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

Do you agree with the death penalty? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Do you agree with the death Penalty?
    #YES
    66
    40.49%
    NEVER!
    97
    59.51%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    I'm a vegan, not vegetarian. Find me one psychopathic vegan. You are a savage meat-eater - You are just getting angry because you know there is some truth to what I say. .
    Well you yourself threatened to have someone's head kicked in on this very forum. That's on top of having a history in numerous other threads of showing tendencies of having psychological issues to say the least.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tebr)
    That would be perfectly fine. It's not a crime to kill a guilty person. That would totally defeat the purpose of capital punishment

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No it wouldn't because even if you have capital punishment you still give people a fair trial. I doubt there's any legal system in the world where if you kill someone who the state would have executed you get away with it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. Especially for repeat offenders.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No,

    No human should take another humans life
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    No it wouldn't because even if you have capital punishment you still give people a fair trial. I doubt there's any legal system in the world where if you kill someone who the state would have executed you get away with it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm not disagreeing with you. My previous statement was on my opinion on what the law should be, I didn't mean to state it as a fact that that's what some countries actually do.
    Of course everyone should have a fair trial whether there's capital punishment or not. Personally I just think that it shouldn't class as a crime to kill a guilty person.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Oh you're one of the anti-abortion nut-jobs?

    Comparing having a trial to decide whether a person should be killed with a mother deciding to abort something which hasn't even breather air.

    Smart
    *Breathes

    Regardless of the substance you breathe, a fetus is still fully human past a certain length of time. I fail to see the disparity between killing a fetus whose heart beats, visibly responds to stimuli in the womb, has dreams and has more capacity to feel pain than any adult due to not-yet-fully developed pain mechanisms and killing an adult person. This is a fact fully acknowledged by the medical profession worldwide

    You are wrong in any case, the fetus in the womb still consumes oxygen like an adult would. It's not like the fetus is an alien or anything.

    At least be consistent with your murdering. Either we kill people or we don't. There is no inbetween. You live in a state that legally endorses murder, whether you want to admit it or not.

    Before you come back at me with some pro-choice nonsense about 'a womans own body' then consider this: How is the fetus a womans own body when the genetic materials making up the baby is distinct genetic material from the females own body cells?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    No because, you're giving them the easy way out in a way and they should serve long and lenghtly sentences instead. No human should ever have the right to kill someone and if you're part if those people who agree for the executions to happen or you carry it out, then you're just as bad as the murderers etc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Well you yourself threatened to have someone's head kicked in on this very forum. That's on top of having a history in numerous other threads of showing tendencies of having psychological issues to say the least.
    That is called trolling
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Truthfully? All for capital punishment.

    A life for a life.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    *Breathes

    Regardless of the substance you breathe, a fetus is still fully human past a certain length of time. I fail to see the disparity between killing a fetus whose heart beats, visibly responds to stimuli in the womb, has dreams and has more capacity to feel pain than any adult due to not-yet-fully developed pain mechanisms and killing an adult person. This is a fact fully acknowledged by the medical profession worldwide

    You are wrong in any case, the fetus in the womb still consumes oxygen like an adult would. It's not like the fetus is an alien or anything.

    At least be consistent with your murdering. Either we kill people or we don't. There is no inbetween. You live in a state that legally endorses murder, whether you want to admit it or not.

    Before you come back at me with some pro-choice nonsense about 'a womans own body' then consider this: How is the fetus a womans own body when the genetic materials making up the baby is distinct genetic material from the females own body cells?
    All of that only happens a certain amount of time into the pregnancy. Abortion is completely wrong beyond that point.
    Before that, it is not a baby, it's essentially a bunch of cells that cannot feel pain and cannot feel emotions and could not exist separately to the woman bearing it. Abortion should be acceptable here.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carpe Diem Jay)
    Yes. Especially for repeat offenders.
    Repeat offenders of which offences? I'm pretty sure there's never been a case in the uk of a murderer being released then murdering again

    (Original post by tebr)
    I'm not disagreeing with you. My previous statement was on my opinion on what the law should be, I didn't mean to state it as a fact that that's what some countries actually do.
    Of course everyone should have a fair trial whether there's capital punishment or not. Personally I just think that it shouldn't class as a crime to kill a guilty person.
    But even if I watch someone commit a murder I can't say they're guilty, that's part of the point of the right to a fair trial.

    I'm aware that you weren't stating it as though it's fact but what I'm saying is no legal system, not even dodgy Arab ones, are backward enough to allow vigilante justice against murderers, certainly not by statute.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Repeat offenders of which offences? I'm pretty sure there's never been a case in the uk of a murderer being released then murdering again



    But even if I watch someone commit a murder I can't say they're guilty, that's part of the point of the right to a fair trial.

    I'm aware that you weren't stating it as though it's fact but what I'm saying is no legal system, not even dodgy Arab ones, are backward enough to allow vigilante justice against murderers, certainly not by statute.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Rapists etc.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Repeat offenders of which offences? I'm pretty sure there's never been a case in the uk of a murderer being released then murdering again



    But even if I watch someone commit a murder I can't say they're guilty, that's part of the point of the right to a fair trial.

    I'm aware that you weren't stating it as though it's fact but what I'm saying is no legal system, not even dodgy Arab ones, are backward enough to allow vigilante justice against murderers, certainly not by statute.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st-decade.html
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tebr)
    I

    Well clearly it wouldn't be as the murderer would have killed an innocent person whereas the death penalty gets rid of guilty people so clearly they are not equally justified.
    I'm sure many murderers would argue that there victims were guilty, and that they deserved it.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    I'm sure many murderers would argue that there victims were guilty, and that they deserved it.
    In that case, a thorough investigation would be done as is the case with all crimes. If the victim of the crime is in fact guilty then the killer would be let off but if the victim was innocent then the killer would get the death penalty.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    *Breathes

    Regardless of the substance you breathe, a fetus is still fully human past a certain length of time. I fail to see the disparity between killing a fetus whose heart beats, visibly responds to stimuli in the womb, has dreams and has more capacity to feel pain than any adult due to not-yet-fully developed pain mechanisms and killing an adult person. This is a fact fully acknowledged by the medical profession worldwide

    You are wrong in any case, the fetus in the womb still consumes oxygen like an adult would. It's not like the fetus is an alien or anything.

    At least be consistent with your murdering. Either we kill people or we don't. There is no inbetween. You live in a state that legally endorses murder, whether you want to admit it or not.

    Before you come back at me with some pro-choice nonsense about 'a womans own body' then consider this: How is the fetus a womans own body when the genetic materials making up the baby is distinct genetic material from the females own body cells?
    Have you heard of in defence of abortion, it's a collections of arguements in support of abortion assuming the featus has a right to life in the first place. Basically saying that the right to life is not the issue it is the right to use another's body. Let's say the unborn baby has a right to life, does it have a right to use the mother's body against her will. If yes then can the same not be use to justify force human experimentation/forced organ transplant. After all individual lives will be saved and people have a right to life (even in a death penalty case, the right of life is removed due to previous actions).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by defenestrated)
    All of that only happens a certain amount of time into the pregnancy. Abortion is completely wrong beyond that point.
    Before that, it is not a baby, it's essentially a bunch of cells that cannot feel pain and cannot feel emotions and could not exist separately to the woman bearing it. Abortion should be acceptable here.
    I kind of agree with you, I think it might be acceptable in the quite early stages (I:e: When its just a blastocyst) But when the baby starts to develop organs and feel pain it should be considered murder to kill the baby in the same way as its murder for abortion doctors to kill babies outside of the womb or ones that are very late in development
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    Have you heard of in defence of abortion, it's a collections of arguements in support of abortion assuming the featus has a right to life in the first place. Basically saying that the right to life is not the issue it is the right to use another's body. Let's say the unborn baby has a right to life, does it have a right to use the mother's body against her will. If yes then can the same not be use to justify force human experimentation/forced organ transplant. After all individual lives will be saved and people have a right to life (even in a death penalty case, the right of life is removed due to previous actions).
    The baby is an innocent entity; it didn't ask to be conceived therefore it doesn't deserve to die. New born babies also use their mothers body for breastfeeding; should we kill them too? Lets extend this argument to all children as they are incapable of supporting themselves up to the age of legal working age. Whilst were at it, lets kill all the mentally retarded people and heavily disabled people that live off taxpayers money and the government.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    The baby is an innocent entity; it didn't ask to be conceived therefore it doesn't deserve to die. New born babies also use their mothers body for breastfeeding; should we kill them too? Lets extend this argument to all children as they are incapable of supporting themselves up to the age of legal working age. Whilst were at it, lets kill all the mentally retarded people and heavily disabled people that live off taxpayers money and the government.
    Again you utterly misunderstood the argument (granted I did it in the most briefest way possible).

    For example you say the baby is innocent but this isn't an argument about guilt. I assume you have read the papers. What I am going to do is steal one of the arguments.

    Let's say you wake up tomorrow morning and find yourself trapped in a strange room, connected you via an assortment of wires is an unconscious man, (think of him as whoever you want). You discover that this man is dieing, his liver has failed. A surgeon reveals he is the one that brought you there, he also reveals that after 9 months of being connected to this man he will live, he will need no aid. But as you posses a rare genetic marker if you leave the man will die. Are you morally obligated to stay. If the answer is no then the question turns why not, the unconscious man is innocent (assume he had been unconscious for a long time), he has a right to life, and he didn't ask to be unconscious (ie the unconscious man compared with the unborn child). If the answer is yes then some morally questionable action suddenly become morally obligatory.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    Again you utterly misunderstood the argument (granted I did it in the most briefest way possible).

    For example you say the baby is innocent but this isn't an argument about guilt. I assume you have read the papers. What I am going to do is steal one of the arguments.

    Let's say you wake up tomorrow morning and find yourself trapped in a strange room, connected you via an assortment of wires is an unconscious man, (think of him as whoever you want). You discover that this man is dieing, his liver has failed. A surgeon reveals he is the one that brought you there, he also reveals that after 9 months of being connected to this man he will live, he will need no aid. But as you posses a rare genetic marker if you leave the man will die. Are you morally obligated to stay. If the answer is no then the question turns why not, the unconscious man is innocent (assume he had been unconscious for a long time), he has a right to life, and he didn't ask to be unconscious (ie the unconscious man compared with the unborn child). If the answer is yes then some morally questionable action suddenly become morally obligatory.
    This is a ridiculous analogy; it's completely different. In most cases the act of sex is a consensual choice between a man and a women, it is a willing choice on the part of both parties. In your analogy I am forced to support the life of another human being. If it had happened in the form of rape and I was impregnated by violence I would choose to keep the baby as two wrongs don't make a right and many women who abort their babies regret it anyway

    Futhermore if his liver was dying I would happily give him a liver transplant.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
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.