Death Penalty: Your Views

So you're saying that, if the death penalty were abolished in the US (or the particular states in which it is currently used), the crime rates would be no higher than they are now? What makes you think that?

So why dont we torture people then as that is even worse than going to prison.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Because that would be inhumane and unethical; duh.

Always against it; I think taking someone's life can never be considered "right".



Life imprisonment



Except this wouldn't work in principle because very few cases ever have perfect, indisputable evidence. By removing someone's right to appeal, you are increasing the chance that someone may be incorrectly punished and executed, which would obviously be wrong. If you are putting in place the most extreme punishment, you will have to put in safeguards to "double-check" the sentence.

Removing the right to appeal would likely be going against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well, as it could lead to a violation of the right to a fair trial.

Points 1,2 and 4 apply to life imprisonment and you support that.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Opinions on the death penalty?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I strongly disagree with the death penalty, it's hypocritical in some circumstances such as a murder. You are basically doing the same thing they did, yet it is seen as being perfectly justified. If murder is wrong, surely the executioner should be given the death penalty as well. Also there are the miscarriage of justices which can occur (although it is a small amount in retrospect, if 1 person is incorrectly executed then I believe it shouldn't be legal).
I believe people should be given a second chance as they may have done wrong, but years on prison isn't the best thing in the world. A life sentence (assuming the death penalty would be given for extreme crimes like rape, murder etc) is a long time and people can change their whole life around during it, they may not commit a crime ever again. By having the death penalty, this won't happen and people aren't given a second chance.

I could go on for much longer about 'eye for an eye' being wrong etc...

I dont support life imprisonment, I support the death penalty XD Was just answering your question is all


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I'm not assuming that we bring back the death penalty while in the EU - a condition of joining is that the death penalty must be revoked/banned while any such country is within the EU (the Labour government of the '60s revoked the death penalty to get into the EEC)

Also, revoking someones right to appeal on their life is harsh - this is boarding on almost a dictator style way of thinking - taking away their human right to speak freely and try to free themselves should be quashed because they committed a crime. Imagine the outrage anyways, whoever committed this crime probably has a family too - that they wouldn't see their family member again because the right to appeal was lost. Your manner of thinking here is sloppy - taking away a fundamental human right - the right to freedom of speech (as their appeal won't be heard) - will bring in all sorts of condemnation from many democratic countries, allies, and the UN.

I also wasn't comparing the situation to the US - I was using the US as an example. I agree with your point on their gun laws, however, if somebody in this country wished to get an unregistered gun, it wouldn't be too hard - guns are smuggled into the country each year and if you have criminal links, it would be easy enough.

There have been many cases where we have sufficient evidence to conclude that the accused is guilty. There are cases of stabbings where we have first CCTV footage, second DNA evidence, third the victim's account and finally the accused has admitted to the crime. There is so much evidence mounted against the individual such as a large number witnessing the crime that it's impossible to conclude it was not him/her. You also have scenarios where terrorists are caught and proved to be linked to a bombing. These cases where we know for a fact the person is guilty (which is often as they only give life sentences when there is sufficient evidence) should be followed by a death penalty.
.

Because the chance of being placed on death row and then executed is so low that I doubt it acts as an effective deterrent.

If more people were being executed then it might be a reasonable deterrent.

a) no one should have the right to take someone else's life
b) what if they are found to be innocent after the death? (this has happened)
c) Some criminals deserve to rot in jail, thinking about what they have done. They may have taken/ruined someones life, why do they get an easy way out? They will have taken someone's rights away, all they deserve is basic rights to food, water and a roof over their heads.

Oh, my bad. Sorry. I thought you were the person I quoted. I dont believe in torture but I was posing the question to the person whom I quoted as they essentially agreed with torture without releasing it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

So what would you prefer? That they kill as many people as they can before they are caught?

I did not agree with torture. I disagreed with the individual having an easy way out of what they've done.

If it's such an easy way out, why does pretty much everyone sentenced to death in thr US appeal against it knowing the best they'll get is life in prison?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Whether the death penalty is used is decided by the states individually, as you seem to have realised. States that use the death penalty actually have a higher crime rate than those that don't.