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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    So you're saying that, if the death penalty were abolished in the US (or the particular states in which it is currently used), the crime rates would be no higher than they are now? What makes you think that?
    Because the chance of being placed on death row and then executed is so low that I doubt it acts as an effective deterrent.

    If more people were being executed then it might be a reasonable deterrent.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undisclosed 15)
    So why dont we torture people then as that is even worse than going to prison.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because that would be inhumane and unethical; duh.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nonononono. No state has the right to kill.
    I used to be in favour of the death penalty, I thought there were some crimes bad enough to justify it.
    But we are a supposedly civilized society. Apart from all the practical problems (innocent, there have been people rotting away in prison for decades who have been wrongly convicted), think of the implications this would have - the state has ultimate power, is totally sovereign, over each individual.
    There's no practical argument for it, really, and there's a definite philosophical argument against (although there is always a strong emotional case for it, especially after cases such as April Jones' murder).
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    I strongly disagree with the death penalty, it's hypocritical in some circumstances such as a murder. You are basically doing the same thing they did, yet it is seen as being perfectly justified. If murder is wrong, surely the executioner should be given the death penalty as well. Also there are the miscarriage of justices which can occur (although it is a small amount in retrospect, if 1 person is incorrectly executed then I believe it shouldn't be legal).
    I believe people should be given a second chance as they may have done wrong, but years on prison isn't the best thing in the world. A life sentence (assuming the death penalty would be given for extreme crimes like rape, murder etc) is a long time and people can change their whole life around during it, they may not commit a crime ever again. By having the death penalty, this won't happen and people aren't given a second chance.

    I could go on for much longer about 'eye for an eye' being wrong etc...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Because that would be inhumane and unethical; duh.
    By that logic, so is life imprisonment as that is torture. The poster said he believed in life imprisonment because it was worse than death. It is worse because it is a low form of torture.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ceryni)
    Always against it; I think taking someone's life can never be considered "right".



    Life imprisonment



    Except this wouldn't work in principle because very few cases ever have perfect, indisputable evidence. By removing someone's right to appeal, you are increasing the chance that someone may be incorrectly punished and executed, which would obviously be wrong. If you are putting in place the most extreme punishment, you will have to put in safeguards to "double-check" the sentence.

    Removing the right to appeal would likely be going against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well, as it could lead to a violation of the right to a fair trial.
    There have been many cases where we have sufficient evidence to conclude that the accused is guilty. There are cases of stabbings where we have first CCTV footage, second DNA evidence, third the victim's account and finally the accused has admitted to the crime. There is so much evidence mounted against the individual such as a large number witnessing the crime that it's impossible to conclude it was not him/her. You also have scenarios where terrorists are caught and proved to be linked to a bombing. These cases where we know for a fact the person is guilty (which is often as they only give life sentences when there is sufficient evidence) should be followed by a death penalty.

    Of course safe guards should be in place but when we know we should use the death penalty.

    Regarding the universal declaration that is subjective especially considering there are a number of countries signed up who have breached this conduct but equally introduced national laws that via loopholes get around the issue and so it is entirely possible to limit the appealing process or severely alter it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undisclosed 15)
    Points 1,2 and 4 apply to life imprisonment and you support that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I dont support life imprisonment, I support the death penalty XD Was just answering your question is all


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by superdarklord)
    Opinions on the death penalty?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    a) no one should have the right to take someone else's life
    b) what if they are found to be innocent after the death? (this has happened)
    c) Some criminals deserve to rot in jail, thinking about what they have done. They may have taken/ruined someones life, why do they get an easy way out? They will have taken someone's rights away, all they deserve is basic rights to food, water and a roof over their heads.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzie2)
    I strongly disagree with the death penalty, it's hypocritical in some circumstances such as a murder. You are basically doing the same thing they did, yet it is seen as being perfectly justified. If murder is wrong, surely the executioner should be given the death penalty as well. Also there are the miscarriage of justices which can occur (although it is a small amount in retrospect, if 1 person is incorrectly executed then I believe it shouldn't be legal).
    I believe people should be given a second chance as they may have done wrong, but years on prison isn't the best thing in the world. A life sentence (assuming the death penalty would be given for extreme crimes like rape, murder etc) is a long time and people can change their whole life around during it, they may not commit a crime ever again. By having the death penalty, this won't happen and people aren't given a second chance.

    I could go on for much longer about 'eye for an eye' being wrong etc...
    What if they are given second and even third chance but still continue to rape/murder?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    You got this Ian? Thanks.

    <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DrsVhzbLzU" target="_blank">








    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All-rounder)
    I dont support life imprisonment, I support the death penalty XD Was just answering your question is all


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Oh, my bad. Sorry. I thought you were the person I quoted. I dont believe in torture but I was posing the question to the person whom I quoted as they essentially agreed with torture without releasing it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aoxa)
    I'm not assuming that we bring back the death penalty while in the EU - a condition of joining is that the death penalty must be revoked/banned while any such country is within the EU (the Labour government of the '60s revoked the death penalty to get into the EEC)

    Also, revoking someones right to appeal on their life is harsh - this is boarding on almost a dictator style way of thinking - taking away their human right to speak freely and try to free themselves should be quashed because they committed a crime. Imagine the outrage anyways, whoever committed this crime probably has a family too - that they wouldn't see their family member again because the right to appeal was lost. Your manner of thinking here is sloppy - taking away a fundamental human right - the right to freedom of speech (as their appeal won't be heard) - will bring in all sorts of condemnation from many democratic countries, allies, and the UN.

    I also wasn't comparing the situation to the US - I was using the US as an example. I agree with your point on their gun laws, however, if somebody in this country wished to get an unregistered gun, it wouldn't be too hard - guns are smuggled into the country each year and if you have criminal links, it would be easy enough.
    I really don't understand your stance on the second paragraph. Are you actually telling me if someone murders an innocent civilian, child or even a serial genocide that they deserve to have human rights when they took away the rights of their victim(s). Seriously WTF the victim's family have a life sentence of misery and heartache yet you actually believe the sick individual who brought this upon them deserves to keep his rights. My god just please explain how you justify this as I would never accept that if it was a friend or family member and even if it's any ordinary innocent member of the public. What is true justice if this is what you believe?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MASTER265)
    There have been many cases where we have sufficient evidence to conclude that the accused is guilty. There are cases of stabbings where we have first CCTV footage, second DNA evidence, third the victim's account and finally the accused has admitted to the crime. There is so much evidence mounted against the individual such as a large number witnessing the crime that it's impossible to conclude it was not him/her. You also have scenarios where terrorists are caught and proved to be linked to a bombing. These cases where we know for a fact the person is guilty (which is often as they only give life sentences when there is sufficient evidence) should be followed by a death penalty.
    .
    So what would you prefer? That they kill as many people as they can before they are caught?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Because the chance of being placed on death row and then executed is so low that I doubt it acts as an effective deterrent.

    If more people were being executed then it might be a reasonable deterrent.
    Actually, I read a very interesting article about this. If a state executes more than nine people per year it has a significant deterrent effect. Lower rates of execution have no such effect. The article was by Shepherd although I don't know the year right now (on my phone).



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lamyers1)
    a) no one should have the right to take someone else's life
    b) what if they are found to be innocent after the death? (this has happened)
    c) Some criminals deserve to rot in jail, thinking about what they have done. They may have taken/ruined someones life, why do they get an easy way out? They will have taken someone's rights away, all they deserve is basic rights to food, water and a roof over their heads.
    Saying people deserve to rot in jail is essentially saying we should torture them so why dont we just do that to a more extreme level?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Undisclosed 15)
    Oh, my bad. Sorry. I thought you were the person I quoted. I dont believe in torture but I was posing the question to the person whom I quoted as they essentially agreed with torture without releasing it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I did not agree with torture. I disagreed with the individual having an easy way out of what they've done.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    So what would you prefer? That they kill as many people as they can before they are caught?
    What are you on about? The majority of murder cases have a motive and someone part of a stabbing will not go round stabbing everyone before he is caught that is stupid. Crime will exist in either world with or without the death penalty but at least with it there is real justice and no potential release of the criminal who could commit the same crime.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DannyYYYY)
    I did not agree with torture. I disagreed with the individual having an easy way out of what they've done.
    If it's such an easy way out, why does pretty much everyone sentenced to death in thr US appeal against it knowing the best they'll get is life in prison?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    If it's such an easy way out, why does pretty much everyone sentenced to death in thr US appeal against it knowing the best they'll get is life in prison?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because it's natural to fear death. When you're dead, are you able to consider that you're being punished or what's happened to you?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Whether the death penalty is used is decided by the states individually, as you seem to have realised. States that use the death penalty actually have a higher crime rate than those that don't.
    But why does that imply that the death penalty is not a deterrent? Isn't it possible that those states have the death penalty because their crime rates are so high, and so they use the death penalty to try to reduce them - and while it may work to some extent, it doesn't bring them right down to the levels of other states?

    I mean by this logic, you could also say that doctors don't help cure disease, because hospitals (which are full of doctors) have more sick people than everywhere else.
 
 
 
  • 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 newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.