Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jenmcshane7)
    So you really think that the threat of death is no deterrent? Interesting

    No point even debating with you.

    Just correct your double principle please. 'Nobody should have authority over anyone's right to life' ... a killer has taken that authority, used it and killed. Yet, the victim and family have no rights. Funny old world.[/QUOTE]
    The killer doesn't have authority to take someone's life, hence he is punished... because it is wrong. Just because the government does it, doesn't make it right. It is still killing. Nobody should have the right unless their life is in imminent danger. Did you not learn in nursery that 2 wrongs don't make a right?

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jenmcshane7)
    So you really think that the threat of death is no deterrent? Interesting

    No point even debating with you.
    Do you have some kind of aversion to evidence and critical thinking? As the above poster has explained, this has been demonstrated in literature. I'm guessing you're so sure that the threat of death is an overall deterrent because of something silly like "common sense" - something that is well known to be a wrong a hell of a lot of the time. Anyway, there is in fact evidence that the death penalty is the opposite of a deterrent because it brutalises the population and thus drives up the rates of violent crime.

    If you really think the death penalty acts a deterrent then there really is no point debating with you.... unless maybe you can provide some evidence?


    Just correct your double principle please. 'Nobody should have authority over anyone's right to life' ... a killer has taken that authority, used it and killed. Yet, the victim and family have no rights. Funny old world.
    No "double principle" here. The state should not have authority over anyone's right to life, and nor should a killer. No-one is saying that the killer should have had authority over their victim's life - I think we're all agreed that they've done wrong - the question is what should be done about it. And your solution is simply to violate somebody else's right to life? What hypocrisy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Do you have some kind of aversion to evidence and critical thinking? As the above poster has explained, this has been demonstrated in literature. I'm guessing you're so sure that the threat of death is an overall deterrent because of something silly like "common sense" - something that is well known to be a wrong a hell of a lot of the time. Anyway, there is in fact evidence that the death penalty is the opposite of a deterrent because it brutalises the population and thus drives up the rates of violent crime.

    If you really think the death penalty acts a deterrent then there really is no point debating with you.... unless maybe you can provide some evidence?




    No "double principle" here. The state should not have authority over anyone's right to life, and nor should a killer. No-one is saying that the killer should have had authority over their victim's life - I think we're all agreed that they've done wrong - the question is what should be done about it. And your solution is simply to violent somebody else's right to life? What hypocrisy.
    You just don't get it do you?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jenmcshane7)
    You just don't get it do you?
    What?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This might be a very simple approach to this debate but I found this blog post actually very useful and made me change my views on the death penalty. This blog has actually just started like a week ago and it was created by two 17 year old girls currently in year 12 who are pursuing to study law in the future. Check out their blog it's pretty good! http://www.ourlawjournal.blogspot.co...yes-or-no.html
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jenmcshane7)
    You just don't get it do you?
    Haha that post shows you've clearly just run out of things to say


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jenmcshane7)
    So you really think that the threat of death is no deterrent? Interesting

    No point even debating with you.

    Just correct your double principle please. 'Nobody should have authority over anyone's right to life' ... a killer has taken that authority, used it and killed. Yet, the victim and family have no rights. Funny old world.
    There is no evidence that it works as a deterrent. It doesn't matter what you think, that statistics speak for themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Two wrongs don't make a right.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A wonderful form of punishment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    A wonderful form of punishment.
    So glad that the legislature disagrees with you


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teenageclay)
    Two wrongs don't make a right.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Who said it's wrong?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    Who said it's wrong?
    I think there's a problem if you can't see that killing someone is wrong


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    I think there's a problem if you can't see that killing someone is wrong


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    From Wikipedia, on Saddam Hussein's son Uday:

    Allegations of crimes[edit]
    A report released on 20 March 2003, one day after the American led invasion of Iraq, by ABC news detailed several allegations against Uday:

    As head of the Iraqi Olympic Committee, Uday oversaw the imprisonment and torture of Iraqi athletes who were deemed not to have performed to expectations. According to widespread reports, torturers beat and caned the soles of the football players' feet—inflicting intense pain without leaving visible marks on the rest of their bodies. Uday reportedly kept scorecards with written instructions on how many times each player should be beaten after a poor showing. He would insult athletes who performed below his expectations by calling them dogs and monkeys to their faces.[14] One defector reported that jailed football players were forced to kick a concrete ball after failing to reach the 1994 FIFA World Cup finals.[15] The Iraqi national football team were seen with their heads shaved after failing to achieve a good result in a tournament in the 1980s. It was widely circulated that Uday ordered the shaving as part of the punishment. Another defector claimed that athletes were dragged through a gravel pit and subsequently immersed in a sewage tank to induce infection in the victims' wounds.[8] After Iraq lost, 4–1, to Japan in the quarter finals of the 2000 AFC Asian Cup in Lebanon, goalkeeper Hashim Hassan, defender Abdul Jaber and forward Qahtan Chatir were labelled as guilty of loss and eventually flogged for three days by Uday's security.[15]
    Other allegations include:

    Kidnapping young Iraqi women from the streets in order to rape them. Uday was known to intrude on parties and otherwise "discover" women whom he would later rape. Time published an article in 2003 detailing his sexual brutality.[1][16]
    When U.S. troops captured his mansion in Baghdad, they found a personal zoo stocked with lions and cheetahs; an underground parking garage for his collection of luxury cars; paintings glorifying him and his mother with Saddam (which was known to have infuriated his father); Cuban cigars inscribed with his name; and millions of dollars worth of fine wines, liquor and heroin. An HIV testing kit was also found among his personal effects.[14] He amassed millions of U.S. dollars by running façade corporations illegally trading with Iran (although, at that time, UN restrictions did not allow foreign trading. Only later, Iraq was allowed to import certain commodities such as food and medical supplies legally under the UN Oil For Food programme).
    Usage of an iron maiden on persons running afoul of him.[17]
    Beating an army officer unconscious when the man refused to allow Uday to dance with his wife; the man later died of his injuries. Uday also shot and killed an army officer who did not salute him.[8]
    Stealing approximately 1,200 luxury vehicles, including a Rolls-Royce Corniche valued at over $200,000.[citation needed] A Lamborghini LM002, given to him as a gift by former Leader of Libya Muammar Gaddafi, was later blown up by U.S. forces to demonstrate the effects of a car bomb.[18]
    Plotting, in 2000, to assassinate Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, presumably to impress his father after Qusay was named heir apparent.[19]
    In the words of Sam Harris, "unless you are a complete pacifist, you have to admit that this is what guns are for." I think it's potentially quite naive to say or imply that killing is always wrong. I think it can serve a moral purpose... I just don't think it can be moral as a state-endorsed method of punishment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    From Wikipedia, on Saddam Hussein's son Uday:



    In the words of Sam Harris, "unless you are a complete pacifist, you have to admit that this is what guns are for." I think it's potentially quite naive to say or imply that killing is always wrong. I think it can serve a moral purpose... I just don't think it can be moral as a state-endorsed method of punishment.
    I would say the only time killing is acceptable is if it saves a greater number of lives or a 'better' person (I.e. Someone who's not a criminal). The death penalty isn't necessary to achieve that end


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by superdarklord)
    So say there's a man who has raped several women and tortured them before sadistically killing them. Does he not deserve to die? What do you think is a suitable punishment?


    I must say I agree with this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So what about the murderer's family? It's pure hypocrisy to murder a murderer. If you want our law system to be on par with Afghanistan's or Iraq's, you must be insane.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    Who said it's wrong?
    The state is murdering someone. It's no better than the murderers themselves.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Give the choice to the victim's family/dependants. They should decide the fate of the murderer after meeting with him/her and their family.

    1) Blood for blood/execution
    2) Jail sentence
    3) Blood money/compensation
    4) Pardon

    That way the lawmakers hands are clean :holmes:

    Personally I would go for 3 or 4.

    Execution is the worst type of premeditated murder.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. Capital punishment is immoral.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBlue7)
    Give the choice to the victim's family/dependants. They should decide the fate of the murderer after meeting with him/her and their family.

    1) Blood for blood/execution
    2) Jail sentence
    3) Blood money/compensation
    4) Pardon

    That way the lawmakers hands are clean :holmes:

    Personally I would go for 3 or 4.

    Execution is the worst type of premeditated murder.
    Why not extend that to all crime then? If someone steals my identity then why not let me decide their sentence?

    Blood for blood, how far are you going to go with that though? Rape for rape


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by superdarklord)
    Opinions on the death penalty?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Na sometimes they wanna die. I think forced labor is the best thing. they may be a waste of life. but as a society we can salvage some use from them. have them do something useful like clear mines or build mind numbingly mundane things.

    you could even just have them on push bikes all day generating electricity.

    or if they are on the death penalty list. they can be forced hard labour until someone needs a transplant like a heart, lungs, skin, bone marrow, kidneys and then have them killed and donate that.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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