Capital Punishment. Agree or Disagree?

I'm strongly opposed to capital punishment for a number of reasons.

- Capital punishment is statistically proven not to be a deterrent
- In many cases, capital punishment is more expensive than imprisonment
- Capital punishment can lead to innocents being killed and there is no ability to reverse the decision
- Some criminals regard a life prison sentence as worse than death
- The right to life is a basic human right
- Capital punishment shows that the state doesn't value life

The BBC has a good article listing the key reasons why many, including myself, are opposed to the reintroduction of capital punishment, which is well worth a read if you want to explore the subject more in-depth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/against_1.shtml

I completely agree with this. That article is a good read, too. I've never agreed with capital punishment at all. I get quite a bit of stick for that belief, too. I just think that two wrongs don't make a right, especially in this case!

It goes against human rights, despite them breaking the law, they are still a human. I by far do not condone their actions at all, but it is wrong to kill, so why punish killing, with killing? It doesn't teach anyone a lesson, in my opinion, just eliminates the problem (some would call this a closed case, I however don't see how it would stop another person murdering another). Also, what human has the right to choose whether another dies?

Yes, the victims would like justice, but at the same time, there are two many ethical issues involved.

And as it has been raised, what about the problem with the falsely-accused?

I'm personally against it, but I can see why others would agree with it.

Reply 61

felamaslen

15

Original post by Sextus

Is it neo nazi? I thought it was a whites rights activist site anyways do u wnna address my points on female prisoners or not

Stormfront is the internet home of the neo-nazi, yes.

Anyway, I will address your point by saying that I never necessarily disagreed with it; I don't condone Norway's justice system, I was simply saying that I think it is the *result of*, rather than *cause of*, low crime rates. Of course I'm talking about low crime rates amongst the general population; it is hardly surprising that there is a high crime rate within prisons.

Reply 62

Sam Spain

My problem is people call out for the death sentence as a way to get vengeance. This just makes those people as bad as the convicted.

If someone is a danger to a lot of human lives by simply being alive then I think the logical course of action to use the death sentence.

Reply 63

SHallowvale

14

Original post by thebiggy

It doesn't have much effect on who? The victims? The victims family and friends? I'm shocked you are suggesting things like tax evasion are more important than people's lives.

As for miscarriages of justice. How many murder convictions are overturned every year? They are incredibly rare and far less common than the reoffending rates of released murderers.

The reoffending rates will be lower for more serious crimes than petty crimes, yes. But that's not the point. The point is 3 innocent people are murdered every year by people who, at the very least, should already be locked up for life for their original crimes.

This loss of life is not just unacceptable its completely avoidable.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the murder part.

I did the 'research' and the number of serious crimes done by reoffenders (which concerns rape/murder/ect) is higher than I thought. Plus, it's difficult to compare that to the number of false/overturned convictions as I couldn't find how many of these happen each year (which relate to murder/ect..). So untill I can know for sure how many overturned convictions there are each year, i'll agree with you on that part. Like I said, I also believe people should be in prison for longer (if they have done a serious crime).

Although as a word of advice, I suggest that you do not use the ''reoffending rate'' to justify the further containment of serious criminals (i'm referring not just to murderers), as this is likely, as you have said, to have been 'bumped up' by petty crime. The real number is at 2000 'serious crimes' done each year by criminals released from prison. I found this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8388224/Up-to-2000-serious-offences-committed-by-reoffending-criminals-every-year.html

I'll probably go and find where they got that number from later today, as I dislike 'taking things for granted' when it comes to statistics.

Reply 64

Oldham123

The recidivism rate in Britain is more than double that of Norway.

I guess those "soft" prisons are working.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 65

Albino

11

it's pointless using other countries' stats when trying to predict something like crime rates going up or down. There are so many factors to take in to consideration so you can't say: country X has lower crime than country Y because of capital punishment.

Reply 66

the mezzil

3

Agree..ish, I prefer torture for mass murders, peadophiles, terrorists etc, but capital punishment would be a step in the right direction.

Reply 67

Lightning.

9

Just saying but what do vets do to dogs who bite people? put them down most of them time

Reply 68

the mezzil

3

Original post by SHallowvale

Isn't the point of rehabilitation to change someone and not to make them suffer?

What do you them to do, torture criminals before they make them nice? :s-smilie:

Yes. They must be punished, there must be revenge. Revenge = Justice. Rehabilitation is last on the list on how to deal with criminals, first on the list must always be deterence, second is punishment.

Reply 69

the mezzil

3

Original post by the-black-lotus

A society that allows capital punishment is a backward society

A society which has people comitting crime in the first place is backward. You can not have civilisations with uncivil people,

Reply 70

mmmpie

12

Original post by the mezzil

Yes. They must be punished, there must be revenge. Revenge = Justice. Rehabilitation is last on the list on how to deal with criminals, first on the list must always be deterence, second is punishment.

What does punishment actually achieve? There's nothing constructive about it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 71

the mezzil

3

Original post by mmmpie

What does punishment actually achieve? There's nothing constructive about it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Never said it was constructive, but it achieves revenge. If the criminal feels pain, whether or not he has remorse for the criminal act he has done, then punishment has been effective and successful. They need to feel pain, they need to be hurt, our justice system should in my opinion be geared around revenge, not compassion.

The first way to deal with a crime is to prevent it, and warn against it. If the person wishes to continue and commit a crime, they must be punished for what they have done. Lastly, once they have felt pain, they should only then be brought back into society.

Reply 72

Oldham123

Original post by the mezzil

Yes. They must be punished, there must be revenge. Revenge = Justice. Rehabilitation is last on the list on how to deal with criminals, first on the list must always be deterence, second is punishment.

Well I'm certainly glad you're not in charge. It is well-documented that compassionate treatment of offenders reduces the likelihood of them re-offending. Take the example of massively reduced recidivism rates in Norway for their "luxury prisons", or the fact that crime is actually decreasing in the UK, despite the massively increased and broadened definitions of crime.

People that complain of slipping standards and "soft-treatment" are simply demonstrating that they have a poor understanding of criminal psychology.

Yes, deterrence should be first. The best way to tackle crime is to prevent it in the first place. But revenge as second? No. Second is incarceration. Separating dangerous people from the public, until they're no longer dangerous. Third is rehabilitation, because when these people get out of prison, it is vital that they're not committing more crimes. Retribution and rehabilitation are diametrically opposed. The more you exact revenge on a criminal, the more likely they are to act up again when they leave.

If you use the justice system as a means of exacting revenge, you'll only create more criminals, and damage their chances of rehabilitation.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 73

mmmpie

12

Original post by the mezzil

Never said it was constructive, but it achieves revenge. If the criminal feels pain, whether or not he has remorse for the criminal act he has done, then punishment has been effective and successful. They need to feel pain, they need to be hurt, our justice system should in my opinion be geared around revenge, not compassion.

The first way to deal with a crime is to prevent it, and warn against it. If the person wishes to continue and commit a crime, they must be punished for what they have done. Lastly, once they have felt pain, they should only then be brought back into society.

Causing pain is not a desirable thing. Frankly you disgust me, I believe you probably need a psych assessment. No sane person can seriously believe that justice means arbitrarily inflicting pain on others.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 74

the mezzil

3

Original post by Oldham123

Well I'm certainly glad you're not in charge. It is well-documented that compassionate treatment of offenders reduces the likelihood of them re-offending. Take the example of massively reduced recidivism rates in Norway for their "luxury prisons", or the fact that crime is actually decreasing in the UK, despite the massively increased and broadened definitions of crime.

People that complain of slipping standards and "soft-treatment" are simply demonstrating that they have a poor understanding of criminal psychology.

Yes, deterrence should be first. The best way to tackle crime is to prevent it in the first place. But revenge as second? No. Second is incarceration. Separating dangerous people from the public, until they're no longer dangerous. Third is rehabilitation, because when these people get out of prison, it is vital that they're not committing more crimes. Retribution and rehabilitation are diametrically opposed. The more you exact revenge on a criminal, the more likely they are to act up again when they leave.

If you use the justice system as a means of exacting revenge, you'll only create more criminals, and damage their chances of rehabilitation.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You don't understand, why rehabilitate them? They should not have committed the crime in the first place, and most criminals have the intelligence to know right from wrong. Why be civil to an uncivil person? It doesn't make you any better than them.

I am not bothered about rehabilitation, protection of the victim and the public is my main priority. I do not care for the criminal, that is something you do not understand. Don't release them from prison for all I care. Cut of their hands if they show signs that they may murder again, that is an effective way of dealing with criminals.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 75

the mezzil

3

Original post by mmmpie

Causing pain is not a desirable thing. Frankly you disgust me, I believe you probably need a psych assessment. No sane person can seriously believe that justice means arbitrarily inflicting pain on others.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Thankyou for your brief assessment. You tell me much about your character in the way you defend murders and rapists.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 76

Sam Spain

Wanting to cause suffering on another human being isn't civil or a way to protect people. You're delusional.

I hope you're trolling because you sound like a sad little man.

Reply 77

the mezzil

3

Original post by Sam Spain

Wanting to cause suffering on another human being isn't civil or a way to protect people. QUOTE]

Who said it was civil?

And go on, tell me how cutting off a murderers hands is not going to help protect the public from that man reoffending again.

Reply 78

jon123abc

4

It is questionable whether the death penalty is necessarily cheaper than life imprisonment, it is also doubtful that the death penalty is in itself a significant deterrent. However, I do approve of capital punishment in circumstances when the release of an offender will undermine public trust in democracy and the criminal justice system. If an offender is ever given a life sentence so that they are deemed to be a threat to the public indefinitely, the most humane option is to impose the death penalty.

Reply 79

mmmpie

12

Original post by the mezzil

Thankyou for your brief assessment. You tell me much about your character in the way you defend murders and rapists.

Murderers and rapists are still human. It's in everyone's interest to treat them decently; to rehabilitate them into healthy and productive members of society who have no want or need to reoffend. In so doing we try and derive something positive from even the worst situations.

What you propose would lower us all to depths far deeper than murderers and rapists. You would have us completely abandon the concept of human dignity just to satisfy your desire for bloody vengeance. At least murderers act on a misguided impulse, which does not excuse their actions but does at least allow us to retain some measure of faith in humanity. To systematically inflict pain on others, and then have the audacity to call it justice, is just unconscionable; I don't have words to describe the atrocity it would be.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Capital Punishment. Agree or Disagree?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you