Turn on thread page Beta

Capital Punishment; The Question watch

  • View Poll Results: Should capital punishment be integrated into UK law?
    Yes
    30.72%
    No
    69.28%

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    It's a no from me. The reasons why I am opposed are in line with the reasons other posters have mentioned:

    - An innocent person might end up being put to death. Some posters say that it should be done when there is 100% certainty that someone is guilty, but it is very difficult to be 100% certain whether or not this is the case. There have been cases in the States where people have confessed to crimes they did not actually commit. For anyone interested in how this can happen, I recommend The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town, by John Grisham. Don't let Grisham's name put you off - he usually writes fiction, but this is non-fiction. Pretty grim read, though.

    - No government or state should be permitted to take the lives of its citizens. If taking the life of another human being is wrong, which most if not all of us agree that it is, how can taking the life of another human being be okay all of a sudden when it's in the name of the state? You can call it what you like. Murder vs killing/the death penalty, but when you get right down to it, it's the same thing, with death as the result.

    - Would you like to be on a jury deciding on whether someone lives or dies? Some people might. I would not want to make that decision, and people shouldn't be expected to have to do that. Besides, place enough people like myself on a jury, and a guilty person might be let off just because of a moral objection to being partly responsible for someone's death. Place enough people on a jury who are of the "hang 'em all" persuasion, and we might end up with an innocent person on death row.

    - We would have to ask someone to take the life of other human beings. I can foresee that causing some real psychological damage.
    Hear hear!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's a no from me. I don't believe in the existence of a moral right to life or any kind of sanctity of life, so hypothetically one could come up with a situation in which there was a moral imperative to kill, but I believe that it is practically impossible, since it opens the door to completely silly deontological arguments among the lines of 'all paedophiles ought not be allowed to live'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    The state is only an extension (or reduction, if you will) of the people themselves. Members of the society who are against such measures are free to abandon it so it's not like we would be forcing it upon them either.

    Why should ‘the state have the right to’ imprison someone for life or confiscate all of his belongings, but not to end his life?! Even more importantly, why can't at least people who end someone else's life be punished in the same way?

    You are only feeling, not thinking.
    Upvote for very good points. I'm anti but the arguments you refute are very silly and I'm tired of seeing them. I'm only anti because capital punishment doesn't actually seem to help lower crime levels.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I believe it is justified. An individual who consciously decides to rape and kill another deserves to die. What worth do they have?

    I'm against capital punishment however- only one the basis that there is a risk of wrongful killing. That is the only major flaw in capital punishment.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Whilst you have a valid point, this has brought more people to the MHoC who wouldn't usually be here, which is certainly a good thing. I think it'd be interesting to have more topical debates in the MHoC, though they should probably be started by Birch and not be too often, as it would detract from Bills
    I completely agree and I will look to introduce monthly topical debates like this thread to attract people to the MHoC from the rest of TSR. It's a less formal alternative to Bills and Motions.

    On this occasion, I will accept this thread as it has created a good debate, although I will request that any future debate ideas are sent to me first. I will then open threads and polls as necessary.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think threads like this should be a continual cycle with a new thread opening as a thread becomes quiet; bills will still be debated but having a thread dedicated to a contentious issue a bill will not cover is a good way of keeping activity up. The problem with monthly debates is the gap it will create between the debate naturally declining in a thread, and the the debate on the new thread, it is this stagnation in debate where people will choose to leave the MHoC than stay around to join a party but it can be different by always having a thread with a debate taking place.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I think threads like this should be a continual cycle with a new thread opening as a thread becomes quiet; bills will still be debated but having a thread dedicated to a contentious issue a bill will not cover is a good way of keeping activity up. The problem with monthly debates is the gap it will create between the debate naturally declining in a thread, and the the debate on the new thread, it is this stagnation in debate where people will choose to leave the MHoC than stay around to join a party but it can be countered by having a new thread as activity in the previous thread declines.
    I agree, though I'm not sure it will have the support of most people in the house. It is evident that activity needs to be boosted and we should be trying new things to do so
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I agree, though I'm not sure it will have the support of most people in the house. It is evident that activity needs to be boosted and we should be trying new things to do so
    This discussion has certainly brought traffic in though; it's in the 'Today on TSR' sidebar which I've never seen happen for bills. Even though we may not be bringing in hundreds of new full-time mhocers it has certainly brought about some degree of raised awareness. I don't see why MPs shouldn't be allowed to start discussions of this nature in a dedicated thread. We're all sensible enough to not do it gratuitously.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    This discussion has certainly brought traffic in though; it's in the 'Today on TSR' sidebar which I've never seen happen for bills. Even though we may not be bringing in hundreds of new full-time mhocers it has certainly brought about some degree of raised awareness. I don't see why MPs shouldn't be allowed to start discussions of this nature in a dedicated thread. We're all sensible enough to not do it gratuitously.
    I wouldn't count on that

    I think it's best for it to go through Birchington. You've started something though!
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I wouldn't count on that

    I think it's best for it to go through Birchington. You've started something though!
    I don't see we can't at least try it! Perhaps I'll pen a constitutional amendment this week along these lines to include Birch. Should spark some debate
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    I don't see we can't at least try it! Perhaps I'll pen a constitutional amendment this week along these lines to include Birch. Should spark some debate
    I think your suggestion is a good one and I have opened a thread where people can suggest ideas for debate threads. The Speaker should always have overall control over posting the debate to keep the House in good order - that's not to say people can't be trusted to open their own threads but I think the posting of any regular content in this forum should be managed by the Speaker.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Birchington)
    I think your suggestion is a good one and I have opened a thread where people can suggest ideas for debate threads. The Speaker should always have overall control over posting the debate to keep the House in good order - that's not to say people can't be trusted to open their own threads but I think the posting of any regular content in this forum should be managed by the Speaker.
    Thank you I suppose in order to keep the forum in order, it's probably for the best. I'll look into formalising it into an amendment when I get the chance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I voted no. I don't believe that capital punishment makes a society safer or better, I live in the US, and if anything, violence begets more violence. I wish it would be outlawed here entirely. :/
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I voted yes only for two types of criminals: Pedophiles and Murderers. There must be some deterrence and a way to prevent them from offending again. It is not fair to taxpayers to burden them with the costs of housing and feeding these social dangers for their lieftime. Sorry.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Galaxian)
    I voted yes only for two types of criminals: Pedophiles and Murderers. There must be some deterrence and a way to prevent them from offending again. It is not fair to taxpayers to burden them with the costs of housing and feeding these social dangers for their lieftime. Sorry.
    Capital Punishment doesn't work as a deterrent

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Galaxian)
    I voted yes only for two types of criminals: Pedophiles and Murderers. There must be some deterrence and a way to prevent them from offending again. It is not fair to taxpayers to burden them with the costs of housing and feeding these social dangers for their lieftime. Sorry.
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/fact...-death-penalty

    Capital punishment is barbaric, inhumane and completely out of sync with modern Britain. I hope never to see my country go backwards. Even from a cold, pragmatic point of view it is completely useless. This is an issue where practicality and morality coincide very nicely.

    Regardless of the poll result the TSR Government will oppose all attempts to reinstate the death penalty on any level.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/fact...-death-penalty

    Capital punishment is barbaric, inhumane and completely out of sync with modern Britain. I hope never to see my country go backwards. Even from a cold, pragmatic point of view it is completely useless. This is an issue where practicality and morality coincide very nicely.

    Regardless of the poll result the TSR Government will oppose all attempts to reinstate the death penalty on any level.
    Hear hear!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Seeing as we recently had a bill along this line, I would be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on CP. There are some whom are very pro, and some who are very anti.

    What do you all believe in and why?
    I doubt CP will ever be restored but I think life in prison should mean exactly that or certainly until a murderer is too old to be a danger to society.

    If somebody commits murder aged 21 then they should not be released from jail until they are at least 80 years of age.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    I doubt CP will ever be restored but I think life in prison should mean exactly that or certainly until a murderer is too old to be a danger to society.

    If somebody commits murder aged 21 then they should not be released from jail until they are at least 80 years of age.
    Why?

    ("because they're a murderer" is not a valid answer)
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Its silly how some people are saying that CP is barbaric - isn't locking someone up in dreary and depressing conditions for the rest of their life, punished by inmates who perhaps are even worse psychopaths, just as 'bad'? Obviously the aim with any punishment is to prevent others from doing the crime and for punishing the individual(s) in an affordable way.

    I understand that there are risks with CP. Mistakes are made. (Not very many http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...dants-innocent). Costs tend to be higher than by just locking them up (mainly legal costs), which perhaps is unavoidable.

    However what about where there is irrefutable evidence that a heinous crime has been committed? I.e being on CCTV doing the crime. Using a tough penalty could also deter people from doing a crime, http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/04/ca...-deters-crime/.

    I feel that it should be used, sparingly, where terrible incidences have occurred, and proof is undeniable. I see no reason why it is deemed as a 'backward' step, if it deters crime and the costs are lowered.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

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.