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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the death penalty. No good comes from our species being around. The more we kill off, the better. Best start with the ones who want to kill others. Morals are no longer involved, in this day any age. The sooner the human rights law is eradicated the better. Some people should have no rights. Equality has failed.

    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    It a position that I just have. That is my justification. If you can change my opinion then great but right now, I only have one reaction.
    That's not justification; that's you admitting you don't have any justification Seriously, think about why you believe what you do. If you can't see any reason to believe it, it's irrational to believe it by the definition of rationality!


    What position do you suggest I hold then? Your one? Because I don't have a justification for that either.
    Well I'm not sure, unfortunately I don't have many answers. However, I think an ideal justice system would focus very much on the suffering of the population it manages. 'Retributive justice' (i.e. causing suffering to criminals for its own sake) would not feature, since it increases the net suffering for no consistent reason. Instead, important factors would be how we can protect the public from truly dangerous criminals, and how (or if) we can get other criminals to well, stop being criminals!

    I think I've provided some level of justification, but how far back should we go? We have to start somewhere, otherwise we'd end up in an infinite loop where the premises of every justification are hit with another request for justification. And so on.


    Anyway, I inputed, that's it. Why aren't you 'trying to open up a debate' with all the other people on this thread who don't hold your position? The person who suggested sending them to a rubbish island may like to argue with you. I can quote them in if you can't find them and you can have some banter with them.
    Do I have to? I responded to your post in particular because I got a notification from that page and thought what you said was interesting. I haven't read this whole thread, and I don't intend to - I wouldn't get anything else done!

    If you don't want to have a discussion that is 100% okay and no one will judge you for it (or I won't, at least). But I don't think it's reasonable to make out that the people questioning you on your position are somehow being rude or unfair for doing so.


    Also, how is telling someone to get on a plane any way to open up a debate or respons to someone 'in a justified way'.
    I don't know who said that but it doesn't sound very constructive, no! :holmes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    That's not justification; that's you admitting you don't have any justification Seriously, think about why you believe what you do. If you can't see any reason to believe it, it's irrational to believe it by the definition of rationality!




    Well I'm not sure, unfortunately I don't have many answers. However, I think an ideal justice system would focus very much on the suffering of the population it manages. 'Retributive justice' (i.e. causing suffering to criminals for its own sake) would not feature, since it increases the net suffering for no consistent reason. Instead, important factors would be how we can protect the public from truly dangerous criminals, and how (or if) we can get other criminals to well, stop being criminals!

    I think I've provided some level of justification, but how far back should we go? We have to start somewhere, otherwise we'd end up in an infinite loop where the premises of every justification are hit with another request for justification. And so on.




    Do I have to? I responded to your post in particular because I got a notification from that page and thought what you said was interesting. I haven't read this whole thread, and I don't intend to - I wouldn't get anything else done!

    If you don't want to have a discussion that is 100% okay and no one will judge you for it (or I won't, at least). But I don't think it's reasonable to make out that the people questioning you on your position are somehow being rude or unfair for doing so.




    I don't know who said that but it doesn't sound very constructive, no! :holmes:
    I will hold my position because I can't justify another one to be better from my point of view.

    I never said they were. I just have better things to do right now like worry about more important things. Anyone who has strong views would be better off arguing them to someone else who preferably cares more. They'll gain more from it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    No. You can never be entirely certain that you're not making a mistake. Ever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlueSam3)
    No. You can never be entirely certain that you're not making a mistake. Ever.
    Can be said about anything in life.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I have no issue with evil scum being killed, honestly guys, not one part of my heart dies, I don't cry myself to sleep, I don't feel the loss of a human life, it does not touch me in the soul, I don't expect you guys to understand.


    (Original post by Matrix123)
    Nope - I don't think the death penalty is right:no:

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    (Original post by QueenBee98)
    I personally believe it's wrong - wouldn't killing someone as a punishment for killing someone else make us just as bad as they are???

    I think they should be left in prison for the rest of their lives and made to feel the guilt and anguish that they have caused.

    but that's just me :laugh:

    (Original post by senpaipoppy)
    Nope - I think it's wrong. It isn't just and fair to kill someone, it doesn't bring closure to the victim's family, it pretty much doesn't do anything it's meant to do

    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    No. It's immoral, hypocritical, exorbitantly expensive, and ineffective at what it's supposed to do.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackHorseRoad)
    Can be said about anything in life.
    But usually, the stakes aren't you intentionally killing an innocent person.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Nope. To commit a crime to punish crime is the most hypocritical thing I've ever heard. Plus it tells children that revenge is okay, which is wrong. It doesn't deter people and just leads to more extreme and disgusting crime being committed, due to the fact that people now have to cover up their crimes to live.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not totally opposed to the idea of the death penalty for extreme cases, genocide for example (such as the Nazis after the Second World War), but I wouldn't support it for crimes like murder.
    I'd be happy enough if life actually meant life & prisons weren't so cushy. It sounds like prisoners almost run the prisons themselves due to corruption & drug/phone smuggling.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Omen96)
    I have no issue with evil scum being killed, honestly guys, not one part of my heart dies, I don't cry myself to sleep, I don't feel the loss of a human life, it does not touch me in the soul, I don't expect you guys to understand.
    0/10
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    'Causing distress to the criminals family' is not sufficient. If someone is a serial killer and/or rapist, are the family going to want to have anything to do with such a person?

    When it came out about Saville the family trashed the gravestone in disgust.


    I think the death penalty should be allowed, but reserved for only the very worst criminals, such as serial killers/rapists/paedophiles. People who are unable to be reformed. Such crimes would have to be proved beyond all doubt, so innocents aren't mistakenly executed.

    In the instance of a single murder the criminal should be given life imprisonment (meaning life!).

    As for those who are trotting out the money claim, this too is insufficient. If a government was so inclined, they could orchestrate the assassination of those to be put to death, without handing out a death sentence publicly. Cheaper than the legal quagmire of death row appeals. Admittedly this is an extreme scenario, but certainly possible.
    Or more realistically, possibly create an act/bill/law (I'm not an expert...) that states a person gives up their human rights when found guilty of murder, and cannot appeal, making executions a whole lot cheaper. Something like that anyway.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by muslimstanisyed)
    You are soft thats why.
    If someone nonced off your daughter you would probably do nothing about it
    1. I don't have a daughter
    2. Sentencing is not decided on by emotionally involved parties because they can't make rational judgements. The courts make objective decisions.

    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    Look mate. He stated his opinion and that's it. Whilst you may not appreciate his opinion, it was not directed at you and you had no reason to reply like a ****. This thread is asking for opinions and this person didn't try to start a debate with you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah he stated his opinion and if someone has a ridiculous opinion I'll call them out on it. Besides, what I said is true; Saudi Arabia execute for those crimes so I thought he'd feel more at home there.

    (Original post by LifeIsAnIllusion)
    'Causing distress to the criminals family' is not sufficient. If someone is a serial killer and/or rapist, are the family going to want to have anything to do with such a person?
    It's idea of unconditional love, parents will generally love their children no matter what they do.?

    (Original post by LifeIsAnIllusion)
    I think the death penalty should be allowed, but reserved for only the very worst criminals, such as serial killers/rapists/paedophiles. People who are unable to be reformed. Such crimes would have to be proved beyond all doubt, so innocents aren't mistakenly executed.
    1. How do you know you can't reform a serial murderer or rapist?
    2. You can't prove anything 'beyond all doubt' - if we bring back capital punishment, innocent people will die.

    (Original post by LifeIsAnIllusion)
    In the instance of a single murder the criminal should be given life imprisonment (meaning life!).
    This another example of you demonstrating a lack of understanding of the purpose of the justice system. It's there to rehabilitate; if you tell someone they're never leaving prison how do you think that's going to rehabilitate them.

    (Original post by LifeIsAnIllusion)
    As for those who are trotting out the money claim, this too is insufficient. If a government was so inclined, they could orchestrate the assassination of those to be put to death, without handing out a death sentence publicly. Cheaper than the legal quagmire of death row appeals. Admittedly this is an extreme scenario, but certainly possible.
    Or more realistically, possibly create an act/bill/law (I'm not an expert...) that states a person gives up their human rights when found guilty of murder, and cannot appeal, making executions a whole lot cheaper. Something like that anyway.
    This is possibility the most ridiculous proposal I've ever heard. Yes the government could have people killed but we have courts for a reason, they decide on sentencing not the government. It really isn't possible, we live in a western democracy not Saddam's Iraq.

    You're not legally educated so I'm not going to get into why such an act couldn't and wouldn't happen but it couldn't and wouldn't happen.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    1. I don't have a daughter
    2. Sentencing is not decided on by emotionally involved parties because they can't make rational judgements. The courts make objective decisions.



    Yeah he stated his opinion and if someone has a ridiculous opinion I'll call them out on it. Besides, what I said is true; Saudi Arabia execute for those crimes so I thought he'd feel more at home there.



    It's idea of unconditional love, parents will generally love their children no matter what they do.?



    1. How do you know you can reform a serial murderer or rapist?
    2. You can't prove anything 'beyond all doubt' - if we bring back capital punishment, innocent people will die.



    This another example of you demonstrating a lack of understanding of the purpose of the justice system. It's there to rehabilitate; if you tell someone they're never leaving prison how do you think that's going to rehabilitate them.



    This is possibility the most ridiculous proposal I've ever heard. Yes the government could have people killed but we have courts for a reason, they decide on sentencing not the government. It really isn't possible, we live in a western democracy not Saddam's Iraq.

    You're not legally educated so I'm not going to get into why such an act couldn't and wouldn't happen but it couldn't and wouldn't happen.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Glad you're never gonna be in charge
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    0/10
    I don't understand, I meant every word? I honestly don't give a **** if a criminal was killed, why is this hard to believe?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsAnIllusion)

    . Such crimes would have to be proved beyond all doubt, so innocents aren't mistakenly executed.
    Well, the entire point is that you send people to when it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm against the death penalty, but for epistemic reasons rather than believing in the intrinsic sanctity of life or anything like that. In theory, I'd say that the death penalty ought to be used when a) a crime has been committed; b) there is no chance of rehabilitation and reintroduction to society; c) the criminal's existence in society would create further detriment to society; d) the criminal cannot themselves expect to have exceptional quality of life within the confines of that which the goals of protection of society and deterrence permit; and e) using the death penalty does not in this particular case create large other social costs, financial or otherwise.

    The problem is two-fold: first, stating that a) is true is quite a stretch for any given crime purported to have been committed (of course, a 'guilty' verdict being, at least to some extent, a legal fiction of certainty); and second, it is almost impossible to measure social impact of various outcomes in the ways necessary for b) - e).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackHorseRoad)
    Glad you're never gonna be in charge
    Why's that?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Why's that?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Sure.

    If someone murders 100 people and there is video footage of it then you can hardly give a false verdict imo. I guess the law would have to be very strict and say it only applies if the person can be 100% proven guilty.

    Or maybe give the public the vote on whether someone should get the death penalty, democracy and all.

    Although saying that, treating evil with evil it not necessarily the best way forward. Maybe it is better to focus on rehabilitating the people so they can leave prison and one day be "normal".
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackHorseRoad)
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    You know, quoting inaccurate adages doesn't suddenly become a valid argument because they're Latin.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.