The Death Penalty: Yes or No

[Wishing Oceans]

So, my friend The Grandmaster and I have been talking, and recently we've gotten into a pretty heated debate about whether or not the Death Penalty is a suitable punishment for certain offenses.

I agree with the Death Penalty. He does not. And honestly, it's a very interesting debate, almost philosophical. 😀 So, I thought I'd see what you guys think of it.

My thoughts at the beginning of the debate, that I sent to him, were...

Well, as stated in the Bill of Rights, Americans (this was committed in America) have the right to fair punishment for any crime they have committed. I agree with this.

But then, as many of us ask ourselves, what constitutes as fair? Many people, for example, find the electric chair to be a cruel form of punishment. Others don't believe in the Death Penalty at all, they believe that people can be redeemed. I think differently.

See, the question many of us, myself included ask ourselves is why are we here? As it is a philosophical question, there is no true answer. My personal opinion is that we're here to either destroy the Earth once and for all, or to help it. Either one would be a HUGE change. And in order to stand out and make differences that are more noticeable and sophisticated than any other animal that resides on earth, we need a well- structured society with rules and discipline.

We do we have laws? To keep the public safe. Why do we have punishment if one BREAKS those laws? Well, several reasons, the biggest imo being to enforce the law by showcasing what happens if you endanger society. Of course, that brings up another question that many debate: Is the point of prosecution to protect the innocents from danger, or to punish the bad guys? Well, you can't really do one without the other, so I believe that it's both. (And, little side note, it's the same thing with being a slayer: Do you slay to kill vampires or protect humans? Hm )

So, now getting to the actual question: What I think would be a suitable punishment. Well, as I've aforementioned, I believe that in order to have a strong society we need to keep people in line. I believe that if somebody feels and thinks in such a way that they feel the need to try and strip the power and dignity away from somebody else to take it for themselves then there is something wrong with their brains, and they WILL do it again. The need that power. And so as long as they exist, people are endanger. I don't believe that people like that help the world at all. And if you're not beneficial, only harmful, then I don't see a point in you being here. You'll only endanger what we worked to build. So, in conclusion, I believe that he should have been given the Death Penalty by the electric chair. Some people just don't deserve to be here. So, what's your opinion on it? Do you concur with my perspective?

(The crime was a young girl being taken, raped, had her head shaved, was dressed in men's clothes, tied up, then left unconscious in a men's bathroom. I thought that he (the offender) should be put to death. The Grandmaster disagreed and thought that he should be sentenced to a lifetime in jail.)

Anyway, so those were my initial views on it, and my views are still mostly the same. 🙂

Now, I understand that this is a serious topic that is not to be taken lightly, which makes me slightly hesitant to bring it up. But I am confident that us well-mannered BBers will remain polite, respectful, and calm, no bashing and no insulting anybody's opinion! Thank you. :smile3:

 

[Professor Walsh]

For me, the risk of just once executing an innocent person for someone else's crime is enough to be against the death penalty.

 

[InsaneMystic]

I don't think taking a human life is ever justified (the only possible exception I can think of is if the killed person themselves asked for euthanasia), so I'm on a clear no re: death penalty. (And even for its proponents - the electric chair is one of the vilest and most torturous instruments of execution there is. There can be no justification for a country considering itself civilized to use that vile thing in its law enforcement. Even the guillotine would be several times more humane; and nitrogen gas chambers or fatal injections are INFINITELY so.)

Even if you're a hardened criminal and repeat offender, you still have the same basic human rights as others, and the right to live and be physically unharmed pretty much tops the list. I can live with people who endanger to physical safety of others to be locked away indefinitely, as their right of free movement can indeed be seen as secondary to the right of physical safety for their prospective victims, but to kill them off makes the justice system no better, IMO, than the offender himself. If one person (even if it's a judge) is given the right to decide who lives and who dies and have that called "justice", I don't see why it should be regarded as "heinous crime" if a murderer does the same thing "in private".

 

[SeeingBlue]

Taking the quote from Buffy: "The hardest thing to do in this world is live in it." Death is the easy way out and offers no hope for redemption.

 

[Taake]

I went with undecided because I would like to say that I am against it, but things in my past stand in the way of my being against it, maybe one day I'll get there but for now I'll stay ambivalent

 

[TheGrandmaster]

Looks like the people agree with me 😉

And here is my reply to WO opening argument 🙂

Well, as stated in the Bill of Rights, Americans (this was committed in America) have the right to fair punishment for any crime they have committed. I agree with this. But then, as many of us ask ourselves, what constitutes as fair? Many people, for example, find the electric chair to be a cruel form of punishment. Others don't believe in the Death Penalty at all, they believe that people can be redeemed. I think differently.

I myself I am one of the people who are against the death penalty in an form. Of course, you are an American, and have probably been brought up being told that the death penalty is a fair punishment for those who have commited henious crimes, and I would not be surprised if you had not heard much of the other side of the argument.
I believe that as a civilised society we should be trying to move away from the 'an eye for eye' punishment mentality of those who came before us. The death penalty actual achieves little, the victims family gains no more from it than from life imprisonment of the offender, which I believe is the most apropriate punishment for those who commit the worst crimes; life imprisonment with chance of parole. In reality life imprisonment is probably a worse punishment to suffer than the death penalty, as by killing the offender you allow them to escape from what they have done.
Also, by murdering the offender you cause a great deal of pain and grievance to their family, who may not be at all responsible for their relatives behaviour, and have probably suffered a great deal of pain having realised what their family member has done. I believe it is unfair to hurt these people any more, and wasn't that the crux of your argument - fair punishment?
However, the main reason I am against the death penalty is because of this: I believe that it is never right to kill another person, no matter what the circumstances. If I may relate this topic back to Buffy, as I do with most things, it is very similar to the scene when Buffy has evil Faith at knife point and Faith says 'Kill me, and you become me'. I believe it is the same with death penalty, if you murder someone in the name of the state you become the very monster which you sought to destroy.

See, the question many of us, myself included ask ourselves is why are we here? As it is a philosophical question, there is no true answer. My personal opinion is that we're here to either destroy the Earth once and for all, or to help it. Either one would be a HUGE change. And in order to stand out and make differences that are more noticeable and sophisticated than any other animal that resides on earth, we need a well- structured society with rules and discipline.

I have to say that as you claim to be an atheist this 'help it or destroy it' view is a very unusual one to take. Surely if creationism is a myth and you believe in evolution, we are because of an enormous cosmic coincidence and nothing more. Surely if we are here to help or destroy the world, someone must have put us here for that purpose, and therefore you acknowledge the existence of a Godlike figure or force?

We do we have laws? To keep the public safe. Why do we have punishment if one BREAKS those laws? Well, several reasons, the biggest imo being to enforce the law by showcasing what happens if you endanger society. Of course, that brings up another question that many debate: Is the point of prosecution to protect the innocents from danger, or to punish the bad guys? Well, you can't really do one without the other, so I believe that it's both. (And, little side note, it's the same thing with being a slayer: Do you slay to kill vampires or protect humans?Hm)

I would largely agree with this, the safety of society as well as dettering other offenders are the two most important purpose of any sort of punishment. But the USA has the death penalty and still has one of the highest murder rates in the civilised world, so is the death penalty really working as a detterent? I would argue that if someone is prepared to commit a crime of the nature that we are discussing, no punishment will deter them from carrying out the crime.

Here's the rest 😀

So, now getting to the actual question: What I think would be a suitable punishment. Well, as I've aforementioned, I believe that in order to have a strong society we need to keep people in line. I believe that if somebody feels and thinks in such a way that they feel the need to try and strip the power and dignity away from somebody else to take it for themselves then there is something wrong with their brains, and they WILL do it again.

If you have never seen the films 'The Green Mile' or 'Dead Man Walking', I reccomend you watch them, as they both have scenes where offenders are put to death by the state. When someone is killed by the electric chair or by a lethal injection they themselves have their power and dignity stripped. Advocates of the Death Penalty would probably argue that this is a good thing, but again I would argue that as a civilised society we need to pull ourselves away from this barbaric eye for an eye mentality.

The need that power. And so as long as they exist, people are endanger. I don't believe that people like that help the world at all. And if you're not beneficial, only harmful, then I don't see a point in you being here. You'll only endanger what we worked to build. So, in conclusion, I believe that he should have been given the Death Penalty by the electric chair. Some people just don't deserve to be here. 🙂 So, what's your opinion on it? Do you concur with my perspective? 😀

This part of your argument seemed entirely illogical to me. You say that they will always be a danger to society, but surely if they are in solitary confinement on a life sentence without parole they will not be able to harm anyone. You may argue that they may escape jail and offend again, but surely America, a country that bills itself as one the most powerful in the world is able to keep prisoners locked up? I therefore that death by the electric chair is not the only option, I would argue that life imprisonment is, in fact, a better option.
I also take issue with the 'you'll only endanger what we worked to build'. I don't believe it is moral to kill those who endanger your way of life, as that was the basis of fascism.
Another quote that I would disagree strongly with is 'Some people just don't deserve to be here'. I believe that everyone has a right to live, and no one would should be able to take that right away, no matter what someone has done.
For all the reasons I believe that the death penalty is a barbaric and outdated practise that should have been abolished in all countries. You advocate the USA's version of the death penalty, so let me ask you what you think of the methods used by some middle eastern countries, such as stoning a woman to death for adultery? It would stop them reoffending, and would provide a detterent to others who may offend, so by your logic this is also a good practise?

 

[Flannen]

I absolutely 100% disagree with the death penalty. The reasons I disagree with it are actually pretty simple. Like miromurr, I think that the first time that they got it wrong (which I'm pretty certain they have) and killed an innocent person, it should never have been done again and stopped right there and then.

As far as I'm concerned, two wrongs just do not make a right. I hate seeing FB groups and such that berate people for crimes and say they want all these horrible things done to them in return. I just think it's barbaric. Killing a person for murdering someone else just seems like the most ridiculous idea because it's doing the exact same thing; taking the life of someone for taking someone's else's is just so illogical to me!

Laws and punishments are in place to keep order within society but that doesn't mean the death penalty must be one of those laws. Plus, does it really have an effect? Do the places in which the death penalty is still given as a sentence not have any murders? Life in prison, should mean life in prison and then there wouldn't be any need for the death penalty.

I might do a bit of 'research' on this later, but haven't many states in the US outlawed/out-ruled it over the last few years?

 

[Vengeance]

To me it's about the victim's family. If they want the killer's head then it should be theirs.

 

[Chris2]

For me, the risk of just once executing an innocent person for someone else's crime is enough to be against the death penalty.

Agreed. I don't think that's the only reason to oppose it, but in my opinion other arguments against it aren't necessary as long as there is the risk of executing innocent people - that alone is good reason not to have it.

To me it's about the victim's family. If they want the killer's head then it should be theirs.

Hmm, I see why you call yourself "Vengeance" :smile:. But do you really think revenge is a good basis for a justice system? I don't think people overcome with grief and anger are the best people to judge objectively and dispassionately.

See, the question many of us, myself included ask ourselves is why are we here? As it is a philosophical question, there is no true answer. My personal opinion is that we're here to either destroy the Earth once and for all, or to help it.

No offence meant, but..why do you believe that? Do you just mean that you think we should do one or the other, or do you mean that this is an actual, objective purpose given to us? If the latter, what is the source that gives us this purpose? (I'm sorry if this question comes across as overly confrontational; it's not supposed to be. I'm just interested.)

 

[thevikingsgirl]

I was pro-death penalty most of my life. Then I went to law school. Our system works as well as can be expected from a system run by fallible human beings. But it gets things wrong *all* the time. And people with money are less likely to be convicted than those without. There is also racial bias in the system. It is not a system that should be allowed to kill people. Look at all people who were convicted then later exonerated with DNA evidence. There are probably many more in jail who can't get enough attention to even have the evidence reviewed. You have to either have money for that, or get the attention of the Innocence Project. A man came to speak to us who spent 16 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit, convicted on eye witness testimony. People on juries believe if the person is on trial, he is probably guilty, but to get a grand jury to send something to trial is not all that hard. Even if I believed that the government should be allowed to play God and kill people (which I no longer do), I would be opposed to the death penalty because our system is far, far too imperfect.

I see the money argument a lot but the fact is it's cheaper to put someone in prison for life than to put them to death. There are a lot of appeals involved with putting someone to death, as there should be. But those cost money and, wouldn't ya know, besides the court costs, most people on death row are poor so the rest of society is paying for their lawyers too.

We could benefit from improving conditions in prison, where lightweight criminals are thrown in with the most hardcore and made hardcore themselves. Sex offenders should be separate from the rest and locked up forever, IMO. But no one should be subject to abuses in prison. The purpose of the justice system is to keep society safe, not to torture perpetrators. Leave that to the universe, or god, whatever you believe. In this lifetime, they can be put away so they can't hurt anyone.

 

[frankie]

I'm against it. Simply because why punish a murderer by becoming a murderer. I don't understand it. Lock them up for life, but never cross that line where you think you have a right to choose who lives or dies, that's when you become like them.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

I don't see the legal and justice system as being here to extract vengeance. It just can't be. The family of a victim of rape, murder, etc. will never be satisfied. If the system bends and twists to meet their individual needs, innocents will be hurt. It could be an accused who didn't actually do what was charged, it could be the totally innocent family of that person, or it could even be someone who is mentally unstable and not aware of the true effects of the things they have done. That wouldn't stop the family chasing execution. A system designed to carry out the wishes of people who are suffering from intense grief and rage is most definitely not the way to go.

But I don't believe that's what America has at the moment. The conflict there is more subtle. It comes down to where people stand on Human Rights. There is never going to be a complete consensus on this, especially in a country with such varied culture, religion, and education. I myself don't believe that the state should ever take a human life, but many will disagree with me. It's essentially going to come down to practicality, unfortunately. Imprisoning a person for life is expensive. But Capital Punishment as a deterrent doesn't seem to work. So what's the point? If it doesn't effectively stop people from committing these crimes, all that's left is vengeance. Is that justice?

 

[randiann]

I believe in the death penalty, but only in extreme circumstances. For example, no one will ever convince me that Tim Mcveigh didn't deserve to die (OKC Murrah building bombing 1995 for those too young to remember or who are not from the US). The man killed over 100 people, 19 of them being. children, and had no remorse. He deserved much more than to simply go to sleep and not wake up.

On the other hand, I also agree that the chance of putting an innocent person to death should detour us from choosing this as an appropriate punishment. I think the US justice system itself is completely flawed and biased. It is not a system that delivers justice based on merits, but rather one that doles out "justice" based on money. The jail system does little to actually reform prisoners; it instead makes them more likely to be repeat offenders as it places already troubled people in a horribly vicious institution where they are forced to fight to survive. There are better ways to reform people and re- integrate them into society as a means of punishment than our current system, and by implementing other alternate methods of reform, we could lower our overall crime rate and reduce our need for such systems in the first place.

 

[PrincessBuffy16]

I'm for death penalty only when it comes to raping and killing children. I don't know why, but I'm extra sensitive when it comes to them. To ruin something so innocent and pure, you have to be a monster to do that. And we don't need monsters walking on Earth.

 

[Flannen]

I've got a question for those who have mentioned only having it in extreme cases, and it's a genuine question not an attack or anything.

I'm wondering if that's just your ideal way of using capital punishment or whether you think it could actually work? If that makes sense? I hope it does.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

I've got a question for those who have mentioned only having it in extreme cases, and it's a genuine question not an attack or anything.

I'm wondering if that's just your ideal way of using capital punishment or whether you think it could actually work? If that makes sense? I hope it does.

That makes perfect sense. In an ideal world, with an infallible system, I can see why people would feel that way. But the system is far from infallible. I would have thought, if you feel that this kind of punishment is so drastic and final that it should be reserved solely for those who commit the most heinous of crimes, you would be totally against ever using it. If only people like that deserve it, how it ever be justifiably used it in a system where miscarriages of justice can and do take place?

 

[Kean]

Against it wholeheartedly.

It isn't our job to decide who lives or dies anymore than it was the individual's that committed the crime in the first place. If you want to punish someone for murder then you lock them in a cell for the rest of their existence, make life actually mean life. If they have remorse, well a lifetime of guilt is punishment enough. If they don't have guilt, well the rest of their lives spent in confinement is far more befitting than a) giving what I believe to be the easier option of death and b) bloodying our own hands in the pursuit of "justice".

 

[Wishing Oceans]

You guys all brought up very good points. 🙂 And believe me, the fact that there is a good chance of the person executed being innocent is a very good reason to not believe in it. On the other hand, would you prefer this "innocent person" to live in shame and confinement their ENTIRE life? Personally, in that instance, I believe that they would prefer death. Death, while knowing that they are innocent and will, depending on their faith, go to "a better place". 😀

But, theoretically speaking, what if our plan wasn't flawed? Everybody who was sent to prison was guilty. Everyone who was sentenced to Death was guilty. Would you still be against it?

I myself I am one of the people who are against the death penalty in an form. Of course, you are an American, and have probably been brought up being told that the death penalty is a fair punishment for those who have committed henious crimes, and I would not be surprised if you had not heard much of the other side of the argument.

Oh, believe me, as you can see by the fact that there's ONE other person so far who agrees with me, I hear much more about the other side. 😉

I believe that as a civilised society we should be trying to move away from the 'an eye for eye' punishment mentality of those who came before us. The death penalty actual achieves little, the victims family gains no more from it than from life imprisonment of the offender, which I believe is the most appropriate punishment for those who commit the worst crimes; life imprisonment with chance of parole. In reality life imprisonment is probably a worse punishment to suffer than the death penalty, as by killing the offender you allow them to escape from what they have done.

"Escape from what they have done"? The offender was Angel, he was... Well, the offender in this particular crime was more like Billy from Ats Season 3. This quote pretty much describes it:

"It's not the pain. It's the helplessness. The certainty that there's nothing you can do to stop it, that you're life can be taken away in a second by somebody else. He doesn't care. He'll beat you down 'til you stay down because he doesn't even *think* of you as alive. No woman should EVER have to go through that, and no woman strong enough to wear the mantle of "vicious b*tch" would ever put up with it."

The offender didn't care. Locking him up with accomplish nothing, except perhaps driving him more mad then he already was.

Now, I heard some of you bring up the point that the offender may be mentally ill. Now, The Grandmaster and I discussed it, and here's what I thought:

Whether somebody is "mentally ill" or not doesn't matter. In fact, it makes them MORE dangerous since they cannot be reasoned with. Yes, it's very unfortunate. But we don't win wars by going easy on everybody.

Besides, would that mentally ill person really need to live? They're ill, they don't understand what they're doing, and they don't understand life. IMO, it would be a blessing to stop them and not make them live their life like that. 🙂

Also, by murdering the offender you cause a great deal of pain and grievance to their family, who may not be at all responsible for their relatives behavior, and have probably suffered a great deal of pain having realized what their family member has done. I believe it is unfair to hurt these people any more, and wasn't that the crux of your argument - fair punishment?

The way I see it, the family would be GLAD that the offender was executed. Maybe they would grieve. But in the end, they'd be happy that they'd never again have to live in fear wondering who the offender would kill next. Not have to continue being disappointed. Not have to be reminded of their failure of a son/sibling.

Besides, I must say, people like that aren't just born that way. Something had to have happened to make them so disturbed, well it be a bad childhood or just plain mental illness. And if it's the latter, than he should have been taken to a mental FAR before his first offense.

Also, once again referencing the episode "Billy": Billy's family was GLAD to see the last of Billy. Somehow I imagine that the same would happen to the RL family. 😀

However, the main reason I am against the death penalty is because of this: I believe that it is never right to kill another person, no matter what the circumstances. If I may relate this topic back to Buffy, as I do with most things, it is very similar to the scene when Buffy has evil Faith at knife point and Faith says 'Kill me, and you become me'. I believe it is the same with death penalty, if you murder someone in the name of the state you become the very monster which you sought to destroy.

Is it really MURDER though? By definition, murder is "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice".

Also, I'm putting an Ats quote at the end that goes BEYOND the power of any other quote. 😀

I have to say that as you claim to be an atheist this 'help it or destroy it' view is a very unusual one to take. Surely if creationism is a myth and you believe in evolution, we are because of an enormous cosmic coincidence and nothing more. Surely if we are here to help or destroy the world, someone must have put us here for that purpose, and therefore you acknowledge the existence of a Godlike figure or force?

Well, my views change on a daily basis, lol. I went through a phase where I believed that we had to have SOME purpose, or else what was the point in being here at all? But I don't think that I believe that any longer. 🙂

I would largely agree with this, the safety of society as well as deterring other offenders are the two most important purpose of any sort of punishment. But the USA has the death penalty and still has one of the highest murder rates in the civilised world, so is the death penalty really working as a detterent? I would argue that if someone is prepared to commit a crime of the nature that we are discussing, no punishment will deter them from carrying out the crime.

Well, you have to remember that America is also one of the most populated Countries with the most diversity. Also, your last statement undermines your own argument. :biggrin3:

Another quote that I would disagree strongly with is 'Some people just don't deserve to be here'. I believe that everyone has a right to live, and no one would should be able to take that right away, no matter what someone has done.

Well, in the beginning, I believe that all life has worth. And after a while, you prove yourself to be useful to the world, or harmful to the world. You gain respect, or disrespect. Love or hate. Some people gain execution, others gain a long and good life.

You get what you work for. The offender committed crimes in full knowledge of the consequences, and because of his work, has to FACE the consequences. I don't think that ANYBODY would be crying over his death.

Like, how 'bout these quotes from Untouched: "Mr. Would-Be-Rapists-For-Hire? See me crying?" -Gunn, on the rapists being squished and killed by a dumpster. "And those guys are better of squashed, I truly agree!" -Cordelia

For all the reasons I believe that the death penalty is a barbaric and outdated practice that should have been abolished in all countries. You advocate the USA's version of the death penalty, so let me ask you what you think of the methods used by some middle eastern countries, such as stoning a woman to death for adultery? It would stop them re-offending, and would provide a deterrent to others who may offend, so by your logic this is also a good practice?

Of course I don't, by the Justice System, very few crimes earn yourself execution, and those crimes are some of the worst that you can do.

Adultery is disrespectful and unfair (and in this case, quite misogynistic), yes, but it's not unredeemable, and it's not even something that I'd want the government to get involved in at all (Unless the situation became dangerous to any one of the persons involved). Adultery won't scar anyone for life. It doesn't kill. IMO, it shouldn't even be considered a crime. It's a personal affair.

On the other hand, rape, torture, murder, all of that is what ruins lives forever.

As the quote from There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb goes...

"You try not to get anybody killed you wind up getting everybody killed."

 

[Kean]

You guys all brought up very good points. 🙂 And believe me, the fact that there is a good chance of the person executed being innocent is a very good reason to not believe in it. On the other hand, would you prefer this "innocent person" to live in shame and confinement their ENTIRE life? Personally, in that instance, I believe that they would prefer death. Death, while knowing that they are innocent and will, depending on their faith, go to "a better place". 😀

Personally, I believe that a person that is innocent and convicted of a crime that they did not commit are motivated by wanting to clear their name. I think the pursuit of truth, however vain it might be, is much more appealing than dying with the name "Murderer".

If you are alive you have the oppertunity to appeal, to seek the truth. You can't do that dead.

One of Ireland's greatest leaders, politicans and suffragists, Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, in 1916, after her husband was mudered by British troops remarked how:

Sometime's it is harder to live for a cause than to die for it. It would be a poor tribute to my husband if grief were to break my spirit. It shall not do so.

She went on to clear her husband's name (he had been labelled a terrorist) and she made it her mission to tell the truth of the brutality that her husband had faced and Ireland continued to face.

The Birmingham Six served 17 years in prison for a bombing they didn't commit. Similarly, the Guilford Four spent 15 years in prison for a bombing they didn't commit. That's ten men labelled "Terrorists" who were able to clear their names. It took them years but those years allowed them the time for the pursuit of justice and truth. I think everyone should be allowed that. The death penalty would have condemned these men as monsters forever.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

^ I think you'll find that in the UK, lots of people are still alive.

But aside from that, it's like I said, people will always have different views on human rights and who should be afforded them. I think, however, that statements like "The way I see it, the family would be GLAD that the offender was executed." are rather insensitive. If your mother, your child, whoever ended up getting involved in drugs/addiction/whatever and killed someone, would you be so quick to say "kill them"? That's a hugely grey area. Of course, some families will wash their hands of the criminal, but most? I sincerely doubt that.

I also strongly disagree with this bit:

Whether somebody is "mentally ill" or not doesn't matter. In fact, it makes them MORE dangerous since they cannot be reasoned with. Yes, it's very unfortunate. But we don't win wars by going easy on everybody.

Besides, would that mentally ill person really need to live? They're ill, they don't understand what they're doing, and they don't understand life. IMO, it would be a blessing to stop them and not make them live their life like that.

Yes, they may be more dangerous. But are you really saying they have less of a right to life because of it? It's not like they chose to suffer from this illness. Mental illness can often be treated. It's simply not the case that someone who commits a crime while legally insane is necessarily an ongoing danger to society. Moreover, some people are only intermittently "insane". They live worthwhile, fulfilled lives. In very extreme cases it may be a blessing to end their life. But that's a hugely slippery slope. Why is it any different from saying "ok, this person is in a lot of pain, let's kill them now. No, they don't need to have a say in it, it's for the best." Again, if your mother/father/brother/sister/husband/wife/child suffered from mental illness and they did something that they could not understand the consequences of, would you be able to say they deserve to die?