Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Why is everyone saying good? Yes he should not have raped her. Yes he should be punished. Yes he is a horrible, pathetic excuse for a human being. However, what they did was extreme and barbaric, they also deserve to be severely punished.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    No, since the majority of evidence seems to be in favour of my position. But you're right, more research doesn't hurt.

    Look at the rhetoric you're using. It's just full of hatred and anger, I can almost hear you saying 'I want them dead.' It's just coming from a place of revenge, not justice. I maintain the gulf between those terms is very wide.

    Again, I told you the death penalty costs much more to implement, and argued if you tried to speed it up, more innocents would die.

    It said between 1973 - 2004, so why are you only picking up on the date at the start? It's not like we're that much more advanced than we were in '04, and human error in using such instruments and methods is still the same as it always was. Innocents will still die. I will never be OK with that.
    I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. There is still valid evidence on both sides and in any case GEP is a fairly recent application in forensic science.

    Rhetoric would seem to imply that is my side that is purely emotional when you are discounting the fact that your side of the argument contains emotion aswell. Empathy is nothing if not an emotion aswell. I guess until more research is done and all research points towards either one or the other side there will be no clear cut answer. In any case it is not about quantity but quality of research. Were the sample sizes accurate? Was there any funding bias? Ect ect.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by liquidconfidence)
    Why is everyone saying good? Yes he should not have raped her. Yes he should be punished. Yes he is a horrible, pathetic excuse for a human being. However, what they did was extreme and barbaric, they also deserve to be severely punished.
    Someone sensible. Yay.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Justice is a matter of prespective, whether that's my perspective, your perspective or the Jury's. The 'eye for an eye' mentality isn't your perspective of justice and fair enough, but I feel a lengthy prison sentence only really punishes the rapist mentally, the physical suffering he/she caused is not really being addressed. I don't think it's revenge, because you could call a prison sentence 'revenge'.

    Yes we have moved past it as a society, but things have not gotten better. It's seems they never will, but atleast with an 'eye for an eye' system there will be short term results of 'justice' giving the illusion we are moving forward, this isn't the case with lengthy prison sentences.
    True enough on the first point, though I can still criticise such a perspective and it's practicality. You couldn't call a prison sentence revenge as it serves multiple purposes. Chiefly, it keeps the public safe from the rapist, and one can monitor such an individual, try for rehabilitation etc. Killing someone, or just torturing them is pure revenge and leaves no room for anything else.

    Things HAVE gotten better. Yes, the justice system has many flaws but come on, things were much worse in the old days. And do you really want an illusion Mav? I would rather work on reformation, than cater to an illusion.
    Offline

    17
    But in my thread most said seeking revenge like that (against a rapist) isn't justifiable?

    Well, there's a difference between revenge murdering and chopping of a penis but...
    I am confused.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    a punishment to fit the crime...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    Wow. So women get 2.5 years for murder now?

    Good job feminism.
    Nice try. One woman got 2.5 years for murder, not 'women' in general. There are also instances of some male murderers receiving similar sentences. Want another go?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He never raped any girl. Stop spreading lies. The girl was his girlfriend and he left her for another girl and she got mad and hired a group of thugs to deal with him.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simbasdragon)
    Nice try. One woman got 2.5 years for murder, not 'women' in general. There are also instances of some male murderers receiving similar sentences. Want another go?
    lol m8 these articles get posted constantly. It's fact that women get lesser sentences than men for the same crime.

    try again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He didnt rape that girl. The girl was his girlfriend and she got made because he left her, so she hired a group of thugs to go deal with him.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. There is still valid evidence on both sides and in any case GEP is a fairly recent application in forensic science.

    Rhetoric would seem to imply that is my side that is purely emotional when you are discounting the fact that your side of the argument contains emotion aswell. Empathy is nothing if not an emotion aswell. I guess until more research is done and all research points towards either one or the other side there will be no clear cut answer. In any case it is not about quantity but quality of research. Were the sample sizes accurate? Was there any funding bias? Ect ect.
    GEP came about in 1975, invented by Fred Sanger. While it has become more efficient and cheaper, since we were talking about 31 years of data (1973-2004) you'd think things would've gotten better. But no. 36% of cases when it came to death row inmates were still doubt-filled. 36%!!! That's no small number. You referenced one case earlier to illustrate your disdain for the justice system, well this is a much worse statistic, and would amount to HUNDREDS of cases. Hundreds of inmates who were forgotten, despite gel electrophoresis being used.

    http://robotics.stanford.edu/~serafi.../lecture10.pdf

    Sure. But unlike your side, which is fuelled by and is nothing without the anger and thirst for revenge toward these criminals, my side is about NOT ****ing up and killing innocents. It's about trying for rehabilitation. It's about more than just this need for retribution. It's about making that person better if we're able, and making society better as a result. Though yes, we'll agree to disagree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He didnt rape anyone. False reporting. She was his girlfriend and he left her for another Chinese girl and she got mad and hired thugs to go deal with him, the guy is from africa.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He didnt rape anyone. False reporting. She was his girlfriend and he left her for another Chinese girl and she got mad and hired thugs to go deal with him, the guy is from africa.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Look at all these barbarians on here applauding the fact that they cut off his penis. Hanging him would have been the best option.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    GEP came about in 1975, invented by Fred Sanger. While it has become more efficient and cheaper, since we were talking about 31 years of data (1973-2004) you'd think things would've gotten better. But no. 36% of cases when it came to death row inmates were still doubt-filled. 36%!!! That's no small number. You referenced one case earlier to illustrate your disdain for the justice system, well this is a much worse statistic, and would amount to HUNDREDS of cases. Hundreds of inmates who were forgotten, despite gel electrophoresis being used.

    http://robotics.stanford.edu/~serafi.../lecture10.pdf

    Sure. But unlike your side, which is fuelled by and is nothing without the anger and thirst for revenge toward these criminals, my side is about NOT ****ing up and killing innocents. It's about trying for rehabilitation. It's about more than just this need for retribution. It's about making that person better if we're able, and making society better as a result. Though yes, we'll agree to disagree.
    False. A quick Wikipedia search on the history of GEP will confirm to you that it actually wasn't until 2004 that clean separation of protein molecules occurred in acrylamide gels. One other thing that I forgot to point out in earlier replies is that the 'evidence' you quoted as capital punishment being non effective is merely the subjective opinions of some big wigs. At least the evidence I quoted was quantitive and dealt with numbers and statistics instead of subjective opinions. If you had quoted me why these top people felt how they did other than empathy, i.e; if there was any numerical evidence for it, it would be more reliable.

    Some people, no matter how hard you try, just will not be rehabilitated. The world is not Equestria, you've heard of psychopaths, havn't you? These people are dangerous and are wired wrong and if they continuously commit crime unrepentantly and it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt there is no need to keep them alive for them to continue hurting innocent people is there?

    You keep going on at me about innocent people on death row but if you had actually read anything I said in my previous replies to you you would see I'm only advocating death penalty for those whose crimes are of a serial nature and only after a stint in prison has been done and the person in question is still unrepentant and commiting crimes. That would ensure the person has had adequate time to realise the error of their ways and an opportunity to be rehabilitated. Like in the case of Michael Pleasted who I mentioned earlier
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    False. A quick Wikipedia search on the history of GEP will confirm to you that it actually wasn't until 2004 that clean separation of protein molecules occurred in acrylamide gels. One other thing that I forgot to point out in earlier replies is that the 'evidence' you quoted as capital punishment being non effective is merely the subjective opinions of some big wigs. At least the evidence I quoted was quantitive and dealt with numbers and statistics instead of subjective opinions. If you had quoted me why these top people felt how they did other than empathy, i.e; if there was any numerical evidence for it, it would be more reliable.

    Some people, no matter how hard you try, just will not be rehabilitated. The world is not Equestria, you've heard of psychopaths, havn't you? These people are dangerous and are wired wrong and if they continuously commit crime unrepentantly and it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt there is no need to keep them alive for them to continue hurting innocent people is there?

    You keep going on at me about innocent people on death row but if you had actually read anything I said in my previous replies to you you would see I'm only advocating death penalty for those whose crimes are of a serial nature and only after a stint in prison has been done and the person in question is still unrepentant and commiting crimes. That would ensure the person has had adequate time to realise the error of their ways and an opportunity to be rehabilitated. Like in the case of Michael Pleasted who I mentioned earlier
    Well when we're talking about polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis yes, but it's been a gradual process to efficiency.

    OK, well how about this then, on the same website, just look at the facts on the website: "A report released on April 18, 2012, by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies based on a review of more than three decades of research concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The report concluded: “The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates." Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment."

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/disc...rrence-studies

    Then put those people away in prison for life. Taking all factors into account, and not just wanting to kill specific people, the death penalty is just a flawed practice.

    Right, and I'm telling you to look at it holistically. Don't think you won't have human error when it comes to implementing the death penalty, as we can see, in other countries where it's legal things haven't exactly gone well... Again, those people deserve prison for life. You think innocents won't die as we can just separate out these cases, but they will, as they have done.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    Well when we're talking about polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis yes, but it's been a gradual process to efficiency.

    OK, well how about this then, on the same website, just look at the facts on the website: [/b]. The report concluded: “The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates." Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment."

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/disc...rrence-studies

    Then put those people away in prison for life. Taking all factors into account, and not just wanting to kill specific people, the death penalty is just a flawed practice.

    Right, and I'm telling you to look at it holistically. Don't think you won't have human error when it comes to implementing the death penalty, as we can see, in other countries where it's legal things haven't exactly gone well... Again, those people deserve prison for life. You think innocents won't die as we can just separate out these cases, but they will, as they have done.
    This report is from a charity, and a highly biased one at that. DPIC has come under criticism from numerous sources for being ''one-sided, spreading rhetoric, spreading lies about execution methods and misrepresenting exonerated inmates.'' The charity was founded by anti-death penalty lawyers (because lawyers are to be trusted over scientists, right?) Thus the organisation is biased and should not be considered a reliable source for information.

    http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/dpic.htm

    People could lose their jobs over human error, there is really no incentive for them to make mistakes in proceedings like this where someone's life or death is at stake. I think you are putting too much emphasis on the human side of it and not enough emphasis on what the evidence and science actually says here. People will not mess about with this sort of things or make mistakes with issues these serious because their livelihoods will be at stake.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ah, mob rule. Great.

    How progressive of you all. I presume all who agreed with the 'punishment' are in favour of capital punishment being introduced in The UK? I doubt they have a perspective. I doubt they've even given this topic anything resembling rational analysis. This is why democracy sucks. The crowd is moronic and blood thirsty.

    Eye for an eye: the new policy of the masses. I wonder how it will work out? Anyone?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    It's horrible she got such a light sentence yes, however this is just one example, and not even of rape, but murder.
    The facts of the case are rather less obvious. She got into a scuffle with the man, her friend punched him, he fell and cracked his head. She was convicted of manslaughter not for killing the man, but under joint enterprise. Some of the media coverage of this was extremely dodgy.

    The point is that it is ridiculous when individuals - relying on media reports - start second-guessing judges who are in possession of all of the evidence presented.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiseLAD)
    You guys that are applauding this are just sick tbh. This was almost certainly a race thing, in my opinion. If he did rape her punish him legally, you can't start unleashing vigilante justice. Reminds me of to kill a mockingbird...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Some sick, sad, keyboard warriors on this thread.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.