What would you guys think if a vigilante starting killing rapists and child molesters? No one else. Just them.
Pretend it isn't illegal to kill anyone, and he's being paid by an individual or private business (non-related to the government).
Depends on how cheap the alternatives are right? Rehab... jail time. If it really came down to kill vs let free, I'd probably choose the former.
1) Under anarchy: it would depend on what the market in arbitration would decide. I can say that, if the case was brought to me personally for arbitration, I’d ask the parents of the victims whether they condone the vigilante’s actions, as it is their right an theirs alone to kill the rapist (as I see it). If they condone him, he goes free, if not he is to be punished for murder.
2) current statism: he is a hero, let him be.
Murderers.
I don't think anyone has brought up yet the problem of imperfect knowledge. Death is irreversible in a way that prison and forced labor (which I support for criminals) is not. While philosophically I have no problem with the death penalty, the possibility of executing an innocent person concerns me.
In the case of vigilantism, the problem is multiplied. A lone vigilante lacks a detective force to investigate crimes and determine who is, in fact, responsible. I'm not sure I like the idea of someone going around killing people with the excuse that "they were criminals." What if he kills the wrong person? How is a lone killer supposed to discern the truth, which can often be quite complicated?
Brian:What would you guys think if a vigilante starting killing rapists and child molesters? No one else. Just them.
He is a murderer.
Brian:Pretend it isn't illegal to kill anyone, and he's being paid by an individual or private business (non-related to the government).
If we're in a society where it isn't illegal to kill anyone, then the entire question is ...
And if he is being paid, he is not a vigilante, he is an assassin.