Capital punishment
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Lord_hanson
Might commit another crime. If someone killed many people and it was highly likely he would kill again then yes they should be killed. Why lock them up for the rest of their life instead? It is a waster of resources. Kill them, recycle what organs are of use then burn the rest.
It could be said that it is highly likely you might kill someone based on your idea of preemptive justice. You might think I will kill someone so I should take you out first. Assuming someone will commit a crime so you can protect yourself is cowardly.
Original post by Macy1998
Oh, forgive me. I meant pro capital. Silly mistake.
All I really hear is you throwing Muslims into the equation. No one included them but you. I provided my argument, and it was too flawed for you. You provided your argument, and apparently it has more to do with Muslims than anything else. I thought it was capital punishment in general. You do realize in the little US of A, capital punishment in some states exist, right? Capital punishment happens outside the Uk too. The open post never said , do you support it (only in the UK). You may not like my argument but wouldn't say its irrelevant because we are not on the same page.
When people don't "get" your argument, throw in something about France, and Muslims. And boom. There's your argument. Has that working for you?
If they don't get the connection, then you know you're too smart, lol. Because of course that argument applies to all arguments.
All I really hear is you throwing Muslims into the equation. No one included them but you. I provided my argument, and it was too flawed for you. You provided your argument, and apparently it has more to do with Muslims than anything else. I thought it was capital punishment in general. You do realize in the little US of A, capital punishment in some states exist, right? Capital punishment happens outside the Uk too. The open post never said , do you support it (only in the UK). You may not like my argument but wouldn't say its irrelevant because we are not on the same page.
When people don't "get" your argument, throw in something about France, and Muslims. And boom. There's your argument. Has that working for you?
If they don't get the connection, then you know you're too smart, lol. Because of course that argument applies to all arguments.You're joking now? You're getting confused because I'm using the Paris terror attacks to make a comparison? I'm aware no one else was talking about Muslims but no one was talking about boxes of chocolate when Tom Hanks brought it up in Forrest Gump either but it's a comparison (that means he took two situations and demonstrated the similarities between them, just like I did).
My argument doesn't have more to with Muslims (it's that magical comparison thing I mentioned before) I took an element of capital punishment (do you remember that like for like thing we spoke about before?) and applied it to another situation to demonstrate how ridiculous it is.
Aside from the USA and Japan (who hardly use it) no other country, who's society I respect, uses capital punishment.
I say your argument is irrelevant because capital punishment is banned in the EU so it can't be brought back here. You can wish for it all you like but like I said, it's irrelevant at the moment unless you live in another country.
Okay let's try one more time; you agree it's fair for the state to take someone's life because they took someone else's?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Lord_hanson
Might commit another crime. If someone killed many people and it was highly likely he would kill again then yes they should be killed. Why lock them up for the rest of their life instead? It is a waste of resources. Kill them, recycle what organs are of use then burn the rest.
For the billionth time, you have no reason to suggest capital punishment would be cheaper
Posted from TSR Mobile
i'm not a fan of retributive 'justice' (a.k.a revenge) so i wouldn't support the death penalty where imprisonment were a viable option. however, that's not to say that there aren't situations in which killing someone is the best thing to do.
Original post by bardnnyc
If anyone does that to any member of my family and I have a chance to revenge, I'll tie him up, make an incision in his left 4th intercostal, wear a latex glove, smear it all over with salt and chilli. Put my hand in there , grab his beating heart, pull it out slowly and watch him jerk. Then I'll grab a machete, cut off his hands if he killed my relative or slice his genitals if it was rape.
Killers of Rigby should face public execution. They should be killed very very slowllllllllyyyyy.
Killers of Rigby should face public execution. They should be killed very very slowllllllllyyyyy.
lmao such a funny commenet i love it but honestly u get my point its true though
Original post by sw651
Ah yes, because of course murder and rape don't carry life sentences at all. They are let out after a few years.
We have a justice system so that it is fair, what you are saying is not. What about all the innocents that die in war, do we put soldiers in jail and torture them?
We have a justice system so that it is fair, what you are saying is not. What about all the innocents that die in war, do we put soldiers in jail and torture them?
i think yes becuase they have killed innocent people whi h dont deserve to be killed this is why some poeple now think that it cant eb a just war becuase of the use iof modern weqapons and also the fact that innicents are being killed
It's a difficult one for me. In countries where the law is well established and robust, i prefer life sentences for the most evil crimes to be just. And that means full life, not 10 years. In developing countries where the law is highly questionable and security is low, i understand the need to execute criminals, even though i realise many times innocent life is taken. The problem comes in the future with overpopulation and prison demand. What happens when there isn't enough room or resources?
Original post by Underscore__
You're joking now? You're getting confused because I'm using the Paris terror attacks to make a comparison? I'm aware no one else was talking about Muslims but no one was talking about boxes of chocolate when Tom Hanks brought it up in Forrest Gump either but it's a comparison (that means he took two situations and demonstrated the similarities between them, just like I did).
My argument doesn't have more to with Muslims (it's that magical comparison thing I mentioned before) I took an element of capital punishment (do you remember that like for like thing we spoke about before?) and applied it to another situation to demonstrate how ridiculous it is.
Aside from the USA and Japan (who hardly use it) no other country, who's society I respect, uses capital punishment.
I say your argument is irrelevant because capital punishment is banned in the EU so it can't be brought back here. You can wish for it all you like but like I said, it's irrelevant at the moment unless you live in another country.
Okay let's try one more time; you agree it's fair for the state to take someone's life because they took someone else's?
Posted from TSR Mobile
My argument doesn't have more to with Muslims (it's that magical comparison thing I mentioned before) I took an element of capital punishment (do you remember that like for like thing we spoke about before?) and applied it to another situation to demonstrate how ridiculous it is.
Aside from the USA and Japan (who hardly use it) no other country, who's society I respect, uses capital punishment.
I say your argument is irrelevant because capital punishment is banned in the EU so it can't be brought back here. You can wish for it all you like but like I said, it's irrelevant at the moment unless you live in another country.
Okay let's try one more time; you agree it's fair for the state to take someone's life because they took someone else's?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Who is trying to bring back capital pun in the UK? Definitely not I. The open post asked if i supported it, and i said yes. Just cuz, i'm pro doesn't mean i'm protesting to back it back, lol. I'm talking about in general. I do live in another country, lol. Ok. No country other than those uses it. And? Wait, do you respect the country who don't use it, because of that one aspect?
Sure. If you can murder others, then you can't complain when done to you.
Openly admitting my stance on this isn't going to bring it unless the state is ok with that. I appreciate your passion to fight against it but silencing those who do not agree with you isn't the way to go.
How do you feel about murder in defense?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bob Mackenzie
It could be said that it is highly likely you might kill someone based on your idea of preemptive justice. You might think I will kill someone so I should take you out first. Assuming someone will commit a crime so you can protect yourself is cowardly.
If I had killed in the past and it was likely I was going to kill again it would be wise to excute me. If you read my original comment fully you would have noticed I said under certain circumstances. It is an important decision taking someones life and emotions should not be allowed to cloud judgement whether the emotion is anger and lust for revenge or empathy and a desire for mercy. I am not suggesting that every murderer is executed but I do believe that the option should be available under certain circumstances
.
Original post by Underscore__
For the billionth time, you have no reason to suggest capital punishment would be cheaper
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Why do I have no reason to suggest capital punishment would be cheaper? Please can you explain what you mean.
Original post by honey55497
do you support capital punishment and why ?
No, it does not allow for the reform of the criminal and it cannot be reversed if the person is found to be innocent. It has also been shown that there is no correlation between lower crime rates and the death penalty.
Original post by laeve
No, it does not allow for the reform of the criminal and it cannot be reversed if the person is found to be innocent. It has also been shown that there is no correlation between lower crime rates and the death penalty.
I believe the purpose of the death penalty is not to lower crime rates but to stop repeat offences. Imprisoning criminals doesn't lower crime rates either.
Original post by Lord_hanson
Why do I have no reason to suggest capital punishment would be cheaper? Please can you explain what you mean.
Why do I have no reason to suggest capital punishment would be cheaper? Please can you explain what you mean.
Because you have no evidence to suggest that. In all likelihood if by some miracle the death penalty was being reintroduced we'd likely follow the system used by the Americans as they have a very similar legal system to us. The death penalty costs them literally billions more than simply incarcerating people
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Macy1998
Who is trying to bring back capital pun in the UK? Definitely not I. The open post asked if i supported it, and i said yes. Just cuz, i'm pro doesn't mean i'm protesting to back it back, lol. I'm talking about in general. I do live in another country, lol. Ok. No country other than those uses it. And? Wait, do you respect the country who don't use it, because of that one aspect?
Sure. If you can murder others, then you can't complain when done to you.
Openly admitting my stance on this isn't going to bring it unless the state is ok with that. I appreciate your passion to fight against it but silencing those who do not agree with you isn't the way to go.
How do you feel about murder in defense?
Sure. If you can murder others, then you can't complain when done to you.
Openly admitting my stance on this isn't going to bring it unless the state is ok with that. I appreciate your passion to fight against it but silencing those who do not agree with you isn't the way to go.
How do you feel about murder in defense?
That makes no sense, if you support capital punishment why are you not arguing in favour of it being reintroduced?
I don't respect the other countries with the death penalty because they're pretty much all countries with terrible human rights records.
If in a situation you need to kill someone or you're sure they're going to kill you then killing that person is acceptable because you have no other option. The flaw in that argument is without the use of guns you can almost always use non-lethal force to stop an attacker. Guns are all but illegal in the UK and we don't have too much gun crime
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
That makes no sense, if you support capital punishment why are you not arguing in favour of it being reintroduced?
I don't respect the other countries with the death penalty because they're pretty much all countries with terrible human rights records.
If in a situation you need to kill someone or you're sure they're going to kill you then killing that person is acceptable because you have no other option. The flaw in that argument is without the use of guns you can almost always use non-lethal force to stop an attacker. Guns are all but illegal in the UK and we don't have too much gun crime
Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't respect the other countries with the death penalty because they're pretty much all countries with terrible human rights records.
If in a situation you need to kill someone or you're sure they're going to kill you then killing that person is acceptable because you have no other option. The flaw in that argument is without the use of guns you can almost always use non-lethal force to stop an attacker. Guns are all but illegal in the UK and we don't have too much gun crime
Posted from TSR Mobile
1. I'm in favor of capital punishment. Not strongly as you are against it but if I witnessed it on tv or heard the state was considering it, it wouldn't bother me. Some criminals had it coming. You believe in karma? I don't. But if you want you can say if you cause harm to others, you had it coming to have harm inflicted on you. It is not the unexpected. The criminal was going to die anyway. Their death is their punishment. It can be thought as justice. Since justice is punishment for the criminal.
2. If capital punishment is banned in your location then why are you so "threaten" by my opinion on it? How do you know it isn't legal in my state already, so why should I be fighting to bring it in your location if your location doesn't concern me? Would you like to me to send powerful essay on why it should be reintroduced to whoever is the representative down there? Because if I'm not a diehard supporter then I'm not making sense, lol.
3. Guns aren't inherently bad. Guns are just guns. I'm also not a strong gun supporter but I'm not anti. I can't strip guns out of a gun owner's hand because
"didn't you hear that shooter on the news? Don't you see?! You might be the next shooter because you have guns!" I wouldn't buy a gun because I doubt I'll be living in a bad area and I was not raised in a pro gun home. But I can't take any the next person's right because I live in fear I'll get shot.
No. I support justice not vengence
Original post by Underscore__
Because you have no evidence to suggest that. In all likelihood if by some miracle the death penalty was being reintroduced we'd likely follow the system used by the Americans as they have a very similar legal system to us. The death penalty costs them literally billions more than simply incarcerating people
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
IF we went with their expensive methods then it would be more expensive but do you honestly think that the cost to incarcerate someone for 50+ years is lower than a length of rope or a bullet?
Original post by Lord_hanson
IF we went with their expensive methods then it would be more expensive but do you honestly think that the cost to incarcerate someone for 50+ years is lower than a length of rope or a bullet?
if you actually care about making sure you get the right person then yes
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by abruiseonthesky
End the mismanagement of resources..?
Killing, except for euthanasia, whatever the animal species, is always completely morally wrong imo. Just because it's sanctioned by the state doesn't make it right. Personally, I'd rather they lived out their lives under restricted privileges, like in prison (except without the luxuries afforded to them now; there should be the bare minimum, i.e. food, warmth, clothes and access to education for those in for lesser crimes like theft where they'll be out after a while, and life should be life). Look at Switzerland/Sweden (I can't remember which, I always get them confused, I think it's Switzerland I mean this time
), where their prison system is highly effective.
Killing, except for euthanasia, whatever the animal species, is always completely morally wrong imo. Just because it's sanctioned by the state doesn't make it right. Personally, I'd rather they lived out their lives under restricted privileges, like in prison (except without the luxuries afforded to them now; there should be the bare minimum, i.e. food, warmth, clothes and access to education for those in for lesser crimes like theft where they'll be out after a while, and life should be life). Look at Switzerland/Sweden (I can't remember which, I always get them confused, I think it's Switzerland I mean this time
), where their prison system is highly effective.But that's easier said than done
Is an Animal's welfare relevant? =S Anyways, my underlining point is that, a terrorist arrested for killing innocents will be locked up in jail with some food and TV and rides to the court. Whereas an unfortunate homeless man will be begging in the streets to make ends meet. He will probably have a tough time living his day than a serial killer doing a life time sentence in jail.
Not really aware of Swiss jails, but the ones in Norway are 100x better than my dorm.
Original post by Underscore__
You're clearly not very clued up, capital punishment would likely cost us more
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Eh.. Ironic much?
Original post by sw651
The court case to chare them would be far more expensive, as is the cost to build facilities to execute them, hire extra doctors to check dead bodies, extra guards for death row, build death row cell blocks.
Honestly would you call your argument convincing? A life time prison sentence is like a hated figure in society living his life in closed doors for at least 10 years. At least. This is a luxury a rather hand to a jobless dud.
Original post by DiceTheSlice
But that's easier said than done
Is an Animal's welfare relevant? =S Anyways, my underlining point is that, a terrorist arrested for killing innocents will be locked up in jail with some food and TV and rides to the court. Whereas an unfortunate homeless man will be begging in the streets to make ends meet. He will probably have a tough time living his day than a serial killer doing a life time sentence in jail.
Is an Animal's welfare relevant? =S Anyways, my underlining point is that, a terrorist arrested for killing innocents will be locked up in jail with some food and TV and rides to the court. Whereas an unfortunate homeless man will be begging in the streets to make ends meet. He will probably have a tough time living his day than a serial killer doing a life time sentence in jail.
It is easier said than done, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
To me, yes.
So? That doesn't make it moral to kill him. Plus, do you really think, realistically, that any money saved from killing people instead of them being in jail (which will be in the negatives anyway) will be reallocated to homeless services?
Original post by abruiseonthesky
It is easier said than done, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
To me, yes.
So? That doesn't make it moral to kill him. Plus, do you really think, realistically, that any money saved from killing people instead of them being in jail (which will be in the negatives anyway) will be reallocated to homeless services?
To me, yes.
So? That doesn't make it moral to kill him. Plus, do you really think, realistically, that any money saved from killing people instead of them being in jail (which will be in the negatives anyway) will be reallocated to homeless services?
> I agree. But I feel i have to repeat. Anyways, in a literal context, if you had a say in everything, could you let a "bad" person (eg rapist) live a much easier life than a "good" person (eg beggar)?
> Okay I can't relate to Animal welfare with this topic, but I'll go with the flow.
> No... It will probably be wasted/spent on something that doesn't bother me at the moment. To echo a similar response... just because money cannot reallocated to another initiative doesn't mean everything should be in the inefficient way it is.
... Another question... how would you treat a person who killed 130+ patients in the 90s when he was employed as a Nurse?
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 ?
