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

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

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    But much safer, one could argue.
    I suppose so, but couldn't, alternatively, a life sentence achieve the same thing?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    The State and a private citizen would both face epistemic problems. Neither the State nor a private citizen can likely ever be absolutely sure.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.
    I've spent the last couple of days explaining my reasoning and because you disagree, that makes it invalid? You have a lot of growing up to do. I've stated that I understand why it probably won't be introduced, I'm very much aware of that, but it doesn't mean I can't say that I agree with it. The thread title reads 'do you agree with the death penalty' not 'state the reasons why the death penalty cannot work'

    We're discussing the death penalty, so you must have seen some sort of relationship between high incarceration rates and the enforcement of capital punishment, why else would you mention it?

    You're asking me why we're not authorised? Perhaps you should also do your own research. You provide a bunch of stats and I ask you why they're relevant and you tell me to conduct my own research, hmm ok..

    I wasn't avoiding anything. I was just saying that the state are more likely to execute the right person than a private citizen. That is all.

    That's true, but In this case, both of our opinions ought to be respected. I don't know why you're having such a hard time with that. The thread is literally asking for our opinions. I see we will never agree, im perfectly fine with that, can't say the same for you..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rhiannonm25)
    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.
    But a lot of them don't die in prison. A life sentence is 25years, less if committed under the age of 18 and most don't even end up serving 25 years
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I've spent the last couple of days explaining my reasoning and because you disagree, that makes it invalid? You have a lot of growing up to do.
    I'm sorry, but trying to insinuate that because certain opinions have logical validity and others do not makes one 'have to grow up' is an ignorant statement; one of profound lack of education. Many opinions are invalid because they are irrational or indefensible. As it stands, you've been unable to logically defend (i.e. non-fallaciously) your opinion.

    I've stated that I understand why it probably won't be introduced, I'm very much aware of that, but it doesn't mean I can't say that I agree with it. The thread title reads 'do you agree with the death penalty' not 'state the reasons why the death penalty cannot work'
    Yes, and your opinion can be wrong. Opinions have truth value.

    You're asking me why we're not authorised? Perhaps you should also do your own research. You provide a bunch of stats and I ask you why they're relevant and you tell me to conduct my own research, hmm ok..
    It's not a matter of research. Your argument is question begging and therefore fallacious, and thereby utterly useless. The question posed was why, morally, are private citizens under the same epistemic and reasons not permitted to act in the same manner as the state? Your response was because they are not authorized. Well, (1) that's moving the goal posts - the question was why are they morally not permitted; I didn't ask about it as a matter of legal authority; (2) it's question begging because it presumes that authority somehow affects the morality without providing any sort of justification, to thereby conclude that authority makes a difference.

    I wasn't avoiding anything. I was just saying that the state are more likely to execute the right person than a private citizen. That is all.
    Which is fallaciously operating outside of the hypothetical provided to you. It was clearly stated "under the same epistemic."

    That's true, but In this case, both of our opinions ought to be respected. I don't know why you're having such a hard time with that. The thread is literally asking for our opinions. I see we will never agree, im perfectly fine with that, can't say the same for you..
    Bad, wrong, immoral, non-defensible, etc. opinions are not deserving of respect.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    A lot of countries around the world have an inquisitorial system, like our neighbors across the Channel.
    France uses an inquisitorial system only in 3% of cases, otherwise it's an adversarial system. The US also has an inquisitorial system in some cases.

    An adversarial system doesn't necessarily deliver what the participants in a court are looking for, and that is Justice.
    I disagree. I don't want judiciaries actively involved in investigations, too much institutional power; likely less impartiality, etc.

    Do people look to the law to provide them with two opponents to slog it out or do people look to the court to punish the correct offender?
    Neither, they look to the law to carry out the law.

    The views of the family are relevant because that is family of the one who has been murdered. The death of one of theirs has affected them personally. It hasn't affected the court, the defense, the prosecutors and all the other actors who play a role in our justice system.
    Precisely. The Court is supposed to be impartial. The views of the family are not impartial, so their opinions for sentencing have no place in a Courtroom.

    In order for the courts to function and to give credence to the notion that justice is being served, the victims need to feel involved.
    The function of a Court is not to make you feel good.

    I am a strong believer in the notion of restorative justice and I think this letter (following the link) highlights the issues.
    I'm not, so you're not going to be able to persuade me. In criminal cases, I'm a firmly on the side of rehabilitative justice.

    Why not use those emotions and increase involvement between the offender and the family of the victim so that they can come to terms with what has happened?
    Because that's not the purpose of a Court. You're asking for a Court of law to be turned into a psychotherapy session. Go to a psychotherapist for psychological issues, not a Court.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    I'm sorry, but trying to insinuate that because certain opinions have logical validity and others do not makes one 'have to grow up' is an ignorant statement; one of profound lack of education. Many opinions are invalid because they are irrational or indefensible. As it stands, you've been unable to logically defend (i.e. non-fallaciously) your opinion.


    Yes, and your opinion can be wrong. Opinions have truth value.


    It's not a matter of research. Your argument is question begging and therefore fallacious, and thereby utterly useless. The question posed was why, morally, are private citizens under the same epistemic and reasons not permitted to act in the same manner as the state? Your response was because they are not authorized. Well, (1) that's moving the goal posts - the question was why are they morally not permitted; I didn't ask about it as a matter of legal authority; (2) it's question begging because it presumes that authority somehow affects the morality without providing any sort of justification, to thereby conclude that authority makes a difference.


    Which is fallaciously operating outside of the hypothetical provided to you. It was clearly stated "under the same epistemic."



    Bad, wrong, immoral, non-defensible, etc. opinions are not deserving of respect.
    I am done
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    France uses an inquisitorial system only in 3% of cases, otherwise it's an adversarial system. The US also has an inquisitorial system in some cases.
    And does this 3% translate to 100% (or the majority) of criminal cases?

    I disagree. I don't want judiciaries actively involved in investigations, too much institutional power; likely less impartiality, etc.
    How would it translate to "less impartiality"?

    Neither, they look to the law to carry out the law.
    And does the law get it right?

    Precisely. The Court is supposed to be impartial. The views of the family are not impartial, so their opinions for sentencing have no place in a Courtroom.
    The Court is supposed to apply the law to the facts of the case. If the law is that families will get to decide if the judge can consider whether the death penalty will be sought, what does that have to do with fairness?

    I'll remind you of your words above where you stated. "They look to the law to carry out the law".

    The function of a Court is not to make you feel good.
    I didn't say that. I stated that the court, and our laws, are in place to deliver justice in the vent of a wrong.

    I'm not, so you're not going to be able to persuade me. In criminal cases, I'm a firmly on the side of rehabilitative justice.
    And how is that 58% UK reoffending rate working out for you?

    Because that's not the purpose of a Court. You're asking for a Court of law to be turned into a psychotherapy session. Go to a psychotherapist for psychological issues, not a Court.
    According to you, the purpose of the court is not to deliver justice.
    According to you, the purpose of the court is not to punish the correct offender.
    According to you, the purpose of the court is not to bring closure to the family.


    Just what is the purpose of the court?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    And does this 3% translate to 100% (or the majority) of criminal cases?
    No

    How would it translate to "less impartiality"?
    Because then the judge is tasked with investigating, whereby his or her own personal biases or assumptions can affect the investigatory process. Rather than being tasked with mediating between the prosecutor/investigative institutions and the defense, the judge is not longer an impartial arbitrator providing rules for the appropriate procedures, etc. He is acting as the investigator and the judge of his own actions. It's a lack of a check and balance on authority.

    And does the law get it right?
    Get what right? Punishing the offender? Not always - for example, there was a break in the chain of custody of evidence. Assuming that the defendant was in the fact the perpetrator of the relevant crime, he or she will go free. The law ensures its own integrity.

    The Court is supposed to apply the law to the facts of the case. If the law is that families will get to decide if the judge can consider whether the death penalty will be sought, what does that have to do with fairness?
    It's not impartial sentencing. It's permitting a victim, who likely has personal feelings of revenge, to determine (in some capacity) sentencing. It's absurd.

    I didn't say that. I stated that the court, and our laws, are in place to deliver justice in the vent of a wrong.
    Justice, which is supposed to be impartial. A partial body to a case is, inherently, biased in the outcome. Justice isn't biased, it just is.

    And how is that 58% UK reoffending rate working out for you?
    When did I ever claim that I view the UK as having a fully functional rehabilitative justice system? Now you're blatantly constructing strawmen.

    According to you, the purpose of the court is not to deliver justice.
    According to you, the purpose of the court is not to punish the correct offender.
    According to you, the purpose of the court is not to bring closure to the family.

    Just what is the purpose of the court?
    The purpose of a Court is to execute the law. This is an extraordinarily basic tenant of jurisprudence. See all of positivism begging with HLA Hart and moving on through to its contemporaries Joseph Raz, Leslie Green and John Garnder.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    And how many criminal cases, involving murder, lead to a subsequent civil case where the value of the person who has been killed, is decided?

    I don't know of any so if you know of any, please enlighten me.
    In the UK none that I've ever learnt about, in the USA OJ Simpson was later sued for wrongful death and was ordered to pay around $33m. I fail to see the relevance of that though? You argued that the law does not put a price on human life and I demonstrated that in certain instances the courts will.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    On the contrary, this is setting a dangerous precedent and your acceptance, or rather, praise of such situations is rather troubling.

    Each case should be decided on it's own merits, and not simply viewed as a production line where the judge just glances at the name and crime and then decides

    In fact, I would go as far as to say that your attitude or your views would compromise the defendant's right to a fair trial under Art. 6 of the Conventions.
    I'm not sure if you're familiar with the role of a judge. They don't hear all the evidence and then decide if they think a person is guilty are not. In criminal matters they are usually responsible for very little other than explaining points of law to the jury and deciding upon an appropriate sentence and sentencing doesn't fall under the competence of Art. 6 so no that couldn't violate it.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    And up until capital punishment was suspended in '65, we all thought it was rational.

    Perhaps an argument could be made that the it's abolishment was an emotional response, not a rational one?
    'We all'? You weren't even born and certainly can't speak for how people felt at the time. Just so you're aware capital punishment was only formally abolished in 1998.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    A fair decision is not always equated with the correct decision.

    I am arguing for a correct decision to be made within the guidelines of what is fair. You are seemingly willing to accept this arbitrary concept of fairness.
    I'm not too sure what you're getting at here?

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    In substance, they exists a wide gulf between concepts that are termed similar in both branches of law.

    But this simply seems to be a manifestation of yourself as you seem to be of the view that as long as there are no cracks showing across the board, the system seems to be working fine. Perhaps you should dig down a little further and you can see people seething at the practices which you seem to be advocating, practices that do not deliver justice.
    Practices such as? This seems like a rant against the justice system because you have a personal vendetta.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I think you'd find that out of the nearly 1.4 million or so civil cases that are dealt with every year in England & Wales, 99% do not involve multi-millions. In fact, most of them are relatively trifling sums, outstanding debts, mortgage payments etc.

    I would like the judiciary to come to the correct decision. If that means having to go and corroborate the police investigation, as a sort of check and balance against the police that they have caught the right offender, then so be it.

    I would hate for the courts to process the conviction of an offender who did nothing wrong and will forever be stigmatized because of that.
    You said that in the case of two multinational corporations having a dispute the courts shouldn't step in but they should take up the responsibilities we assign the police, the number of cases of particular value are irrelevant.

    What makes you believe that the courts would make better investigators than the police? I would argue that having a court system whereby judges act as investigators would simply be a waste of time and would be somewhat superfluous. It would also likely be a violation of the Art. 6 because you remove the burden of proof. Article 6 explicitly says that all defendants must be seen as innocent until proven guilty.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    It affects international reputation, does it not?
    To some extent but most countries do things that ordinary people would find wrong but because everybody deals with the devil to an extent it doesn't really harm international reputation. Leaving an international organisation so that you can kill your own citizens is somewhat different.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    And I suppose you are studying law?
    I am indeed
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No because in a way the person who kills the criminal is a murderer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubblewrap167)
    No because in a way the person who kills the criminal is a murderer.
    So?
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
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.