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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaddySWYD)
    I'd rather be killed via capital punishment than be locked in a cell for 10+ years and treated like an animal.
    Prisons are holiday camps though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxK1jpE7r2E

    (Quite graphic and some may find it upsetting/disturbing)

    Watch this and tell me these sub human mongoloids shouldn't be removed from the gene pool. I understand that you can't bring in the death penalty for every case for a multitude of reasons but in a case like this where it's right in front of you... People like this don't even deserve the chance to be rehabilitated.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Bring it back for treason and piracy, maybe new ones for terrorism and high level drug dealers/traffickers. Never mind murder, too common, be a bit of a ballache.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxK1jpE7r2E

    (Quite graphic and some may find it upsetting/disturbing)

    Watch this and tell me these sub human mongoloids shouldn't be removed from the gene pool. I understand that you can't bring in the death penalty for every case for a multitude of reasons but in a case like this where it's right in front of you... People like this don't even deserve the chance to be rehabilitated.
    Thank you for posting this. Shocking but some people truly live in the clouds when it comes to things like this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by laura_*)
    A discussion that was brought up many a time in A Level psychology and sociolgy.....

    If police could 100% prove that a person was guilty of murder, would you vote to bring back the death penalty?
    No, because while miscarriages of justice is one of my reasons to be against it, I have other unrelated reasons which I've explained elsewhere in this thread.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sinbad23)
    wow how idiotic americans/american media is. Do people honestly watch this stupid box and take everything they see on it as truth.
    It's the Onion News, they are a satirical organisation >.<
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodAtum)
    Prisons are holiday camps though.
    If the prison is a grade I list, and say i'd done something disgusting like rape, then I'm sure the other inmates would give me a lot of stick (to put it lightly).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The next person to bring this topic back up on TSR should receive the death penalty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Death penality would not only be a strong signal that we send indicating that we don't want this sort of behave in our society,but would also be a decision leaving no room for error and for rehabilitation (as in many cases the moral capabilities of the offender are not taken into account).

    The application of it could also end up twisting a country into a knot of legal contradictions from which there is no easy end or exit. The questions could be raised: For what major offences should it be applied to and exactly in which cases? I am wondering once it is applied is it applied in every cases when it should be and are these decisions consistent with each other? Shall all the judges give the death penality when they should instead of leaving room for too much discussions since most of them would not like to become 'the executioner'? Shall the death sentence will practically be carried out in every case when it should be?(also considering previous decisions). It can especially get tricky when it is applied to the citizens of other countries.

    Considering these I think mandatory death penality would mean a real form of control leaving no room for discussion.

    The price we should pay when making a mistake would be too high though.We can't possibly imagine what someone goes through when is innocent and is put to death. Even if these offenders are found innocent or are pardoned,to recover form such a trauma can take very long time and can end up causing lasting psychological damages.

    I do agree with that if the punishment is close to the actual harm that is caused then there is a proper justification to it(such as in this case), however I also think that life imprisonment would mean a worse punishment.One can cope with waiting one month,two month,10 years,but if the person knows there is no way out,well...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's a slippery slope that's the problem. If we are sure some1 killed some1 else... like99.99%, we jail them. We cannot have two seperate verdicts. In a jury, if majority say guilty, is guilty. But what if its a 6 - 4 issue - does that mean only jail time?

    But if 10 - 0 - then death penalty a possibility?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Urgh, anyone who says bringing back the death penalty will improve the criminal justice system, has no idea about the criminal justice system.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mlewis)
    It's a slippery slope that's the problem. If we are sure some1 killed some1 else... like99.99%, we jail them. We cannot have two seperate verdicts. In a jury, if majority say guilty, is guilty. But what if its a 6 - 4 issue - does that mean only jail time?

    But if 10 - 0 - then death penalty a possibility?

    And where are the other 2 people?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    You're going on the assumption that all convicted criminals are actually guilty. Such a system could end up killing a number of people who did not actually commit a crime. Also, killing someone does not equate to murder.



    Even accidental or unintentional deaths? In a lot of cases of theft or robbery where death occurs, there is always some sort of struggle in which the owner goes the extra mile to defend his possessions and puts himself in danger. As noted above, killing someone does not equate to murder.
    Whoa... so if a mugger asks me for my wallet, i say no, we fight, he shoots me, its not murder? What kind of bull**** is that?

    In my opinion thats the most blatant kind of murder. Its premeditated, its malicious... what more do you want?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodAtum)
    Prisons are holiday camps though.
    Stupid point.

    Have you ever been to prison?

    No? Shut up, then.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Only if the sole method of execution was defenestration:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestration

    Additionally, there should be box seats, video footage and t-shirts on sale. I think by pitching this idea (and having the proceedings go to Mr. Cameron), we can really sell the idea back into legislative body.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomInce6666)
    Whoa... so if a mugger asks me for my wallet, i say no, we fight, he shoots me, its not murder? What kind of bull**** is that?

    In my opinion thats the most blatant kind of murder. Its premeditated, its malicious... what more do you want?
    It entirely depends on the circumstances of the case.

    If he doesn't have the direct/oblique intention for murder, then... no it won't be murder. Oblique intention is that he saw it a virtual certainty you would die or be seriously injured. Direct is absolute certainty.

    In this case, it'll probably be so that he would have seen shooting you would result in death/serious injury.

    But then again was his intent actually killing you? Or was that just a by-product of him wanting to get away with your wallet? In that circumstance it could be unlawful act manslaughter. But once again it depends on the intention of the person shooting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by draikzer)
    And where are the other 2 people?
    Oh sorry, let me change those numbers.

    7-5

    and 6-6

    Happy now? Is this what you spend your time doing.. looking for the utterly unimportant mistakes in people's posts, then ****ing off to your correction of them. You are the reason death penalty should be brought back. Now.. go die.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mlewis)
    Oh sorry, let me change those numbers.

    7-5

    and 6-6

    Happy now? Is this what you spend your time doing.. looking for the utterly unimportant mistakes in people's posts, then ****ing off to your correction of them. You are the reason death penalty should be brought back. Now.. go die.
    Wow, someone doesn't like being corrected.

    I figured if you're going to talk about something, it'd be nice to actually know it - rather than being wrong. But I guess you're happy with being wrong?

    Similarly your last point is quite laughable, and really highlights the fact you're clearly not old enough/mature enough to be debating about the death penalty.

    Y'know, since wishing death on someone who merely corrected one tiny little bit of your post is a tiny little bit harsh.


    Edit: I actually left out the most substantial problem with your post... the fact you don't know how a Jury works. Considering the lowest majority decision there can be is 11-1, 10-2 or in cases where one or more juror is discharged 9-1/10-1

    Therefore what you're saying about 7-5 or 6-6 would never happen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by draikzer)
    Wow, someone doesn't like being corrected.

    I figured if you're going to talk about something, it'd be nice to actually know it - rather than being wrong. But I guess you're happy with being wrong?

    Similarly your last point is quite laughable, and really highlights the fact you're clearly not old enough/mature enough to be debating about the death penalty.

    Y'know, since wishing death on someone who merely corrected one tiny little bit of your post is a tiny little bit harsh.
    Oooo the voice of reason. You are an ********. I go oxford... I have 2stand my ground against the people who have written ur textbooks. What has never occured to you, mi idiota, is that being able to simply slum it is in itself a skill rather than speaking in such high register and taking everything so seriously.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by draikzer)
    It entirely depends on the circumstances of the case.

    If he doesn't have the direct/oblique intention for murder, then... no it won't be murder. Oblique intention is that he saw it a virtual certainty you would die or be seriously injured. Direct is absolute certainty.

    In this case, it'll probably be so that he would have seen shooting you would result in death/serious injury.

    But then again was his intent actually killing you? Or was that just a by-product of him wanting to get away with your wallet? In that circumstance it could be unlawful act manslaughter. But once again it depends on the intention of the person shooting.
    He still.. carried a gun, intending to mug someone, with the possibility of it being a violent mugging, actually used his gun, fully with the knowledge he could kill somebody...

    i think its a crime in the law if anyone carrying a gun who murders someone gets away with manslaughter.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.