When does someone deserve death?

[SinisterGehe]

If the person doesn't respect life of hes own or others, then he doesn't deserve to live. But it isn't my job to kill him or anyone else's. If the person in question constantly endangers the life of others by hes actions, by this I mean if hes constantly without limitations or control by himself he constantly endangers the lives of others. - But still it is not my or any others task to end hes life.

But honestly I think better punishment beside from death would be imprisonment in solitude for life, with only supply of necessary services and products in order for him to live and stay alive.

 

[Jadak]

There's nothing that "deserves" death, there's simply what one can do that instills a desire in another for them to be dead. When that desire kicks in for enough people are certain specific people, it happens. Simple as that and as such, "deserves" is an entirely relative concept.

 

[Jadak]

A lot less then it takes to kill a single person.

That's not a point against the death penalty, but rather a point against how that decision is achieved and how the action is carried out.

Simply killing someone can be rather inexpensive, if cost were the primary concern.

 

[DementedSheep]

I live in New Zealand. When we are talking serial killers, serial rapists or exceptionally sick cases then yeah I?m in favour of the death penalty. Just get rid of them and be done with it. I don?t really see the point in wasting resources or space on them if they are just going to rot in prison and I?m not of the belief that all life is precious. I don't really care so much about what they "deserve", I care that they are gone. Problem with that one is you have to be sure they are actually guilty.
I also think that when a person is armed and being a massive and real threat to others and this includes cops that the priority should be taking them out even if it kills them not saving their life. Why would you put everyone else at risk to save the person causing the problem? Sure try negotiation but if you get the opportunity to end it do so. They may have families but the people their threatening have families to. A cop should not lose his career and have to move because he shot some guy in the chest who was about to shoot his partner with a shotgun.

 

[DanielDeFig]

As with OP, one of my personal philosophies is: "There is nothing a living being could ever do to deserve death", but I also add (in order to be inclusive of cases of self-defense) that "Killing isn't always wrong, but it is never right" (or good/a positive thing).

In case 1, I'm assuming this hypothetical is set up just the right way so that any other option than killing is unavailable. Ok, my life vs. another, in this case I would let self-preservation kick in and kill my attacker. Like I said before, I don't deem killing in self-defense as being "wrong", but it certainly isn't a positive or "right" thing. I would feel horrible, and make sure that I had tried my best to explore all non-lethal action before.

In case 2, I wouldn't sentence the person to death. I would send the person to the best rehabilitation possible, according to the specific crime, so as to be safely re-integrated into society, with the lowest chance of repeating the crime (and hopefully no other crimes either).


I'll probably sound naive/idiotic, as I know there will always be ppl who disagree with other opinions, and I know mine can't possibly be "right" or superior. But how can pple be so fixated on punishment? How come what I just presented in these 2 cases, especially the second one, seems like a rare opinion? How come ppl don't want to treat other ppl humanely and with the respect we are all equally deserving of, by right of being alive?


I'm a Swedish citizen, who has grown up and lived most of my life outside said country. I don't know whether my connection to sweden, or my "international perspective" has had the biggest impact on this issue. Probably a combination, though.

 

[Vindictus]

When there's little to no chance of rehabilitation.

 

[hyker]

who posts MLP

 

[GraveeKing]

Never. Ever. Ever. EVER.
In the self-defense case sure, if it's to save someone slightly less stupid or manic -such as yourself then sure go ahead!
But unless there's an immediate, prison should always be an option. Simple.

 

[That Greek Guy]

people that want to steal other peoples lives don't deserve their own

 

[DanDeFool]

Personally, when I think about the death penalty, it isn't about considering what that person has done, it's more a matter of pragmatism. It's like when you've got a wild animal that's developed a taste for humans; you don't hunt it down an kill it to teach the animal a lesson, you hunt it down and kill it so that it can't kill again.

When you have a violent criminal who's violent because they've had a shitty life and make a living through criminal acts, or because they acted hastily in a bad situation, you lock that person away. There's a chance that person can be redeemed, so you separate them from society for a while and hope they're ready to clean up their act once they're released (not a very good system, but hey, you got any better ideas?)

When you have a violent criminal, like Charles Manson or John Wayne Gacy, who's violent because they are insane, or they just love hurting people more than anything else, then you kill them. It's not a matter of punishment; really, what's the point in punishing someone like that? Punishing that person isn't going to right any of the wrongs they committed. The people they've hurt won't get un-hurt by torturing the crazy bastards. The best thing you can do to those kinds of people is to get rid of them as quickly and efficiently as our criminal justice systems will allow, so that they can't hurt anyone else and all of us can rest a little easier at night.

So, referencing OT, when I think of the death penalty, asking if that person "deserves death" is the wrong question, because the death penalty isn't really a "punishment" per-se. You only punish something when you have some hope of correcting its behavior, so saying that death penalty is a punishment is probably fallacious. For people like Manson and Gacy, it's less accurate to say that they "deserved to die", and more accurate to say "we had no choice but to kill them". People who commit such heinous acts pose such a dire threat that our fear of them rightfully overrides any sympathy we might have for them, or any moral qualms we might have about taking their lives.

Bottom line: When someone "deserves death", it's not really a matter of them "deserving" anything. It's more a matter of "what is the most effective way to protect ourselves from this person". It's not about revenge or punishment, it's a rational, pragmatic decision made to protect society from its most dangerous members.

 

[Doclector]

When they threaten your or any other innocent's life. This is in the spur of the moment though. If they've already done the deed and they can be apprehended and bought to justice, then you don't kill them, but in a situation where the guilty must die to save the innocent, there is pracically no dilemma there to me.

The other situation would be when someone evil has put themselves outside the reach of the law, like corrupt governments often do.

 

[GraveeKing]

Well I guess that rapists, child molestors, murderers and what have you should rest easy at night knowing that there are people who believe in their rehabilitation.

Because you know, the 45k a year it costs to house a single inmate in prison for a year for the next however many years of their life couldnt be better spent on healthcare, giving REAL people jobs, feeding the hungry. Atleast the scum of the earth are happy though!

I've heard this argument before - don't blame me bud. Blame the politics of it all and the people who protest for 'human rights'. If someone such as the people you stated above act like that then personally I think they don't deserve those rights anymore and should be put in a minimal class prison, just feed them and give them work to do so they're useful and that's about it, I still support using major criminals as slaves.
Oh and I don't believe in rehabilitation of anything that's actually a repeated crime, still that's not mine to decide -that's the courts.

Besides the way I see it - if a criminal wants to die then he has nothing to fear that would put him to his death right? So where's the punishment? True suicidal psychos have nothing to fear from such a system! A life in prison and doing unskilled work that is beneath others such as farming etc can then contribute more back towards society than he took away, hence we get benefits and he gets a hard life rather than some cushy painless death.

 

[Rawne1980]

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.

Then you are damn right i'd end his life.

I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of it but I spent 12 years in the British Army.

During my time there I had situations where it was me or some other bugger.

I'm still here.

 

[Silva]

I have an easy reply to this thread.

Never.

No one should get the authority to decide another's final fate. That includes me.

All the judgements that we make upon others have their flaws, at least when it comes to this. There are better ways of creating justice. Such as imprisonment.

Well I guess that rapists, child molestors, murderers and what have you should rest easy at night knowing that there are people who believe in their rehabilitation.

Because you know, the 45k a year it costs to house a single inmate in prison for a year for the next however many years of their life couldnt be better spent on healthcare, giving REAL people jobs, feeding the hungry. Atleast the scum of the earth are happy though!

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: someone who has complete faith in the court system of every nation!

There's one born every minute. If you know what I mean.

But seriously, this is an odd claim. You're saying that thousands of people (yes, they are still people, unfortunately that's just something humanity has to face) should die because it costs money to feed them? That's an interesting, err, "moral" statement.

That aside, I'd also like to know how the decadence of Western society and the great expansion of personal luxuries like gaming and the Internet are somehow more justified than spending on the poor, even to the point of sacrificing the lives of prisoners to save on taxation. Which is more important - your gaming habit, or the life of a human being, whatever they've done? I know which I'd choose.

That and, you can afford to have all of those systems that you listed in place without shooting every murderer the court is not-very certain did the deed. Whatever certain vested interests might tell you, there is a way.

In the US, for example: just cut the trillions of dollars in military spending largely enough, and you'll be at least halfway there. Clever budgeting can seriously make miracles these days.

 

[Kriptonite]

Anyone that takes the life of another (other than to save someone or any other redeeming scenario) deserves to die. Anyone that forces themselves, sexually, upon another deserves to die. People like this clearly do not value life: theirs or others and have no reason to continue enjoying it.

 

[JMV]

I've beaten myself up thinking about this, but I always come back to the notion that it's never, in any circumstance, okay to kill someone. No matter how horrible that human being may be, I don't believe any of us has the right to take a human life. So, instead of death, whenever possible and whenever the crime is sufficiently heavy, I would go for the life sentence. Of course, not in today's top-notch criminal facilities, but in some rancid pit where the bare minimum would be done to ensure their survival. Because, you know, it's supposed to be a punishment.

That being said, I wouldn't hesitate in killing someone, were my family or someone I cared about in danger. Maybe even a total stranger, if one of them were to die, I would rather have the criminal dead. This may seem, and may very well be, hypocritical of me, but if you read closely, I never actually said that I would feel okay with doing this, only that I would do it. I accept that it is simply wrong, but in these circumstances, I'd deem it necessary.

But yeah, it's never okay.

 

[gbemery]

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

I agree to a certain extent but I would like to specify by saying those who willingly or wanted to cause death out of anything other than self defense or protecting someone else. I think someone who killed murdered someone else because they could or wanted to should die because they stole someone else's only chance at life so their's is forfeited, I would even say maybe someone who killed out of passion of the moment, but that's alittle more grey. But the main distinction is if someone say killed someone accidentally like wasn't paying attention where they were driving. Yeah they took someone's life but they didn't purposely seek out to take their life it was an accident. They should still be punished but not killed for it. Nor should someone who kills like a robber to protect their life, the lives of others or their property. Again exceptions to the rules but that's my general rule of thumb.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

No one deserves death, because no one is inherantly evil.

 

[Bvenged]

If someone should deny another of human rights, they should be denied of theirs. Also they're too dangerous to be kept alive. They should spend 10 years in prison where they can attempt to have their execution stripped & just serve time instead, (if they're innocent, had motives that can be justified, etc.) but after 10 years - it's the injection.

Other than that just serve fines/time/rehabilitation to the corresponding criminals.

Life sentences are just not strict enough in rare cases. If someone is that dangerous to kill without justification of their actions; they do not deserve to continue their lives even in a cell, leeching off our money. They should be executed if there are absolutely no benefits to keeping them alive.

Will they kill again for no reason other than mental health / wickedness? Yes - execution, No - prison & rehabilitation.