why is human life so cheap in modern britain?

OP

Original post by No Future

You're the one who brought up the Daily Mail and race.

I never agreed for compassion for paedo murderers. I just don't see how killing another person supports your OP/thread title. How does killing another human being add value to the life of a murder victim?

it doesen't add value, but not executing takes value away.

Reply 243

OP

Original post by clo-clo1

We call troll because your posts are very 'troll' like, laughing as a form of arguement being one.

Actually deny you read the daily mail then......

Also I said to you before having the person who commited crimes against me dead would not make it any better but obviously you choose to ignore things that don't back up your points.

i've been on here debating for days. cut me some slack if i make a lol sign.....

what do you mean by your last point, i have already explained time and again the importance of deterrent.......

Reply 244

No Future

17

Original post by humanrights

it doesen't add value, but not executing takes value away.

The murder victim is dead. They are not alive. Therefore their life cannot have value, their life does not exist in the present.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 245

OP

Original post by No Future

The murder victim is dead. They are not alive. Therefore their life cannot have value, their life does not exist in the present.

are you being a pedant on purpose?

the value of life is determined by the consequences of taking a life-- at least in terms of justice.

capital punishment for convicted murderers is the highest price one can pay, 15 years is a cheaper penalty.

weak sentences devalues human life.

Reply 246

No Future

17

Original post by humanrights

are you being a pedant on purpose?

the value of life is determined by the consequences of taking a life-- at least in terms of justice.

capital punishment for convicted murderers is the highest price one can pay, 15 years is a cheaper penalty.

weak sentences devalues human life.

No, I'm just pointing out that your OP and thread title is nonsensical.

Wow, if you value human life by sentencing, I worry for you.

Reply 247

OP

the op is sound.

your point is pedantic fluff.

Reply 248

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?

You ever spent 15 years in jail? You ever spent 7? No? Then don't be quick to judge it as easy. I'd agree to raising the time in jail but I find the idea of the death penalty far too extreme and somewhat hypocritical in many cases. If human life is so sacred and valuable then taking another in it's place is just hypocritical unless there is a significant chance the offender will re-offend which most the time there isn't.

Go and talk to anyone who has spent a long time in jail. Imagine going to bed and waking up in 15 years time having missed it all. You've missed a chunk of your time and you entire world will have changed. Don't be quick to call that cheap.

Reply 249

OP

Original post by CJ99

You ever spent 15 years in jail? You ever spent 7? No? Then don't be quick to judge it as easy. I'd agree to raising the time in jail but I find the idea of the death penalty far too extreme and somewhat hypocritical in many cases. If human life is so sacred and valuable then taking another in it's place is just hypocritical unless there is a significant chance the offender will re-offend which most the time there isn't.

Go and talk to anyone who has spent a long time in jail. Imagine going to bed and waking up in 15 years time having missed it all. You've missed a chunk of your time and you entire world will have changed. Don't be quick to call that cheap.

human life is sacred, its why taking a human life in spite should be punished with the ultimate penalty.

not executing a convicted murderer cheapens the sancity of human life, because it lessens the consequences of taking human life.

murder becomes a crime on a par with bank robbery, for example.

if the life of human beings are no more cherished than money, then society cannot claim to be civilised.

the first job of the justice system it to deter, not to rehabilitate.

lessen the consequences of crime, and crime increases.

Reply 250

OP

i gave up the stuff a while ago. :smile:

Reply 251

Original post by humanrights

human life is sacred, its why taking a human life in spite should be punished with the ultimate penalty.

Which is taking away more human life the thing you want to stop in the first place!

not executing a convicted murderer cheapens the sancity of human life, because it lessens the consequences of taking human life.

And yet it creates a system in which society will kill its own members for certain crimes rather than society never killing its own members which cheapens human life.

murder becomes a crime on a par with bank robbery, for example.

if the life of human beings are no more cherished than money, then society cannot claim to be civilised.

the first job of the justice system it to deter, not to rehabilitate.

And yet there is no evidence to suggest that capital punishment does act a deterrent. So we don't know if it works but we do know it kills people and we both agree that human life should be preserved as far as possible. The only logical conclusion from that is that capital punishment should not be implemented.

lessen the consequences of crime, and crime increases.

That a grossly over simplified and inaccurate view of crime deterrence. Especially for extreme crimes like murder. If someone goes as far to actually commit murder do you think that the majority of the time they're really thinking about consequences?

Reply 252

Original post by humanrights

absolutely not true. executing is cheaper than imprisonment.

again, how much is apiece of rope?

im not being facetious either. the never ending appeal process is not necessary.

swedish society has lower crime rates for many reasons.

So then you would kill anyone convicted of murder regardless of the evidence? So the cost of imprisoning murders is higher than the cost of the innocents that would inevitable be killed. Why is human life so cheap to you?

Reply 253

Original post by humanrights

i have been trying to explain that justice is not about the individual, but the deterrent effect of the sentences.

weak sentences facilitate crime and tough sentences reduce crime-- the empirical evidence for that is simply not up for discussion. its a fact.

No it's not!!!!!!!! There is a correlation and there is considerable evidence that this correlation weakens as the crime extremes.

The majority of the time murderers don't murder for logical calculated reasons. Pedophiles don't sexually assault children for logical reasons. These crimes are not logical to commit and therefore the fact they would be hung doesn't factor in to their thinking therefore there is no deterrent.

Reply 254

ProFail

The death sentence really does seem like a viable option a lot of the time.

Reply 255

StevieG346

Why not have this discussion with Derek Bentley? Oops, you can't, he was hanged for his 'part' in the murder of a police officer. His conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal some 50 years later. I would imagine Derek would have been thrilled at this news if not for the fact that the state had murdered him.

Reply 256

clo-clo1

10

Original post by humanrights

i've been on here debating for days. cut me some slack if i make a lol sign.....

what do you mean by your last point, i have already explained time and again the importance of deterrent.......

I mean having the person who abused me dead would not make that pain any different. We have already argued the time and the importance of deterrent but you threw it out with the fact everyone needs to be killed in order for it to be a deterrent.

Oh and you are allowed a lol or two but that appears to be your solution when you can't argue back. Also it's not a lol it's outright mocking by simply saying 'hahahahaha' to nothing remotely funny.

Reply 257

OP

cj99-

capital punishment is a deterrent. the empirical evidence is there-- for one, the murder rate shot up in britain as soon as capital punishment was abolished. the mantra that it is not a deterrent usually is based on US studies, but the US does not have proper system. for one, released murderers do re commit murder from time to time. so capital punishment removes the possibility of re offence. which is the proper thing to do.

but, you have a simplistic view of murder. sure, some murders are spur of the moment things enacted out in rage, but many are cold acts of violence, committed by arrogant criminals who have no respect for human life.

weak sentences faciliate an atmosphere of violence as street gangs, who commit most of the preventable violence, have no fear of real consequences. they think that life is cheap, and that view is backed up by the state.

lessen the consequences of crime, and crime increases. how on earth, under any circumstances, can weakening the consequences of crime lessen crime? its a perfectly logical statement that you seem to be trying desperately hard to convolute.

lets say the penalty for bank robbery was lessened to 1 month jail term: tomorrow morning, every bank in the country would be robbed.

lessen the consequences of crime, and crime increases.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 258

OP

Original post by CJ99

No it's not!!!!!!!! There is a correlation and there is considerable evidence that this correlation weakens as the crime extremes.

The majority of the time murderers don't murder for logical calculated reasons. Pedophiles don't sexually assault children for logical reasons. These crimes are not logical to commit and therefore the fact they would be hung doesn't factor in to their thinking therefore there is no deterrent.

again, this is absurd.

what do you think would happen if murder was legalised? would murder go up or down?

and if every murderer, and without exception, were executed for their crimes?

up or down?

you are convoluting the issue.

Reply 259