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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It's quite disgraceful, and only highlights the fact that the death penalty needs to be outright abolished. It's a barbaric, primitive practice which we should have got past by now.

    (Original post by WeeGee9000)
    I am sorry to interrupt your debate but you can't simply 'abolish' death sentence because it is "inhumane" and "ohh poor criminal"
    Yes, one can abolish the death penalty because it is immoral. Whether or not the actual death is painful, there still remains the issue of the mental distress and torture that the criminals go through - the firm knowledge that they are going to die, no matter what, and that there's no way out.


    (Original post by WeeGee9000)
    a country where penalties for crimes are low will have its crime rate skyrocket. Same thing happens when the State tries to minimize the possibility of one to defend himself (gun control policies, for instance).
    Both assertions are untrue. The murder rate in American states without the death penalty is lower than the rate in those with the death penalty. Perhaps the more civilised states just happen not to have the death penalty, but there are plenty of potential criminals in every state, and if the rate is meant to skyrocket, as you claim, that's not what has happened at all. In terms of countries, there's no statistically significant relationship between the death penalty and the crime rate.

    Furthermore, there's no correlation between crime rate and gun control policies. It is the case, however, that countries with stricter gun control laws and policies have a lower gun crime rate.


    (Original post by WeeGee9000)
    The American ""liberals""** need to look at other countries as examples as to how most (however, not all) left-wing policies simply don't work ***.
    As seen above, they probably have looked at other countries and statistics from other countries support both gun control and the abolition of the death penalty.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    It's quite disgraceful, and only highlights the fact that the death penalty needs to be outright abolished. It's a barbaric, primitive practice which we should have got past by now.



    Yes, one can abolish the death penalty because it is immoral. Whether or not the actual death is painful, there still remains the issue of the mental distress and torture that the criminals go through - the firm knowledge that they are going to die, no matter what, and that there's no way out.




    Both assertions are untrue. The murder rate in American states without the death penalty is lower than the rate in those with the death penalty. Perhaps the more civilised states just happen not to have the death penalty, but there are plenty of potential criminals in every state, and if the rate is meant to skyrocket, as you claim, that's not what has happened at all. In terms of countries, there's no statistically significant relationship between the death penalty and the crime rate.

    Furthermore, there's no correlation between crime rate and gun control policies. It is the case, however, that countries with stricter gun control laws and policies have a lower gun crime rate.




    As seen above, they probably have looked at other countries and statistics from other countries support both gun control and the abolition of the death penalty.
    "It is the case, however, that countries with stricter gun control laws and policies have a lower gun crime rate"

    Which is why Switzerland is the gun crime capital of Europe and in Mexico gun crime is negligible... Or was that the other way around (bar different continents)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    "It is the case, however, that countries with stricter gun control laws and policies have a lower gun crime rate"

    Which is why Switzerland is the gun crime capital of Europe and in Mexico gun crime is negligible... Or was that the other way around (bar different continents)
    Firstly, cherry-picking individual examples does not invalidate my statement (look at the study for a larger sample size), however I did forget to say "generally". Secondly, Switzerland's gun control laws are indeed stricter than the United States', and I doubt that many of the American gun lobbyists would particularly like these laws, including the one which makes it illegal to carry a gun in a street.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    Blame all those do-gooder anti death penalty people for this. A bullet to the head would be instant, but no they rather disallow such methods and force more "humane" methods such as lethal injections that have a higher chance of going wrong. Making those drugs difficult to get hold of makes the situation worse.
    I think you will find the anti-death penalty lot are in general against the death penalty... :rolleyes:
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Even if this was a "more humane method" I agree with it because these people who took the life of an innocent person should be granted with a slow and painful death, not a quick bullet to put them out of their misery. :rant:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    I can see where you're coming from but I absolutely disagree with you. Deterrent and safety are important but they are not what's at the core of justice. Justice is about punishing wrongdoing not out of some bloodlust for revenge but because punishment is the right result of wrongdoing. To deny punishment is to deny justice and while I can see why it might seem cruel to punish it's much more wrong not to
    What is gained by pyunishing people? Is in, how does it make the rest of society better?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    What is gained by pyunishing people? Is in, how does it make the rest of society better?
    It provides society with a fair framework. It isn't fair that I should be treat the same way as a mass murderer. The murderer deserves negative consequences for his actions.

    I don't see how you can have anything close to a fair or workable moral worldview if you think that evil deeds should go unpunished.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    It provides society with a fair framework. It isn't fair that I should be treat the same way as a mass murderer. The murderer deserves negative consequences for his actions.

    I don't see how you can have anything close to a fair or workable moral worldview if you think that evil deeds should go unpunished.
    But they aren't going unpunished, they are still going to prison.

    And fairness isn't a gain for society anyway. It would be completely fair if we killed every single human on the planet, because we would all be equally dead.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    But they aren't going unpunished, they are still going to prison.

    And fairness isn't a gain for society anyway. It would be completely fair if we killed every single human on the planet, because we would all be equally dead.
    You conflate fair with equal treatment. Fairness had everything to do with people being treated how they deserve to be, and an innocent man deserves to be treated better than a serial killer it's not simply about applying the same thing (whatever it may be) to everyone.

    That said you make a good point. My support of capital punishment does not instantly follow a chain of logic starting with crime deserves punishment. It is admitadley a personal opinion that certain crimes deserve execution as punishment. But I was tackling this on a broader field of the far more worrying trend of people making the statement that punishment is not tied to justice when it must be.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    You conflate fair with equal treatment. Fairness had everything to do with people being treated how they deserve to be, and an innocent man deserves to be treated better than a serial killer it's not simply about applying the same thing (whatever it may be) to everyone
    Even by that definition, I don't see how fairness is necessarily a good thing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    Even by that definition, I don't see how fairness is necessarily a good thing.
    It's intrinsically good. People's actions being met with the right reward for them.

    I'm guessing you'd admit that good actions are deserving of good results. You save someone's life they (at the very least) thank you for it.

    Well it's exactly the same with bad actions.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    It's intrinsically good. People's actions being met with the right reward for them.

    I'm guessing you'd admit that good actions are deserving of good results. You save someone's life they (at the very least) thank you for it.

    Well it's exactly the same with bad actions.
    No, I think that we should aim not for fairness, but for maximum happyness. It doesn't matter if bad people have nice lives, so long as everyone has nice lives it's fine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The reaction in here proves exactly why the death penalty should be abolished on all forms - people are too emotional and get wound up by emotions too easily. The justice system should be entirely logical and emotions shouldn't play a part.

    Most of the people for death penalty always have arguments which appeal to emotions as opposed to logic.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr...)
    Even if this was a "more humane method" I agree with it because these people who took the life of an innocent person should be granted with a slow and painful death, not a quick bullet to put them out of their misery. :rant:
    Because that's a good way to run a civilized society! :facepalm:

    Doesn't really send a good message either, "murder is a terrible crime, which we can never condone and is evil!". "Oh, so whats my punishment", "we're going to murder you". The death penalty is just murder, and condoning torture and murder just makes you seem sadistic and not a whole lot different to those you want killed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by what is this)
    The reaction in here proves exactly why the death penalty should be abolished on all forms - people are too emotional and get wound up by emotions too easily. The justice system should be entirely logical and emotions shouldn't play a part.

    Most of the people for death penalty always have arguments which appeal to emotions as opposed to logic.
    Which is precisely why you leave capital punishment in the hands of an unemotional justice system, not why you abolish it entirely. If wet followed that logic to its conclusion we'd be saying that no punishment for crime is allowed at all because people are to emotional to fairly enforce it.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JG1233)
    Because that's a good way to run a civilized society! :facepalm:

    Doesn't really send a good message either, "murder is a terrible crime, which we can never condone and is evil!". "Oh, so whats my punishment", "we're going to murder you". The death penalty is just murder, and condoning torture and murder just makes you seem sadistic and not a whole lot different to those you want killed.
    I know it has its moral and ethical flaws because its justified murder but due to it being a popular "entertainment event" in that past it has grown to become a "good way" to deal with murderers. However isn't a life imprisonment a little lenient considering the prisoner kills themselves a lot of the time anyway.
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion I suppose...
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JG1233)
    Because that's a good way to run a civilized society! :facepalm:


    Doesn't really send a good message either, "murder is a terrible crime, which we can never condone and is evil!". "Oh, so whats my punishment", "we're going to murder you". The death penalty is just murder, and condoning torture and murder just makes you seem sadistic and not a whole lot different to those you want killed.


    Oh and might I add that I wasn't saying the death penalty was good in the post you originally quoted; I was saying that if a country is going to do it they might as well do it in a way that will make them suffer...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr...)
    I know it has its moral and ethical flaws because its justified murder but due to it being a popular "entertainment event" in that past it has grown to become a "good way" to deal with murderers. However isn't a life imprisonment a little lenient considering the prisoner kills themselves a lot of the time anyway.
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion I suppose...
    I don't see how in any way its become a good way to deal with murderers. Often states with the death penalty end up with higher murder rates than those without, so it doesn't clearly act as a big deterrent.

    Its more expensive to execute someone than to have them spend life in prison. There is a massive amount of appeals etc. a person can go through before being executed, meaning they usually spend over 10 years in prison before that anyway.

    There has been numerous people who have been executed, only to have been found innocent after their death. Once their dead their dead, its not like you can release and massively compensate them as if you had jailed them. Executing a innocent person is never worth the risk.

    Then you have the moral conflicts as you mentioned, so i fail to see how the death penalty is a "good way".

    (Original post by Mr...)
    Oh and might I add that I wasn't saying the death penalty was good in the post you originally quoted; I was saying that if a country is going to do it they might as well do it in a way that will make them suffer...
    Which as i already said makes you sound nothing more than sadistic, a trait common with a lot of those on death row coincidentally. You can't claim to be much better a person than a sadistic murderer if you then want to sadistically murder them, it makes you relatively similar. And i've already mentioned innocent people have and probably will continue to be executed, it just adds insult to injury if you torture them before that.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The death penalty is disgusting not necessarily because the convict doesn't deserve it, but because it's fundamentally wrong that a state can assume the right to murder its people.


    Sure most countries only use it for murder but some states use the death penalty for a crime where the victim wasn't even killed, and it's a slippery slope to the point where some rogue country could use the death penalty for some minor crime.



    Not only that but crimes are hard to conclusively prove and imho a lot of jurors are sadists who would be happy to sentence someone to death without much thought. Removing the entire practice makes a lot of sense.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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

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