What *line* does a person need to cross to truly deserve death?

[tumppu]

We dont need the death penalty at all, it does NOT make us safer in any way shape or form.

Personally I think we could do without a person like Breivik. It will not prevent another person from doing a similar act, but it prevents HIM from doing the act again. After all, violent offenders are highly likely to do it again. Recidivism is a thing. When the crime is of particularly abhorrent type, like mass-murder, child rape and such, the perpetrator should always be considered eligible for the death penalty and by eligible I mean that it should never be doled out lightly.

Take Breivik as an example again. What he did showed planning and cold-bloodedness, he never has shown any remorse and the reasons he himself has given show a deeply faulted view of life in general. Purge him from the human existence.

[Aydinx2]

I notice a lot of people claim murder or killing is wrong even against the likes of organized crime members, murderers, and dictators, claiming in life apart from the insanity defense, evil people might not be so simple as it seems to you and have plausible reasons for evil even if they are inexcusable morally.

Still, assuming evil deeds aren't enough as it is, there has to be a line that justifies the death penalty, and I'm wondering what it is to disqualify someone's humanity. Do such people that do evil for no reason other than to hurt people exist?

The murder, rape or torture of children.
Anyone who disagrees is a machine without a soul.

Also people who watch Naruto.

[XDurionX]

None, because once we get into the system of determining who dies and who lives, then we become no different than those we deem to deserve death.

This, pretty much. Killing is always wrong, even if there was a perfect mindreading-liedetector-system to determine who is guilty.

[SealMemeSix]

Anyone who says that they learned Japanese from watching anime.

[Vash The Stampede]

This, pretty much. Killing is always wrong, even if there was a perfect mindreading-liedetector-system to determine who is guilty.

I can give a couple of examples off the top of my head. Some father found out that his son was sexually assaulted but some 40 year old dude, and he decided to become the judge and executioner of this man and took his life. Why? Because we've grown accustomed to the idea that sometimes people do deserve to die. But that line can get really blurry sometimes and we can easily kill innocent people, or perhaps the punishment itself was too extreme. So it's better to rehabilitate people instead of determining if someone has to die. If it takes 70 years and hundreds of drugs to correct someone, then so be it.

[Shadowferal]

Peter Scully and his accomplices deserved the death Jeffrey Dahmer received. There's no rehabilitating such creatures.

[McCulloch]

Justifiable self defense is about as far as I go.

[Ettan]

Murder, kidnapping, rape, torture, aggravated theft, unprovoked violence, violence against animals.

My only criteria is the perp being proven genuinely guilty.
If that is the case -> directly after sentencing; drive the perp to a hospital, execute them and harvest their organs.

Should not come as a shock but I do not view these people as humans. Given that, I am not really all that bothered about killing them off humanly. I would just prefer whatever method that best preserved their organs.

If your mind is unable to coexist in our socity, better we turned your body into something good.

Other uses for the distant future/ alternative to execution; worker drone.
Competly lobotomize the person and replace the brain with a computer, or something along those lines.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I'm against the death penalty on both moral and practical grounds. Morally I'm not willing to grant authority to the state to wield judgement of life and death over its own citizenry. Governments are inevitably corrupt and probably inept. It's not a power I want them to be able to abuse. For practical reasons our attempts to make the practice more just, the appeals process, is amazingly expensive and drawn out. It is cheaper and far less complicated to just incarcerate these people for life.

[Synros]

Child abuse, or animal abuse.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm against the death penalty on both moral and practical grounds. Morally I'm not willing to grant authority to the state to wield judgement of life and death over its own citizenry. Governments are inevitably corrupt and probably inept. It's not a power I want them to be able to abuse. For practical reasons our attempts to make the practice more just, the appeals process, is amazingly expensive and drawn out. It is cheaper and far less complicated to just incarcerate these people for life.

The death penalty being more expensive is objectively false. A 7.62mm round cost less than a $1.00. Take them behind a shed, and be done with it. A murderer or rapist does not deserve sympathy, nor do they deserve a life of being looked after on the tax payer's dollar.

[Reverb256]

I think raping children should qualify for the death penalty.

[Maxilian]

to "DESERVE" death? Nothin IMHO, you can make a mass genocide, and i don't think you would "deserve" death, in the end, you will most likely get something worse (prison for all your life -though that being worse is a matter of opinion)

- - - Updated - - -

My only criteria is the perp being proven genuinely guilty.

Sadly, laws are lacking and people that wok on it are... well... people, so mistakes happen, or just "things happens as others want", and many times we realize quite late, after executing someone, we cannot just go with "damn, my bad"

[alturic]

The only line they have to cross is taking another life. There is nothing else that would be deserving of the death penalty.

[Fencers]

Intentional harm and abuse to children.

It is the very purpose of our species to make more of ourselves. The intent to harm or abuse children is the very anathema of humanity.

[Masark]

The death penalty being more expensive is objectively false. A 7.62mm round cost less than a $1.00. Take them behind a shed, and be done with it. A murderer or rapist does not deserve sympathy, nor do they deserve a life of being looked after on the tax payer's dollar.

Great, I declare you are a murderer and/or rapist. That means we can take you behind a shed and use that 7.62mm round on you, right?

What do you mean you need a "trial"? That shit is expensive and we've gotta be Efficient with the Taxpayer's Dollar.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Child abuse, or animal abuse.

- - - Updated - - -



The death penalty being more expensive is objectively false. A 7.62mm round cost less than a $1.00. Take them behind a shed, and be done with it. A murderer or rapist does not deserve sympathy, nor do they deserve a life of being looked after on the tax payer's dollar.

We don't take people out behind the shed and shoot them. We take them through decades of appeals and litigation. We do that because *gasp* the justice system gets it wrong from time to time. The scenario you're describing does not exist, isn't likely to, and shouldn't.

[dudurududu]

I agree on some of the newer rap music

Put all the mumble rappers out of their misery!

- - - Updated - - -

Intentional harm and abuse to children.

It is the very purpose of our species to make more of ourselves. The intent to harm or abuse children is the very anathema of humanity.

Shouldn't that apply to animals too? If you harm or abuse an innocent animal?

[vitor210]

to lay a finger on my sister or anyother member of my close family. Doesn't matter if you're an old man or a 10 year old in the street