The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

We need capital punishment back.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Carter78
It might be rude to point out, but this Marshall character is a cohort of ChristianLady. I'm not out to start a witch-hunt, but there is an alarmingly similarity in their approach to debate.


I don't know why I even bothered getting involved

facepalm.jpg

I need to ask myself some serious questions about that. Time for a nice cup of tea and a sit down.
Original post by Carter78
It might be rude to point out, but this Marshall character is a cohort of ChristianLady. I'm not out to start a witch-hunt, but there is an alarmingly similarity in their approach to debate.


Look at it this way. I only asked a question, then however the guy started talking rubbish. You are being downright rude and aggressive. Have I insulted you or something? No. That does not require you both to be so demanding and being insulting. Why am I wasting my time with you people? Haha. You people need to get a life. You may say what you want, but she is was totally undefended over there. I had to step in.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 142
Original post by The Marshall
Look at it this way. I only asked a question, then however the guy started talking rubbish. You are being downright rude and aggressive. Have I insulted you or something? No. That does not require you both to be so demanding and being insulting. Why am I wasting my time with you people? Haha. You people need to get a life. You may say what you want, but she is was totally undefended over there. I had to step in.


Nothing that he wrote was rude or aggressive to you, but you clearly interpreted it as being such.
Classic flounce
Reply 144
Original post by The Marshall
Look at it this way. I only asked a question, then however the guy started talking rubbish. You are being downright rude and aggressive. Have I insulted you or something? No. That does not require you both to be so demanding and being insulting. Why am I wasting my time with you people? Haha. You people need to get a life. You may say what you want, but she is was totally undefended over there. I had to step in.


Settle down dear. Stop babbling and have a cup of tea.
Original post by Carter78
Settle down dear. Stop babbling and have a cup of tea.


Settle down? Oh right, hear your crap, and then settle down? Why I certainly will not. Aggressiveness and then bullying is the subject of this topic now.
I would call it having to explain simple psychological and sociological data to someone who thinks they know everything without ever having studied the subject, yet goes around insisting that they do.


I asked you a simple question. And it seems however you are quite incapable, quite incapable of answering a simple question. What you and others are doing is group bullying. Because British people love to bully, I don't think I need to research anything.:wink:

(2) You've just gone from saying "the death penalty deters crime" to "harsh punishment, not necessarily the death penalty, deters crime."

Please decide which position you're actually trying to defend.

Please, create nesscary lies in order to dispell. I never said that harsh punishment deters crime. I strongly support that Capital Punishment should be bought in, and every criminal that commits a crime, even a petty one will be hanged. The US Marshalls of their time had no problem in that in the old wild west.

Either way, as the data shows, contrary to your merely speculation which is not supported by any data which you have provided, neither of these things prevent crime or act as deters in any significant way.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about here.


In fact, as I stated earlier, APA data even shows that the death penalty increases murder rates because after the State executes someone, we can observe a spike in murder rates for a short period of time thereafter.

Hum...hello? You mentioned it right here now, you didn't mention it before, did you?
Before reading this I would have said yes to the death penalty to anyone who has murdered or raped another person..

Now I am thinking maybe the death penalty should apply to those who have committed several acts of murder or terrorism

People saying 30 years is a long time for a person to be in jail, I think you're forgetting that most of them will be let out 10-15 years with good behaviour..

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1584745_stockport-headless-body-trial-anthony-and-joseph-jenkins-jailed-for-life-for-murder-of-john- grainger

The two in this case got 30 and 32 years.. If they behave in prison that sentence will be over in half of their time... Is this fair? For such a brutal attack?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_Allitt

This woman can apply for parole in 2022, this is 31 years she would have served in prison after taking away the lives of 4 young children attempting to kill others and committing gbh on others.. Is this fair? After the amount of lives this woman has ruined, not just the children she did all this to but to their families too.
'Following the second time that she stopped breathing, she was transferred to another hospital but, by this time, had suffered permanent brain damage, partial paralysis and partial blindness due to oxygen deprivation.' this is what one of the children suffered she was 2 months old...
Surely people like this SHOULD get the death penalty OR at least get an ACTUAL LIFE SENTENCE
the amount of years she took away from all these children, the lives she ruined, when she got her sentence life shouldn't have been 40 years but less if she behaves, it should be LIFE, she should die in prison. By the age of 54 this woman could be out in our streets leading her life... How is this fair?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Erskine
By 2028 we can expect this man back out on our streets..
He raped and strangled between 7 and 11 elderly people, how would you feel if one of these people were your grandparents
But in 16 years time it is possible that he could be released.. A few years ago his convictions were even dropped from murder to manslaughter, how on god's earth are all these murders manslaughter, please someone explain, so this man didn't mean to kill all these people? He just broke into their homes, raped them put his knee on their chest, his hand over their mouth and his other hand round their neck because he slipped? And I guess he just fell in this position and stayed there for a few minutes until they could no longer breath? YES THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED!!

These are some of many cases where all the convicted serial killers could be out in our streets in the next 20 years, by then they may be 50 odd or older in some cases, but I know for sure I wouldn't trust them and let them into my house..

Our country is too soft on criminals.. Harsher punishments for them is what we need.. Why the hell do they need a gym and a tv in prison? They should be getting punished not having fun!! What do this country think prison is? A bloody holiday.. No wonder why people are coming out and committing crimes again, usually ones that are worse than the one they went in for, I would for a good meal 3 times a day, work, a tv, a gym and god knows what else..

Maybe not the death penalty for everyone but for people like Beverley Allitt, if my child died in the hands of her, I would quite gladly want to watch her life being taken away too..





This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Reply 148
Original post by MelissaBabe
...


They are not released early on good behaviour alone, it is also decided on if they have been reformed. If they have truely been reformed then I don't see a problem with them getting out within 15 years as they have served their time and will no longer be a threat to society
Reply 149
Original post by dj1015


These people are sick individuals. If an animal is sick and we cant afford the vet bills, its get put down. Time to apply the same logic to these terrible people.



Poor logic:

a) If an animal is sick it is put down not because we cannot afford the bills, but because the animal is in pain and to try and operate would only make things worse. These criminals may very well be cruel but they are not physically sick.

b) Since when have humans applied similar 'logic' (I use that term very loosely) to other humans? I don't know about you but I haven't eaten a man-steak recently, event though I ate some lovely pork last night. What I am saying is that we treat animals differently to how we treat humans. In this scenario it is important that we do so because we don't apply a code of laws to the rest of the animal kingdom (I don't see any foxes in prison for theft).

Your argument is flawed, as is your logic. Some rethinking required.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 150
Original post by dj1015
I was against it until very recently for many of the same reasons most people oppose it. But it is time for a serious rethink in the UK. The justice system as well all know is soft on crime, and 30 years for murder is not enough.

These people are sick individuals. If an animal is sick and we cant afford the vet bills, its get put down. Time to apply the same logic to these terrible people.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1584745_stockport-headless-body-trial-anthony-and-joseph-jenkins-jailed-for-life-for-murder-of-john-grainger

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9431941/Kiaran-Stapleton-jailed-for-30-years-for-murdering-student.html

I am not in favour of it because I think it will deter people from committing terrible crimes, because it wont. I am not in favour of it because it I believe in the eye for and eye theory. I am looking at this from the economics of the situation.

If capital punishment can be brought back. It could be introduced in a manner that is quick, and cost efficient to the British tax payer. No need for mutlipul costly appeals as one is enough, and only a short stay on death row. Thus saving money on the cost of a whole life sentence. Humane methods could also be used such as Nitrogen asphyxiation.


At first it seems that your proposal would save money. But then considering the appeals process which is laborious, costly and painful slow, and the cost that would be spent on whatever means and facilities of how they would be put to death, and all the extra arse-covering legislature that would no doubt have to be created, I wonder if it would save that much money.

Also I do not think it is right to take another's life for crime. As public tax cutting is your goal, I would much prefer saving it by scrapping most benefits because at present most tax payers are shelling out for dossers, blaggers and greedy pisstakers.
The victims families go to the sentencing and find it a relief that the person that took their son/daughter etc. life away is getting life imprisonment with a MINIMUM of 30 or so years but then finding out later that soon they could be out on the streets again living their life serving only half and sometimes less of the sentence they saw them receive, now I don't know about everyone else but that would p*** me off


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by MelissaBabe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Erskine
By 2028 we can expect this man back out on our streets..
He raped and strangled between 7 and 11 elderly people, how would you feel if one of these people were your grandparents
But in 16 years time it is possible that he could be released.. A few years ago his convictions were even dropped from murder to manslaughter, how on god's earth are all these murders manslaughter, please someone explain, so this man didn't mean to kill all these people?


Put the pieces of the jigsaw together... start with 'Broadmoor high security psychiatric hospital' and end with 'diminished capacity' :wink: The guy is clearly very mentally ill. I don't know a lot about law, but I know that means they have argued that he did not have the mental capacity to be 'criminally liable' for murder.

I worked in psychiatric hospitals for many years, and whilst you will sometimes meet people that you find to be 'evil', just as you do in the community, we do have a responsibility where appropriate to try to heal or rehabilitate people that have been very sick.

These kind of events are just a tragedy for so many people, and sometimes that includes the perpetrator. As an aside, it would seem very unlikely that this man will ever be released from hospital. I suspect he will be dead before anyway. It's also worth noting that the Beverly woman that you mentioned is also in one of the big four (Rampton - also known as 'The Big House'). It would seem very, very, very unlikely that she would every be released from hospital.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 153
Original post by MelissaBabe
The victims families go to the sentencing and find it a relief that the person that took their son/daughter etc. life away is getting life imprisonment with a MINIMUM of 30 or so years but then finding out later that soon they could be out on the streets again living their life serving only half and sometimes less of the sentence they saw them receive, now I don't know about everyone else but that would p*** me off


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App


Wouldn't p*** me off because if they were let out early I know they must have been rehabilitated and are as much threat to the public as every other person is.
Reply 154
Original post by Silkysam
Wouldn't p*** me off because if they were let out early I know they must have been rehabilitated and are as much threat to the public as every other person is.


They took someone else's life. They shouldn't even be sucking in oxygen let alone parading around enjoying theirs.

This country is so soft on crime is makes me physically sick.
Reply 155
I disagree with you on moral grounds, so your not going to change my mind. I think anyone who thinks murderers can be rehabilitated needs to get the heads examined.

But, yes the state should "murder", but I call it justice.
Original post by dj1015
I disagree with you on moral grounds


I don't think you're in a position to use morality to support your belief.
Reply 157
Original post by dj1015
They took someone else's life. They shouldn't even be sucking in oxygen let alone parading around enjoying theirs.

This country is so soft on crime is makes me physically sick.


Original post by dj1015
I disagree with you on moral grounds, so your not going to change my mind. I think anyone who thinks murderers can be rehabilitated needs to get the heads examined.

But, yes the state should "murder", but I call it justice.


There's not that thick of a line between your definition of murder (which necessitates death in your opinion) to your definition of justice (which doesn't). What about someone who kills for the sake of revenge? Surely they've both murdered and carried out justice? That's cool then, right?

Statistics are clearly not your side (as has been shown numerous times on this thread), and it doesn't seem your opinion on the ethics is either.
Reply 158
This issue is very one dimensional. If life meant life, and prison meant prison. Then I wouldn't support harsher sanctions. However we seem to frequently hand out short stays in prison (30 years) for committing the most disgusting crimes.
The one who is incapable of answering a question, is not fit to be anything. Yankee. Just look at it, you're not letting others debate are you? Its only your view is correct,and others can't fight back is it? You people that don't support the fact that capitial punishment should be bought back in. Oh wow, great! If someone murders someone, you won't allow the state to murder them? No, they should die. murderers can be rehabilitated
Criminals can never be of that level to do that.

The state does it in justice, I assure you that. The US Marshalls of their time had no problem in hanging em outlaws out there. So how did it affect the state?

Now, suppose circumstances were the same. Why should all treatment be the same? No two people are identical; and some people are very highly unlikely to reoffend (use a risk assessment measure with the psychopathy index). Why shouldn't the person who is very unlikely to reoffend be released earlier than someone who is?Finally, countries which use a rehabilitation form of justice system are, usually, better off than those which use a punishment system.

So what you're saying is release psychopaths into society? Hey everybody, we have meatballs wanting to rule this country! Release the one which is ''less dangerous''. And what if the less dangerous becomes dangerous again?

Have you ever actually taken the time to study the sociology of crime?

No, do you have a life? At all?


Cime is very multi-dimensional, and since crime is very multi-dimensional, our treatment of criminals should be based on a case-by-case basis; not merely you committed X so you get P years, no exceptions.

No has the time in the world to understand it all. It shouldn't be case by case or we'd be solving their problems instead of ours. Tell me, as a taxpayer, why should half of my salary go to help prisionors to get rehabilitated into society? If the prisoner has done the crime , he must be punished, That is the basic fundamentalist system which has been running on for 2000 years and you are saying it remove it? Your head is full of crap.


Finally, countries which use a rehabilitation form of justice system are, usually, better off than those which use a punishment system.

List some.

We are soft in this country and it is being led by fools like you! Yankee, you may go back to the Union, but as Southerner, I ain't gonna give up till you shut up. We don't need to be soft, we can kill the prisoner there and then. It ''prevents'' crime from happening.

Oh and regarding your '' oh wow,'' sarcastic comments, keep it to yourself. I respect your opinion, but you're resorting to very cheap tactics in order to approve your superiority. I got one word for you: It ain't. Let the guy you're trying to grill at least answer. You're giving him none of that. If this debate was for highly ''civilized people'' Then what the hell are you doing here then? Go and start a new thread and talk in the way you want it, but don't, please don't try and impose on it on others. You go on YouTube and you see what I will do to you. But don't try and impose things on people have the least cared moment about.


I suggest you spend some time actually studying the ethics, psychology and sociology behind law, justice and crime.

No. No one's here to waste time in researching all of that. Let other's debate or you'll be having a funny end at this side of the arguement.


If killing people is bad, then regardless of whose doing it killing is still bad; therefore, the State would be acting wrongly and it would not be justice. Welcome to logical argumentation and very basic ethics.

Welcome to History: If someone has killed someone, that murdered should be hanged or shot. - Basic system running for almost 2000 years now. US Marshalls hanged outlaws, Nazi Criminals were trialled to be executed. Research some history.

Yes, in fact, you did. Your India example was an attempt to show that being harsh on crime deters crime.

No, it wasn't. I was giving you examples of how nations made their prisons nasty.

Again, get a life, get a job, more than that, learn to openly take in criticism. Learn to accept that people's views are different from yours and that they'll differ. Learn that they won't agree with everything you've said. I don't see a very foreseeable future for you with that kind of attitude.
(edited 11 years ago)

Latest