That's not the point I raised, but thanks anyway.

 

She killed someone who posed no threat to her life. That's not rational behaviour, and you'll be hard pushed to convince me otherwise.

 

So if I kill everyone you ever loved, tortured and killed your pets, burned down your house, kidnapped, tortured, and release you, killing me is not rational/understandable/explainable?

Rational != understandable != explainable

It's understandable, everything is explainable, and I'd like you to see you prove that was a rational thing to do...

The rapist wasn't going to harm anyone anymore regardless, he was locked in a cell somewhere.

I thought the mother burned him because he hadn't learned anything?

The rapist wasn't going to harm anyone anymore regardless, he was locked in a cell somewhere.

I thought the mother burned him because he hadn't learned anything?

No, she burned him because he asked how her daughter was. Maybe he was being sincere, or maybe he just can't keep his mouth shut. Neither are punishable by death, or what was arguably a fate worse than death.

I'm not excusing her crime, but the way I see it, the guy's pretty hopeless. I wouldn't call him harmless, that taunt (if it's a taunt) shows he doesn't regret anything. As such, he isn't harmless.

As such, he isn't harmless.

 

This. If the taunts really were acts of malice, he's just showing us that he doesn't have remorse for raping little girls. Paired with the fact that he's already proven what he's capable of, his unwavering attitude is a pretty clear indication that there's a high possibility of another rape or similar crime. I don't know about any of you, but I'd rather have the mother roaming our streets than this man.

Well since you implicitly asked, given the choice between a woman who almost killed 50 people trying to burn one man to death basically beause she felt like it, or a man who's raped a 'minor' (as you guys call them) and hasn't shown any remorse for doing so, I'd choose neither. They've both done evil things and I'm really not prepared to base our legal system on 'action x was more evil than action y so action y is ok'.

 

What I would say is that law is maintained inside a police station and a courthouse, not by an individual who wants to take law into their own hands, and the latter deserves to be punished just as harshly as those who have been through the former.

5 year old story, wow.

Well since you implicitly asked, given the choice between a woman who almost killed 50 people trying to burn one man to death basically beause she felt like it, or a man who's raped a 'minor' (as you guys call them) and hasn't shown any remorse for doing so, I'd choose neither. They've both done evil things and I'm really not prepared to base our legal system on 'action x was more evil than action y so action y is ok'.

 

What I would say is that law is maintained inside a police station and a courthouse, not by an individual who wants to take law into their own hands, and the latter deserves to be punished just as harshly as those who have been through the former.

Yes, but what would have happened once the guy had been released? At that point he probably wouldn't have changed much (I believe his little promenade and bar stop were not far from his release, no?). He could have raped another girl easily, or even raped the same woman again out of spite.

I think there's really no answer to this question. Really, there's nothing you can do to prevent a guy like that from walking, and setting people in fire is just going to be uncontrollable and eventually cause collateral damage,, or even cases where the arsonist was wrong (i.e. the guy was actually really asking about the daughter). People will be harmed one way or another.

5 year old story, wow.

5 star post #-o

Assumption of guilt for a crime someone has yet to commit is hardly a valid reason for 'doing away' with someone. We've moved from thinking that killing this man is justified, only to realise murder itself is indefensible, to using tacit and flawed logic to justify someone taking law into their own hands.

 

In which case, let's just kill all murderers, paedophiles and rapists right now. Why? Because we feel like it.

OK, I'll admit: The world is probably a better place without this guy. But the ends don't always justify the means, and it's wrong to think of this woman as a 'hero' as the article states some people have. I know there will always be people who feel the law hasn't done its job, but it's not an excuse to go sorting things ourselves in this way.

 

I think that's about as neutral as I can put it.

Are people one this forum such black and white thinkers to realize that the murder of a rapist by a grief sticken and provoked mother =/= a murder for the sake of a pure sadistic thrill?

I know most of the trolls on this thread wont read this, but I just thought i should throw that out there.

Are people one this forum such black and white thinkers to realize that the murder of a rapist by a grief sticken and provoked mother =/= a murder for the sake of a pure sadistic thrill?

I know most of the trolls on this thread wont read this, but I just thought i should throw that out there.

Well, that's why we have mitigating circumstances, no? Not sure if that's the correct term, but it's self explanatory.

Are people one this forum such black and white thinkers to realize that the murder of a rapist by a grief sticken and provoked mother =/= a murder for the sake of a pure sadistic thrill?

I know most of the trolls on this thread wont read this, but I just thought i should throw that out there.

 

Morally, it can be argued that it is correct, but you have to take into account the other consequences of her actions besides the obvious ones. Sure, a rapist who gloated to the person's mother did a mean, terrible thing. However, what would happen if the mother got off without the charge? More people will put the law into their own hands and it will cause anarchy.

 

She should have just kept to herself. Take online comments for example. Many of them can be extremely mean and hurtful, but it doesn't mean you have to kill them. Again though, this is a very different circumstance, but it can be similar to things that can be said online.

 

There's a reason why there's a legal system in place. Sure, it may not serve "justice" in the meaning of the word to most people, but it works as the best system we have in place so far, or we have found it's a lot better than previous means.