When does someone deserve death?

[Darius Brogan]

When they give up their humanity. That's when someone deserves death.

 

[Biosophilogical]

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. ^_^

Woot! Australia! I'm glad that the first was an Aussie that wasn't for the death penalty.

OT: I think 'deserve' is a funny term. Like killing them is something they have earned, a prize given to the nature of the person, rather than by circumstance. I'd say that no-one 'deserves' death, in that nothing can warrant the loss of their life as a price for past actions. However, I can understand needing to kill someone out of self-defense. But I just feel as though deserve has too much baggage as an additional reward/punishment term, rather than as a way of understanding present circumstances.

 

[NightHawk21]

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!

Fun fact, in America after taking into account courtroom costs, salaries of working people on the case and what not it costs more to kill someone that it does to keep them in jail the rest of their life. So there is that.

Edit: I don't think anyone deserves death. I would rather you lock people up for the rest of their lives than kill them. Murder is too easy. They chose to separate themselves from society and as such they should be treated as animals left in a damp hole in the ground for the rest of their miserable lives. Obviously I view current prison status as kind of bullshit.

 

[ecoho]

...

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. ^_^

I wouldn't. I've got better things to do with my money than pay to house a serial killer or kiddy diddler.

I've heard this line or reasoning before, and I completely understand where you're coming from. But yeah, I guess these damn morals of mine keep gettting in the way of things, eh?

Also, for the most part, tax payers pay more for handing out the death penalty than they do for giving the criminal life incarceration.
(<url=http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071213222051AAnD6AB>Yahoo Answers has a question about this stuff. Have a look at all the links at the bottom of the best answer...)

If you don't wanna read, the "Best Answer" gives a specific example:
In New York State, the average annual cost to incarcerate someone not on death row is about $35,000 per year. On the other hand, in the years since 1995, when New York State brought back a death penalty law, 7 people were sentenced to death, none had more than one appeal and 3 had not even had their first appeal. New York shelled out well over $200,000,000 for its capital punishment system since 1995. Assuming each of the 7 men lives for 40 years the cost to incarcerate all of them for life would be under 10 million dollars.

That is, on average, it cost about $29 million for each of those people to get the death penalty. But if the capital punishment system wasn't in place, and they lived another 40 years in prison, it would have cost them an average of $1.4 million for the full 40 years, each.

So, if all you're worried about is money... You should be against the death penalty, too. ^_^

it only costs that much because people have to be killed in a "civilized manner" if they would just shoot them in the head or hang them it wouldnt cost so much

 

[ediblemitten]

A bullet is a hell of a lot cheaper than a lifetime in prison.

In my books, convicted pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, would just be shot.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I'm against the death penalty. Maybe that makes me naive, but it's far more naive, to me, to say that the justice system is flawless and only executes the guilty. Or worse, saying that the wrongfully accused that are executed pale in comparison to the guilty that are.

You can pardon a man locked up for life. You can't properly pardon a corpse.

I mean, does anyone say that "justice was served" because Joan of Arc was found innocent by the Catholic Church 25 years later?

"But we have forensics now," people say. Guess what? Still not foolproof. All it takes is a governor who is, figuratively speaking, trigger happy. That means you, Rick Perry.

Clarence Bradley. Charles Smith. Kirk Bloodsworth. Sabrina Butler. Ray Krone. Daniel Wade Moore. Cory Maye. What do all these names have in common? They are all death row inmates exonerated after 1990. That last name? He was exonerated just this year, after being on death row since 2004. If there are this many exonerated, how many do we not get to on time?

Too many is my answer. One would be too many.

Also, California, USA.

 

[Raven_Operative]

Eye for an Eye. That's when.

actually wait.... what happens to rapists then? <.<

 

[Mastemat]

This is an easy answer.

Yes certain people deserve nothing but death, and they are:
1) Child anything. Rapists. Molesters. Killers. Anything where you ruin a child and/or their life... you deserve to die.
2) Rapists in general. I don't care who you raped, you deserve to die because of it. And, as a rape victim, it pains me to see those bastards who walk away when their lawyers "prove" that the victim was "asking for it".... No. All rapists deserve death... especially the child rapists.
3) Serial killers. You can accidentally kill someone... like being drunk and driving... but killing multiple people? You deserve to share their fate in that. You can't accidentally kill multiple people again... and again... and again... that's premeditated, and that is never an accident.

Aside from that... life in jail is enough punishment for any lesser crime.

 

[NightHawk21]

...

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. ^_^

I wouldn't. I've got better things to do with my money than pay to house a serial killer or kiddy diddler.

I've heard this line or reasoning before, and I completely understand where you're coming from. But yeah, I guess these damn morals of mine keep gettting in the way of things, eh?

Also, for the most part, tax payers pay more for handing out the death penalty than they do for giving the criminal life incarceration.
(<url=http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071213222051AAnD6AB>Yahoo Answers has a question about this stuff. Have a look at all the links at the bottom of the best answer...)

If you don't wanna read, the "Best Answer" gives a specific example:
In New York State, the average annual cost to incarcerate someone not on death row is about $35,000 per year. On the other hand, in the years since 1995, when New York State brought back a death penalty law, 7 people were sentenced to death, none had more than one appeal and 3 had not even had their first appeal. New York shelled out well over $200,000,000 for its capital punishment system since 1995. Assuming each of the 7 men lives for 40 years the cost to incarcerate all of them for life would be under 10 million dollars.

That is, on average, it cost about $29 million for each of those people to get the death penalty. But if the capital punishment system wasn't in place, and they lived another 40 years in prison, it would have cost them an average of $1.4 million for the full 40 years, each.

So, if all you're worried about is money... You should be against the death penalty, too. ^_^

it only costs that much because people have to be killed in a "civilized manner" if they would just shoot them in the head or hang them it wouldnt cost so much

Actually, drugs are cheap. You could synthesize a relatively painless lethal chemical in a chem lab for under $50 most likely. The costs are from the ridiculous legal processes and what not.

 

[Vivec93]

1. I would shoot him.

2. It depends on the situation, but if the person in question took a life willingly then they deserve to die themselves.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

...

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. ^_^

I wouldn't. I've got better things to do with my money than pay to house a serial killer or kiddy diddler.

I've heard this line or reasoning before, and I completely understand where you're coming from. But yeah, I guess these damn morals of mine keep gettting in the way of things, eh?

Also, for the most part, tax payers pay more for handing out the death penalty than they do for giving the criminal life incarceration.
(<url=http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071213222051AAnD6AB>Yahoo Answers has a question about this stuff. Have a look at all the links at the bottom of the best answer...)

If you don't wanna read, the "Best Answer" gives a specific example:
In New York State, the average annual cost to incarcerate someone not on death row is about $35,000 per year. On the other hand, in the years since 1995, when New York State brought back a death penalty law, 7 people were sentenced to death, none had more than one appeal and 3 had not even had their first appeal. New York shelled out well over $200,000,000 for its capital punishment system since 1995. Assuming each of the 7 men lives for 40 years the cost to incarcerate all of them for life would be under 10 million dollars.

That is, on average, it cost about $29 million for each of those people to get the death penalty. But if the capital punishment system wasn't in place, and they lived another 40 years in prison, it would have cost them an average of $1.4 million for the full 40 years, each.

So, if all you're worried about is money... You should be against the death penalty, too. ^_^

it only costs that much because people have to be killed in a "civilized manner" if they would just shoot them in the head or hang them it wouldnt cost so much

Doesn't have that much to do with how they kill them, actually. More to do with increased pre-trial costs and doing the whole trial in a few steps to make sure the person deserves it, etc.

So, if you want the death penalty to be cheap, then you have to start removing some of the processes for convicting them, removing some of the checks to make sure they can't be rehabilitated, etc. etc.
But, at that point, you're simply jumping the gun for the sake of cost. I think people will start taking it up with you when you start accidentally killing innocent people in the name of "justice/bloodthirstyness".

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

1.Double tap to the head
2.Life in prison

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

...

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. ^_^

I wouldn't. I've got better things to do with my money than pay to house a serial killer or kiddy diddler.

I've heard this line or reasoning before, and I completely understand where you're coming from. But yeah, I guess these damn morals of mine keep gettting in the way of things, eh?

Also, for the most part, tax payers pay more for handing out the death penalty than they do for giving the criminal life incarceration.
(<url=http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071213222051AAnD6AB>Yahoo Answers has a question about this stuff. Have a look at all the links at the bottom of the best answer...)

If you don't wanna read, the "Best Answer" gives a specific example:
In New York State, the average annual cost to incarcerate someone not on death row is about $35,000 per year. On the other hand, in the years since 1995, when New York State brought back a death penalty law, 7 people were sentenced to death, none had more than one appeal and 3 had not even had their first appeal. New York shelled out well over $200,000,000 for its capital punishment system since 1995. Assuming each of the 7 men lives for 40 years the cost to incarcerate all of them for life would be under 10 million dollars.

That is, on average, it cost about $29 million for each of those people to get the death penalty. But if the capital punishment system wasn't in place, and they lived another 40 years in prison, it would have cost them an average of $1.4 million for the full 40 years, each.

So, if all you're worried about is money... You should be against the death penalty, too. ^_^

it only costs that much because people have to be killed in a "civilized manner" if they would just shoot them in the head or hang them it wouldnt cost so much

Actually, drugs are cheap. You could synthesize a relatively painless lethal chemical in a chem lab for under $50 most likely. The costs are from the ridiculous legal processes and what not.

yeah this, it's cheap but the court/legal shit costs astounding amounts, to the point where everytime i think of it i'm

Spoiler: like this

 

[spartan231490]

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

 

[enzilewulf]

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.

edit: woops forgot to put, from nebraska,US
roughly this.

you can think about it morally, or you can think about it logically.

morally i will do everything i can to not kill someone, i like to believe we are just humans that make mistakes and we deserve second chances, and i just don't have the need or anger to kill anyone, nearly ever, hell i hardly am competitive enough to play sports let alone get the anger to fight/stab/shoot someone.


that person is destructive, they are using up free meals and taking up space on the planet and are more then likely no hope for redemption or doing anything positive, therefore the easiest thing to do is put em out of their misery instantly and save everyone else alot of stressing out and tax money.

i would never go out of my way to kill someone, nor would i say you are allowed to kill just anyone, but if it was a life and death situation i would have not a single picosecond of a thought on killing the person instantly. and wouldn't waste a single second afterward pondering about it either.

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".

you know what i love? generalizing everyone who references they believe in a god, and try and abhor every single person to the exact set same of rules. Do all atheists hold the exact same values? does every atheist act the exact same way? noo?

and what if they are 100% without a doubt convicted? then they just get to waste your tax money sitting in jail enjoying three hots and a cott?

have you not seen the news stories of people purposely breaking the law to get back INTO jail? the standard for the average jail is higher than most unemployed people are, so no, i really don't think it is "worse than death".

and that quote has always been flawed, i could be a smartass retort back with "then you'll just walk around with a bunch of pissed off one eyed people,, while those two eyed people are left to poke more people's one eye out without retort."

Did I ever say that all Christians are like that? Nope. Did I ever say just because you believe in a religion means that you hold the same believes as the radicals in the same religion? No? Well good then we can clear that up.

Now then as for jails go, No. They are not a paradise bud. Hows about the convicts who were wrongly convicted and sentenced to solitary confinement? You know like the three men who were convicted of killing children as some cult thing and they ACTUALLY didn't do it? So the pain they suffer emotionally isn't what other convicts suffer? That they are the only ones ever put in solitary confinement and were scared for life? Your right, wow that seems so awesome. Then all the rape that happens and the gangs in there. Don't pull that "OH HOW WOULD YOU KNOW!" Hows about a uncle who has been there because of home invasion.

Hows about Troy Davis? Explain why he had to die when it was clear that the evidence didn't add up. When the jury even said they wouldn't of convicted him if they would have know how screwed up the cops were, like how they pressured by cops to give false testimony's?

Now the tax issue is simply this, there is a thousand more people your paying for in there, NOT ONE MORE!!! Lets sentence all of them to death!

Im sorry but I don't see how a simple injection that kills you fast is worse than solitary confinement.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

snip.

Spoiler: but..but..

I CAN DO NO WRONG, JUSTICE IS ALWAYS RIGHT!

petty court fee's...judges rock that shit =]

 

[zehydra]

Whenever somebody has been given life without parole. Think about it. The purpose of prison is reform, so why would we create a situation where we pretty much tell someone they are beyond help, so we are quarantining them from society? They are better off dead.

Also, Tennessee.

the purpose of prison isn't to reform, it's to quarantine.

Ah hell, people disagree on the point of prisons, and I suppose the ultimate purpose would be to dissuade crime, since the justice system acts after a crime has been committed.

Perhaps we should have seperate quarantine and rehabilitation institutions instead of just "prison".

The purpose of prison actually changes depending on what country your in, from what I understand. I think in Japan they are more focused on rehab, but I could be wrong. Here in the U.S., I will agree they are mostly here as punishment and as a means to quarantine, but apparently the Japanese prisons are more effective from what I've heard, so in a perfect world, prisons would be all about rehabilitation. So my question is, "Why bother keeping someone locked up forever if they are beyond help?"

Why bother killing a person if keeping them locked up will prevent them from harming others? What you're suggesting isn't "why bother keeping someone locked up", it's "why not kill them"? The opposite of keeping someone locked up is letting them go. Killing somebody is a separate action, not to be confused as having some kind of "opposites" relationship with incarceration.

Consider this, I think you would agree that it's wrong to kill people, in general. Without any context whatsoever, the death of another human being is bad. Now, suppose that this human being committed a crime, and so that makes him a "bad person". Some people who argue for the justification of the death penalty say that killing a bad person is a good thing because it prevents further badness (more deaths of other human beings). However, killing the bad person is in itself a bad thing, so what we have is a bad act for the sake of preventing more theoretical badness. But we can prevent the same theoretical badness by putting him in prison, which, is not as bad as killing him. So overall, keeping him in prison reduces the overall amount of "badness" concerning this particular situation.

 

[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

Relevant. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xT1iMvTwYI]

I mean, for fuck's sake. It's one thing to be in favour of the death penalty, but applause? Are you fucking kidding me?

When I saw this and how they boo'd the gay solider I gave up on the future of the USA.

 

[Zhukov]

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.

Well, there's hitmen off the hook. Thank goodness for that.

OT: Those who will cause death if they are allowed to live. Good luck proving it though.

are you seriously comparing solders to hitmen?! you sir need to go out read a book and then come back. there is so much wrong with your statement i just dont know what to say other then i hope you never become the head of anything.

Wipe the froth away from your mouth and take a deep breath.

It was just a smartarse joke. He said soldiers get to kill because they're paid to do it. So I said, "Oh, so that's hitmen off the hook". Ha ha. Because hitmen get paid to kill. Get it?

...

Also, you really shouldn't tell someone they need to read a book while displaying the written grammar of a bloody ten year old.

Are you seriously comparing soldiers to hitmen?! You sir, need to go out, [comma] read a book and then come back. There is so much wrong with your statement [that] i just don't know what to say other then I hope you never become the head of anything.

So kindly go read a fucking book. If you are able to.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

The only time I think a death sentence is warranted is when someone is such a constant threat that they have to be in solitary confinement constantly, and even then are too dangerous to risk putting them in contact with prison guards. At that point, it's basically a mercy killing. Convicting any old regular murderer to death is just nonsense to me. That is who prisons are for.