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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i would say yes but i cant stand to think someone who is not guilty was killed because of a mistake.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    When Britain had the death penalty for simple crimes like theft, it did not reduce crime, it just increased execution. Are you not just agreeing to execution, because it fits in with your "peaceful religion"?
    I haven't offered any opinion on execution in this thread. I'm simply interested, as a statistician, to know whether the statistics are being interpreted correctly, or if they're misleading/counter-intuitive. For example, it is a matter of fact that "The US has the death penalty and high crime rates, therefore the death penalty is not an effective deterrent" is an invalid argument, but people still use it.

    I'd also be interested to see the source data for the claim regarding the death penalty and theft, that you have just made.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I haven't offered any opinion on execution in this thread. I'm simply interested, as a statistician, to know whether the statistics are being interpreted correctly, or if they're misleading/counter-intuitive. For example, it is a matter of fact that "The US has the death penalty and high crime rates, therefore the death penalty is not an effective deterrent" is an invalid argument, but people still use it.

    I'd also be interested to see the source data for the claim regarding the death penalty and theft, that you have just made.
    You do not need statistics to refute the death penalty, I as an Atheist reject it totally on ending of life. You as a theist should reject it on the fact that God punishes, not man. This is a No Brainer argument.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm against. Always.

    How about those of you who say you want it think about this: would you execute them yourselves? I highly doubt it.

    Murder is murder whether it's in cold blood, in war, or an execution tbh.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    You do not need statistics to refute the death penalty, I as an Atheist reject it totally on ending of life. You as a theist should reject it on the fact that God punishes, not man. This is a No Brainer argument.
    Again, my posts are not about whether I accept or reject the death penalty.

    If claims are being made about whether or not it is an effective deterrent, statistics need to be used to support those claims. I personally take an interest in whether such arguments based on statistics are valid or fallacious. That's it.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I think that the death penalty should be an option. I mean in the current system a murderer gets away practically scot free because they spend so little time in prison. Why should tax payers pay for scum to be comfortable. The current justice system is too lenient.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by superdarklord)
    Opinions on the death penalty?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Sometimes, when I read the news, I believe in revenge. If a person commits a rape, they should be castrated. If a person falsely accuses another person of rape, they should be forced to do hard labour for ten years. If a person rapes a child, they should be castrated and have their hands chopped off. If a person murders another person, they should be swiftly decapitated. If a person murders a child, they should be slowly roasted over a spit and then their bodies should be repurposed as dog food or fertiliser.

    But, I also know that my system would be horrible because it is not possible to determine whether or not someone is really guilty in all cases.

    So, that's why I'm against the death penalty, even though I'd love to don a cape and tights at night and make all of the sickos in the world pay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is no evidence it has any positive effects, doesn't work as a deterrent, can't rehabilitate a convict which should be the priority of any punishment and there is always a chance of a miscarriage of justice despite modern techs. Also morally I simply can't agree with killing by the state in such a way, even for the worst people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the_lost_boy)
    Sometimes, when I read the news, I believe in revenge. If a person commits a rape, they should be castrated. If a person falsely accuses another person of rape, they should be forced to do hard labour for ten years. If a person rapes a child, they should be castrated and have their hands chopped off. If a person murders another person, they should be swiftly decapitated. If a person murders a child, they should be slowly roasted over a spit and then their bodies should be repurposed as dog food or fertiliser.

    But, I also know that my system would be horrible because it is not possible to determine whether or not someone is really guilty in all cases.
    Or maybe that system is horrible because it would lead to a barbaric, violent & inhuman society?

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The statistics on people who have been wrongfully convicted in murder cases in the USA are truly alarming. Quite apart from all the exonerated category are a huge number of people whose convictions were unsafe enough for the death penalty so were commuted to life imprisonment. Not much comfort for an innocent person. Those life cases do not attract the high quality pro bono lawyers that prisoners still on death row have access to.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MASTER265)
    We should execute people 100%. It will save a lot of money by eliminating them rather than paying for their prison accommodation and well being. They chose that path and so should not be a burden to the taxpayer.

    The economy comes before some wasted lives

    The family of murdered victims face a life sentence so why shouldn't the person who brought that upon them face worse.
    So in return the family of the murderer should face a life sentence too?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm against execution because I don't trust the justice system (other human beings) enough to give them legal powers to kill me or a relative in the event the system declares we are guilty.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    So against it it's untrue.

    Very glad that Britain has moved away from it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It should be a strictly voluntary basis.

    Hold a national referendum, everyone who votes in favour is then eligible for the death penalty, the rest of us are ok.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Again, my posts are not about whether I accept or reject the death penalty.

    If claims are being made about whether or not it is an effective deterrent, statistics need to be used to support those claims. I personally take an interest in whether such arguments based on statistics are valid or fallacious. That's it.
    I don't think it is a case of statistics, although statistics could highlight certain subsets of the overall question. The first thing to realise is this is a huge question, with so many things that could influence a person to commit murder. Personally I think everyone is capable of murder, given the right circumstances. We don't really know enough of the why's, to formalise any list of questions that would give us an insight, so statistics are really not very helpful.

    For the question of should we execute, like I said for theists, it can be left up to God, we are always told how terrible will be his judgment, I am prepared to leave it up to him. I think Atheists really have the problem, part of my Atheist belief is the sanctity of life, because it is all we have, I do not want to take that away from anyone, when I can get justice in better ways.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MASTER265)
    Yeh because witnesses are not killed or threatened anyways. People like this will kill to simply not go to prison full stop. Your scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Considering the 24/7 surveillance, forensic advances and practical limitations murdering every witness in the Vicinity does nothing. Let's say it's down a typical London street, you need to eliminate a lot of potential witnesses which is practically almost impossible.
    Well....that's what you say. If people look this are going to kill anyway, then the death penalty is completely useless as a deterrent.

    Considering very few murders are commited in broad daylight on a London street by same people, I have no reason to change the legal system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattBerry96)
    Against it. It's barbaric and doesn't prevent crime
    Well it would because if you felt that you could be potentially killed for comitting crime I am sure people would be less likely to do it. Nowadays they usually get suspended senetences and maybe a victims chargewhich means they get let off really. Even a life sentence isnt life anymorel. If you stole something and had your hands cut off like people used to do you wouldnt ever do it again. Besides if somebody killed someone you really cared about then do they not deserve punishment.? Wouldnt you hate them and want them to be killed?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morrisseymarr97)
    Well it would because if you felt that you could be potentially killed for comitting crime I am sure people would be less likely to do it. Nowadays they usually get suspended senetences and maybe a victims chargewhich means they get let off really. Even a life sentence isnt life anymorel. If you stole something and had your hands cut off like people used to do you wouldnt ever do it again. Besides if somebody killed someone you really cared about then do they not deserve punishment.? Wouldnt you hate them and want them to be killed?
    At one time Britain had over 200 offenses that were Capital crimes, it did nothing to reduce crime, and the doomed were strung up in rows.

    So now you want to introduce amputation for theft, which idiot would even dream of turning an entire country into one handed folk. I don't believe the stupidity of such arguments.

    As someone has said, the law seeks to punish but also rehabilitate, that is why life sentences are not normally whole life sentences. And never were normally, the point about a life sentence is the person is always a lifer, even after release..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    At one time Britain had over 200 offenses that were Capital crimes, it did nothing to reduce crime, and the doomed were strung up in rows.

    So now you want to introduce amputation for theft, which idiot would even dream of turning an entire country into one handed folk. I don't believe the stupidity of such arguments.

    As someone has said, the law seeks to punish but also rehabilitate, that is why life sentences are not normally whole life sentences. And never were normally, the point about a life sentence is the person is always a lifer, even after release..
    If you actually read my post correctly (which evidently you didn't ducky). I never said that amputation of hands should be introduced, I was giving the example that when this used to happen, people would fear punishment and would therefore not commit crime again.

    I really don't see how criminals need to be rehabilitated. I am sure that if somebody actually did kill somebody you care about your argument would be different. You certainly would not be "oh its fine, they just need about 7 years and a bit of rehabilitation"
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by superdarklord)
    Opinions on the death penalty?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Never. Society would fall apart if we started operating on the basis of 'they did this to me so therefore, I must do something equally bad back'.

    Not the way forward. The way forward is to get the most serious crime offenders help, not kill them. That's retarded.

    Maybe it's just me but for people who murder and commit sexual offences, prison clearly is not preventative, nor is execution in a lot of cases. These people clearly have some kind of mental health issue and need help rather than being put in prison which if anything, makes the problem worse.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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?
  • 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.