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

Are you for the death penalty in cases of certain guilt? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong surely is not a way "forward".
    what about kidnapping? how should we charge people for that?
    surely it wouldn't be...kidnapping them back, in a prison cell...
    smh; you daft git. your logic didn't work. please try again. [please insert x1 rationality]
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    So reasons for supporting it are emotional and reactionary? Which society has gone far on those principles?
    um, what? how is it emotional? retribution isn't about emotions, it's about calculative justice.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    what about kidnapping? how should we charge people for that?
    surely it wouldn't be...kidnapping them back, in a prison cell...
    smh; you daft git. your logic didn't work. please try again.
    Imprisonment is in the interest of public safety and when there are miscarriages of justice, at least they can be rectified in some way. They are not an emotional response to a crime along the lines of "how dare you kidnap someone?? I'm going to kidnap you back as you don't deserve to be free!".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No. To me it's not about being certain of guilt, I oppose the the principle of capital punishment.
    I believe that no one should be able to take the life of someone without their consent. Sometimes it is a sad necessity, such as in war. But this is not war. It doesn't make us any safer if they were going to be in prison for life anyway.
    Ignoring lawyer costs, killing someone would be a lot cheaper than sending them to prison for life.

    Hence why I advocate forced labor. The worse the crime the harder the job. But even petty criminals should be put to productive use, if anything to make up for some of the costs they create.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    um, what? how is it emotional? retribution isn't about emotions, it's about calculative justice.
    If it's based on deciding who does and doesn't deserve to live (what gives anyone the authority to decide that?) and about giving the families of the victims "closure" then of course it's all about emotions.

    What guidelines would be used to decide who does or doesn't deserve to live, anyway? How angry the crime made the public? Back in the day, the decision was ultimately made by a fictional man in the sky. Nowadays what will it be?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I see no reason for it. For starters by the time you've gone through all the time, transfers, appeals, appealing appeals, court fees, lawyer fees, the cost of the actual education, it just doesn't seem worth it.

    Lock them up and give them some menial but productive task to do for the rest of their lives. The can sit and sort through recycling or something.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    I see no reason for it. For starters by the time you've gone through all the time, transfers, appeals, appealing appeals, court fees, lawyer fees, the cost of the actual education, it just doesn't seem worth it.

    Lock them up and give them some menial but productive task to do for the rest of their lives. The can sit and sort through recycling or something.
    Can't tell if you're being serious about the recycling.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's archaic for the most part and am against it although some people probably deserve it(Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley and the like).

    I'd be happy to revert to previous where it was permitted during wartime for offences such as aiding the enemy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HAnwar)
    Can't tell if you're being serious about the recycling.
    It was just a flippant example of a menial job. Put tags on them and make them work as lumberjacks. Have them screwing the tops on toothpaste tubes. Anything will do.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    You can never be entirely sure that a conviction is just. DNA evidence can be misinterpreted, confessions are notoriously dangerous. Look at Stefan Kiszco; he confessed to murder because he was bullied and tricked by the police because two or three girls lied about him being a flasher. He would have been executed yet we know he was innocent. History is littered with mistakes.

    Who would fire the bullet? Who would pull the handle on the trap door? Add to this mess the simple fact that you are less likely to die on death row in America in any given year than the average crack dealer and you have no reason to use a primitive form of revenge punishment where it has clearly not worked as a deterrent.

    You can measure a society's development by the way it treats its prisoners. If you hang them then you are no better than they are. We are human and we can empathise and show mercy like no other species. Let's stay that way.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    It was just a flippant example of a menial job. Put tags on them and make them work as lumberjacks. Have them screwing the tops on toothpaste tubes. Anything will do.
    That's too kind.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    he ruined so many people's lives though, didn't he.
    I mean, if I had said some serial rapist criminal, you probably wouldn't be putting nearly as much emphatic shock upon my statement...
    I'd add "bank robber", "terrorist", "torturer", "deeply corrupt politician", etc on my list of people who'd qualify for a death penalty too - it's not about an eye for an eye, it's about the fact that they don't deserve to live any more, or have any rights over the public sphere (i.e. NHS, voting, etc)
    There's a significant difference between someone who takes money and someone who murders/rapes. Arguing in favour of capital punishment makes you an over-emotional barbarian but suggesting it should be used against non-murderers shows a lack of civilisation.

    What gives any of us the right to decide who gets to live? Why should a court get to 'play God'? You do realise prisoners can't vote?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Ignoring lawyer costs, killing someone would be a lot cheaper than sending them to prison for life.

    Hence why I advocate forced labor. The worse the crime the harder the job. But even petty criminals should be put to productive use, if anything to make up for some of the costs they create.
    What's funny is people suggest these really brutal punishments they seem to forget it would put us in line with North Korea, famed for its glorious criminal justice system.

    There's no evidence that these punitive judicial systems work, our focus should be on rehabilitation

    (Original post by Pinocchiolewis)
    Save on resources? I haven't done the research, but in this case of certain guilt I imagine it would save money that could be used for better things?
    There's nothing to suggest capital punishment would save money, in the US it's more expensive than life imprisonment.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    What's funny is people suggest these really brutal punishments they seem to forget it would put us in line with North Korea, famed for its glorious criminal justice system.

    There's no evidence that these punitive judicial systems work, our focus should be on rehabilitation



    There's nothing to suggest capital punishment would save money, in the US it's more expensive than life imprisonment.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As I said in my post, that is because of lawyer costs, etc. for appeal processes while on death row.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    As I said in my post, that is because of lawyer costs, etc. for appeal processes while on death row.
    It's not just because of the cost of paying lawyers and even if were it's a necessary cost to endure


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    i would be happy if there was maybe 80% guilt
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes definitely.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong surely is not a way "forward".
    Yet we are happy to lock people in cages to show killing is wrong. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)


    There's nothing to suggest capital punishment would save money, in the US it's more expensive than life imprisonment.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Lol only because they get about 20 appeals and the lawyers need to be paid each time


    How much do you think it costs to drag someone outside, kneel them down in the snow then shoot them in the back of the head?
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.