My Kepler Bb people are very anti-murder.

What I am proposing is that murderers get murdered but not with a typical murder weapon.

There are 3 types of murder that they are concerned with. Those are infanticide, homicide, and suicide.

Case 1: Infanticide

enter image description here

Dead baby

enter image description here

Crying mom

Infanticide is emotionally the worst murder of the 3 types. It is 1 thing if the baby dies of natural causes such as illness or starvation. It is a different story if the baby was killed by a criminal. Both lead to the mom crying a lot but infanticide also means that the mom and her surviving children go to jail because 1 or more babies were killed.

Whoever killed the baby/babies gets killed but not with your typical murder weapon. Burning would likely be a common way of killing a murderer.

Case 2: Homicide

enter image description here

Killed adult

Homicide, unlike infanticide, doesn't lead to anyone being in jail(Technically infanticide is a type of homicide but I consider it separate because of the results) but like infanticide, the murderer gets killed.

Case 3: Suicide

enter image description here

Of the three types of murder this is the best of them all. The reason is that this is self-murder. In other words the murderer is murdering itself instead of other people in this case. So the death penalty is already done and there is no reason to stop it if it is already done.

Philosophy behind it

Here is my philosophy behind this murder against murder.

If infanticide and Homicide are not actively stopped, more people will become murderers to defend themselves against other murderers. This can lead to death of the species, at least in a given area. Any death is sad but mass death due to defense is even worse than that. It will cause a lot of people to get angry which could in turn lead to more mass murder and it is just a vicious cycle that only police, lawyers, and the government can stop.

So, if a group of people deal with these infanticide and homicide cases by burning or asphyxiating the murderers, it will be so painful to the murderers that everybody else will not want to go through that same pain. So this discourages people from becoming murderers in the first place and thus the murder against murder works.

But would it really work and is it reasonable to not stop suicide because the murderer is murdering himself/herself?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This question seems to be very unclear. Is this a fictional people? Is this just a question of governmental techniques? I believe this question needs major revisions to make it viable. $\endgroup$ – ntchapin May 7 '17 at 22:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is that not just the death penalty? Albeit minus any concern for the perpetrators comfort during the process. $\endgroup$ – adaliabooks May 7 '17 at 22:30
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Why would you want to put the mother and her other children in jail if one of her kids was murdered by some criminal? What's the logic behind that? $\endgroup$ – Youstay Igo May 7 '17 at 22:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If this society was so extremely anti-murder it wouldn't execute its own murderers. Execution is, logically, lawful homicide committed by the State. History and our world today are full of cycles of murder, none of which have led to the extinction of our species (not yet anyway, perhaps they lack the suitable weapons). Execution has failed to deter murder in all its forms. $\endgroup$ – a4android May 8 '17 at 2:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your argument that putting the survivors (e.g. mom and children) to death could ever be consider reasonable is frankly not logical but pathological. This is punishing victims for surviving. Murdering siblings for simply not dying at the same time as their murdered siblings is one of the most warped and repulsive ideas I have ever heard. $\endgroup$ – StephenG May 8 '17 at 3:25

But would it really work

No we have had terrible and fatal punishments like that for much less than murder historically. It didn't stop people murdering each other. A woman who is in deep post natal depression can kill her child (infanticide) regardless of the penalty, she is not in control of herself.

So what these punishments would do is act as a deterrent, but not a full solution, which is basically what we have right now. The majority of people wouldn't murder or kill kids, but others will either in cold blood or in a rage or just plain evil.

Dramatic, graphic, public executions work better than hidden lethal injections for less educated societies. It leaves less to the imagination and makes a bolder more memorable statement.

Suicide is another matter, in history they were punished different ways, in Catholic societies they don't get buried in hallowed ground which is shameful for their whole family, on top of that they go to hell because suicide is a mortal sin. This is a big deal in some places these days.

In other societies they were revered eg,. Japanese monks who mummified themselves while they were living and their mummies have been worshipped for centuries.

With the Indian practice of suttee I believe some wives immolated themselves on their husbands funeral pyres or something similar, unsure how you could punish them. Probably best to leave a lot of religious practices out, but it is an avenue that could be explored if you want to punish those who self-murder.

Or you could make suicide legal, but it has to be done a certain, very painful or degrading way. Or, you can kill yourself but you have to visit the suicide ministry and do it on their premises, then when suicides come in, just arrest them and chuck them in straight jackets and ship them somewhere so they never get seen again, either try and treat them or make them mine slaves or whatever..

The biggest thing in favour of capital punishment (only my opinion) is it stops repeat offending. There are a host of reasons against it. Also there are a lot of gradations of murder which you're lumping in to one, but that's fine, in some societies murder is murder and all get the same penalty.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Murderers have the lowest repeat offending rate of all criminals. Execution has proved itself a poor deterrent to homicide in all its forms. $\endgroup$ – a4android May 8 '17 at 2:41
  • $\begingroup$ Moot point, one murderer reoffending is one to many for my tastes. But the question doesn't give any options but capital punishment. So not going to get into that discussion. $\endgroup$ – Kilisi May 8 '17 at 4:25
  • $\begingroup$ "in Catholic societies" - I think you may be wrong, and by relatively recent decision suicide as a result of mental illness is no longer punished like that, but treated, essentially, like any other death from illness? What you wrote used to be the case, but is it still true? Please double check that. $\endgroup$ – Mołot May 8 '17 at 15:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Mołot yes it is in many places. Not all Catholics embrace the pc rubbish. $\endgroup$ – Kilisi May 9 '17 at 12:22

People tend to distinguish between "murder" and "legitimate killing" in most earth societies. Executions aren't murder, nor are deaths in war, since they're legitimized by society. A society that's anti-murder need not necessarily be anti-killing, in which case it wouldn't be unreasonable to execute murderers.

That being said, a lot about this legal code seems untenable. First and foremost is your proposal of jailing the mother and all of her children in cases of infanticide. Jailing people and breaking up families will cause more crime, not reduce it, and most people will have a problem with a government that jails innocent children.

Secondly, you're proposing burning all murderers to death. This seems exceptionally brutal, and I can't imagine many means of execution that will cause the accused to suffer more. Most earth societies have gravitated towards painless or mostly painless means of execution, such as hanging or beheading, and I'd expect your Kepler Bb people to do the same.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.