"Those Who Fight Monsters, Should Make Sure That They Don't Become Monsters Too"
i was watching a Episode of Law and Order Special Victims Unit, in this episode they dealt with a serial killer who abducted woman and tortured them and then killed them. he then dumped the bodies in remote locations. then he went back to see the dead bodies, the profilers said, that made him feel like God. after he had killed 12 or 13 victims the FBI profiler working on the case killed himself in depression. His protege a young female agent works with SVU after the 23 victim who was found along with a young man shot in the head. Its later discovered that the young FBI agent found the serial killer and killed him, but she realised that he had another victim some where and needed help finding her.
The SVU finds this out and tries to Convict her, in the end during a face off with the SVU the agent says
"Those Who Fight Monsters, Should Make Sure That They Don't Become Monsters Too"
and takes her own life.
That and the movie Shoot Out At Lokhandwala movie set me thinking. I mean i have always been a huge proponent of the way the Israelis have lived. situated in a hostile corner of the globe they always took the threats to them selves or their land head on. they took out the Iraqi's Nuclear plant before it was completed or be it the rescue of the Hijack victims of the Air France 747, or taking Golan Heights, they always followed an aggressive policy of protecting their own, any where in the World.
So the question I asked my self and i have asked it at every instance when a case against any criminal takes ages and ages to resolve or a conflict over capital punishment arises, is it really that wise to keep confirmed criminals on trial for ages and then put them away in jails, i.e. if they cant wriggle out of it using their political influence or by throwing around their money, first, where they get fed, clothed, and get more protection than any of their respective victims, while the families of the victims try and cope with the loss of a loved one or the trauma of the incident. is it such a bad idea to summarily execute multiple murderers, or rapists or child molesters or terrorists. is the idea of rapid response squads that have the right to shoot to kill terrorist cells that bad?.
most of you will point out that such measures will remove the thin line that differentiates us from such criminals, or that since we cant give lives we cant take lives, but dont we have the right to protect our selves from fanatics, sickos and psychopaths. Why should society pay for the up keep and well being of these people who were a menace, why should we take the risk that a pardon or a jail break will release these people back into the mainstream of society?
I don't claim know every thing and any thing about life, but is it right that our forces and police constantly loose people to terrorist attacks because they are not actively allowed to follow the enemy home and destroy the base. is it right that the perpetrator of the Nithari killings is still alive after taking the lives of all those children?
so my question is when does it become right to kill a person who has been proven beyond doubt to be a criminal when can we bypass the criminal justice system because the crime is so repugnant that hardened law enforcement officers gag at the sight, or one of our soldiers defending our territory while keeping all those international treatises in mind, is captured and tortured to an extent where his own family and comrades can not recognise the body.
I don't pretend to know the answers to all these questions but i do support the statement that to keep our own sanity in check and to protect our own, if we do have to become monsters to hunt down monsters i dont see the wrong in that.
i was watching a Episode of Law and Order Special Victims Unit, in this episode they dealt with a serial killer who abducted woman and tortured them and then killed them. he then dumped the bodies in remote locations. then he went back to see the dead bodies, the profilers said, that made him feel like God. after he had killed 12 or 13 victims the FBI profiler working on the case killed himself in depression. His protege a young female agent works with SVU after the 23 victim who was found along with a young man shot in the head. Its later discovered that the young FBI agent found the serial killer and killed him, but she realised that he had another victim some where and needed help finding her.
The SVU finds this out and tries to Convict her, in the end during a face off with the SVU the agent says
"Those Who Fight Monsters, Should Make Sure That They Don't Become Monsters Too"
and takes her own life.
That and the movie Shoot Out At Lokhandwala movie set me thinking. I mean i have always been a huge proponent of the way the Israelis have lived. situated in a hostile corner of the globe they always took the threats to them selves or their land head on. they took out the Iraqi's Nuclear plant before it was completed or be it the rescue of the Hijack victims of the Air France 747, or taking Golan Heights, they always followed an aggressive policy of protecting their own, any where in the World.
So the question I asked my self and i have asked it at every instance when a case against any criminal takes ages and ages to resolve or a conflict over capital punishment arises, is it really that wise to keep confirmed criminals on trial for ages and then put them away in jails, i.e. if they cant wriggle out of it using their political influence or by throwing around their money, first, where they get fed, clothed, and get more protection than any of their respective victims, while the families of the victims try and cope with the loss of a loved one or the trauma of the incident. is it such a bad idea to summarily execute multiple murderers, or rapists or child molesters or terrorists. is the idea of rapid response squads that have the right to shoot to kill terrorist cells that bad?.
most of you will point out that such measures will remove the thin line that differentiates us from such criminals, or that since we cant give lives we cant take lives, but dont we have the right to protect our selves from fanatics, sickos and psychopaths. Why should society pay for the up keep and well being of these people who were a menace, why should we take the risk that a pardon or a jail break will release these people back into the mainstream of society?
I don't claim know every thing and any thing about life, but is it right that our forces and police constantly loose people to terrorist attacks because they are not actively allowed to follow the enemy home and destroy the base. is it right that the perpetrator of the Nithari killings is still alive after taking the lives of all those children?
so my question is when does it become right to kill a person who has been proven beyond doubt to be a criminal when can we bypass the criminal justice system because the crime is so repugnant that hardened law enforcement officers gag at the sight, or one of our soldiers defending our territory while keeping all those international treatises in mind, is captured and tortured to an extent where his own family and comrades can not recognise the body.
I don't pretend to know the answers to all these questions but i do support the statement that to keep our own sanity in check and to protect our own, if we do have to become monsters to hunt down monsters i dont see the wrong in that.
2 comments:
manb, this is a perfect subject for a GD. well, what is the thin line that seprates teh monsters and monster hunters and why the hunter should not turn into monsters.. intresting.. will come back with a comment later.. :) nw pretty much sqeezed for time...
everyuone will have diff takes on this..but i guess even i dnt see anything wrong on this... look at that nation... u refered to the six day war... they were pitted against 3 nations together n yet see what they did...
its all psyce ... if u know that kiiling will bring greater good,..then u should not hesitate to do so
Post a Comment