Society tends to frown on murder regardless. That’s why we have laws. If we have a vigilante running around murdering those whose crimes they think are worthy of execution, then why does this person have the right to decide if that crime is severe enough for that punishment?
If he is only doing it for the safekeeping of his family, does it matter?
Edit: personally I think it depends, but that point ties into whether or not it’s severe enough to deserve death.
Well that was easy. I also believe a free scooter would greatly improve my investment in the story. Kidding aside though, kudus for the high level of interactivity with your readers and listening to our ideas. May I also ask who did the art for the story? It’s bloody awesome, especially the bloody feather, more of it please? 
Yeah, a free scooter XD Suuuuure 
Jokes aside, Thanks!
The art was done by me 
You literally took less than two minutes to answer. I can’t even type that fast.
Do you have a Deviantart page or anything of the like?
^^
I do, though I don’t have much on there than just adoptables.
I will write you a PM later, alright ? ~
I think i misunderstood you on that first point, but is it that different for a judge to sentence someone to death?
I would say it matters a great deal, a bouncer who works for a kingpin i would think is less evil than someone who mutilates people.
Sure. Thank you, Wraith. ^^
I don’t think anyone, regardless of occupation, should have a say in who dies. But at least a judge is appointed by law and in some places is even elected by the people.
Personally I agree but a bouncer for the Kingpin is doing it for fun and enjoys his job is different from a torturer who is doing it for his family and hates his job. Again though, I personally think that inflicting pain on someone isn’t right for any reason. I’m a pacifist, despite my passive-aggressive tendencies.
Well what if the vigilante was supported by the people?
Lets take for example the US who sent out the military to kill ‘certain people’, is that right or wrong?
And no matter what good reason you have for doing something doesn’t really make the act itself less evil?
I live in a society where 60 hundreds people die per year because of the violence, a society where underage criminals are the most violents because they don’t go to jail, a society that lives in fear of not coming back to our home.
When a criminal is killed (be it by a cop or a civilian) no one frowns about the criminal’s death (with the exception of the human rights).
That is why I agree with Anti-Heroes, because I see IRL bandits going to jail and leaving it after a short time and doing the exactl same thing they did before.
I thik there is blurred lines on when it’s okay to kill or not.
You can kill people in a war without going to prison and in some country’s you can use lethal force to defend yourself and in others you will go to prison no matter the reason and at the same time you have places with judges who can decide wether you die or not because someone decided said judge had the ‘skills’ to decide that.
If an anti-hero only killed in self defence, would that be different?
And how many chances should the criminal have at redemption, if he continues to get out of jail and does the same thing again?
Pretty much yes. Even when you see value in every life doesn’t mean you should just stand there when somebody else tries to kill you. After all your own life is valuable, too, and should the other person die just because there was no other way to stop them from killing somebody, they had it coming.
Demanding people to give up their sense of self preservation while facing a want-to-be-murderer lacks every bit of reason.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Did the conversation turn into this because of the Punisher/Daredevil video posted?
At least it is more in topic than the previous discussion
Well, yes, I suppose it is…
Though it’s getting way too serious in my opinion. Can’t we have a lighthearted conversation that pertains to the topic?
Maybe about Ace? I like that dog.
Woof. 
But there is a serious theme in the game and others (like me) were drawn in to the game because of it.
Punishment as deterrent is not very succesfull, though. And even when you say that everybody chooses their own way, I have to say that’s pretty shortsighted when considering how the realities of some people limits their capability to choose.
(And the question if people change or not actually lets us tap into the question how effecive and maybe how biased the penal/prison system is and what the actual task of those systems should be. In short: Things could become very complex. And unfortunately I think that discussion would probably burst the actual limits of this thread.
So maybe in case we want to go deeper down that way, maybe we do it in a seperated thread, before the thread derails completely?)
Edit: @SiROSTRiKE sorry didn’t saw your comment but pretty much: YES! Let’s talk about the pros and cons of cats and dogs!
And birds?
(20 Characters)
Well, you could say that we are already talking the whole time about birds.