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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drummerz)
    It certainly isn't, but if I kill 100 people for example, I have unjustly and unfairly deprived them of their right to live. Why is it then just and fair for me to continue to live?
    Why isn't it? :holmes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Why isn't it? :holmes:
    Because killing 100 people shows I have a gross disregard for human life, i failed to respect their right to live and thus there is no reason the state should respect mine. Now while I understand not wanting to have the death penalty used for every murderer, I believe the death penalty should certainly be an option for mass murderers and serial killers.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drummerz)
    Because killing 100 people shows I have a gross disregard for human life, i failed to respect their right to live and thus there is no reason the state should respect mine.
    So the state should only respect certain people's lives?


    Now while I understand not wanting to have the death penalty used for every murderer, I believe the death penalty should certainly be an option for mass murderers and serial killers.
    For what purpose?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    So the state should only respect certain people's lives?

    Yes?, it's a similar concept to prison in that prisoners do not have the same freedoms everyone else does?


    For what purpose?
    Why not? its an apt punishment?, you replied my first question with a question but not an answer. Why then do I deserve the right to live?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drummerz)
    Yes?, it's a similar concept to prison in that prisoners do not have the same freedoms everyone else does?
    Okay. That sounds quite dangerous. It's not really a very similar concept to prison, because the state doesn't (or shouldn't) simply stop respecting individuals' freedom. Instead, it restricts our freedom for the protection of everybody. There are good reasons for thinking that imprisonment works as a method for maintaining a safe society. Certainly most of those reasons carry over to killing criminals as well, but the difference is that killing isn't by any means necessary and it carries the unfortunate disadvantages of being more expensive and brutalising the population. And, of course, it involves killing members of society.


    Why not? its an apt punishment?
    Why is it an 'apt' punishment? What purpose does it serve? We can't possibly determine whether or not it is 'apt' until you have specified what it's supposed to be achieving.


    you replied my first question with a question but not an answer. Why then do I deserve the right to live?
    I replied to your first question with a question because I feel that the most sensible approach to take is to assume people should be allowed to live unless we have good reason to do otherwise. I am asking you 'why should the state kill its people?' for that reason. Unless you think everybody should be killed until we find good reasons not to?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Keep that outdated barbarity in the past please. It does not belong in a free society with human rights.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    i think it should be restored immediately.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Okay. That sounds quite dangerous. It's not really a very similar concept to prison, because the state doesn't (or shouldn't) simply stop respecting individuals' freedom. Instead, it restricts our freedom for the protection of everybody. There are good reasons for thinking that imprisonment works as a method for maintaining a safe society. Certainly most of those reasons carry over to killing criminals as well, but the difference is that killing isn't by any means necessary and it carries the unfortunate disadvantages of being more expensive and brutalising the population. And, of course, it involves killing members of society.




    Why is it an 'apt' punishment? What purpose does it serve? We can't possibly determine whether or not it is 'apt' until you have specified what it's supposed to be achieving.


    I replied to your first question with a question because I feel that the most sensible approach to take is to assume people should be allowed to live unless we have good reason to do otherwise. I am asking you 'why should the state kill its people?' for that reason. Unless you think everybody should be killed until we find good reasons not to?
    So you're telling me, a person that killed 100 people..more realistically..10 people..does not deserve to die?...I already explained why I believe the death penalty should be used for mass murderers and serial killers in a post above. Such people do not have a place in a "civilized" society..
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drummerz)
    Because killing 100 people shows I have a gross disregard for human life, i failed to respect their right to live and thus there is no reason the state should respect mine. Now while I understand not wanting to have the death penalty used for every murderer, I believe the death penalty should certainly be an option for mass murderers and serial killers.
    please see? what purpose would it achieve? simply to eliminate them for society. i'm curious why you seem to think a mass murderer doesn't deserve to die? are you sympathetic or...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Watch the BBC documentary 'Life and Death Row' - provides examples of people about to be given the death sentence (or not), people on the death row and the moments just before they are executed and also gives a balanced view - for example they show people who you would argue deserve it and others who don't.

    I cried a couple of times in them, when you look at it from the perspective of the people being executed and their families you realise there isn't one side to the story. Ironically the death penalty creates more pain.

    You hurt innocents with the death penalty not the criminal. How do you think a wife, child and parents would react to their husband/father/son would react. They would be distraught.

    Not only that but it's almost psychological torture, imagine being given a set date for your death as you arrive closer and closer to it, I imagine a lot would lose their minds, not to mention the families.

    But of course you could say the same for the victim's family, although the point is that the death penalty gives a quick death to the criminal but slow and painful torture to the innocent family of the criminal. Who are we punishing the criminal or their family?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drummerz)
    So you're telling me, a person that killed 100 people..more realistically..10 people..does not deserve to die?...I already explained why I believe the death penalty should be used for mass murderers and serial killers in a post above. Such people do not have a place in a "civilized" society..
    (Original post by Drummerz)
    please see? what purpose would it achieve? simply to eliminate them for society. i'm curious why you seem to think a mass murderer doesn't deserve to die? are you sympathetic or...
    What benefit does killing them give us that imprisoning them wouldn't? All I'm asking you to do is justify your position, and so far you haven't been able to do so. Why do people 'deserve' to die for committing mass murder, for example? All you seem to have said so far is 'well they've done something bad, duh. they deserve something bad to happen to them'. I'm asking you why. As a member of Canadian Parliament said in 1914,

    We can argue all we like, but if capital punishment is being inflicted on some man, we are inclined to say: ‘It serves him right.’ That is not the spirit, I believe, in which legislation is enacted. If in this present age we were to go back to the old time of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ there would be very few hon. gentlemen in this House who would not, metaphorically speaking, be blind and toothless.
    An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.


    As for whether I'm sympathetic, if you mean approving of or looking favourably on the criminals' actions - certainly not. Do I still have compassion for them? Certainly, and so should everyone who actually cares about human suffering and doing the right thing.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    No. Because the death penalty doesn't punish the criminal
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I believe so. When the evidence is conclusive and there's a little chance of rehabilitation, it would save us a lot of funds, effort, and make the world much safer. If you believe all people can change, you are deluded.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nope. It costs a lot more money to keep someone on death row. Plus I really do not see the logic in killing someone because they killed someone. Plus there's the awful chance of putting someone innocent on death row. Can't bring back a life now can ya?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Yes, I believe so. When the evidence is conclusive and there's a little chance of rehabilitation, it would save us a lot of funds, effort, and make the world much safer. If you believe all people can change, you are deluded.
    Why do people persist with this myth that it saves money. It costs the US billions to execute rather than imprison for life.

    Anyone who thinks the death penalty is a good idea, in my eyes, is devoid of humanity and a fully functioning brain


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Why do people persist with this myth that it saves money. It costs the US billions to execute rather than imprison for life.

    Anyone who thinks the death penalty is a good idea, in my eyes, is devoid of humanity and a fully functioning brain


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because the process is overly complicated! Are you really so thick as to think it actually takes billions of US dollars to execute someone? :laugh:

    I can only return the compliment.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Because the process is overly complicated! Are you really so thick as to think it actually takes billions of US dollars to execute someone? :laugh:

    I can only return the compliment.
    So you think they just have the system they have because they enjoy flushing money away? When you're handing out such a definitive and serious sentence you will inevitably have longer trials and more appeals.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    So you think they just have the system they have because they enjoy flushing money away? When you're handing out such a definitive and serious sentence you will inevitably have longer trials and more appeals.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Human rights organisations surely do enjoy flushing public money away… I'll let you figure out the rest.

    If we catch a terrorist right before the act, we should just put her against a wall and shoot her, not spend twenty years on trials.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Most absolutely definitely - 100%
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Human rights organisations surely do enjoy flushing public money away… I'll let you figure out the rest.

    If we catch a terrorist right before the act, we should just put her against a wall and shoot her, not spend twenty years on trials.
    What if they're being coerced? What if they have diminished responsibility? What if they're sleepwalking?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

    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.