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

Do you agree with the death penalty? watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you agree with the death Penalty?
    #YES
    66
    40.49%
    NEVER!
    97
    59.51%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saxsan4)
    but why should the tax payer pay for them to have very easy lives?
    The death penalty is more expensive than a life sentence due to the bureaucracy involved.

    It also fails to act as a deterrent.

    It also creates the risk of murdering innocent people.


    There is no logical reason for the death penalty
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 15076683)
    The logic of those who approve of the death penalty is clearly non existent. You say punishment for committing murder is murder. To kill someone for killing is simply saying that what they did is right. It is agreeing with their actions and proving that murder is a justified way to deal with something. Why is the right to take life given to a select few who have managed to climb their way to the top of the criminal law sector? Why do they deserve to take life from a person? Why is someone allowed to have that power? Its honestly shocking this is even up for discussion
    Going by this logic you have created then locking anyone up at all against their will is hypocritical.

    So lock someone up for abducting someone is saying what they done is right. So by you logic we can't jail it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Unsurprisingly for TSR, this debate is overwhelming influenced by Left-wing illogicality.

    One of the fundamental maxims of justice and fairness in life is 'an eye for an eye'. If someone voluntary takes the life of another, without any lawful justification for doing so, I see no reason why that person shouldn't pay for that unlawful act with his life - ie, a life for a life.

    To say that another course of action is 'fairer' or more 'just' is to spit in the face of reason: how can it be either fair or just for society to provide shelter, regular meals and - if the European bureaucrats get their way - suffrage to those who have so gravely wronged it?

    The death penalty exists in some jurisdictions, theoretically if (supposedly) not in practice, to act as a deterrent; but it also performs a moral function insofar as it rectifies a previous wrong.

    Those who say that there is a risk that an innocent person may be executed are, of course, correct; however, this is an infinitesimally small risk - especially in light of modern day technology. Furthermore, this argument falls down when one realises the prison sentence thus served would be equally unjust inasmuch as the person concerned has lost many years of his life.

    Likewise, those who say that the death penalty is murder 'by a different name' fail to grasp the fact that in the absence of capital punishment, society implies that the gravest punishment one faces upon committing murder is incarceration for life - paid for by society: that is, the crime-punishment balance is not evenly weighted. I believe this is simply hopeless. An eye for an eye is the only pure form of justice and society should seek to impose that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    :bump::bump:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A1112787)
    One of the fundamental maxims of justice and fairness in life is 'an eye for an eye'.
    The 'maxims of justice and fairness' on what authority?

    If someone voluntary takes the life of another, without any lawful justification for doing so, I see no reason why that person shouldn't pay for that unlawful act with his life - ie, a life for a life.
    Because it's more expensive, because innocent people will be killed, because it doesn't act as a deterrent and because the idea of the state killing its own citizens on any sort of moral reasoning belongs in the Middle Ages.

    To say that another course of action is 'fairer' or more 'just' is to spit in the face of reason: how can it be either fair or just for society to provide shelter, regular meals and - if the European bureaucrats get their way - suffrage to those who have so gravely wronged it?
    If it is cheaper to imprison them for life - which it is - then the only illogicality here is in suggesting that we should charge the taxpayer more to kill them out of a neandethal's conception of fair dos.

    We also won't be killing innocent civilians in inevitable miscarriages of justice, which I would describe as a fairer outcome than the alternative.

    The death penalty exists in some jurisdictions, theoretically if (supposedly) not in practice, to act as a deterrent
    It doesn't work as a deterrent in practice. This has been demonstrated across the globe.

    Those who say that there is a risk that an innocent person may be executed are, of course, correct; however, this is an infinitesimally small risk - especially in light of modern day technology.
    It is not as small as you think, and this is why innocent people continue to be killed under the death penalty today due to miscarriages of justice as well as draconian sentencings.

    Furthermore, this argument falls down when one realises the prison sentence thus served would be equally unjust inasmuch as the person concerned has lost many years of his life.
    The difference here is that innocent people are often cleared and released from prison after conviction in cases of life imprisonment, and have the rest of their lives to live as a result. When the death penalty is applied, this is not the case because they are already six feet under.

    Likewise, those who say that the death penalty is murder 'by a different name' fail to grasp the fact that in the absence of capital punishment, society implies that the gravest punishment one faces upon committing murder is incarceration for life - paid for by society: that is, the crime-punishment balance is not evenly weighted. I believe this is simply hopeless. An eye for an eye is the only pure form of justice and society should seek to impose that.
    It is paid for by society, but this is not much of a criticism when life imprisonment costs society less than capital punishment.

    As to your second point: 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'. I do not wish to live in a society which operates on the prehistoric reasoning that the wrongs done to you should be indiscriminately returned in kind. That isn't justice, it's revenge.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Death penalty is an easy escape from living with the guilt. They should be sent to concentration camps instead.
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Very Important Poster
    No but I'm not for the harsh conditions in prisons either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    Going by this logic you have created then locking anyone up at all against their will is hypocritical.

    So lock someone up for abducting someone is saying what they done is right. So by you logic we can't jail it.
    What?! How on earth did you reach that conclusion. And tbh, your point addresses the more fundamental problems of the prison system which is the not the aim of the discussion.
    Giving someone a prison sentence still allows them to have a life during and after their sentence. By killing this abductor, you're just ending his life, proving that murder is a way in which society should handle things.
    Oh yes, the government encouraging people to murder a person they don't like! Wow. What a brilliant idea. I think you have struck gold there.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'd imagine a lot of the people who support the reintroduction of capital punishment are probably the same people that have an issue with things like gay marriage, believe a woman's place is in the kitchen and hold several other views which belong in the 19th century


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 15076683)
    Giving someone a prison sentence still allows them to have a life during and after their sentence.
    Murderers do not deserve to live

    (Original post by 15076683)
    By killing this abductor, you're just ending his life, proving that murder is a way in which society should handle things.
    Exactly, killing criminals is the way in which society should handle things.

    (Original post by 15076683)
    Oh yes, the government encouraging people to murder a person they don't like! Wow. What a brilliant idea. I think you have struck gold there.
    Capital punishment which would kill murderers and child rapists is a tad more than merely "killing someone you don't like". There's a few people in my school i'm not too fond of, doesn't mean i want to kill them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tebr)
    Murderers do not deserve to live



    Exactly, killing criminals is the way in which society should handle things.



    Capital punishment which would kill murderers and child rapists is a tad more than merely "killing someone you don't like". There's a few people in my school i'm not too fond of, doesn't mean i want to kill them.
    Can you not see that it is just morally wrong to kill someone! By killing criminals as a way of "solving the problem" just shows the lack of intelligence of society today. How can you say that to commit a crime is wrong and then kill that person on the basis that killing it right. It completely undermines the concept of the criminal justice system!
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 15076683)
    Can you not see that it is just morally wrong to kill someone!

    British troops who fought in WW2 to save Britain killed people. Do you not support them?


    (Original post by 15076683)
    By killing criminals as a way of "solving the problem" just shows the lack of intelligence of society today.
    As if giving murderers and child rapists shelter, three hot meals a day and access to Playstations is such an intelligent thing to do.

    (Original post by 15076683)
    How can you say that to commit a crime is wrong and then kill that person on the basis that killing it right. It completely undermines the concept of the criminal justice system!
    It depends on the person who is being killed. Killing an innocent person is wrong but to kill a guilty person is perfectly justified. It does not undermine the justice system in any way whatsoever.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I support it within reason. Not everyone should get it, but the monsters should. You kill 17 people in a shooting? You don't deserve to live. You rape, torture and kill multiple women? You need to go.You accidently hit someone while driving? You don't deserve to die, just go to jail and pay for your crimes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivy.98)
    I support it within reason. Not everyone should get it, but the monsters should. You kill 17 people in a shooting? You don't deserve to live. You rape, torture and kill multiple women? You need to go.You accidently hit someone while driving? You don't deserve to die, just go to jail and pay for your crimes.
    I agree with the idea of "the worst punishment" being only for the worst crimes, but then I also question. Isn't death a quick way out? Many commit suicide because they don't want to spend time in jail. So I wish we had an alternative to the death sentence: torture.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I'd imagine a lot of the people who support the reintroduction of capital punishment are probably the same people that have an issue with things like gay marriage, believe a woman's place is in the kitchen and hold several other views which belong in the 19th century


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Please only speak for yourself because your speculations are ridiculous. I think a substantial part of the public support the death penalty. It's not correct to ascribe the views you have said to us all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tebr)
    British troops who fought in WW2 to save Britain killed people. Do you not support them?




    As if giving murderers and child rapists shelter, three hot meals a day and access to Playstations is such an intelligent thing to do.



    It depends on the person who is being killed. Killing an innocent person is wrong but to kill a guilty person is perfectly justified. It does not undermine the justice system in any way whatsoever.
    No. I don't support war. I don't see how anyone could. Sending men to go out and die. Wow. What a wonderful thing! We should have wars all the time! What a completely ridiculous thing to say. And, as for the way prisons are run, I don't exactly know the details of that, obviously, but that is not something I need to be addressing. That's a more fundamental issue with the prison system. And do you realise that you just said killing is justified. Killing is never justified! Ever! It's not the way to deal with problems.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student403)
    I agree with the idea of "the worst punishment" being only for the worst crimes, but then I also question. Isn't death a quick way out? Many commit suicide because they don't want to spend time in jail. So I wish we had an alternative to the death sentence: torture.
    Yeah that's a good point too. Lets say If I was the victim, I might as well just prefer watching the person suffer to get my revenge on him. But what kind of torture are we talking about? Like electric chairs?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. Some people need to be removed from the gene-pool.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivy.98)
    Yeah that's a good point too. Lets say If I was the victim, I might as well just prefer watching the person suffer to get my revenge on him. But what kind of torture are we talking about? Like electric chairs?
    I haven't thought about it that far haha. But I think it should definitely be based by crime.

    There are two issues I can forsee, though. a) perhaps even more human rights activists pouncing on the idea (and so much more controversy and distrust in the justice system) and b) how to determine who gets what punishment. This would be VERY subjective ie one judge might see it as appropriate to use an electric chair for a involuntary manslaughter, whereas another might starve the person for a day for raping a child. (Trying to make a contrast here, hopefully it came across)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case

    Death penalty does not belong in the UK.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
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.