Punishment?

**nettneu** · 08-02-2009, 06:41 AM

I'm afraid this is another of those wretched hypothetical situations. But it's basically a question that came up in another thread, where the answer that I thought was obvious seemed to cause some surprise. So I'd be interested in what other people think - assuming you can suspend your disbelief in the scenario long enough to answer:

There's a man who has been raping babies. He also left his own children on the rubbish-dump (maybe that should be "trash-dump" or "garbage-dump" in American). He never got caught or punished. But now he has lost interest in those pastimes and is living a normal happy life and does not constitute any threat to anyone at all in the future.

You know who he is and are in a position to punish him. If you do so, no-one else will ever know. His victims won't know that he has been punished. Their families won't know that he has been punished. Other potential baby-rapers won't know that he has been punished. Only you and he will know, and only he will suffer.

Do you punish him? If so, do you kill him (which was the corresponding question in the original thread)?

Edit - added after seeing some of the replies
Please don't try reporting him to some authority or other. In this scenario you aren't supposed to have that choice. If you don't punish him personally he doesn't get punished. Assume you can't offer any evidence that would be believed, or something to that effect.

(That is because the basic original question was roughly, "would you feel justified in killing someone purely because of something that he had done (as opposed to killing him because his death would enable you to achieve something else)". The baby-raping and child-dumping were given as examples of what he had done.)

**ranwayslo** · 08-02-2009, 06:45 AM

He broke the law, he got caught and he is subject to it. He gets punished. What is right is right and what is legal is legal. The law and justice have very little to do with each other.

**BostonIan** · 08-02-2009, 07:07 AM

I'd kill him. Nothing personal, maybe walking behind and a shot in the back of the head, a few more before he ever realized what was happening.

Generally, people do change and I wouldn't blame a butterfly for what a caterpillar did, but there are a few lines you don't get to cross back from.

**nettneu** · 08-02-2009, 07:12 AM

	Originally Posted by ranwayslo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He broke the law, he got caught and he is subject to it.

I would point out that in this scenario you are not assumed to be a person whose job is to enforce the law, you're just an ordinary citizen. I've edited the clarification into my original message.

I don't know whether that changes your reply, I suspect not, particularly since you may well believe that all citizens have a responsibility to enforce the law. But assuming that it doesn't change your reply, I would ask you a supplementary question:

	Originally Posted by ranwayslo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is right is right and what is legal is legal. The law and justice have very little to do with each other.

So are you saying that (in all situations, not just the scenario I originally posted) you would always uphold the law, even if it conflicted with what you believed to be right?

**Hamburglar** · 08-02-2009, 07:24 AM

I think exposing his crimes to the community, and getting him incarcerated would be the worse punishment possible. Since he thought he could just 'reform' and fit back into society, tearing him out of his neatly created persona would be my form of justice.

He may well have thought it was okay to rape and murder babies because they had offended him. Which would be the same reason you would have for killing the rapist.

**duende60** · 08-02-2009, 07:34 AM

If I'm reading your scenario right, the underlying question is, What is the purpose of punishment?

He has not been caught, and is not (yet, at any rate) subject to the legal system. He's only been found out by me, an ordinary citizen who now has to decide what to do about it. I am fully aware of his horrendous past, but somehow (and this is the hardest bit to suspend disbelief about) I know that he will never do any such things again in his lifetime. He is a changed man. Maybe he's even devoutly religious and has prayed for, an found forgiveness. You didn't say that, but it is in my mind as part of my "knowing" he will never re-offend.

What is the purpose of punishment?

If I tell what I know to the authorities, and if they investigate and find my story to be true, the man will be arrested, tried, found guilty and likely receive a death sentence if he lives in a state that uses it. What purpose will be served? It will only prevent him from doing something that he wasn't ever going to do, anyway, so its not about preventing recidivism. It will make him suffer like the children he killed, however.
It will, possibly, serve as an example to others to not do what he did. It might give some measure of relief to any still-grieving or angry victims. I have varying degrees of sympathy with those four "purposes" of punishment:

Rehabilitation
Retribution
Object lesson
Revenge

(I so wish I could think of an "R" word for "object lesson")

If punishing this guy would serve the first purpose, rehabilitation, it would be an easy question, because we tend to agree that that is the primary purpose of punishment -- to teach the offender to not do that again. But the other purposes are not negligible.

Then there's justice. How is justice best served here? Is it "an eye for an eye"? In that case, rape him and toss him in a dumpster. I'm not entirely comfortable with equating justice with retribution. It seems to me to deny the value of change for the better. As written, this man HAS changed, at least insofar as he's stopped doing The Bad Thing, but "an eye for an eye" doesn't care about that. He could have become Sister Theresa, but no amount of good done changes the fact of the evil done, beforehand.

Really, I'm just rambling, here, as I think about it, and have no solid answer to offer. I think, in part because the example is too extreme, too easy to respond to, emotionally. I think about, if we came to the conclusion that Yes, he should be punished, would we come to the same conclusion if the story was of a man who had stolen something when he was 13, never done it again, and now at the age of 40 we were having to make the same decision? The practical part of me says its different, because the weight of the crime is vastly different. The idealist in me says what's just in one situation is just in another. Very confusing!

Ultimately, to answer your question, I would not punish, much less kill this man. Justice is not mine to mete out, nor do I want that responsibility. I would, however, turn over my information to the authorities and let them deal with him according to the law. I would probably hope that he would be given some sort of "credit" for having turned himself around, and thus receive a sentence less harsh than death or even life-long imprisonment, but I don't have enough faith in humans' abilities to change fundamental aspects of their psyches to think that anyone who could commit such crimes should be allowed to walk around free simple because they've learned to behave better.

**nettneu** · 08-02-2009, 07:56 AM

	Originally Posted by duende60 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would, however, turn over my information to the authorities

Thank you. You weren't really supposed to have that option (because it wasn't one in the context where I was originally asked the question). If it was an option, it would have the additional benefit that (in contradiction to my original scenario) other potential baby-rapists would be liable to hear about it, so it would have your "object lesson" effect of potentially acting as a deterrent (the nearest "R" word that I can come up with is "restraint", but it's not very good).

	Originally Posted by duende60 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If I'm reading your scenario right, the underlying question is, What is the purpose of punishment?

Actually the original question was more like "would you kill someone just because of something they had done" (as opposed to killing them because of the efect you would achieve by doing so). Perhaps I shouldn't have called the thread "punishment".

**zibber** · 08-02-2009, 08:18 AM

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You know who he is and are in a position to punish him. [...] You are not an officer of the law, it is not your job to punish him.

Who would benefit from me killing him? As far as I can tell, it would only satisfy myself. There is a name for that, masturbation, and I can also just do that in the confines of my own home.

If I understand the hypothetical scenario correctly, I apparently have certain (and demonstrable) knowledge of his actions. If so, I will likely report him to whichever institution has the actual mandate to do something about it.

	Originally Posted by BostonIan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'd kill him. there are a few lines you don't get to cross back from.

What, like murder?

**thod** · 08-02-2009, 08:31 AM

The question of punishment is not one of revenge or gratification of the punisher, it is one of deterrence. Should you shoot your family, you are not going to do so again (assuming you only have one), thus there is no chance of a repeat offence. However others will see that they can copy you without action being taken against them. Thus we punish the perpetrator to show them that they will be dealt with likewise. Thus they are deterred from committing the crime. Justice must be seen to be done to have any effect.

So in silently poisoning the criminal you are simply satisfying a lust for revenge and not deterring others.

**JeS** · 08-02-2009, 09:06 AM

I think this scenario shows that ends-oriented vigilantism has to be a clear and public display, but seeing the replies got me thinking.

hypothetically:

suppose the same scenario, except this time you have no idea whether the person will commit more crimes, though he appears outwardly stable. He is liked by his current community, but should you report him or take matters into your own hands, he will be found out. social justice, closure, detterence, whatever will be had.

the only caveat is that you are also wanted for some felony, which may potentially come to light should you act.

what would you do then?

**Aristocrat Porn** · 08-02-2009, 06:58 PM

Good question. As for me: absolutely not. He is free to live his life.

**Solus** · 08-03-2009, 02:30 AM

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you punish him? If so, do you kill him (which was the corresponding question in the original thread)?

Seeing that reporting the guy to the authorites is not an option, I think I'd do nothing. If I were to witness him trying to harm someone (which I wouldn't according to the scenario) then I'd injure him and perhaps even kill him. In other words I need provocation. Disgust at what he did will not make me kill him. The fact that I wouldn't be punished if I killed hime makes no difference to me.

	Originally Posted by thod
	The question of punishment is not one of revenge or gratification of the punisher, it is one of deterrence.

When it comes to serious crimes I think punishment as a deterrent makes little difference. Sociopaths will commit the crime anyway. Other (sane) people (provided they in control of their actions) will stop short of committing it whether they may eventually face punishment or not. For me punishment is about retribution. If you have committed a crime, you will have to face the consequences, even if it is conceivable that the punishment will make no difference or even make things worse. Of course, being against the death penalty, is the life in prison ever sufficient retribution for murder? I think it will have to do given there is always a chance that an innocent person might be executed for somebody else's crime.

**Tyrant Soup** · 08-03-2009, 09:34 PM

In this scenario, the reason for punishing him is justice for the victim, who no longer have a voice. In order to fulfill my duty to society, I would have to carry out some sort punishment on the victim's behalf.

**Shifter** · 08-04-2009, 04:00 AM

If we take the justice system to be about

1.Deterrence
2.Rehabilitation
3.and if those fail, containment
4.Retribution

The guy no longer presents a threat to anyone any more, he's been rehabilitated and doesn't need to be contained, but society still requires he be punished to maintain the deterrence factor, and for this reason it needs to be public, and it needs to be above board which means the authorities need to handle it. Besides, I'm not in the business of righting society's wrongs.

I'm not really a fan of the authorities dealing out the retribution, or anyone else for that matter, it achieves nothing more than satisfying our own bloodlust for vengeance, it's definitely not something to be handled by vigilantes playing judge, jury and executioner.

**zippikay** · 08-04-2009, 03:43 PM

The fact that he manages to elude punishment all this time has some merit, and if he is indeed will not have done further crime, why don't we use him to prevent crime? His ability to evade law will be most useful to detect future law-evader...

**Conservationist** · 08-04-2009, 03:48 PM

	Originally Posted by nettneu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There's a man who has been raping babies. He also left his own children on the rubbish-dump (maybe that should be "trash-dump" or "garbage-dump" in American). He never got caught or punished. But now he has lost interest in those pastimes and is living a normal happy life and does not constitute any threat to anyone at all in the future.

Uh... I doubt this situation would occur. If he has a pathological condition, it won't go away. If for example surgery made it go away, I would see no point in punishment, but I would be wary of the individual -- more than one thing is likely to be broken.

**nettneu** · 08-08-2009, 10:02 AM

Thank you for the replies, everyone.

I myself would not have punished him.

	Originally Posted by Tyrant Soup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In this scenario, the reason for punishing him is justice for the victim, who no longer have a voice. In order to fulfill my duty to society, I would have to carry out some sort punishment on the victim's behalf.

Tyrant Soup, I'm curious to know what makes you think that you would be acting "on the victim's behalf", considering that the victims would not benefit in any way from your action. (Or if you believe they would gain some benefit, what is it?)

**Quite8the8bell** · 08-08-2009, 10:27 AM

What do you mean, "does not constitute any threat to anyone at all in the future?" He's a threat because of his past. No one knows what is going on in his head, he has to deal with what he did.
He needs to be punished.

**nettneu** · 08-08-2009, 10:59 AM

	Originally Posted by Quite8the8bell To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What do you mean, "does not constitute any threat to anyone at all in the future?"

As I explained earlier, the point of the scenario is the question of whether to harm someone purely for the sake of something he already did, even if no future benefits are obtained from doing so.

	Originally Posted by Quite8the8bell To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He's a threat because of his past. No one knows what is going on in his head,

No one knows what is going on inside anyone's head. So if not knowing what is going on in his head makes him a threat, everyone is a threat.

	Originally Posted by Quite8the8bell To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	he has to deal with what he did.

I don't understand that phrase (sorry, I'm not American, it seems to be a figure of speech that I'm not familiar with). Could you try to explain what you mean by it, please, if you have time?

	Originally Posted by Quite8the8bell To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He needs to be punished.

Why, when he's quite happy as he is? What need does punishing him satisfy?

**Quite8the8bell** · 08-08-2009, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by nettneu
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As I explained earlier, the point of the scenario is the question of whether to harm someone purely for the sake of something he already did, even if no future benefits are obtained from doing so.

No one knows what is going on inside anyone's head. So if not knowing what is going on in his head makes him a threat, everyone is a threat.

I don't understand that phrase (sorry, I'm not American, it seems to be a figure of speech that I'm not familiar with). Could you try to explain what you mean by it, please, if you have time?

Why, when he's quite happy as he is? What need does punishing him satisfy?

He needs to be punished because he deserves it. Nobody should get away with harming people such as he did. It does not matter if he regrets it or not, he did it and needs to endure the consequences. Being that it appears that he is no longer active in what he did, I say some prison time would suffice.

**angelmarauder** · 08-08-2009, 12:47 PM

He needs to be punished if he is a possible threat in the future. I don't think that it's reasonable to say that he won't do anything in the future. The point of punishment is to fulfill some purpose. I think that purpose is mainly to dissuade or prevent the offender from committing the crime again. There are exceptions such as slaughtering a family in a village to convince the village to reveal rebels being hidden. What kind of Law do we live under? Without a certain law there cannot be punishment.

My thoughts...

**MartinH** · 08-08-2009, 02:35 PM

Interesting - none of the Ps would kill him, and about half the Js.

I wouldn't kill him, but I would be interested in the method, which lets me kill anyone without ever getting caught...

**Quite8the8bell** · 08-08-2009, 02:59 PM

	Originally Posted by MartinH To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Interesting - none of the Ps would kill him, and about half the Js. I wouldn't kill him, but I would be interested in the method, which lets me kill anyone without ever getting caught...

I really don't think P or J has anything to do with this.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So, you wouldn't kill him, what would you do if you had the authority to do so?

**MartinH** · 08-08-2009, 03:43 PM

Just an observation.

He's no threat, no deterrent, nothing will come of it?

I'd get back to what I was doing and forget about it.

-- sorry, what I mean is that what I would do is let him go, do nothing - I didn't mean forget about the question, I meant forget about the guy in the question *is* my answer to the question. Ambiguous, my bad.

**TheLastMohican** · 08-08-2009, 05:04 PM

I would leave him alone. If it is somehow known that he will never again be a liability, there is no reason to do otherwise.

08-02-2009, 06:41 AM	#1
nettneu Member [20%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 811	I'm afraid this is another of those wretched hypothetical situations. But it's basically a question that came up in another thread, where the answer that I thought was obvious seemed to cause some surprise. So I'd be interested in what other people think - assuming you can suspend your disbelief in the scenario long enough to answer: There's a man who has been raping babies. He also left his own children on the rubbish-dump (maybe that should be "trash-dump" or "garbage-dump" in American). He never got caught or punished. But now he has lost interest in those pastimes and is living a normal happy life and does not constitute any threat to anyone at all in the future. You know who he is and are in a position to punish him. If you do so, no-one else will ever know. His victims won't know that he has been punished. Their families won't know that he has been punished. Other potential baby-rapers won't know that he has been punished. Only you and he will know, and only he will suffer. Do you punish him? If so, do you kill him (which was the corresponding question in the original thread)? Edit - added after seeing some of the replies Please don't try reporting him to some authority or other. In this scenario you aren't supposed to have that choice. If you don't punish him personally he doesn't get punished. Assume you can't offer any evidence that would be believed, or something to that effect. (That is because the basic original question was roughly, "would you feel justified in killing someone purely because of something that he had done (as opposed to killing him because his death would enable you to achieve something else)". The baby-raping and child-dumping were given as examples of what he had done.) Last edited by nettneu; 08-02-2009 at 08:37 AM.
nettneu is offline post a comment

08-02-2009, 06:45 AM	#2
ranwayslo Member [19%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 798	He broke the law, he got caught and he is subject to it. He gets punished. What is right is right and what is legal is legal. The law and justice have very little to do with each other.
ranwayslo is offline post a comment

08-02-2009, 07:07 AM	#3
BostonIan Member [31%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1,242	I'd kill him. Nothing personal, maybe walking behind and a shot in the back of the head, a few more before he ever realized what was happening. Generally, people do change and I wouldn't blame a butterfly for what a caterpillar did, but there are a few lines you don't get to cross back from.
BostonIan is offline post a comment

08-02-2009, 07:24 AM	#5
Hamburglar Member [17%] MBTI: xxxx Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 710	I think exposing his crimes to the community, and getting him incarcerated would be the worse punishment possible. Since he thought he could just 'reform' and fit back into society, tearing him out of his neatly created persona would be my form of justice. He may well have thought it was okay to rape and murder babies because they had offended him. Which would be the same reason you would have for killing the rapist.
Hamburglar is offline post a comment

08-02-2009, 07:34 AM	#6
duende60 New Member [01%] MBTI: INTP Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 33	If I'm reading your scenario right, the underlying question is, What is the purpose of punishment? He has not been caught, and is not (yet, at any rate) subject to the legal system. He's only been found out by me, an ordinary citizen who now has to decide what to do about it. I am fully aware of his horrendous past, but somehow (and this is the hardest bit to suspend disbelief about) I know that he will never do any such things again in his lifetime. He is a changed man. Maybe he's even devoutly religious and has prayed for, an found forgiveness. You didn't say that, but it is in my mind as part of my "knowing" he will never re-offend. What is the purpose of punishment? If I tell what I know to the authorities, and if they investigate and find my story to be true, the man will be arrested, tried, found guilty and likely receive a death sentence if he lives in a state that uses it. What purpose will be served? It will only prevent him from doing something that he wasn't ever going to do, anyway, so its not about preventing recidivism. It will make him suffer like the children he killed, however. It will, possibly, serve as an example to others to not do what he did. It might give some measure of relief to any still-grieving or angry victims. I have varying degrees of sympathy with those four "purposes" of punishment: Rehabilitation Retribution Object lesson Revenge (I so wish I could think of an "R" word for "object lesson") If punishing this guy would serve the first purpose, rehabilitation, it would be an easy question, because we tend to agree that that is the primary purpose of punishment -- to teach the offender to not do that again. But the other purposes are not negligible. Then there's justice. How is justice best served here? Is it "an eye for an eye"? In that case, rape him and toss him in a dumpster. I'm not entirely comfortable with equating justice with retribution. It seems to me to deny the value of change for the better. As written, this man HAS changed, at least insofar as he's stopped doing The Bad Thing, but "an eye for an eye" doesn't care about that. He could have become Sister Theresa, but no amount of good done changes the fact of the evil done, beforehand. Really, I'm just rambling, here, as I think about it, and have no solid answer to offer. I think, in part because the example is too extreme, too easy to respond to, emotionally. I think about, if we came to the conclusion that Yes, he should be punished, would we come to the same conclusion if the story was of a man who had stolen something when he was 13, never done it again, and now at the age of 40 we were having to make the same decision? The practical part of me says its different, because the weight of the crime is vastly different. The idealist in me says what's just in one situation is just in another. Very confusing! Ultimately, to answer your question, I would not punish, much less kill this man. Justice is not mine to mete out, nor do I want that responsibility. I would, however, turn over my information to the authorities and let them deal with him according to the law. I would probably hope that he would be given some sort of "credit" for having turned himself around, and thus receive a sentence less harsh than death or even life-long imprisonment, but I don't have enough faith in humans' abilities to change fundamental aspects of their psyches to think that anyone who could commit such crimes should be allowed to walk around free simple because they've learned to behave better.
duende60 is offline post a comment

08-02-2009, 08:31 AM	#9
thod Core Member [162%] MBTI: INTP Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 6,510	The question of punishment is not one of revenge or gratification of the punisher, it is one of deterrence. Should you shoot your family, you are not going to do so again (assuming you only have one), thus there is no chance of a repeat offence. However others will see that they can copy you without action being taken against them. Thus we punish the perpetrator to show them that they will be dealt with likewise. Thus they are deterred from committing the crime. Justice must be seen to be done to have any effect. So in silently poisoning the criminal you are simply satisfying a lust for revenge and not deterring others.
thod is online post a comment

08-02-2009, 09:06 AM	#10
JeS New Member [01%] MBTI: intj Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 40	I think this scenario shows that ends-oriented vigilantism has to be a clear and public display, but seeing the replies got me thinking. hypothetically: suppose the same scenario, except this time you have no idea whether the person will commit more crimes, though he appears outwardly stable. He is liked by his current community, but should you report him or take matters into your own hands, he will be found out. social justice, closure, detterence, whatever will be had. the only caveat is that you are also wanted for some felony, which may potentially come to light should you act. what would you do then?
JeS is offline post a comment

08-02-2009, 06:58 PM	#11
Aristocrat Porn Member [10%] MBTI: ESFP Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 400	Good question. As for me: absolutely not. He is free to live his life.
Aristocrat Porn is offline post a comment

08-03-2009, 09:34 PM	#13
Tyrant Soup Member [40%] MBTI: intj Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,608	In this scenario, the reason for punishing him is justice for the victim, who no longer have a voice. In order to fulfill my duty to society, I would have to carry out some sort punishment on the victim's behalf.
Tyrant Soup is offline post a comment

08-04-2009, 04:00 AM	#14
Shifter Member [09%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 362	If we take the justice system to be about 1.Deterrence 2.Rehabilitation 3.and if those fail, containment 4.Retribution The guy no longer presents a threat to anyone any more, he's been rehabilitated and doesn't need to be contained, but society still requires he be punished to maintain the deterrence factor, and for this reason it needs to be public, and it needs to be above board which means the authorities need to handle it. Besides, I'm not in the business of righting society's wrongs. I'm not really a fan of the authorities dealing out the retribution, or anyone else for that matter, it achieves nothing more than satisfying our own bloodlust for vengeance, it's definitely not something to be handled by vigilantes playing judge, jury and executioner.
Shifter is offline post a comment

08-04-2009, 03:43 PM	#15
zippikay Member [14%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 594	The fact that he manages to elude punishment all this time has some merit, and if he is indeed will not have done further crime, why don't we use him to prevent crime? His ability to evade law will be most useful to detect future law-evader...
zippikay is offline post a comment

08-08-2009, 10:27 AM	#18
Quite8the8bell Member [30%] MBTI: INTP Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,226	What do you mean, "does not constitute any threat to anyone at all in the future?" He's a threat because of his past. No one knows what is going on in his head, he has to deal with what he did. He needs to be punished.
Quite8the8bell is offline post a comment

08-08-2009, 12:47 PM	#21
angelmarauder Member [02%] MBTI: ENTP Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 83	He needs to be punished if he is a possible threat in the future. I don't think that it's reasonable to say that he won't do anything in the future. The point of punishment is to fulfill some purpose. I think that purpose is mainly to dissuade or prevent the offender from committing the crime again. There are exceptions such as slaughtering a family in a village to convince the village to reveal rebels being hidden. What kind of Law do we live under? Without a certain law there cannot be punishment. My thoughts...
angelmarauder is offline post a comment

08-08-2009, 02:35 PM	#22
MartinH Member [22%] MBTI: ENFP Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 904	Interesting - none of the Ps would kill him, and about half the Js. I wouldn't kill him, but I would be interested in the method, which lets me kill anyone without ever getting caught...
MartinH is offline post a comment

08-08-2009, 03:43 PM	#24
MartinH Member [22%] MBTI: ENFP Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 904	Just an observation. He's no threat, no deterrent, nothing will come of it? I'd get back to what I was doing and forget about it. -- sorry, what I mean is that what I would do is let him go, do nothing - I didn't mean forget about the question, I meant forget about the guy in the question is my answer to the question. Ambiguous, my bad. Last edited by MartinH; 08-08-2009 at 05:04 PM.
MartinH is offline post a comment

08-08-2009, 05:04 PM	#25
TheLastMohican Core Member [187%] MBTI: ENTJ Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 7,498	I would leave him alone. If it is somehow known that he will never again be a liability, there is no reason to do otherwise.
TheLastMohican is offline post a comment