If there was a vote tomorrow to bring back the death penalty for rapists and paedos
Scroll to see replies
Original post by andrew2209
How would you feel if one of your family, who you knew to be innocent, was found guilty of a crime and given the death penalty?
I could easily turn that around and say how would you feel if someone murdered a member of your family and got only 20 years.
Original post by cole-slaw
Well that's decisive.
Death Penalty should be voluntary - anyone who expresses support now for it should be later eligible for it if they commit a crime.
Death Penalty should be voluntary - anyone who expresses support now for it should be later eligible for it if they commit a crime.
Because the people who commit these crimes are the ones supporting the death penalty.
I would fully support the death penalty for repeat offenders, as clearly there's no real rehab. We talk about gay people being born the way they are so there's nothing wrong with it, but the only reason paedos are different is because the public says so. The public is unjust, the courts are a shambles, prisons are nicer than youth hostels, and people are hypocrites all the time. At least killing a few means less people to watch out for on the streets, we bin rubbish to have it buried, paedos are rubbish too
Original post by cole-slaw
Well that's decisive.
Death Penalty should be voluntary - anyone who expresses support now for it should be later eligible for it if they commit a crime.
Death Penalty should be voluntary - anyone who expresses support now for it should be later eligible for it if they commit a crime.
That would be interesting.
I'm against the death penalty completely.
Original post by Reluire
I'm staunchly against the death penalty on all grounds, so naturally I would reject this.
Just a few points I regularly raise in these debates.
•
It's hypocritical
•
It solves very little
•
The whole 'eye for an eye' principle is barbaric
•
It's more expensive than life imprisonment
•
Statistics disprove the claim it is a deterrent
•
Botched executions can and still do happen
•
Wrongful executions can and still do happen
Just a few points I regularly raise in these debates.
A lot of your points are only valid for executions as they happen now.
Original post by pane123
A lot of your points are only valid for executions as they happen now.
I'm guessing you have a better alternative then?
Original post by james22
I'm guessing you have a better alternative then?
No, but any debates I see on the death penalty tend to use statistics from the USA, which is ridiculous given that everyone knows their system is far from perfect. Would the vote tomorrow be to bring back the death penalty as it is in the USA right now? No.
Original post by pane123
No, but any debates I see on the death penalty tend to use statistics from the USA, which is ridiculous given that everyone knows their system is far from perfect. Would the vote tomorrow be to bring back the death penalty as it is in the USA right now? No.
The pointlessness of it is well established, not just in the USA.
Original post by james22
The pointlessness of it is well established, not just in the USA.
Pointless or not, my argument remains the same. A lot of the points were valid, but let's take "it costs more than life imprisonment", for example. This might be true in places like the USA right now, but it by no means has to be the case.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by pane123
Pointless or not, my argument remains the same. A lot of the points were valid, but let's take "it costs more than life imprisonment", for example.. This might be true in places like the USA right now, but it by no means has to be the case.
How would you make the death penalty cheaper then?
Original post by james22
How would you make the death penalty cheaper then?
I don't know exactly but the basic idea is that it's cheaper to put a bullet in a 20 year old murderer's head than it is to clothe and feed him for the next 50 years or so. It would take a pretty inept system to turn this on its head.
Original post by pane123
I don't know exactly but the basic idea is that it's cheaper to put a bullet in a 20 year old murderer's head than it is to clothe and feed him for the next 50 years or so. It would take a pretty inept system to turn this on its head.
The cost is in all the trials needed. Given how many people have been found not guilty after being sentenced to death reducing these trials will only end up killing innocents.
Original post by james22
The cost is in all the trials needed. Given how many people have been found not guilty after being sentenced to death reducing these trials will only end up killing innocents.
I know where the cost is, but is that true of everywhere in the world or mainly the US?
I don't deny that it's a complicated issue but it's intuitively appealing to believe that executing someone should be cheaper than life imprisonment.
For example, if we are 100% certain of a person's guilt then the death penalty should be a far, far more cost effective solution. I know I am introducing a lot of rules and creating an extremely unlikely hypothetical situation, but I do not think we can say "the death penalty will always be more expensive than life imprisonment".
My stance on the death penalty is yes in theory, no in practice.
Some would distinguish, but others wouldn't. Marquis de Sade said that the worst killing of all was the one premeditated by the state. Transparent and diplomatic or not, a killing is a killing.
I meant that it solves very little than alternatives do already. The death penalty doesn't tend to end victims and their family's pain; the whole process costs more to the tax payer than life imprisonment etc.
Is that really an example of the 'eye for an eye' principle? In relation to violent crime, the principle is barbaric.
If you want to oppose my claim and evidence, perhaps you should provide me the reading or evidence. Otherwise your counter point is unsubstantiated.
The less 'risky' execution methods are usually considered more inhumane though. Lethal injection is most common in the US, simply because it is considered the most humane option.
I agree with your last point.
I meant that it solves very little than alternatives do already. The death penalty doesn't tend to end victims and their family's pain; the whole process costs more to the tax payer than life imprisonment etc.
Is that really an example of the 'eye for an eye' principle? In relation to violent crime, the principle is barbaric.
If you want to oppose my claim and evidence, perhaps you should provide me the reading or evidence. Otherwise your counter point is unsubstantiated.
The less 'risky' execution methods are usually considered more inhumane though. Lethal injection is most common in the US, simply because it is considered the most humane option.
I agree with your last point.
QUOTE=Eboracum;51689705]Question for you. What does that mean? When on Call Of Duty you kill someone and it says "buzz kill", what does that mean? I've never understood it. 
n
The only time I have seen that term used was on an American show called The Talk (Loose Women lookalike) where the panel, led by the vile Sharon Osbourne, were wetting themselves laughing, (as was the whole of the female audience,) about an elderly man that had been sexually mutilated by his young wife for asking for a divorce.
She cut his penis off and threw it into the waste disposal. Amongst all the cackling laughter one lone voice on the panel, actress Sara Gilbert, said " Listen, not to be a buzz kill but if this was the other way round we wouldnt be laughing"
So, I would take it to be something or someone that spoils an otherwise enjoyable event.
nThe only time I have seen that term used was on an American show called The Talk (Loose Women lookalike) where the panel, led by the vile Sharon Osbourne, were wetting themselves laughing, (as was the whole of the female audience,) about an elderly man that had been sexually mutilated by his young wife for asking for a divorce.
She cut his penis off and threw it into the waste disposal. Amongst all the cackling laughter one lone voice on the panel, actress Sara Gilbert, said " Listen, not to be a buzz kill but if this was the other way round we wouldnt be laughing"
So, I would take it to be something or someone that spoils an otherwise enjoyable event.
The public is unjust- Ched Evans is the most recent example of this.
The courts are a shambles- does this truly need explaining, or do you simply believe that people can get away with rape because the victim is wearing 'sexualised' clothing- tank tops.
Prisons vs youth hostels is an argument for another thread.
And I think the suggestion that my argument would support the murder of a even a single random person in an attempt to reduce crime overall is grasping at straws. Reports of offence may decline, but ratios would remain the same; if not increase as a response to random cullings. Yet try and deny me that killing even 1% of criminals who have committed physical crimes against another (assault, GBH, rape, murder, kidnap), would lower the rate of crime.
The courts are a shambles- does this truly need explaining, or do you simply believe that people can get away with rape because the victim is wearing 'sexualised' clothing- tank tops.
Prisons vs youth hostels is an argument for another thread.
And I think the suggestion that my argument would support the murder of a even a single random person in an attempt to reduce crime overall is grasping at straws. Reports of offence may decline, but ratios would remain the same; if not increase as a response to random cullings. Yet try and deny me that killing even 1% of criminals who have committed physical crimes against another (assault, GBH, rape, murder, kidnap), would lower the rate of crime.
Original post by DJKL
If you introduced the death penalty for these crimes what impact do you think it will have on conviction rates? Rape can be a very difficult crime to secure a conviction for at the moment, a jury knowing the death penalty is a possibility will be even more reluctant to convict.
Personally I don't believe that concern for the rapist should be the jury's main concern, but your argument is true.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
