When does someone deserve death?

[Roofstone]

I am more or less for "An eye for an eye" punishment, but I never condone ending someones life. Though I do reckon that it is needed on occasion.. So, meh.

After a whole fuckin' lot of evilness.

To put it bluntly.

 

[zehydra]

Rape deserves worse than death, and murder may also deserve death.

why?

Because They are despicable and monstrous acts that cannot be forgiven. You are destroying a person's life your own selfishness.

and why does that person deserve death?

Because they are beyond forgiveness. What they have done is so monstrous that the only acceptable punishment is death.

and my question is why is that?

 

[Torrasque]

Our births are random, the right to life is not earned, so "You deserve to die" is meaningless. A death may be convenient, expedient, practical, satisfactory or exemplary, but that doesn't mean it's deserved.

Why do we say it then?

Often, "You deserve to die" is a dispassionate code for something more bluntly self-interested: "We claim the right to kill you, and our power to kill you is our authority to do so."

But we don't say it that way because it would reveal more about ourselves than most of us would care to admit: that we're vengeful, violent and highly self-interested.

A much harder statement to face is: "You *don't* deserve to die, and killing you is *not* right, but I mean to kill you anyway." Fewer people still want to admit that, because the consequences must be lived with for the rest of our lives.

Among the worst victims of this realisation are victims of trauma relating to people they've killed: returned soldiers who find that they had more in common with their enemies than with the civilians they come home to, and police who know their neighbourhoods so well that they recognise the offender that they ultimately shoot.

"You deserve to die" doesn't say much about the person we mean to kill, because we can kill on any pretext once we decide that power equals authority. The statement is much more about ourselves -- about the limits of our sympathy and honesty.

An interesting point that I have not seen come up in this thread (surprsingly). It is slightly off topic, and not an issue I wanted adressed in this thread, but considering it is not more QQ about jails and how they cost everyone all their money, I will adress it. And cuz it is actually interesting =)

Birth isn't always random, but I'd be an idiot to say that it is 100% planned. This is irrelevant to the rest of your post though, so just ignore it.
It is interesting that you are the first person to see this kind of difference between a soldier and a judge. Others have said that soldiers are paid to kill, and that their power to take life is their job, so it should not be horrible, but they are still taking a life. Why is it that when someone is paid to do something, their feelings and ethics must be separated from the task? Shouldn't soldiers receive MORE mental reinforcement because of all the killing they must do? Something like, "You are going to kill people. Good people, bad people, you cannot know whether everyone you kill, deserves it or not, but you are going to kill them anyways. Open your eyes and try your best to judge the situation on the fly, and when the time comes, don't let your decision worry you" except that is a pathetic excuse for "yo bro, its alright" =/

Also, my original intention for creating this thread, was to state what reasons a person may be killed, to answer "We claim the right to kill you" with what justifications one might have in taking another person's life.

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.

There are several others (including me) that share this opinion
Most people that do not share your opinion, get fixated on the whole "well what about the costs of jail time?" issue, which I didn't want them to do in the first place because it changes their answer to a question that should be about their morality, not their sensibility. Whatever >.>

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.

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?

I just wanted to get a summary of opinions to see if people shared opinions based on country/state/province/region. I'm glad that people do not, and that not all Americans are blood-thirsty "KILL EM NAO!"
/joke

 

[Torrasque]

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.

Others have said that the only time it is ok to kill someone, is when they abandon/lose their humanity, which I will agree with.
I still believe that no one should be killed, but if someone kills 40 people and eats their bodies, then that person has stopped being human.
This could be a potentially slippery slope for discussion, so I'll quickly say that I do not think that humans have all of the same rights as animals and leave it at that. If you want to discus that point, please take it to another thread.
Your post summarized the other "people who stop being human deserve death" opinions well, so that is why I am addressing it.
Death penalty is a deterrent, and while it doesn't work the same as a punishment, it serves the same purpose. Also for the sake of discussion, the only reason I say "death penalty" instead of "take out a gun and blow them away on the spot" is because most people can identify with the death penalty. It is merely the vehicle for killing a person that has committed a heinous crime, and I don't want you to get too hung up about it (like others have, talking about the cost of the death penalty and other irrelevant things).
I would prefer you ignore the death penalty altogether and just imagine that people who "deserve death" in your mind, just fall over dead, and their pants turn into flamingoes that make a nest in the person's mouth.

 

[ace_of_something]

Pffft, hardly TL;DR. My original post is more TL;DR
I'm guessing you are teaching ethics regarding death? Or is it more specific than that?
My ethics class touched on this subject, but we never go into it in much depth.

I'm only a 'part time' prof. I am teaching criminal justice 101, interview and interrogation techniques, and law enforcement public relations. This semester.
They switched that last one at the last minute on me so i had to scramble cuz originally i was going to do 'sociology 101'

Pretty much any 'criminal justice' class you take you'll have to spend at least a day or two learning about capital punishment. Next semester i'm just doing the 2nd two classes but having multiples of them because both are 'new' and everyone wants to take them.

edit: i fail at 'quote tags'

 

[LarenzoAOG]

I truly believe that some people deserve death, but only the most vile people like rapists or serial killers are bad enough to have to be put down, or people like Hannibal Lector, because somewhere out there you know a Hannibal Lector type person exists.

But I don't believe in death sentences, let me explain, if a vigilante finds a rapist or a serial killer or a Hannibal Lector and they kill that person than good on them, but if they are captured then they should rot in jail.

 

[Vigilantis]

Are you replying to someone else? Because my original topic asks you to ignore the whole legal system, and focus on the actual killing of the person.
Many others have brought up the points you are addressing, but not I.
As far as this thread goes, I want you all to ignore the legal procedure, and focus on whether you think it is ok to end a person's life.

Yes I was, don't know how you got it instead but no matter, and as for your thread I don't quite understand the concept...is it past tense or pretense. No its not ok to kill someone, but I am ok with justice befalling a murderer.

 

[Torrasque]

Are you replying to someone else? Because my original topic asks you to ignore the whole legal system, and focus on the actual killing of the person.
Many others have brought up the points you are addressing, but not I.
As far as this thread goes, I want you all to ignore the legal procedure, and focus on whether you think it is ok to end a person's life.

Yes I was, don't know how you got it instead but no matter, and as for your thread I don't quite understand the concept...is it past tense or pretense. No its not ok to kill someone, but I am ok with justice befalling a murderer.

It is more "what would someone have to do to deserve death in your mind?"
Also, for the sake of this thread, you are the one passing down judgement, not the justice system.
Given these circumstances (which can be found in a /spoiler on the original post) are there people that deserve death, and why?

 

[Vigilantis]

Are you replying to someone else? Because my original topic asks you to ignore the whole legal system, and focus on the actual killing of the person.
Many others have brought up the points you are addressing, but not I.
As far as this thread goes, I want you all to ignore the legal procedure, and focus on whether you think it is ok to end a person's life.

Yes I was, don't know how you got it instead but no matter, and as for your thread I don't quite understand the concept...is it past tense or pretense. No its not ok to kill someone, but I am ok with justice befalling a murderer.

It is more "what would someone have to do to deserve death in your mind?"
Also, for the sake of this thread, you are the one passing down judgement, not the justice system.
Given these circumstances (which can be found in a /spoiler on the original post) are there people that deserve death, and why?

Well then I answered properly...Justice does not necessarily mean a system or legalities, its what said person believes as being justified and as I stated someone who takes others lives for personal benefit/pleasure does not deserve to keep their own life. That is my justice.

 

[Jadak]

Not disagreeing with you. As I said in my other posts though, the current legal process required to kill someone in the US is way more expensive then housing someone for life. Still how exactly would you propose to cut down legal costs.

I wouldn't propose anything, not because I don't support it, but I don't think such propositions would go through anyways. At the core of it cutting down costs is fairly simply, you just have to remove the legal options available to somebody being sentenced to death. Have a normal trial, where a death sentence is a possible outcome, and have that be the end of it. Trial ends, death is expected, somebody delivers a bullet, done deal.

But, the death penalty is controversial enough as it is, and as much as I do not support convicted to death felons being able to make appeal after appeal for god knows how long, I expect the death penalty would be abolished entirely before anyone ever got away with stripping some of the legal rights way from those being subjected to it.

So on principle, I'm all for deciding on death and getting it done quickly, but in practice, I don't see it as viable given the constraints of our current society. So if killing someone now is more expensive than simply locking them up for life, then yeah, I'd say don't bother.

 

[merck88]

Rape deserves worse than death, and murder may also deserve death.

why?

Because They are despicable and monstrous acts that cannot be forgiven. You are destroying a person's life your own selfishness.

http://forejustice.org/wc/mi_report_april04.html

Now I'm not saying that acts of rape, murder, et c. are not horrible and monstrous crimes, but even then, they do not deserve death. Just because someone has been convicted, does not mean they are guilty. Once inside the interrogation room, people stop acting rationally and will admit to crimes they did not commit. In that link, they reference several books and studies trying to find the number of wrongful convictions.Also, take a look at wikipedia's article on US prisons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

Look at that graph showing the racial distribution. Do black people really commit that many more crimes than white people? What I'm getting at is that how sure do you have to be to condemn someone to death. Confessions are unreliable, evidence can and has been planted or compromised. Eyewitnesses have been wrong or outright lied. The only moral, correct, and just punishment for heinous crimes is life in prison without parole. Anything else will result in the deaths of innocent men and women.

For what it's worth, I'm from Georgia in the US.

 

[Mookowicz]

Birth isn't always random, but I'd be an idiot to say that it is 100% planned.

That wasn't quite what I meant. Conceptions may be planned, but lives largely aren't. Especially, we don't get to plan many of the circumstances that substantially influence our later behaviours -- our genetics, temperaments, social circumstances, milieu, education, family and childhood influences, economic opportunities. That's not to suggest that we're not responsible for our actions, but it may make more sense to say "You don't deserve your circumstances" and "we don't deserve the danger you represent" than to say "You don't deserve to live."

It is interesting that you are the first person to see this kind of difference between a soldier and a judge.

For the most part, a judge doesn't get to decide what's moral, only what's lawful and what penalties apply when it's not. I don't know how judges cope when they oppose laws they're meant to serve, but I don't doubt that many suffer ethical quandries.

But (excluding the killing part) the power vs authority problem is one anyone can face - parents, teachers, employers, officials. Most of the power we get arises from custom and law, but it often comes with rules for how to apply it. Our rules give us the semblance of authority, but the rules are created by others who claim to authority by virtue of exercising power. So do we really have authority, or just power?

My answer: the authority is a consensual illusion; there's just power. But we prefer to invest authority in those who use power responsibly, for the common good (when we're not grabbing it for ourselves).

So your question "when is it okay to kill" can be reinterpreted as: "when is exercising the power to kill seen as a responsible action (and hence one with some claim to authority)?"

My answer: our sense of responsibility is based on our social compacts, and those are based in turn on our economics, circumstances, cultures and whatever we know. These things change by place and time... so for example the Australian aborigines were traditionally nomads, and lived in a harsh land where individuals couldn't survive alone. But they had no jails, so how did they punish people who broke their laws?

In many cases, they would spear an offender's leg. Speared one way it was painful and would make them limp for a while, but would heal. Speared another way, it would cripple the offender and make them unable to run -- a sort of mobile prison sentence that would protect other tribe-members from attack, yet still allow the offender to work within the tribe. Speared a third way it would make the offender bleed out -- arguably kinder than exiling the offender to starve.

Within the tribe, those actions could be seen as very responsible because the punishments did the least harm needed to protect the tribe. But relocate the same tribe into a city with jails and a huge food surplus and you could argue that it's irresponsible -- wouldn't it be more humane to isolate offenders from the community and try and rehabilitate them?

But in a generation or two with advanced gene surgery, improved electronic communications and pharmaceuticals, might not jails be seen as irresponsible? Wouldn't it be better to render offenders 'safe' and have them integrate back into the community?

What I'm trying to show here is that (ethical) authority depends on responsibility, and responsibility depends on society and circumstance. I don't believe we can apply an absolute rule to when it's responsible to kill. We can only acknowledge that killing is never deserved -- that it dehumanises us to say that it *is* deserved. But we can acknowledge that killing is sometimes expedient, even responsible... But determining that requires a thorough examination of the alternatives, and we need to recognise that responsibility is about minimising overall harm, and not exercising power just because we have it.

 

[Torrasque]

Birth isn't always random, but I'd be an idiot to say that it is 100% planned.

That wasn't quite what I meant. Conceptions may be planned, but the creature being born largely aren't. Especially, we don't get to plan many of the circumstances that substantially influence our later behaviours -- our genetics, temperaments, social circumstances, milieu, education, family and childhood influences, economic opportunities. That's not to suggest that we're not responsible for our actions, but it may make more sense to say "You don't deserve your circumstances" and "we don't deserve the danger you represent" than to say "You don't deserve to live."

It is interesting that you are the first person to see this kind of difference between a soldier and a judge.

For the most part, a judge doesn't get to decide what's moral, only what's lawful and what penalties apply when it's not. I don't know how judges cope when they oppose laws they're meant to serve, but I don't doubt that many suffer ethical quandries.

But (excluding the killing part) the power vs authority problem is one anyone can face - parents, teachers, employers, officials. Most of the power we get arises from custom and law, but it often comes with rules for how to apply it. Our rules give us the semblance of authority, but the rules are created by others who claim to authority by virtue of exercising power. So do we really have authority, or just power?

My answer: the authority is a consensual illusion; there's just power. But we prefer to invest authority in those who use power responsibly, for the common good (when we're not grabbing it for ourselves).

So your question "when is it okay to kill" can be reinterpreted as: "when is exercising the power to kill seen as a responsible action (and hence one with some claim to authority)?"

My answer: our sense of responsibility is based on our social compacts, and those are based in turn on our economics, circumstances, cultures and whatever we know. These things change by place and time... so for example the Australian aborigines were traditionally nomads, and lived in a harsh land where individuals couldn't survive alone. But they had no jails, so how did they punish people who broke their laws?

In many cases, they would spear an offender's leg. Speared one way it was painful and would make them limp for a while, but would heal. Speared another way, it would cripple the offender and make them unable to run -- a sort of mobile prison sentence that would protect other tribe-members from attack, yet still allow the offender to work within the tribe. Speared a third way it would make the offender bleed out -- arguably kinder than exiling the offender to starve.

Within the tribe, those actions could be seen as very responsible because the punishments did the least harm needed to protect the tribe. But relocate the same tribe into a city with jails and a huge food surplus and you could argue that it's irresponsible -- wouldn't it be more humane to isolate offenders from the community and try and rehabilitate them?

But in a generation or two with advanced gene surgery, improved electronic communications and pharmaceuticals, might not jails be seen as irresponsible? Wouldn't it be better to render offenders 'safe' and have them integrate back into the community?

What I'm trying to show here is that (ethical) authority depends on responsibility, and responsibility depends on society and circumstance. I don't believe we can apply an absolute rule to when it's responsible to kill. We can only acknowledge that killing is never deserved -- that it dehumanises us to say that it *is* deserved. But we can acknowledge that killing is sometimes expedient, even responsible... But determining that requires a thorough examination of the alternatives, and we need to recognise that responsibility is about minimising overall harm, and not exercising power just because we have it.

For those of you who won't read this (shame on you, this is actually interesting), the TL;DR version is: Killing is never ok, but it sometimes has to be done. It really depends on the circumstances.

I like your answer, and it is nice to see a well thought out page to my question, that entertains an actual case, not a hypothetical one.
Thank you for the contribution =)

 

[Mookowicz]

(Deleted a repeat)

 

[Mookowicz]

I like your answer, and it is nice to see a well thought out page to my question, that entertains an actual case, not a hypothetical one.
Thank you for the contribution =)

Thank you for your kind words and I know you got my gist, but with your indulgence I'd like to rephrase your paraphrase below...

For those of you who won't read this (shame on you, this is actually interesting), the TL;DR version is: Killing is never ok, but it sometimes has to be done. It really depends on the circumstances.

Killing may be okay, but I think we don't inherit the moral authority to do it just because of who we are or what has happened to us.

When someone asks "Why did you kill/execute/assassinate X", I think it's no excuse to say: "Because he bombed, murdered, raped, stole, trespassed or uttered a heresy." It's also no answer to reply: "Because I'm a president, judge, soldier, policeman or priest and I can." Who we are gives us no right to kill, nor does what happened to us because authority can only follow responsibility. I think that the only responsible answer is to say: "Because if I hadn't, something terrible, irrevocable and far worse would almost certainly have occurred."

 

[Jake Lewis Clayton]

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

Up to your post, no-one had mentioned an eye for an eye.

As a Catholic I don't believe in the death penalty, and the christian nation I live in abolished the death penalty nearly 50 years ago in what was still a very religous country at the time.

Infact no court in the European Union can hand down the death penalty, considering the fact that many countries like greece, Italy, spain and france have traditionally been seen as very religous I'd say thats a testament to "christian morals".

And our jails are comfortable, so death would be 99% of the time the worst option for an inmate.


America does seem to have a messed up conservative idea of what "christian morals" are.

Over here, liberal and christian go hand in hand, over your side of the pond it's conservative and christian for some messed up reason :\

 

[Scabious]

Those who cause the death of the innocent. There must be the threat of death.

 

[spartan231490]

Rape deserves worse than death, and murder may also deserve death.

why?

Because They are despicable and monstrous acts that cannot be forgiven. You are destroying a person's life your own selfishness.

http://forejustice.org/wc/mi_report_april04.html

Now I'm not saying that acts of rape, murder, et c. are not horrible and monstrous crimes, but even then, they do not deserve death. Just because someone has been convicted, does not mean they are guilty. Once inside the interrogation room, people stop acting rationally and will admit to crimes they did not commit. In that link, they reference several books and studies trying to find the number of wrongful convictions.Also, take a look at wikipedia's article on US prisons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

Look at that graph showing the racial distribution. Do black people really commit that many more crimes than white people? What I'm getting at is that how sure do you have to be to condemn someone to death. Confessions are unreliable, evidence can and has been planted or compromised. Eyewitnesses have been wrong or outright lied. The only moral, correct, and just punishment for heinous crimes is life in prison without parole. Anything else will result in the deaths of innocent men and women.

For what it's worth, I'm from Georgia in the US.

Those are all issues with the practicality of enforcement, which was not the original question. The original question was who deserves death, and I think that murderers and rapists deserve death. For the record, I believe that the death penalty can be instituted without resulting in the deaths of innocent people.
And as for the racial distribution, probably. A very high percentage of prison inmates in the US are imprisoned for gang-related activity.

 

[spartan231490]

Rape deserves worse than death, and murder may also deserve death.

why?

Because They are despicable and monstrous acts that cannot be forgiven. You are destroying a person's life your own selfishness.

and why does that person deserve death?

Because they are beyond forgiveness. What they have done is so monstrous that the only acceptable punishment is death.

and my question is why is that?

Because their actions were so monstrous that they deserve death. How is this too difficult to understand? That is my reason. Their conscious actions are despicable beyond forgiveness and for that reason, they deserve death.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

If you intentionally and maliciously murder another human being, your actions warrant capital punishment. But ONLY if the evidence against them is so substantial that there is not even the slightest doubt that they are guilty.