Turn on thread page Beta

Corporal Punishment in the Judicial System watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tommyboy)
    I'm not arguing anything, just offering a thought. In a way, I find this debate somewhat amusing. Of course, people will come up with different models of social control in the future. However, whether they will work can ultimately only be determined with hindsight. This is what makes the whole thing so tricky.

    Again, your second paragraph coud stem from a late nineteenth-century legal reformer. You certainly have a good point there, but yet again we could only see how far-reaching police powers and scientific evidence are at present if we were able to compare it with what they will b e like in the future. Unfortunately, we can't. This doesn't, of course, stop us from trying.
    Lets face it, the only way forwards is after all pre-crime, damn Tom Cruise and his meddling ways

    *goes off to find some pre-cogs*

    Andrew
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    You just blamed immigrants for the vast majority of crime :rolleyes:
    I passed on to you the opinion of people who live in one of the safest populated environments on the planet.

    Andrew
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tommyboy)
    Again, your second paragraph coud stem from a late nineteenth-century legal reformer. You certainly have a good point there, but yet again we could only see how far-reaching police powers and scientific evidence are at present if we were able to compare it with what they will b e like in the future. Unfortunately, we can't. This doesn't, of course, stop us from trying.
    I appreciate your input into this thread, your replies are at least more thought out than some of the others here.

    You are right in a way, however where do you draw the line? Enough is enough, we have to show our confidence in our legal systems and ability to prove guilt. If we're always too scared to do this, because of what could happen in the future we'll never make progress!

    Andrew
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyukguy)
    You sound very much like an Amnesty drone

    I'm prepared to accept the death of guilty people. Stop looking at the 0.00001% of cases where the verdict is incorrect and lets look at the 100% proven cases, pictures were taken of the rape, DNA, clothing etc etc why not kill them?

    They might be physically human but mentally they are inept and morally bankrupt so serve no purpose to society. Off with their heads.

    Andrew
    Say someone murders someone, we are saying they should be in prisoin because they took the life of another, what right do you have then to take their life from them if you have just condemed them for exactly the same crime?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyukguy)
    I do think it is as low as that. I also think this: If a woman cries rape when it was consensual, and it can be proven (there was an article recently where this woman had cried rape twice because it was more convenient then getting caught adulterating) then she should be killed too. Being accussed of rape can destroy a mans life just as much as a woman being raped.

    Do you accept the current system does not work? Crime is on the up? You wouldn't feel safe walking through Radford at night would you?

    Andrew
    Look at the figures for people who've been sentenced to death in the US, and later found to be innocent. I think you'll find it's a lot higher than you claim. Some of these were found innocent in times, others weren't. I don't think this is a risk worth taking. Furthermore, the evidence seems to suggest that the death penalty doesn't actually act as a deterrent. There's still plenty of murders going on the American states that still have it!

    And now you think people should be killed for lying or making false accusations? You really are sick.

    I've never actually walked through radford at night, so I couldn't say. I've walked around campus, on my own, in the early hours of the morning, and felt perfectly fine. Despite what people say about Nottinghams crime rate, I know very few people who've actually experienced any.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Say someone murders someone, we are saying they should be in prisoin because they took the life of another, what right do you have then to take their life from them if you have just condemed them for exactly the same crime?
    The same right as Judges in the States have. They are enforcing the law (as it would then be) so would not be "murdering" these people, they'd be putting them to their death.

    Andrew
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyukguy)
    The same right as Judges in the States have. They are enforcing the law (as it would then be) so would not be "murdering" these people, they'd be putting them to their death.

    Andrew
    I would argue that the Judges don't have an right to take life, they are after all no different from you and me. What is so special about Judges in the states that they are allowed to take life?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    And now you think people should be killed for lying or making false accusations? You really are sick.
    These simple "false accusations" ruin peoples lives.

    I've never actually walked through radford at night, so I couldn't say. I've walked around campus, on my own, in the early hours of the morning, and felt perfectly fine. Despite what people say about Nottinghams crime rate, I know very few people who've actually experienced any.
    Being on Campus is fine, naturally, it's much safer. I hope you're living in Lenton next year, or perhaps Dunkirk.

    Andrew
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    I would argue that the Judges don't have an right to take life, they are after all no different from you and me. What is so special about Judges in the states that they are allowed to take life?
    What's special about them, is what is special about all Judges currently operating in any country right now. They have the right to take away human liberties (e.g. force people to put in prison against that persons will no doubt).

    It's painfully obvious what you're trying to achieve with your arguement but it's just not that well thought out.

    Andrew
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    OK, several points to be made here.
    Firstly, by murdering a murderer how can you be right and he be wrong? If killing is wrong, inhumane, ruins lives (which I assume would be your argument against random murders in the street), then how can you ever justify it?
    Secondly, capital punishment does not work. The death penalty did not reduce the number of violent crimes committed when it was introduced in some US states.
    Thirdly, your argument for killing someone who has committed a mugging is grossly disproportionate to the crime. You may not see that this is a problem but if our justice system is not seen to be proportionate people will lose trust in it. You are dishing out the worst penalty possible (in some people's eyes) for a whole load of crimes, basically saying that murder is equally as bad as mugging. Mugging carries a higher risk of trace, as the person remains alive - what makes you think that this "scum" will not murder their victims to prevent them testifying?
    And finally, you leave no space for remorse. People change, it does happen, and you have to accept that some things, such as grief, send people temporarily mad. Their mental state at the time must be taken into account. What about the mentally ill?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    I would argue that the Judges don't have an right to take life, they are after all no different from you and me. What is so special about Judges in the states that they are allowed to take life?
    Well, they have the right because it is granted to them under the law. It's something called jurisdiction.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyukguy)
    These simple "false accusations" ruin peoples lives.
    Whoo, so lets ruin even more peoples lives then, by KILLING them, that'll make it all better. :rolleyes: You could take much less drastic steps to lesson the impact on people's lives, such as not allowing an accused rapist's idenity to be revealed until he's been found guilty. Wouldn't a law such as you suggest make REAL rape victims less likey to come forward, in case they were worried that they wouldn't be believed and could end up facing the death penalty! Ridiculous.

    I hope and pray that the BNP never get any serious power in this country... luckily, I think it's rather unlikely.

    Being on Campus is fine, naturally, it's much safer. I hope you're living in Lenton next year, or perhaps Dunkirk.

    Andrew
    I'm living in Beeston actually :cool:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skevvybritt)
    OK, several points to be made here.
    Firstly, by murdering a murderer how can you be right and he be wrong? If killing is wrong, inhumane, ruins lives (which I assume would be your argument against random murders in the street), then how can you ever justify it?
    I don't care, if a murders life is ruined. They do not deserve to live.

    Secondly, capital punishment does not work. The death penalty did not reduce the number of violent crimes committed when it was introduced in some US states.
    Suprising, perhaps it should be introduced at more levels of the system onto point three...

    Thirdly, your argument for killing someone who has committed a mugging is grossly disproportionate to the crime. You may not see that this is a problem but if our justice system is not seen to be proportionate people will lose trust in it. You are dishing out the worst penalty possible (in some people's eyes) for a whole load of crimes, basically saying that murder is equally as bad as mugging. Mugging carries a higher risk of trace, as the person remains alive - what makes you think that this "scum" will not murder their victims to prevent them testifying?
    And finally, you leave no space for remorse. People change, it does happen, and you have to accept that some things, such as grief, send people temporarily mad. Their mental state at the time must be taken into account. What about the mentally ill?
    Why would we lose trust in a system that actually instils fear in the would be criminal? Surely the best type of justice system is one that prevents?

    You don't want to know my opinion on mentally ill people.

    Andrew
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    Whoo, so lets ruin even more peoples lives then, by KILLING them, that'll make it all better. :rolleyes: You could take much less drastic steps to lesson the impact on people's lives, such as not allowing an accused rapist's idenity to be revealed until he's been found guilty. Wouldn't a law such as you suggest make REAL rape victims less likey to come forward, in case they were worried that they wouldn't be believed and could end up facing the death penalty! Ridiculous.

    I hope and pray that the BNP never get any serious power in this country... luckily, I think it's rather unlikely.
    Who's life are we ruining? A guilty person, someone who has already murdered someone? Why do you care?

    No, because the law isn't that transparent - I believe the Scots still have the Not Proven verdict. We would only use the law when they were proven beyond reasonable doubt to be lying. Again, stop looking at the end case, and start thinking of it as a preventitive measure.

    I'm living in Beeston actually :cool:
    I knew someone who lived there, very straaaange person - have fun!

    Andrew
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyukguy)
    I don't care, if a murders life is ruined. They do not deserve to live.
    I wasn't refering to the murderer. I was talking about the people who know them - family, friends, children.
    Who made you God? Or, if you don't belive in a God (which wouldn't suprise me), who made you Nature? Only one force holds the power of life and death.

    (Original post by andyukguy)
    Suprising, perhaps it should be introduced at more levels of the system onto point three...
    You can't just ignore my evidence. Capital punishment does not work. There are no two ways bout it. And yet you still blindly push on for it.

    (Original post by andyukguy)
    Why would we lose trust in a system that actually instils fear in the would be criminal? Surely the best type of justice system is one that prevents?
    You don't want to know my opinion on mentally ill people.
    On the contrary, I do. I'm interested in how you're going to deal with people who have a mental illness and commit a murder because of it.
    We would lose trust in a justice system which does not provide justice. And an intrinsic part of justice is fairness.
    The best type of justice system not only prevents but allows people to reform.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skevvybritt)
    I wasn't refering to the murderer. I was talking about the people who know them - family, friends, children.
    Who made you God? Or, if you don't belive in a God (which wouldn't suprise me), who made you Nature? Only one force holds the power of life and death.
    Religion is a farce.

    You're losing me a little with your talk of God and Forces. I see it in a much more black and white way. They have murdered someone. They deserve to die.

    You can't just ignore my evidence. Capital punishment does not work. There are no two ways bout it. And yet you still blindly push on for it.
    I'm not ignoring your evidence (not that you presented any) I'm saying perhaps it is not enforced at enough levels of the system to be able to work.

    On the contrary, I do. I'm interested in how you're going to deal with people who have a mental illness and commit a murder because of it.
    We would lose trust in a justice system which does not provide justice. And an intrinsic part of justice is fairness.
    The best type of justice system not only prevents but allows people to reform.
    If they're mentally ill and commit a murder, they have committed a murder. Simple, follow procedure.

    It would provide justice! It would certainly stop repeat offending

    That's an opinion, not a fact - in my opinion the best justice system is one that prevents crimes from taking place. People will never have to reform if they don't commit the crime in the first place right? So why not give them an incentive not too.

    Andrew
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyukguy)
    Religion is a farce.
    You're losing me a little with your talk of God and Forces. I see it in a much more black and white way. They have murdered someone. They deserve to die.
    My point was, who made you the moral judge to decide who deserves to die and who doesn't? You have no right to take another persons life, under any circumstances, unless they are actively threatening yours. Really.

    (Original post by andyukguy)
    I'm not ignoring your evidence (not that you presented any) I'm saying perhaps it is not enforced at enough levels of the system to be able to work.
    My opinions are at least based on facts. I can find the data if you're really bothered. I say that capital punishment does not work, and your countercase has no evidence whatsoever behind it.

    (Original post by andyukguy)
    If they're mentally ill and commit a murder, they have committed a murder. Simple, follow procedure.
    It would provide justice! It would certainly stop repeat offending
    That's an opinion, not a fact - in my opinion the best justice system is one that prevents crimes from taking place. People will never have to reform if they don't commit the crime in the first place right? So why not give them an incentive not too.
    But the fault doesn't lie with them, it lies with the illness. So you're punishing them, effetively, for something that they haven't done. Fair?
    It would pervert the course of justice, not provide justice. Justice is about fairness, the punishment being proportionate to the crime. This is not.
    Unfortunately, it doesn't provide an incentive not to - there is no change in the figures.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If the death penalty would be such a great idea to reduce crime, Thatcher tried to get hanging back but she failed even when she had a huge majority in Parliament.

    Upon abolishing the death penalty for murder, homicide rates fell in England and Wales.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,884

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.