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

B879 - Capital Punishment Bill 2015 watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    A dead man no longer cares…
    Such an infantile flippant remark.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    But can that excuse the one mishappening? Just a thing to ponder on, as I can think of arguments for and against.
    Yes. By the logic of "once we dun goofed so we shouldn't do it" we would have world peace in an instant, well, our enemies would hold free reign over our land. We would have no police force. We would have no justice system. We would have, well actually we would probably be living in a cave at best, and probably not even that because once we picked a bad cave so we can't go into a cave again.

    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Morally, I don't agree with the death penalty, the risk of error is too high.

    More importantly, studies found that instilling the death penalty DOES NOT act as a deterrent, and the cost of an execution comes out more expensive than regular imprisonment.

    Also, death penalty for attempted murder? Really?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why is the risk of error any higher than with other forms of penalty, and why should there be any greater scrutiny for this?

    Do we have a citation for it not being a deterrent, because that runs contrary to all logic, and as for it costing more, that wouldn't be the case with the proposed system since that figure comes from the US where, IIRC, you have three stages of appeal and something like 10 years on death row, not 1 appeal and 6 months.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The point of a justice system isn't retribution. Retributivism is barbaric*.

    The point of a justice system can be any or all of rehabilitation, deterrence, protection of the public, repayment to the community, etc etc.

    *going to note that this is my opinion, and there are valid (but incorrect IMO) arguments against it.

    While I don't believe in the sanctity of life, I still don't see anything good about the death penalty. Nay.
    Well, given your approach you can immediately strike deterrence off the list, protection of the public inherently requires some form of isolation which is at least partly retibutive, and repayment to the community is also called state mandated slavery.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    "It's fine to kill innocent people as dead people can't kick up a fuss!"


    The TSR conservative party ladies and gentlemen.
    "We don't believe in a justice system"

    Half the rest of the MHoC
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    X

    My stance is almost purely moral, though I do have logic and stats on my side. A man kills someone, they are tried with the maximum penalty being death, 12 jurors have to decide this person's fate knowing it could lead to his death, so they reach a guilty verdict and the judge then sentences the man to death, you've effectively made killers of 13 people, be it (in your opinion) just or otherwise. An innocent is killed, that's state sponsored manslaughter.

    Then we get into the actual logic of the bill, At least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent, that's with 10 years on death row and 3 stages of appeal. Considering this is only 6 months and one appeal we can expect in Britain that the rate of innocents killed would be much higher. As others have mentioned peadophilia isn't even crime, it's a little messed up but as long as they don't actually touch any kids they should be fine.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)

    My stance is almost purely moral, though I do have logic and stats on my side. A man kills someone, they are tried with the maximum penalty being death, 12 jurors have to decide this person's fate knowing it could lead to his death, so they reach a guilty verdict and the judge then sentences the man to death, you've effectively made killers of 13 people, be it (in your opinion) just or otherwise. An innocent is killed, that's state sponsored manslaughter.

    Then we get into the actual logic of the bill,At least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent, that's with 10 years on death row and 3 stages of appeal. Considering this is only 6 months and one appeal we can expect in Britain that the rate of innocents killed would be much higher. As others have mentioned peadophilia isn't even crime, it's a little messed up but as long as they don't actually touch any kids they should be fine.
    That logic makes most of the 2003 Parliament killers, and one could argue everybody that voted for any party that supports action in Syria, so you have just accused me of being a killer, along with a large number of other members of his house.

    And we have there 4.1% being falsely executed. What is the alternative for them? Life without parole, so what does not killing them achieve? Well, you won't actually get savings since the legal proceedings are where most of the cost come from, but that's irrelevant, what you do is exert them to decades of their life locked up behind bars, I imagine in high security prisons which is clearly suddenly the right thing(!)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Paedophiles for merely being paedophiles, or paedophiles who have committed a crime against children with the motive of paedophilia?
    Paedophiles who have actively "interfered" shall we say with children. Having thoughts however, should not, they should however come forward and seek help without fear of punishment.

    Acting on such fantasies is abhorrent, and once they've gone that far no amount of therapy will help them. Those who don't respond to therapy, whether they've committed such interferences or not, should be chemically castrated to remove the risk alltogether.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That logic makes most of the 2003 Parliament killers, and one could argue everybody that voted for any party that supports action in Syria, so you have just accused me of being a killer, along with a large number of other members of his house.
    It's more of an opinion than an accusation, and I'm not exactly a pacifist. In 2003 we were taken to war based on either a lie or severe misinformation (depending on chilcot of course), so as long as the war could be justified with transparency and accountability then it's a different case entirely. I somewhat support action in Syria, but that would be in aiding the syrian free army with supplies and perhaps even troops, as they are fighting both ISIS and assad at the moment. More to the point though, juries aren't elected, people don't stand for jury, they are placed on one. A politician knows what he's getting into whereas any one of us could be called up for jury service.

    And we have there 4.1% being falsely executed. What is the alternative for them? Life without parole, so what does not killing them achieve? Well, you won't actually get savings since the legal proceedings are where most of the cost come from, but that's irrelevant, what you do is exert them to decades of their life locked up behind bars, I imagine in high security prisons which is clearly suddenly the right thing(!)
    The difference is time, someone behind bars for life has a lifetime to get out. This bill would mean that one would only get 6 months, and only 1 appeal. New evidence for crimes committed years ago are found every single day.

    But I don't want to get into the whole "what if they're innocent" thing, because that one argument should be enough to keep the death penalty dead and buried for the rest of time.

    Some crimes are so heinous that a quick painless death would not suffice, do you know what happens to child molesters in prison? It's absolutely horrific. I think we need to reform our prison system, but in the complete opposite of what this bill intends.

    Keeping someone locked up for 50 years is preferable to killing them in absolutely every way. The state should never have the power to kill its own citizens. And as I said, that 50 years is potential for new evidence to be found.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I'll use that excuse in my next murder trial. Oh, and by the way, for any innocent that's killed, it's state sponsored manslaughter.
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    "It's fine to kill innocent people as dead people can't kick up a fuss!"

    The TSR conservative party ladies and gentlemen.
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    Such an infantile flippant remark.
    Let me ask you what's worse from the point of a person wrongly convicted of a crime otherwise punishable by death: a) spend the whole life in prison, constantly worrying about the injustice, potentially facing other prisoners' attacks (especially child molesters), or b) an unfair, yet swift and painless death. Thousands of people die in worse conditions every day – of course, if it can be prevented, let's do it, but don't act like it's the greatest tragedy ever.

    Maybe if you human right activists realised that life doesn't represent the ultimate value regardless of its form as long as it's human, maybe we could move somewhere better…

    Also stick your misinterpretations up your tingling *********, will you? I wasn't suggesting that to be an excuse for killing someone nor was I speaking for the whole party. As for infantile remarks, look at your whining. It's easy to care for murderers and criticise soldiers from behind the keyboard when you're completely dissociated from the reality but mark my words, your opinions would completely change if you went out there.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Let me ask you what's worse from the point of a person wrongly convicted of a crime otherwise punishable by death: a) spend the whole life in prison, constantly worrying about the injustice, potentially facing other prisoners' attacks (especially child molesters), or b) an unfair, yet swift and painless death. Thousands of people die in worse conditions every day – of course, if it can be prevented, let's do it, but don't act like it's the greatest tragedy ever.
    What separates us from the stalinist and fascist regimes in the world if we kill our own civilians in their innocence?

    Spending a whole life behind bars in innocence would at least mean that in the event that they are found innocent they'd be alive to live the rest of their life. Why should the state deny a person their life? In the USA where at least 4.1% of all death row inmates are innocent, and yet they continue with it. Nobody said that this is the greatest tragedy ever, but it's a tragedy nonetheless. You mention all the worse things going on in the world but make no attempt to tackle them, instead you say "it could be worse" and advocate adding to the tragedy. And this is coming from yourself, a person attempting to be Prime minister.

    Maybe if you human right activist clowns realised that life doesn't represent ultimate value regardless of its form as long as it's human, maybe we could move somewhere better…

    Also stick your misinterpretations up your tingling ********s, will you? I wasn't suggesting that to be an excuse for killing someone nor was I speaking for the whole party. As for infantile remarks, look at your whining. It's easy to care for murderers and criticise soldiers from behind the keyboard when you're completely dissociated from the reality but mark my words, your opinions would completely change if you went out there.
    I do not care for murderers, nor have I ever criticized a soldier.

    The death penalty is regressive and it doesn't work. In fact, the form that the death penalty takes in this bill is perhaps the cruelest of any democracy in recent years. It's easy for you to call me whiny and say that I am dissociated from reality from behind your keyboard, but right now it's you that's coming across whiny in all honesty.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Let me ask you what's worse from the point of a person wrongly convicted of a crime otherwise punishable by death: a) spend the whole life in prison, constantly worrying about the injustice, potentially facing other prisoners' attacks (especially child molesters), or b) an unfair, yet swift and painless death. Thousands of people die in worse conditions every day – of course, if it can be prevented, let's do it, but don't act like it's the greatest tragedy ever.

    Maybe if you human right activist clowns realised that life doesn't represent the ultimate value regardless of its form as long as it's human, maybe we could move somewhere better…

    Also stick your misinterpretations up your tingling ********s, will you? I wasn't suggesting that to be an excuse for killing someone nor was I speaking for the whole party. As for infantile remarks, look at your whining. It's easy to care for murderers and criticise soldiers from behind the keyboard when you're completely dissociated from the reality but mark my words, your opinions would completely change if you went out there.
    You're the leader and you represent the party; so you should expect the comments you make to reflect on the whole pary.

    I have the utmost respect for soldiers. I don't care for murderers, I'd rather they served a long jail sentence, for the cheapest amount of money possible, so they have many many many hours of mind numbing boredom to think over what they did.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Let me ask you what's worse from the point of a person wrongly convicted of a crime otherwise punishable by death: a) spend the whole life in prison, constantly worrying about the injustice, potentially facing other prisoners' attacks (especially child molesters), or b) an unfair, yet swift and painless death. Thousands of people die in worse conditions every day – of course, if it can be prevented, let's do it, but don't act like it's the greatest tragedy ever.

    Maybe if you human right activist clowns realised that life doesn't represent the ultimate value regardless of its form as long as it's human, maybe we could move somewhere better…

    Also stick your misinterpretations up your tingling ********s, will you? I wasn't suggesting that to be an excuse for killing someone nor was I speaking for the whole party. As for infantile remarks, look at your whining. It's easy to care for murderers and criticise soldiers from behind the keyboard when you're completely dissociated from the reality but mark my words, your opinions would completely change if you went out there.
    In order to minimise murdering innocent people, a 'swift' death isn't possible. In the US the average time spent on death row is 15 years. Though that probably doesn't matter as dead people don't care, so we can take them straight from court to the gallows. It hardly matters if half of them are innocent, not the biggest tragedy in the world as you say.

    I'm not misinterpreting anything, and I do live in the real world thanks. Perhaps it takes a more mature character than your good self to recognise what the real world is.



    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    "We don't believe in a justice system"

    Half the rest of the MHoC

    Sure we do, just not ones conjured up on the bag of a fag packet.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    In order to minimise murdering innocent people, a 'swift' death isn't possible. In the US the average time spent on death row is 15 years. Though that probably doesn't matter as dead people don't care, so we can take them straight from court to the gallows. It hardly matters if half of them are innocent, not the biggest tragedy in the world as you say.

    I'm not misinterpreting anything, and I do live in the real world thanks. Perhaps it takes a more mature character than your good self to recognise what the real world is.






    Sure we do, just not ones conjured up on the bag of a fag packet.
    So the liberal and Labour members disagreeing with the concept that two wrings make a right weren't actually disagreeing with the idea that two wrongs make a right?

    And the amount of time on death row in the US would be irelevant to the bill, unless the average appeal were 15 years long the time on death row would be a lot shorter under this bill
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And the amount of time on death row in the US would be irelevant to the bill, unless the average appeal were 15 years long the time on death row would be a lot shorter under this bill
    Which would mean a lot more innocents killed.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Which would mean a lot more innocents killed.
    Which is irrelevant to the point of swiftness.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which is irrelevant to the point of swiftness.
    Not at all. If you say we can do it quicker, it's my job in opposition of this bill to mention the consequences of this "swiftness".
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    The fact it took several pages for somebody to correctly address the meaning of paedophilia saddens me.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Not at all. If you say we can do it quicker, it's my job in opposition of this bill to mention the consequences of this "swiftness".
    Whether you feel it is necessary to mention the consequences or not, it is still irrelevant given that it was being stated that death row in america is 15 years average, a useless piece of information, about as useful as stating that FDR winning four presidential elections is the reason for the 22nd Amendment, it is totally valueless because the bill quite explicitly states 6 months (not including appeal time)
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    The fact it took several pages for somebody to correctly address the meaning of paedophilia saddens me.
    I couldn't agree more.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Whether you feel it is necessary to mention the consequences or not, it is still irrelevant given that it was being stated that death row in america is 15 years average, a useless piece of information, about as useful as stating that FDR winning four presidential elections is the reason for the 22nd Amendment, it is totally valueless because the bill quite explicitly states 6 months (not including appeal time)
    Dave mentioned the 15 years saying that even despite such a long time innocents are still killed, to which you said that we would do it quicker. I said that would mean even more innocents killed. The only one saying anything irrelevant is yourself.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Well, given your approach you can immediately strike deterrence off the list, protection of the public inherently requires some form of isolation which is at least partly retibutive, and repayment to the community is also called state mandated slavery.
    I don't see your point as regards deterrence. I'm all for criminal justice, I just don't think any additional value is served by punishing people more than the bare minimum required to achieve legitimate aims. Your second point also indicates you have very little concept of what retributivism is. The fact that a punishment causes suffering to the punishment does not, in itself, make it retributive. A retributivist believes that there is intrinsic value in the suffering of the guilty over and above the instrumental values served by these other goals; I feel quite strongly opposed to this point of view.

    I don't oppose 'state mandated slavery'. Peoples' liberty is overrated and I think expansion of the powers of the state to intrude into citizens lives would be a good thing if instrumentally justified. I'm quite an iconoclast in my party for holding these beliefs.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 7, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.