Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

why is human life so cheap in modern britain?

Scroll to see replies

i only care about actual human rights---the ones that apply to everyone before they are convicted un human crimes like murder.

can you really not tell the difference between the two categories?

your version of human rights facilities violence i would suggest.

1. Learn how to actually quote
2. Learn what human rights are.

Reply 41

Mbob

Original post by harmonize

So the value of human life is determined by how much one can take away from somebody else for taking it?

Human life is as valued and preserved higher than it has been anywhere in the world for the last 1000 years. Billions of pounds are spent on healthcare and crime prevention, in this country I am less likely to be killed than most places on earth, I won't starve to death and I have free healthcare.

It appears to be far more valued in modern Britain.

Slightly off the way this topic seems to be going, but if you want to know how much a British life is worth, a good start is the government's (via NICE) view of up to approximately £30000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (BMJ 2009; 338:b181). So if you live a healthy 80 years, the value of your life is about £2.4 million. This is the (very rough) basis on which it is decided whether on it is worth funding a person's treatment on the NHS.

Reply 42

Teveth

I just have to laugh at the idea that the answer to the 'life is too cheap in Britain' question is to bring back the death penalty. The worrying this is, most of you barbaric death-penalty-advocates probably don't see the contradiction.

Reply 43

Swarley Stinson

Cheap?
I maxed out my overdraft just to buy enough orphans to work in my sweatshops.

They really need to stop taxing on those things, I'm buying them second hand after all.

Reply 44

beepbeeprichie

Capital punishment should not be brought back. Shame on the scum that is the Judiciary for allowing such atrocities.

Reply 45

humanrights

1. Learn how to actually quote
2. Learn what human rights are.

yes, i am having trouble getting used to this quoting system.

as for human rights, i'll make my point a different way. why should a convicted murderer have the same human rights as the person who's ultimate right--life-- he or she has taken away?

yes, i know the official version of human rights. no, i do not agree with its inability to distinguish between the differing behaviour of humans.

human rights in the modern sense means-- equality despite inequality of action.

in other words, chaos......

Reply 46

humanrights

compassion for convicted murderers is the ultimate form of barbarism.......

does anyone know why?

Reply 47

Teveth

Original post by humanrights

compassion for convicted murderers is the ultimate form of barbarism.......

does anyone know why?

Go on, tell us..

Reply 48

humanrights

compassion for murderers is no different from compassion for the act of murder itself........

Reply 49

Liquidus Zeromus

Original post by Teveth

Rubbish. There is no contradiction in executing murderers, provided that we come under no pretences that killing itself is the problem. I don't see it as "killing is wrong, it should be punished with death". I see it as "wrongful, immoral killing (murder) should be punished with execution".

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 50

Evil Monkey

Original post by Noodlepants

All Rapsits/Paedophiles/Murderers (perhaps only people who've killed more than once) should be sentenced to death. Use Lie detectors/numerous trials/whatever makes it "fair".
Save us some cash too...

Simples :biggrin:

So rapists hang, murders are just locked up unless they make a habit of it?

Nice priorities.

Reply 51

speedbird

Original post by humanrights

i only care about actual human rights---the ones that apply to everyone before they are convicted of anti human crimes like murder.

Reminds me of this

Reply 52

Teveth

Original post by humanrights

compassion for murderers is no different from compassion for the act of murder itself........

That's simply insane.

Original post by Liquidus Zeromus

Rubbish. There is no contradiction in killing murderers, provided that we come under no pretences that killing itself is the problem. I don't see it as "killing is wrong, it should be punished with death". I see it as "wrongful, immoral killing (murder) should be punished with execution".

I see execution of murderers as immoral and wrongful.

Reply 53

Liquidus Zeromus

Original post by Teveth

I see execution of murderers as immoral and wrongful.

What's your opinion on abortion?

Reply 54

Layabout

Reading these death penalty advocates posts is like listning to the chavs down the pub talk about "dose ****in pedos m8 need to be executioned!!!" it's shows up utter ignorance about the real causes of and issues surrounding crime and an emotionally thinking, myopic world view filled with hatred.

Reply 55

TheCurlyHairedDude

Original post by im1190

Who has the right to sentence someone else to death, even if they have killed another? Doesn't that make them a killer also?

Or you could see it as

Killing someone who would commit bad crimes like murder again

Vs

Killing someone innocent

Reply 56

niceday

Original post by Noodlepants

You forgot adulterers. :smile:

Reply 57

niceday

Original post by im1190

Who has the right to sentence someone else to death, even if they have killed another? Doesn't that make them a killer also?

Oh so politically correct. No, it doesn't also make them a killer.

Reply 58

The-Real-One

Original post by humanrights

the average sentence for a convicted murderer is 15 years......

the average sentence for a convicted rapist is 7 years........

so, life is cheap. but why?

Beacause the UK is vastly over populated. To put it into context, France has twice the land but same population, and Canda have 10 times the land but half the population.

It's no great loss if a few people gets snuffed here and there.

Reply 59

Teveth

Original post by Liquidus Zeromus

What's your opinion on abortion?

The development of a foetus is not black and white. It is a gradual process. To be either for or against abortion in the absolute sense is entirely irrational. I have no problem with a woman choosing to 'abort' a pregnancy in the early stages, as the foetus is just a bunch of cells for the first weeks of its development. The question is, at what stage of the pregnancy do I become uncomfortable with abortion taking place. Well, I'm not a medical expert, but from the little knowledge I do have, I think somewhere between 15-22 weeks is where the line should be drawn. From the evidence I've seen, I am slightly uncomfortable with the current line which sits at 24 weeks.