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

Capital Punishment; The Question watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Should capital punishment be integrated into UK law?
    Yes
    30.72%
    No
    69.28%

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Well for me, we're all going to die anyway like it or not - what point is there to a life with no hope or joy in it? There's also the factor for me that at this stage I'd quite possibly be thrown in an all-male prison, never interact with someone of my gender again and be massively likely to suffer constant sexual harassment, abuse and rape. No thanks.

    Again, because I don't think people should be written off. Our main focus should be on rehabilitation, albeit over a very long period of time in the worst cases. But I don't believe either life or death sentences are an effective deterrent. Who exactly is going to think "You know what, I won't do this because there could be a life sentence if I'm caught - but I'll risk it if it's only 20 years in a cell!"? These crimes are committed mainly be people who either aren't thinking at the time, or don't care about the consequences. If you at believe in people and at least give them the hope they can recover and re-integrate, you not only improve the chances of it being successful for most prisoners but you also improve prison behavior and make it a much more conductive environment to rehabilitation rather than a violent hellhole.
    I can see the logic there, perhaps I'm just a little to set on the 'sanctity of life' concept. I would find it very hard to accept that I am selecting death over life.

    As for the latter, the Scandinavian system is similar and has proven to be highly effective. The only issue I can see is in judging when people are 'rehabilitated', which by its very nature is subjective. It would be interesting to see some trials in the UK on that method.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Surely no one wishes to lose their life?
    A fanatic will opt for the death penalty so as to become a martyr. We went to great lengths to keep IRA prisoners alive when they went on hunger strikes to prevent them becoming martyrs.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Simes)
    Because we decided that tit-for-tat or eye-for-an-eye revenge is not justice.

    If someone is to be punished in a way that matches the crime, what do you do about a serial killer? Kill their family?

    What do you do with someone who starves their children to death? Starve them and their siblings to death?

    If a gang of lads give someone a kicking and that person dies, which of the gang should be kicked to death?

    Punishment by revenge in the same way as the crime is not practical (and would be considered fairly horrific by many people). It is certainly not 'civilised'.
    ^ that's what they did in ancient Messopotamia; there's a stone that records an account of a builder making a mistake on a house that resulted in the roof collapsing and killing the home owner's son. The punishment for the builder was to have his son killed by falling rubble.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Simes)
    A fanatic will opt for the death penalty so as to become a martyr. We went to great lengths to keep IRA prisoners alive when they went on hunger strikes to prevent them becoming martyrs.
    Maybe the death penalty should be subject to judicial discretion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Anti - the state has no more right to kill somebody than an everyday person does.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    I can see the logic there, perhaps I'm just a little to set on the 'sanctity of life' concept. I would find it very hard to accept that I am selecting death over life.

    As for the latter, the Scandinavian system is similar and has proven to be highly effective. The only issue I can see is in judging when people are 'rehabilitated', which by its very nature is subjective. It would be interesting to see some trials in the UK on that method.
    Indeed, I'm generally supportive of the Scandinavian approach.

    Generally I'd say you can get a good idea from their behaviour in prison, how much they engage with projects and employability programs, their attitudes to other inmates and prison staff, their willingness to show remorse etc. Then you can give them conditional releases with at least some level of ongoing suverillance for a period. It's never going to be foolproof, of course, but I feel it would actually make our country safer by increasing the success rate of prisons in preventing re-offending.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    An eye for an eye makes the whole world monocular...

    I'm not quite sure what I agree with here, whilst convicted criminals of crimes of barbaric nature deserve a severe punishment, it is difficult to have 100% accuracy with conviction. As soon as one innocent man is put to death, the state becomes no better than the convicts that it is claiming to bring to justice.
    I'm not advocating of an eye for an eye. I was merely asking why, if any life is the ultimate value known to man (I think it isn't by far), should taking it not justify the use of CP.

    There are three major advantages to CP:
    1. Economy – no need to take care of them for the rest of their lives.
    2. Security – no chance of escape and further damage.
    3. Prevention – the possibility of swift death following a serious criminal act surely puts off more people than life imprisonment with plenty of chances to escape or be released prematurely.

    If these three weren't true, I couldn't care less about whether we execute or just lock them away.

    As I said in the other thread, there are many cases in which the evidence is direct and the conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt, e.g. if they plead guilty, are visibly on camera, caught during the act or during the preparation, etc. No convictions based on testimonies, slight traces of semen or a hair where it theoretically shouldn't have been…

    (Original post by Simes)
    If the state is only an extension of the people, and the people are not permitted to kill one another, then the state cannot be permitted to kill people either.
    What kind of a silly illogical argument is that? The people are permitted to kill another person if their property, health or life are in serious danger (adequate use of force). Likewise, I'm not arguing that the state should be able to put down anyone, only the worst of criminals… :rolleyes:
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I'm not advocating of an eye for an eye. I was merely asking why, if any life is the ultimate value known to man (I think it isn't by far), should taking it not justify the use of CP.

    There are three major advantages to CP:
    1. Economy – no need to take care of them for the rest of their lives.
    2. Security – no chance of escape and further damage.
    3. Prevention – the possibility of swift death following a serious criminal act surely puts off more people than life imprisonment with plenty of chances to escape or be released prematurely.

    If these three weren't true, I couldn't care less about whether we execute or just lock them away.

    As I said in the other thread, there are many cases in which the evidence is direct and the conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt, e.g. if they plead guilty, are visibly on camera, caught during the act or during the preparation, etc. No convictions based on testimonies, slight traces of semen or a hair where it theoretically shouldn't have been…
    What is the ultimate value?

    It just seems rather scary that we are allowing the life of a person to be in the hands of twelve laymen.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Not sure what the point of that is - anyone who doesn't want a death sentence is going to plead not guilty however strong the evidence. Equally someone with strong evidence against them who happens to actually be innocent and falsely accused may well plead guilty if they'd rather die than suffer life imprisonment. You'd only create incentives to enter a false plea.

    Personally I'm completely against it. Partly informed by my Christian beliefs in all honesty, but I don't believe any of us have the right or indeed the ability to judge that someone is beyond redemption or rehabilitation.
    If people provide a false plea then that's their choice. Sad but true.

    I disagree here. I'm completely willing to forgive a fraudster but ending somebodies life is unforgivable and such a person must never walk free again.

    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Does the eye for an eye model not wash?

    ^Why do I always find myself in agreement with you, Rakas? The only problem I can potentially see is it being contrary to the idea of giving credit for pleading guilty. Surely no one wishes to lose their life?
    Credits not an issue if we only apply it to murder and some people may view death over life imprisonment as mercy from the state.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I'm not advocating of an eye for an eye. I was merely asking why, if any life is the ultimate value known to man (I think it isn't by far), should taking it not justify the use of CP.

    There are three major advantages to CP:
    1. Economy – no need to take care of them for the rest of their lives.
    2. Security – no chance of escape and further damage.
    3. Prevention – the possibility of swift death following a serious criminal act surely puts off more people than life imprisonment with plenty of chances to escape or be released prematurely.

    If these three weren't true, I couldn't care less about whether we execute or just lock them away.

    As I said in the other thread, there are many cases in which the evidence is direct and the conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt, e.g. if they plead guilty, are visibly on camera, caught during the act or during the preparation, etc. No convictions based on testimonies, slight traces of semen or a hair where it theoretically shouldn't have been…



    What kind of a silly illogical argument is that? The people are permitted to kill another person if their property, health or life are in serious danger (adequate use of force). Likewise, I'm not arguing that the state should be able to put down anyone, only the worst of criminals… :rolleyes:
    The thing is, 2 of those three things aren't true. It does NOT act as a deterrent, nor does it save money.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    What is the ultimate value?

    It just seems rather scary that we are allowing the life of a person to be in the hands of twelve laymen.
    Oh no, I'm absolutely against the jury system. The evidence should be weighted by experienced legal professionals with the aid of expert witnesses.

    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    The thing is, 2 of those three things aren't true. It does NOT act as a deterrent, nor does it save money.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Citation needed… You also avoided the question that was given to you.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    There are three major advantages to CP:
    3. Prevention – the possibility of swift death following a serious criminal act surely puts off more people than life imprisonment with plenty of chances to escape or be released prematurely.
    The death penalty is not a deterrent.
    • People who are insane and commit murder are not put off by the death penalty.
    • Terrorists are definitely not deterred by the death penalty.
    • Crimes of passion are not prevented by the death penalty.
    • There is some evidence that violent criminals who believe being caught will result in the death penalty are more likely to commit murder in attempts to evade being caught.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Oh no, I'm absolutely against the jury system. The evidence should be weighted by experienced legal professionals with the aid of expert witnesses.



    Citation needed… You also avoided the question that was given to you.
    Sorry, I'm on mobile so no notifications. Will go back and find it.

    I'll get you links when I'm on my pc in a little bit, just having a lovely ham and cheese toastie!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    What kind of a silly illogical argument is that? The people are permitted to kill another person if their property, health or life are in serious danger (adequate use of force).
    You've been watching too much American TV.

    We are only permitted to use reasonable force and that does not include killing someone.

    That makes my "silly illogical argument" rather more valid, does it not?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    The state is only an extension (or reduction, if you will) of the people themselves. Members of the society who are against such measures are free to abandon it so it's not like we would be forcing it upon them either.

    Why should ‘the state have the right to’ imprison someone for life or confiscate all of his belongings, but not to end his life?! Even more importantly, why can't at least people who end someone else's life be punished in the same way?

    You are only feeling, not thinking.
    I don't support a prison system based on punishment. I think we should be leaning nuch more towards rehabilitation. I accept that some criminals will not be rehabilitated, but a lot more could be with a better system.

    I find Capital Punishment inherently wrong because it doesn't give the person that has commited the crime a chance to rehabilitate. I would support longer sentences for repeat criminals (i.e, serial killers/rapists etc) but I still think taking someone's life should never, ever be an option.

    I may be lead by my feelings, but they are backed up with logical thought.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Oh no, I'm absolutely against the jury system. The evidence should be weighted by experienced legal professionals with the aid of expert witnesses.
    That system resulted in too many incorrect guilty verdicts, just as happens in magistrates courts. That was why we demanded we be tried by our peers (and that does not mean life peers!)

    There is a tendency for legal professionals to accept that if the police arrested someone, they deserved to be arrested and so on. Yes, the process should be governed by legal people, but it is an important principal that people be tried by other people.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    The death penalty is not a deterrent.
    • People who are insane and commit murder are not put off by the death penalty.
    • Terrorists are definitely not deterred by the death penalty.
    • Crimes of passion are not prevented by the death penalty.
    • There is some evidence that violent criminals who believe being caught will result in the death penalty are more likely to commit murder in attempts to evade being caught.
    Again, I'm interested in seeing the sources for those claims. I'm not saying that it reduces the number of offences drastically, but even if it saves only one or two persons per year, isn't that what you strive for?

    Furthermore, I believe it's the long trial and even longer wait on the death row that diminishes the preventive psychological effect. If we went back to the roots and made the process swift and effective, I'm sure the figures would go down a bit more.

    (Original post by Simes)
    You've been watching too much American TV.We are only permitted to use reasonable force and that does not include killing someone.That makes my "silly illogical argument" rather more valid, does it not?
    I know what reasonable force is and oh yes, it does, depending on the circumstances. A woman facing two kidnappers with guns at night in her home, killing one of them with two bullets to protect herself, would be definitely acquitted. Read at least some Wikipedia articles on what you're debating, ffs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    That system resulted in too many incorrect guilty verdicts, just as happens in magistrates courts. That was why we demanded we be tried by our peers (and that does not mean life peers!)

    There is a tendency for legal professionals to accept that if the police arrested someone, they deserved to be arrested and so on. Yes, the process should be governed by legal people, but it is an important principal that people be tried by other people.
    Reputable sources?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I'm interested in seeing the sources for those claims.
    Then you had better provide yours, since you make these claims first.

    (Original post by Life_peer)
    There are three major advantages to CP:
    1. Economy – no need to take care of them for the rest of their lives.
    2. Security – no chance of escape and further damage.
    3. Prevention – the possibility of swift death following a serious criminal act surely puts off more people than life imprisonment with plenty of chances to escape or be released prematurely.
    Quote your sources.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I know what reasonable force is and oh yes, it does, depending on the circumstances. A woman facing two kidnappers with guns at night in her home, killing one of them with two bullets to protect herself, would be definitely acquitted. Read at least some Wikipedia articles on what you're debating, ffs.
    What country are you posting from? The USA?

    You are describing American TV shows, not UK legal practice.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.