I might put up a longer post on the subject later but the people calling for the perpetrator to be killed or even tortured do not look for justice but vengeance. There are many reasons why a state sanctioned court and police system should not deal with n vengeance. I am both saddened and surprised how many people in this thread instantly ask for the mans head and if you under any circumstances support legalized torture you should take a good long look in the mirror

Wait. There are people in this thread who advocate torture, not as a means to extract vital, time sensitive intelligence, but as punishment if the crime is bad enough and the evidence is clear enough?

I don't support torture for either purpose but WHAT THE **** to those who support torture as a means of punishment.

I think there might even be people in this thread who support torture as a punishment without a trial

You've done work for The Innocence Project but you are in favor of torture in situations like this so long as we can verify his identity and that the video is authentic?

You might be the only person in the world who holds that belief AND has worked for the The Innocence Project.

It wouldn't surprise me if I were the only person who holds that belief and worked for them. I'd like what's best for the community. I'd support torture if it's an effective deterrent. I like innocent people to not be in jail too. Crazy, right?

what if putting innocent people in jail is best for the community?

chessmate, bro

killer has reportedly killed himself

That's fine. Ignorance is bliss I guess for some. I think that's a pretty cowardly way to go through life though.

The thing is if you want or have to pass judgement on others you have to strive for a very high moral standard otherwise you are not being just you are a tyrant.
If you want a system of eye for an eye and are only looking for vengeance, fair enough.
I would prefers a justice system over one of retaliation. I want murderers and other criminals tried and if enough evidence is presented against them sentenced and removed from society. Not as payback but to protect others from them. If someone has proven to be too dangerous to be free he has to be incarcerated indefinitely but he should be treated with the utmost respect and cared for to the best of our ability.

I hear their Shariah Law also has all the torturing Rapini dreams of!

Bullet in head>>>>Treating them with utmost care and respect

Probably shot himself 43 times with 8 different weapons!

ETA:

Cops now keeping an eye on this guy:

Do you think he killed himself over a fake video?

LOL at thinking that you have to watch the murder of a defenseless old man in order to appreciate how horrible it is.

Philosoraptor.jpg

Most people who are concerned about innocent people going to jail have a healthy respect for norms and decency. That's not you.

Do you really support torture so long as it has any observable deterrent effect?Would you support flaying as a punishment for burglary if indeed such a punishment were shown to have a significant deterrent effect?

Maybe you have some vague concern about proportionality, and you think that flaying is too severe a punishment for burglary. So I'll ask a different question.

Would you support flaying as a punishment for murder if we could prove that it would have a modest but observable deterrent effect? For example, would you supporting flaying as a punishment if we could confirm to a 95% certainty that it would prevent an average of five murders a year? What if the deterrent effect was statistically significant only if the flayings were done in public and broadcast during prime time on all major news channels. Still OK?

And I'm leaving aside other issues, such as whether support of torture would blunt the effectiveness of US criticism of human rights abuses elsewhere in the world, which it surely would.

Something someone who hasn't watched it would say. Clueless.

Do you look at pictures of for example civilian victims of NATO sanctioned bombing runs?

Some of your post is reasonable. Some of it is silly. I think you know that though.

What's the point of doing anything in criminal matters outside of restitution and deterrence? I'd be for whatever is good for those. If flaying a burglar is a good deterrent, go for it. I've been burgled before and it wasn't a great experience, so I'd like it not to happen to others. On the other hand, if applauding the burglar's actions and holding him out to be a hero is somehow a good deterrent, do that. Maybe giving burglars free room and board, TV, a gym, and access to other criminals to network with is a good deterrent, but it doesn't seem like it would be.

I'm not too concerned with the proportionality thing.

I'm not sure which part of my post you thought was silly. It's not obvious to me that gruesome displays of state-sponsored violence would be a net positive to society, even if they had a modest deterrent effect on crime.

I will admit that most rulers in the Middle Ages agreed with you, so you have that going for you.

I saw this, and it was ugly, so f that guy man. I'm not too worried about all the other murders, where I assume people were tickled to death by puppies and kittens.

Another possibly reasonable course of action is preventing further crime by means different to a deterrence.

For example money you intent to spend on torture could be spend on counseling, psychiatric care, teaching how to deal with life without shooting someone.

Torture seems pretty cheap all you need are some tools