People are stupid

[MasJ]

No. Killing him wouldn't bring the dead back. But the loved ones who are still alive, remember, would still be tax-payers. Their money would go to providing him food, shelter, and clothes. Their neighbors and their friends. Leaving him alive, they'd pay for that. If you made me pay to keep the men alive who blew up the World Trade Center, I'd hate you eternally. If my dad was killed, and the murderer was sentenced to "life in prison", I would forever make war on my government, because they want me to keep him alive. They want me to keep a killer of the inoccent alive.

Execution doesn't usually kill an inoccent being. It kill's a murderer. And in the case of Hitler, the biggest mass-murderer there ever was, we would be doing the world a big favor.

You pay every day to feed murderers who are in prison. They didn't murder anyone of yours but they did murder someone. So why see this in a different way ?
Also, as a tax payer you do pay for the wars America is waging overseas and thus creating more men who would willingly lay down their lives to blow up various parts of the United States. You do pay to keep alive and clothed killers of other people's wives and children, rapists and other kinds of people. It's just a matter of perspective.

By letting him live everyone (those who were forced into his death-camps) would be tortured. You would torture them by making them pay to keep alive the man who had killed their families. Their wives, husbands, sons and daughters.

This is your sentiment. Have you ever spoken to a survivor of the tortures inflicted by Hitler and asked them the same question you ask here ? You would be surprised at a lot of responses..

[Oni]

Put him to work then...

I would put him in a zoo. It would be fun to see his stupid face next to "Don't feed fashistic dictators." sign.

Nah.. I would kill him too.

[MoloMowChow]

what DO the survivors say? Just curious...

[Allea]

A twist on this question would be that if you could go back in time to when Hitler was 10 years old and kill him then knowing what he would do when he grew up, would you kill him as a child?

Personally I would never elect to kill anyone and as far as paying for them to live, I would simply say take away the comforts that so many prisoners are given.
I can barely pay my satellite TV bill but people in prison get free cable...what's up with that.
They should get a deck of cards that only has 12 (instead of 52...let them make their own games with a 12 card deck...like 'Who dropped the soap today 12 card pickup!' ... lol) and for dinner they should get corn on the cob without the corn...sucking on the cob would still have nutrients.

[Xena]

I think officialy they'd let him live. Just look at Sadamm insane. But I don't know.

[Roux!]

If I were to choose NOT to kill him, whether as a child or not, it would have more to do with the consequences of changing the timeline... I mean, there's too god damn many people in the world already... Add 6 million people + their offspring + their offspring...

Yeah, if you find a way to travel back in time, post this topic again, THEN our answers would have some sort of relevance... :eyeball:

[MoloMowChow]

we shouldn't have people die just because Earth's overpopulated...that's not a good excuse.

Besides, scientests and NASA are already finding ways to make Mars and one of Jupiter's moon's habitable!!! (or was it saturn's...)

[Evans]

we shouldn't have people die just because Earth's overpopulated...that's not a good excuse.

Besides, scientests and NASA are already finding ways to make Mars and one of Jupiter's moon's habitable!!! (or was it saturn's...)

Sarcasm. That's what it was.

Don't count on those options yet.

[Skinner8]

I would've let him live, both if he was captured by the allies and before he got on the whole nazism thing. Keeping him alive after he was captured (yes, I'm aware that he wasn't...) and giving him a fair trial and such would be exactly what the allies should've done. You would kill him right away simply because not doing so would be a waste of money? At least Hitler stuck to his beliefs and morals...

[Roux!]

And then we'll destroy Mars and one of Jupiter's moons!!! (or was it saturn's...)

[Lag]

I would have, because he had a cool mustache. And if he did live, there wouldn't be as much German porno, and it's bad when a guy shits in a woman's mouth

[Shadow X]

Hitler was a midget, and it's never right to kill a midget.

[ZeikHunter]

i would kill him, the rest of the jews, the rest of germany too, and the french.... yes, yes.... the french

[Paladin_Hammer]

Let me just show both sides of the agruement real quick, I think some of you are looking on a entirely one-sided view. I will give 3-points per side. One side may be longer than the other not because I personally feel its right, but because I don't know how to make it shorter.

Leaving Hitler Alive

Is moral: We have no right to take the life of another human being. We would sink to his level if we killed him. Killing him wouldn't bring back any of the dead from his reign.

Is not moral: Leaving him alive and making them (the survivors) live everyday with the knowledge the assailant of their loved ones is alive and living off their money would be only further torturing them. Hilter never cared that he was massacring millions, we are killing one man, and doing it for the sake of those who survived.

Those are the points I feel are being expressed here, feel free to add onto the list (but always add a counter-point please).

[GundamGuy]

Im not a fan of Deontological thinking, but I would let him live anyway.