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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morrisseymarr97)
    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"
    I have met a few Murderers, they are the easiest class of prisoners to rehabilitate, because most murderers do not go on to commit other crimes, unlike say, burglars. I have given great thought to my reaction to a loved one being murdered, I know I would never call for execution, why the pro death penalty mob use this argument is beyond me, it simply is not true. Most of us against the death penalty have thought about it deeply, we know the answers to the questions that are thrown around.

    Although amputation was used in Britain, noses, ears, fingers etc. We have never had this punishment for Theft, in most cases this was dealt with by hanging then later by imprisonment. So where do you get your idea that amputation deters crime? There can be no evidence of this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Only approve of it in the very rare case of a serial killer. Any other serious crime should be given life in prison (and life should mean life).
    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?
    The US still has murders even though they have the death penalty so quite clearly it doesn't deter crime. Whether sentences are long enough now is a completely different discussion though
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    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.
    But as far as the discussion I was having goes, it's not a particularly huge question. It's not "should we execute," it's simply "Is it an effective deterrent or not". For this question, statistics are crucial.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
    So in return the family of the murderer should face a life sentence too?
    The member of the family destroyed the lives of the victim(s) and the corresponding families so absolutely the accused should be given the death penalty whether or not it affect the family or doesn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    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.
    I never ever said the death penalty should be introduced to deter crime, you have mis-quoted me or simply mis-understood me. The reason for the introduction of the penalty is to act as a fitting punishment as well as saving money on prison costs. The fact is I believe someone as sick as this should face the highest punishment while you and various others believe a few years or life( which on many cases never means life) is enough. And from the friends I know in the prison industry too often their sentence is halved on good behaviour. So we have the situation where a grieving family faces life while the criminal can theoretically be out under 10 years, it's a complete joke
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    against it because there are a significant amount of corrupt pigs but i support families being allowed to get their own revenge
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MASTER265)
    I never ever said the death penalty should be introduced to deter crime, you have mis-quoted me or simply mis-understood me. The reason for the introduction of the penalty is to act as a fitting punishment as well as saving money on prison costs. The fact is I believe someone as sick as this should face the highest punishment while you and various others believe a few years or life( which on many cases never means life) is enough. And from the friends I know in the prison industry too often their sentence is halved on good behaviour. So we have the situation where a grieving family faces life while the criminal can theoretically be out under 10 years, it's a complete joke
    Ok. Well, let't introduce the death penalty for robbery since that would also save costs.

    Well, Prison sentences are not decided by the families for obvious reasons. Otherwise we could just let the family decide sentences instead of having laws.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    I have met a few Murderers, they are the easiest class of prisoners to rehabilitate, because most murderers do not go on to commit other crimes, unlike say, burglars. I have given great thought to my reaction to a loved one being murdered, I know I would never call for execution, why the pro death penalty mob use this argument is beyond me, it simply is not true. Most of us against the death penalty have thought about it deeply, we know the answers to the questions that are thrown around.

    Although amputation was used in Britain, noses, ears, fingers etc. We have never had this punishment for Theft, in most cases this was dealt with by hanging then later by imprisonment. So where do you get your idea that amputation deters crime? There can be no evidence of this.
    In what capacity have you met a lot of murderers?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    In what capacity have you met a lot of murderers?
    Visiting prisoners and taking chess teams to play inside prisons, also corresponding and correspondence chess. I also met a very nice chap, who used to agitate against the Death Penalty when Britain had it, he knew a lot about this subject, and we discussed it together. He's gone now, he was probably the nicest chap I have met in my life.
    Offline

    15
    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?
    USA
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    if we had a magical way of knowing whether people have definitely (and without a single part of doubt) murdered, tortured or committed bank robberies etc, then absolutely in favour. those kinds of people do not deserve their lives.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morrisseymarr97)
    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"
    Criminals should have the opportunity for rehabilitation but If it is clear they will never rehabilitate, then how do you punish them? What do you do if someone murders, serves their sentence, and the murders again? You can't keep letting them out as they will continue to murder. In situations where the criminal is a repeat offender, we should use the death penalty IMO.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    if we had a magical way of knowing whether people have definitely (and without a single part of doubt) murdered, tortured or committed bank robberies etc, then absolutely in favour. those kinds of people do not deserve their lives.
    Maybe we should amputate the hands of those who shop lift too. Because clearly those kinds of people don't deserve their dexterity either...

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    For it for certain crimes when there is sufficient evidence. I'm not sure it's suitable for the justice system in it's current state, but in an ideal world I don't actually have a problem with it per say.

    The primary point of the justice system is to enact a form of punishment against criminals because punishment is the right result of a crime. It is justice, and I think there are crimes where the right reward of that crime is execution. The justice system does exist in an attempt to reform criminals and as a deterrent etc. but it's prime role is to punish crime, we seem to forget that and we seem to view those who commit crime as victims who need help as opposed to criminals who need punishment and help to reintegrate into society of possible.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    Maybe we should amputate the hands of those who shop lift too. Because clearly those kinds of people don't deserve their dexterity either...

    it wouldn't bother me one bit, man - just as long as there is proportional evidence for the crime accusation and its penalty
    'wouldn't wanna punish the wrong people now, would we...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    it wouldn't bother me one bit, man - just as long as there is proportional evidence for the crime accusation and its penalty
    'wouldn't wanna punish the wrong people now, would we...
    Then I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia. We are a civilized nation, here.

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    Then I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia. We are a civilized nation, here.

    no we're not - we put people in prison for the most ridiculous things. we don't allow voluntary euthanasia. we put people in prisons for possessing intoxicants. we allow forced genital mutilation towards little boys. if we actually punished sadistic and evil criminals I wouldn't have a problem, but putting innocent peaceful people in prison? *that* I have a problem with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    if we had a magical way of knowing whether people have definitely (and without a single part of doubt) murdered, tortured or committed bank robberies etc, then absolutely in favour. those kinds of people do not deserve their lives.
    You want to execute Bank Robbers? WTF.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    no we're not - we put people in prison for the most ridiculous things. we don't allow voluntary euthanasia. we put people in prisons for possessing intoxicants. we allow forced genital mutilation towards little boys. if we actually punished sadistic and evil criminals I wouldn't have a problem, but putting innocent peaceful people in prison? *that* I have a problem with.
    Right, so because we already excessive sentences for certain crimes, we should create more excessive sentences? That totally makes sense. Taking into account all of those innocent people who were aquited on death row, and all of the other people who may have been innocent but murdered because of a mistake, why would your life in danger in favor of defective system?

 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • 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

    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.