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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    You know, quoting inaccurate adages doesn't suddenly become a valid argument because they're Latin.
    And who invited you to join in the discussion? Go back to Syria.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackHorseRoad)
    And who invited you to join in the discussion? Go back to Syria.
    I've never been to Syria in my life. You're aware this is a public forum right?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    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.
    The person could have diminished responsibility, the person could be sleepwalking, the person could be under duress.

    People love to say 'if you 100% guilt can be proven' - that is a fantasy, you can never prove someone is guilty with no absolutely no doubt at all.

    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    Or maybe give the public the vote on whether someone should get the death penalty, democracy and all.
    It's someone's life you're talking about, not the winner of X factor.

    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    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".
    Countries that have prisons which are more focused on rehabilitation have lower crime rates, I don't understand why people can't seem to comprehend that.

    (Original post by BlackHorseRoad)
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    Just using an irrelevant Latin adage doesn't make you sound intelligent.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    You know, quoting inaccurate adages doesn't suddenly become a valid argument because they're Latin.
    You beat me to it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes it should for child killers, terrorists and people who show no remorse or indeed be available for killers who feel so bad and remorseful that they want to die.

    However since the death penalty is never likely to be used again then life in prison should mean exactly that or at least jail should be used until a killer is too old to be a danger to society and they have lost most of their quality years behind bars. So if a 21 year old commits murder then they should be in prison until their mid 80s when they will be released to an open care home for ex offenders. They will have been robbed of the life they stole from their victim. Not be able to go on holiday, go to the pub, get married etc.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Yes it should for child killers, terrorists and people who show no remorse or indeed be available for killers who feel so bad and remorseful that they want to die.

    However since the death penalty is never likely to be used again then life in prison should mean exactly that or at least jail should be used until a killer is too old to be a danger to society and they have lost most of their quality years behind bars. So if a 21 year old commits murder then they should be in prison until their mid 80s when they will be released to an open care home for ex offenders. They will have been robbed of the life they stole from their victim. Not be able to go on holiday, go to the pub, get married etc.
    Haha 'go to the pub'.

    This is from the ministry of justice, please point out where it says anything about punishing people.

    Improve public safety and reduce reoffending by reforming prisons, probation and youth justice
    Build a One Nation justice system by making access to justice swifter and more certain for all citizens whatever their background
    Uphold the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary, safeguard essential liberties and restore historic freedoms
    Delivering efficiently in MOJ: ensure the best possible service for citizens by making our department more efficient and more open, with policy driven by evidence
    Read our Single Departmental Plan to find out more about how we are performing against our objectives.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I've never been to Syria in my life. You're aware this is a public forum right?
    Someone told somebody to get on a plane back Jeddah a few posts back. Why are you attacking me when they said they exact same thing?

    Anyway, maybe you should see the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    The person could have diminished responsibility, the person could be sleepwalking, the person could be under duress.

    People love to say 'if you 100% guilt can be proven' - that is a fantasy, you can never prove someone is guilty with no absolutely no doubt at all.



    It's someone's life you're talking about, not the winner of X factor.



    Countries that have prisons which are more focused on rehabilitation have lower crime rates, I don't understand why people can't seem to comprehend that.



    Just using an irrelevant Latin adage doesn't make you sound intelligent.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Being a wuss doesn't make you any more likeable.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackHorseRoad)
    Being a wuss doesn't make you any more likeable.
    You call it being a wuss, I call it being civilised


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackHorseRoad)
    Someone told somebody to get on a plane back Jeddah a few posts back. Why are you attacking me when they said they exact same thing?

    Anyway, maybe you should see the world.
    Because it's a silly thing to say - this time it was targeted at me, and I felt it appropriate to respond.

    I feel that a holiday to Syria is perhaps unwise at the moment.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    The person could have diminished responsibility, the person could be sleepwalking, the person could be under duress.

    People love to say 'if you 100% guilt can be proven' - that is a fantasy, you can never prove someone is guilty with no absolutely no doubt at all.



    It's someone's life you're talking about, not the winner of X factor.



    Countries that have prisons which are more focused on rehabilitation have lower crime rates, I don't understand why people can't seem to comprehend that.



    Just using an irrelevant Latin adage doesn't make you sound intelligent.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post64297237

    Please read my post here before assuming things about me. I am able to read and interpret statistics just as well as you are. I merely gave different opinions to the OP.

    Also RE the post in the link above how do your first two points fit with that? Where we know 100% he is guilty and why should we care about his life when he took so many?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post64297237

    Please read my post here before assuming things about me. I am able to read and interpret statistics just as well as you are. I merely gave different opinions to the OP.

    Also RE the post in the link above how do your first two points fit with that? Where we know 100% he is guilty and why should we care about his life when he took so many?
    What does penalising the guilty achieve? What ought it achieve?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    What does penalising the guilty achieve? What ought it achieve?
    Deter others from committing the same crimes?

    I guess it comes down to whether or not someone can be rehabilitated, if it is unsuccessful then what do we do? Just leave them in prison?

    In truth I am giving a very specific case which is unfair.

    90% of crimes can imo be rehabilitated and if we can put someone on the right path in life then that's awesome
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    You call it being a wuss, I call it being civilised


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Being civilised in an uncivilised world is like asking to be a target.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    Deter others from committing the same crimes?

    I guess it comes down to whether or not someone can be rehabilitated, if it is unsuccessful then what do we do? Just leave them in prison?

    In truth I am giving a very specific case which is unfair.

    90% of crimes can imo be rehabilitated and if we can put someone on the right path in life then that's awesome
    I think its silly to think a mass murder can be "rehabilitated", why do we lie to ourselves like this...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Because it's a silly thing to say - this time it was targeted at me, and I felt it appropriate to respond.

    I feel that a holiday to Syria is perhaps unwise at the moment.
    I feel like callling people out because they not hold the same position as you is unwise at the moment then. As can be demonstrated by Syria.

    Underscore_ take note.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drummerz)
    I think its silly to think a mass murder can be "rehabilitated", why do we lie to ourselves like this...

    Because in a 'civilised' society, it is our right to give people who do not give a **** that they have done wrong the chance to work for forgiveness even though we all know that nothing is going to change.

    Talkng about second chances, once they kill again they will once again be give a second chance the rehabilitation AGAIN.

    This is called being civilised.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    Deter others from committing the same crimes?

    I guess it comes down to whether or not someone can be rehabilitated, if it is unsuccessful then what do we do? Just leave them in prison?

    In truth I am giving a very specific case which is unfair.

    90% of crimes can imo be rehabilitated and if we can put someone on the right path in life then that's awesome
    Okay, so let's say that someone has committed a heinous crime. Ignoring epistemic questions for a second, let's hypothetically say that punishing them will achieve nothing by way of rehabilitation, deterrence, protecting the public etc., and therefore the only end which could be achieved would be their suffering. Is that suffering an end in itself? If so, why?

    (Original post by BlackHorseRoad)
    I feel like callling people out because they not hold the same position as you is unwise at the moment then. As can be demonstrated by Syria.

    Underscore_ take note.
    I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I'm not calling you out because I disagree with you - indeed, it's certainly possible to coherently hold the position that the death penalty is a good idea. I'm calling you out because your argument is terrible.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drummerz)
    I think its silly to think a mass murder can be "rehabilitated", why do we lie to ourselves like this...
    I think rehab is not always a straight answer, we cannot predict whether it will work or not. Although once it has not worked then idk what is the best solution.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Okay, so let's say that someone has committed a heinous crime. Ignoring epistemic questions for a second, let's hypothetically say that punishing them will achieve nothing by way of rehabilitation, deterrence, protecting the public etc., and therefore the only end which could be achieved would be their suffering. Is that suffering an end in itself? If so, why?
    Good point. I guess in that sense there really is nothing to gain by killing them, i.e. there really is nothing to do other than let them suffer in prison. Unless I misunderstood your post?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Okay, so let's say that someone has committed a heinous crime. Ignoring epistemic questions for a second, let's hypothetically say that punishing them will achieve nothing by way of rehabilitation, deterrence, protecting the public etc., and therefore the only end which could be achieved would be their suffering. Is that suffering an end in itself? If so, why?



    I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I'm not calling you out because I disagree with you - indeed, it's certainly possible to coherently hold the position that the death penalty is a good idea. I'm calling you out because your argument is terrible.
    So you're calling me out because you disagree with my argument? You disagree with my viewpoint through an argument which you do not consider good, likely because I am not supporting your viewpoint. I'm sure your calling out would not be as much if I had a argument that supported your viewpoint, whether it was bad or not.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • 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.