Is the "no kill rule" the most retarded trope in all of media?

That would make him The Punisher with a bat-gimmick and less edge

Superheroes only have no kill rule so the writers don't have to come up with new villains every time.

>deranged man horrifyingly slaughtering women and children
>i want to just eliminate him as quickly as possible
>”but you’ll be just like him”

Attached: 8847AC18-B916-4BE3-802A-2C1435A22625.png (325x300, 87K)

"I will not be an executioner" is better

It depends on the context. Like a stealth game where you're only supposed to get in, get something, and get out. It's reasonable to have a no kill rule there, and makes games like that more fun to play in some ways for the added challenge. In the context of the stories you're probably talking about though, I wish they'd change it slightly, keeping killing as a last resort for those kinds of villains instead of pure pacifism. That just reeks of them wanting to keep their cool villain character around for the fans.

What's stopping you from going over the edge and start preemptively killing people that could pose a danger if you're already set on killing?

>>deranged man horrifyingly slaughtering women and children
How many games in OP's pic did you actually play?

This

This.
I feel that he feels the weight of every life and feels that it would be better to try and reform someone instead of end a life

Attached: Untitled.png (2280x1920, 2.53M)

For joker there’s no reason to kill them since change of heart is better for the phantom thieves perception and is just as effective as killing but if your talking about akechi that scene was fucking retarded

It can be good, it's rare though. Batman is a good example of where no-killing is good.

Attached: 1541230044599.png (1920x1080, 1.7M)

Funny how is Kirby the one who always finish the job

>Killing is necessary when you're dealing with crime or mass murdering psychopaths.
No it's not.
The ONLY reason "no kill rules" are ever a moral dilemma in fiction is because law enforcement is massively incompetent and can't even keep a single person in prison. It's a total contrivance.
The death penalty is purely emotional gratification, it has no pragmatic value, especially in the modern age.

>Is the "no kill rule" the most retarded trope in all of media?
No, the most retarded trope are last second asspulls where the character is forced to either kill or face some horrible consequences, and some bullshit happens where they don't have to kill them anymore, completely negating the entire purpose of the moral dilemma.

>Batman is a good example of where no-killing is good.
>continually lets Joker murder hundreds of innocents because if he kills him he'll lose their pissing match and prove him right

>it has no pragmatic value
How about avoiding the cost of feeding and keeping a person in jail that has no hope of being reintegrated in society?

Attached: I can live with that.jpg (500x667, 67K)

>How about avoiding the cost of feeding
Enacting the death penalty is actually more expensive than life in prison

Because they recycle the plot. Ideally joker should have a lifetime sentence and the story ends there, but hes too popular of a character. It's the same with Frieza and Goku.

>Character wants to be above their enemy, knows killing is just a slippery slope
>A well written character will just find an alternative way to stop someone
>If they are dead they have no consequences to face, someone alive can just sit in jail for decades, a punishment even worse
Imagine being so smooth brained that you'd be satisfied with caveman like instincts

Anyone can kill
But not everyone is strong enough to forgive

Attached: The Burden of Forgiveness.png (1493x1318, 1.21M)

>NO YOU CAN'T KILL HIM YOU'LL BE JUST LIKE HIM
>spend the whole game mowing down his mooks like nothing

Only because of how long it takes to actually kill someone on death row. You have to pay all the people that hear the same appeal for ten years before they decide it's finally time to execute someone.

We should make it cheaper then. A single bullet is all it really takes.

Why is joker from Persona 5 in this

Lmao you have a child’s sense of societal order.

Also, in regards to the no kill rule it’s actually far less moral then killing. More people have died because of Batman being a huge pussy and no blaming the joker then ever would have died if he did. How many times do Batman villains specifically the joker break out of Arkham. The joker is a fine subject on the matter because he always does heinous shit whenever he’s free.
If a man does not kill when there is just cause to kill then he is immoral

But he kills Malos even after ranting about friendship, and would have killed Amalthus if Jin didn’t do it first.
If you want the worst “no kill rule” moment in the franchise look no further than Shulk sparing Metal Face.

daily reminder that kiryu never killed anyone

You do realize he kills the joker in the comics and it breaks him right?

Imagine being so smoothbrained as to believe that slippery slope isn’t a fallacy.

Because Batman is borderline insane himself.

arkham pd fucking sucks he should build a bat jail

Not being alive is far more of a punishment than staying alive.

Good question. There's a conversation early in the game where they discuss the possible consequence of their target ending up dead, and they agree to take that risk. They are explicitly okay with taking a life in exchange for the greater good.

>implying that's a bad thing

Didn't Superman do that?

>Unable to comprehend anything
vs
>Losing your freedom completely, only thing to do is think of what you've done, inevitably die anyway

>But that will make you just like them!
>party member shoots them dead anyway
>Ends up causing another villian to go nuclear down the line

Attached: 1540230753891.jpg (859x1526, 578K)

Rex had no problems killing people if he felt it was necessary. He didn't want to kill Jin if he could help it, because the message he wanted to send was more important. His insight gained from being the true driver of the Aegis also meant that he gained at least some understanding of a Blades feelings on an intuitive level and realized that Jin's actions and his emotions weren't lining up.

Other protagonists are far worse with how they refuse to kill, merely to have a moral high ground, or simply because of author intent and how they themselves feel about killing. Adding nothing to the story by doing so.

>lmao you have a child's view on the matter
>gives zero reason why

>think of what you've done
So you're of the "You sit in a corner and think about what you've done!" persuasion. If only that actually worked.

You are thinking the Mortal Kombat DC game. Injustice. It has its own comic series.

>spiderman throws people off of speeding cars into traffic and off of buildings only to web them there meaning that unless the police get there within the hour and find them in time they fall to their death
>"""doesn't kill people"""

It's a comic book series, the Joker sells, ergo they'll keep bringing him back. Same with Frieza, a galactic emperor that enslaved an entire race, now roaming freely out of hell.

Should be game mechanic that you can kill everybody but you are nit allowed to and still have to legit beat them in the fight.

>Enacting the death penalty is actually more expensive than life in prison
that's literally 100% based on bureaucracy. You can kill someone for about 90 cents.

Ok sure.

The death penalty has a place in modern society because.
Violence and the capacity to inflict it is the supreme authority in which all other authorities derive from. Thus violence IE killing, must be at bare minimum sanctioned by the state, or at maximum under only the auspices of the state. The death penalty exist as the final censor in which any and all criminals would face. It’s existence or threat of is important to societal conditioning. As the basis of human decency and society is. I will not inflict harm for harm will be inflicted on me, and we nation states harm must be controlled by the state. If anything we are too lenient. The death penalty should be faster, and available for more offenses. The death penalty was once the sword of Damocles now its neautured in almost every nation. It must exist, because when the state losses the capacity to inflict violence on society it losses control and society breaks down. This is absolutely fundamental stuff, the only reason we have functioning societies is the threat of harm from a collective entity of society. In non nations I can bash your brains in and rape your wife and probably get away with it. Who would know, who would care, who would or could find out other then direct witnesses. But in a nation state, an organized society the state exist to curtail that urge. For if I bash your brains in and rape your wife the collective force of he society I am a part of will come down on me. That is the basis of all human civilization. Violence is and always will be the supreme authority.

He also didn't care about the possibility of killing Bana while fighting him. But after he was disabled, he let him go. Though I do wish there would have been a bit where he was messed up because him letting Bana go almost lead to the Niall's death. I could swear I also remember a side quest where the group ended up killing people.

It is rather funny that Rex has pretty much the best reason to not be killing his opponents willy nilly, since most of them are just ordinary citizens of the various Titans, or even Millitary. Making himself an enemy of several states wouldn't be a good idea. And even if that wasn't the case, his reasoning was mostly about emotionally protecting Pyra and Mythra, since he knew that they had killed a bunch of people in the past and it was more important to show her that her power could be used to protect people, rather then a mindless slaughter.

I personally think hangings should be a thing again with the hangings as social events that are televised.

Show Jamal and Tyrese the price of their continued criminal enterprises. I also support bringing back lashing.

>tfw no AC 6.

So a slightly lighter version of Saudi Arabia/Iran punishments. It must work pretty well as dissuasion since crime rate is pretty low there

state violence is plenty present, if you do crime you have to go to jail and if you don't want to the cops tackle you and make you go anyway

Justice League cartoon did a great episode on this where some character frustrated that they just keep beating up the bad guys and throwing them pointlessly into jail gets transported to an alternative dimension where the justice league is a bunch of tyrannical mercenaries who slaughter all wrongdoers. Everyone fears them and their power because they start imposing their own morality with deadly consequences.

So why do countries with the death penalty tend to have higher crime rates than those without? Japan's the only country with the death penalty that ranks in the ten lowest crime rates.

Correlation =/= Causation user, come on.

>there's only two possible outcomes: letting the villains constantly escape and cause death and destruction, or becoming murderous tyrants slaughtering everyone like pigs yourself
I love how these people think that people would really start applying the same punishments to both an insane mass murderer and a jaywalker.

No, but it's a valid question when you're making such powerful assertions about the necessity of capital punishment to deter crime. Do you have any arguments as to why the death penalty fails to correlate with a low crime rate?

Because Japan has the highest form of social order by being occupied by a race of bug people. That's why they have low (reported) crimes but still lower crime rates even then.

Not quite. Taiwan, UAE and Qatar are retentionists too

Where was your lovin' god at Shiloh, Gettysburg, Antietam?

Fair enough. I'm still not convinced that the death penalty is necessary for deterrence of crime though given how many countries without it have such low crime rates. I think the factor that makes for effective deterrence is the likelihood of punishment rather than severity.

Criminals deserve to be killed but that's not the heroes job. Heroes should obey the law as long as it's not corrupt

all media we ever ingest has been created since the French Revolution
the powers that be impose this trope on media to prevent that from happening again
pre-French Revolution media has more nuanced takes on life and death

I love the Arkham games but it's a bit ridiculous how monstrous the basic mobs are sometimes when they talk

> that guy who massacred a whole family on Thanksgivings for their turkey

Fuck I hate how autistic I've become, never really paid attention nor did I get angry at that trope when I was younger. Now I fucking seethe whenever I see it, FUCK i wish I could go back.

Kiriyu only doesn't kill because they have to portray the yakuza in a positive light or they will be killed by the thugs who shadow own sega.

>not being judge, jury, and executioner

Attached: 1390119420694.jpg (650x1048, 321K)

Joker and Batman literally a love hate couple.
Ofcourse it break him for killing his only love.

>because they have to portray the yakuza in a positive light
Most of Kiryu's time is being outside the Yakuza and beating down on them

Well said, citizen.

Attached: Jean rasczak1.jpg (400x300, 6K)

iF yoU KilL yOuR eNemIeS tHEy WiN!!

>Kiriyu only doesn't kill
He kills people all the time. The story just ignores it.As is typical, the there is a complete disconnect between story and gameplay.

>it has no pragmatic value
It does when you're dealing with villains who can't be locked up because they are too powerful to contain in a prison or so influential that they can continue to arrange to kill people even while in prison.

It's why all these superheroes who refuse to kill are morally bankrupt morons responsible for the loss of countless lives.

Attached: 1544127765560.gif (320x287, 982K)

The french revolution was caused by giving jews human rights.

Prove her wrong.

Attached: 1565345154409.jpg (384x644, 98K)

Huh. Interesting take.

>all media we ever ingest has been created since the French Revolution

Attached: shakespeare.jpg (221x228, 17K)

>Killing Hitler makes you just as bad as Hitler!
I never understood this meme.

She is killing innocents so she is no longer innocent. Killing her is therefore not morally equivalent.

Killing innocents makes one not innocent, so killing one who kills innocents is not evil QED ur dead kiddo lmao.

>"don't do that"
>why?
>"would you want someone to do it to you?"
Why do people act like this makes sense?

Attached: 1565377589832.jpg (750x1110, 115K)

Why kill a bad guy when you could put them through a fate so terrible that death would look merciful?

Giorno go to bed..

That shit ruined XBC1.

Attached: 220px-Shulk.png (220x353, 90K)

Severity is extremely important as a deterrent.
In fact, when heinous crimes aren't given suitable punishments, the criminal is incredibly more likely to re-offend because they don't fear consequences.

You have to consider that not all people are civil. There are unthinking animals among us, and they only behave because they fear getting caught, because they fear severe punishment. Take away the root deterrent, and they'll commit those crimes and worse for as long as they live.

ie. why do illegal immigrants keep coming back? Because they are given them food, water, shelter, and then trucked them off to the border to try again. At worst, they get free stuff. At best, they're allowed to stay. They should be deported and then slain upon second trespass, but this generation doesn't value the fundamental elements of a functioning society, so they're allowed to fester as they do.

stop posting this you sociopath

>don't gouge out people's eyes with cutlery
>why?
>because it feels like this
>*eye gouging noises*
>you're welcome

Rex doesn't have a no kill rule, he just prefers not to like most non sociopaths. He also has a continent busting girl for a partner that still feels guilty for killing a fuckton of people so he has plenty of reason to avoid it

I blame capeshit

Death penalty is both unefficient as a deterrent and more expensive than life sentence (inb4 "a bullet costs nothing" without proper aka expensive process, your death sentence is built on the blood of innocents)

If I have to kill my dearest friend to kill humanity's direst foes, I shall shoulder the responsibility.

Attached: 1546036269907.jpg (239x240, 5K)

It's particularly retarded in corrin's case
>I wont murder hoshidians they dindu
>but I will in fact murder my entire adoptive family that I grew up with

I've never post it before.
Doesn't make sense unless you believe in karma.
Not every situation will have a reciprocal eye gouger present.

Attached: 1545955813029.jpg (845x1160, 662K)

>Kiryu doesn't kill bad guy
>bad guy kills Akiyama's waifu
Yameroooooo

Attached: D_d6O9WXsAUYjqI.jpg large.jpg (1334x750, 98K)

I mean they aren't all refusing to kill for the same reasons.
Peter Parker won't kill because he's an innocent do-gooder with a conscience.
Bruce Wayne won't kill because he thinks it will be more effectively terrorizing to the underworld for everyone he meets to end up severely brutalized and broken

Batman literally can't. He's just as insane as the villains he fights, it's just that his insanity is one that prohibits him from killing. Also, if he actually started killing, he wouldn't be able to work with the police anymore. If anything, the police would actively hunt him, making his job that much harder.
Kiryu's fucked either way.
The Phantom Thieves placing themselves to a higher standard is ultimately what allowed them to save the world so it's not like it was for nothing.
Spider-Man REALLY doesn't need to give the police any more reason to attack him. Plus, he lives in the same city as the Avengers, and if he went full Punisher, they'd get on his ass.

its called self-control.

Attached: 290.png (1024x1023, 506K)

For Batman it makes sense because he's a fucking insane person
For Vash it makes sense because the no-kill rule was actually a character flaw the entire time.
Spider-Man never actually had a no-kill rule until Disney. Prior to that, Peter Parker was very much aware of it sometimes being a necessity in very dire situations. He simply dod everything he could to avoid that until literally every other option was exhausted. But a blood lusted Spider-Man is one of the scariest things in Marvel if you're a criminal in his way.
A no kill rule makes sense for the Phantom Thieves because they're just that. Thieves. Not killers. A thief does not need to be a killer to be a thief. Their priority is to nab loot and run. If they want to be a gentleman thief about it, so be it.

The others are dumb

>Lmao you have a child’s sense of societal order.
>Also, in regards to the no kill rule it’s actually far less moral then killing.
The self-awareness of this autistic retard, holy shit

Attached: 1562340148261.png (428x424, 95K)

Vash is amazing. too bad we never got planet gunsmoke, well I guess it's too bad, could have been really awful. Nightow's other work got a game or two and it isn't nearly as popular as trigun.

Spider-Man never really killed anyone though. He always tried to save everyone. There were times when he nearly broke, but he still refused to kill.

There's no indication that death penalty actually works as a deterrent. So you have a punishment that is more expensive (as said, due process in death penalty cases costs a ton), still kills innocent people (errors happen despite the due process), and doesn't even deter people from commiting crimes.

The safest countries in the world don't have death penalty and haven't for decades, yet they seem to get by just fine.

Attached: 4j0pb8efing31.png (4424x2768, 1.11M)

Killing someone nearly broke him, though.

a necessary sacrifice for a peaceful city

>Is the "no kill rule" the most retarded trope in all of media?
It's an annoying plot device that allow lazy writers to complicate what should have been simple situations and keep villains who were supposed to die alive.

>this but unirionically. what if batman was just sniping thugs from rooftops
He would have been a much more efficient hero and of he sniped the joker he would have saved millions. I don't see any flaws here.

>sees Corrin
>immediately remember that Marth has the option to kill one of his own soldiers in the tutorial in the ds game

Attached: 2D2A3215-A568-4DC6-A50A-6797D24E9CBE.png (1687x2028, 695K)

Really they just need physical punishment, long jail sentences only scares people with low time preference, high time preference people just see it as free food and shelter. It's the opposite when it comes to lashings.

>Severity is extremely important as a deterrent.
Retards greatly exaggerate importance of severity of punishment.
It seems common sense to idiot's mind that locking someone up for 20 years is twice as bad as locking someone up for 10 years. But it's only common sense to idiot's mind - non-retards realize that the "locked up" part is almost always more important than "for x years".

Promising all sorts of torture and hell is also incredibly inefficient because criminals work under the impression that they're unlikely to get caught.

Death penalty is usually less of a punishment than 10 years in prison.
If death penalty is even allowed, you get prisoners who kill each other just to get the death penalty instead of waiting out all the 10 years.
It's a terrible deterrent. Also very costly to society, even compared to 10 years in prison.

Well, to put it another way, why does the character in question need to have blood on his or her hands? It's ultimately their choice.

To put myself in their shoes, I have no interest in taking responsibility for the lives of others. Killing criminals is not my job.

rex literally kills a mass murdering psycopath

this is the stupidest, most naive shit I've read in the past 20 minutes on here.
>Also very costly to society, even compared to 10 years in prison.
t. jew

It's not like they just take them out round the back and shoot them. They spend 10 years in jail first and have a whole bunch of trials, appeal and other processes, all on the taxpayers dime.

Not only did you not make any argument, you also very confidently stated something that is plain wrong (and easy to verify). Reconsider your thinking process.

Its only ok if spidey does it, most of the time he's just a kid.
Also I'm bias

Attached: spider-man-far-from-home-2.jpg (958x596, 98K)

yeah
>kill endless amounts of goons or seriously injur them causing life long problems
>but killing this one guy is bad even though it would save 10000s of people

>kill endless amounts of goons
This almost never happens

>unefficient
Spotted the illegal

but the punisher is marvel

Don't post if you have nothing of substance to say, please.

>this almost never happens
Right, sure, name one game where you can progress towards the ending scene with the villian WITHOUT killing a single goon

Corrin killed the shit out of people. Granted that wasn’t always the case when they handwaved it away like “lol they’re all knocked out, just a prank bro,” but I imagine she/he has a significant bodycount.

Spiderman

It's amazing. Throw guys over a building and a magic web pops up out of nowhere to keep them from dying. Let thugs soak up someone of another guy's bullets and it doesn't kill them. Smash guys face-first into hard concrete and they're completely fine.

>capeshit

Killing is fucking retarded. Remaking your enemy into what you see fit is the right way, killing is for ineffective tool for buttblasted pussies unless we're talking genocide.

gee, what an original and though-provoking dilemma!

Cant wait for Superior Spider-man game without no-kill rule.

Attached: Superior-Spider-Man-kills-Massacre.jpg (1400x700, 206K)

>Don't kill people
>why?
>because feel bad
>what if living would feel worse and it's your duty to intervene and end the suffering they're trapped in
>shut up retard *puts down dog* *flips life support on comatose late-stage cancer patient* *gives repeat offender the death penalty* if you wouldn't want it then doing it to others makes you a sociopath
Have you considered not all people are the same and the more normal cause for antisocial behaviour is the desire for correction by society. If you act a retard you should hope others step in and rebuke you, that's what it means to do unto others as to yourself.

The entire argument that the death penalty is expensive relies entirely on the stupid assumption that the process has to be as convoluted as the one Americans use.

There are many ways to go about it that isn't just about the extremes of burning witches after someone accuses them of the crime or having to keep someone in jail for 30 years before giving them some poison.

For example :
Man kills another man and either admits to the crime or is caught red handed. If we're assuming that this was a killing without any reasonable motivation would it not be better to remove him from society completely? Would such a case need 10 years of retrials? Obviously not.

Example 2:
A man is a relatively known small time criminal, known by both police and the public. He has also served time for selling drugs and for robbery on separate occasions. Shortly after he's released from jail there is store robbery gone wrong in his town in which the owner is shot to death. All the evidence points to the man in question. Would such a person deserve to go on retrial for 10 years or would it be better to just put him down like you would with an animal?

The truth is that even in a country that uses the death penalty ideally innocent people will be executed. But innocent in such cases would be innocent of a particular crime and not innocent as a person and inhabitant of our society, which is the real point of it all.

People have a very warped vision of just and due process. You can often hear from the same person that the death penalty is brutal and unjust while still arguing that prison is better because they get to suffer for longer. Prison is in reality the most inefficient punishment there is, you lose a taxpayer for decades while losing money on feeding him. If we want to be rid of him, just remove him permanently. If you want to make him suffer, just torture him. If you want to make him literally repay his debt, send him to a labor camp.

(cont) Justice is supposed to serve the common law abiding citizens and not criminals and scum.

T. law student

>retard thinks he just redefined due process and law on a Yea Forums Yea Forums post

>he thinks accusations are perfect and never wrong

In almost all cases yes.
Not in Trigun's case, as exploring pacifism is the whole point of the manga. It's not "hurr durr our hero is the good guy so he can't kill people"; being blond-haired space jesus is his character.
That's why the no kill rule is usually gay af. It's usually tacked on just to make sure you know they're the good guy.

There's something even more retarded: reposting the same thread over and over again, word per word.

Yes, if you want to be like China and kill people who may or may not have actually done it then you can make it cheap. If you want to make sure the guy being executed is actually guilty then you have to deal with the ridiculous costs. And even then, you'll still make the odd mistake.

My post is derived from a traditional view of justice and how criminals have essentially always been dealt with.

Why don't you provide a counter argument instead?

I don't, which is illustrated in my examples. The first one is guilty without doubt for the sake of the argument while the accusation in itself is less important in the second example due to the accused's history and character.

People regularly admit to things they didn't do. People are retarded, kinda like you.
>But innocent in such cases would be innocent of a particular crime and not innocent as a person and inhabitant of our society, which is the real point of it all.
Oh, you're just a LARPing legalist.

The real reason for that is usually not wasting a character or allowing villains to have a redemption arc.

A good resolution is not wasting a character. Removing the possibility of a good resolution is wasting a character.

Yes. So many people have died because Batman refuses to kill Joker. Really, Barman is co-responsible for those peoples' deaths. Batman is the true villian.

Removing a character is a waste if they still have some potential to be entertaining.

Giving the character the end their narrative deserves is the way to make them maximally entertaining. Anything else is lesser.

If you use their means you become like them. It's as simple as that.

Self-control means you don't have to use the same means as the ones you're fighting. That also clearly separates you from them. If you don't get that you may have some thinking to do user.

>I'll simplify due process by just using common sense bro haha
The reason it's expensive is because reality on a large scale is harder to deal with than common sense on an individual case basis. Process requires legitimacy and as little arbitrary distinctions as possible. Law didn't become bloates out of nowhere, it did out of necessity. The problem is far more complex than "circumvent current system so we don't deal with the normal steps", you'd have to redefine society as a whole and turn it into smaller tribes to make that viable.

Fucking hell, 4A was such a masterpiece.

Not really. You could be using the character in a sequel for instance, especially true if people liked to see them around.

>People regularly admit to things they didn't do. People are retarded
If you admit to a crime that will get you executed by the state you've essentially just committed suicide. Am I supposed to shed a tear for every person committing suicide?

The fact that there are people who admit to crimes which they haven't committed is hardly significant enough to be a real factor in the argument.

>Oh, you're just a LARPing legalis
How did you even come to this conclusion? I clearly said that the spirit of justice and law is the most important. The law exists to protect society and normal people, not scum, their protection should be of secondary importance.

The whole idea that every single life must be protected to such an extreme extent just causes more misery in the end. Just look at all the revolving door prisons in countries like Sweden where rapists and pedophiles constantly re-offend after sitting their 5-10 years. The case with characters like the Joker are obviously often taken to an extreme degree, but there are in fact a lot of people who just keep going in and out of jail because of shitty justice systems.

>If you admit to a crime that will get you executed by the state you've essentially just committed suicide. Am I supposed to shed a tear for every person committing suicide?
No, but your process should take into account that some people become retarded when pressured. This is a common occurrence, and not a conscious act that aims at destroying oneself like suicide is. Your analogy is retarded and so is your "solution". Learn about how the world works before thinking your simplistic shit can change it.

>t cuckdeau

>It must exist, because when the state losses the capacity to inflict violence on society it losses control and society breaks down.
But several countries have abolished the death penalty. Saying that a society breaks down when it stops killing people is demonstrably false.

I mean there are of course both straight forward and complicated criminal cases, but common sense should be a part of any judgement.

Accidentally punishing criminals (meaning people with real criminal records) too much is still vastly preferable to innocent people having to suffer at their hands.

I'm not saying that a man with no criminal record should be instantly executed after being accused of a murder. There has to be a combination of factors that will lead us to the conclusion that it would be for the best and, of course, that it's very likely that he's guilty. A person's poor character should be an argument for reducing the burden of proof as losing such a poor character would be a win anyway.

The death penalty, like any serious form of punishment, should be used sparingly but it should still be applied where appropriate.

Why is Joker from Persona 5 there when his alternative is way better than killing? If he killed all his enemies then they would all be remembered as dindu nuffins

>A person's poor character should be an argument for reducing the burden of proof as losing such a poor character would be a win anyway.
That's where you're wrong though, and also making a lot of assumptions.

>The death penalty, like any serious form of punishment, should be used sparingly but it should still be applied where appropriate.
That's not wrong, but the burden of applying it properly isn't worth the benefit of basically nothing (not a good deterrent, not any different from life jail)

>No, but your process should take into account that some people become retarded when pressured
Of course it should, I didn't say that you should fire a bullet into his head as soon as he utters that he's guilty.

>This is a common occurrence, and not a conscious act that aims at destroying oneself like suicide is
If you keep repeating for days, weeks or months that you're guilty of a serious crime that you weren't involved with, then only God can help you. What's even the point of shaping an entire justice system around retards like that?

>Learn about how the world works before thinking your simplistic shit can change it.
Please tell me about your sophisticated system then. Surely keeping people in prison for decades is a great way to punish criminals and make them repay their debt to society.

>If you keep repeating for days, weeks or months that you're guilty of a serious crime that you weren't involved with, then only God can help you
Fair enough.

>Please tell me about your sophisticated system then.
There's no easy solution. The current system is as it is now for a reason, because it's hard to deal with justice on a large scale. Bloated yet better than "let's guess if it's okay to apply this here".

>Surely keeping people in prison for decades is a great way to punish criminals and make them repay their debt to society.
What's wrong with it?

Say that to ICE when they arrive

Attached: sponge_human_nature.jpg (409x574, 49K)

ONE HUUUNDRED MILLION.
DONE.

>That's where you're wrong though
How is it wrong? It's a widely known fact that a relatively small part of the population commit a majority of serious crimes. It's also a widely know fact that repeat offenses are extremely common, especially with some crimes. It's thus reasonable to take a person's character into account when judging him.

>and also making a lot of assumptions
That being rid of bad people is a win is hardly a crazy assumption.

>not a good deterrent
The main point isn't that it's a deterrent, it's a way to get rid of people that can't be rehabilitated in other ways.

>not any different from life jail
It's different because it isn't (or rather shouldn't be) ridiculously expensive. Our modern society of excess can keep a man in a small room and feed him for a life time, but it isn't logical nor beneficial in any way.

As for deterrents, the real problem with them is that they'll hardly ever be particularly good when it comes to the really hard criminals because they aren't reasonable or logical. No rapist or serial murderer will commit a crime like that after weighing the risk against the benefit, as there simply isn't any benefit to it. So it doesn't even matter what we threaten such a man with, it'll be completely indifferent to him until he actually has to face the punishment.

ITT: literal children

it's just because of rating

>you've essentially just committed suicide
No. People don't do this because they want to die. They do it because humans often can't think clearly, and make irrational decisions. Usually, it's something like "I'm tired and they've been questioning me for so long and they say they'll stop if I just admit to it, so I'll just say I did it and then the jury will figure out I obviously didn't do it because there can't be any evidence". But the thing is, juries care a lot about confessions; far more than they should. It doesn't matter if they recant it. As far as the jury's concerned, they admitted it, so they did it. So innocent people get done in.
Your view of the world is naive. Things are messy, and there's no guiding thread of destiny keeping innocent people out of trouble.

>There's no easy solution
There is no easy solution if you obsess over the idea that every life has to be spared, which is an unreasonable starting point. A logical system will try to minimize the damage to the average man, and a system that works of that basis will seek to remove wrongdoers efficiently instead of obsessing over the fact that justice has to be universal. You forfeit a large part of your integrity by hurting others needlessly, which most people would agree with. Should a court not take this fact into account when punishing him then?

If my dog bit someone's arm today, I doubt that anyone (except for the victim maybe) would want her to be euthanized. However, if she had a reputation of being an aggressive dog that has on several occasions attacked people and pets in the neighborhood, you can be sure that most people would want her to be put down. Why can't such a simple principle be used on humans as well? There are simply bad people that can't function in society, pretending that they're just victims of chance is silly when that obviously isn't the case. This part of the topic has been very relevant in the US the last few years with all the profilic nigger killings. People tried to portray Trayvon as a poor victim of chance, when he already had a criminal history and obviously was up to no good when he was killed.

>What's wrong with it?
Like I've said before; it costs a lot and doesn't give anything back. It's a strange way to force a man to pay a debt by wasting even more resources on him. In regards to the debt to society prison is even worse than not punishing at all, ironically. Every prison sentence, that isn't for the mildest crimes maybe, should be replaced by hard labor, at least that way society has something to gain from the prisoners instead of losing further.

No kill is patrician af. I always have a 'no kill' rule in games that allow it.
Only assmad incels enjoy killing vidya characters

Justice isn't about reducing damage to the average man. Justice is about apportioning fair outcomes to people based on the truth of their actions. You're not talking about a justice system; you're talking about a regulatory system. Which I, personally, agree is the better method.
But you're naive, so you take the dumb route of LARPing as a mercury-chugging Legalist who gets off on letting God sort out who's innocent and who's guilty. That's just making yourself feel better without actually making the nation safer at all.

it means not being a maniac

>That shit ruined XBC1.

Explain. (I haven't played it).

I don't get your point, breh

Imagine if real police just killed everyone they thought deserved it.

America would have no black people

Why did I know this would be the first response? You guys are too predictable.

>"Kiryu doesn't kill"
>that whole car chase scene in Yakuza 0

Bravo SEGA.

Attached: 1564867024307.jpg (1280x720, 124K)

It's the most obvious. It's just like asking who would be the first victims if dogs suddenly ruled the world.

>Justice isn't about reducing damage to the average man. Justice is about apportioning fair outcomes to people based on the truth of their actions
These are hardly mutually exclusive. The only problem I have with your second statement is that you can't judge purely on the actions themselves, the circumstances and such can be even more important. This in turn takes us back to the fact that we have a legal system to reduce damage to the average man to the highest degree we can. This is also essentially the purpose of civil law as well.

>You're not talking about a justice system; you're talking about a regulatory system
I'm not sure what you mean by this. English is, maybe obviously, not my first language.

>But you're naive
Is it not more naive to hope that bad people will become good by being in an enclosed space for a certain amount of time? That is peak naivety to me. I'm arguing for attack the problem such as it is with the tools that we have, instead of hoping that society will turn into a utopia if we turn our check enough times.

>God sort out who's innocent and who's guilty
God can only sort them out after we're done with them, whatever punishment we give them. Wrongfully sentencing a good man would be a serious sin, so it really isn't that easy.

>hat's just making yourself feel better without actually making the nation safer at all
Me feeling satisfaction from good old justice being safe isn't a real factor, I could probably be satisfied by lesser things than arguing about a faulty legal system.

>without actually making the nation safer at all
In theory at least it would make it safer. If you remove enough rapists and murderers, you will have less of them to commit the crimes. It's all about the repeat offenders again, you won't have to those without a revolving door prison system.

So this is how will we build a utopia?

It's a thrill to kill

Muslims?

DC already made him, he's called the grim knight

Why kill when you can just disable them?

I was going to say mailmen, but that works.

>It's the most obvious
Well if they were killing the people who deserved it the obvious would be Jews and white teens.

Metal Gear Solid

>These are hardly mutually exclusive
They are absolutely exclusive. Justice will bring harm to more people than sheer protectionism, because you must allow potentially dangerous situations to arise because anything else would not be fair. Justice is a harmful, dangerous thing, and societies must choose whether they wish to pursue justice or security. China chose the latter, we chose the former.
>Is it not more naive to hope that bad people will become good by being in an enclosed space for a certain amount of time?
Irrelevant. That is not the topic of discussion. The topic of discussion is the condemning of innocent people to death. Yes, it is naive to think that innocents will not be condemned to death.

If you remove enough rapists and murderers while also removing innocent people then you haven't made the nation safer. You've created an environment where ordinary people can expect to arbitrarily get executed. People won't act in ways which are desirable to a state. Furthermore, seeing as you wish to remove people who kill accidentally while motivated by greed, you will only cover up the real problem which is motivating the crime.

I see the why on the Jews but i don't get the white teens

Because they don't do that either.
Well Corrin, Kiryu and Rex do never watched Trigun so I can't say anything any Vash.

He breaks baddies' spines in the games non-stop though.

Attached: 1550895454732.png (421x499, 283K)

White teens get away with everything.

Joker doesn't have a no-kill rule retard

Fuck yes, especially in Batman's case.

By refusing to kill his recurrent enemies, Batman is directly responsible for countless innocent deaths. It's really cowardly to hide behind his "code" and pretense of justice, some Dark Knight he is. There is no justice for the people who die because of him, a real hero would take the responsibility of taking a life for the greater good on to himself and if that eats away at his "humanity" in the end then that's his onus to bear.

Attached: KIll them good.png (1920x1080, 3.12M)

He just KOs them, they're fine.

It's fucking out of hand in shounen anime. So annoying.

I mean, black teens get away with nothing. Other side of the race coin i guess

That's literally one of the earliest things to happen in game, they go over the risks and try their hardest NOT to kill people when brainwashing.

>MGS
>a game where you go around killing everything
yeah, there was no non-lethal shit in MGS and you KILL multiple bosses before you reach the villian

It has nothing to do with karma. Do you have low IQ?

>Shadow Hobo: We're alike, you and I. We're changing society through whatever means necessary.
>Phantom Thieves: No we're not, we're not evil like you because we don't murder people!
>SH: Brainwashing people seems pretty damn evil to me.
>PT: *autistic moralfag screeching*

>They are absolutely exclusive. Justice will bring harm to more people than sheer protectionism, because you must allow potentially dangerous situations to arise because anything else would not be fair. Justice is a harmful, dangerous thing, and societies must choose whether they wish to pursue justice or security. China chose the latter, we chose the former.
It's an interesting view, but I disagree. Allowing the strong, here meaning those that have no issue with hurting others needlessly, to pray on the weak hardly makes for justice. By your logic the most just society would be one where people live in anarchy like tribals or animals.

>Irrelevant. That is not the topic of discussion
How could I know what it referred to specifically?

>The topic of discussion is the condemning of innocent people to death. Yes, it is naive to think that innocents will not be condemned to death.
We've been through this. Yes, people risk being executed for crimes they have not committed, in some cases. But this should be kept as low as possible by looking at the character and history of the accused. A family man with no criminal record would very unlikely be executed without very strong evidence that he committed the crime.

>You've created an environment where ordinary people can expect to arbitrarily get executed
It would be a great sign of failure had this been the case. The whole point is to reduce damage to people, not to replace offender which would be the state in this case.

>People won't act in ways which are desirable to a state
They don't when they live in fear of crime either. The difference is that you have nothing to fear from the state if you're decent (and the nation is somewhat functional, which is required for the reasoning to work at all), but you do have a lot to fear from criminals if you're not strong.

I don't understand what the last sentence is supposed to mean.

At first, when they didn't know whether it would be safe to change people's hearts but said fuck it because this dude's an asshole. They never question brainwashing though.

Because most of those "rule" only have been dealt to the false accused one instead to the actual killer.
And if the person was 100% with full evident are guilty, we have to see if the one he killed actually deserves it, and we don't know about that.

Say there's this super important person, best known to all as the nicest person you ever seen, but that person was killed by a dumb ugly hobo because he want to rob the nice guy, that's what media/your people tells you. In actuality, this "nice" person was just having a bad day for once and drunk in a quiet alley, then he sees a hobo with his baby just walk past by, this nice person proceed to raped the baby then killed it on the spot. No witness whatsoever. The hobo for some another long story reason, can only kill the "nice" guy the day/week after.

Yea Forums of all people would probably goes full "kill the hobo" or someshit complaining about why he's only in jail and not just killed back, while ignoring if Yea Forums themselves could ended up in those hobo position.

Besides, if I sees a rapist and he got caught by people. I rather that person to just get mutilated alive so he could suffer until he died.

I think it depends on the overall theme you're going for obviously a hero is not going to go around killing people left and right (that's an anti-hero) but in certain situations when the hero's hand is forced and they are in a life and death situation it is acceptable because obviously they've done everything they can, and it was their last resort. A no kill rule in video games can work, games such as MGS have handled it well where it is literally your choice how you want to do it.

Except the no kill shit in MGS is handed terribly in terms of gameplay. Not killing enemies in MGS2 and onward literally skips half of the game's mechanics because of how poorly implemented non lethal options are.

Because some jews pocket the money

In Trigun's case it's because Vash feels responsible for humanity because he promised Ren he would take care of humanity. He loves humanity to much to kill them so he tries as damn hard as he can to save them and hopefully teach them better.

Attached: Vash.png (268x188, 73K)

Corrin made an exception for mass murdering psychopaths though? Also soldiers don’t deserve to die for simply following orders, especially not orders they’d get killed for disobeying.

Attached: E1EE5F2A-0174-4D1B-A113-B8A09FD49CAC.jpg (576x960, 99K)

Here's why this is stupid. Why carry a gun?

He didn’t murder any of them though?

Cause it does you spoiled brat.

Because everyone carries a gun. And he's so damn good at using it that he can disarm a man at 20 paces. He's got pinpoint accuracy with it that any other type of weapon wouldn't really work with him. (And his revolver looks fucking cool)

This!

fuck you Dr. Light this Wily fuck has been dunking on society for like 40 goddamn years with these stupid fucking robot masters when I catch him im gonna shove my buster right up his anus