Looks as though some of the answers here assume that the question pertains to the fact that the murderer is himself killed shortly after committing murder. If it is the case that the act has only just been done... I would say that time would be better spent making sure that the victim cannot be helped. If the murder is an isolated incident. If the killer presumes to take more lives... then it would be best to prevent that by any means available.
To play devil's advocate... what if the killer is in fact avenging the murder of one or more known victims perpetrated by his victim? Not that his act would be justified... but if it were the case... would it change the sympathies for the act? It is impossible to deduce the entirety of the situation with such a brief window to gather the facts. This is why it is better to allow for the murderer's guilt and fate to be decided by a jury of his peers after he has provided his testimony.
I'm not the biggest proponent of the modern role of the state. However... i think it is only prudent to arrest anyone who has taken the life of another for any reason until the circumstances of the act can best be determined. Since we currently live under the auspices of state supervised justice systems... then arresting them only makes sense, as long as they are given as prompt an audience to decide their culpability as is possible.
Standing by and doing nothing isn't exactly a "better" choice for all intents and purposes. You're just as guilty at that point. At the same time, however, there are other solutions like say disarming said murderer, revealing his location, calling the police, giving your friend a ride home when they feel worried, just simple stuff like that can help.
The only time I see killing another killer as a possible solution is if the situation is compromised and there's no other solution, aka: he's about to kill you. However, even that's problematic in most cases.
Generally, however, I'll go with no. The argument for it is silly. That people are somehow going to lose all of their sanity the moment someone kills a killer? I don't think so, I can't stand the sight of blood and all of a sudden I'm supposed to get over that and go out on a rampage?
That's not to say some people won't be affected by it in that way. I just have a strong doubt that there are enough of them to 'cause anarchy and actually overwhelm local and national police departments.
That depends on the situation.
If someone hunts down a murderer and shoots him in the head while the murderer is on his knees and begging for mercy, then this is vigilante justice and should be punished.
If someone comes home, finds an insane serial killer drooling over the dead bodies of his family with an axe in his hand and then - in shock and fear - grabs a gun and shoots the evil intruder, it should be considered self defense. The person killing a murderer in such a situation should most definitely not be arrested. Rather he is a victim too, and should be cared for by therapists.
Everything in between those two situations should be taken to court and evaluated by a judge who then must decide whether that case of manslaughter was felonious, excusable, justifiable or praiseworthy.
I believe they should be arrested if they were caught. Laws to put away murderers are there for a reason, so people don't go taking matters into their own hands. Without those laws we would be reduced to chaos. Although if someone were to kill anyone I love, I would kill them, after letting them know that I did the same to everyone they ever loved. There are very few things I hold dear to me but I hold them above all else, and god have mercy on you if you do harm upon them. Yet if they were to catch me I'd expect to be punished.
No, why stoop that low, how would your family feel? say somebody killed your brother or sister and you in turn killed that person you would likely go to jail and your famiily would have another loss to add to their grieve, killing for revenge is never good, all you can do is hope the justice system prevails
In my worldview the only justification for violence is self-defense. If you have to fight for your or someone else's life than you can do whatever you need to do with a clear conscience. Otherwise it falls into two wrongs don't make a right. Though sometimes three lefts make a right.
Ya... I mean there killing some1 so there no better? But i mean if he was killing someone? N someone else saw? Then killed them because of that then I think they're get the same sentence...
If you are defending yourself then yes. But if you arent then you are stooping to their level, thus what is the point of killing them? You are only replacing that murderer with yourself
You shouldn't fight fire with fire. Two wrongs don't make a right. If I hit you and joe hits me, that doens't put him in the okay because then it will just turn into a war.
I wouldn't really no. But if I was to chose a side, no you shouldn't be arrested. This actually reminds me of the Anime Death Note. :-)
My point is it's wrong to do it, but nonetheless it's something that I'd be compelled to do. And I will face the consequences after.
Depends on circumstances involved.....some cases yes, some cases, should be decorated a hero....
Then that makes that person a murderer as well. Then we'll all just end up killing each other.
Murder is still murder, despite the wrongdoings of the victim.
No, there like stopping more murders. I would.
Yes, they turn into the murderer then
It's an example :P
Whos Joe? O.o