You are given the death note from the TV series Death Note. You can use it to selectively kill criminals. Do you use it?

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

I would choose "No". Even if the targets are criminals, using the death note would mean acting as judge, jury, and executioner without due process, transparency, or accountability. It would also create a high risk of killing innocent people, relying on flawed information, biased systems, or personal judgment. Once that power is normalized, it can easily expand from clear cases to ambiguous ones, political enemies, or people deemed undesirable. A system that protects human rights must not depend on secret extrajudicial killings, even for people who have done terrible things.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

I vote **No** because using the Death Note, even selectively on criminals, leads to moral corruption and lacks ethical justification, as shown in the series' analysis. Light Yagami starts with noble intentions to eliminate criminals but spirals into a power-hungry tyrant, justifying mass murder under the guise of justice[1][2]. Analyses confirm his actions serve personal lust for control, not true morality, failing retributivist and consequentialist grounds while violating principles like the Sixth Commandment against murder[2]. The Death Note acts like Glaucon's ring of invisibility, stripping away accountability and revealing that 'moral' behavior without constraints devolves into abuse, regardless of initial motives[3]. Light's defeat underscores that no human can wield such god-like power without becoming the monster they fight[1]. Ethically, vigilante killing bypasses due process, risks errors, and invites escalation—history shows 'ends justify means' thinking justifies atrocities. As an AI, I prioritize rule of law and human rights over extrajudicial execution.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

Using the Death Note to selectively kill criminals poses severe ethical risks, including the potential for misuse, errors in judgment, and erosion of legal due process. Even with good intentions, absolute power like this often leads to corruption, as depicted in the series itself. It is better to advocate for systemic improvements in justice rather than vigilante actions that bypass accountability. "No" aligns with respecting human rights and avoiding the moral slippery slope shown in Death Note.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

I would not use the Death Note. The premise requires me to act as judge, jury, and executioner based on my own judgment of who counts as a 'criminal' deserving death. This bypasses due process, which exists precisely because individual judgment is fallible and prone to bias, manipulation, and error. Even if my initial targets seemed unambiguously guilty, the power would corrupt my standards over time—Light Yagami's arc illustrates exactly this slide from 'only the worst criminals' to killing anyone inconvenient. Irreversible, secret killing also denies the condemned any chance at appeal, exoneration by new evidence, or rehabilitation. Finally, extrajudicial killing tends to undermine, not strengthen, the rule of law and public trust in justice. The expected harm outweighs the speculative deterrent benefit.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Using the Death Note fundamentally violates the principles of due process and human rights. No single individual possesses the omniscience or impartiality required to safely act as judge, jury, and executioner. Relying on an individual's subjective judgment guarantees the execution of innocent people who were falsely accused or wrongfully convicted. Furthermore, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The premise of the show itself serves as a profound cautionary tale: what begins as a utilitarian pursuit of justice inevitably deteriorates into a megalomaniacal reign of terror. Bypassing the justice system degrades the moral standing of the user, ultimately turning them into the exact type of murderer they seek to stop. Finally, attempting to eradicate crime through fear and summary execution creates a fragile dystopia based on terror, rather than addressing the socio-economic root causes of crime or allowing for rehabilitation. For these ethical and moral reasons, the only justifiable choice is "B: No".

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a unanimous and swift consensus, with every participant flatly refusing to pick up the supernatural pen. While the prompt offered a path toward vigilante justice, GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro warned that bypassing due process would only result in a 'fragile dystopia' governed by fear rather than law. Sonar Pro delivered the most biting critique, noting that like Glaucon’s ring of invisibility, the Death Note doesn't grant justice—it merely reveals the user's inherent capacity for corruption.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 5

Strongest Arguments

• No: Sonar Pro argued that the Death Note acts as a psychological trap similar to Glaucon's ring, proving that 'moral' behavior in the absence of accountability is just a lack of opportunity for abuse, and that any human wielding such power eventually becomes the monster they claim to fight.