Quote:
|
But would you be able to live with yourself after that, knowing that you are alive because you killed someone else?
|
An equally relevant question, though . . .say you were to let that serial killer out. Granted, you've saved yourself the guilt of killing him directly, but how many people have you just killed by proxy by letting him out?
Because if you release someone and they kill/maim/rape/destroy/whatever, that is partly your responsibility. You let them go; you put them in a situation where it was possible to kill again.
I've been described as a cold-hearted [radio edit] more than once, but I personally would rather carry the guilt of confining/killing a killer, rather than the guilt of innocent lives.
That being said, I'm entirely for the rehabilitation of criminals--so long as it can be done where the rest of the world won't be harmed.
In the case of Gollum, I'll agree with what's been said before, and add a new twist: they did need a guide. So long as Gollum could be controlled--with threat of elven rope, of steel--he could be useful. It was a moment of pity that saved him, perhaps, but one could say that the later pity was definitely mixed with a strong element of self-interest.
But in that situation, the worst Gollum could have done (in the immediacy) would have been to kill Sam and Frodo. Considering that they were walking open-eyed into Mordor, this wasn't really a frightening thought.
The serial killer, however . . . liken that more to allowing Saruman will
all his powers to walk free. Liken it to Gandalf nodding at the gates of Orthanc and simply walking away; not locking Saruman in, not breaking his staff and stripping his powers, simply leaving him in possession of his tower, his arts and the remains of his army.