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

Are you for the death penalty in cases of certain guilt? watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    If it's based on deciding who does and doesn't deserve to live (what gives anyone the authority to decide that?) and about giving the families of the victims "closure" then of course it's all about emotions.
    closure would be about emotions but I never said anything about closure. I talked about retributive justice.

    What guidelines would be used to decide who does or doesn't deserve to live, anyway? How angry the crime made the public? Back in the day, the decision was ultimately made by a fictional man in the sky. Nowadays what will it be?
    what guidelines determine whether somebody goes to jail or not in the current legal system? same thing
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No. By killing a murderer we validate their actions. By killing anyone we validate murder. By using the death penalty also, we risk putting the government and the justice system as something above the general populace, which I think is a dangerous prospect. Although we cannot quite define exactly what life is, it is the fundamental property of all humanity, so allowing a government or judge power over that property gives them power over all humanity.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Yes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Imprisonment is in the interest of public safety and when there are miscarriages of justice, at least they can be rectified in some way. They are not an emotional response to a crime along the lines of "how dare you kidnap someone?? I'm going to kidnap you back as you don't deserve to be free!".
    no no no no. - you said that "killing shouldn't be done to show people that killing is wrong". you can't then use that very same ****ing logic to say "we should kidnap people to show that kidnapping people is wrong". you can't just be as two faced as this - you never cited "public safety" originally so why are you doing that now? this just stinks of desperation to come off of your broken logic. and how is capital punishment against the safety of the public when there are so many cases of criminals being let out of jails and then re-offending i.e. killing again? sort your messed up mentality out - do you want reoffending criminal murders or incapacitated dead criminal murderers?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    what guidelines determine whether somebody goes to jail or not in the current legal system? same thing
    Breaking the law. The issue is that if the death penalty is introduced, not every criminal is going to be killed. So who gets to decide who deserves to die and who deserves to live?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Breaking the law. The issue is that if the death penalty is introduced, not every criminal is going to be killed. So who gets to decide who deserves to die and who deserves to live?
    lol you think everybody who breaks the law goes to jail? what about fines? what about community service? what about restorative or rehabilitative sentences? and if the law currently sets the lines of "jail" and "not jail" by subjective means, why not for the death penalty?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    no no no no. - you said that "killing shouldn't be done to show people that killing is wrong". you can't then use that very same ****ing logic to say "we should kidnap people to show that kidnapping people is wrong". you can't just be as two faced as this - you never cited "public safety" originally so why are you doing that now? this just stinks of desperation to come off of your broken logic. and how is capital punishment against the safety of the public when there are so many cases of criminals being let out of jails and then re-offending i.e. killing again? sort your messed up mentality out - do you want reoffending criminal murders or incapacitated dead criminal murderers?
    Desperation would suggest that I cared about your opinion and took this forum seriously. Judging by how worked up you're getting over this, I would say it's the other way round :lol:

    No - my reasoning for putting people in prison is for public safety, please quote where I said that it's to "show that kidnapping people is wrong"? On the other hand, your reasoning for the death penalty was retribution, which strongly implies that it is to show the public that murder is wrong, otherwise there would be no need to use it as a punishment. Furthermore, the term "retribution" is associated with vengeance, which implies strong emotions such as anger being used as a justification.

    I don't want murderers to reoffend, that's why we have life imprisonment. I also don't want innocent people to be killed for crimes that they did not commit or to live in a society where vengeance and retribution are core values, which is inevitable in the case of legalised capital punishment.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    lol you think everybody who breaks the law goes to jail? what about fines? what about community service? what about restorative or rehabilitative sentences? and if the law currently sets the lines of "jail" and "not jail" by subjective means, why not for the death penalty?
    Deciding who is a threat to society and should get put away temporarily or permanently does not compare to deciding who should lose their life. For the latter, there is no going back and there is no way of even trying to compensate for a miscarriage of justice.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Desperation would suggest that I cared about your opinion and took this forum seriously. Judging by how worked up you're getting over this, I would say it's the other way round :lol:
    no - my reasoning for putting people in prison is for public safety, please quote where I said that it's to "show that kidnapping people is wrong"? On the other hand, your reasoning for the death penalty was retribution, which strongly implies that it is to show the public that murder is wrong, otherwise there would be no need to use it as a punishment.
    wtf, no. it's about hegellian retribution. retribution not for anything to do with a consequence but for the sake of upholding justice. if somebody *deserves* death, then it is just that they get it. justice doesn't care about emotions or goals. justice is for justice's own sake.

    Furthermore, the term "retribution" is associated with vengeance, which implies strong emotions such as anger being used as a justification.
    oh my god, you haven't a clue, have you? if it was about emotions, then surely sympathy would stop us from killing people? and if it was about emotions then we'd not give people the justice they deserve; if a person is accused, say, of rape, then it would be a kangeroo court of emotions, not a neutral and independent court of retributive justice, allowing the accused a fair trial.

    I don't want murderers to reoffend, that's why we have life imprisonment. I also don't want innocent people to be killed for crimes that they did not commit or to live in a society where vengeance and retribution are core values, which is inevitable in the case of legalised capital punishment.
    we literally don't have life imprisonment. we have "life" imprisonment, which is something like 20 years.
    also, if you don't want to live in a society of retributive values, then how is it that you live in a society where people go to jail for doing bad things? :|
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    wtf, no. it's about hegellian retribution. retribution not for anything to do with a consequence but for the sake of upholding justice. if somebody *deserves* death, then it is just that they get it. justice doesn't care about emotions or goals. justice is for justice's own sake.

    oh my god, you haven't a clue, have you? if it was about emotions, then surely sympathy would stop us from killing people? and if it was about emotions then we'd not give people the justice they deserve; if a person is accused, say, of rape, then it would be a kangeroo court of emotions, not a neutral and independent court of retributive justice, allowing the accused a fair trial.

    we literally don't have life imprisonment. we have "life" imprisonment, which is something like 20 years.
    also, if you don't want to live in a society of retributive values, then how is it that you live in a society where people go to jail for doing bad things? :|
    Many people do not have sympathy for people who commit crimes viewed as heinous. There was a time when the public would watch execution and cheer, hurling insults and sometimes rotten vegetables at those being executed. This was despite that some very gruesome methods of execution such as disembowelment were used. So outrage were the members of the public of the crimes that in their view the people deserved to be executed in such a manner. Many humans aren't all that empathetic.

    Like I said, although I believe that imprisonment is the correct way of dealing with criminals, my reason for this is for the sake of public safety (though there are some who support prison as a form of retribution, no doubt). I also believe in rehabilitating most offenders, I know that some people don't approve of this, as they don't believe that offenders deserve to be given a chance at rehabilitation but that's my view.

    In the UK, yes but some countries do have real life imprisonment. Why not argue for that as opposed to the death penalty?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Many people do not have sympathy for people who commit crimes viewed as heinous. There was a time when the public would watch execution and cheer, hurling insults and sometimes rotten vegetables at those being executed. This was despite that some very gruesome methods of execution such as disembowelment were used. So outrage were the members of the public of the crimes that in their view the people deserved to be executed in such a manner. Many humans aren't all that empathetic.

    Like I said, although I believe that imprisonment is the correct way of dealing with criminals, my reason for this is for the sake of public safety (though there are some who support prison as a form of retribution, no doubt). I also believe in rehabilitating most offenders, I know that some people don't approve of this, as they don't believe that offenders deserve to be given a chance at rehabilitation but that's my view.

    In the UK, yes but some countries do have real life imprisonment. Why not argue for that as opposed to the death penalty?
    I'd argue that life imprisonment *should* be the standard for anybody who commits crimes like murder, torture, rape, mass-robbery, etc. but if somebody does more than merely one of those things, how can you have life imprisonment x2, for instance, when they only have one life? if they are beyond that level of punishment, they are beyond the desert of life - if they are beyond punishment, then they are beyond any kind of existence of responsibility, and cease to have the element of humanity which grants us rights. that's what separates a species of rights (humans) from a species without rights (animals) (although humans invented a system where we give them non-existent entitlements based on sympathy as opposed to objective truth). if you're admitting that death is too harsh of a punishment, then at least you're agreeing that it is worse than life imprisonment, which is good in the case of somebody who commits more than merely a crime of life imprisonment, like I said. if we have a person who murders, and a person who *mass* murders, how can we do justice by giving them an equal punishment of life imprisonments when their crimes are not equal at all?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    what's emotional about it? it's a sober question of whether somebody deserves to live or not. sometimes, the answer is ultimately "no".
    It's an emotional response, particularly when you advocate the execution of people who haven't murdered


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MCPC247)
    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
    how does it make "the whole world" blind to have capital punishment in one country? is japan making the whole world blind? is texas?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    It's an emotional response, particularly when you advocate the execution of people who haven't murdered


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    so basically you're going to tell me that any kind of retribution is emotional. that's kind of where you're going with this logic. how do you distinguish between emotional and non-emotional? via consequentialism? so if we had a case where somebody murdered another person but we were sure and certain that they weren't going to do it again, what would be the point in punishing them?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    so basically you're going to tell me that any kind of retribution is emotional. that's kind of where you're going with this logic. how do you distinguish between emotional and non-emotional? via consequentialism? so if we had a case where somebody murdered another person but we were sure and certain that they weren't going to do it again, what would be the point in punishing them?
    Well I strongly disagree with punitive justice. Putting people in prison just to punish them is essentially the adult equivalent of a naughty step. Sentencing should be based solely on public protection and rehabilitation. The reason I say capital punishment is an always an emotional response is because people often try and empathise with the victim's family and put themselves in that position. It's also an emotive response because it's not rational, there's no benefit to executing people


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Well I strongly disagree with punitive justice. Putting people in prison just to punish them is essentially the adult equivalent of a naughty step. Sentencing should be based solely on public protection and rehabilitation. The reason I say capital punishment is an always an emotional response is because people often try and empathise with the victim's family and put themselves in that position. It's also an emotive response because it's not rational, there's no benefit to executing people


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    so you don't think prison deters people whatsoever?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    so you don't think prison deters people whatsoever?
    Perhaps in some people but I've never seen any evidence that is has a significant effect. Imprisonment certainly does little to deter (but arguably encourages) recidivism


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Perhaps in some people but I've never seen any evidence that is has a significant effect. Imprisonment certainly does little to deter (but arguably encourages) recidivism
    1) if a person commits a crime, not deterred by criminal penalties, and are aggitated by them, why would they be assumed to be people that would be safe towards a society? they sound as if they would do a lot of bad, immoral things - violence or theft being just two examples
    2) "in some way"? are *you* not deterred by prison with penalties and criminal record documents? if you are, why aren't most people? how are you so special in that sense?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) if a person commits a crime, not deterred by criminal penalties, and are aggitated by them, why would they be assumed to be people that would be safe towards a society? they sound as if they would do a lot of bad, immoral things - violence or theft being just two examples
    2) "in some way"? are *you* not deterred by prison with penalties and criminal record documents? if you are, why aren't most people? how are you so special in that sense?
    1)Prison alienates people and forces them closer to into close proximity with other criminals.

    'Regardless of the type of analysis employed, no evidence for a crime deterrent function was found.' - this is a quote from an article called The effect of prison on criminal behaviour.

    2) I wouldn't really say I am deterred from crime by jail, I don't commit crime because I have a sense of right and wrong


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.