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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    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?
    Basically, my point is that the suffering of the guilty is not intrinsically valuable, and all the legitimate goals of criminal sentencing can be achieved just as well through methods which cause less suffering. Therefore, the death penalty should, practically speaking, not be used.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    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.



    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?
    There are other ways people can be used to benefit society. If they are going to suffer then we may as well get something out of it. Might make them feel better too.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackHorseRoad)
    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.
    It's possible that I would be less inclined to call you out if I didn't disagree, but I have and will continue to call people out for having bad arguments even if I agree with their conclusions. The proximate cause of my calling you out is that you are either incapable, or choose not to use basic standards of reasoning in your discourse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Definitely not. The logic behind the death penalty is flawed. It is essentially just killing people, who kill people, to show that killing people is wrong..
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackHorseRoad)
    There are other ways people can be used to benefit society. If they are going to suffer then we may as well get something out of it. Might make them feel better too.
    Norway (who have lowest re-offending rates) are most "lenient" and put prisoners to useful skills/jobs. Although they do that so they can life a normal life after prison.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Basically, my point is that the suffering of the guilty is not intrinsically valuable, and all the legitimate goals of criminal sentencing can be achieved just as well through methods which cause less suffering. Therefore, the death penalty should, practically speaking, not be used.
    Ahhhhh. In all honestly it is very easy for me/anyone else to say it should be used because we do not know the impact it would have. It could work, or it could not. IMO following a pattern like Norway is the best way forward
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm seeing the logic of 'killing someone who has killed makes us as bad as they are', in which case that means imprisoning a kidnapper is also wrong and we should let them all go, while thieves should be allowed to keep their possessions.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    Ahhhhh. In all honestly it is very easy for me/anyone else to say it should be used because we do not know the impact it would have. It could work, or it could not. IMO following a pattern like Norway is the best way forward
    I agree that the Norwegian model is one which should be followed.

    There is significant data which illustrates the lack of a deterrent effect of the death penalty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It's possible that I would be less inclined to call you out if I didn't disagree, but I have and will continue to call people out for having bad arguments even if I agree with their conclusions. The proximate cause of my calling you out is that you are either incapable, or choose not to use basic standards of reasoning in your discourse.

    I will give you this. You certainly argued your point out better than that other inbred I was replying to.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    I'm seeing the logic of 'killing someone who has killed makes us as bad as they are', in which case that means imprisoning a kidnapper is also wrong and we should let them all go, while thieves should be allowed to keep their possessions.
    That last part is legally wrong. If you take something from a thief you're not 'stealing' it from them because they didn't own it to begin with.

    (Original post by BlackHorseRoad)
    Being civilised in an uncivilised world is like asking to be a target.
    Well in my view I live in a civilised country that.

    (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 I got from that post is that in your opinion the interests of a victims family are at least equally as important as the interests of society in general. How can you possibly acknowledge that rehabilitation works better yet still think people should be executed?

    As I've already said, you can never know a person is 100% guilty. Even if it were possible why should they be executed? What good do you achieve by just adding to the body count?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Omen96)
    I have no issue with evil scum being killed, honestly guys, not one part of my heart dies, I don't cry myself to sleep, I don't feel the loss of a human life, it does not touch me in the soul, I don't expect you guys to understand.
    I just find it hypocritical to punish a crime with another crime. There is no point, what do we gain from it? And as a philosophical/religious point of view, who's to say that if there is life after death, it's not better than here? Maybe it's great and actually dying early is good and people who have committed a crime shouldn't be rewarded.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    What I got from that post is that in your opinion the interests of a victims family are at least equally as important as the interests of society in general. How can you possibly acknowledge that rehabilitation works better yet still think people should be executed?

    As I've already said, you can never know a person is 100% guilty. Even if it were possible why should they be executed? What good do you achieve by just adding to the body count?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I have not said everyone should be executed. The stats show some people still re-offend, what is the point in constantly wasting time and effort on someone who is going to re-offend regardless imo.

    Well what good do you do by adding someone back to society who has re-offended in the past and it likely to do so again despite attempts to rehabilitate them?

    I just do not think rehabilitation works for all. Maybe 90% of prisoners but not all.

    In truth, I only said I think the death penalty should be back to have an actual discussion because everyone was saying it shouldn't come back :bebored:
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Actually, this is a good point, execute everyone then we don't have to worry about petty human problems any more.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    I have not said everyone should be executed. The stats show some people still re-offend, what is the point in constantly wasting time and effort on someone who is going to re-offend regardless imo.
    That's one interpretation. You could just as easily say that person wasn't rehabilitated in that instance but it doesn't mean they can't be. Also reoffending is more of a problem with lesser crimes, so the argument of using the death penalty for those who reoffend and 'can't be rehabilitated' makes no sense.

    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    Well what good do you do by adding someone back to society who has re-offended in the past and it likely to do so again despite attempts to rehabilitate them?
    I didn't say it did any good but if you're arguing for a change the change has to be beneficial.

    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    I just do not think rehabilitation works for all. Maybe 90% of prisoners but not all.

    In truth, I only said I think the death penalty should be back to have an actual discussion because everyone was saying it shouldn't come back :bebored:
    Well at the moment we're still in the EU so it's a pointless discussion.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    That last part is legally wrong. If you take something from a thief you're not 'stealing' it from them because they didn't own it to begin with.
    Their possessions are taken from them in the process of imprisoning them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    I'm seeing the logic of 'killing someone who has killed makes us as bad as they are', in which case that means imprisoning a kidnapper is also wrong and we should let them all go, while thieves should be allowed to keep their possessions.
    Killing somebody who cannot do any further harm to society doesn't benefit anyone, though. Arresting and detaining such criminals serves to prevent them inflicting further suffering, so there is a rational basis to their imprisonment. Giving stolen goods back to their rightful owners would be the equivalent of giving murder victims their lives back, not taking the lives of the murderers - and no, I don't see why the state should seize other possessions of theirs unless they have sufficient evidence to suggest that those goods too are stolen or have been otherwise purchased illicitly.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pro Crastination)
    Killing somebody who cannot do any further harm to society doesn't benefit anyone, though.
    I'm not talking about that though, I'm just applying the logic to other crimes. If killing a killer makes us as bad as them, kidnapping a kidnapper and taking away a thief's possessions are two examples of us being as bad as them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    I'm not talking about that though, I'm just applying the logic to other crimes. If killing a killer makes us as bad as them, kidnapping a kidnapper and taking away a thief's possessions are two examples of us being as bad as them.
    The logic would be that premeditated murder is an unjustifiable, senseless act that creates unhappiness, as would be the state's cold-blooded murder of its incarcerated citizens. Whereas the state would 'kidnap' (imprison) an individual for the purpose of reducing net suffering in society; they would only be 'as bad as' a kidnapper if they had no rational motive for doing so.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pro Crastination)
    The logic would be that premeditated murder is an unjustifiable, senseless act that creates unhappiness, as would be the state's cold-blooded murder of its incarcerated citizens. Whereas the state would 'kidnap' (imprison) an individual for the purpose of reducing net suffering in society; they would only be 'as bad as' a kidnapper if they had no rational motive for doing so.
    Now you're only thinking about certain cases and reasoning. Some murders are an 'act of passion'. Many people 'kidnap' to 'reduce net suffering', certainly in their eyes.

    These are just examples anyway. Just keep it simple - murder a murderer, kidnap a kidnapper, steal from a thief, keep track of a stalker, deceive a fraudster, and so on.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    Now you're only thinking about certain cases and reasoning. Some murders are an 'act of passion'. Many people 'kidnap' to 'reduce net suffering', certainly in their eyes.

    These are just examples anyway. Just keep it simple - murder a murderer, kidnap a kidnapper, steal from a thief, keep track of a stalker, deceive a fraudster, and so on.
    I don't see how pointing out that imprisonment of dangerous members of society tends to increase overall happiness is being particularly selective. Murderers and kidnappers are free to think whatever they want about their acts but I can only think that somebody who, for instance, values their freedom to take life from another sentient being against their will as providing more net happiness than the healthy continued existence of that individual is not thinking rationally.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, yes it should be used for more than murder.

    Just one reason:

    In Britain,

    Human kills several humans. Human is sent to prison.



    Dog bites one human one time. Dog gets executed.


    Human arrogance right there.
 
 
 
  • 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 like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.