are-animals! In society today there are already plenty of these types.
about 70-90% of the people in the world have no idea just how bad it can get those that do are already in the stone age and could care less -we (I am speaking about the USA) are a plugged in people we produce almost nothing and take everything for granted.
you learn to live or die trying.
security is #1 no man it is not 80-90% of the energy and time is going to be spent looking, getting ,preparing something to eat and I don't care how much you got stashed away. I can not emphasize enough on the value of skills over supplies -supplies can be taken away from you skills you can pass on to future generations.
I have heard so many times the most dangerous weapon is the mind -BUT how many really understand this? 
I will teach: you goto the river to get fish and always come back with plenty some undesirable types watch and decide that it would be easy to get those fish from you so they challenge you. GIVE THEM THE FISH and walk away the next day catch a few more and leave them at the river the ones you take poison them so much that it would kill an elephant -understand now how dangerous the mind is and an example on how to use it.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Jakthesoldier said:


> Good point. I refer to deal with it directly, at my own expense, vs gathering a group to deal with it at the potential for greater casualties.
> 
> Should I allow myself that authority?


 Moral authority is not given nor taken it stands on it's own .

Those of us that have been in places where S has hit the fan know first hand why security is number one. Without you will give all you have to someone else including your life. Without security you will not have a chance to use your skills.
Hell is home if it is all you know


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

I am always amazed at how people change when you flip their world upside down. 
Good people turn bad, and bad people turn good, good people get better and bad people get worse. I've seen convicts turn around and become preachers, run charities, learn and teach trades, etc.

Again, I am referring only to those who exhibit evil behaviors AFTER SHTF, and during "renormalization" 

I would also offer that 95% of the population of this planet lives in worse conditions than we can imagine.

A good life in Iraq would make an American homeless shudder. Those in Africa, Thailand, northern China, Russia, the Philippines, etc. are already living in what we call a post apocalyptic hell.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

most of the ones that will exhibit evil behaviors already have them embedded into their system and are just waiting for an excuse to go free range. the others most likely have mental issues and ran out of meds or something.
me personally I never want to see the our world turned upside down. Anyone who does is the king of fools.
Jack I am not really sure how to answer that question and I am not sure if the answer I can give will satisfy the specific answer your looking for.
you I guess i'll just leave this thread be.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Medic33 said:


> most of the ones that will exhibit evil behaviors already have them embedded into their system and are just waiting for an excuse to go free range. the others most likely have mental issues and ran out of meds or something.
> me personally I never want to see the our world turned upside down. Anyone who does is the king of fools.
> Jack I am not really sure how to answer that question and I am not sure if the answer I can give will satisfy the specific answer your looking for.
> you I guess i'll just leave this thread be.


Agreed.

As for an answer, if you were out and about, and encountered an encampment of persons you know to be evil (lumping it all together), at a point where society was starting to come back together, what would you do?

Assuming you had the ability, and supply, to engage them all either at once, or through guerilla tactics, would you?


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

In the interest of maintaining civility and adhering to some semblance of law and order they would be detained, tried by a jury of their peers in a speedy trial and if found guilty of a capital crime they would have to be summarily executed as we don't have the resources for extended incarceration anymore. My guess would be hanging or firing squad. Lesser crimes get lesser penalties. Life or death is always life or death.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

csi-tech said:


> In the interest of maintaining civility and adhering to some semblance of law and order they would be detained, tried by a jury of their peers in a speedy trial and if found guilty of a capital crime they would have to be summarily executed as we don't have the resources for extended incarceration anymore. My guess would be hanging or firing squad. Lesser crimes get lesser penalties. Life or death is always life or death.


 The problem is while that all sounds good and close to being PC . There we be no such system. Heck the system we have now does not work that way. Those convicted or rape, murder and every other crime are back on the streets in no time doing it over and over.
Death penalty is not about justice or punishment it is the only way to rid society of at least one person that no longer belongs here. NY right now two animals that should have been dead are back out. I fear for anyone they come in contact with.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

probably would jack. sorry , it's not a moral compass thingy it is just me.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Medic33 said:


> probably would jack. sorry , it's not a moral compass thingy it is just me.


No wrong answer here. You and I probably would, but we can. Some others can but wouldn't due to personal belief. Others would, but couldn't, physical ability, knowledge, etc. Some can't but would die trying. Others can't and wouldn't because they couldn't.

I'm simply seeking that perspective from other viewpoints here.

Judgement free, at least from me.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Frontier justice was swift, not like it is today. I don't believe any struggling society will want to keep the animals around. If It does it will be struggling for a long period of time.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I'm so glad you asked Jak...a Slippy-Made Pike is the perfect gift for those who need to sever a head of a thug who has committed (but not limited to) Rape, Murder, Child Molestation, Looting, Horse Thieving, and general stupidity.

Here at Slippy-Made Pikes, Quality goes in before the name goes on! Remember Slippy-Made for all of your "Severed Thug Head" Pike needs!

(Que the jingle)


----------



## topgun (Oct 2, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> Provide they live long enough for things to recovered. We make sure they are not around to enjoy it. Why do you think security is number one in prepping. With out it all your preps are a waste of time.


Exactly.

People who prep will be targets for those who don't. People who prep will have those things that others wished they had, and will do anything to get.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

What sense does it make to catch a rabid animal, hold it in a cage for a time, then let it go?


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Hemi45 said:


> Hopefully they fail safe!
> 
> As to the original question, I vote to exterminate them. Turning them loose isn't an option and I wouldn't want them anywhere near my loved ones doing hard labor or anything else.


Remember a lot of the folks in jails have never yet been convicted - they're awaiting trial and can't post bail. Or what about those non violent crimes - like those that write bad checks or sell a little weed and coke - Drugs without a prescription.

Your thoughts are almost as bad as those that think all cops are evil.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

So.... how are we to judge? pour thru court records? Everyone in jail is innocent, as they say!  Keep them all in, or let them all out? Maybe consider the difference between jail, ie. county lockup, and prison.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> So.... how are we to judge? pour thru court records? Everyone in jail is innocent, as they say!  Keep them all in, or let them all out? Maybe consider the difference between jail, ie. county lockup, and prison.


Fix it now, stop locking people up for stupid crap. There are so many things that are crimes in this country that shouldn't even be civil code violations.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Agree, from smitty's tag line.

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
-Ayn Rand-


----------



## Roaddawg (Mar 28, 2015)

They will be summarily executed after facing a tribunal of their peers. 

I also think that if a true SHTF scenario occurs, those already imprisoned will and should be eliminated if their crimes initially called for death sentences. There will not be anyone to take care of the animals and rather than releasing them in to an already bad situation, they will be killed.

One of the first things that will need to change after things begin to return to normal, if they in fact do, is that the criminal justice system will need to return to a punishment system rather than a "rehabilitation" system.

It is fact that over 85% of those currently incarcerated are sociopathic and a sociopath CANNOT, repeat CANNOT be rehabilitated. (Ask any Psychiatrist) 

Therefor, the US has wasted BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars to rehabilitate people they know cannot be rehabilitated. Sorry to get off subject here, but to kill to survive and protect is one thing, but to kill or rape for a sick pleasure or power will finally need to be dealt with by eliminating that person from ever having the chance to do it again and a bullet or the gallows are cheaper than a lifetime of incarceration.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Jakthesoldier said:


> Post SHTF there will be people who turn to killing/raping/stealing/etc. not for survival, but because it now excites them, or gives them a sense of power, or I really don't care why, but they do it.
> 
> Once things begin to normalize, and society begins to form, what is to be done about these people?
> 
> What place do they have in society? Who will determine this, and how?


They won't have a place in society and the good people who are left, won't be forgiving of them.
All of the ones that are left, will be scarred, and they will probably kill any weirdos, and be done with it.
Because even the good people will probably have killed in order to survive.
And a few more notches on the gun stock won't matter.


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> Remember a lot of the folks in jails have never yet been convicted - they're awaiting trial and can't post bail. Or what about those non violent crimes - like those that write bad checks or sell a little weed and coke - Drugs without a prescription.
> 
> Your thoughts are almost as bad as those that think all cops are evil.


Actually, the post you quoted was in response to the rapists/murders. In my subsequent post, I clarified that pot smokers don't deserve to die but I'll not be the one opening any cell doors. Not my problem.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

I always thought that if a person is incarcerated for 20 years or more and a society break down occurs(or maybe it's we get invaded?)they are executed immediately do to the fact they are considered a threat to the state or something. 
and as far as locking up people for stupid stuff I agree, but I also agree that we should let career criminals out if they have more that 2-3 convictions put them in and throw away the key, I also believe that prison should be just that -put in a cell, no free time no, no exercise time , given 2 meals a day jus to sustain them they don't even have to be healthy meals -instead of making it as close to a club med. make it something that a person doesn't want to go back to period.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Society will do what is necessary to protect itself. If we as a society just start 
eliminating people for what society believes is a "good" reason rather than 
"just" reason, we might not have enough ammo. But considering some of the
animals I see paraded in the news, it will probably be necessary for the 
protection of the majority of society.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

I would not advocate for killing folks in prisons... except if they are in there for killing or doing physical harm to another person... (unless it was for vehicle manslaughter - IE traffic accident)

drugs,fraud, and many other things - let em out


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I was talking to a "neighbor" who works at the state pen about 10 miles on the other side of the small town that is close to me.
In a power failure the doors fail to open - they stay locked. The facility is under a standing order that if the inmates cannot be cared for then they are to be released.
The prison holds between 2000 and 2500 inmates at any given time. These people have been convicted and sentenced for a wide range of offences. The town has a permanent population of around 31000 which covers al lot of the outlying areas, farms, ranches and vineyards. The prisoners would be a force equal to about 7.5% of the towns population. Fortunately it would not be a cohesive force.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

If you catch someone in the act of brutalizing another you have the right and duty to stop it if you can without endangering yourself. 
Those who acted in this manner and lived through the time without law, will be charged and tried under the law as complaints are registered. Much like war criminals are caught and tried.
Once law and order are being re-established it is time to use that law to bring order. I would think that there will be those who get away with atrocities and escape justice during their life. 
The Supreme Judge will pass the final judgement and we cannot question that judgement, nor should we.


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

depends on the murder for murders
Rapists get a brand and banishment and a warning that if they return they will be placed as a forced worker/ prisoner for 10 years, and if they rape again they receive a death sentence. 
Thieves get all their belongings taken away besides bare necessities and given to who they stole from and they are forced to work/ prisoner for 2 years. After the 2 years are up the person who they stole from determines if they can stay in the community. 
Drug users are free and their dependency is counciled and support is provided as long as they are a productive member of the community as far as work is concerned.

I choose banishment for rape because it is more or less a death sentence because of the branding.


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

Those are some of my ideas if I were set to reason and impart laws.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

If a man murders a man then he should have to serve in that man's place. If he had a wife and / or family, he should have to work to support them and work for them - for life. If a man rapes a woman he should be made her slave, she should have total power over him until she decides his services are no longer needed then he is released. If he rapes again he is bound to the woman as her slave until she deems he is no longer needed and then he is branded and banished. If a man steal for greed he should pay for what he took, ten times over, with work for his victim. If he steals again the he gets the same punishment and then is branded and banished.

The question is
How do you know if someone is guilty? 
Is there an arrest? A trial? A jury? A judge? What if he killed in self defence? What if he stole to feed his family? What if a kid commits the crime? What if it is YOUR kid? What about coercion?
Trial by a jury is the greatest test an accused person's guilt can be judged but only if that jury knows they can judge the man, the act, and the law and not just decide guilt or innocence based solely on the letter of the law.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Shoot em all, let God sort them out! And me too!! Are folks really going to go to prisons and jails to let these out!! Thanks for the heads up Paul, when the lights go dim, surround and pick off anyone leaving. How else can you be sure!!?? Especially max lock-ups. jmo. Old west days, they say your guilty. Sure innocent folks met their maker, but the rest kept their noses clean! Sad, sad fact, but 20 years on death row is not a deteerrant for sure . Shtf, sorry will not care .02 about those in jail and prison, only enough to keep them out of the populace. Funds will not be available to keep that many folks fed. Attriciation is the sad fact of life for those that chose that path.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Yea, I'm talking like I know there have been raids in the area, I know these people did it. Just assume it is absolute, say I saw it but couldn't do anything about it at the time, and come across them later or whatever, but I have absolute positive ID on this group as being a bunch of raiding, raping, murderers.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

With that knowledge, they'd be history asap. Reminds me of the movie, Lonesome Dove. Sorry, had company for a few minutes. Costner and Boss meet the bad guys in the street, Costner says I hear you shot the boy and the dog. Bad guy says, I enjoyed it, Costner pops him in the forehead. No harm, no foul, he admitted to it.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

Really the question about how to deal with the murderers and rapists after EOW is a logistical one: Can you afford to keep prisoners?
The answer will likely be no, and since banishment just leaves them at your back, the most expedient solution will be to summarily execute them. 

Any man that cannot be trusted to walk among us gets one to the head. There will be no margin for charity.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Ralph, where do you draw the line?

a guy steals food for his kids.. 
a kid steals a toy..
a guy that is less than well liked jay-walks.. 

There must be a trial with a jury.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

PaulS said:


> Ralph, where do you draw the line?
> 
> a guy steals food for his kids..
> a kid steals a toy..
> ...


If we are rebuilding society most things will likely be somewhat communistic for a while. Until people learn to grow their own food, it's likely the farmers will feed, the builders will build, and doctors will heal etc.

So what you mentioned will likely not really be an issue.

But we aren't talking about those crimes.

Just severe crimes. Raiding, murder, rape, child abuse, etc.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

paul have you ever done missionary work? say in Darfur,chad? look it up, the 1000's Sudanese refugees plague the region 
so who is the judge, the jury and the criminal?
it is one thing to have a kid stealing a toy and another to have a 14 year old trying to blow you head off with an ak (which happens to be the average age for a solider in the region)-what would you do allow the kid to turn you into kitty litter? I mean do you say hey put down the gun and lets talk? I respect what your saying but life as you know is not always clear cut black and white there's a lot of grey out there.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Really glad to see more than 2 sides on this issue, and to see so much discussion.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

In a long term SHTF event and we are rebuilding what is left of our society, ( assuming there is anything to rebuild ) expediency will rule the day. If caught raping and murdering, and a lot of other trangressions I suspect, I don't imagine thier will be much in the way of trial. Are we going to waste recources and man hours watching and feeding criminals who preyed on us? Doubt it. Will it be harsh? Yes, Will it be quick? Yes. Will it be fair? Absolutely not. Justice in a post apocalyptic world will be brutel on the innocent as well as the guilty.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

A fair trial followed by a quick execution.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Jakthesoldier said:


> Just severe crimes. Raiding, murder, rape, *child abuse*, etc.


who is going to determine what is abuse... spanking? Soap in mouth? 3 hits on the butt with a switch? a slap on the cheek? a cuff behind the head?


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Lasting damage. That's the only real standard I can think of, or severe psychological abuse.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

If the crime is witnessed, punishment is rendered then.
If a homeowner finds a man rummaging through his fridge, the thief's reasons are irrelevant.
The homeowner gets to decide how to deal with the thief.
If no witness, a trial would be necessary.

As for child abuse, I'm all for corporal punishment. Spare the rod, spoil the child.
It made me the man I am.
But if I see anyone punch their 8 year old, I'll lay them out. Period.


----------



## jimLE (Feb 8, 2014)

*i have a habit of standing my ground now.and i'll do the same in a shtf situation.so if i (happen) across someone murdering and/or raping in cold blood.yes i'll deal with it,then n there.but i wont go looking for such low lifes.which means i'll be letting them come to me.and hopefully i'll be hold up in my home for good line of self defense..*


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

jimLE said:


> *i have a habit of standing my ground now.and i'll do the same in a shtf situation.so if i (happen) across someone murdering and/or raping in cold blood.yes i'll deal with it,then n there.but i wont go looking for such low lifes.which means i'll be letting them come to me.and hopefully i'll be hold up in my home for good line of self defense..*


What if you came across them a couple days after they did it?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

What if I killed a guy in my home and said he was steeling or threatening me? I could kill anyone by inviting them into an ambush and without a trial nobody would be the wiser. 

I am not saying that having a jury would necessarily catch all the errors - I can be very creative if I try - but with a trial you will at least get to examine relationships and find some of the intricacies of the event and surrounding data leading up to it.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Note to self: Do not except an invitation to Paul's house.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

What if you handed the armed to the teeth person who just kicked in your door and raped your dog a flower and a coupon for a steak dinner at the local sit and gulp?
I think I would give them a blast of 00 buck. 

Here is a point I think someone is trying to make. If you do not do anything now or later then you have allowed another crimanal( or whatever you want to call them) to do harm to another and I think that makes you partially responsible for the acts the bad person did because you could have ended it right ther right then.
The problem Paul in your analogy is who will the jury and judge be if there is no court system to preform this function of a legal trial.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

PaulS said:


> What if I killed a guy in my home and said he was steeling or threatening me? I could kill anyone by inviting them into an ambush and without a trial nobody would be the wiser.
> 
> I am not saying that having a jury would necessarily catch all the errors - I can be very creative if I try - but with a trial you will at least get to examine relationships and find some of the intricacies of the event and surrounding data leading up to it.


Wait, you're kinda flipping it around a bit.
Firstly, we were talking about the criminal getting a trial or not for a crime they committed. If caught, the consensus seems to be that they be dealt with then and there, just like it is today. (castle doctrine, perforate the sumbitch)
You've flipped the scenario. Now, you've already killed the criminal who got no trial, but have brought up the question of whether or not *you* should be tried for killing him.
As I said, with no witnesses(no alive ones in this case), you would deserve a trial.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

My point is that without a trial there are acts of vengeance, murder or anything else that, with the person dead, there is no way to know if it is justified.

When the "castle doctrine" was put in place the first test case was a guy who had a history of fighting with his neighbor. He supposedly invited the neighbor over "to bury the hatchet" and shot him dead in the living room. 
The cops figured out that this was a "wrongful shooting" but the castle doctrine made it impossible to prosecute him.

Giving people an unconstrained "right" to kill under any circumstances is never a good idea. You have every right to defend yourself but there are always questions asked. There is the possibility of a trial. 

Judges can be appointed and a jury selected from those in the "neighborhood". You don't need lawyers all you need to do is hear the testimony and make a judgment call on whether it seems justified.
In cases of rape or child molestation, without a witness, it is more difficult. We won't likely have DNA evidence and we will have to decide using our best judgment.


----------



## warrior4 (Oct 16, 2013)

I'd vote for more of a frontier justice system. Let it be known that people are entitled to self defense at all times. If they're attacked without cause they're free and able to defend themselves. For major criminal acts such as murder, rape, or arson once a posse can be formed to apprehend the subject. Again the posse has self defense freedom only. It's not a mob to lynch the person or persons when found. Bring them back and assemble a tribunal the next day. If found guilty public execution the next day. While it may be harsh it's also quick. For lesser crimes like stealing, vandalism, and the like again trial by tribunal then either sentence them to first wear a sign proclaiming their guilt for a week or so, if they're caught again public flogging. If we're into the re-building society phase we really need more people available to rebuild and I don't think that keeping able bodied people jailed for long by other able bodied people would work. Public shame and showing the consequences and punishments of actions are better than just locking them away. 

At least that's how I would run things.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

You see, this isn't just a moral question. There are moral issues but there are also legal issues. It becomes a matter of your right to swing your arms around ends at my nose, but morally you might be justified in popping me in the nose while legally it is wrong. Moral issues are often discussed in a vacuum but in real life morality takes a back seat to legality. Moral penitence takes a back seat to punishment.

If a man burns down your barn, killing him still leaves you without a barn. Making him build you a new barn teaches him what he destroyed and you get your barn back.
If a man removes a family's support by killing the man killing the killer still leaves the family without a provider. Forcing the killer to support the family teaches him what he destroyed in the murder and allows the family a means of support.
If a man rapes a woman and you kill him the woman has still been raped and has no way to recover her personal "power". If you force the man to be a slave to the one he raped she gets her power back and the rapist learns what it is like to lose his power.

These are moral consequences for acts against other people. They deal with more than punishment but are difficult to make workable. It requires that people actively participate in the correctional system and most would rather not deal with it - this is why we have full prisons and repeat offenders. Removing those who commit acts against others from society only temporarily solves the societal problems. Forcing them to become a part of society, while under certain constraints, is better for the perpetrator and the "victims" because both of their lives are made "whole" again.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I find it a bit difficult to envision a world where a family accepts anything from the man that killed their father/husband, or that a rape victim would want their rapist anywhere near them ever again.
While the end result sounds logical in theory, in practice it wouldn't play out that way. The human condition must be accounted for.
What if, in either of these examples, the victim doesn't want this punishment? It could be considered a punishment on them just as much as on the criminal.
What would happen then?
The retribution for the crime should not affect the victim in any way, other than a reassurance of safety knowing the criminal will not do it again(prison, banishment, or death).
Seeing them day in and day out would not allow this reassurance.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

As I said in my previous post; You would have the justice system you could afford. I fully agree with Paul that there needs to be a trial system. The biggest danger with frontier justice is in having the law abused. Sure, it's cool when they're killing bad guys, but when they figure out a way to turn that on you to get at your wife or daughters or supplies, not so cool. Doors swing both ways.

So logic dictates that if a man cannot be trusted to walk among us, he gets one in the brain-pan. If you leave a rapist alive, then he will likely rape again. Murderers, pedophiles, and habitual criminals would all need to be put down. Maybe some day when you can afford to subsidize crime by building prisons, you can try to reform these people. But till then, you cannot have them at your backs while you are farming. However distasteful the solution, it is the obvious one.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Again, vengeance. This is not about morality. This is a question of getting rid of a possible threat, whether it is real or not. Yes, there are certain crimes which have been shown to be repeatable - child molestation is one - and there is a moral need to eliminate a repeat offender. There is a huge majority of murders that are one time crimes of passion that will never be committed by the same person yet logic says that vengeance is the corresponding response.

Morally the question is more complex and the solution is just as complex.

I am trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to point out that this discussion was a "moral" question and most of the discussion is not based in morality at all. It has mostly been about ridding a small community of apparent dangers. There MUST be consequences for immoral behavior and rule of law must exist for society to exist. Rarely is morality more important than law.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Negative. This is not a threat real or not. 

This is a KNOWN and CONFIRMED threat, encountered between crimes.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

90% of all violent crimes are committed by the same 3% of the criminal population. Root these guys out of your system and you will be doing your community a big favor. 

I'm not talking about vengeance or morals, I am suggesting a simple guideline for an early criminal justice system. Paul asked where I would draw the line between summary execution and other lesser forms of discipline, and this is it: If a man cannot be trusted to walk among us, then he gets one to the brainpan. Ergo, if a man is a threat to your community or the people in it, then he/she gotta go. The tricky part is all in the definition of a threat to society.

As for lesser offenders, there are many ways to deal with transgressions besides capital punishment or incarceration. Paul made an excellent suggestion earlier that the justice system should be less about incarceration and more about making amends to your victims. If you injure a man, then you work in his stead and pay his bills until he is right to work again. Break a city law, you could find yourself on extra-duty, mebbe fixing sewer lines or KP. 

But incarceration is just subsidizing crime.


----------

