Is it really the murderer's fault that they are murderers?
- Thread starter Enaragon
- Start date
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
I would need some more examples and contexts for this. To say that it isn't a persons fault for willingly murdering another person, would be to assume that it was cause by some kind of medical pathology, and that is largely disputed by many people (myself included). People have reasonable control over their personalites, so if you were to blame their motive on that it still doesn't cut it enough to say it wasn't their fault.
i agree unless the person had a serious mental problem and blacks out and stuff and even in that case that person should probably be incarcerated to avoid future blackouts or whatnot
I'd hate to be no fun but I have to agree with Indigo here, we need a context. For some people, their environment produces them in a way which make give them a slant toward using ineffective ways of dealing with stress which can lead to murder. Other individuals are just plain psychopathic and crazy. And, of course, I also believe that you and I could become murders from this point right now if the 'right' situation arises. True, it would take a lot of 'convincing' so to speak but it could happen.
Anyways, yeah, to at least have some fun, I don't think every murderer is psychologically unable to prevent himself from murdering someone. In fact, I think most murderers could prevent themselves from killing someone if they so choose, they just tend to live in an environment which re-enforces that behavior and then also have terrible stress handling/coping skills.
Although I would like a wide broad range of discussion, for today I'll focus particularly on a specific set.
Let's say a murderer doesn't become a murderer because of external reasons eg. hate, abuse, things like that. Simply, a murderer just starts to murder, maybe perhaps torture some animals in the process to killing, little vicious crimes and things like that. Is it really his fault?
Now, is he born with it? Did he develop it? Do we hate him because he develops it? Perhaps we condemn the act. Perhaps there will be feelings of vengeance towards him for doing the act. But what made him do the act? Even if he did it just for fun, is it still his fault that he did it just for fun?
Kind of a morality question, but oh well.
EDIT: Oh, and since when was killing labeled as psychotic? Since when has killing been labeled as bad? (Damn I sound crazy). It is true it does provide alot of disadvantages, but there are advantages as well.
In each society, there will always be a certain people to be condemned. Killers were rampant back then and were even encouraged. Now, they are "suppressed". (I would go further on this but I need to sleep now. Ugh.)
Let's say a murderer doesn't become a murderer because of external reasons eg. hate, abuse, things like that. Simply, a murderer just starts to murder, maybe perhaps torture some animals in the process to killing, little vicious crimes and things like that. Is it really his fault?
Now, is he born with it? Did he develop it? Do we hate him because he develops it? Perhaps we condemn the act. Perhaps there will be feelings of vengeance towards him for doing the act. But what made him do the act? Even if he did it just for fun, is it still his fault that he did it just for fun?
Kind of a morality question, but oh well.
EDIT: Oh, and since when was killing labeled as psychotic? Since when has killing been labeled as bad? (Damn I sound crazy). It is true it does provide alot of disadvantages, but there are advantages as well.
In each society, there will always be a certain people to be condemned. Killers were rampant back then and were even encouraged. Now, they are "suppressed". (I would go further on this but I need to sleep now. Ugh.)
Last edited:
If one makes the willing choice, the action is always their fault. The degree to which other things influenced them always come in to question, but unless they have absolutely no control over their actions, the consequences in at least some part fall on the actor's shoulders.
Exactly, as I said, the influences are always to be questioned, but if their finger pulled the trigger (or how ever they did it), they did it. The "fault" is at least partially theirs.
S
Shai Gar
I agree. Being Murdered should be a crime punishable by death. The murderer is not at fault here.
Is he born with it? If only we knew the answer. Did he develop it? That would be based on his environment. Do we hate him? Hate is a strong term, if a person needs help, he should be able to get help but you also can't expect people to cast aside their emotions. What made him do it is the big question, it'd be much easier to decide what to do with murderers if we knew what exactly caused it to happen. And is it his fault for doing something for fun? Well, we are the sum of our actions. If you jeopardize the safety of other people, then you shall face the ramifications of society.
Who labeled killing as psychotic? And killing is only labeled as intrinsically bad in western societies and other such things. Even still, most people tend to not like being killed or someone close to them being killed. Yes, societies does condemn and kill certain members of society (Or, generally, the 'other' whatever they may be/sacrifices ) , it's a sad fact. The difference between a slaughter though, and executions, are huge distinctions though. Social contracts permitting, I don't think killing would be an adequate addition to most western societies.
Okay, now this question has a little meat to grasp onto.
If you wish to go off studies in genetics, a large percentage of criminals sent to prison have abnormally high amounts of testosterone that spurs the violent behavior (in theory, I'm not sure if there's solid proof on the direct correlation between testosterone and violence... feh). So, from that respect, the murderer can already have his/her genes working against him/her. However, if the murderer in fact had no such genetic disorder, then I'd have a problem with considering a person as a possible murderer due to the lack of external stimulus. I don't know of any murderers who have not suffered from a genetic/mental disorder or who do not have a history of violence/abuse/hate in his or her life. Not that I personally know any murderer's; I'm just going off some case studies from psychology class. I can't even think of fictional killers that don't have some messed up backstory.
I really have a personal problem believing that someone would wake up one day, having led a normal life, looked out a window, saw a squirrel, and thought "that would be fun to slice and dice!" There would have to be some external factors motivating the individual's actions.
Okay, that's the end of my rant for the most part. As for your other questions (well at least the ones I felt like addressing out of a personal interest):
Perhaps we condemn the act.
I think, for the most part, people would condemn murder as an immoral act. However, the battlefield tends to be another story for most.
Even if he did it just for fun, is it still his fault that he did it just for fun?
If he did it just for fun, he made a conscious choice to take another life. How is that not his fault?
S
Shai Gar
Another story for most is still not another story.
Killing anywhere is the same as killing everywhere.
But the topic here is murder
I didn't wish to suggest that killing on the battlefield wasn't killing. I just know from personal experience that people in my area believe killing on the battlefield isn't murder.They chalk it up as self-defense and don't feel any murder was committed. So, yes, as a matter of fact, it can be another story.
Do I agree with those people? That's irrelevant.
In every example, yes.
Murder is an unlawful act of willful killing, not in self defense or defense of those in your care.
This is by nature an act of free will, regardless of how 'predisposed' someone may be to the act. We can debate whether or not it is the murderer's fault that they were inclined, urged, or otherwise compelled to do so, but murder will always be an act of free will.
Murder is an unlawful act of willful killing, not in self defense or defense of those in your care.
This is by nature an act of free will, regardless of how 'predisposed' someone may be to the act. We can debate whether or not it is the murderer's fault that they were inclined, urged, or otherwise compelled to do so, but murder will always be an act of free will.
Last edited:
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
In situations where someone was murdered though, but it was not intended (say they thought a friend of theirs was breaking into their home). That is a different intention, and therefore I can't fault the person. However in 95% of murder cases their intention was to kill and I can't logically forgive it. I will however admit though that the punishments I would wish to assign them are often less then what is given.
S
Shai Gar
But the topic here is murder
They chalk it up as self-defense and don't feel any murder was committed. So, yes, as a matter of fact, it can be another story.
Do I agree with those people? That's irrelevant.
Only classified as self defense if the battlefield is their own nation.
Don't tell me, tell them. Although, I wouldn't expect even for you to get an intelligent response to that fact
S
Shai Gar
Self defense is not murder. It is a killing, but not murder. In situations where someone made a grave error in judgment that lead to the death of someone else (such as your example of killing someone who wasn't actually threatening them even though they believed they were at the time) that is manslaughter, which is again not murder.
The rules of engagement are clearly defined in war to include attacks on known enemies, even in hostile territory, as warfare is by nature defense of those in your care even when on the offensive. Just as with self defense, killing in war is killing, but not murder - unless it defies the rules of engagement.
Last edited: