Which Case Is More Despicable?

**jw5** · 11-06-2011, 04:26 AM

Which of these 2 cases is more despicable and morally reprehensible in your view?
Your answer can be either, or both are equally despicable, or neither is despicable.

1. The perpetuator kidnaps a child and demands ransom from the parents. After repeated demands, the kidnapper fails to get the money and kills the child.

2. The perpetuator lends money to a child's parents. After repeated demands for repayment, the perpetuators fails to get back the money from the parents and kills their child.

My answer is most definitely case 1.
In case 2, the perpetuator is despicable and morally reprehensible.
He should be punished to the full extent of the law, as much as in case 1, which is the death penalty.
But there is one question for the child's parents in case 2.
If they loved their child so much, did they ever consider that their child would be harmed if they borrowed money from someone and refused to return it? The killer is no less guilty, but the parent has also contributed to the tragedy.

**Maximilian Chua-Heng** · 11-06-2011, 04:33 AM

Case 2 reminds me of the 1979 Geylang Bahru murder of 4 kids.

Everytime thinks of it will feel jin moody. So cold-blooded! The case is still open btw.

**jw5** · 11-06-2011, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Maximilian Chua-Heng

Case 2 reminds me of the 1979 Geylang Bahru murder of 4 kids.

Everytime thinks of it will feel jin moody. So cold-blooded! The case is still open btw.

Interesting you mentioned this, because one of my reasons for starting this thread was actually this case and a post you made about it.

In your post, you said that you would be interested to know what happened just before the time that the tragic incident occurred.
I wouldn't, because it would be too gruesome.
But I would be interested to know what happened one day before the incident up to the day the parents first got to know the perpetuators. In other words, what transpired between the parents and the perpetuators.

**Rogue Trader** · 11-06-2011, 05:09 AM

Both are equally fucked up. why go after innocent children when the business is between adults..?

**jw5** · 11-06-2011, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by Rogue Trader

Both are equally fucked up. why go after innocent children when the business is between adults..?

Fair enough answer, both equally despicable.

Would your answer be different if in case 2, the perpetuator had warned the parents that their children would be harmed but the parents still did not take action?
Or do you think they are still equally despicable whatever the parents did or not do?

**Narong Wongwan** · 11-06-2011, 05:27 AM

Agreed with bro that said both cases are fucked up regardless of what transpired.
Perpetuator should go after the adults instead. Smacks of cowardice regardless of the 'courage' to commit murder.
Lowlife going after easier targets.

If the parents have the means to pay but do not then they are as fucked up as the perpetuator.

**Rogue Trader** · 11-06-2011, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by jw5

Fair enough answer, both equally despicable.

Would your answer be different if in case 2, the perpetuator had warned the parents that their children would be harmed but the parents still did not take action?
Or do you think they are still equally despicable whatever the parents did or not do?

I can't comment since I don't know the details of the case. Maybe the parents did some very wicked things.

But i just believe killing anyone over a debt is pointless. it effectively ends any chance of any repayment.

**po2wq** · 11-06-2011, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by jw5

... 2. The perpetuator lends money to a child's parents. After repeated demands for repayment, the perpetuators fails to get back the money from the parents and kills their child ...

if 4 tis case,

2a: ze parens got no moni 2 pay back ...

2b: parens got moni, but dunwan 2 pay back ...

if case 2b, parens oso despicable? ...

**jw5** · 11-06-2011, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by po2wq

if 4 tis case,

2a: ze parens got no moni 2 pay back ...

2b: parens got moni, but dunwan 2 pay back ...

if case 2b, parens oso despicable? ...

There are definitely different degrees of despicability and culpability.
If the parents were warned and had the money but simply didn't want to pay, they don't even have the right to grieve.
Doesn't make the culprits any less despicable and vindictive though. It's just that the parents should have a share of the disgust felt.