Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Do you agree with the death penalty? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Do you agree with the death Penalty?
    #YES
    66
    40.49%
    NEVER!
    97
    59.51%

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Its the one subject I'm on the fence with. With things like abortion, euthanasia etc I have clear opinions on them and know my stance with them 100% but with capital punishment, I can't make a firm choice on whether I'm for or against it.

    I can see it from both views. If I had to choose though, I would say I am more closer to being against it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fairytalecolours)
    do you disagree with the idea that we should replace prisons with psychiatric hospitals? if people went sent to hospitals, they wouldn't have the opportunity to be violent. they'd be treated as equals and would quickly understand themselves and their situation, unless their psychological damage is so severe that it takes a while before they come round. suicide in prison is a huge problem and in an ideal psychiatric hospital there'd be no way for anyone to kill themselves. those who are most severely psychologically damaged should be placed in solitary confinement with the best conditions possible; they should be made to feel safe and comforted with none of this current punishment crap. those who are less psychologically damaged should be allowed to live together in a similar way to current prisons except with drs monitoring them rather than guards and higher standards of living conditions. people in these psychiatric hospitals should be encouraged to write books, make music, bake cakes. to do whatever they want as long as it's harmless and productive. we could literally transform prisons into creative schools where those who've been trampled on by society/themselves can rediscover what it means to be safe and happy. THAT would solve crime.

    in rehabilitation it's recognised that the addict is not bad; rather that they're ill. all people are addicted primarily to one thing: ego. the more we're addicted to ego, the less rational we are. in rehab/hospital, there would be no personal judgement or blame.

    people who murder others do so because they're psychologically damaged. under no circumstance does murder take place unless the murderer is mentally ill. i've clearly demonstrated why this is in a previous post. it is inexcusable to send a mentally ill person to prison or to punish them. do you reject this argument? if so, why?
    Yes I disagree with that idea because I don't think all criminals are mentally ill, so sending them to a psych hospital will either have no impact or will make them become mentally ill. The same can be said for a prison, especially for those placed in solitary confinement. It can literally cause them to become insane, but that is only after the fact. It doesn't mean that they were insane at the time they committed the act but rather, the consequence and punishment of their action is what led to a mental illness.

    Being in a psychiatric hospital most certainly gives you opportunity to be violent, what are you talking about? They're not treated as individuals. They are stripped of their identities and are forced to take a cocktail of pills that doesn't have any effect on them. Have you seen one flew over the cuckoos nest?

    psychologically damaged? As in perhaps a difficult childhood/difficult upbringing? of course that may contribute but that is not true for ALL situations nor does that equate to a mental illness.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Crimes occur regardless. We don't have the death penalty here, yet many crimes have been committed in the past few years which id say is worthy of it. How are you so sure that your idea of rehabilitation and what not will be effective?
    Those countries with highly rehabilitative models of justice have lower rates of recidivism and incarceration. Contrast with the United States which is 'tough on crime', has the death penalty, a non-rehabilitative model of justice, where recidivism is significantly higher and the incarceration rate is the highest in the world. Yep, the US has more people in jail both as a proportion and an absolute number than China, even though it has a lower population. See:

    Incarceration per 100,000
    US: ~700
    Russia: 450
    China: 119/165

    That means, proportionally, the US has an incarceration rate of 155% of Russia and 424-588% of China.

    Incarceration in absolute numbers:
    US: 2,217,000
    China: 1,657,812
    Russia: 644,696

    The US's prison population is 134% of China's and 344% of Russia's.

    Population:
    US: 322,176,000
    China: 1,373,040,000
    Russia: 146,427,280

    The US has a population of 220% of Russia and 23% of China.

    The US has a population only 23% of China, but 134% of the prison population of China. 0.68% of the US population is in prison; China 0.12% of the population; Russia 0.44%

    Clearly, the US model of hard on crime is not working.

    Your last point is fair, but as I said, for people who commit terrible crimes like the example of ted bundy I mentioned, he had over 36 victims, there is nothing to teach for people like him.
    But the death penalty isn't therefore the answer. That conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

    From a moral standpoint: Simplistically, why is it that a private citizen depriving someone of their life, but the State, acting through state agents, can commit the same action (actus reus) and it not be a crime? Answer: Because law stipulates that such a crime cannot be committed by the State. How is this morally justified? Stereotypical answer: Because the criminal committed some wrong, so the State is justified in administering this punishment. However, this moral answer is insufficient, as it authorizes an agent to administer punishment under so-called 'justified' circumstances. Hypothetical: Why can't a private citizen kill a murderer in the same fashion as the state? It would legally be murder and most people would be inclined to say that it was morally wrong. So, either (1) the State conducting the death penalty is wrong, as its grounded on the same moral reasoning and the 'wrongness feeling' of the private citizen case proves this; or (2) private citizens ought be able to perform justified killings, because the moral principle is the same. I think we would virtually universally agree that (1) is correct.

    From a pragmatic standpoint: The death penalty is more expensive to carry out than life in prison. It's a waste of money.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    From a moral standpoint: Simplistically, why is it that a private citizen depriving someone of their life, but the State, acting through state agents, can commit the same action (actus reus) and it not be a crime? Answer: Because law stipulates that such a crime cannot be committed by the State.
    Imagine I came to your house and banged on the door; there is no answer, so I break it in and I run upstairs and find you sitting there at your laptop. I continue to move towards you, finally placing some nice little cuffs from my collection on your supple little wrists. I restrain you and force you outside of your house, and into the back of my dimly lit van. After some time travelling in the back of the Cal-Wagon, you arrive at my dungeon and I promptly place you in a cell within it. I feed you and after several years, I release you to your friends and family.

    What would my criminal punishment be for that? Would my punishment not be somewhat similar to my own act?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)
    Imagine I came to your house and banged on the door; there is no answer, so I break it in and I run upstairs and find you sitting there at your laptop. I continue to move towards you, finally placing some nice little cuffs from my collection on your supple little wrists. I restrain you and force you outside of your house, and into the back of my dimly lit van. After some time travelling in the back of the Cal-Wagon, you arrive at my dungeon and I promptly place you in a cell within it. I feed you and after several years, I release you to your friends and family.

    What would my criminal punishment be for that? Would my punishment not be somewhat similar to my own act?
    This isn't a convincing response to those against the death penalty based on moral grounds, and I suspect you're already aware of that. We could speculate on punishment (imprisonment) based on a contractual nature, power structure nature, etc. which socially justifies imprisonment. However, imprisonment isn't the same type of thing as complete and total deprivation of life. Given the general moral attitude of the superiority of life, trying to compare imprisonment to life deprivation is not a morally equal comparison.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    This isn't a convincing response to those against the death penalty based on moral grounds, and I suspect you're already aware of that. We could speculate on punishment (imprisonment) based on a contractual nature, power structure nature, etc. which socially justifies imprisonment. However, imprisonment isn't the same type of thing as complete and total deprivation of life. Given the general moral attitude of the superiority of life, trying to compare imprisonment to life deprivation is not a morally equal comparison.
    No, I am not trying to carry it off as a satisfactory comprehensive response. In fact, I despise the death penalty as much as you, so I have no interest in providing such a rebuttal.

    I do, however, think it's a satisfactory response to the questionable dichotomy you provided, per (1) and (2).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)
    No, I am not trying to carry it off as a satisfactory comprehensive response. In fact, I despise the death penalty as much as you, so I have no interest in providing such a rebuttal.

    I do, however, think it's a satisfactory response to the questionable dichotomy you provided, per (1) and (2).
    I think you misunderstand my point. I don't accept it as a response to the dichotomy because it's qualitatively a different kind of thing. The point you're trying to demonstrate is that by committing imprisonment, we tend to see nothing wrong with the state thereby committing imprisonment against the offender: A can be X'ed by the State because A did X against B. Whereby, X can be substituted for, in your hypothetical, imprisonment, or otherwise for the death penalty/deprivation of life.

    I reject that it's simply a matter of slotting in for X. Moreover, my hypothetical presupposed that the private citizen was acting on the same justification as the State - i.e. he is killing someone who has committed some act for which the death penalty is a possible punishment. Yet, most would view his position as lacking the moral justification which the State has; most would say he has acted wrongly. The justification of the death penalty locates itself, therefore, not in some moral principle, but in power - specifically institutional or state power. The death penalty therefore becomes not a moral principle or question of morality at all, but a question of 'Do I have the appropriate institutional power to carry out this act?'.

    If it were a question of morality, then any person, not simply the State, would be entitled to carry out the action, but our moral feelings do not coincide with this rule of the general universal applicability of moral standards (this isn't a claim of universal morality, or any such meta-ethical claim, rather it's a claim about whatever meta-ethical morality there is as being applicable to those relevantly concerned).

    Since there is no moral justification for the death penalty, then it must follow that either (1) or (2) in my original case. To elaborate this point further:

    If I see A steal B's bananas, I am not then justified in stealing B's bananas. As a State I may demand that B return the stolen bananas; and/or perhaps face some imprisonment (though I'm personally against retributive punishment). The justification lying somewhere in deterrence/rehabilitation/protection for others from re-offense, etc. However, this justification doesn't extend to the death penalty, as it is not the least invasive means (i.e. most morally justified) means of achieving those results. As such, the death penalty isn't a moral question, it's an institutional power question. The State is, on the account of those who support the death penalty, justified because of its power. But, such an argument of power doesn't tell me why morally the private citizen cannot engage in the same deprivation of life actions.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Those countries with highly rehabilitative models of justice have lower rates of recidivism and incarceration. Contrast with the United States which is 'tough on crime', has the death penalty, a non-rehabilitative model of justice, where recidivism is significantly higher and the incarceration rate is the highest in the world. Yep, the US has more people in jail both as a proportion and an absolute number than China, even though it has a lower population. See:

    Incarceration per 100,000
    US: ~700
    Russia: 450
    China: 119/165

    That means, proportionally, the US has an incarceration rate of 155% of Russia and 424-588% of China.

    Incarceration in absolute numbers:
    US: 2,217,000
    China: 1,657,812
    Russia: 644,696

    The US's prison population is 134% of China's and 344% of Russia's.

    Population:
    US: 322,176,000
    China: 1,373,040,000
    Russia: 146,427,280

    The US has a population of 220% of Russia and 23% of China.

    The US has a population only 23% of China, but 134% of the prison population of China. 0.68% of the US population is in prison; China 0.12% of the population; Russia 0.44%

    Clearly, the US model of hard on crime is not working.



    But the death penalty isn't therefore the answer. That conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

    From a moral standpoint: Simplistically, why is it that a private citizen depriving someone of their life, but the State, acting through state agents, can commit the same action (actus reus) and it not be a crime? Answer: Because law stipulates that such a crime cannot be committed by the State. How is this morally justified? Stereotypical answer: Because the criminal committed some wrong, so the State is justified in administering this punishment. However, this moral answer is insufficient, as it authorizes an agent to administer punishment under so-called 'justified' circumstances. Hypothetical: Why can't a private citizen kill a murderer in the same fashion as the state? It would legally be murder and most people would be inclined to say that it was morally wrong. So, either (1) the State conducting the death penalty is wrong, as its grounded on the same moral reasoning and the 'wrongness feeling' of the private citizen case proves this; or (2) private citizens ought be able to perform justified killings, because the moral principle is the same. I think we would virtually universally agree that (1) is correct.

    From a pragmatic standpoint: The death penalty is more expensive to carry out than life in prison. It's a waste of money.
    I don't know understand what point you're trying to prove with those stats. The US have more people in prison than China & Russia? Ok..so? What does that have to do with the UK? What does that have to do with the death penalty? Where are our stats?

    I've said before that we cannot take the law into our own hands. I know that, you know what. If you saw a woman being viciously attacked in the street, what are we told to do? Not to approach and instead call the police so that they can take care of it themselves, to protect our safety. You are more than welcome to become a member of the law enforcement so that you can contribute if you please. We play different roles in society.
    Imagine you're wanting to take a vacation with your child. You're fed up with the stresses of life and need a break. So you book a last minute holiday. You pack your suitcase, you get your passports ready. You have a late flight so your baby is asleep when the taxi pulls up to take you to the airport, so you pick up your sleeping child and make your way out. That is absolutely fine and you are perfectly within your rights to do that. Imagine, I feel the same way as you. I'm a bit stressed out and would like some time away. I book the same flight that you did. I come into your house through an open window, pack your child's suitcase, take your child's passport from a drawer, pick up your sleeping child and pop him into the taxi and go. I don't harm your child in any way, in fact, I take good care of him. I will most certainly be thrown in jail for kidnap/trespassing for doing the same thing you did. So why am I penalised for it? because the context is different. You can't do something just because someone else can. A member of the law enforcement would also be prosecuted for doing that.


    If we're talking morally, then you've sort of contradicted yourself. From a moral standpoint, if we were allowed to execute in the same way that the law does, how would society function? Everyone would be living in fear and people would be killing others for stupid reasons, almost like the purge. 'He kissed my girlfriend so I have a reason to kill him'
    If you mean that we should be allowed to execute for the same reasons that the state does, why? If that individual will be executed anyway, what difference does it make?

    Practically, I see why the death penalty may not be possible and so it probably won't be reintroduced any time soon, but the thread asked if I agree with it, my answer is yes & ive stated my reason why. You don't have to agree with me
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I don't know understand what point you're trying to prove with those stats. The US have more people in prison than China & Russia? Ok..so? What does that have to do with the UK? What does that have to do with the death penalty? Where are our stats?
    It's a comparative analysis. The point being made is that 'being tough on crime', focusing on retributive rather than rehabilitative method of punishment, having the death penalty, etc. isn't productive. It's led to the highest incarceration rate in the world. Those countries without the death penalty and a higher focus on rehabilitation have a lower incarceration rate and lower recidivism rate (see the Nordic countries). You've been advocating for a retributive rather than rehabilitative form of punishment; you need only look the US to see how horrible of an idea that is.

    I've said before that we cannot take the law into our own hands. I know that, you know what. If you saw a woman being viciously attacked in the street, what are we told to do? Not to approach and instead call the police so that they can take care of it themselves, to protect our safety.
    In that instance, you are free to intervene as a private citizen to stop the attack. More concerning, however, is how you've prima facie begged the question with that bolded part. Why can't we? If the state is morally justified and permitted to carry out actions of life deprivation against certain individuals when it is 'justified', when can't private persons do the same? Merely saying "We know that we cannot take the law into our own hands" begs the question by presupposing and stating the conclusion as a premise, conclusion and fact. You need to prove why we cannot take the law into our own hands, in particular in relation to deprivation of life; while simultaneously proving that the State is justified in so doing.

    Imagine you're wanting to take a vacation with your child. You're fed up with the stresses of life and need a break. So you book a last minute holiday. You pack your suitcase, you get your passports ready. You have a late flight so your baby is asleep when the taxi pulls up to take you to the airport, so you pick up your sleeping child and make your way out. That is absolutely fine and you are perfectly within your rights to do that. Imagine, I feel the same way as you. I'm a bit stressed out and would like some time away. I book the same flight that you did. I come into your house through an open window, pack your child's suitcase, take your child's passport from a drawer, pick up your sleeping child and pop him into the taxi and go. I don't harm your child in any way, in fact, I take good care of him. I will most certainly be thrown in jail for kidnap/trespassing for doing the same thing you did. So why am I penalised for it? because the context is different. You can't do something just because someone else can. A member of the law enforcement would also be prosecuted for doing that.
    All entirely useless fallacious begging the question. You need to postiviely iterate a moral principle which (1) prevents a private citizen from engaging in life deprivation against other individuals who have committed crimes for which death is a penalty; and (2) permits the State to do exactly what individuals are prevented from doing in (1).


    If we're talking morally, then you've sort of contradicted yourself. From a moral standpoint, if we were allowed to execute in the same way that the law does, how would society function? Everyone would be living in fear and people would be killing others for stupid reasons, almost like the purge. 'He kissed my girlfriend so I have a reason to kill him'
    (1) This isn't a moral objection, it's a pragmatic one. I cannot have 'morally contradicted' myself when you're raising a pragmatic objection.

    (2) As I stated in the hypothetical, it's a presupposition that we're dealing with identical cases of inflicted life deprivation. Why is it that the State can kill someone for reason X, but a private individual cannot; where X is a legally prohibited act for which death is a possible penalty. The question is more akin to "Why can't a private citizen behave in an identical manner to the State?"

    If you mean that we should be allowed to execute for the same reasons that the state does, why? If that individual will be executed anyway, what difference does it make?
    Well, I would be inclined to bet that most people wouldn't be okay with private persons killing people for the same reasons as the State. Something 'feels wrong' about it. If something 'feels wrong' about allowing private persons to kill people for the same reasons as the State, then your internal base morality has a contradiction somewhere - a contradiction that requires rational resolution.

    Practically, I see why the death penalty may not be possible and so it probably won't be reintroduced any time soon, but the thread asked if I agree with it, my answer is yes & ive stated my reason why. You don't have to agree with me
    Not all opinions are equally valid. (Any idea that all opinions are equally valid is logically false and simultaneously a ridiculous paradox). If you cannot defend an opinion, then it's not an opinion worth holding, let alone vocalizing.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I just don't think you've thought this "emotional argument" through because fundamentally, justice is not about rationality, but about what one feels (i.e: emotional).

    If we were to think about the administration of justice rationally, there literally wouldn't be any crimes thus negating any potential punishments, save for completely arbitrarily crimes.
    That's completely wrong. All crimes and punishments are a result of rational thought and not emotion. People suggesting sentences out of emotion call for ridiculous things like the execution of a rapist or thirty years for a sexual assault. The courts come to rational decisions because like I've already said a judge and jury will have to be objective.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The source from which it has been derived is largely irrelevant. Had the death penalty still been available for the common law offence of murder, as indeed it was until it's abolishment, I severely doubt that you would be arguing that whole tariff sentences are okay because it is available from common law.

    You're doing your arguments against the death penalty a great disservice by constantly referring to the "emotional" argument.
    By that logic you can call almost any argument irrelevant. 'If we could know we wouldn't execute anyone who turns out to be innocent you'd still oppose it' - yes but for one less reason.

    The fact is, knowingly having someone involved in the decision making process of the courts is ridiculous and I would also suggest it goes against the right to a fair trial.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    And as a family, they will decide.

    I wouldn't deny that it will be a difficult discussion but I think the victim's family will come to some kind of collective resolution.

    The fact is, that you are simply trying to throw up theoretical stumbling blocks against the victim's family being able to decide whether or not the judge can consider the death penalty.
    In the situation there would likely be the wishes of one family member represented against all others which is stupid. The government and those who write legislation have to consider the possible pitfalls of the legislation so don't act as though I shouldn't be picking holes in your poorly conceived idea.

    I don't need to create theoretical stumbling blocks. If you want to seriously have the discussion on getting the death penalty back you might as well campaign to get out of the EU first and then wait for the to happen. So long as we're in the EU capital punishment can't happen


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Crimes and punishments are a result of emotion. For example, homicide is a criminal offence but a man murdering another smaller man for food, if we were to think rationally, should not be a crime.

    The bigger man is hungry and therefore from an evolutionary viewpoint, the law of the jungle dictates that the bigger man be allowed to kill others to feed himself. Survival of the fittest and all that.

    However, homicide is not legal because humans have decided, on the basis of how they feel, that the killing of another human being should not be allowed.

    Our civilization is based on how we feel, the progress that we make is based on how we feel, our advancement is based on how we feel.

    Of course, we may rationalize our feelings by thinking of supporting arguments (like you are doing) but fundamentally, we live by a set of laws that we feel are correct.
    Not allowing homicide is a completely rational conclusion. If we allowed humans to kill other humans we would live in a state of chaos which would be incredibly counterproductive to us as a society and a species.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I was illustrating the point that the point about the source of law is irrelevant, a red herring.

    That does not mean that there are no good arguments against the death penalty, just that the one you have picked, "emotion", is completely irrelevant.
    It's not completely irrelevant it's just something you disagree with.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The right to a fair trial would not be compromised by the knowledge of the punishment that awaits you should a defendant be convicted.

    In actual fact, a higher burden of proof will be put upon the prosecution in order to satisfy the punishment of seeking death. It can be argued that the defendant would not only receive a fair trial, but there is a greater possibility that the greater burden would be in his/her favour.
    No the right to a fair trial would be compromised by allowing a subjective party to play a part in the sentencing.

    What higher burden of proof would you envisage instituting? And how long would it be before every conviction thereafter was appealed on the grounds that the higher burden of proof used in capital murder trials should have been put on the prosecution in their trial?

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I expect holes to be picked. I just don't expect them to be mere scratches.
    It's a logistical flaw; you allow only the next of kin and you create a situation whereby the feelings of all over relatives could be ignored or you allow all family members to 'vote' and have an almost impossible task of limiting the number of voters.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    In the interests of time and effort, perhaps the UK can simply introduce capital punishment, thus providing grounds for Britain to be kicked out of the EU?

    After all, why campaign to leave Europe and then campaign to reintroduce the death penalty when it could be done with a single enactment?
    I bet that would look great for our international reputation. In a time where the usage of capital punishment is being eradicated the UK leaves the EU so the government can kill people it deems undesirable.

    It also wouldn't be quite as simple as that. As soon as the act was passed we'd have sanctions put in place against us and likely wouldn't be removed from the EU until sometime later. Thankfully I can rest easily knowing that this will only ever be a topic of debate and not something realistically considered by parliament.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    It's a comparative analysis. The point being made is that 'being tough on crime', focusing on retributive rather than rehabilitative method of punishment, having the death penalty, etc. isn't productive. It's led to the highest incarceration rate in the world. Those countries without the death penalty and a higher focus on rehabilitation have a lower incarceration rate and lower recidivism rate (see the Nordic countries). You've been advocating for a retributive rather than rehabilitative form of punishment; you need only look the US to see how horrible of an idea that is.



    In that instance, you are free to intervene as a private citizen to stop the attack. More concerning, however, is how you've prima facie begged the question with that bolded part. Why can't we? If the state is morally justified and permitted to carry out actions of life deprivation against certain individuals when it is 'justified', when can't private persons do the same? Merely saying "We know that we cannot take the law into our own hands" begs the question by presupposing and stating the conclusion as a premise, conclusion and fact. You need to prove why we cannot take the law into our own hands, in particular in relation to deprivation of life; while simultaneously proving that the State is justified in so doing.



    All entirely useless fallacious begging the question. You need to postiviely iterate a moral principle which (1) prevents a private citizen from engaging in life deprivation against other individuals who have committed crimes for which death is a penalty; and (2) permits the State to do exactly what individuals are prevented from doing in (1).




    (1) This isn't a moral objection, it's a pragmatic one. I cannot have 'morally contradicted' myself when you're raising a pragmatic objection.

    (2) As I stated in the hypothetical, it's a presupposition that we're dealing with identical cases of inflicted life deprivation. Why is it that the State can kill someone for reason X, but a private individual cannot; where X is a legally prohibited act for which death is a possible penalty. The question is more akin to "Why can't a private citizen behave in an identical manner to the State?"



    Well, I would be inclined to bet that most people wouldn't be okay with private persons killing people for the same reasons as the State. Something 'feels wrong' about it. If something 'feels wrong' about allowing private persons to kill people for the same reasons as the State, then your internal base morality has a contradiction somewhere - a contradiction that requires rational resolution.



    Not all opinions are equally valid. (Any idea that all opinions are equally valid is logically false and simultaneously a ridiculous paradox). If you cannot defend an opinion, then it's not an opinion worth holding, let alone vocalizing.
    I still don't see how your first point is valid. Firstly, it doesn't account for unreported crime. Just because you can't see it in the figures, doesn't mean that crime not happening in those countries with a lower incarceration rate. Also, how do you establish that the enforcement of the death penalty is the reason for the highest incarceration rate in the world? You can't establish a cause and effect. In addition to that, how can you say how the UK will handle it? If you've based this solely on the stats from different countries, and you have concluded that the death penalty doesn't work for them, how do you know that it won't work for the U.K.?

    Something 'feels wrong' about it? Not true for everyone. I don't think we can really speak on that because we haven't been placed in the situation where someone slaughtered our entire family (thank goodness)

    It's like your argument isn't about being against the death penalty, but more that the state can carry it out when we can't.

    How was the analogy useless? You were basically saying 'if someone else can do it, why can't we' & I demonstrated that. We can't act in the same way because we are not authorised to do so, that is the point. We have the opportunity to gain authorisation, it's up to us to pursue that.
    Why does it have to be about terminating a life? It should apply to all situations and if it can't be applied to all situations, it doesn't make sense.
    I don't need to 'prove' anything. I've told you that we are not authorised. If it is already an issue that a handful of people are wrongly executed, how can a citizen be so sure that they're executing the right person? The law enforcement have several agents to catch a criminal. Analysis of DNA from crime scene investigators, CCTV footage & experienced professionals to interview the accused and any eyewitnesses, perhaps a history search to look for any past convictions. As a citizen, we don't have those tools, nor do we have the relevant training. If anyone does have all of those tools, they are likely already a member of the law or in practice.

    I have defended my opinion. You may not think it's valid, but someone else does. All opinions should be respected, regardless of whether you agree. It's childish to think otherwise. My opinion is that serial murderers/sex offenders do not deserve human rights.They should lose their right to life just like they deprived the like of others.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I still don't see how your first point is valid. Firstly, it doesn't account for unreported crime. Just because you can't see it in the figures, doesn't mean that crime not happening in those countries with a lower incarceration rate. Also, how do you establish that the enforcement of the death penalty is the reason for the highest incarceration rate in the world? You can't establish a cause and effect. In addition to that, how can you say how the UK will handle it? If you've based this solely on the stats from different countries, and you have concluded that the death penalty doesn't work for them, how do you know that it won't work for the U.K.?
    Rather than directing these questions at me, why don't you conduct your own research? Additionally, I've never claimed that the death penalty is the cause of the highest incarceration rate in the world, that's a blatant straw man. I was rebutting your contention that a retributive form of punishment, coupled with the death penalty, is effective - as is spelled out by the comparative analyses, statistical research, psychological/sociological research. Research which is relatively easily accessible.

    Something 'feels wrong' about it? Not true for everyone. I don't think we can really speak on that because we haven't been placed in the situation where someone slaughtered our entire family (thank goodness)
    I realize it's not true for everyone, I never claimed it was. Secondly, this is a blatantly fallacious argument. This is an appeal to emotional reaction, therefore, it's not sound argument. It doesn't matter if it were our family, or some random person on the street, morality demands consistency.

    It's like your argument isn't about being against the death penalty, but more that the state can carry it out when we can't.
    That's precisely the point. While I have moral issues with the death penalty itself, it's far more poignant to point out the hypocrisy of the death penalty.

    How was the analogy useless? You were basically saying 'if someone else can do it, why can't we' & I demonstrated that. We can't act in the same way because we are not authorised to do so, that is the point. We have the opportunity to gain authorisation, it's up to us to pursue that.
    Yet again, this is fallacious begging the question. If you aren't familiar with the fallacy of begging the question, then you need to look it up before attempting to respond again. Why aren't we authorized to do so? What does authority have to do with it? Why is this authority supposedly a source a moral justification? You've begged the question in numerous ways. Fix the question begging nature of this rebuttal or drop it - as it is, it's entirely fallacious and entirely useless.

    Why does it have to be about terminating a life? It should apply to all situations and if it can't be applied to all situations, it doesn't make sense.
    Fallacy of equivocation. The death penalty is logically unlike other forms of punishment because of its absoluteness, its irrevocability, its seriousness, etc. Deprivation of life is considered to be the most serious of crimes, yet when the State goes about conducting such actions, a certain population sees nothing wrong with this - but why? It's moral hypocrisy to hold that the State can act this way, but that private citizens cannot - unless you can provide a sound moral justification which asserts the contrapositive and is not question begging or fallacious in any other manner.

    I don't need to 'prove' anything. I've told you that we are not authorised.
    Yet again, fallacious question begging. Simply saying 'we're not authorized' doesn't solve the moral dilemma. Why aren't we authorized? Why is authority relevant? How does authority supposedly change the moral problem? Unless you can positively answer these questions, then a claim of 'we're not authorized' is an entirely useless, question begging and vacuous claim.

    If it is already an issue that a handful of people are wrongly executed, how can a citizen be so sure that they're executing the right person?
    The State and a private citizen would both face epistemic problems. Neither the State nor a private citizen can likely ever be absolutely sure.

    The law enforcement have several agents to catch a criminal. Analysis of DNA from crime scene investigators, CCTV footage & experienced professionals to interview the accused and any eyewitnesses, perhaps a history search to look for any past convictions. As a citizen, we don't have those tools, nor do we have the relevant training. If anyone does have all of those tools, they are likely already a member of the law or in practice.
    This is irrelevant. You're attempting to try to avoid the hypothetical in order to avoid the moral dilemma. You can suppose that a private citizen and the State have the same epistemic - now answer the moral dilemma without question begging, without vacuous claims, etc.

    I have defended my opinion. You may not think it's valid, but someone else does.
    You have been wholly and completely incapable of defending your opinion with proper logical argument. Every claim you've made is either question begging, vacuous or irrelevant.

    All opinions should be respected, regardless of whether you agree. It's childish to think otherwise.
    This is an absurd statement. An idea that all opinions ought to be respected is a belief typically espoused on those on the right when their opinions are attacked for being immoral or inconsistent.

    Why should an opinion that all women should be raped, tortured, murdered, etc. be 'respected'? To say that all opinions are deserving of respect is to validate opinions that are immoral - that is childish. That's an inability to defend morality and a retreat.

    My opinion is that serial murderers/sex offenders do not deserve human rights.They should lose their right to life just like they deprived the like of others.
    Then you're arguing against the very existence of rights. Rights are not behavior-conditioned; they are rights by virtue of being human. Notice how they're called 'human rights' not 'good behavior' or 'deserved rights'.

    This kind of ideology, whereby rights are conditional, is part of the process that led to Nazi Germany. Rights are absolute for a reason - to stop people like you from violating individual's personhood and humanity.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    For those with an hour to kill, sorry, imprison here on a Saturday bonfire night:

    HISTORY DOCUMENTARY
    Archive on 4
    On: BBC Radio 4
    Date: Saturday 7th November 2015 (starting in 18 minutes)
    Time: 20:00 to 21:00 (1 hour long)
    The End of the Rope
    Fifty years since the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, John Tusa talks to Roy Hattersley, Roger Scruton and others about its impact on society and the ongoing calls for its return.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.tv/?p=1&r=25892
    Copyright (c) GipsyMedia Limited.

    Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06nhr7r

    From the BBC site:
    Fifty years since the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, the debate about its possible return has not gone away. John Tusa looks back at how abolition was achieved and considers the continuing arguments with Labour politician Roy Hattersley, philosopher Roger Scruton, lawyers, criminologists and other experts.

    Capital punishment was effectively abolished in the UK on the 8th November 1965. It was one of the succession of changes in the law - along with legalisation of abortion and decriminalization of homosexuality - during the Harold Wilson governments of 1964 -70 that transformed British society.What did the abolition of capital punishment do for our society? And how do the prophesies of disaster and the assurances of a more moral society of the time look through the prism of current homicide statistics?

    The public story of abolition has largely been told by the abolitionists, focusing on notorious cases of blatant mistakes, such as Timothy Evans, or apparent state brutality such as Ruth Ellis or Derek Bentley. For the first time, John Tusa investigates, through case papers, the resistance to abolition that took place below the radar from within the legal establishment.

    While the arguments were expressed in and out of Parliament in high-flown language of morality and the obligations of the state to protect its citizens, the archive reveals the minutiae of the last days of the condemned men and women.

    John Tusa considers how far the three main issues that were debated at the time - deterrence, protection from wrongful execution, and the national morality - would have been affected by present day evidence-gathering such as DNA profiling and current victim-oriented politics.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Not allowing homicide is an emotional response.

    We have decided that human life is invaluable and that is an emotional conclusion. If we were to think of it rationally, every human is worth something, every human is valuable, every human has a price. The only question is: How much?

    Emotionally, humans are invaluable. Rationally, they each have a price.
    Wrong again. you can sue someone for wrongful death. The judge will award monetary damages. You can also take out life insurance which will pay out as a direct consequence of your death. Aside from simply financial value you can also argue that the value of a human life (when intentionally taken) is a life sentence.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    It's irrelevant not because I said so, but because you demonstrated that it was. Both the death penalty and whole life tariffs were derived from the common law, yet you attribute the death penalty to emotion and whole life tariff to rationality, by making references to the common law.

    We can either exclude your point of authority (common law) and conclude that both are rational or both are emotional. What you can't do is claim that one is rational and the other is emotional.
    I didn't attribute capital punishment to emotion. I'd attribute its origins to a warped sense of justice that existed in a more violent society. What I am saying is that at the moment judges have the option to hand down whole life tariffs; that decision is made an objective 'referee' and that referee is given that option by an objective authority (the common law). In the situation you suggest the objective referee is being given the option by a subjective authority (the family of the victim).

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The subjective party would not play a part in sentencing. The judge, and only the judge, would decide on the sentence alone.
    If you give a judge an option to give a particular sentencing you play a role in the sentencing, that isn't debatable.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I would prefer it if we switched to more of an inquisitorial system, rather than an adversarial system.
    Not a fan of Art. 6 of the ECHR are you? First you want subjective parties to have an influence in sentencing and now you want the burden of proof to be reversed. You do realise to enact this we'd have to abolish the HRA 1998?

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I expect there will be disagreements but I am sure that they will be able to work it out between themselves, regardless of the method they choose.
    I'm sure you could say the same for contract law; if two multi-billion pound companies have a disagreement lets keep the courts out because they'll work it out.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The Government can execute citizens who have taken the life of another, after taking into view the deliberations of the family of the victim.

    I also think Justice would be quite aggrieved that you so quickly abandoned her to simply maintain "international reputation".
    Well actually the government can't. That's merely your Daily Mail interpretation of justice. I think you're significantly underestimating the importance of international reputation.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Whether there are sanctions in place wouldn't affect whether we could execute a person who has committed an atrocious crime.
    No but it would certainly compromise the judiciaries willingness to. Even if the government passed The Capital Punishment Act tomorrow a court still couldn't sentence someone to be executed without further legislation.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Sentencing someone to death.. it's a crime too even if they did it! Let the murderers, molesters, rapists, abusers suffer in prison until they die of old age. Killing them would be a luxury. ALTHOUGH. I know it costs a lot to keep them alive.. Hmmmm... Just put them in a big cage up in the mountains and throw some food in every now and again.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”
    M. K. Gandhi
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    We can either exclude your point of authority (common law) and conclude that both are rational or both are emotional. What you can't do is claim that one is rational and the other is emotional.
    I think you would need to give proof for this assertion. There is no intrinsic reason to believe that either both are rational or both are emotional - it very well could be the case that one were emotional and the rational. Or, even, that both are combination, in different proportions, of each.

    I would prefer it if we switched to more of an inquisitorial system, rather than an adversarial system.
    This sounds like an argument for way too much institutional power in the hands of the government/prosecutors. Who is acting as the check/balance against this inquisitorial institution? There are very good reasons that the system is adversarial and not inquisitorial.

    The Government can execute citizens who have taken the life of another, after taking into view the deliberations of the family of the victim.
    Why are the views of the family of the victim relevant? Most will probably have emotional revenge responses to sentencing, rather than rational, deliberative thought.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlueBlueBells)
    “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”
    M. K. Gandhi
    But much safer, one could argue.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Forgive my ignorance but surely that's civil, not criminal. Criminal law has determined the worth of a human life to be incalculable. The death penalty, and whole life tariffs can only be applied from a criminal conviction.

    Furthermore, the burden of proof, in a civil case, is a lot lower than a criminal case but that is no indication of guilt.

    Life insurance does not determine your worth as a human. It is dependent on the premium you pay and the plan that you are on.

    So allow me to clarify. From a criminal standpoint, the cost of a human life is invaluable. This is a decision that is based on emotion, and is not entrenched in any semblance of rationality.
    Civil courts are usually where monetary values are addressed, the criminal law rarely concerns itself with monetary value because its of very little importance; if I stole a necklace worth £5 or £5,000 it is irrelevant, both would be theft.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Humans are rarely impartial or objective. Theoretically, they may be but reality says different. Over time, judges become case hardened and in certain countries, there are elements of racial or gender bias. It is a systemic issue, because the system was devised and operated by humans.

    Humans, who, are able to feel (i.e: express emotions) in one way or another. Therefore, every decision that is made is based on what the judge feels is acceptable, within the parameters that he has been set.

    Including the family of the deceased within this will not turn it from rational to emotional but rather, it will stay emotional.
    Yes humans are subject to their own bias but like you said judges often become hardened through years of practising as a barrister and then years as a judge. That allows judges to take a step back and cut through the emotions of the parties and consider the facts in front of them. Judges are going to be vastly more impartial and objective than the family of a victim, to even compare them is pointless.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    But the options have to come from somewhere and simply claiming common law as an authority, as a rational authority when it is nothing of the sort, is not a rational argument.
    But law is a rational authority hence why we don't behead criminals when the knee-jerk reaction of the public calls for it. Almost every law governing the UK has a rational and understandable origin but allowing families to influence the decision a judge makes would be done purely out of sympathy (an emotion) toward such families.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    An inquisitorial system does not run contrary to Art. 6 of the Conventions.

    In actual fact, an inquisitorial system would not reverse the burden but would rather, help ascertain the true facts of the case, often leading to the correct decision and where the family of the deceased can get some semblance of closure.
    It wouldn't lead to fairer decisions at all. You've already claimed that judges are biased people and that would play out far more in a inquisitorial system. It usually also removes the right (under your favourite article) of your right to representation.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    You seem to be rather confused by aspects of civil and criminal law, often pulling on one or the other when it suits your arguments.

    Addressing your point however, I would prefer to not clog up the courts with such mundane issues and try to resolve it through arbitration.
    Which aspects do I seem confused by? Legal principles often apply through both private and public law where they are applicable (in areas such as consent/acceptance and burden of proof) so it is perfectly reasonable to draw comparisons between the two. So you'd rather not have courts deal with matters where jobs and potentially millions of pounds can be at stake but you want judges to essentially take on the role of investigators which we already pay our police force to do?

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Your international reputation is dependent on the values that you hold. If you were to sacrifice some of the values to pursue material gain, then your reputation will suffer.

    Just take a look at the fiasco with the training and equipment for Saudi prisons and our continued involvement with the UAE, after they had pressured us for political gains. Our reputation is one of hypocrisy. I doubt if it could go much lower than that.
    Dealing with countries that have shady human rights records is entirely different to distancing yourself from neighbouring countries in order to execute undesirables.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I thought you said that judges made decisions rationally. Their continued resistance and subversion of the democratically elected institution that is Parliament, is an affront to the separation of powers.

    The judges should be rational, not emotional when it comes to applying the law.
    From that response I'll assume you don't study law and thus won't know about the judgement in the Factortame case.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.