If they are a cleric or a favored soul and for some reason didn't heal them self, they had it coming. Or if they are a class that can use healing wands but still expect my healer to use my wands which cost money. those ass holes can die too.
When does someone deserve death?
- Thread starter Torrasque
- Start date
Recommended Videos
[quote="zehydra" post="18.318172.12964273"
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.[/quote]
Exactly, unless the person is / could / wants to strike again, then yes, strike them down, but for one guy who kills another but only wants to kill that ONE, then they don't get death. I like Canada policy.
Why does it matter where I live, anyways?
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.[/quote]
Exactly, unless the person is / could / wants to strike again, then yes, strike them down, but for one guy who kills another but only wants to kill that ONE, then they don't get death. I like Canada policy.
Why does it matter where I live, anyways?
Apologies. I jumped the gun a little - I misunderstood what point you were making. I was assuming that you were talking as a person who would be paying for these people, so I was pointing out that it's actually cheaper to keep them locked up rather than give them the death sentence.Vigilantis said:
If you're in such a crappy position as to murder someone just so you could go to prison... Then yeah, again, I've got no problem with paying that tiny amount of tax You kind of insinuated that I'd be paying the full fees for people. I'm not sure if this was an accident, I misread what you said, or you misread what I posted earlier, but all I'm saying is that I'm fine with paying the tax for prisons. to keep you in prison. If you're really that screwed up, then I'd rather keep you locked up than on the streets.
Now, yes, if the death penalty was in place, this may not even occur to you as an option if you'll just end up being killed yourself. However, if the death penalty was in place, there would be innocent people murdered anyway. It's just that this way, they'd be killed legally, by the state.
(A couple things to note. Yes, there are people who are killed by the state who were actually innocent, and yes, the number of these people may be small, but surely that number is as small as those who, somehow, didn't get to successfully apply for money from the government, didn't manage to make it into shelters, etc., and after all this would actually murder someone just so that they could get into prison of all places.)
Neither situation is inherently better or worse. It's just that one way has murderer's either rehabilitated and re-entering society as "normal" people again or being locked up for the rest of their life (the problem being that, yes, there may be some people out there who are so incredibly desperate that they'd kill just to get into prison, however I'd like to re-iterate that without seeing any statistics I'd probably say that this number of people would be pretty low), the other has possibly less people committing murder and other heinous crimes some would deem worthy of the death penalty (but this way has some innocent people killed, too).
I think people who talk in the movie theater deserve death, does that make me a bad person?
In all seriousness, I think pedophiles and rapists should be killed where they stand.
In all seriousness, I think pedophiles and rapists should be killed where they stand.
People who harm others. I will allow myself to go far and say people who don't uphold the law as well. The law is there for a reason, and if broken, that person is of no use to society. I'm personally all for death penalty. I don't believe in all the reforming bullshit from prisons, as we've seen countless times that it does not help. But of course, if death penalty was put in to the extend I'd want it to, you'd have to reconfigure the entire law and order system, to make sure no innocents got killed.
Justice should be cold blooded. The only acceptable time to take someone's life is if they are about to endanger that of another of their own volition. Once secured by the authorities, execution is unnecessary and off limits.
I live in New Zealand.
I live in New Zealand.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The other situation would be when someone evil has put themselves outside the reach of the law, like corrupt governments often do.