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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    That's really your response?
    What's wrong with that? If people know the consequences of crimes, then they only have themselves to blame when they get locked up.

    The goofy tooth smiley should have told you I was taking the p***...

    (Original post by Underscore__)
    So you're free to make ridiculous hypothetical situations and then when challenged you can just say that it was hypothetical? That's nonsense.
    Well, since we don't have the death penalty, this whole thread is a nonsense and irrelevant.

    I don't have to justify the hypothetical to anyone. There was no actual substance, they were just throwaway points to say there are cheaper ways off bumping people off other than death row, as many cited money as a reason not to have the death penalty...

    (Original post by Underscore__)
    In a post this long it was only a matter of time until Hitler popped up.
    And why not? Hitler and the Nazi party is a good example of how law was no barrier to a head of state and rogue regime doing whatever they wanted.
    You think my silly scenarios would never happen, but you only need to look back 70 odd years to see that things that are worse than anything I've said HAVE happened. I'm sure the Nazis paid a lot of attention to law when they were setting up death camps, eh?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsAnIllusion)
    What's wrong with that? If people know the consequences of crimes, then they only have themselves to blame when they get locked up.

    The goofy tooth smiley should have told you I was taking the p***...
    Don't try and justify it but then say it was a joke, it's send mixed messages.

    (Original post by LifeIsAnIllusion)
    Well, since we don't have the death penalty, this whole thread is a nonsense and irrelevant.

    I don't have to justify the hypothetical to anyone. There was no actual substance, they were just throwaway points to say there are cheaper ways off bumping people off other than death row, as many cited money as a reason not to have the death penalty...
    Well it's not nonsense and irrelevant because the thread is about if we should have the death penalty.

    By that logic you could defeat virtually any point, in any argument by creating incredibly unrealistic hypothetical situations. If you're going to create hypothetical circumstances/situations at least make them feasible.


    (Original post by LifeIsAnIllusion)
    And why not? Hitler and the Nazi party is a good example of how law was no barrier to a head of state and rogue regime doing whatever they wanted.
    You think my silly scenarios would never happen, but you only need to look back 70 odd years to see that things that are worse than anything I've said HAVE happened. I'm sure the Nazis paid a lot of attention to law when they were setting up death camps, eh?
    The world is very different to the way it was 80 year ago. The Nazi's were beneficiaries of one of the world economies in European history. We don't have PR so a Nazi styled party would never get into power and even if they did countries like the USA would never allow things to get that out of hand. You're creating hypothetical situations that are incredibly unrealistic.

    Well to some they did pay a lot of attention to the law. They kept changing it in order to make things like ghettoisation and death camps legal.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    You were debating the actus reus and mens rea of theft. That is something I would know having studied law.



    Morals don't buy Lamborghini's and holidays in the Caribbean.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You can get those things without the risk of becoming a souless sheep. I also didn't mean all of them. Not everyone becomes a turd, just a certain type of person usually.
    Anyway, I never said I was directing my point at you. Don't be offended.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    You were debating the actus reus and mens rea of theft. That is something I would know having studied law.
    Must have me confused with someone else.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    Must have me confused with someone else.
    No it was definitely you that said taking things from a thief is stealing


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    ...
    ...
    ...
    Ack... very well. Good points well made.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The death penalty isn't that bad compared to crimes some criminals commit. Some criminals are a true threat to society and they'll always find a way to escape prison and the commit the exact that landed them in prison. Some criminals will never change.
    Consider the death penalty karma or huge consequence to an action.

    If you kidnap, torture, rape and murder your victims, one of the consequence may lead to your own death.

    If a child is being bratty, the parents may sentence the kid to a 5 minute time out or 3 spanking on butt. The death penalty isn't that different from imprisonment.
    I don't really see death penalty right or wrong. It's just a different form of justice.
    Nothing is ever right or just with some criminals when they're caught red handed.

    Anyone ever had of Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy? They were the victims of the death penalty after killing more than 50 people in total after raping and torturing them!

    I think the death penalty is just easier. Put the criminal down and be done with them. Seems easy to me. Only certain criminals can be dealt with the death penalty.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The only issue I have is I'm sure undeserving people have been executed

    I feel only proven serial killers and terrorists should get it, or a murderer showing no remorse

    As far as rape, kidnap, torture, homicide, attempted murder, etc give them life and no chance of getting out
    Everyone else gets due time

    (Original post by SmileyVibe)
    Anyone ever had of Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy? They were the victims of the death penalty after killing more than 50 people in total after raping and torturing them!
    "Victims?"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. In a just society the death penalty is absolutely necessary.

    I firmly believe that murderers, rapists and child molesters should be hung by the neck until dead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    Yes. In a just society the death penalty is absolutely necessary.

    I firmly believe that murderers, rapists and child molesters should be hung by the neck until dead.
    In what way?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by greatguy571)
    In what way?
    It shows a society will not tolerate evil, and the most heinous, wicked crimes will always be punished with death. No more cushy 'life sentences'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    It shows a society will not tolerate evil, and the most heinous, wicked crimes will always be punished with death. No more cushy 'life sentences'.
    Society doen't tolerate evil just now though. Otherwise they wouldn't lock people up in prison. Therefore you have failed in your argument.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The worlds getting over populated. Kill everyone regardless of their innocence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by greatguy571)
    Society doen't tolerate evil just now though. Otherwise they wouldn't lock people up in prison. Therefore you have failed in your argument.
    Putting people in prison who then associate with other criminals all while consuming taxpayers money is not just.

    The average time that a convicted murderer spends in prison is just 16 years (Ministry of Justice figures). That is not a life sentence.

    Try harder, plebeian.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    Putting people in prison who then associate with other criminals all while consuming taxpayers money is not just.

    The average time that a convicted murderer spends in prison is just 16 years (Ministry of Justice figures). That is not a life sentence.

    Try harder, plebeian.
    Putting people in prison proves society doesn't tolerate their actions. Someone which you tried to claim does not.

    This thread is about whether the death penalty should be allowed. Not whether murderous are getting sentenced to enough years behind bars so i dont see what relevance that statistic is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by greatguy571)
    Putting people in prison proves society doesn't tolerate their actions. Someone which you tried to claim does not.

    This thread is about whether the death penalty should be allowed. Not whether murderous are getting sentenced to enough years behind bars so i dont see what relevance that statistic is.
    So you don't think murderers, rapists and child molesters should be put to death? How noble of you.

    My point (although it may have gone over your head) was that after this relatively short span of time those convicted will be back on the streets to do the same again. Another victim, another trial, another sentence. Capital punishment would solve that, while also making sure degenerate criminals won't soak up taxpayers' money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    So you don't think murderers, rapists and child molesters should be put to death? How noble of you.

    My point (although it may have gone over your head) was that after this relatively short span of time those convicted will be back on the streets to do the same again. Another victim, another trial, another sentence. Capital punishment would solve that, while also making sure degenerate criminals won't soak up taxpayers' money.
    I am indifferent to the death penalty. I know many people that are for and against it. And those that are against it are not immoral they just dont think that another human being should be killed by the state no matter what they done. Also some people would say you are immoral for believing in the death penalty.

    Capital punishment will stop re-offending obviously. But there are other methods that will stop it too. Also with capital punishment there is bound to be a few innocent people killed every now and then.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    Yes. In a just society the death penalty is absolutely necessary.

    I firmly believe that murderers, rapists and child molesters should be hung by the neck until dead.
    So people have issue with an eye for an eye
    but you go eye for a tooth don't you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by greatguy571)
    I am indifferent to the death penalty. I know many people that are for and against it. And those that are against it are not immoral they just dont think that another human being should be killed by the state no matter what they done. Also some people would say you are immoral for believing in the death penalty.

    Capital punishment will stop re-offending obviously. But there are other methods that will stop it too. Also with capital punishment there is bound to be a few innocent people killed every now and then.
    How can you be indifferent towards such a major issue? You must have a leaning towards one side or the other.

    It would not be the state that kills the individual, they would only create the legislation. It would be a court of law and a jury which would have the final say.

    I'm all ears for these other methods.


    (Original post by 0to100)
    So people have issue with an eye for an eye
    but you go eye for a tooth don't you?
    What's the issue?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
    How can you be indifferent towards such a major issue? You must have a leaning towards one side or the other.

    It would not be the state that kills the individual, they would only create the legislation. It would be a court of law and a jury which would have the final say.

    I'm all ears for these other methods.




    What's the issue?
    That it's completely barbaric and unnecessary to kill someone who hasn't killed?
    Have them unconditionally jailed for life no chance of getting out is sufficient
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • 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.