This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- LNAT Essay
- FIFA Women's World Cup 2023
- Capital Punishment Survey
- LNAT Essay
- Valdo Calocane gets hospital order- Families of the victims are angry about it
- Late Submission
- IM FOREVER blowing BUBBLES
- History A level- themes in Religious conflict in the Church 1529-1570
- How likely is it that Oxford will accept me (for law)?
- Advice for my English GCSE speaking presentation?Topics?
- Macbeth practice
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Widowed - death of parent
- Is Messi now the undisputed greatest of all time?
- How should you go about planning an A-level English lit essay?
- Submitted late but On same day
- Self-Plagiarism on presentation
- Speculation in GCSE English
- went over my word count by 10% and i'm scared ill be capped
- Wills and Death
Should they bring in the death penalty for england?
Scroll to see replies
Bagration
While I'm anti death penalty, I'd just like to backup what 5.56 is saying. The United States has never executed anyone later found to be guilty - their system is in this respect flawless, although people do spend years on death row...
I just disagree with the principle.
I just disagree with the principle.
You can't make a claim that it is flawless. Just because they weren't found not-guilty doesnt mean in 100% of cases they were guilty.
The fact that people are released from death row because of wrong verdicts shows that mistakes can be made. If they can be made once, they can be made twice.
FiveFiveSix
Y'know, it would be really quite cool if people instead of just wasting bandwidth to say 'Yes' or 'No' would actually engage in the debate...
Alright then, as someone mentioned earlier, and then was strangely silent when I asked for clarification... What reasonable alternatives are there (in your opinions) for capital punishment?
Alright then, as someone mentioned earlier, and then was strangely silent when I asked for clarification... What reasonable alternatives are there (in your opinions) for capital punishment?
Prison. If there is a situation which would warrant the death penalty, they can just be locked up for the rest of their life.
It makes no difference to the public whether they are alive or dead.
-steph-
I dont think that they should be killed but made to suffer like men who serial rapist their ding dongs should be cut off. Also serial murderers should recieve 1000 cuts to their bodies. Well this is in my head how they should be treated but I dont think that england will comply.
castration doesn't destroy the sex drive
they'll just rape em and take please from watching, a few cases in America i believe
FiveFiveSix
Y'know, it would be really quite cool if people instead of just wasting bandwidth to say 'Yes' or 'No' would actually engage in the debate...
Alright then, as someone mentioned earlier, and then was strangely silent when I asked for clarification... What reasonable alternatives are there (in your opinions) for capital punishment?
Alright then, as someone mentioned earlier, and then was strangely silent when I asked for clarification... What reasonable alternatives are there (in your opinions) for capital punishment?
I was silent when you mentioned that earlier through fear of the never-ending debate I would get when I said that I think prisoners should be rehabilitated
However, I imagine you wouldn't find that a 'reasonable alternative' as they're not being punished.
But innocence is still an issue, a lot of people would have been killed if it was there.
Mcjazz
I was silent when you mentioned that earlier through fear of the never-ending debate I would get when I said that I think prisoners should be rehabilitated However, I imagine you wouldn't find that a 'reasonable alternative' as they're not being punished.
However, I imagine you wouldn't find that a 'reasonable alternative' as they're not being punished.Ok, I'm open to suggestions. What kind of rehab do you have in mind? I put it to you that people who commit sex crimes, especially against children, can not be rehabilitated, and even if they can, they are so repugnant to society as to make the whole operation useless...
zef99
do you really think this could ever be possible?
Yes, yes I do. Otherwise, as I have previously stated, I wouldn't support capital punishment.
Antonia87
I am pro death penalty. People may say its just as wrong as murdering someone, but unless youre in the shoes of a parent whose child was raped or stabbed/beaten to death by another person I dont really think you can understand.
And unless your parent was wrongly in prison for 15 years and the judge said that he wished the death penalty had been allowed I don't think you can make that generalisation.
We should all consider ourselves lucky that we live in a society that has rid itself of the death penalty.
By agreeing to the reinstating of the death penalty in U.K you therefore advocate execution, that is murder, and simply show little regard for human rights.
You really do contradict yourself when you say that execution can be humane...Earlier you said that certain criminals relinquish their human rights when they commit certain crimes, e.g- murder, but you are also saying that murder committed by the state is 'humane', and should be legally, that is by definition morally, justifiable. Do you know the proper meaning of the word 'humane'?
If you look at the US, the most culturally similar country to the UK that uses the death penalty in its criminal justice system, would you say that the presence of that deterrent stops people from commiting the crimes that you listed earlier, or does it simply give the alienated in society another reason to hate that country, and also imply that execution can be legally (morally) justifiable?
Also considering the aforementioned concerns about mistaken identity etc...
It just doesn't work.
FiveFiveSix
What's twisted about the last bit? Would you rather I'd advocated horrible torture and a slow, lingering death? Come on... Death is not something to be enjoyed, or celebrated, or to have time taken over it. You execute them quicky, painlessly and humanely. I'm not a monster...
By agreeing to the reinstating of the death penalty in U.K you therefore advocate execution, that is murder, and simply show little regard for human rights.
You really do contradict yourself when you say that execution can be humane...Earlier you said that certain criminals relinquish their human rights when they commit certain crimes, e.g- murder, but you are also saying that murder committed by the state is 'humane', and should be legally, that is by definition morally, justifiable. Do you know the proper meaning of the word 'humane'?
If you look at the US, the most culturally similar country to the UK that uses the death penalty in its criminal justice system, would you say that the presence of that deterrent stops people from commiting the crimes that you listed earlier, or does it simply give the alienated in society another reason to hate that country, and also imply that execution can be legally (morally) justifiable?
Also considering the aforementioned concerns about mistaken identity etc...
It just doesn't work.
FiveFiveSix
Ok, I'm open to suggestions. What kind of rehab do you have in mind? I put it to you that people who commit sex crimes, especially against children, can not be rehabilitated, and even if they can, they are so repugnant to society as to make the whole operation useless...
Interesting, if they did get rehabilitated then yeah they'd probably have to be put back into society away from where people know them. Well, I think that if a person's committed these kind of crimes then they're either a) Badly raised, in that they don't understand what's right and wrong. b) They have some anger issues/some other similar motivation, or c) They have some kinda mental disability.
Now I think that the first and second points could be worked on, even to the point where they can be integrated back into society and won't commit the crimes again. The third is a bit more tricky, perhaps an institution would better if they ended up being diagnosed with something like that.
nuttygirl
And unless your parent was wrongly in prison for 15 years and the judge said that he wished the death penalty had been allowed I don't think you can make that generalisation.
Well clearly the death penalty should be reserved to cases where science prevails and where there is substantial evidence that the person in question is in fact the right person. Take Ian Huntley for example, traces of the girls' hair were found on his clothing and fibres from the clothes the girls' were wearing were found in his car. And he ended up admitting it.
UberCool
We should all consider ourselves lucky that we live in a society that has rid itself of the death penalty.
By agreeing to the reinstating of the death penalty in U.K you therefore advocate execution, that is murder, and simply show little regard for human rights.
You really do contradict yourself when you say that execution can be humane...Earlier you said that certain criminals relinquish their human rights when they commit certain crimes, e.g- murder, but you are also saying that murder committed by the state is 'humane', and should be legally, that is by definition morally, justifiable. Do you know the proper meaning of the word 'humane'?
If you look at the US, the most culturally similar country to the UK that uses the death penalty in its criminal justice system, would you say that the presence of that deterrent stops people from committing the crimes that you listed earlier, or does it simply give the alienated in society another reason to hate that country, and also imply that execution can be legally (morally) justifiable?
Also considering the aforementioned concerns about mistaken identity etc...
It just doesn't work.
By agreeing to the reinstating of the death penalty in U.K you therefore advocate execution, that is murder, and simply show little regard for human rights.
You really do contradict yourself when you say that execution can be humane...Earlier you said that certain criminals relinquish their human rights when they commit certain crimes, e.g- murder, but you are also saying that murder committed by the state is 'humane', and should be legally, that is by definition morally, justifiable. Do you know the proper meaning of the word 'humane'?
If you look at the US, the most culturally similar country to the UK that uses the death penalty in its criminal justice system, would you say that the presence of that deterrent stops people from committing the crimes that you listed earlier, or does it simply give the alienated in society another reason to hate that country, and also imply that execution can be legally (morally) justifiable?
Also considering the aforementioned concerns about mistaken identity etc...
It just doesn't work.
Just like we should be thankful we live in a society where you can get 6 months jail time for screwing kids, a few years for stabbing someone and a few more for doing it a few times? Right.
The death penalty advocates execution, yes, thanks for that... I was having problems working that one out! However, execution is not murder - murder is an unlawful killing, a lawful execution is not unlawful. The state does not commit murder, we're not living in communist bloody Russia...
Show me where I contradict myself - execution is not humane? It's a damn sight more humane than doing to the offenders what they have done to their victims, or other nasty methods. The methods used for execution have been chosen for their speed, efficiency and minimal pain to the criminal. I'm not advocating pain for pain's sake...
The US and UK are poles apart, but yes, I would say the presence of the death penalty is an effective deterrent. Maybe you could tell me the percentage of those executed who go on to re-offend? Ok, how about those who serve time in prison, and then are released? The alienated in society don't usually need any more reasons to hate their country... I believe that execution is morally and legally justifiable.
Considering the aforementioned concerns? Please don't make me repeat myself, again.
Right, its just gone 1 o'clock in the morning in sunny Thailand, and I'm training for a marathon, so I'll bid you all good night, it was a good and enlightening debate. Ta ta.
FiveFiveSix
Read my earlier post. Checks and balances will be put in place so innocent people AREN'T hanged. I'd never condone a system where there was even a shadow of a doubt. The people I want to execute are not human. By committing such crimes they forfeit their human rights, and can be used for medical experimentation for all I care.
The checks and balances are in place in america and cost their taxpayers thousands per exicution (infact a lot more than if they were kept for life in prison). Yet still innocent people in America are exicuted.
The Death penalty, can never and will never be reinstated in this country,
FiveFiveSix
execution is not humane? It's a damn sight more humane than doing to the offenders what they have done to their victims, or other nasty methods. The methods used for execution have been chosen for their speed, efficiency and minimal pain to the criminal. I'm not advocating pain for pain's sake...
execution is not humane? It's a damn sight more humane than doing to the offenders what they have done to their victims, or other nasty methods. The methods used for execution have been chosen for their speed, efficiency and minimal pain to the criminal. I'm not advocating pain for pain's sake...
So is it more humane to fry the abused wife in the electric chair for suffocating her husband whilst he slept? Is it more humain to inject toxins into the body of the doctor, who killed his terminally ill elderly patiants by slightly increasing their daylt dose of pain killers?
Murders are not always the brutal frenzys you and others like you think. Dont generalise. The Death Penalty is an abhorant Practice, which should never be tollerated!
Short answer: it shouldn't.
But it should be for the Welsh Kidding.
So much potential for it to go wrong, lots of issues regarding the decisions about what crimes constitute worthiness of death, risk of innocent people dying (which is impossible to eliminate even with a thorough checking system), potential issues regarding corruption, and many many other reasons why not. The death penalty will achieve nothing that life in prison cannot do.
But it should be for the Welsh
Kidding.So much potential for it to go wrong, lots of issues regarding the decisions about what crimes constitute worthiness of death, risk of innocent people dying (which is impossible to eliminate even with a thorough checking system), potential issues regarding corruption, and many many other reasons why not. The death penalty will achieve nothing that life in prison cannot do.
FiveFiveSix
The US and UK are poles apart, but yes, I would say the presence of the death penalty is an effective deterrent. Maybe you could tell me the percentage of those executed who go on to re-offend? Ok, how about those who serve time in prison, and then are released? The alienated in society don't usually need any more reasons to hate their country... I believe that execution is morally and legally justifiable.
You are missing the point, it is not about simply stopping criminals that have already commited crimes but also about not giving people a reason to rebel against society and commit murders etc to begin with. In a society where murder is upheld as a legal and proper way of dealing with wrong-doers this filters down through society to the individual. Look at how many fatal shootings there are in America each year.
I believe that execution is morally and legally justifiable
Most killers also probably think that what they are doing is right, or else they wouldn't do it, right?
We should not bring back the death penalty. The practice is a disgraceful one that should be left firmly in the past, as we progress into a century where human rights should be respected; the implementation of the death penalty is fraught with dangers that simply cannot be resolved at the current moment.
Firstly, there is a fundamental disagreement between the state's pronouncement to protect the right to life and its willingness to take it. A state that has the highest degree of respect for life cannot transmit that same respect to its people if the state itself is willing to take a life when it sees fit. Along with the death penalty comes cases where we are not confident about the guilt of the person, or new evidence comes out later. If you execute someone then these mistakes are irreparable. The state oversteps the line if it takes the life of its citizens if it sees fit, because its duty to protect the citizens is not changed if it chooses life imprisonment over the death penalty. It endangers more lives of innocent citizens by applying the death penalty (which is accorded by fallible humans) than if it does not impose the death penalty.
Secondly, the application of the death penalty is inconsistent; whether you receive it depends on facts beyond those pertaining to the crime. Because we agree that blanket application of capital punishment is inhumane, we must allow humans to make the decisions on when to apply the death penalty and not, but this means that human prejudices are effectively deciding whether somebody lives or dies. Amnesty International discovered that, in the US, "blacks convicted of killing whites were sentenced to death fifteen times more often than whites convicted of killing blacks." Yes, prejudices are impossible to completely remove, but they should not be allowed to influence a decision as fundamental as whether somebody should live or die.
Thirdly, the numbers of errors in the system is too substantial a proportion of the total to be allowed. A comprehensive study of capital punishment cases in the US found that 7% of those on death row were found to be "demonstrably innocent". Not only does such an error rate lead to the risk of innocent people being put to death, but it also means that those who have been found innocent on death row have been subjected to inhuman treatment. I am sure that those who support the death penalty will agree that no innocent person should have to spend years in a state of confinement, without the rights usually given to prisoners, having to mentally grapple with the judgement that their life will be ended because of an act that they did not commit. Your perceived "revenge" cannot atone for that imperious sense of impending death which mentally tortures innocent people on death row, who know not whether they will live or die.
Fourthly, the actual killing is prone to error and can involve inhumane treatment in an unacceptable number of cases. As we believe that a person should be told when they are going to die (and not shot in the dark), we have to live with cases of them suffering in animal-like agony, and with botched attempts. In the past few years, states in the US have suspended executions because studies have suggested that the preferred method of lethal injection is cruel and painful. People find beheadings disgusting to their nature; hangings often result in excruciating deaths; the electric chair was prone to error, with witnesses horrifically watching blood coming out of the prisoner's eyeballs. The US is slowly realizing that none of the methods of capital punishment are ones that it is willing to inflict on other people.
Lastly, economically the death penalty is far more expensive to implement correctly, even when the quality of that implementation leaves much to be desired. For example, according to The Economist, each death penalty case costs $2m more than one where the guilty party is sentenced to life imprisonment. Those who support the death penalty have to answer for this greater expenditure, and why they think it is worth spending millions more to attain what they see as "revenge". I submit that even if we put aside the moral arguments, the death penalty is a wasteful use of money.
Let's be civilized; let's respect our human rights. Do not support capital punishment.
K.
Firstly, there is a fundamental disagreement between the state's pronouncement to protect the right to life and its willingness to take it. A state that has the highest degree of respect for life cannot transmit that same respect to its people if the state itself is willing to take a life when it sees fit. Along with the death penalty comes cases where we are not confident about the guilt of the person, or new evidence comes out later. If you execute someone then these mistakes are irreparable. The state oversteps the line if it takes the life of its citizens if it sees fit, because its duty to protect the citizens is not changed if it chooses life imprisonment over the death penalty. It endangers more lives of innocent citizens by applying the death penalty (which is accorded by fallible humans) than if it does not impose the death penalty.
Secondly, the application of the death penalty is inconsistent; whether you receive it depends on facts beyond those pertaining to the crime. Because we agree that blanket application of capital punishment is inhumane, we must allow humans to make the decisions on when to apply the death penalty and not, but this means that human prejudices are effectively deciding whether somebody lives or dies. Amnesty International discovered that, in the US, "blacks convicted of killing whites were sentenced to death fifteen times more often than whites convicted of killing blacks." Yes, prejudices are impossible to completely remove, but they should not be allowed to influence a decision as fundamental as whether somebody should live or die.
Thirdly, the numbers of errors in the system is too substantial a proportion of the total to be allowed. A comprehensive study of capital punishment cases in the US found that 7% of those on death row were found to be "demonstrably innocent". Not only does such an error rate lead to the risk of innocent people being put to death, but it also means that those who have been found innocent on death row have been subjected to inhuman treatment. I am sure that those who support the death penalty will agree that no innocent person should have to spend years in a state of confinement, without the rights usually given to prisoners, having to mentally grapple with the judgement that their life will be ended because of an act that they did not commit. Your perceived "revenge" cannot atone for that imperious sense of impending death which mentally tortures innocent people on death row, who know not whether they will live or die.
Fourthly, the actual killing is prone to error and can involve inhumane treatment in an unacceptable number of cases. As we believe that a person should be told when they are going to die (and not shot in the dark), we have to live with cases of them suffering in animal-like agony, and with botched attempts. In the past few years, states in the US have suspended executions because studies have suggested that the preferred method of lethal injection is cruel and painful. People find beheadings disgusting to their nature; hangings often result in excruciating deaths; the electric chair was prone to error, with witnesses horrifically watching blood coming out of the prisoner's eyeballs. The US is slowly realizing that none of the methods of capital punishment are ones that it is willing to inflict on other people.
Lastly, economically the death penalty is far more expensive to implement correctly, even when the quality of that implementation leaves much to be desired. For example, according to The Economist, each death penalty case costs $2m more than one where the guilty party is sentenced to life imprisonment. Those who support the death penalty have to answer for this greater expenditure, and why they think it is worth spending millions more to attain what they see as "revenge". I submit that even if we put aside the moral arguments, the death penalty is a wasteful use of money.
Let's be civilized; let's respect our human rights. Do not support capital punishment.
K.
Related discussions
- LNAT Essay
- FIFA Women's World Cup 2023
- Capital Punishment Survey
- LNAT Essay
- Valdo Calocane gets hospital order- Families of the victims are angry about it
- Late Submission
- IM FOREVER blowing BUBBLES
- History A level- themes in Religious conflict in the Church 1529-1570
- How likely is it that Oxford will accept me (for law)?
- Advice for my English GCSE speaking presentation?Topics?
- Macbeth practice
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Widowed - death of parent
- Is Messi now the undisputed greatest of all time?
- How should you go about planning an A-level English lit essay?
- Submitted late but On same day
- Self-Plagiarism on presentation
- Speculation in GCSE English
- went over my word count by 10% and i'm scared ill be capped
- Wills and Death
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Temporary Withdrawl/Suspension of studies and Student Fianance.Last reply 2 minutes ago
MPhil Advanced Computer Science Cambridge - 2024 EntryLast reply 4 minutes ago
Standard Chartered Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
How important is IFST (Institute of Food Science & Technology) AccreditationLast reply 4 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
Amazon Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 10 minutes ago
AQA A Level Geography Paper 1 (7037/1) - 16th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 13 minutes ago
UAL art foundation 2024 diagnostic vs specialistLast reply 15 minutes ago
Official Durham University Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
