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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    - A forced lol variant to give the impression you're blazé about it all and it's not as serious and thus aggravating to you as it appears and it's all ok

    - A disguised confession under the guise of sarcasm

    - Then copying what I've said and applying it to me. Which means you feel what I said was true, so you use it yourself on me (context be damned) as it's now a proven method.

    Don't think I haven't also noticed that you're trying to get the last word, in a last ditch attempt to convince yourself you've 'won' whatever argument you think.
    It's actually spelt blasé. You really are a regular Sigmund Freud aren't you?

    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    He's a supposed lawyer type. They are meant to go down fighting, regardless of how foolish they look.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Go down?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    It's actually spelt blasé. You really are a regular Sigmund Freud aren't you?



    Go down?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You can tell when someone's lost because they resort to correcting spelling mistakes. Never mind he's just utterly torn you apart, look, his English isn't 100% correct! :lol:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neverdie)
    You can tell when someone's lost because they resort to correcting spelling mistakes. Never mind he's just utterly torn you apart, look, his English isn't 100% correct! :lol:
    Torn me apart by saying its stealing to put people in prison?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neverdie)
    You can tell when someone's lost because they resort to correcting spelling mistakes. Never mind he's just utterly torn you apart, look, his English isn't 100% correct! :lol:
    He's hilarious isn't he 😂

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    It's actually spelt blasé. You really are a regular Sigmund Freud aren't you?
    Well looks like I won.

    Imagine getting beaten in an argument by someone who never participated in it. I suggest another career path!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    Well looks like I won.

    Imagine getting beaten in an argument by someone who never participated in it. I suggest another career path!
    You can't win an argument by arguing something that is factually incorrect.

    I'm happy in the one I have thanks. I suggest you go and read s.1(1) of the theft act 1968 so you can learn what stealing is.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    You can't win an argument by arguing something that is factually incorrect.

    I'm happy in the one I have thanks. I suggest you go and read s.1(1) of the theft act 1968 so you can learn what stealing is.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Or I could go have a life.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Boom! Pfizer will stop supplying drugs used for lethal injections, hopefully another nail in the coffin of capital punishment in the US. A lot of people may argue that states' responses will be to follow the likes of Utah and reintroduce previously used methods of execution. However, I would argue that the popularity of lethal injection was gained by its providing a facade of a less violent, 'medical' process. I think a lot of legislatures would be uncomfortable with the reintroduction of methods they've previously deemed too cruel; it would be easier for them to halt executions (possibly indefinitely, or at least until it is formally abolished).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    Or I could go have a life.
    That is an alternative but until you understand something don't argue about it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why the death penalty should not be reintroduced:
    - If the government kills someone for killing, people will begin to think that it is OK to kill people.
    - People generally murder in anger so the thought of them dying would not stop them anymore than the thought of life imprisonment.
    - It costs more money to execute someone than the cost of their life imprisonment (this is not my favourite argument lol)
    - Executing is morally wrong because people should be entitled to their own world view and their life which no one else has the right to take away.
    - Brain analysts will not be able to understand the human brain to see why murderers and rapists do what they do.- Social workers will not be able to see when children have brain issues that must be addressed to stop them from murdering/raping in the future.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    No, it shouldn't be allowed because terrorists want to die anyway. It's not a harsh enough punishment- they should have to suffer for life, not just be allowed to take an easy way out of punishment.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Some people don't deserve to live. But I do not support the death penalty.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, but only under four strict conditions:

    1) It is 100% proven that person did the crime
    2)The crime must involve severely hurting someone undeserving
    3)If the person was released from prison, they would almost certaintly do the same thing again. They must have a life sentence with no chance of ever getting out in their lifetime
    4)The cost of executing them would be significantly cheaper than keeping them in jail their whole life

    Basically any serial killers, pedophiles, serial rapists etc. (or any other mental disorder which involves the repeated hurting of people) who definitely carried out the crime and whom we would be spending money on that could be used on other things.

    Death penalty for things like theft or one off crimes, no I would not support it. Also, someone above said its more expensive to execute, in which case no one would fit these circumstances xD Even without that one, few people would meet them so I don't think it would make much difference anyway.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laurenloops)
    Yes, but only under four strict conditions:

    1) It is 100% proven that person did the crime
    2)The crime must involve severely hurting someone undeserving
    3)If the person was released from prison, they would almost certaintly do the same thing again. They must have a life sentence with no chance of ever getting out in their lifetime
    4)The cost of executing them would be significantly cheaper than keeping them in jail their whole life

    Basically any serial killers, pedophiles, serial rapists etc. (or any other mental disorder which involves the repeated hurting of people) who definitely carried out the crime and whom we would be spending money on that could be used on other things.

    Death penalty for things like theft or one off crimes, no I would not support it. Also, someone above said its more expensive to execute, in which case no one would fit these circumstances xD Even without that one, few people would meet them so I don't think it would make much difference anyway.
    Well no one would be executed under that system because no one will ever be proven to be 100% guilty


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Well no one would be executed under that system because no one will ever be proven to be 100% guilty


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Jeffrey Dahmer had severed heads in his home, as well as photos of dismembered bodies. He also had a range of other body parts. That's pretty hard evidence to me xD
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laurenloops)
    Jeffrey Dahmer had severed heads in his home, as well as photos of dismembered bodies. He also had a range of other body parts. That's pretty hard evidence to me xD
    That's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt but it doesn't mean you can be 100% sure he killed those people. He could have found their bodies, they could have been put there (I'm aware they weren't but it's something you'd have to consider if you wanted to prove guilt without doubt).


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Well no one would be executed under that system because no one will ever be proven to be 100% guilty


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes! That is another point I forgot to make. If the person has already been executed, you cannot release them from prison if they have found to be not guilty because they are dead.

    I also understand Laurenloops point that sometimes you have to take action but I think this would only work in a situation such as if there was a policeman and he had to kill a murderer at that moment or else he would murder more people. Also, it would only work if at that moment you couldn't put him/her in prison.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laurenloops)
    Yes, but only under four strict conditions:

    1) It is 100% proven that person did the crime
    2)The crime must involve severely hurting someone undeserving
    3)If the person was released from prison, they would almost certaintly do the same thing again. They must have a life sentence with no chance of ever getting out in their lifetime
    4)The cost of executing them would be significantly cheaper than keeping them in jail their whole life

    Basically any serial killers, pedophiles, serial rapists etc. (or any other mental disorder which involves the repeated hurting of people) who definitely carried out the crime and whom we would be spending money on that could be used on other things.

    Death penalty for things like theft or one off crimes, no I would not support it. Also, someone above said its more expensive to execute, in which case no one would fit these circumstances xD Even without that one, few people would meet them so I don't think it would make much difference anyway.
    Number 3 will also basically never happen.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I think with DNA evidence it should be allowed for the rare cases where someone is never allowed out of prison.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    because that has never gone wrong before...

    Have you ever done practical experimental science? It doesn't always work... and that's ignoring corruption etc.


    I don't support it on the grounds of you will never be able to eliminate miscarriages of justice. So even though I think a strong case can be made for killing certain people, I am not prepared to sacrifice innocents so there isn;t even any pojnt having the debate on whether or not it can ever be right for the state to murder someone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Only terrorist should be given the dealth penalty
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.