When does someone deserve death?

[Torrasque]

After perusing the forums for most of today, I came to realize that just about everyone has a different idea as to what actions deserve the death sentence (or whatever you want to call it).
I think there is no action a person can do, that makes them deserve death. I will jokingly say "Ugh, I wish that person died a horrible death" or seriously say "I wish everyone in the Westboro Baptist Church died some day", but I don't seriously mean it.
That being said, I know there are people out there that do horrible horrible things and they will never be able to become contributing members of society again, but I still don't think they deserve death.

What about you? Are there people that deserve death?
What would a person have to do to deserve death?
Instead of death for the most horrible of actions, what fate should they receive?

Please also say what country, province/state/region you live in. I am interested in seeing the differences of opinions.
Also, please disregard any laws that may apply to you in your region. I want to know what you think is right and wrong, not what the law says.

Edit 1: For the sake of sanity, I'll give you all two cases to help you think.
1. You are dealing with a life or death scenario, a guy has a knife and will kill you unless you gun him down.
2. You are the judge over a murder case. You can either give the guy a death sentence, or something else.

In the first case, I am pretty sure we can all agree that we will kill the assailant.
The second case, is where the gray area that I am interested in, comes in. What crime would the guy have to commit to warrant a death sentence from you? If you did not give him the death sentence, what other punishment would you give him?

Edit 2: Holy shit, I didn't think this thread would pick up, but I go play Starcraft 1 campaign for a bit, come back, and it has 100+ replies
I am interested in what you all have to say, and hope you say more

Edit 3: For new posters, I will include a revised form of my question to you, because the above question is a mite flawed. Here it is:
<spoiler=Ignore the top post, and just read this>To re-state my original post, I want you to decide whether it is ok to kill a person or not, and in what circumstances is it ok to kill someone, and when it is not. A really simple question, but you have to do a couple things to get to the answer that I want:
- Ignore the laws and regulations of your country. I don't want to know what your country does, I want to know what you would do if the choice was completely up to you.
- Decide what to do with the person after you have decided to kill them or keep them alive. You can tell that some people's answers depend on what they think can and should be done with them after the fact, and I didn't want that to happen. I just want to know whether you think it is ok or not to kill someone, not "Well now that they are not dead, what now? Well they stay in prison and suck up my cash for the rest of their life... I am changing my answer to: kill the bastard"
- Ignore the process that must be taken in judging the person guilty or not, and the process that leads to them dying. In this thread, the decision is made by you. You either decide the person will live, or they will die. If they die, a pit opens up beneath them and they are disintegrated. This way, all irrelevant things can be ignored, like the cost of re-trials, appeals, how much it costs to kill a guy, lawyers, etc.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

For me, morally/ethically, I don't think anyone deserves death. However, if it's some hypothetical situation where you either kill someone or they kill all your family and friends, with no third option, then I would not be opposed to it.

Basically, if there's any way around a situation that doesn't involve killing someone, I'd go that way.

Instead of death for the most horrible of actions, what fate should they receive?
For the worst of the worst, those who are downright terrible people and have no chance at being rehabilitated, I'd suggest that they are locked up for a very, very long time (e.g. for the rest of their life in some of the worse cases).

Also, I'm from Victoria in Australia. ^_^

EDIT: For those who think that it's cheaper to just give out the death penalty, well... You should probably have a look at my post in the second page:

...

While this doesn't have much to do with the OP, I do find a lot of people saying that if they're going to be locked up for life anyway then we should just kill them to save money. If you're one of those people, go to that post.
Note, however, that the stats are for the US. They're just the easiest country to find stats for...

EDIT 2: I spoilered this because the OP obviously doesn't want us thinking about costs. I merely posted this stuff here in the first place, because I also saw some people thinking it might be cheaper to just kill them, therefore that's the option to take. So I thought I'd open their eyes and see if that might help them re-think their position to not merely being based on money.

Apologies to @Torrasque: if he thought I was talking about what is in the above edit/spoiler box to de-rail his thread...

 

[Jedoro]

USA, Tennessee: EDIT: You know what? My avatar should point out my view on who deserves death.

 

[SomeLameStuff]

Death for those who cause death. Plain and simple. Though probably shouldn't apply to soldiers.

 

[Torrasque]

USA, Tennessee: EDIT: You know what? My avatar should point out my view on who deserves death.

lol, fair enough.
I like Punisher, and for the most part, agree with his methods. He usually deals with the morally corrupt though, which is easier to judge.

 

[StrixMaxima]

Brazil, here.

I think some people deserve death, simply for economy reasons. Compulsive rapists, pedophile rapists and people who kill for futile reasons are, IMO, beyond any chance of redemption. And I don't think it is fair that us, the society, should pay for accommodation and 3 meals a day for the rest of their miserable lives.

So, they should be put down quickly and painlessly. That's the most I'll grant them.

Also, anyone who violently corners me or my loved ones will receive the blunt side of a shovel in their spinal cord, without any initial remorse. I won't enjoy that, but I won't hesitate to do so, also.

 

[theheroofaction]

AZ, USA.

Only when they spread it, or try to spread it, to those who don't deserve it.

 

[zehydra]

The question presupposes that people "deserve" punishments in general.

In any case, I do not condone the use of the death penalty for a sense of "justice". That is, people should never be put to death because of something they did. Rather, the question of whether or not to kill somebody should be based on whether or not they pose an immediate threat to another person's life.

Edit:
PA, USA

Scenario 1) the person does not "deserve" death, but you killing him is ok given the circumstances.
Scenario 2) the person does not "deserve" death, and the issue at hand should be whether or not the prison system or other punishments will protect society from the accused.

 

[NeuroticDogDad]

Only when it is certain that their death will cause the further deaths of others to cease.

Some vague examples being some sort of mafia king pin who's gang would fall apart with his death (unlikely I know) or a revolutionary/dictator whose death would end a war.

But if their arrest or permanent incarceration would achieve the same then I believe death is unnecessary.

USA, Tennessee: EDIT: You know what? My avatar should point out my view on who deserves death.

An eye for an eye, a la Frank Castle?

But what good is a society who would act like those it condemns?

 

[zehydra]

Death for those who cause death. Plain and simple. Though probably shouldn't apply to soldiers.

hm, why are soldiers exempt?

 

[Slaanesh]

Living in Rhode Island, I say that not using your GOD DAMNED TURN SIGNAL warrants an execution. By me. With my DAMNED HANDS.

Anyways, I don't believe those horrible, morbid criminal offenders deserve to die. They should rot in solitary confinement for the rest of their long, mundane, miserable life. Not able to interact with any other human being biological organism. But apparently that could be considered "torture" or "inhumane" by some people.

 

[zehydra]

If someone does something severe enough that life without parole is a likely sentence, save the state half a million and put a .45 through their forehead. Cap 'em, throw 'em in a box, ship 'em to whoever wants to deal with the carcass.

For me, morally/ethically, I don't think anyone deserves death. However, if it's some hypothetical situation where you either kill someone or they kill all your family and friends, with no third option, then I would not be opposed to it.

Basically, if there's any way around a situation that doesn't involve killing someone, I'd go that way.

Instead of death for the most horrible of actions, what fate should they receive?
For the worst of the worst, those who are downright terrible people and have no chance at being rehabilitated, I'd suggest that they are locked up for a very, very long time (e.g. for the rest of their life in some of the worse cases).

Also, I'm from Victoria in Australia. ^_^

Hope you enjoy paying for three squares a day, housing, clothing, medical and the like for 'em!

what if they're innocent?

 

[enzilewulf]

Never. I love these christian moralist who say that we should kill some one if they have killed some one. Yet in the Bible it says only god may chose when some one dies (I am atheist BTW). I love how people think that death is worse than life. No... not here in the USA anyways. Prisons are hell and often in the grips of gangs. Living the rest of your life in there would be hell. The death penalty is a way out of that hell. I think its morally wrong and way to many people get accused who are actually innocent. Like Troy Davis.

As Gandhi said "An Eye for an Eye leaves the whole world blind".

OH,USA

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

...

...

Instead of death for the most horrible of actions, what fate should they receive?
For the worst of the worst, those who are downright terrible people and have no chance at being rehabilitated, I'd suggest that they are locked up for a very, very long time (e.g. for the rest of their life in some of the worse cases).

...

Hope you enjoy paying for three squares a day, housing, clothing, medical and the like for 'em!

"Enjoy" is not the word I'd use. However, yes, I'd put up with it. ^_^

 

[SomeLameStuff]

Death for those who cause death. Plain and simple. Though probably shouldn't apply to soldiers.

hm, why are soldiers exempt?

Well, they're soldiers. They're being PAID to kill people. Won't be nice to hand them their paycheck then cut their heads off.

 

[Jedoro]

Only when it is certain that their death will cause the further deaths of others to cease.

Some vague examples being some sort of mafia king pin who's gang would fall apart with his death (unlikely I know) or a revolutionary/dictator whose death would end a war.

But if their arrest or permanent incarceration would achieve the same then I believe death is unnecessary.

USA, Tennessee: EDIT: You know what? My avatar should point out my view on who deserves death.

An eye for an eye, a la Frank Castle?

But what good is a society who would act like those it condemns?

It'd be a terrible society, but that's not what I advocate. Anything can be broken down into fundamentals, which leads us to the reason, and "why" is just as important as "what." Murder is an unjust killing that only serves the murderer's desires, execution is a just killing for the sake of punishing the guilty and/or protecting the innocent.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

I don't agree on death in form of a death sentence, decided by some egomaniac judge and/or pretentious jury or in any form of judicative bureaucratic system. It's always wrong and maybe sometimes even completely f*cked up when the authorities caught and incriminated the wrong guy.
No thank you. You can have your death penalty in your country, I stay here where we "just" have live-sentence.

But considering avenging my dear ones, that (imaginated) bastard has recently slaughtered. That's something completely different. I'm all game for some self-administered justice when you turn yourself in afterwards and face the consequence of your actions.
Oh and by the way, 30 years of applying torturous agony are much more satisfying than a quick death by a needle, bullet or electric chair.

 

[Particulate]

1) Shoot him. I carry every day. Easy answer

2) It would depend on the circumstances. If it was in cold blood or part of a contract killing then its death for them. Crime of Passion though? Life in Prison without Parole. Let them rot for the rest of their days and think about what they did.

I'm for the death penalty. There's simply some crimes which merit death.

 

[zehydra]

Death for those who cause death. Plain and simple. Though probably shouldn't apply to soldiers.

hm, why are soldiers exempt?

Well, they're soldiers. They're being PAID to kill people. Won't be nice to hand them their paycheck then cut their heads off.

I think I understand what you mean. It's not that they're getting paid to kill people, but it's that our society is paying for them to kill people from other societies which pose a threat to us. It's not really a question of who "deserves" death, it's a matter of self-preservation from the perspective of society.

Although, I don't know if civilian death for civilian death is really necessary for societal self-preservation, and you could wind up executing innocents(no justice system is perfect), which is problematic on an ethical level.