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

Capital Punishment; The Question watch

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

    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by k4l397)
    I don't think anything can be achieved from sinking to the same level as those that commit the crime, that's before even coming to the possibility of error - something that could result in the killing of an innocent person.
    Then there is no criminal justice system that we can use that also protects the general population.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Yes, but that should also be used in very rare cases and for very few murderers even. Current criminal sentencing is far far far too harsh. The problem with CP is it is irreversible, and thus a reversible 'just as bad' outcome is better to use.
    What is your proposal then to cut down on homicide rates, if you don't believe in tough jail sentences for the majority, and you don't believe in CP?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    What is your proposal then to cut down on homicide rates, if you don't believe in tough jail sentences for the majority, and you don't believe in CP?
    Rehabilitation, investment in education and ultimately equality of outcome so nobody has an incentive to kill.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I have amended the OP to let people know where they are. Birchington would it be worth giving a little introduction so that users know where they are for each future debate?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Rehabilitation, investment in education and ultimately equality of outcome so nobody has an incentive to kill.
    1) You can rehabilitate people after they've done the crime - but it doesn't stop it.

    2) We spend about 3.8x more money per primary school/secondary school child than China does. Yet we still have the same homicide rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ate#By_country

    Clearly education has little effect (seeing as it is hardly moral education, but actual subject education that is given in the UK).And seeing as the Gini Coefficients of both countries are very similar I doubt it has anything to do with wealth inequality.

    3) People kill for a variety of reasons. It is mad to suggest that by making sure everyone has an 'equality of outcome' will decrease the homicide rates at all.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    1) You can rehabilitate people after they've done the crime - but it doesn't stop it.

    2) We spend about 3.8x more money per primary school/secondary school child than China does. Yet we still have the same homicide rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ate#By_country

    Clearly education has little effect (seeing as it is hardly moral education, but actual subject education that is given in the UK).And seeing as the Gini Coefficients of both countries are very similar I doubt it has anything to do with wealth inequality.

    3) People kill for a variety of reasons. It is mad to suggest that by making sure everyone has an 'equality of outcome' will decrease the homicide rates at all.
    And what evidence do you have that the death penalty achieves anything? It's pretty clearly prima facie a terrible result to me because the offender has to be taken into account too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Then what is the legal definition of murder so we can compare? I somehow doubt it includes state mandated killings (nor killings of animals)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No it does not, but that does not make the legal definition right or wrong, that depends on your view. The problem with the legal definition is that it can be decided by politicians, by the Military, even by mobs in some circumstances. That is why I am opposed to any form of capital punishment, once you agree to it's use you cannot then say it is wrong, when it's definition affects you personally. There is no way to administer capital punishment but unfairly, this has been the history of it, and it is still being used unfairly throughout the world.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    No it does not, but that does not make the legal definition right or wrong, that depends on your view. The problem with the legal definition is that it can be decided by politicians, by the Military, even by mobs in some circumstances. That is why I am opposed to any form of capital punishment, once you agree to it's use you cannot then say it is wrong, when it's definition affects you personally. There is no way to administer capital punishment but unfairly, this has been the history of it, and it is still being used unfairly throughout the world.
    I guess by a lack of real answer you either don't know the legal definition, or the legal definition means that CP is not murder.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I guess by a lack of real answer you either don't know the legal definition, or the legal definition means that CP is not murder.
    I haven't implied that CP is murder, CP is the killing of a person. Murder is defined by law. Murder is not however the only crime that carries the death penalty, even in this thread people are calling for rapists to be executed. There are a few countries that execute drug mules, others for corruption, and even leaving a religion. ISIS are throwing people off buildings for being homosexual. If you agree with the death penalty, what gives you the right to argue against any of these?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    In the first episode of the first season of Game of Thrones, the incredibly noble and honourable Eddard Stark cut off a mans head for deserting the Night's Watch as he did not believe the mans story about the White Walkers. It turned out the man was telling the truth, and if they had listened to his warning, they could have prepared for when they eventually came and saved thousands of lives. If this can happen to the great Eddard Stark, then I have no doubt it can also happen within our corrupt justice system.

    I'd also recommend not trying to negotiate with the savages North of Hadrian's Wall, it's only going to end up with you being stabbed by your brothers. But that is a story for another day.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cBay)
    In the first episode of the first season of Game of Thrones, the incredibly noble and honourable Eddard Stark cut off a mans head for deserting the Night's Watch as he did not believe the mans story about the White Walkers. It turned out the man was telling the truth, and if they had listened to his warning, they could have prepared for when they eventually came and saved thousands of lives. If this can happen to the great Eddard Stark, then I have no doubt it can also happen within our corrupt justice system.

    I'd also recommend not trying to negotiate with the savages North of Hadrian's Wall, it's only going to end up with you being stabbed by your brothers. But that is a story for another day.
    :ROFL:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    :ROFL:
    I've gotta admit, I do amuse myself sometimes.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'm personally anti, as I don't think the state has the right to end the life of its citizens.
    Totally agree. It's a question of rights not practical problems like errors. Errors don't address the important question of the power governments have over their citizens. The real question to start with is:

    Would you support the death penalty if you could always be sure that you had the right person?

    My answer would still be no.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    I haven't implied that CP is murder, CP is the killing of a person. Murder is defined by law. Murder is not however the only crime that carries the death penalty, even in this thread people are calling for rapists to be executed. There are a few countries that execute drug mules, others for corruption, and even leaving a religion. ISIS are throwing people off buildings for being homosexual. If you agree with the death penalty, what gives you the right to argue against any of these?
    So if CP is not murder then why interject when I said that CP is not murder?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So if CP is not murder then why interject when I said that CP is not murder?
    You were trying to use a definition of murder from a dictionary, which is meaningless in a discussion on CP, I was pointing out that people are not judged for murder (in relation to CP) but on whether it is a capital crime. That definition is one of law, it was not that long ago when a capital crime was defined for a multitude of things, most people would be appalled if that definition existed today. I cannot see how anyone can argue both for and against CP.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    You were trying to use a definition of murder from a dictionary, which is meaningless in a discussion on CP, I was pointing out that people are not judged for murder (in relation to CP) but on whether it is a capital crime. That definition is one of law, it was not that long ago when a capital crime was defined for a multitude of things, most people would be appalled if that definition existed today. I cannot see how anyone can argue both for and against CP.
    Can you please point out where I used a dictionary definition, and where I did not mention anything about legal definition. May I also point out the legal definition and dictionary definition of murder are almost identical, and the relevant part is in both, that it is an unlawful killing, something that CP, for capital crimes, would not be. What is a capital crime is irrelevant to the lawfulness of capital punishment
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by project_legacy)
    So why is it acceptable to put an animal down that has harmed a person? My view is that it is impossible to rehabilitate a certain subset of criminals (murderers, serial killers etc), so we may be left capital punishment as the only effective means of protecting society.
    it's not acceptable to put an animal down for harming a person tho
    our only concern should be with working on ourselves and helping others to work on themselves, there should be no judgement or condemnation
    if we choose to kill someone else we too are murderers
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by fairytalecolours)
    it's not acceptable to put an animal down for harming a person tho
    our only concern should be with working on ourselves and helping others to work on themselves, there should be no judgement or condemnation
    if we choose to kill someone else we too are murderers
    If it's so unacceptable then where is the massive campaign to stop it that is sweeping the nation?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Can you please point out where I used a dictionary definition, and where I did not mention anything about legal definition. May I also point out the legal definition and dictionary definition of murder are almost identical, and the relevant part is in both, that it is an unlawful killing, something that CP, for capital crimes, would not be. What is a capital crime is irrelevant to the lawfulness of capital punishment
    You are missing the point, this whole thread is about the use of the Death Penalty not murder. The DP could in theory be given for any crime, and it would be legal, being legal does not make it right, it just means some group has defined a crime to be worthy of a death sentence. Proponents of CP normally use three classes, murder, rape especially children or to a lesser degree drug smuggling, I have even heard people call for it for drug users. There is a fourth one but it is very recent, terrorism, which would just make martyrs of the terrorist. In other words they want it for crimes that they define as worthy for CP.

    So I ask you (I am supposing you are FOR CP) would you support the DP if it was given for causing death in a car whilst using a mobile phone (considering motor insurers say you cannot accidentally use a mobile phone), and given that a capital crime can be defined any which way?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    All ethics aside (because why bother with those), it costs more than life sentencing and is consistently proven not to be a valid deterrent (at least in the US).
    So what is the point at all? Pandering to the fearful; a waste of time.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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.