Turn on thread page Beta

Capital punishment watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Holydude)
    Some were sent to prison, or found innocent so it was not all 'an eye for an eye'. You don't need a 'right' to terminate someone's life.
    None were guilty of any crime, none should have even been put on trial let alone executed.

    (Original post by KingKoala)
    I don't understand the viewpoint that capital punishment is wrong because innocent people get convicted of murder and so on. Because does that mean it is alright for these people to spend their life in prison even though they have done nothing wrong. I know if I was in their situation, I would prefer to be given the death sentence than face a life of torment in a maximum security prison knowing that I am innocent.
    And I would rather be alive with the possibility of being exonerated but that isn't really the point of that argument. It's more about the state potentially executing an innocent person. If capital punishment were to be brought back innocent people would inevitably be killed.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Underscore__;61629491]None were guilty of any crime, none should have even been put on trial let alone executed.

    I know your opinion cannot be changed, but thank lord we had people with a sense of right & wrong alongside a pair of 'balls' to make these decisions for us.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Holydude;61629747]
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    None were guilty of any crime, none should have even been put on trial let alone executed.

    I know your opinion cannot be changed, but thank lord we had people with a sense of right & wrong alongside a pair of 'balls' to make these decisions for us.
    It's not an opinion, it's a matter of fact. Laws were made up in order to punish them and then retroactive 'justice' took place


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    No I do not support it. Two reasons:

    1. There are cases where innocent people have died and the actual criminal has gotten away with their crime. I wouldn't like to be in that situation.
    2. There are people whose job it is to kill. Even if the person you were killing murdered hundreds of people and committed brutal crimes, you're taking a life and that must have some mental toll - just like those who have been in the army and suffered from PTSD.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    1) Very true. But there will be a minority that would trade liberty for food and shelter. And they could tempt themselves to commit a crime simply so they attain their so styled "basic" needs. But as long it's a tiny minority I guess it can be dealt with for the moment
    I don't disagree but one tends to find that such events occur over the Winter period, where nights get dark earlier and the temperature is chilly.

    Like you said, it's a minority.

    3) I wouldn't endorse anything that would blatantly go against current legal formalities, but rather propose a overhaul on how cases like mass shootings are handled.
    What would you propose?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Please stop being ridiculous; a simple google search will throw up multiple sources that will tell you that the burden of proof in the USA rests with the prosecution, they must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

    There are of course differences but the two justice systems are very similar
    This malarkey of "innocent until proven guilty" is a bit of a red herring.

    Prior to the prosecution being brought, the CPS and/or Police have already decided that Person A (the accused) is guilty of the crime, based on the evidence.

    Conversely, the CPS may decide that the case does not meet either limb and may decline to pursue it. Furthermore, a procedural error may result in a mistrial, regardless of the other evidence indicating the defendant's guilt.

    It is a misnomer phrase that the court decides if someone is guilty or not. In the adversarial system that our justice system operates, the court is an irresponsible party to assign guilt, given it's nature of an "impartial". Thus the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is non-existent within our justice system.

    The present principles which our justice system is based on means that guilty men walk whilst innocents are condemned to losing their liberty, sometimes for decades.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    This malarkey of "innocent until proven guilty" is a bit of a red herring.

    Prior to the prosecution being brought, the CPS and/or Police have already decided that Person A (the accused) is guilty of the crime, based on the evidence.

    Conversely, the CPS may decide that the case does not meet either limb and may decline to pursue it. Furthermore, a procedural error may result in a mistrial, regardless of the other evidence indicating the defendant's guilt.

    It is a misnomer phrase that the court decides if someone is guilty or not. In the adversarial system that our justice system operates, the court is an irresponsible party to assign guilt, given it's nature of an "impartial". Thus the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is non-existent within our justice system.

    The present principles which our justice system is based on means that guilty men walk whilst innocents are condemned to losing their liberty, sometimes for decades.
    I think you're being unnecessarily detailed over this. The notion of innocent until proven guilty simply gives juries an understanding that it is the prosecution that must convince them


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I think you're being unnecessarily detailed over this. The notion of innocent until proven guilty simply gives juries an understanding that it is the prosecution that must convince them
    The notion does not apply where the defendant has accepted a guilty plea, regardless of whether he has committed the offence or not, thus negating the need for the prosecution to prevent evidence, and in doing so, stopping a jury from sitting and hearing the prosecution make it's case.

    Furthermore, the vast majority of offences are not dealt with by juries sitting in the Crown Court and our legal system has slowly started to move into the realms of jury-less trials (the abolition in fraud cases, as an example).


    I have no issue with the notion "Innocent until proven guilty" but the evidence simply lends credence to the suggestion that it is not as practiced as you have made it out to be.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The notion does not apply where the defendant has accepted a guilty plea, regardless of whether he has committed the offence or not, thus negating the need for the prosecution to prevent evidence, and in doing so, stopping a jury from sitting and hearing the prosecution make it's case.

    Furthermore, the vast majority of offences are not dealt with by juries sitting in the Crown Court and our legal system has slowly started to move into the realms of jury-less trials (the abolition in fraud cases, as an example).


    I have no issue with the notion "Innocent until proven guilty" but the evidence simply lends credence to the suggestion that it is not as practiced as you have made it out to be.
    Well in the instance of a guilty plea the accused never really goes on trial because there is no sense in that.

    I'm aware that some fraud cases are now heard only by a judge but there would still be a burden on the prosecution to prove guilt? I'm not particularly well read on this


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I don't disagree but one tends to find that such events occur over the Winter period, where nights get dark earlier and the temperature is chilly.

    Like you said, it's a minority.

    What would you propose?
    1) So the government can afford to ignore this issue for the moment. But inevitably, such a group will gather momentum in time will needs to be addressed. Any thoughts?

    2) Speaking strictly in regards to the Charleston case, it seemed the shooter was prepared to plead guilty if he was to be sentenced for life in prison. However, since he was unaware of the government's intentions he decided not to plead guilty (something that was also advised by his lawyer)

    I find this development frankly funny. Since I'm not knowledgeable in law I can't pinpoint exactly how the legal workflow can be improved. But I think the part where the alleged shooter can conceal the truth (guilty or not) based on what the government may or may not do in future is something of a farce.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    we had this debate in our debate society ( I was on the affirmative side ) and we won the debate, I personally agree with it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiera 2000)
    we had this debate in our debate society ( I was on the affirmative side ) and we won the debate, I personally agree with it
    Did you win by making remarks without showing an argument or any clear reason why?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    no
    I agree with it on the basis that the law system in the uk is based on justice and that punishment should be based on the severity of their crime therefore the death penalty is equal to murder.
    Also it stops criminals from re offending such as serial killers.
    Although it may sound harsh it induces fear into criminals and gives them an incentive not to commit the horrible crimes in the first place.

    I understand most people on the opposing side think its inhumane and hypocritical but for some families it brings reassurance that the person responsible for their loss has been brought to justice and the fear of further murders occurring has been put to bed.

    some crimes are so unforgiveable ( massacres and child killings ) that the capital punishment it self does jot sound as horrific.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiera 2000)
    no
    I agree with it on the basis that the law system in the uk is based on justice and that punishment should be based on the severity of their crime therefore the death penalty is equal to murder.
    Also it stops criminals from re offending such as serial killers.
    Although it may sound harsh it induces fear into criminals and gives them an incentive not to commit the horrible crimes in the first place.

    I understand most people on the opposing side think its inhumane and hypocritical but for some families it brings reassurance that the person responsible for their loss has been brought to justice and the fear of further murders occurring has been put to bed.

    some crimes are so unforgiveable ( massacres and child killings ) that the capital punishment it self does jot sound as horrific.
    Ah, but say a state like Texas which has the death penalty has more murders and crimes each year than the UK and Ireland. So clearly something is not working their. Surely, it is better to let them prove they have changed their ways. Or give life in prison? Also what about those that are innocent? If they get killed before they are acquitted then they haven't got justice?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiera 2000)
    Also it stops criminals from re offending such as serial killers.
    That is an unsubstantiated claim I presume, can you back it up in any way? In your mind it might naturally follow but that does not make it fact.

    (Original post by kiera 2000)
    it brings reassurance that the person responsible for their loss has been brought to justice and the fear of further murders occurring has been put to bed
    I think whether or not it brings any sort of reassurance is extremely subjective.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can agree with the fact of Texas crime rates becoming higher than ours however, I cannot agree with allowing someone a chance to redeem their selves, someone is not sent to death row simply for one murder their crimes have to be recognised as severe enough to even be considered. Also the death penalty is meant as a deterrent we cannot base the statistics of crime rates purely on the punishment in that area as many other factors contribute to that.
    The death penalty also takes into consideration people with mental illnesses or disabilities that may have impaired their judgement at the time or the crime which shows that capital punishment is a through process.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think whether or not it brings any sort of reassurance is extremely subjective

    ahh but it is only as subjective as someone saying the saying of " an eye for an eye would make the world blind" for example which is often referred to in this topic, that is purely based on peoples moral beliefs, some believe in humanity and forgiveness, some in justice and realism, that is just as subjective as reassured families.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiera 2000)
    I think whether or not it brings any sort of reassurance is extremely subjective

    ahh but it is only as subjective as someone saying the saying of " an eye for an eye would make the world blind" for example which is often referred to in this topic, that is purely based on peoples moral beliefs, some believe in humanity and forgiveness, some in justice and realism, that is just as subjective as reassured families.
    But what I mean is, whether or not that offers any more reassurance than a jail term is down to the individual.

    Killing is wrong, in all forms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jjj90)
    But what I mean is, whether or not that offers any more reassurance than a jail term is down to the individual.

    Killing is wrong, in all forms.
    Killing is wrong but is something that some people in our current society has embraced and as the world had developed with growing pressures etc it has lead to an outlet of anger or revenge has becoming murder. we cannot change that, its become a part of some people nature. however to deal with this we can act fair and look at justice to deem people as criminals and decide their fate, which they lost any control over when THEY committed the crime. It was their choice and capital punishment is known in the areas it applies to so their actions had known consequences.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiera 2000)
    Killing is wrong but is something that some people in our current society has embraced and as the world had developed with growing pressures etc it has lead to an outlet of anger or revenge has becoming murder. we cannot change that, its become a part of some people nature. however to deal with this we can act fair and look at justice to deem people as criminals and decide their fate, which they lost any control over when THEY committed the crime. It was their choice and capital punishment is known in the areas it applies to so their actions had known consequences.
    A life behind bars isn't enough? Why? Why must we strip someone of everything, literally everything in order to put our minds to rest? You place too much faith in justice to get it right every time.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.