The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should The Death Penalty Be Allowed?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
We have to start from some axiom, and I take it as my axiom that the suffering of some humans matters. I cannot find a rational distinction between those humans and all other humans, therefore the suffering of all humans matters.

However, it is a legitimate point of view to say that human suffering does not matter.


Humans are animals. Hence your axiom implies that the suffering of some animals matters. What rational distinction can you draw between some animals and other animals that should affect whether their suffering is okay? :holmes:
Original post by Implication
Saying someone deserves to be punishment and saying that their punishment would serve some function (whatever that function may be) are two very different things. Lots of people have made claims about people 'deserving' to be killed or made to suffer, and I would like to know the justification for this.


'Punishment' is the part of a sentence that constitutes retribution to satisfy society in general. If there is no punishment then basically we can all do as we like without consequence - dog eat dog. Sentencing should also incorporate a rehabilitative element. This is why in Norway the minimum prison sentence is one year allowing prisoners to participate in therapeutic or training programmes.

Anyone who suggests the likes of those serial killers I mentioned did not deserve punishment and locking up for life has got to be 'off their trolley'

It is better that the state punishes offenders in an independent and measured way than those who have been offended against going out and seeking their own justice
Original post by Underscore__
I know what you mean. Full of people who have never studied a day of law in their lives arguing law with people who have training contracts at magic circle law firms


It doesn't matter whether you have studied law at your so called magic circle law firms or not! Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Your expertise comes on Legal knowledge and points of law. Other than that your opinion is of no more value than anyone else's.
Original post by DougallnDougall
It doesn't matter whether you have studied law at your so called magic circle law firms or not! Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Your expertise comes on Legal knowledge and points of law. Other than that your opinion is of no more value than anyone else's.


I wouldn't bother. That inbred is trying to dominate the thread. I get a massive keyboard warrior vibe.
Original post by DougallnDougall
It doesn't matter whether you have studied law at your so called magic circle law firms or not! Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Your expertise comes on Legal knowledge and points of law. Other than that your opinion is of no more value than anyone else's.


He was debating whether putting someone in jail is stealing from them. Read the whole conversation before you pipe up.

Original post by BlackHorseRoad
I wouldn't bother. That inbred is trying to dominate the thread. I get a massive keyboard warrior vibe.


Haha you're such a troll.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Implication
Humans are animals. Hence your axiom implies that the suffering of some animals matters. What rational distinction can you draw between some animals and other animals that should affect whether their suffering is okay? :holmes:


accuracy of empathy
Original post by greatguy 550
People kill 1000 of animals in their lives.. They have unfairly deprived them of their right to live. So why is it fair for anyone to continue living by your logic.


Animal life=/=Human life
Original post by Underscore__
There can never be evidence beyond all doubt


Posted from TSR Mobile


Ok, 99.991%

Got to factor in the possibility that aliens are on earth with sophisticated technology to control minds and set people up perfectly including forensic evidence whilst being non existent themselves
Original post by Drummerz
Animal life=/=Human life


Yean I consider animal lives greater.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Moonstruck16
Yean I consider animal lives greater.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Fair enough, that is your opinion
Original post by Moonstruck16
Yean I consider animal lives greater.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I assume you're a vegan and spend nearly all your money on providing for animals then?
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
I assume you're a vegan and spend nearly all your money on providing for animals then?


Yup. However I do take joy on nibling on the festering flesh of decomposing homo sapiens especially the ones that get on my nerves. Maybe I'm not so vegan after all.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Moonstruck16
Yup. However I do take joy on nibling on the festering flesh of decomposing homo sapiens especially the ones that get on my nerves. Maybe I'm not so vegan after all.

Posted from TSR Mobile


well, I applaud you for keeping to your principles to an extent that many animal rights activists do not.
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
well, I applaud you for keeping to your principles to an extent that many animal rights activists do not.


Thank you. In this day and age it's important to maintain your principles.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__

It's idea of unconditional love, parents will generally love their children no matter what they do.?

Well yes, but surely there is a limit somewhere. If someone did something suitably horrific they would surely be disowned. I notice you left out my point that countered the familial distress claim. But when making a point, one would, naturally.

Original post by Underscore__

1. How do you know you can't reform a serial murderer or rapist?

How do you know you can?

Are there not killers so incurably psychopathic that they are beyond reform?

Original post by Underscore__

2. You can't prove anything 'beyond all doubt'

This just sounds like you're picking up on language now. There must be cases when there can be no other conclusion than 'this person is guilty'. For example, being caught in the act with a weapon in your hand...

Original post by Underscore__

if we bring back capital punishment, innocent people will die.

That's why you'd have to really really make sure. Insurmountable evidence would be required, with plenty of forensics of course.

Original post by Underscore__

This another example of you demonstrating a lack of understanding of the purpose of the justice system.

I never claimed to understand it. But surely the justice system and prisons exist to punish to a degree. Incarcerating people for years for their crimes is more in line with retribution than rehabilitation.

Original post by Underscore__

It's there to rehabilitate; if you tell someone they're never leaving prison how do you think that's going to rehabilitate them.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I believe that's what people say. :colone:

Original post by Underscore__

This is possibility the most ridiculous proposal I've ever heard. Yes the government could have people killed but we have courts for a reason, they decide on sentencing not the government. It really isn't possible, we live in a western democracy not Saddam's Iraq.

Yes, it's ridiculous. That's why it was purely hypothetical...

Democracy is an illusion, it's merely a veneer used to tell ourselves we're civilised. If the electricity goes off (as in permanently), it'll be chaos within days. You'll really see what people think of the sanctity of human life when they're fighting over the last tin of beans.

Anyway, I never said it would be a civilised society or moral government that would use such schemes. Theoretically, a covert organisation of assassins could be formed using some of the millions that goes in to black ops, and you'd never know anything about it. Except perhaps the mysteriously increasing number of dead criminals...

Original post by Underscore__

You're not legally educated so I'm not going to get into why such an act couldn't and wouldn't happen but it couldn't and wouldn't happen.

Yes, I don't really know what I'm talking about in regards to law and government but I'm just speculating on possibilities. But... if a rogue regime came in to power, all sorts could happen. Hitler made all other political parties illegal if my history lessons serve me well.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
accuracy of empathy


Please could you elaborate?
Original post by DougallnDougall
'Punishment' is the part of a sentence that constitutes retribution to satisfy society in general. If there is no punishment then basically we can all do as we like without consequence - dog eat dog. Sentencing should also incorporate a rehabilitative element. This is why in Norway the minimum prison sentence is one year allowing prisoners to participate in therapeutic or training programmes.


I shall say it once more: I'm drawing a distinction between retribution and punishment that serves a purpose and asking how you can justify the former. What makes it moral to satisfy society's primal desire for revenge? Why should we deliberately cause further suffering for no other purpose?


Anyone who suggests the likes of those serial killers I mentioned did not deserve punishment and locking up for life has got to be 'off their trolley'


Well I suppose I'm 'off my trolley' then! I still haven't heard a remotely convincing line of reasoning though :holmes:

Note that I'm not saying it would not be right to lock them up for life. Given certain conditions, I'm sure it would indeed be the right thing to do. Instead, I'm questioning your assumption that they deserve it. How do you justify this claim in a moral framework?


It is better that the state punishes offenders in an independent and measured way than those who have been offended against going out and seeking their own justice


Certainly.
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
I assume you're a vegan and spend nearly all your money on providing for animals then?


just like those who think human lives are greater do for other humans? right
Original post by Implication
just like those who think human lives are greater do for other humans? right


they ought to, yes
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
they ought to, yes


but we all know they don't, so what was the purpose of your comment? it seemed like you were expressing doubt at somebody caring for animal rights. 'you can't really think animals are more important or you'd spend all your efforts helping them'. it's a completely vacuous point, if indeed what you intended

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you