When does someone deserve death?

[AnyNamePlease]

I do not believe in the death sentence or killing in general. Especially since I live in Texas, there have been cases where we've killed the innocent. When we kill innocents, what does that make us? Only when they commit terrorism should they be killed (like Osama Bin Laden) or in other cases where there is no other option to take them down.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

UK: England
They don't, they only need to die if you can save an innocent life (well as innocent as you get) or multiple lives from killing the person.
The few for the many basically.
Hell, i'd sacrafice my life for someone else in an instance.

 

[bader0]

1. It is perfectly ok to kill in self defense IMO.
2. Murderers (usually) do not deserve death. The vast majority have a perfectly legitimate reason IMO on why they kill who they do. Those 90% of murderers with a good reason should get @ worst a small jail term. (like 2 1\2 years max) The 10% however with no reasonable reason should be executed yes.
Also I say every single thief in the world should be executed. Theft IMO is a far worse crime than murder which gets the same treatment in our justice system. So fair is fair.
People who abuse animals or use them for blood sport should be executed. (like what should have happened to Michael Vick)
Finally rapists ad pedophiles should all be executed.

two and a half years for murdering a person, but shooting a bird or deer is death penalty, i value human life 10 fold more then animal, i know that pisses a lot of people off it should be the other way. (imo i don't disagree with hunting, even though i have never been doing it i don't own a gun or take part in fox hunting).

Your taking my words out of context. I did not say hunters should be punished. (assuming they do not kill anything endangered or a dog or other usual pet animal) Hunting is not only engrained in our culture but is used to get food (usually) and I have no problem for using animals for food. I only said that people that torture animals needlessly or use them in blood sports (dog fights, cock fights, etc.) should be executed.

can i just say that you are, in my opinion an insane sociopath? sorry if i offended you ^.^
OT; no-one ever deserves to die because death is unquantifiable in that the results of death are not generally agreed upon. life in jail however is quantifiable and therefore is a perfect punishment for the more serious offences like murder. One more thing; Why is rape such a big deal? I mean it is terrible and all but i dont think it should be put anywhere near the level of murder.

 

[Zadok17582]

My optinion is that there are some (albeit *very* few) actions that might make a person "deserve" a death sentence BUT do I think a death sentence should ever be served? Hells no.

Even trials when a case is proved "beyond reasonable doubt", mistakes get made, and death is irreversible. Furthermore, I disagree with putting a person on "death row" (as per USA) for several years - not only are you inflicting anguish on them but they have nothing to lose and behave irrationally and often violently (beyond the behaviour of those with life imprisonment sentences) and others may get hurt in the meantime. If you intend to kill them, further tormenting them is both pointless and inhumane.

Then there's the fear factor. If I was accused of a death-penalty crime I very well might confess whether I was guilty or not if it meant I'd get imprisonment instead. Which would be a good thing if I were guilty, but if I were innocent the real criminal escapes to continue his spree at will.

If you absolutely *insist* on having a death penalty, give them an appeal; if that fails then make sure it's carried out within a week. Take them to a quiet room for an interview with a preacher of their choice and a last meal, note their final words then get it done quick and painless. Blindfold then a pair of .22 rounds to the back of the head - whole thing takes 20 seconds, rather than painstakingly strapping them down, carefully inserting an IV shunt, etc. No need to wait around or drag it out. Alternatively use the lethal injection as is, but render the prisoner unconscious with sedatives for the entire affair. And FFS don't have a sodding audience, for everyone's sake. Unnecessarily humiliating for the prisoner (see above point re: torment), and disturbing for those who watch. Unless I'm very mistaken that sort of sh*t will haunt you for years, or it bloody well should.

As for killing in defense of self or others, that's often unavoidable so I'm fine with it, to some extent (for example there are situations where I would do it, albeit with hesitation and probably remorse). A trained professional (SO19, SWAT, etc) should exhaust all other options first; anyone else should obviously have some slack but only if someone is actually under threat - housebreakers don't count if they're not armed, I reckon most would leg it as soon as they realise they're about to be caught, especially if they see you're armed; B&E is one thing, assault (or murder) is another.
As for myself, my policy would be to put 'em down as efficiently as possible but leave them breathing - that's why I did a bit of martial arts; if I get mugged I'd happily trip the bastard, maybe break his arm or choke him out, then GTFO. Any of the manoeuvres I know would heal in no more than a few months. Of course this relies on being in a country with halfway-sensible firearm control, so I'd be screwed in the USA - I'd just hand over my wallet like a little b*tch 'soon as I saw any kind of firearm.

Location - UK (in case you hadn't guessed).

TL;DR:
Self-defense aye, Death penalty nay.

 

[RemuValtrez]

I have always believed that if you kill someone, you deserve to die. A life for a life. No one has the right to kill another person in cold blood in my eyes. Self defense is a whole other story. But going out and killing some person warrants you the death penalty. I would not give you another month to live after being convicted, as I don't believe that you would deserve it.

The only problem I have with death penalties is when you aren't 100% sure. If there is any doubt about it, I'd toss you in a cell for the rest of your life. Which is the problem I have with it. If there's not solid 100% evidence that you did it (And I mean caught you on camera sort of way), then I would forgo the death penalty.

 

[Mr.Snippets93]

well, i'm from germany, and i think, whatever you do, you don't deserve to be executed. This whole "an eye for an eye"-mentality is really not leading us anywhere good, and no one should play god and take a life.
on the option that a person threatens me or someone i care about, i would not hesitate to shoot them. Self defense, right?
so, to summarize: killing in self defense: yay! killing as a punishment? nay!

 

[Panorama]

1. It is perfectly ok to kill in self defense IMO.
2. Murderers (usually) do not deserve death. The vast majority have a perfectly legitimate reason IMO on why they kill who they do. Those 90% of murderers with a good reason should get @ worst a small jail term. (like 2 1\2 years max) The 10% however with no reasonable reason should be executed yes.
Also I say every single thief in the world should be executed. Theft IMO is a far worse crime than murder which gets the same treatment in our justice system. So fair is fair.
People who abuse animals or use them for blood sport should be executed. (like what should have happened to Michael Vick)
Finally rapists ad pedophiles should all be executed.

two and a half years for murdering a person, but shooting a bird or deer is death penalty, i value human life 10 fold more then animal, i know that pisses a lot of people off it should be the other way. (imo i don't disagree with hunting, even though i have never been doing it i don't own a gun or take part in fox hunting).

Your taking my words out of context. I did not say hunters should be punished. (assuming they do not kill anything endangered or a dog or other usual pet animal) Hunting is not only engrained in our culture but is used to get food (usually) and I have no problem for using animals for food. I only said that people that torture animals needlessly or use them in blood sports (dog fights, cock fights, etc.) should be executed.

Sorry misunderstood i took bloodsports to mean hunting apologies, yeah cock fighting etc... is very messed up.

 

[Th37thTrump3t]

Kill them... Kill them all. Heinous crimes deserve heinous punishment. You cut someones head off? You get decapped. You put 23 rounds into somebody? Call out the firing squad. You brutally raped a woman and then strangled her to death? Well... I won't go there. Basically I would the whole eye for an eye route.

Location: Northeast Ohio

 

[Robert Ewing]

If somebody kills somebody, they don't deserve death.

You can't take a life for a life. However if said person killed two people +, then that would be grounds of execution. They'd deserve death, as they've taken people's life them self. If they disregard life so much, then it's incredibly hypocritical to not expect death on themselves.

There are other things I think constitute a death sentence, but I can't be bothered to go into them.

 

[LiquidGrape]

The death penalty is what separates a civilised society from a barbaric such.
I do not believe there are any circumstances under which the organised and deliberate execution of a human being is acceptable.

Location, Sweden.

 

[Ursus Buckler]

There was a news thing a while back about this Vietnamese 15-year old guy that brutally killed a seven year old girl with a rock for her money so that he could spend it in an Internet cafe. That's when I'd say someone deserves a bullet through the eye.

 

[Thyunda]

Death is rarely an acceptable punishment for anything. Killing somebody in self-defence...well, that's perfectly acceptable. Unless you're some kind of superhuman who CAN immobilise somebody non-lethally, outright killing somebody is often our only option. If you're on the street, and somebody comes at you with a knife, and all you have at hand to defend yourself with is a brick, you're not going to know how to do this non-lethally, and your only option would be to cave their head in.

That's acceptable. That's death as a preventive measure - ie what justice should be about. Unless the defendant is frothing at the mouth and attempting to eviscerate the jury, there is no reason for a formally instated death penalty. Soulless as it sounds, people CAN be fixed. Provided there was no reason for the killing, the killer will take effort to fix, but it is possible.

Yes. The family will be upset that their relative has not been 'avenged'. Okay, they say that their killer hasn't been brought to justice, and is still walking the streets. Even if it was a self-defence killing, the family will want punishment. Aw, hell, the family would want punishment if a guy survived an attack by their relative, and some bad press came their way. Look at the Amanda Knox trials and her release. She's been released on the basis that she was innocent, and when she decides to go on the route to popularity and fortune after her ordeal, Kercher's family are denouncing her for profiting off their daughter's death. It's almost as though nobody cares for justice, they all just want the opportunity to 'avenge' their child.

But, to stay relevant, people don't just kill. Something snaps inside them. Something is wrong. Nobody thinks that killing is okay...not when they're in their right state of mind. This is why there needs to be a rehabilitation scheme that finds the problem AND fixes it, rather than just incarcerating them with other, like-minded people.

 

[oktalist]

A much more interesting question is, what does "deserve" mean anyway?

I strongly believe no creature, human or otherwise, should be exposed to painful stimuli if it can be avoided, no matter what he/she/it may have done. Killing... well, I do eat meat sometimes, but I am strongly against killing humans for any reason (including self defence in cases where you could have defended yourself adequately without lethal force).

EDIT: The post just above mine has it right.

 

[ace_of_something]

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?

Hi! I'm actually a professor (well, i'm teaching it for the first time this semester) on this very kind of thing.

While lex talionis is always an attractive option. Statistic after statistic shows that adding or abolishing a death penalty doesn't actually effect the rate of capital offenses. Ever. Anywhere. So it clearly doesn't work as a deterrent.

As you already stated due to the appeals process, higher security, and not to mention that the health of someone on death row tends to on average be poorer (and therefor more expensive) that a death row inmate on average will cost more than a life sentence. In fact people that have life sentences (anywhere but Texas this is true) tend to die of natural causes within 1-3 years of when they would've been put to death anyway. Living in prison is no picnic and ages you terribly.
I've worked in a similar environment before and lifers/in-n-outers (guys who while not ever getting a life sentence still spend most of their life in jail due to repeated minor offenses) you will always guess them being 10-15 years older than they actually are.

Personally, I'm against the death penalty as a christian. But as a pragmatist I know there are some instances where it's the only thing that will stop more lives from ending. I'm thinking like facist dictators or violent terrorist leaders here. (Though then you've got the 'martyrdom' thing to worry about)

Sorry if this was tl:dnr

location: a very very red state

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

Shoot the worst offenders - murders, terrorists, traitors - and be done with it.
It costs, where I buy my ammunition, around £10 for a box of fifty .38.
That'll kill someone.

 

[Blastinburn]

Killing is a tool for the week, a way to deal with a person or group that you have no other way to to protect yourself or others from, always a last resort.

I personally don't believe in death as punishment, I prefer to think of it as a way to remove those who would harm others. So whether I would sentence somone to death would depend on how guilty they feel and the likely-hood of them causing more harm. Other methods would be attempted first, such as: rehabiliation, psychiatry, prison (sometimes people leave reformed/new).

An addition to my stance is that purposefully killing (or attempting to kill) someone who has not forfeited their right to life forfeits your right to life (exception to self defense). They don't value life so you treat them with their values (this does not mean they deserve death, rather that there would be nothing wrong with taking their life). But I also believe it is possible to become a new person, in which case they earn their right to life back (no I don't have a way to verify this).

Last point: Attempted murder = murder. Someone should not be let go or have reduced charges because their potential victim managed to survive. If anyone can provide a justified reason for this I would love to hear it.

(from New Jersey, United States)

 

[NightHawk21]

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.

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.

 

[Rnr1224]

i see it as highly circumstantial. but doing so in self-defense if he was going to kill you, then i see that as a good enough cause