# Why shouldn't we kill the bad guy after defeating him



## Janx (Mar 10, 2012)

A new topic, ripped straight from TV, where the bad guy who was previously captured, escaped and caused mayhem and has now been caught again.

Why shouldn't you put a bullet in his head right then and there?

As usual, consider the topic from the Real Life angle and the Fictional/Gaming angle.

In real life, I'm pretty sure there's some laws saying you can't plug the bad guy after you stop and knock him out.  You might be able to get creative with the crime scene, but that's dicey.  In actuality, it's a lot easier to kill a guy in a fight than it is to disable and neutralize.  So your best practical bet is to "try to kill him right back" during the fight and leave things where they lie for the cops.  The law mostly supports proportional response to hostile action, so if the bad guy is trying to kill you, you should be good to go.

In comics, they've made their coin on repeated thrashings of the Joker by Batman.  But keep in mind, with all the violence going on, there's a surprisingly low death rate amongst villain/heroes.  With all the shrapnel, bullets and batarangs flying, more people should be hurt and dying from a bullet to the nose.

In gaming, I'm pretty sure Sun Tzu would agree that whacking the bandit leader would prevent future crime and problems by him.  You're just as likely to cheeze off his family/fans/friends by capturing him as killing him, so that's not really a reason.

As to the final responce echoed to children through out all hero stories "if I kill him, I'll be just as bad as he is."  Nonsense.  Joker just killed a thousand people with his latest attack.  Batman could just kill the 1 guy who just killed a thousand people with his latest attack and will likely do it again, just as he has before.

I'm pretty sure Batman will sleep well enough knowing that he doesn't have to fight Joker yet again.  I'm pretty sure the people of Gotham would sleep well enough knowing that the Joker won't be killing them by the thousands AGAIN.

I think most PCs already fall into the "let's just kill him and be done with it" camp.

Even Ender's Game taught us that lesson. Fight your battles once.

So, what are compelling reason to NOT kill the bad guy.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 10, 2012)

Janx said:


> So, what are compelling reason to NOT kill the bad guy.



After defeating him? For starters if there was a chance that there were witnesses around, or the circumstances were iffy, you might have a hard time convincing anyone that he was the one attacking you, and not the other way around. Making you the bad guy. It's easier to prove that you were defending yourself when you've subdued the guy instead of killing him. Killing someone in self-defense is sometimes still ruled as manslaughter.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 10, 2012)

Janx said:


> So, what are compelling reason to NOT kill the bad guy.




First, because Humans are not prescient. Nobody knows what someone will or won't do in the Future.

And Second, because it's not as easy a thing as you might think. 



Janx said:


> I'm pretty sure Batman will sleep well enough knowing that he doesn't have to fight Joker yet again. I'm pretty sure the people of Gotham would sleep well enough knowing that the Joker won't be killing them by the thousands AGAIN.




This maybe true for a fictional character. And in real life is also likely true for the masses who didn't actually participate in the killing (like the people of Gotham). But for the person who does this in real life, it is not that simple.

Killing someone changes you, even when justified or in self defense. Ask any cop or soldier who's ever had to kill someone and they'll tell you, they _*do not*_ just go home and sleep well. They may understand logically that it was something that had to be done, but it stays with you and weighs upon you, and never really completely goes away..._*ever*_.

Taking a life is a monumental thing. You're not just killing them in the moment, you are killing them in the future. Everything they would have been is now gone. And no matter how unemotional a person may be or seem, unless one is a true psychopath, it's virtually impossible to not feel an involuntary empathy for the person they just killed. You see it in the dying persons eyes. You see the end of thought, personality, character, being..._LIFE_...in those eyes.  And in that moment, justified or not, necessary or not, self defense or not, it is an extremely hard thing to see, and impossible to forget. Once the adrenaline is gone, once the rage or fear has faded, the true impact is always felt and cannot be escaped.

There is always a price.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 10, 2012)

Context. Unknown elements. The possibility of redemption and reform.

If you stop a villain, consider the cost of keeping him alive and imprisoned as opposed to the cost of killing him. Keeping him alive means that perhaps he might one day become a productive member of society. Killing him means that people who learn of the execution might come to feel, even slightly, that killing is more easily justified. Multiply that by millions of human beings, and perhaps it leads to far more suffering.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 10, 2012)

In real life we don't have the Joker so you need a better example.  So, why don't we just kill the serial killer?  Well, plenty of states do have death row.  And the ones that don't put him away for life.  

When you capture these guys if it is known that they are just going to get shot in the head and killed then they are not going to want to get captured.  So, you'll place a lot of lives at risk trying to capture someone who is fighting for his life.  It would make the job of policemen much harder and more dangerous.  

Also, where do you draw the line?  If he killed two people you let the courts handle it but if he killed three you just shot him.  Or maybe something different.  Then you come to the difficult part of knowing who he killed.  What if you are wrong and you kill the wrong person?

For a comics example just look at the Punisher.  He does kill the bad guys, it doesn't always work out for him.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 10, 2012)

I'm going to say yes. Hell yes but only in fiction and games.

In Last Exile: Fam Fam the Silver Wing, the characters just learned the hard way what would happen if you don't.

  Long story short, the eldest female in several blood lines are able to call down colonial space ships which could essentially nuke entire nations.  The bad guys were doing this during a war to conquer the entire world.  The main character who is an idiot pacifist decided to call a cease fire for the world's 6 year old queen.  During the peace summit, the princess who was calling down the ships was killed during an assassination attempt against the BBeG.  Her death was justified since she willfully helped commit genocide on the "Russians*" and the her own people.

The Child Queen had every nation complete the peace agreement and everyone went into mourning in honor of the memory of the dead genocidal princess.  The good guy who assassinated the princess was arrested. However the BBeG was still allowed to walk unmolested by order of the child queen.  So what does he do?

He kills her guardian and kidnaps her because she can control an other colony ship which has a BFG >9K mega death ray. He then has his loyalists break the peace agreement and he nukes the fleets of his allies and his enemies AND the city where the peace treaty was just signed.  Why? Because there are too many humans and the population needs to be reduced since there is no way the planet Earth can substain a population larger then it was in the series.

So yeah, kill  the badguy cause if you defeated him then act like he did nothing wrong he will KILL EVERYONE.

Also, 6 year old children should never be the ruler of the entire world.


* They spoke Russian.

 -Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## delericho (Mar 10, 2012)

Janx said:


> A new topic, ripped straight from TV, where the bad guy who was previously captured, escaped and caused mayhem and has now been caught again.
> 
> Why shouldn't you put a bullet in his head right then and there?
> 
> As usual, consider the topic from the Real Life angle and the Fictional/Gaming angle.




In real life, we have a rule of law, and it is incredibly important to maintain that. The moment we allow for any abuse, we open the door for any abuse.

In fiction, the moment someone escapes and reoffends, the god guys should indeed bullet him. There's justification for giving him _one_ second chance, but after that it starts to look an awful lot like negligence.

And this is even more true if the bad guy is superpowered, so only the heroes of the piece are able to bring him down, and _even more_ true if they themselves were almost unable to do so.

Besides, in fiction it gets tedious when the writers just keep recycling the same threats over and over again. That's one of the blessings of all these superhero movies being built as trilogies - there are enough bad guys to do three movies without repeating themselves.


----------



## Janx (Mar 10, 2012)

Crothian said:


> When you capture these guys if it is known that they are just going to get shot in the head and killed then they are not going to want to get captured.  So, you'll place a lot of lives at risk trying to capture someone who is fighting for his life.  It would make the job of policemen much harder and more dangerous.




I like this answer.  No fuzzy fluffy emotional "you'll feel bad if you do." just cold hard logic.  I'm going to ignore this point Crothian makes, but I think it is an excellent reason.

Though I might counter that this MIGHT sway some people from committing crime in the first place.  It will also greatly reduce the total population of criminals, thereby reducing the crime rate (which in America, isn't all that high for other reasons).  The bad guy may get away with a few attacks, but eventually he will be plugged.  Problem solved.  His victims will be martyrs in the war on crime.  There's cultures now that see that as OK.



Crothian said:


> Also, where do you draw the line?  If he killed two people you let the courts handle it but if he killed three you just shot him.  Or maybe something different.  Then you come to the difficult part of knowing who he killed.  What if you are wrong and you kill the wrong person?




i think the line is drawn under the rules of engagement for an immediate hostile event.  Bad guy attacks you, you get to kill him.  If you hear about a bad guy six blocks away, you do not get to kill him because you did not personally witness the crime being perpetrated by the bad guy.

I differentiate the two because as the direct and immediate victim you are more qualified to act as judge, jury and executioner than anybody else on the planet.  To anybody else, the bad guy "allegedly" did the crime, but technically it could have been his evil twin or some other mistaken identity (which happens to real people who are in jail right now for crimes they did not commit).

Whereas, having just been almost shot by the bad guy and successfully thwarted that attack and have a clean LOS to his noggin, there is no doubt, short of super-fantastic quantum reality shifting going on, that the guy in front of you is guilty.

I will offer my own counter to my "It's OK to shoot bad guys" idea.

Abuse of the system.

I suspect that's why the legal system exists.  It's not about the obvious cases of "bad guy held up a convenience store and Apu wrested the gun away and shot him on tape."  While I'm OK with the initiator of a violent crime getting the axe, that's not really the problem.  Let Apu win in those cases, the jury should vote by their conciense and let Apu walk.

The problem is when the cops get a 911 call from a wife who claims her husband attacked her with a 9mm but she managed to dodge and run through the house to shoot him with a .38 she kept by the bed.  If the cop didn't call in TVland's CSI team to do their magic, the wife could have faked that scene well enough to seem plausible.

Basically, people could abuse the "defensive homicde" rule to hide murders.  That seems like a decent reason to discourage allowing them, so as to remove that tool from bad guys' belt of evil tricks.


----------



## Janx (Mar 10, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> Context. Unknown elements. The possibility of redemption and reform.
> 
> If you stop a villain, consider the cost of keeping him alive and imprisoned as opposed to the cost of killing him. Keeping him alive means that perhaps he might one day become a productive member of society. Killing him means that people who learn of the execution might come to feel, even slightly, that killing is more easily justified. Multiply that by millions of human beings, and perhaps it leads to far more suffering.




An object in motion tends to stay in motion.

A guy on the path of wrong doing, will tend to stay on that path. Unless acted upon by another force.

Sure, it's possible that the bad guy may change his stripes, but the probability of that is low.

There's also the consideration that there are 7 billion people on this planet.  We don't have a shortage.  Ex-cons are seldom able to get higher paying jobs because of their record.  As such the contribution to society isn't that great.  Keeping them alive because of the remote possibility that one of them might achieve more is like insisting the lottery is a good investment strategy.  A dead bad guy means more food and resources for the law-abiding of society.

Bear in mind, I'm not actually considering the prison system in this.  That's whole 'nother bucket of worms (which probably gets political).  So bad guys who surrender, or are caught beyond the crime scene (and thus not stoped and killed at the crime scene) would go through the criminal justice system as normal.

So, I suspect the number of bad guys actually put down at the crime scene would be small.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 10, 2012)

This topic provides a good illustration of one of the reasons it doesn't always pay to recycle villains, either in fiction or RPGs. By having the bad guy routinely escape to commit more carnage, you're essentially laying a degree of responsibility for those future crimes upon the protagonists who had a chance to stop him for good.

In fiction, that can impact upon how people view their heroes, and in RPGs it can impact upon how people _play_ their heroes.

Sometimes - even often - the measures the heroes and the society they're defending take to contain such villains humanely should actually be effective. That allows the viewer/reader or player to retain some faith in that society, and also highlights the danger and competence of the rare few antagonists who do manage to escape.


----------



## Janx (Mar 10, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> First, because Humans are not prescient. Nobody knows what someone will or won't do in the Future.
> 
> And Second, because it's not as easy a thing as you might think.
> 
> ...




It depends on the person.

Of the people drawn to police work or soldiering, some percentage of them do not posess the "killing people is wrong" gene.  They do not have a problem taking a life.  Which is some of the reason they were drawn to that work.

So it's not fully true that everybody pays that emotional price.

Certainly, people who empathize with others are going to have this stress and in fact are unlikely to be willing to follow through for the same reasons you cite.

But once upon a time, we used to be able to go over and raid the other tribe and were celebrated as heroes by our village when we returned.  We were not haunted by nightmares of the faces of the men we slew.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 10, 2012)

Janx said:


> But once upon a time, we used to be able to go over and raid the other tribe and were celebrated as heroes by our village when we returned.  We were not haunted by nightmares of the faces of the men we slew.



Once upon a time? I wish.

And I'm pretty sure they were haunted the exact same way soldiers now are (i.e. some are and some aren't).


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 10, 2012)

If it is legal then I'll kill the unreformable evil man myself. I would have no trouble sleeping. I've simply seen too many innocents killed by men who should have never been allowed a second, much less a third, fourth, or fifth chance.

I don't like killing, but if it's between an innocent and a guilty man I am in no way bothered by it. I see it as my duty. I'm not bothered at all by the killing of guilty, and vicious, and evil men. I have no qualms of conscious about it. I do have many qualms of conscious about allowing evil men to kill innocents. That does bother me. I've seen good men and good women and good children murdered and die through the actions of evil and violent and vicious men. Personally I have no doubts about who I consider to be the problem or what to do about them.

As far as fiction goes I personally don't like to write stories about evil men escaping or justice being prolonged forever for whatever reason. But it does happen in real life that way far too often (I've seen it myself), and I fully understand that this is a moral dilemma that many people desire to see explored in fiction. I've used it myself in stories. (And there is even that rare occasion where vicious or dangerous, or sometimes even far more rare, evil men convert and reform. And I'm certainly all for that. But they better get a real move on as far as reform goes from my point of view)

But as far as I'm concerned the faster men bent on doing bad things are liquidated the better. That's not a moral issue for me.

However, I think there is a great moral issue in letting such men escape Justice and death as long as they often do. To me that is the real moral failing.

I know some disagree with me, and that's fine by me. It's my take on it. The innocent you defend and protect, the guilty and vicious take their chances. And if it's between defender and offender, let the toughest, most cunning, and best-prepared man win.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 10, 2012)

Jack7 said:


> If it is legal then I'll kill the unreformable evil man myself.



1. It's not legal. Not in your country at least. Killing someone after you've already gained control of the situation (as the topic of this thread says) is manslaughter.
2. Whether or not the person is unreformable is an unknown factor in almost all cases.


----------



## Cor Azer (Mar 11, 2012)

Two blog posts that are kind of relevant, using real world laws to discuss Batman:Knightfall and the liability of Arkham Asylum

http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2012/02/20/knightfall/
http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2012/03/05/arkham-asylum-and-liability-for-private-prisons/

Doesn't really touch on killing the baddie, but more on the 'baddie keeps escaping'


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 11, 2012)

Janx said:


> It depends on the person.
> 
> Of the people drawn to police work or soldiering, some percentage of them do not posess the "killing people is wrong" gene. They do not have a problem taking a life. Which is some of the reason they were drawn to that work.
> 
> So it's not fully true that everybody pays that emotional price.




Whoooaaaa...  I didn't say anything about cops and soldiers feeling that what they've done is wrong.  And it's definitely not about just _"feeling bad"_.

Taking another life changes you, _*no matter what*_.  Nobody except pure psychopaths escape that.  Only people who have never killed before will say that it's absolultely no problem and they'll sleep fine after.  Sure, you can get used to it.  It's amazing and scary what a person can get used to.  But that first time...you will be a different person after.

The ones who have will tell you, whether justified or necessary, there _is_ an emotional price to pay.  In your scenario, it may be worth the price, but it's not something to be taken lightly.

Kill a person and you will be changed forever.


Now personally, how do I feel about this?

If I need to kill someone in the defense of those I love (or as my duty), I will - without hesitation.  But I'm definitely not ignorant to the effect _*it will *_have.  Even if I had no other choice.  Thinking otherwise is naive.




jonesy said:


> 2. Whether or not the person is unreformable is an unknown factor in almost all cases.




Exactly.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2012)

There is a basic answer here.  If you are not The Law, then you have shown willingness to be judge, jury, and executioner.  Next time Society may not agree with you, so it cannot allow you a next time.

So killing without cause makes you Society's enemy.  Not so good for you.


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 11, 2012)

> 1. It's not legal. Not in your country at least. Killing someone after  you've already gained control of the situation (as the topic of this  thread says) is manslaughter.



Sure, it's legal many places here. It's called the Death Penalty. And if it's legal and I were called upon to do it, (and I knew the fellow to be guilty) I'd do it. I wouldn't execute someone I had doubts about. If it's legal though and I was convinced of guilt I'd have no qualms about doing it myself.




> 2. Whether or not the person is unreformable is an unknown factor in almost all cases.



Philosophically and theoretically speaking that's an absolutely true statement. Statistically speaking it's not true. The kind of men I'm talking about are not serial burglars, I'm talking about men with well developed and well documented tendencies. Serial killers for instance almost never reform.

And if that bothers you I'm sorry, that's not my point. You're welcome to your opinion on the matter. But truth is I'd kill a thousand Idi Amins or a baker's dozen of Leonard Lakes before I'd let them murder a single innocent person, if I could. That's my opinion on their value versus the value of their victims.

I don't square the value of a guilty perp on the backs of the innocent victim. That's just not a valid equation in my way of calculating lives.

Every man is welcome to his own opinion. And I don't reckon I'll change yours, that's fine. 

I'm just saying that for me if the threat risk analysis is high enough, then the guilty are not my concern. The innocent are.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 11, 2012)

Jack7 said:


> Sure, it's legal many places here. It's called the Death Penalty.



The death penalty is your government saying "Do as I say, don't do as I do." If you do it on your own you are acting illegally.



> Philosophically and theoretically speaking that's an absolutely true statement. Statistically speaking it's not true. The kind of men I'm talking about are not serial burglars, I'm talking about men with well developed and well documented tendencies. Serial killers for instance almost never reform.



It is true statistically speaking. Serials killers cause a very small portion of murders. Morally they are a great worry, but purely statistically they are hardly worth mentioning. And there are reformed serial killers, as strange as that might sound.

But there's another reason for saving the bad guys. A reason why criminals get deals from law enforcement. To bring in bigger bad guys.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 12, 2012)

"For even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf

If the irredeemably evil Gollum had been killed, the One Ring would not have been destroyed and the ultimate evil (Sauron) would have triumphed. You won't find that sort of sentiment in many fantasy novels, and I always loved LotR for that.

In most stories, we know with certainty that the bad guys are evil and will always be evil, and so killing them is justified. In real life, the distinctions are less clear.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 12, 2012)

POST REMOVED.

Tappa talk decided to post a reply to _another thread_ here!


----------



## jonesy (Mar 12, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> Trust me there have been good  "small" stories however, they haven't appeared in Uncanny X-Men, though ymmv.
> 
> For instance, X-Schism only had two "tie in books"  The first one was horrible (Prelude) and was basically the writter talking about how awesome Cyclops is and how everyone lovesCyclopse.  The official tie in story in Generation Hope actually was better then X-Schism and focused for the most part on Idie



Psst. I think you replied to the wrong thread.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 12, 2012)

I noticed...  tapa talk is acting wierd.  I wonder why it opened the wrong thread when I pressed reply...

I'll have to copy paste into the right thread when I'm at a pc..

 -Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 13, 2012)

The difference between real life and fiction is that in real life the bad guy does not keep escaping the asylum to do it again. Sure some bad guys get away with it, but how common is it.

Son of Sam is still locked up. Ted Bundy was executed for his crimes.  

It is not like the Joker or the Riddler. 

In real life I want justice not vengeance. So I want the courts to decide not some hot shot with a gun and a badge.

In fiction we know the bad guys is bad and doing it the deed. But in real life we could be wrong. And saying oops sorry does not help the dead. 

This is just me but I don't like fiction where the hero is a killer like The Punisher. Batman is better than the Joker because he does not kill and I like that.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Mar 13, 2012)

To extend the Batman reference, sometimes the BBEG isn't bad. For example, Catwoman is in some parts of the canon a nemesis who later becomes his most powerful ally.

And, speaking more broadly, how many people are there, in life or in fiction, who are truly "bad". If you've got a demon in front of you, kill it unless there's a use for it. If you've got a person, stop and think.

There's also the golden rule angle. Many adventureres are profiteering opportunists who fight whatever's in their way. If you meet another such party and fight them, would you expect to be mercilessly slaightered if you lost, or simply left to tend to your wounds in defeat while the enemies looted whatever there was to loot?


----------



## Janx (Mar 13, 2012)

Spatula said:


> If the irredeemably evil Gollum had been killed, the One Ring would not have been destroyed and the ultimate evil (Sauron) would have triumphed. You won't find that sort of sentiment in many fantasy novels, and I always loved LotR for that.




If they had just taken a flying eagle, Gandalf could have shoved Frodo off as they flew over.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 13, 2012)

Janx said:


> If they had just taken a flying eagle, Gandalf could have shoved Frodo off as they flew over.



If they had taken a flying eagle Sauron would have noticed them.


----------



## Chairman7w (Mar 13, 2012)

I pretty much disagree with all that.  I'm from the "Kill em and be done with it" side of things.

I think many more lives would be SAVED with this attitude.  The deterrent effect of knowing that if you step out of line you get killed would save WAY more.  

And from a practical side, think of all the money that would be saved.  No trials, WAY less jails and recitative crime.

I wish I was King of the World.




El Mahdi said:


> First, because Humans are not prescient. Nobody knows what someone will or won't do in the Future.
> 
> And Second, because it's not as easy a thing as you might think.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chairman7w (Mar 13, 2012)

jonesy said:


> And there are reformed serial killers, as strange as that might sound.






Not in my world.


----------



## Janx (Mar 13, 2012)

Chairman7w said:


> I pretty much disagree with all that.  I'm from the "Kill em and be done with it" side of things.
> 
> I think many more lives would be SAVED with this attitude.  The deterrent effect of knowing that if you step out of line you get killed would save WAY more.
> 
> ...




I recall a sociology class where the point was made that some study showed that death penalties don't discourage crime.  I think to sum up, the actual penalty doesn't discourage crime, because the criminal does not think he will get caught.

This is backed up by another factoid I heard on NPR, that a lot of the accounting fraud happens in places where there are not checks to what the accountant is doing.  Basically, he sees the system is lax, that he can't get caught, so he does it.  

So for non-psychopaths, the barrier to entry for a life of crime is prevention/rapid detection rather than punishment.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 14, 2012)

Janx said:


> I recall a sociology class where the point was made that some study showed that death penalties don't discourage crime.  I think to sum up, the actual penalty doesn't discourage crime, because the criminal does not think he will get caught.




Life imprisonment or imprisonment in general also does not discourage crime for the same reasons.  In truth, the existance of the prison system is not to discourage crime but to prevent a captured criminal from commiting  more crimes, albiet temporarily in some cases.


 -Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## Umbran (Mar 14, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> To extend the Batman reference, sometimes the BBEG isn't bad.




Or, let us go to current events (and let us all be wary of drifting into politics) - go check CNN.com, for stories on Florida teen, Trayvon Martin, who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch captain.  Assume, for a moment, that watch captain actually thought he was doing the right thing.

It does not seem like the world in general is accepting the captain's word for it that the dead boy was a villain, and it is apt to get messy.

Just 'cause you think it is the right thing to do, doesn't mean society will agree with you.


----------



## Chairman7w (Mar 14, 2012)

I think the notion that Death Penalties don't discourage crime is ludicrous.  I believe that if punishment was indeed harsh, and immediate, there would be an effect.  Now, with Death Row being a joke, a place to live for dozens of years and appeal after appeal..  Sure, that ain't deterring much.

But immediate, swift, brutal (Bang!! Bang!! Double tap to the head) retribution for appropriate crimes (murder, child rape, etc)...  Oh yeah, it would deter.




Janx said:


> I recall a sociology class where the point was made that some study showed that death penalties don't discourage crime.  I think to sum up, the actual penalty doesn't discourage crime, because the criminal does not think he will get caught.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 14, 2012)

First, thing's first. Janx, have you thought about watching My Little Pony or Rainbow Bright instead? I think all these one-hour action shows are starting to affect you.

Now, a lot of good stuff has been said. But I'd like to add/expand on a few reasons.

First reason is certainty. If the perpetrator of a crime is killed soon after committing the crime, there can be doubt as to whether or not the deceased actually committed the crime.

Consider all the doubt surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald. Had he lived to trial and been convicted, there would be few widely held conspiracy theories about Kennedy's death. But as it stands, lots of people don't think he had any involvement with it. And many of those who do don't think he acted alone.

Now consider Charles Manson. Almost everyone agrees he belongs in prison. It's like the exact opposite of Oswald. He's the poster child for life in prison. Why? Because he was convicted at trial where the prosecution actually had to put on evidence and make an argument that he belongs in prison.

Second reason is that bad guys don't have to reform to be useful to society, they can be useful in prison. Again, look at Manson. Every so often a journalist interviews him. When sane people read or watch the interview, they think "Manson is crazy, he belongs in prison." In fact I saw an interview on 20/20 by Walters and there wasn't a doubt in my mind that Manson was were he belonged. That's a valuable public service imo. People need to have faith in their justice system.

You can't do that if the person is dead. Because they can't speak for themselves, doubts persist and the action is tainted. It's one thing if they die of natural causes, or from another prisoner (like Dahmer), but if they die in the name of retribution then it's a little dicey.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 15, 2012)

Chairman7w said:


> I think the notion that Death Penalties don't discourage crime is ludicrous.  I believe that if punishment was indeed harsh, and immediate, there would be an effect.  Now, with Death Row being a joke, a place to live for dozens of years and appeal after appeal..  Sure, that ain't deterring much.
> 
> But immediate, swift, brutal (Bang!! Bang!! Double tap to the head) retribution for appropriate crimes (murder, child rape, etc)...  Oh yeah, it would deter.




You do realize that the reason it takes years to put someone to death because they want to make sure a mistake has not been committed. 

Project Innocence has freed dozens of wrongful convicted people innocent people who did no crime and did not belong in jail.

The very conservative Governor of Illinois put a moratorium on executions  after it was discovered that a state lab forensics unit was forging data to get convictions.   


The problem with your way of doing things is that you will end up killing innocent along with guilty. 

Being on death row is no picnic you are kept away from the other prison population and are in your cell alone usually 23 hours a day. It is really pretty horrible. So they are being punished while they wait for their execution.  

I can't think of anything more horrible than waiting to die knowing you are innocent. 

If we are going to take lives for crimes then we need to make sure that they are truly guilty and that a mistake was not made or that they were not railroaded through the system.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 15, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Or, let us go to current events (and let us all be wary of drifting into politics) - go check CNN.com, for stories on Florida teen, Trayvon Martin, who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch captain.  Assume, for a moment, that watch captain actually thought he was doing the right thing.
> 
> It does not seem like the world in general is accepting the captain's word for it that the dead boy was a villain, and it is apt to get messy.
> 
> Just 'cause you think it is the right thing to do, doesn't mean society will agree with you.




I have been following this story it is big news here in Florida.  There are a lot of outraged people who are wondering why Zimmerman is not in custody for killing a teen who only had on him a little cash, skittles and ice tea. And it is not like the boy was trespassing he was heading home to his father who lived there.

But no Zimmerman was a big man with a gun who took the law into his own hands and now a teen is dead over it. 

Which is why I really dislike the whole vigilante style of justice some people seem to favor. Yes police officers have shot unarmed people but on the whole they are trained to handle a situation without using deadly force.

If Zimmerman had listened to the 911 operator and stayed away this boy would be alive. But he had to be a big hero and I hope he gets jail time. 

In fiction we usually know beyond any doubt who the bad guy is. In gaming if you use alignment you have clue right there. But real life does not work this way.

People are quick to jump to conclusions based on how someone looks. But just because a kid is wearing ghetto style does not mean he has done anything wrong.

Ted Bundy was very charming and good looking you could not see the evil in his heart just by looking at him.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 15, 2012)

Folks,

Whether or not a death penalty should exist qualifes as politics. Please don't go there. Thanks.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Mar 15, 2012)

Mmh. Some of my players let enemy npc:s live when given change and others do not. It is also bit case by case, depending actions of characters and enemy and how much hate/fear that causes. I've noticed they more often let hated enemy live than one they fear.

For me it depends a lot on those things when I play and sometimes it also depends on dm. I have had especially one that would always abuse any act of mercy/humanity.

I think in fiction it's often about people who already have killed and changed by those actions. Thus they are heroes, adventurers, jaded soldiers. Many fiction also has growing stories, where some concern more with changes and some less.

If you read the news, not all areas in world care for human/animal life that much. Modern thinking requires certain level of comfort and easy survival.  And different people choose differently when facing "hard choice" situations. Some choose to rather die, others choose to fight but "nor sacrifise that" and others turn into survivers at any cost.

I don't think it really equates to compare multiple war traumas of soldier to someone you killed or put into hospital some random person assaulting them.  War traumas can well change personality permanently but some "it could have been you but it was that other one this time" is not that traumatic. Well it can be, but far more rarely. This winter couple of random people died when snow/ice dropped from roof and killed them. Still people kept walking those streets even if risk of such bad luck.

Killing someone who isn't directly threatening you usually happens in case of horrible misunderstanding/mistake/accident, or then person has dreaming some dark shadows of hate/fear for their target. Then there are crazy people.  And hardered people (criminals typiically) who kill for property and other comfort reasons. 

This would be most common in modern society. In historical times/countries still livijng historical times/dysutopian future stoires thing are different. Value of children was/is diffrent and value of life generally is different. Value of nature and animals is different. 

I think many people play rpg:s and write fantasy books with modern cameos. If not we would have heard quite different version of Grimm stories when we were kids.

I don't think all people are terrible affected by violence/causing death. And situations where you are just protection yourself/someone you love makes it less pricey mentally for those that would otherwise be not able to. Also most people also lie to other people how they felt about it. Actual sociopats might like to prag about it. Normal people tend to overdo the personal agony. Because of laws and because of social acceptance. That's my experience at least. And then there are drunken drivers, some are truly sad, some claim they don't remember anything. More distance there is less emotion it involves. I remember the book "Ender's Game", nice book, later editions where too much about mr writers personal religion, but first whan was kinda neat. It remains me of modern warfare and computer-game like it looks. When you are flying that vehicle you don't see real people you see targets. 

Emotional reaction comes only when realization between their action and event unfoding connects. Modern warfare is lot about disconnected mental dots. See some of those kids might not like to kill real people. And you can't have that in war, right?
Wars throughout the ages have used all kinda trics to dehumanized their soldiers. And when they stop believing shame keeps them in it. Sure there were people who liked it, there always is.

Afwull sidetracking.

But reasons why not to kill enemy is often political, or because enemy can be used to get something worse downed. Because you were promesed reward/better reputation to imprison it instead. Religion reasons sometimes. I've never had serious character that woud start crying over having to kill someone. Action heroes don't do that. HOwever comic books meant for childr audiance avoid killing. I think it really relates what kinda story you want to tell. Real world doesn't have standarnized set of moral values to this day. Of course some stories are all aobut doing horrilbe things to nice, normal people.

Most roleplaying games however, are about adventurers and monster slayers. Killing ordenary citizen for not heavy reason is rather bad behavior (and sometimes evil). Killing monsters is kinda between job/fun. Killing some "your species" baddie is not really any more moral choice than killing monster boss usually is.

Made me think this song for some reason:

"One of these days I'm gonna stop my listening
Gonna raise my head up high.
One of these days I'm gonna raise up my glistening wings and fly.
But that day will have to wait for a while.
Baby I'm only society's child.
When we're older things may change,
But for now this is the way, they must remain."


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 15, 2012)

Chairman7w said:


> I think the notion that Death Penalties don't discourage crime is ludicrous.  I believe that if punishment was indeed harsh, and immediate, there would be an effect.
> 
> But immediate, swift, brutal (Bang!! Bang!! Double tap to the head) retribution for appropriate crimes (murder, child rape, etc)...  Oh yeah, it would deter.




Go research the areas of the real world where punishment is harsh and immediate and tell us if it's an actual deterrant. 

tl;dr: It's not.


----------



## Janx (Mar 15, 2012)

fanboy2000 said:


> First, thing's first. Janx, have you thought about watching My Little Pony or Rainbow Bright instead? I think all these one-hour action shows are starting to affect you.




Well, never assume any of the crazy ideas suggested by me in these threads as something that I personally would pursue.

Mostly, I watch a show, and ponder "why the heck is this premise valid" and pose it here as a tactical or moral question to the board.

I get a lot of good answers.  Some of which I hadn't considered.  I like those.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> never assume any of the crazy ideas suggested by me in these threads as something that I personally would pursue.



I never thought you would.



> Mostly, I watch a show, and ponder "why the heck is this premise valid"



*Now* I really want you to watch Rainbow Bright!.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 15, 2012)

Janx said:


> Mostly, I watch a show, and ponder "why the heck is this premise valid"





fanboy2000 said:


> *Now* I really want you to watch Rainbow Bright!.


----------



## Janx (Mar 24, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I have been following this story it is big news here in Florida.  There are a lot of outraged people who are wondering why Zimmerman is not in custody for killing a teen who only had on him a little cash, skittles and ice tea. And it is not like the boy was trespassing he was heading home to his father who lived there.
> 
> But no Zimmerman was a big man with a gun who took the law into his own hands and now a teen is dead over it.




Not to dredge up this whole thread, but I read a few articles on this incident.

Your phrasing shows a distinct bias and assumption about Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's lawyer says he has wounds to his face and head, that he got them from the confrontation with the boy.

Generally, a man with a gun does not get touched by a boy with a bag of snacks.

One thing I don't mention with my crazy proposal is that I fully expect an investigation after any kind of incident.  I think they call that a Grand Jury.  that is what SHOULD be going on in this case.

Technically speaking, this is the logical flaw with interpretting Florida's "stand your ground" law.  Pre-confrontation, neither participant was committing a crime.  Therefore, technically both were standing their ground when their paths intersected.  The winner of the case should be the dead man, because the other person misjudged the situation and caused the escalation.  Causing an escalation against an innocent should be a crime.

there was apparently a similar case in Florida over a boy in a car, who suddenly got surrounded by armed men who were private security.  He took off, they shot him.  From my perspective,he was defending himself from an attack by unrecognized armed forces.  The guards escalated, the boy is dead, they lose.

In the Texas Horn case, 2 bad guys were leaving a house WITH LOOT.  They were obviously guilty and in process of a direct and obvious crime.  Shooting someone in the act of a direct and obvious crime is not vigilanteism.

Furthermore, what always gets forgotten in these cases, is the lawyers.  After EVERY criminal incident, there should be a civil suit.  OJ may have dodged the criminal case, but he lost the civil suit because the requirements for a jury decision are lighter.  At that point, the attack strategy is to make the other person suffer financially and socially by dragging them throught he court system until they lose their job, home, and their community shuns them for the jerkhole they are because of all the negative publicity from the case.

This is the corollary to "you get to search and shoot bad guys" you also must suffer harsh consequences for making the wrong call.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 24, 2012)

Janx said:


> Not to dredge up this whole thread, but I read a few articles on this incident.
> 
> Your phrasing shows a distinct bias and assumption about Zimmerman.
> 
> ...




Mu bias towards Zimmerman is this. He was not an official member of any neighborhood watch program but had appointed himself as the neighborhood protector. 

I belong to a neighborhood watch we were taught not to carry weapons, to call the police and to stay away and not confront anyone to let the police do their jobs.  

In the last year Zimmerman had made a total of 37 calls reporting suspicious black youths. 

The police found no weapons on the boy all that was found on him was candy, tea, cell phone and cash.

He told his girlfriend that he was being followed and that he was scared. 

If he did have a scuffle with Zimmerman it was because Zimmerman confronted him. How was he supposed to know who this guy was?  The kid weighed 140 pounds and Zimmerman was bigger than him. 

Even if the kid hit him it is a reach to say that Zimmerman life was in mortal danger from a scrawny kid with no weapons. 

Zimmerman who was the self appointed neighborhood guardian carrying a gun and not listening to police has all the earmarks of someone wanting to be a hero.


----------



## Kaodi (Mar 25, 2012)

A related question: You have taken justice into your own hands, and executed a man in a back alley whom you knew was a murderer who had gotten away with his crime (before he met you). Now what do you do?


----------



## Janx (Mar 25, 2012)

Kaodi said:


> A related question: You have taken justice into your own hands, and executed a man in a back alley whom you knew was a murderer who had gotten away with his crime (before he met you). Now what do you do?




By the protocol I outlined, you're out of bounds.  You didn't directly witness the immediate crime event.  If the cops can't show up and see how obvious that the guy was a crook, you're now looking like a crook.

At this point, assuming you have a few minutes and hopefully no witnesses, you need to make it look like a proper crime scene if you're going to get away with it.    That's going to be tricky, because he's dead, and you need to make it look like he owned your gun if he didn't have one.  Then you'll need to fake a scuffle, by yourself, yet still get some scuffle wounds on him.  Don't forget fun powder residues on yourself and him in the right places, and bloody splatters.  

I should hope if you planned this execution, you had the foresight to think of all this.

Mostly, what I see is a cascading list of all the things I wouldn't think of that could crater the plan.

My suggestion is don't do it.  You might be able to fake the scene superficially, but if ANYBODY insists on a proper investigation, things will stand out and you're hosed.


----------



## Argyle King (Mar 30, 2012)

Janx said:


> By the protocol I outlined, you're out of bounds.  You didn't directly witness the immediate crime event.  If the cops can't show up and see how obvious that the guy was a crook, you're now looking like a crook.
> 
> At this point, assuming you have a few minutes and hopefully no witnesses, you need to make it look like a proper crime scene if you're going to get away with it.    That's going to be tricky, because he's dead, and you need to make it look like he owned your gun if he didn't have one.  Then you'll need to fake a scuffle, by yourself, yet still get some scuffle wounds on him.  Don't forget fun powder residues on yourself and him in the right places, and bloody splatters.
> 
> ...




 You're assuming a gun was used at close range.  That's not the only option to take someone out.


----------



## Janx (Mar 30, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> You're assuming a gun was used at close range.  That's not the only option to take someone out.




I believe you're missing my point.  It's not about a specific murder weapon.

Watch a bunch of real murder shows on the Murder Channel (investigation discovery?).  You'll see a general trend that the forensics catches bad guys because various methods of murder leave prints, claw marks, blood splatter, gun powder, tissue under fingernails, post mortem injuries versus pre-mortem injuries, etc that can contradict what ever story you make the scene appear to be for when the cops get there.

Once contradictions appear of what the scene appears to be and what the evidence says, the cops will dig in deeper and that unravels the plan.

To get away with the crime, you'd need to get the guy killed in a fashion that is consistent with the evidence the cops will find. If the cop sees a straight forward crime scene with no obvious contradictions, they won't inspect deeper.  I do not believe this would be a trivial thing to stage without a lot of planning, prep and excellent secrecy.

Take the Trayvon Martin case that [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] brought up.  The shooter claims he was attacked.  If there's not obvious evidence supporting his claim, that looks fishy to a cop.  If the cop calls in forensics, and they verify that there's no evidence of a scuffle on either party, then the shooter has been caught in a lie.

Like the "Don't talk to cops" video says, once a cop catches a whiff of a lie, their guilt meter goes off and they usually drill in deeper.

I have no idea why Zimmerman was let go.  There must be more to what happened in his interview with the police (remember, he was cuffed and hauled in).

For me, taking both parties at face value of how the incident started:
black kid in hoodie coming back from a snack run while talking to GF
hispanic guy keeping a watchful eye on his neighborhood

Ending with an interaction between the 2 and one guy is dead, I'm inclined to think the guy who lived should be in trouble.  Because neither party would have been involved in any wrongdoing had they kept their distance (which sounds like Zimmerman initiated contact by approaching the boy).  Furthermore, 2 innocent parties who are wary of the other are both going to claim "Standing their ground"  Once that happens and neither party was in prior act of engaging in crime, that defense is out the window as feasible.  The case should be investigated as 2 men who meet and things escalate into a terrible outcome.

This is why school-aged children insist that "who started it" is important.  Because the whole problem stems from an instigator, not the final outcome.


----------



## Argyle King (Mar 30, 2012)

My point is that -if I were planning to assassinate someone- I would choose a method where the problems you listed would not be issues.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

If you are going to kill someone and get away with it you had better hope you don't have anything in your background that the cops or the media can get fixated on.

Also it might be a good idea if you are going to become a vigilante that you carry a weapon that can not be traced to you to plant on the bad guy after you shoot so you can claim self defense.


----------



## Janx (Mar 31, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> My point is that -if I were planning to assassinate someone- I would choose a method where the problems you listed would not be issues.




I suspect that would be harder and harder as technology is getting better and and more trackable.

This is why I don't advovate doing crime.  There's just too many variables to make sure you handled perfectly.


----------



## Argyle King (Mar 31, 2012)

Janx said:


> I suspect that would be harder and harder as technology is getting better and and more trackable.
> 
> This is why I don't advovate doing crime.  There's just too many variables to make sure you handled perfectly.




I'm not advocating either.  However, if I were to choose to do it, I would -as said- choose a method which was as easy to cover as possible.  While technology is better today, it also tends to be more expensive.  Not every case receives a CSI or Law & Order level investigation.  

You have a point about technology.  However, don't forget that it cuts both ways.  With technology being better, there are also potentially ways to pull something like the subject of the thread of without ever actually being in the same alley as the person.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 2, 2012)

Janx said:


> This is why I don't advovate doing crime.



Somehow, I don't find your reason very comforting...


----------

