forum Is a violent government a bad one?

Started February 20, 2018 by @The Seliph-loving Gryffindor who also loves dragons and cats

tune

In AMJ, I'm planning for the Alolan government to execute serial killers. Is that a good or bad thing? AMJ is a darker version of Pokemon, so that's why I mentioned Alola by the way.

hello? help?

It depends on who you ask. That will be a controversial topic, however you put it.
Personally, I'm okay with the death penalty, as long as the cases are well-investigated and definite in their results.
However, others may consider a government which kills when not strictly necessary to be wrong by default.
Having a separating government/storyline isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. I would walk the middle line when it comes to justifying the government, so both sides of the argument can still enjoy the story.

Like, if someone is a simple thief, they should get thrown in jail (and fed), however, if they have murdered 10 people on purpose, they should get killed. I, myself, have always found throwing someone in jail if they are a psychopathic murderer to be dumb. Sometimes, the sentence is not until death, and even then, the psychopath could find a way out. And don't say "throw them in a prison until they die of starvation or illness", the criminal could still find a way to escape and murder more innocents. That's kind of why I put the death penalty in the story.
Also, the reason Team Skull are spared in AMJ is because, like in the games and anime, they are too incompetent. Just in case you were wondering.

Does violent mean rational? Or just prone to executions? Are violent governments are not just going to be executing serial killers or crazy people, but rather any kind of law breaker?
But there's another issue as well.
In my universe, The Daemon Rune, the government has destroyed the people's capacity to do my form of magic (runes). They tell the people that this is for their own good, because runes can destroy whole cities. Meanwhile, people are dying every day at the hands of daemons and rune gangs. This presents the question: Is a non-violent government a good one?

The government in AMJ only kills like serial killers.

The government in AMJ only kills like serial killers.

In this world, can the death sentence apply to any crime if added up enough? As in, if someone commits fraud to steal peoples' pensions for 20 years, tearing apart hundreds of lives, does that person get the death sentence over someone who killed maybe three or four people?

Pensions? What are those? In AMJ, if a thief steals too much, he'll be thrown in jail.

Seems fair.

I don't like this question.

If the answer you get is, "That's bad," are you going to have your government not carry out the death penalty? If so, don't do that. A government does not have to be moral (this topic is controversial, anyway, so it's up to the fictional government to decide what's "moral.")

I'm writing a nation that basically unified 20 smaller nations into one one hundred years ago (through one conqueror, so it wasn't an agreement for everyone), so they have to crack down HARD in order to maintain order. In some cases, it's fine. In others… well, the ends don't always justify the means. I'm going to explore all of that in my book, it's so intriguing to me. :D

It depends what the violent is, and what the general population is known to believe. In a government I have, they are terribly twisted but the citizens don’t see that because they believe it’s what’s good for their family and home.

The violent is murdering serial killers, and the population knows about this except little kids because little kids don't know about deaths

Violent isn't a popular government, but it can be a necessary one. If they use it for power, that's a little bad, but if they use it as the ultimate punishment, for the most heinous crimes, then it's not that bad.