Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Homicidal Pacifist]

The Showtime series Dexter is about a serial killer who only kills other serial killers. More than that, he only kills those whome he believes are unrepentant and who will likely continue to kill innocent people.

(I wait for DVD so I haven't seen the season that is currently airing - season 4 I believe - so please limit responses to seasons 1-3 so as to avoid any spoilers. Thanks.)

Some serial killers in the real world have been put to death, others have not. Let's assume that if Dexter was real and was caught by the authorities that he WOULD be sentenced to execution. His murders were somewhat torturous and he has over a hundred victims.

Should he be pardoned either from capital punishment or from any penalty at all given that, though his methods were premeditated and vicious, all his victims were depraved killers of the innocent?

He fills in the cracks that the legal system leaves empty and in doing so, helps protect the "good" members of society from bodily harm. Do note that he kills for his own violent gratification (someone's going to die, better it be a villain than an innocent) and his "Code" was something taught to him that he might not fully respect. In other words, if he did not get a personal violent thrill in killing he would not kill serial killers just to help society.

In a nutshell, should murder only be punishable if the victims were innocents?

Should it be a law against an action (killing), a law against killing certain victims (the innocents), or circumstantial (premeditated murder, self-defense/justifiable homicide, accidental/manslaughter) and where do we draw the line?

Killer show by the way.

[Juice]

HP-I would kill to read your rational reconciliation between your views of life, death and sacrifice and your obvious admiration of Dexter?

I feel like an unwanted step child.

[Homicidal Pacifist]

Juice -

My admiration of Dexter is strictly from a perspective that is interested in entertainment and philosophical inquiry.

That is to say that the show has a wonderful quality of entertainment and, though I disagree with Dexter's actions, I am glad to have my beliefs challenged and see the other side of the spectrum - so long as it is only fictional people that are being killed.

When I said...

"He fills in the cracks that the legal system leaves empty and in doing so, helps protect the "good" members of society from bodily harm,"

... I was stating a fact and showing other peoples' rationale for lax punishment; I was not endorsing Dexter's killings.

Though I believe it good and vital to help people, to harm them in the process defeats the point. I think it's best to help all people as opposed to only certain people (the "innocent", our loved ones, our nation, etc.).

Now answer the questions. Please.

[Belinda]

In a nutshell, should murder only be punishable if the victims were innocents?

No, because we have to protect the integrity of the law of the land.

[Homicidal Pacifist]

Belinda -

We only have to protect the law of the land if the law is just.

And as you can see, the law does not even respect itself because capital punishment kills like the killer did. If you murder, we will murder you because murder is wrong. HUH???

[Juice]

HP-Why don't we try to keep astride of the proper and commonly understood definitions of terms. You can hardly be expected to be taken seriously unless you allow people their just due to at least be considered intelligent.

We know that "murder" is a legal term which does not legally apply to capital punishment. Those individuals are legally put to death. Now if you consider being legally put to death murder then that does not obligate me or anyone else to consider it so.

Dexter is a serial killer who once caught will be death penalty eligible. Besides, he's just plain creepy, like Obama. Once again it is the act(s) that are punishable.

I like it that you admit to be entertained by death. May I suggest "Gladiator", or would you like to discuss Aztec mortality rituals?

I believe you miss a very important point in these discussions in that there is a difference between guilt and innocence. There is a fact that most people do not kill innocent people since they know it is morally wrong to do so. There is also a level to which killing is completely morally abhorrent. While Dexter may be seen as hero in some respect and I would venture to say that there is some satisfaction to the victim of his victims next victim that they did not become a victim we have developed a system of justice where every person has a right to face their accusers and have a chance to acquit themselves by doing so. There are distinctions, and as a society we recognize distinctions and correlations.

We understand that there is a difference between killing someone in self defense. We also understand that killing your spouse for the insurance goes beyond reason. How does someone who kills thier spouse for money get rehabilitated?

While I doubt that those so ingrained in the type of philosophy which cannot recognize, understand or decide life and death issues based on distinctions, correlations, reciprocal retribution and Lex Talens, I can only say that society is best for those that do.

[Belinda]

Homicidal Pacifist, I mean we have to protect the institution of the law of the land. Internal laws are worth protecting, although the worthiness of the laws may conflict with some other considerations such as equality or human rights, or international law.But the law of a land is still worthy of some consideration and protection. In the free west the Law is worthy, and there is quite efficient machinery to keep it so, and to improve it.

[Homicidal Pacifist]

Belinda -

Sure I will consider the law. But then I will be likely to spit on it.


Juice -

"Dexter is a serial killer who once caught will be death penalty eligible. Besides, he's just plain creepy, like Obama. Once again it is the act(s) that are punishable."

I would not call Obama creepy, but I would call him an asshole.

Yes, Dexter is death penalty eligible. My question is doy you think he should be put to death for his "crimes"?

If the law permitted him to kill as he does, he would not be committing "murder", right? But it would still be the exact same action... killing serial killers.

I mean that is what you have been supporting by supporting the death penalty. Death to those who kill the innocent. And since Dexter only kills the guilty, he is - to some degree - like you and the law.

He is the death penalty incarnate. To kill him is to abolish the death penalty.

Unless you only care about law and not objective truth and morality.

P.S. - I am entertained by FICTIONAL death. Appauled by the other. Fiction violence is a healthy, non-harming release for my violent angst.

And yes, there is a difference between killing in self-defense VS killing for money, etc. And that difference is in motive. But the action remains the same. By the way, the executioner kills for money.

[Juice]

Once again HP you overlook part of the discussion. As I stated a person is entitled to face his accusers, in a court of law, and to be judged accordingly. You also overlook the difference between "guilt" and "innocence". It is obvious that you have a hard line point of view, and despite the fact that you recognize the necessity of death in some circumstances you have a problem with authority. I doubt you would condemn me if I personally executed someone who caused harm to a child. In fact I'm sure you would applaud that action. But, I think you are just anti-establishment. No matter what, to any benefit, the establishment determines anything, you would rebel.

There is a huge difference between death resulting from self defense, killing for personal gain, and executing the orders of the state as part of ones duty.

Obama's creepy, he has no desire to escape the rabbit hole.

[Homicidal Pacifist]

Juice -

I WOULD NOT applaud you for executing a man who harmed or is about to harm a child. I have never said anything that should give you that impression. In fact, I have been stating over and over again how much I disagree with that mentality.

Another reason I enjoy the show Dexter is because I AM tempted to become a murderous Batman. A vigilanty who destroys the lives of the guilty both before and after their offenses.

But everything I have learned about sin, forgiveness, and redemption reminds me to refrain. But it is a hard, on-going battle.

Death is a necessity, murder is not; at least in the life of each individual.

I am only against the establishment when and where the establishment is at fault.

I wish you would answer my earlier points more directly.

[Juice]

HP-We have been over this topic and sensitivity of yours ad infinitum. I only engaged in this Topic since you mentioned "Dexter".

Batman does not kill!

I think I have said enough, anyone who doesn't know that Batman doesn't kill, well it's just downright disappointing.

See you on the flip side.

[Homicidal Pacifist]

Juice - I was implying that I am tempted to become a murderous version of Batman.

I am a fan of Batman primarily because he DOESN'T kill the villains.

[Juice]

HP-Do you know where he gets all those toys?

I think I should be Batman, and if you change that attitude a little I might just give you a try at Robin!

Just tone down the psycho a little.

[Homicidal Pacifist]

Juice -

I'm much too busy being my own sidekick.

And I broke the psycho switch.

[Moriarty]

Belinda -

We only have to protect the law of the land if the law is just.

And as you can see, the law does not even respect itself because capital punishment kills like the killer did. If you murder, we will murder you because murder is wrong. HUH???

You've elided two things: the act of murder and the act of killing. The former belongs to the law which allows therefore that whilst capital punishment involves killing it does not constitute murder. Killing is often sanctioned by the State (and its laws) even though murder is not.