Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Should have set him free but on the proviso that all civilian action against him would go unpunished. Cheaper than the death penalty and just as effective.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    He wants to die, be a martyr and get his 72 virgins, lock him up in solitary confinement with no activities for the rest of his life, he will go insane and it would be much worse than death.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    Easy. For 4 reasons:

    1) The death penalty has a proven deterrence effect (look at my above post), so not imposing the death penalty is tantamount to killing those (potential murder victims) through omission (failure to prevent).

    2) Life imprisonment, as opposed to the death penalty, is an unjustifiable wastage of resources. So not only has the murderer harmed society by killing, society is then expected to spend large amount (in the hundreds of thousands) to sustain him for the rest of his 70+ years which can be better spent on healthcare and education? Preposterous.

    There is the argument that it is more expensive to put people to death as opposed to life imprisonment, but that is because of a flawed justice system in which capital proceeding are absurdly long-drawn and expensive. Using this flaw to justify another bad decision (to not execute because of higher costs) is just bad logic.

    In cases such as this where his culpability is beyond any doubt, not just any reasonable doubt (which is the vast majority of capital cases; whether he did in fact commit the crime of murder or not), then no appeals should be allowed, period.

    no one is questioning whether he did it or not. it's whether he should be put to death given his situation and role in the bombings.

    3) He has shown an utter lack of respect for the lives of others; why should we show any respect for his? One might argue that killing him does not bring back those who are dead, but neither does imprisoning those who wound others make any injuries suffered vanish; do we have no case of imprisoning individuals ever then?)

    4) Not everyone deserves rehabilitation. It is a privilege, and costs the state money; there is also clear evidence that not every individual is capable of rehabilitation. For mass murderers who show no ounce of remorse, this privilege should not be extended
    So you essentially justify another death. How does this not put you on the level of killers like him? You justify hypocrisy.

    These people do these sorts of things because they feel the west, namely america, retaliates and vilifies unnecessarily those like them purely because of their race or their faith, or both. They are right. Their response is wrong, but their underlying message is right; there are just other, more effective and not to mention moral ways of going about combating that. His death will only incite more violence, resentment and fuel a volatile divide between west and east. It will only martyr him and this dreadful conflict will only last longer.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNoobishKnight)
    Don't spout this **** in here man. Like seriously, go do it in the ISoc or something but no bs like jews set him up, he's innocent, muslims always blamed and so on please.
    they probably did the same to this guy what they did to umer khadr check out his guantanamo bay interrogation video these guys don't even spare kids
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Jahar is innocent
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by al_94)
    Well he is innocent if you don't wanna hear me then just block me
    JAHAr was locked down with no real evidence, poor guy my heart goes out to his family his brother is in heaven
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3isenberg)
    The death penalty is state murder.
    Yes, and imprisonment is state deprivation of liberty. Taxation, incidentally, is state robbery. We allow the state to do lots of things which, if done by a private person, would be unacceptable.

    I wouldn't bring back the death penalty, but I'm mainly of that view due to false convictions and legal costs. Since it's pretty clear that this guy did it I'm not opposed in principle.

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    So you essentially justify another death. How does this not put you on the level of killers like him? You justify hypocrisy.
    What are you talking about?

    Tell me: would you apply the same argument to a situation in which we imprison a kidnapper? I don't understand why one situation involves 'hypocrisy' and the other doesn't.

    It's a question of justification and due process.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dinaa)
    This world is so evil :sad:
    to be fair the ****tard deserves it for ruining people's and family's lives.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    So you essentially justify another death. How does this not put you on the level of killers like him? You justify hypocrisy.

    These people do these sorts of things because they feel the west, namely america, retaliates and vilifies unnecessarily those like them purely because of their race or their faith, or both. They are right. Their response is wrong, but their underlying message is right; there are just other, more effective and not to mention moral ways of going about combating that. His death will only incite more violence, resentment and fuel a volatile divide between west and east. It will only martyr him and this dreadful conflict will only last longer.
    I dont think you countered any of my points at all; especially #1 (which I think you cannot, not in the face of such clear evidence). It is also not hypocrisy (see point #3).

    But simply FEELING offended is not a just reason to respond in this manner, Neither is the message correct. What you are saying is that people should basically have a positive duty to treat others nicely. I certainly see a moral argument to say we should be nice to each other, but this cannot be translated into a legal obligation, period. Killing others because they are not nice to you is hardly justifiable in any context.

    You also mention there are better ways to deter murder. I put it to you that there not. I have given you an example of a very, very comprehensive and objective study showing the benefits and strong justifications for capital punishment, in which the author compares it to life imprisonment. You have no sources showing me otherwise.

    Before you quote me any other studies, let me also mention to you that this professor has also taken the trouble of explaining to you why most other studies are inaccurate, so it might be worth your time to read it before responding
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vickidc18)
    He wants to die, be a martyr and get his 72 virgins, lock him up in solitary confinement with no activities for the rest of his life, he will go insane and it would be much worse than death.
    Or the awkward moment when he's dead and realizes he's going straight to hell instead lmao.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Yes, and imprisonment is state deprivation of liberty. Taxation, incidentally, is state robbery. We allow the state to do lots of things which, if done by a private person, would be unacceptable.

    I wouldn't bring back the death penalty, but I'm mainly of that view due to false convictions and legal costs. Since it's pretty clear that this guy did it I'm not opposed in principle.



    What are you talking about?

    Tell me: would you apply the same argument to a situation in which we imprison a kidnapper? I don't understand why one situation involves 'hypocrisy' and the other doesn't.

    It's a question of justification and due process.
    kidnap and imprisonment are actually different when you think about it.

    for me, murder is murder is murder.

    death is death is death.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    kidnap and imprisonment are actually different when you think about it.

    for me, murder is murder is murder.

    death is death is death.
    Oh, well, if that's true for you, that's fine. Don't worry yourself with anything so tedious as trying to present a reasoned basis for that view.

    This is one of those issues in relation to which everyone is so keen to be seen as liberal that they don't subject the justifications they trot out to any scrutiny at all. I'm sure people exist who can give reasoned ethical arguments against the death penalty in principle, but I've never come across such a person on here.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    I dont think you countered any of my points at all; especially #1 (which I think you cannot, not in the face of such clear evidence). It is also not hypocrisy (see point #3).

    But simply FEELING offended is not a just reason to respond in this manner, Neither is the message correct. What you are saying is that people should basically have a positive duty to treat others nicely. I certainly see a moral argument to say we should be nice to each other, but this cannot be translated into a legal obligation, period. Killing others because they are not nice to you is hardly justifiable in any context.

    You also mention there are better ways to deter murder. I put it to you that there not. I have given you an example of a very, very comprehensive and objective study showing the benefits and strong justifications for capital punishment, in which the author compares it to life imprisonment. You have no sources showing me otherwise.

    Before you quote me any other studies, let me also mention to you that this professor has also taken the trouble of explaining to you why most other studies are inaccurate, so it might be worth your time to read it before responding
    not sure about you but here it's half one in the morning and I am not here to do any reading right now.

    I will take your word for it on the studies, and the fact you're a professor.

    But still, even if the death penalty has been proven to reduce crime rates, (did you mention murder rates? I can't remember) there is still a moral standpoint to consider. We cannot run a state on absolutes or proxies - because this happens and we can prove it we must always do this. First of all, there is the opportunity for rehabilitation and the effects of forgiveness and rehabilitation on society; something which is not afforded when someone suffers a slow and painful death in a botched execution. We should also consider what kind of society we live in where the government and our top judges have the power to legally kill us; detective work is not infallible and a legal system with so much power ultimately opens itself up to corruption and people on power trips who leave themselves open to external influences when conducting detective work; see the recent scandal with miami police emails.

    Surely if law goes against morality/is immoral then there's something wrong with our laws and justice system?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Oh, well, if that's true for you, that's fine. Don't worry yourself with anything so tedious as trying to present a reasoned basis for that view.

    This is one of those issues in relation to which everyone is so keen to be seen as liberal that they don't subject the justifications they trot out to any scrutiny at all. I'm sure people exist who can give reasoned ethical arguments against the death penalty in principle, but I've never come across such a person on here.
    well, it is late.

    I HATE LIBERALS. please don't call me one. for you nationalist tories it's easy to see anything to your left as liberal but, there is actually more to it than silly white moderates.

    the reasoned ethical argument is very simple, that's why:

    Killing. Is. Always. Wrong.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    not sure about you but here it's half one in the morning and I am not here to do any reading right now.

    I will take your word for it on the studies, and the fact you're a professor.

    But still, even if the death penalty has been proven to reduce crime rates, (did you mention murder rates? I can't remember) there is still a moral standpoint to consider. We cannot run a state on absolutes or proxies - because this happens and we can prove it we must always do this. First of all, there is the opportunity for rehabilitation and the effects of forgiveness and rehabilitation on society; something which is not afforded when someone suffers a slow and painful death in a botched execution. We should also consider what kind of society we live in where the government and our top judges have the power to legally kill us; detective work is not infallible and a legal system with so much power ultimately opens itself up to corruption and people on power trips who leave themselves open to external influences when conducting detective work; see the recent scandal with miami police emails.

    Surely if law goes against morality/is immoral then there's something wrong with our laws and justice system?
    First of all, I'm not a professor-That sentence referred to the professor who carried out that particular piece of research. Now, there is more to deterrence than what you think. Consider it this way:

    The deterrence effect of the death penalty is 7; so for every 1 executed murderer, 7 potential lives are saved (give or take). For every one murderer not executed, 7 lives are lost. In effect, this means that you are permitting seven others to be killed by not taking positive action through capital punishment. This is the true cost of not imposing the death penalty-7 innocents who are inevitably murdered.

    So, your counter to that is that the mere possibility (not guarantee, only a possibility) that the offender can be rehabilitated is worth the loss of 7 innocent lives, despite the fact he has already committed a heinous crime and shows no repentance? I'm not sure how you find this morally justifiable, but it appears as though your ethics and beliefs favor the giving of a chance to proven murderer, as opposed to saving 7 completely innocent persons.

    I do agree that legal frameworks are not fallible; hence, as I mentioned earlier, what I want is the threshold to be set at no doubts at all, not beyond reasonable doubt. No doubt means there is a zero % chance there is an error; it might have to be something along the lines of a suicide bomber (who, due to good fortune survives) who bombs and kills 10 bystanders in broad daylight, is captured on camera, then later admits to the crime in open court. This is the standard I want - no doubts at all before capital punishment can be imposed
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Killing. Is. Always. Wrong.
    I'm sure if someone shoots your father, mother, and is about to shoot your sister, you would not shoot him back (assuming you had a gun) because killing is always wrong, yes?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greg Jackson)
    RIP in peace
    That's a tautology. One will do. Yes, I am a douche.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shabalala)
    So how about you show some consideration for these people before you stick up for a murdering, cowardly scumbag.
    This isn't a good argument. It in no way detracts from the seriousness of the crime or the legitimate grievance of the victims, their relatives, and society in general to suggest that there are certain ways in which a criminal should not be treated by the State.

    I've said that I don't regard state 'murder' as inherently more objectionable than state 'robbery' etc, and that it's a matter of justification, so I can't defend the poster's comments as such, but I can provide a counterexample. There was an instance in Texas a while ago in which prisoners (I believe they were on death row) were allowed to die from overheating and dehydration. Since this was not their officially sanctioned punishment, it should not have been allowed to happen. To say that prisoners should be protected from being left to die during their sentences is not in any way committing a wrong against the victim/s of any relevant prisoner, however bad his crime/s against them may have been. Nor is it necessarily 'sticking up' for them, really: in some circumstances, it's not about them but about us.

    I'd still like to see someone explain, assuming certainty that the convict committed the crime, in principle, without recourse to costs etc, what is objectionable about the state killing someone in a situation like this, or what is inherently more objectionable about that than the state depriving a criminal of their liberty (since both in other circumstances would be serious wrongs against the criminal).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    Killing. Is. Always. Wrong.
    If a man with a AK47 is running around a shopping mall shooting people, would you suggest it is 'wrong' to kill him to save others?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    If a man with a AK47 is running around a shopping mall shooting people, would you suggest it is 'wrong' to kill him to save others?
    I'd gtfo so I don't end up being done for murder by the pedantic British justice system lmao.
 
 
 

1,128

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
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.