Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    > 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?
    - Yes, because their morality is not the only factor. I cannot justify the death penalty. It goes completely against my morals.

    - I'm one of those annoying people that believes that all animal life is equal etc etc

    - Of course it shouldn't be spent ineffectively. I was just addressing your emotive argument, rather than consideration of other elements.

    - The same way we did with Harold Shipman before he hanged himself, chuck them in jail
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    > 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?
    Just FYI, the death penalty costs a lot more than incarceration. In a rush now but can post sources later if you're interested
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    (Original post by Implication)
    if you actually care about making sure you get the right person then yes
    I don't understand your reasoning. Getting the right person would be the job of the police. It doesn't matter what punishment is given afterwards, the investigation would cost the same.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_hanson)
    I don't understand your reasoning. Getting the right person would be the job of the police. It doesn't matter what punishment is given afterwards, the investigation would cost the same.
    No; that's the job of the court. And you have to allow time for incarceration throughout the numerous trials, appeals etc. that need to occur if we want to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt. Not to mention the actual court costs of those trials.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    No; that's the job of the court. And you have to allow time for incarceration throughout the numerous trials, appeals etc. that need to occur if we want to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt. Not to mention the actual court costs of those trials.
    Such costs would exist regardless of the punishment. You are aware of this right?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_hanson)
    Such costs would exist regardless of the punishment. You are aware of this right?
    But the costs are much greater in cases were execution is on the cards. I'll post some links/sources later if you like, but don't just take my word for it - go and google the cost of the death penalty
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    - Yes, because their morality is not the only factor. I cannot justify the death penalty. It goes completely against my morals.

    - I'm one of those annoying people that believes that all animal life is equal etc etc

    - Of course it shouldn't be spent ineffectively. I was just addressing your emotive argument, rather than consideration of other elements.

    - The same way we did with Harold Shipman before he hanged himself, chuck them in jail
    1) Justice isn't served when serial rapists and their coterie are roaming around in a facility and beggars and homeless peeps are struggling to make ends meet. I think you need to place justice above morals.

    2) :yy:

    3) :yy:

    4) but not all of them can be that "smart". I just read in the news some 17 year old who brutally raped a girl in India is a free man now. This is just unbelievably pathetic...

    (Original post by Implication)
    Just FYI, the death penalty costs a lot more than incarceration. In a rush now but can post sources later if you're interested
    I'm interested tbh thanks
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    1) Justice isn't served when serial rapists and their coterie are roaming around in a facility and beggars and homeless peeps are struggling to make ends meet. I think you need to place justice above morals.

    4) but not all of them can be that "smart". I just read in the news some 17 year old who brutally raped a girl in India is a free man now. This is just unbelievably pathetic...
    - Justice is not killing another person.
    - India's justice system is far from perfect, and completely incomparable to somewhere like the UK.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    - Justice is not killing another person.
    What is your understanding of justice?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    What is your understanding of justice?
    I don't agree with the 'eye for an eye' form of justice. I think people should pay for crimes, and depending on severity, with the deprivation of their freedom.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    No; that's the job of the court. And you have to allow time for incarceration throughout the numerous trials, appeals etc. that need to occur if we want to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt. Not to mention the actual court costs of those trials.
    Our justice system is not intended to deliver the right verdict to the defendant but rather, tests the experience of barristers to twist the evidence in a manner which would either condemn or exonerate the defendant.Often, the correct verdict and correct offender tally but there have been many instances where they have not.


    If we were to evolve our justice system into one that establishes facts, then I envision the costs would be lower, less appeals, and a more fairer system overall.

    Our negligence in not evolving our justice system to deliver what the system was intended for, should not be an argument against capital punishment.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    I don't agree with the 'eye for an eye' form of justice. I think people should pay for crimes, and depending on severity, with the deprivation of their freedom.
    I don't disagree that convicts should pay for their crimes but it is becoming increasingly clear that, for those who have been caught, convicted prisoners view loss of liberty as an acceptable compromise for their crimes. In actual fact, for many, it is viewed as a badge of honor.

    Would loss of life have more of an effect?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I don't disagree that convicts should pay for their crimes but it is becoming increasingly clear that, for those who have been caught, convicted prisoners view loss of liberty as an acceptable compromise for their crimes. In actual fact, for many, it is viewed as a badge of honor.

    Would loss of life have more of an effect?
    I'd say some of it at least would be how good our prisons are to live in. That needs changing.

    As for whether loss of life would have more of an effect, imo, no. Look at American states with the death penalty vs. without. Generally speaking, US states with the death penalty have a higher serious/violent crime rate than those without.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    not institutionally, but if the objective truth of a situation was that somebody murdered somebody, I would have *no* problem of them being killed in return. the denial of that person's existence is your denial of your own forgiveness.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    I'd say some of it at least would be how good our prisons are to live in. That needs changing.
    I wouldn't say that's the case at all. I don't think anyone intentionally wants to deprive themselves of their liberty but they make a calculated risk vs reward decision and for many, it is often worth the reward because the risk is minimal.

    As for whether loss of life would have more of an effect, imo, no. Look at American states with the death penalty vs. without. Generally speaking, US states with the death penalty have a higher serious/violent crime rate than those without.
    Firstly, America is not perhaps the paradigm as it is made out to be for there are many bugs within the American justice system including, but not limited to corruption, prejudice, racism and bias.

    Secondly, that statistical presentation is simply correlation which although gives a unique insight, should not be used as a substitute for qualitative factors (i.e: motivation behind why a crime is committed). Justifying the non-enactment of the death penalty based on arbitrarily held numbers will not solve the issue.


    What will solve the issue of crime is looking at the underlying reasons for the commission of the offence and seeing whether there may have been merit in addressing any potential factors which have been overlooked.

    A continued insistence that prisons are the best option is simply a naive manner of thinking. Whilst I hold the belief that everyone has the potential to reform, our prison system clearly isn't working, in a way that we envisioned that it would reform the criminal.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I wouldn't say that's the case at all. I don't think anyone intentionally wants to deprive themselves of their liberty but they make a calculated risk vs reward decision and for many, it is often worth the reward because the risk is minimal.



    Firstly, America is not perhaps the paradigm as it is made out to be for there are many bugs within the American justice system including, but not limited to corruption, prejudice, racism and bias.

    Secondly, that statistical presentation is simply correlation which although gives a unique insight, should not be used as a substitute for qualitative factors (i.e: motivation behind why a crime is committed). Justifying the non-enactment of the death penalty based on arbitrarily held numbers will not solve the issue.


    What will solve the issue of crime is looking at the underlying reasons for the commission of the offence and seeing whether there may have been merit in addressing any potential factors which have been overlooked.

    A continued insistence that prisons are the best option is simply a naive manner of thinking. Whilst I hold the belief that everyone has the potential to reform, our prison system clearly isn't working, in a way that we envisioned that it would reform the criminal.
    The UK prison system, as it is, is a better option for some than life on the outside. You get many, many cases of people reoffending purely to get back into prison...

    I do agree that one thing we should be implementing to tackle crime is looking at the root cause, rather than dealing with it when the crime's been perpetrated, but we do already know a lot of the causes of crime (poverty, low education, high unemployment etc.) and we're not really doing much to tackle them imo.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    The UK prison system, as it is, is a better option for some than life on the outside. You get many, many cases of people reoffending purely to get back into prison...
    I object to the quantification of those whom you believe do this.

    Whilst I accept that it does happen, though it is not as frequent as you have made it out to be. There are actual homeless people I know of that do this, but only during the winter where the biting cold will be intolerable, and only as a last resort option. They will usually cause some kind of criminal damage and be locked up for around 3 months, coinciding with the coldest of UK nights.

    There are only a handful of cases where a person intentionally seeks the loss of liberty. For the vast majority of cases, convicts are operating under a haze or illusion that they will get away with the offence as hardly anyone expects to be caught.

    The potential loss of liberty is an intangible concept and as such, many people have come to rationalize it because they can't imagine what it will be like. Conversely, the loss of life, or the loss of a limb is something that can not be rationalized and I happen to think that is a more suitable and would serve more as a deterrent effect, to people intending to commit a crime.

    I do agree that one thing we should be implementing to tackle crime is looking at the root cause, rather than dealing with it when the crime's been perpetrated, but we do already know a lot of the causes of crime (poverty, low education, high unemployment etc.) and we're not really doing much to tackle them imo.
    A sorry state of affairs stemming from the fact that our justice system is simply a standalone path in which people can feel safe without disrupting the status quo, because it suits them and their way of life.

    It is quite selfish.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I object to the quantification of those whom you believe do this.

    Whilst I accept that it does happen, though it is not as frequent as you have made it out to be. There are actual homeless people I know of that do this, but only during the winter where the biting cold will be intolerable, and only as a last resort option. They will usually cause some kind of criminal damage and be locked up for around 3 months, coinciding with the coldest of UK nights.

    There are only a handful of cases where a person intentionally seeks the loss of liberty. For the vast majority of cases, convicts are operating under a haze or illusion that they will get away with the offence as hardly anyone expects to be caught.

    The potential loss of liberty is an intangible concept and as such, many people have come to rationalize it because they can't imagine what it will be like. Conversely, the loss of life, or the loss of a limb is something that can not be rationalized and I happen to think that is a more suitable and would serve more as a deterrent effect, to people intending to commit a crime.
    My mum's ex-CPS.

    So you're eye-for-an-eye?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    My mum's ex-CPS.
    Barrister or case worker?

    So you're eye-for-an-eye?
    In a system where honesty is prevalent, facts are established and guilt is accepted, then I'd say yes.

    However, I am also of the opinion that in certain cases, the family of say, the murdered victim, should get a say in whether they would be willing to pardon the convicted.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Barrister or case worker?



    In a system where honesty is prevalent, facts are established and guilt is accepted, then I'd say yes.

    However, I am also of the opinion that in certain cases, the family of say, the murdered victim, should get a say in whether they would be willing to pardon the convicted.
    Ex-prosecutor.

    See this is why we're never really going to agree, because we disagree on the very fundamentals
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.