When does someone deserve death?

[Particulate]

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

In the US it takes an average of $30,000 a year per inmate depending on state and the level of security they're under as well as things like medical treatment and transportation.

A bullet costs less than a dollar.

If you want to be clean about it a syringe costs a few dollars at most and a lethal dose of morphine would be less than $100 even if they're an obscenely large person.

I see no reason to bother with three separate chemicals that cause the systematic failure of organs when the same thing can be accomplished for much less. And even so lethal injections are not extremely costly to begin with.

 

[annilator666]

i live in canada where the death penalty isnt here but in the scenarios i would not hesitate to shoot someone comming at me with a knive sine you can take someone down and not kill them and for the second scenario i would deal out the death penalty for murders (and rapists) with no remorse but thats just me

 

[NightHawk21]

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

In the US it takes an average of $30,000 a year per inmate depending on state and the level of security they're under as well as things like medical treatment and transportation.

A bullet costs less than a dollar.

If you want to be clean about it a syringe costs a few dollars at most and a lethal dose of morphine would be less than $100 even if they're an obscenely large person.

I see no reason to bother with three separate chemicals that cause the systematic failure of organs when the same thing can be accomplished for much less. And even so lethal injections are not extremely costly to begin with.

That train of logic only makes sense if your some sort of vigilante. A normal convict has to go through and entire legal system which adds up to an absurd sum of money. I don't quite remember the numbers, it was a while since I wrote a paper on this subject but I believe someone posted rough sums in this thread. In reality after the legal process the cost of killing someone is multiple times the cost of housing them for life.

 

[Belaam]

I'm going to largely go with the state of California and say that you deserve death when you kill someone under any of the following circumstances:

for financial gain
multiple murders
committed using explosives
to avoid arrest or aiding in escaping custody
the victim was a witness to a crime and the murder was committed to prevent them from testifying
the murder was "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity"
the murderer lay in wait for the victim
the victim was intentionally killed because of their race, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation.
the murder was committed during the commissioning of robbery; kidnapping; rape; sodomy; performance of a lewd or lascivious act upon the person of a child under the age of 14 years; oral copulation; burglary; arson; train wrecking; mayhem; rape by instrument; carjacking; torture; poisoning
the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture
the murder was committed by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle

However, I'd go far beyond the state of California and actually execute people who do these things.

 

[Particulate]

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

In the US it takes an average of $30,000 a year per inmate depending on state and the level of security they're under as well as things like medical treatment and transportation.

A bullet costs less than a dollar.

If you want to be clean about it a syringe costs a few dollars at most and a lethal dose of morphine would be less than $100 even if they're an obscenely large person.

I see no reason to bother with three separate chemicals that cause the systematic failure of organs when the same thing can be accomplished for much less. And even so lethal injections are not extremely costly to begin with.

That train of logic only makes sense if your some sort of vigilante. A normal convict has to go through and entire legal system which adds up to an absurd sum of money. I don't quite remember the numbers, it was a while since I wrote a paper on this subject but I believe someone posted rough sums in this thread. In reality after the legal process the cost of killing someone is multiple times the cost of housing them for life.

Which is why I cited alternative means for killing someone. Also you did not make it clear that you were discussing a cumulative sum as opposed to the flat rate of the procedure and materials. In the future you should clarify.

But you still bring up the issue of time which I believe is a serious problem. Why keep someone on death row for five, ten, or even longer? Granted, evidence occasionally surfaces that hinges on new technology or investigative processes but most inmates that are on death row are there to stay. I never understood the need to keep someone around for a decade when you already plan on killing them for their crimes. Never made sense to me especially in instances where the evidence against them was utterly damning.

 

[thehorror2]

Childish as it may sound, I think my mother said it best: A person deserves death when they've killed another human being, not by accident but out of hate, and it's likely that they will do so again regardless of psychological treatment or threat of punishment. (Someone like Hannibal Lecter, for example)

 

[NightHawk21]

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

In the US it takes an average of $30,000 a year per inmate depending on state and the level of security they're under as well as things like medical treatment and transportation.

A bullet costs less than a dollar.

If you want to be clean about it a syringe costs a few dollars at most and a lethal dose of morphine would be less than $100 even if they're an obscenely large person.

I see no reason to bother with three separate chemicals that cause the systematic failure of organs when the same thing can be accomplished for much less. And even so lethal injections are not extremely costly to begin with.

That train of logic only makes sense if your some sort of vigilante. A normal convict has to go through and entire legal system which adds up to an absurd sum of money. I don't quite remember the numbers, it was a while since I wrote a paper on this subject but I believe someone posted rough sums in this thread. In reality after the legal process the cost of killing someone is multiple times the cost of housing them for life.

Which is why I cited alternative means for killing someone. Also you did not make it clear that you were discussing a cumulative sum as opposed to the flat rate of the procedure and materials. In the future you should clarify.

But you still bring up the issue of time which I believe is a serious problem. Why keep someone on death row for five, ten, or even longer? Granted, evidence occasionally surfaces that hinges on new technology or investigative processes but most inmates that are on death row are there to stay. I never understood the need to keep someone around for a decade when you already plan on killing them for their crimes. Never made sense to me especially in instances where the evidence against them was utterly damning.

I was just making a point. I personally don't believe in the death penalty in its current state (mind you I'm Canadian and we don't have the death penalty [anymore I think, can't remember the punishment for treason]). That being said IMO if a person is convicted of one of the more serious crimes (serial killer/rapist, etc.) they should not be thrown in prison (the kind that exists today) but in an old fashion dungeon that is damp cold and left to wallow in their own filth until they die. But that's just my opinion.

As for the post, well I don't really know I didn't write the laws lol. All I can say is that in its current state the death penalty is a stupid idea.

 

[myth_21]

Although I have my reservations on the death penalty, sometimes I can't help feeling like that, thinking that some people do deserve it.

If a person killed my entire family, yeah I'd probably want him dead. But I don't feel its the law's responsibility to take revenge on my behalf, as fruitless a venture that may be. Killing the person doesn't make anything better. Besides, there are things worse than death, you know?

 

[Sandernista]

Never.

No one deserves to die.

No one.

 

[Nick Smit]

Hmm, Interesting question. I think the death penalty would be very difficult to operate efficiently and correctly at the same time. For example, after someone who was apparently proven beyond a doubt of being guilty is executed, new evidence surfaces proving they were innocent. But if it is 100% percent certain, I don't think it would be useful either. You cannot undo what has already been committed, killing them does not reverse the damage, rather the only situation I would suggest it would be if there was absolutely no other way of stopping them from committing a crime, like it's the joker and you know he's just going to break out and kill a bunch of people by next week (or something).

1. If it was just between me and some stranger, and there wasn't any foreseeable future consequences from that decision, I think I'd let him kill me before I killed him, but you never know, self preservation might have something else to say at that moment.

2. As I rambled on before, death doesn't bring satisfaction, or redemption, I think it should only be used as a lesser evil to the consequences of letting such a person go.

This is why morals and logic become rather interchangeable. If I think about this is the logical way of "preserve as much human life as possible", it brings me to thinking "is the preservation of human life really the moral high ground?", if we preserve and nurture to the point we're all living in squalor and poverty, and destroying the planet, was it really the right thing to do?

Oh, and Australia.

 

[TheScientificIssole]

Well it's shitty, but sometimes you prevent more horrible incidents with prison, but the truth is why should a monster's life cost more than mine?

 

[emeraldrafael]

id go more by case by case basis really.

Though theres one person i've already resigned that one day one of us may kill the other.

 

[CobraX]

No One Deserves Death and the minute we as a Society start determining what actions make someone Deserve death we start determining what a life is worth to us, Which there is not right answer to nor is there a wrong answer. Thus in good judgement I could never kill someone or support having someone killed as I have no clue what a life is worth and never will.

Now with all that Wise man shit out of the way let me say that if it was a either I Kill this guy or he kills me scenario then that bastard's going DOWN!

 

[ecoho]

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.

bad joke is bad. as for my fucking grammar and spelling
1. solder is how its spelled look it up.
2. i happen to be dyslexic so spelling is a ***** for me
and finally im not gonna fucking proof read for grammar for a fucking post on an internet forum.
Oh and even being dyslexic im capable of reading at an amazing rate.

 

[Torrasque]

hm, why do some crimes merit death?

Very good question Mr. zehydra.

Let me add a question:
Who decides what sort of crime deserves death anyway?

What about those loud noisy kids in the bus. Those that disturb you while you just want to get from point A to B. They are not going to contribute anything useful to our society. So why not kill them?

Why not kill those "My little pony friendship is magic" fanboys (and girls) because some of them are insultingly provocative and some percentage could turn out to be potential new child molestors?
The problem isn't only about what crimes define death penalty but who is in charge over life and death. Once you put someone into the position to decide over life and death of someone else you give that person too much power. That will go wrong. That's what history told us so far about this completely f*cked up human race.

Sorry if my answer comes late, I left to play Starcraft for a bit, and thought this thread died, so I didn't pay attention to it.

You are the person who decides what sorts of crimes deserve death, in this thread at least.
That is what I want you to answer for me, what kind of crimes deserve death (if any) ?

 

[Torrasque]

2. You are the judge over a murder case. You can either give the guy a death sentence, or something else.

Depends on the Murder

but i would kill him most likely when another human kills another for there own needs or wants. Then they properly shouldn't be alive

Ok, then please tell me what kind of murder would warrant a death sentence, and what kind of murder would not.

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

1: I will kill him one to spare my own life and those around me and those in the future he might harm.

2:If there was no doubt in my mind that he was guilty of murdering another person he would be killed, made an example of for all those who murder for greed and revenge.

Those who cause death and destruction without reason or only to fuel their own greed, those who cause unbridled sadness and agony and those who takes lives without first feeling the life they take should all be killed.

 

[Zeema]

2. You are the judge over a murder case. You can either give the guy a death sentence, or something else.

Depends on the Murder

but i would kill him most likely when another human kills another for there own needs or wants. Then they properly shouldn't be alive

Ok, then please tell me what kind of murder would warrant a death sentence, and what kind of murder would not.

its not about the Murder

i would send everyone to death

but if someones case was Crazily insane like lets say guy cuts off the legs and arms of children and throws them into a ditch.

i would say life long physical torture and make sure he lives every day with violent torture

 

[Zhukov]

bad joke is bad. as for my fucking grammar and spelling
1. solder is how its spelled look it up.
2. i happen to be dyslexic so spelling is a ***** for me
and finally im not gonna fucking proof read for grammar for a fucking post on an internet forum.
Oh and even being dyslexic im capable of reading at an amazing rate.

Bad joke is bad because it isn't particularly funny? If so, then yes, you're right, it wasn't that funny. But if that's your problem, you could have just said, "You're joke really isn't funny" or something to that effect. Y'know, rather than pitching a fit and hurling insults like a child.

Also, no, it really isn't spelled "solder". Solder is a kind of metal alloy with a low melting point. It's used like glue when working with metal. Look it up. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/solder]

A "soldier", when spelled correctly with an "I", is a person who fights in an army.