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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    If a serial murder is jailed at the age of say 21, they'd require food/bedding/clothes/water for 60+ years. Factor in people serving 5/10/15 years for lesser crimes.

    I think that both methods are probably fairly equal in expenses so I'm not sure that it's costs are worth mentioning
    The costs are definitely worth mentioning. If executing people would be significantly cheaper you may have at least a reasonable argument but executing people is significantly more expensive and offers no benefit to society


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by cuppa)
    I see what you mean. If we didn't convict people for stealing a TV once and just put them through a bit of rehab, same with drug users (rather than dealers), a lot spaces would open up I'd imagine.

    As I mentioned above the legal workings of death penalty are expansive so if it was done a lot the prices would truly build up. And if the legal workings did not exist the state would have the right to kill whoever they want basically, which includes the innocent people you mentioned and more.
    I more see it with major offenders rather than those committing minor crimes. Performing it on people who steal something like a TV is a bit ridiculous, a TV isn't worth someone's life. However with a serial killer the person has ended several people's lives and they need to be put in a high security prison and when they are released (if they manage to be) they will do it again and end another persons life. Same with rapists though they have more destroyed someone's life and possibly several other peoples.

    If a serious offender has hard evidence against them it wouldn't be as difficult to sentence them to death. My main issue is when someone innocent is convicted in the case of either A) there's a lot of evidence against them yet they didn't do it, or B) it was intentional to send said person to this sentence either by corruption or just to say that they caught someone, then an innocent persons life has just been ended.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Why do people on the internet ask for evidence all the time, it's very patronising. It's just an opinion...we're all discussing opinion, remember? I don't need to post links to prove an opinion. I feel they can't be, alright?

    Anyway serial killers are sociopaths mostly. Not psychopaths. Psycopaths are classified as not knowing what they did wrong, and normally say they killed because a nonexistent person told them to, or they were emotionally over the edge during the murder, and they normally do it once. Most serial killers are seen as sociopaths because they carefully plan each murder, murder em the same way usually, the same types of people usually, in the same place usually, and then try to bury the evidence, and upon being tried, they brag or show no remorse. Psychopaths are seen as those who were otherwise normal good reasonable people but "snapped." So serial killers cannot be rehabilitated I feel because they knew what they did and don't care. And kidnappers are also sociopaths a lot of the time.
    As for terrorists, they made a plan and decision to do what they did.

    Elivercury as you said martyrs I believe. If they did it for religion then I doubt they'll get counseled out of it but there are many different types of terrorists, not just Muslim ones you know. The ones who shoot up places because they were angry that day, maybe they can get help but the planning, the level of cruelty, I doubt it. And that's why they're sent to Gauntanamo, because they're the worst of the worst.
    There are more terrorists than Muslims (I mean look at the IRA). Typically terrorists tend to belong to a cause and that is usually a religious cause. If someone shoots up a place because they were angry, surely they're not a terrorist they are a mentally unstable serial killer/mass murderer?

    Incidentally, I'm unsure you know what a psychopath is. It is someone who lacks empathy and guilt, not necessarily someone who has "snapped". Whether they know what they did was right or wrong is another matter. I'm unsure if being a sociopath and psychopath are necessarily mutually exclusive either.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    The costs are definitely worth mentioning. If executing people would be significantly cheaper you may have at least a reasonable argument but executing people is significantly more expensive and offers no benefit to society


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I admit I'm unedcuated on the costs but why do people keep saying that it doesn't benefit society? You are removing a serial killer and preventing them from committing the same crime forever. How is that not protecting the public as opposed to the current system where they are released after some years ?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    True, the restrictions that make it difficult to get a job, aid etc. heavily contribute to reoffending rates as they can be left with few options. It's a difficult one.

    Regarding your kidnapping & torture post below, surely the torture is the primary part here rather then the kidnapping? Or are you suggesting they kidnapped them so others could torture? In this circumstance I agree, they all share the blame and should receive severe sentences.
    Yes I believe they should get murder for torturing, there was one woman in US who caged her daughter away in a room and beat her, starved her, urinated on her, didn't let her wear clothes, didn't let0 her bathe, leave the room, etc and the girl eventually died. The mother was seen as so cruel but not a psychopath because she carried it on so long and didn't show remorse so was given death and I'm not sure if it was pardoned. Whereas Japan a teenage girl was kidnapped, tortured in ways I don't even wanna recall, gangraped by like 100 men who were let in for weeks, burned, starved, sodomised, etc and died, and the men got like a couple yrs. including the main kidnapper whose home she was in the whole time :\ I feel they are so sick and should be given lifetime in jail if not death. Like they knew she was so gravely beaten and stuff.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I admit I'm unedcuated on the costs but why do people keep saying that it doesn't benefit society? You are removing a serial killer and preventing them from committing the same crime forever. How is that not protecting the public as opposed to the current system where they are released after some years ?
    Again, why do they have to be released after some years? The discussion is about the ideal methods of preventing crime, you state that removing them from the population permanently is superior to doing it temporarily. Okay, fine, why do it with death when you can just lock them up for longer/indefinitely?

    As clearly stated, it offers cost advantages and achieves the exact same result, so why do you feel the death penalty is superior?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I admit I'm unedcuated on the costs but why do people keep saying that it doesn't benefit society? You are removing a serial killer and preventing them from committing the same crime forever. How is that not protecting the public as opposed to the current system where they are released after some years ?
    Does imprisoning them for the rest of their life not also protect society? Does trying to reform them into functioning members of society not help society as a whole?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    There are more terrorists than Muslims (I mean look at the IRA). Typically terrorists tend to belong to a cause and that is usually a religious cause. If someone shoots up a place because they were angry, surely they're not a terrorist they are a mentally unstable serial killer/mass murderer?

    Incidentally, I'm unsure you know what a psychopath is. It is someone who lacks empathy and guilt, not necessarily someone who has "snapped". Whether they know what they did was right or wrong is another matter. I'm unsure if being a sociopath and psychopath are necessarily mutually exclusive either.
    No sociopaths are the ones who lack empathy and guilt. Psychopaths are the ones who have snapped. They don't realise what they've done, which is why they're not remorseful. Sociopaths know what they've done and still are not remorseful. I already said to you as well that I don't mean Muslim terrorists, did you see me say that?

    Yes exactly a religious cause, as I said. Maybe we should stick to one post at a time because I'm getting annoyed like you're blatantly ignoring what I wrote when you probably just haven't seen it yet. Anyway as it's a religious cause it'll be hard to as I said counsel them out of their beliefs. It's a cause, not just a bad day they were having.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Again, why do they have to be released after some years? The discussion is about the ideal methods of preventing crime, you state that removing them from the population permanently is superior to doing it temporarily. Okay, fine, why do it with death when you can just lock them up for longer/indefinitely?

    As clearly stated, it offers cost advantages and achieves the exact same result, so why do you feel the death penalty is superior?
    I was referring to the current system vs death penalty. People keep saying that the death penalty doesn't protect anyone, I don't understand how that can be true when you there have been interviews with serial killers who've openly admitted that they would kill again. Now, it they were to be in jail forever then I could get on board with that but sometimes they kill their cell mates or prison officers just to release the feeling of wanting to kill again. In my opinion, such people should be given the death penalty
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by SargentZenj2)
    Do you think we should have it in the UK?
    Serving a prison term in the UK is like taking a holiday. Capital punishment should be brought back and caning on the buttocks should be introduced as well. Both of these serves as a deterrent. This will inculcate discipline in people and the bigger picture is that with a well-behaved society, this will eradicate the dismal impression people from around the world have of the English.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Again, why do they have to be released after some years? The discussion is about the ideal methods of preventing crime, you state that removing them from the population permanently is superior to doing it temporarily. Okay, fine, why do it with death when you can just lock them up for longer/indefinitely?

    As clearly stated, it offers cost advantages and achieves the exact same result, so why do you feel the death penalty is superior?
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Does imprisoning them for the rest of their life not also protect society? Does trying to reform them into functioning members of society not help society as a whole? Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yea rehab and lengthy sentencing for the win.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Does imprisoning them for the rest of their life not also protect society? Does trying to reform them into functioning members of society not help society as a whole?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes, prison for the rest of their life may protect society only if they don't end up killing their prison officers. I don't believe that they can be reformed though and they should never be released, and if I were to choose between the current system and the death penalty, I'd choose the latter every time.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    Serving a prison term in the UK is like taking a holiday. Capital punishment should be brought back and caning on the buttocks should be introduced as well. Both of these serves as a deterrent. This will inculcate discipline in people and the bigger picture is that with a well-behaved society, this will eradicate the dismal impression people from around the world have of the English.
    Easy for you to say. Ever been banged up?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    No sociopaths are the ones who lack empathy and guilt. Psychopaths are the ones who have snapped. They don't realise what they've done, which is why they're not remorseful. Sociopaths know what they've done and still are not remorseful. I already said to you as well that I don't mean Muslim terrorists, did you see me say that?

    Yes exactly a religious cause, as I said. Maybe we should stick to one post at a time because I'm getting annoyed like you're blatantly ignoring what I wrote when you probably just haven't seen it yet. Anyway as it's a religious cause it'll be hard to as I said counsel them out of their beliefs. It's a cause, not just a bad day they were having.
    From Wikipedia: Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/), also known as—though sometimes differentiated from—sociopathy (/soʊsiˈɒpəθi/), is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy andremorse, and disinhibited or bold
    behavior.

    I'm not stating all terrorists have to be Muslim, as previously stated the IRA was around long before 9/11 etc. However you stated a guy just shoots up a bar because he's angry, I don't see how this is a terrorist? A terrorist is someone who aims to promote and enforce their cause through the medium of terror, therefore you need a cause to be a terrorist - which is typically but not always religious. Just shooting some people simply makes you a nutter with a gun. As you say, you won't get them to give up their beliefs, but you can still lock them up and throw away the key. No need to kill them.

    Which points do you feel I have missed/ignored?

    If you're referring to the example you gave with the women who were imprisoned and abused, I agree it's sick and the Japanese result was offensive in how limited it was. But I've not really got anything further to add to it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I was referring to the current system vs death penalty. People keep saying that the death penalty doesn't protect anyone, I don't understand how that can be true when you there have been interviews with serial killers who've openly admitted that they would kill again. Now, it they were to be in jail forever then I could get on board with that but sometimes they kill their cell mates or prison officers just to release the feeling of wanting to kill again. In my opinion, such people should be given the death penalty
    We do have life imprisonment here. As in actual life imprisonment. It's just very difficult to get it.

    Given serial killers will be placed in prisons with other murderers, surely you consider them killing another inmate as a win?

    Incidentally, any crimes they commit in prison will increase their sentence. Just look at Bronson who went in for a minor offense to serve like 3 years and has been there for 30+ due to their behaviour/crimes inside prison.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    Serving a prison term in the UK is like taking a holiday. Capital punishment should be brought back and caning on the buttocks should be introduced as well. Both of these serves as a deterrent. This will inculcate discipline in people and the bigger picture is that with a well-behaved society, this will eradicate the dismal impression people from around the world have of the English.
    America has the highest incarceration rate in the civilised world. How exactly has the death penalty acted as a deterrent there?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    We do have life imprisonment here. As in actual life imprisonment. It's just very difficult to get it.

    Given serial killers will be placed in prisons with other murderers, surely you consider them killing another inmate as a win?

    Incidentally, any crimes they commit in prison will increase their sentence. Just look at Bronson who went in for a minor offense to serve like 3 years and has been there for 30+ due to their behaviour/crimes inside prison.
    No because some murderers are truly remorseful for their actions. In those cases, I don't believe they should be subjected to die.

    It's a rare occurrence here though. Like I said, if life really meant life then I'd get on board with it
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    From Wikipedia: Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/), also known as—though sometimes differentiated from—sociopathy (/soʊsiˈɒpəθi/), is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy andremorse, and disinhibited or bold
    behavior.

    I'm not stating all terrorists have to be Muslim, as previously stated the IRA was around long before 9/11 etc. However you stated a guy just shoots up a bar because he's angry, I don't see how this is a terrorist? A terrorist is someone who aims to promote and enforce their cause through the medium of terror, therefore you need a cause to be a terrorist - which is typically but not always religious. Just shooting some people simply makes you a nutter with a gun. As you say, you won't get them to give up their beliefs, but you can still lock them up and throw away the key. No need to kill them.

    Which points do you feel I have missed/ignored?

    If you're referring to the example you gave with the women who were imprisoned and abused, I agree it's sick and the Japanese result was offensive in how limited it was. But I've not really got anything further to add to it.
    You looked up psychopathy. Now look up sociopathy. I already said psychopaths have little sympathy but said it's because they didn't reaise what they did.

    Also wikipedia is a collage of editors from other sites. Go to a medical website and look up sociopathy. I know what I'm talking about.

    Anyway anytime someone repeats something to me I've already mentioned as if I didn't mention it is what says to me, you're deliberately ignoring. Not saying you did, the rest of the sentence was that maybe you didn't even see the post.

    because like I said martyrs kill because they have a cause. So it's certainly less likely an emotional reason that needs to be corrected. It's their right to a belief as wrong as it is that led them to kill for their religion. As opposed to angry people who kill, who probably just need to be talked down and get therapy. Sort out their issues. Right. As I said they're normally, the terrorists who don't off themselves, are put in Guantanamo Bay because they're so bad. They're not necessarily killed, people have been freed from the Bay because it's a US judicial system and in the US system you have a right to be tried to court. So sometimes they get off. But as for the ones who are domestic terrorists and go on mass homicide rages, they in my eyes, should be sentenced for life with no chance of getting out no matter how much people cry for justice on social media and the lot. But IF the cap punishment is brought, then I think and it's my right to think this, they should be the ones getting sent. Until then, lifers. Pedos can be rehabilitated because I feel it's a mental disorder so. But give them lengthy times because they get out in no time usually. With no rehab.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    No because some murderers are truly remorseful for their actions. In those cases, I don't believe they should be subjected to die.

    It's a rare occurrence here though. Like I said, if life really meant life then I'd get on board with it
    We rarely get serial killers here either, however. And if we do, they tend to end up shot rather than imprisoned.

    I do feel you have a point RE their danger to prison guards, however the prison guards should be suitable qualified to deal with them and they do get paid to do the job knowing the dangers. There are plenty of jobs which attract "danger money"
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Yes, prison for the rest of their life may protect society only if they don't end up killing their prison officers. I don't believe that they can be reformed though and they should never be released, and if I were to choose between the current system and the death penalty, I'd choose the latter every time.
    Someone on death row can kill a prison officer. Besides prison officer murders are exceptionally rare, particularly when the numbers from Northern Ireland are removed. Whether serial killers can be rehabilitated is up for debate and its up to other people to make that assessment. You may believe that serial killers can't be rehabilitated but you have no reason to think that. You still haven't explained why death is better though; locking someone up for the rest of their life protects the public (one of the reasons you support capital punishment) and costs less.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.