This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- How can I improve my speech about the Death Penalty?
- Capital Punishment Survey
- LNAT Essay
- LNAT Prep.
- Lnat Prep.
- EPQ title
- Thousands of prisoners to be released in September
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- 14yo Arrested After 7yo Killed by Motorcycle Hit-and-Run
- Edexcel GCSE History Paper 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- I can't choose an EPQ topic
- For harrasment does someone get a warning first or no warning
- AQA GCSE Religious Studies A Paper 2 (8062/2A-2B) - 16th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- sutton trust pathways to law
- Self-Plagiarism on presentation
- Late Submission
- Valdo Calocane gets hospital order- Families of the victims are angry about it
- Brianna Ghey killed in quiet village
- I did shoplifting in Primark
- How do Committee Hearings for Academic Misconduct work? - Uni of Leeds
Should we use the 'Death Penalty' for serious crimes?
Scroll to see replies
Though I do very much agree with the phrase "A life for a life" I would not a support a death penalty as there are those who are innocent who get charged with others preposterous crimes, which would mean others were murderers and another life would have to be taken and the cycle would continue.
EDIT; for clarification I do not include manslaughter or driving accidents as they are unintentional and accidental
EDIT; for clarification I do not include manslaughter or driving accidents as they are unintentional and accidental
Aeolus
Currently execution is illegal and would be classed as murder. So we are not inaccurate in reffering to the death penalty state sanctioned murder.
That depends on the time and country you are in.
=Cuttersblade]Every living person has the right to life, nobody has the right to take that away, nobody including Joe Bloggs and government. The death penalty is taking somebodies right to life away.
Therefore by taking somebodies life away, be it in the name of the state or not, is murder.
Therefore by taking somebodies life away, be it in the name of the state or not, is murder.
Well firstly, the death penalty is not ending someone's life in the name of the state. It's ending someone's life in the name of justice. It is giving to each what they deserve. And some crimes are of such severity that death happens to be the just punishment. I ask you: did Hitler not deserve death, or are there absolutely no crimes whatsoever that are so appalling that they deserve death?
Also with regard to the immutable right to life. You seem to be arguing on the basis that it is ever-present and incontestable. But things like human rights are only ever there when there is someone to enforce them. And with rights come responsibility, and most people have no problem with the idea that if you fail in your responsibilities you forfeit certain rights. So you can't really argue against the death penalty on the basis of having a right to life. Because if you commit a crime such that the just punishment is death, you quite clearly forfeit your right to life...you have a right to death.
So, what does your argument say other than 'we shouldn't use the death penalty because we shouldn't end peoples lives as a punishment?'
The death penalty is ending life in the name of the state as state dictates what the punishment is. There are no crimes which deserve death.
The argument is 'we shouldn't use the death penalty because we shouldn't end peoples lives as a punishment'. By ending a murderers life your not forcing them to live with what they have done, which is a worse punishment than death.
The argument is 'we shouldn't use the death penalty because we shouldn't end peoples lives as a punishment'. By ending a murderers life your not forcing them to live with what they have done, which is a worse punishment than death.
Aeolus
It's 20:05 and we are in Great Britain. So yes, execution is still murder.
That's fine... what if the law changes tomorrow?
Also we're just using words here, it doesn't actually detract from the argument itself.
Cuttersblade
The death penalty is ending life in the name of the state as state dictates what the punishment is. There are no crimes which deserve death.
The argument is 'we shouldn't use the death penalty because we shouldn't end peoples lives as a punishment'. By ending a murderers life your not forcing them to live with what they have done, which is a worse punishment than death.
The argument is 'we shouldn't use the death penalty because we shouldn't end peoples lives as a punishment'. By ending a murderers life your not forcing them to live with what they have done, which is a worse punishment than death.
So, if it is a worse punishment to have to live what you have done, can we use the death penalty for lesser offences?
Or, what if the murderer was unlikely to ever show remorse, like Hitler for example?
Time Tourist
So, if it is a worse punishment to have to live what you have done, can we use the death penalty for lesser offences?
Or, what if the murderer was unlikely to ever show remorse, like Hitler for example?
Or, what if the murderer was unlikely to ever show remorse, like Hitler for example?
Well if its a worse punishment to have to live with it, how would using the death penalty for lesser offences make it any more appropriate?
Even if a murderer is unlikely to show remorse, the treatment they would receive in prison and from the general public is sufficient punishment. I would not have given Hitler the death penalty if it was ever my choice.
Cuttersblade
Well if its a worse punishment to have to live with it, how would using the death penalty for lesser offences make it any more appropriate?
Even if a murderer is unlikely to show remorse, the treatment they would receive in prison and from the general public is sufficient punishment. I would not have given Hitler the death penalty if it was ever my choice.
Even if a murderer is unlikely to show remorse, the treatment they would receive in prison and from the general public is sufficient punishment. I would not have given Hitler the death penalty if it was ever my choice.
Well maybe in some lesser cases people should not have to live with what they have done? That is a plausible consequence of what you are saying... (I don't agree with what your saying)
We just have to disagree then, I (and I think most people if they think about it) regard some crimes as being so severe that death is the just punishment.
You are in a huge minority with what you say on Hitler, and how you can think he did not deserve death is frankly beyond me (and most people, I believe). Perhaps your sense of moral rectitude is somewhat misplaced. Quite clearly the only right and proper thing to do had Hitler been caught would have been to put him on trial and execute him. As did happen with all the senior Nazis. That is justice.
What im saying is being labelled by society and the treatment received is a worse punishment than the death penalty. People should be made to live with what they have done.
Well seen as the majority of the world doesn't have the death penalty then I think most people regard death as wrong for a punishment.
I think it is wrong to sentence any person to death, regardless of what crime they commit, what the Nazis did was horrific, but my opinion does not change. There is nothing wrong with my morals thank you very much, respect of a humans right to life can never be immoral
Well seen as the majority of the world doesn't have the death penalty then I think most people regard death as wrong for a punishment.
I think it is wrong to sentence any person to death, regardless of what crime they commit, what the Nazis did was horrific, but my opinion does not change. There is nothing wrong with my morals thank you very much, respect of a humans right to life can never be immoral
No. You can't compensate for it if you get it wrong and kill somebody innocent. Even if this happens rarely I'd rather pay the expense of keeping any number of guilty people in prison rather than unjustly kill one innocent person.
Also I think that society should aspire to reform bad people rather than to exterminate them.
Also I think that society should aspire to reform bad people rather than to exterminate them.
Time Tourist
I think don't think that it follows that from them both ending in the same result that they are identical.
If I go and rob a bank tomorrow I will become rich, but I can also become wealthy if I work hard and get a good job... I don't think anyone would agree that they are morally identical, yet in both cases I achieve the same result.
I suppose we will just have to disagree. Justice is giving to each what he deserves. And I believe we have a right to punish crimes, and some crimes are such that they deserve death. Can you really tell me in all sincerity that Hitler did not deserve death?
If I go and rob a bank tomorrow I will become rich, but I can also become wealthy if I work hard and get a good job... I don't think anyone would agree that they are morally identical, yet in both cases I achieve the same result.
I suppose we will just have to disagree. Justice is giving to each what he deserves. And I believe we have a right to punish crimes, and some crimes are such that they deserve death. Can you really tell me in all sincerity that Hitler did not deserve death?
We punish bad behaviour for a purpose, to prevent it from happening again. Usually, we are given the chance to prove whether or not it will happen again.
Being given death as a punishment, is a different matter, you don't get another chance.
So, the punishment, in truth, does nothing for the criminal per se.
Instead, it really provides satisfaction for those who were affected by the criminal's actions, knowing that 'justice' has been served.
Many people would disagree, but I strongly believe these criminals need help, not to be disposed off! Murderers are not born murderers, it is not human nature to kill one another, to carry out pure evil sort of actions.
A murderer who is facing the death penalty today did not one day, wake up and randomly want to kill someone. They had a reason behind their action, a root cause of their evil. They could justify their killing.
The concern therefore is why they were evil. It shows that there is a serious problem which needs to be looked at - why is it that some people want to or have a reason to kill another.
If you look at the death penalty, it does not care for that problem. It only cares for 'an eye for an eye'. It covers up the problem by disposing of it, it is not a solution.
If we are not born murderers, why are there murderers?
Why are there some people who have grown mentally to believe that they have the right to kill? And most of all, how has this been allowed to even happen?
When I look at the reason behind a killing, to me, the death penalty seems useless, how does it even start to answer the most important questions?
It is pure ignorance, to believe a murderer is a murderer for no reason, that they deserve death because of their corrupt mind, a mind which has developed like any other, but somehow without basic morals. We learn from one another, we teach and influence one another, is it therefore our own fault that we think how we think, are brought up how we have been brought up, or are socialised how we have been socialised?
Is that solely down to each individual?...
Well firstly, the death penalty is not ending someone's life in the name of the state. It's ending someone's life in the name of justice. It is giving to each what they deserve. And some crimes are of such severity that death happens to be the just punishment. I ask you: did Hitler not deserve death, or are there absolutely no crimes whatsoever that are so appalling that they deserve death?
'Justice' is a completely abstract concept, which varies on who you ask, as each individual defines it. For some it means protection of the majority, for some it means rehabilitation and for some it means cold-blooded revenge. Seeing as it is the state (as the collective association of the people) that decides what justice is, that enforces justice and that doles out justice, killing someone in the name of justice (when done by the state) is killing someone in the name of that state.
You assert some crimes 'deserve death' or that people 'get what they deserve'-again, how do you define this. Some people believe Thatcher deserves a state funeral, some believe we should have a street party when she dies. In the face of such conflicting views (and no analysis to back up your point) how can you assert that there are absolute actions from which people simply 'deserve' things?
Also with regard to the immutable right to life. You seem to be arguing on the basis that it is ever-present and incontestable. But things like human rights are only ever there when there is someone to enforce them. And with rights come responsibility, and most people have no problem with the idea that if you fail in your responsibilities you forfeit certain rights. So you can't really argue against the death penalty on the basis of having a right to life. Because if you commit a crime such that the just punishment is death, you quite clearly forfeit your right to life...you have a right to death. So, what does your argument say other than 'we shouldn't use the death penalty because we shouldn't end peoples lives as a punishment?'
True, rights only exist when someone is around to enforce them. Societal rights are the product of a collective association (i.e. a state) coming together to legislate for them, to say 'these are the rules by which we want our society to run'. So, we say killing is wrong, we can not then say that actually 'killing is only wrong sometimes', just as we can't say 'everyone is equal, but not women'-because these rights have to be applied equally to everyone to ensure the harmonious running of society they are designed to create.
Responsibilities are also abstract, and as such, ********. A state cannot legislate to allocate responsibilities to people without their prior consent, irrespective of whether they are capable of carrying out those responsibilities, and finally it completely violates the idea of the individual's right to non-interference from external parties.
As for the rest of what you've said...just punishment and a 'right to death'-complete assertion and rhetoric, please do better.
There is a problem with Roger Scruton's reasoning. It is not a moral problem, but a syllogistical one.
He states that:
1) Respecting the dignity of a person means he should be treated as a free and responsible individual person. (I agree)
2) Therefore, if an individual person ought to be free and responsible, he therefore ought to be faced with the beforehand known inevitable legal consequences for his actions. (I agree)
3) Therefore, not giving a murderer (or any criminal) the punishment he deserves, is a violation of his dignity, because he is not treated as a responsible individual. (I agree partially; but let's follow this reasoning)
4) Therefore, a person who committed the crime of murder, he should be punished by death; except, if the relatives of the victim sue for the murderer's mercy. (I do not agree)
So, there is a missing link in sir Roger's chain of logical arguments, between step (3) and (4). Scruton suddenly jumps from society's duty of establishing legal certainty, to a discrete personal opinion on the measure of severity of penalty in the case of certain crimes. So this is a personal opinion of him, though eloquently formulated, without correct argumentation.
He states that:
1) Respecting the dignity of a person means he should be treated as a free and responsible individual person. (I agree)
2) Therefore, if an individual person ought to be free and responsible, he therefore ought to be faced with the beforehand known inevitable legal consequences for his actions. (I agree)
3) Therefore, not giving a murderer (or any criminal) the punishment he deserves, is a violation of his dignity, because he is not treated as a responsible individual. (I agree partially; but let's follow this reasoning)
4) Therefore, a person who committed the crime of murder, he should be punished by death; except, if the relatives of the victim sue for the murderer's mercy. (I do not agree)
So, there is a missing link in sir Roger's chain of logical arguments, between step (3) and (4). Scruton suddenly jumps from society's duty of establishing legal certainty, to a discrete personal opinion on the measure of severity of penalty in the case of certain crimes. So this is a personal opinion of him, though eloquently formulated, without correct argumentation.
(edited 8 years ago)
I believe we should but only if there is evidence which proves guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The circumstances should be truly exceptional and the evidence should be crystal clear. The state allows soldiers to take the lives of hostile actors, the state should have the right to take the life of those who commit actions which are heinous and reprehensible.
Why not? They obviously had no regard for the victim while committing the crime, so why should anyone care about them.
I'm referring to serious stuff like murder, child molestation etc.
I'm referring to serious stuff like murder, child molestation etc.
Nah, spending taxes on people that deserve a painful end isn't great.
I'm of the view that it would be a step back into lack of understanding, that we need to understand these crimes and that the primary aim should be protecting the public(which should be accompanied by better policing) and not punishment when the line between the 'insanity plea' and culpability is so blurred. If one commits such a crime then surely one is by definition just as liable to not be mentally normal as someone who has been given that category officially. If the criminal is alive more research can be done, on bio chemistry, psychology, genetics and all of it.
Original post by ManiaMuse
No, it just brings us down to their level.
But there should be more 'life means life' sentences and solitary confinement for the very worst offenders.
But there should be more 'life means life' sentences and solitary confinement for the very worst offenders.
How so? I don't know about you, but I haven't ever gone on a killing spree or murdered someone to get revenge, or molested someone.
Related discussions
- How can I improve my speech about the Death Penalty?
- Capital Punishment Survey
- LNAT Essay
- LNAT Prep.
- Lnat Prep.
- EPQ title
- Thousands of prisoners to be released in September
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- 14yo Arrested After 7yo Killed by Motorcycle Hit-and-Run
- Edexcel GCSE History Paper 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- I can't choose an EPQ topic
- For harrasment does someone get a warning first or no warning
- AQA GCSE Religious Studies A Paper 2 (8062/2A-2B) - 16th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- sutton trust pathways to law
- Self-Plagiarism on presentation
- Late Submission
- Valdo Calocane gets hospital order- Families of the victims are angry about it
- Brianna Ghey killed in quiet village
- I did shoplifting in Primark
- How do Committee Hearings for Academic Misconduct work? - Uni of Leeds
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Can Labour lose the next election over the Winter Fuel allowance?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Rachel Reeves did the right thing in ending winter fuel paymentsLast reply 3 weeks ago
[Golden Thread] - Which celebrity would you choose to become Prime Minister?Last reply 1 month ago
Should the UK introduce a mandatory working gap year for 18-year olds?Last reply 1 month ago
What do you consider as the best way for resolving the nationwide housing crisis?
