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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    So are you saying the state has a right to protect "its" citizens? Where does this right come from? And just how far does it extend? Should the state "protect" citizens from themselves? (I agree with you on the death penalty btw).


    The state has the right to do whatever we give it the right to do. That is the reality. Although modern states are held in check by constitutions and monarchy, the people still have the say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The state has the right to do whatever we give it the right to do. That is the reality. Although modern states are held in check by constitutions and monarchy, the people still have the say.
    Does that mean that when you say "the state doesn't have the right to take life", you really mean it hasn't got the legal authority to do it? Because as soon as "we give" it the right to, surely it's not a right, merely a permissible action.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    None of that really adresses my point.


    Your argument before seemed to be. 'Why should we let the murderer live. He didn't let his victim live'.

    Are you saying you do not believe this is any kind of substantial justification for the death penalty?
    In the case of someone who has killed innocent people wrongfully, that's what I was talking about. I should have made it clearer. The wish of a brutal sadist murderer to live is put into jeopardy by the lack of mercy and the will to live that they denied their innocent victims through unrelenting cruelty.

    If you malevolently and intently take away an innocent person's right to live, you forfeit your own, ideally. However, this does not work in practice, and I think that we should be lenient and hold the sword from the majority of genuinely empathetic, human murderers who truly apologise, who really regret what they have done.
    There are more cold-blooded serial killers and sadists who show themselves to be complete and utter vermin - no matter what their pleas, some people are unforgivable and rotten to the core. I think that only capital punishment will make some very nasty people understand the meaning of human life, and restore the the balance of justice.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    IMO if you kill someone then you should be killed... its really that simple... i don't see whats the point of making the murderer live in prison for the rest of his life... it costs a lot of money to feed him and even if he becomes a better person its too late.. he will never be out of prison... so just kill him. you might think that i am an ******* for saying this but think of all the kids that have been raped and murdered and then those killers just end up in prison and get free food?? **** that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Not to mention the fact that an innocent man being killed is inevitable.
    Yeah but people also end up in prison for extended periods of time and then have their convictions quashed. They have still effectively had some of their life taken from them. Ok they can be let out but they will never get those years back. I think this guy is the most recent example;

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5891503.ece
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Some people are simply too dangerous to be allowed in public ever again. I was told it costs about £60,000/year to keep ONE prisoner locked away.

    I know technically that I'm saying the value of a prisoner's life is only £60,000 - but surely keeping them locked away for 25 years (running up a cost of £1.5m) then letting them free to either, kill them selves because they are institutionalized and need the prison system, repeat crimes, either to get locked away again or because they are just *******s, or get the **** kicked out of them by society.

    It's better to have the death sentence for some crimes, and I mean the most brutal of crimes, things like molesting children, rape, murder. These are the kind of people that don't often get reformed. The punishment fits the crime really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There are just way too many different situations and grey areas for the death penalty to be put in place.
    If you say murdering should be punishable by death then if someone killed you family and you killed them then surely if they were going to be killed because of the death penalty then it really shouldnt matter and people would argue that the sort of vengeance murder should not be punishable by death because this person is not a menace to socioty in any way but has just seen someone brutally murder his family and therefore took vengeance, and there are also soo many more situations in which it would be hard to decide on weather someone deserves to be given the death penalty or not
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    If the death penalty entailed walking out of the court room and being lined up against a wall then that would probably be more of a crime deterrent...but then again that is probably wrong ethically or something
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I HEART KFC!!!)
    IMO if you kill someone then you should be killed... its really that simple
    Is it really? If the taking of a life is wrong, which I hope you will agree, it is. Then the killing of a killer is still wrong. It is a hypocritical contradiction to say otherwise. The death penalty is an archaic barbaric relic from the medieval era, and should only be discussed in the context of history.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The idea behind the death penalty is irrational. If someone I loved was murdered, I would wish the murderer would die. This would be perfectly understandable but my feelings would be influenced by grief and irrationality on a whim.

    Ghandi.

    If the state murders a murderer that lowers them to the level of the murderer. This would make the government untrustworthy.

    Everyone has an opportunity to show remorse until they die. They should be kept alive as a human right, even though what they did was despicable.

    Death is a not punishment. Being locked away for the rest of your life is and that is the punishment that should be made for all murderers full stop.

    The death penalty is not a deterrent and has not reduced crime.

    Innocent people have died as a result of it. They have been proven innocent with new evidence after their execution, which is too late.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The death penalty isn't a deterrent because people extend their life through appeals and in the end it still takes years for you to get to the head of the line. Like someone said if we still had public hangings or firing squads that would be a deterrent, but we don't. I believe a persons has the right to do what they want with their life but the moment they decide they have the right to choose when another person die's they forfeit that right and ultimately the right to their life.

    One of the reasons I like Texas law is that if 3 or more people witness you commit a murder you go straight to the head of the line no waiting.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ylem)
    Is it really? If the taking of a life is wrong, which I hope you will agree, it is. Then the killing of a killer is still wrong. It is a hypocritical contradiction to say otherwise. The death penalty is an archaic barbaric relic from the medieval era, and should only be discussed in the context of history.
    its not barbaric if he killed someone.. i mean come on.. use the weapon that he used on him.. i don't see why we have to act all merciful or ethical when he murdered someone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, no, it is not necessary.

    Like many people have mentioned before me, I believe forced labor would be more beneficial to the United States.

    I would like to see the amount of money that is spent on a single person on death row. Captured - Court - Prison - Feeding/Clothing - Tax for the prison - More court - Lethal injection costs; Everything should be totaled up. That way, we would have a clearer view on how much it costs us to end the lives of these animals. Labor camps are the way forward.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by awais590)
    i think so. there is evidence that the death penalty works. many countries in the east have little crime compared to here. because they have the death penalty and other harsh punishments related to it.
    e.g. steal something = chop limbs off etc. :p:

    Two points:

    a) I counter your evidence with the simple case of the US, they have the death penalty there but crime rates are still high.

    b) How do you propose it would work? Killing is wrong to show people that killing is wrong we shall kill this criminal?

    There's an old saying, 'Two wrongs don't make a right.'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The death penalty isnt a deterrent because criminals are either opportunists who think they will not be caught or it is done in the heat of the moment. That texan law looks like it could be open to abuse tbh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the-snail)
    Yeah but people also end up in prison for extended periods of time and then have their convictions quashed. They have still effectively had some of their life taken from them. Ok they can be let out but they will never get those years back. I think this guy is the most recent example;

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5891503.ece



    Yes, but that is reversible, and nothing in comparison to being killed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nope.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    1. A state with the power to kill has too much power. Our Government already has a ridiculous amount of power in terms of knowing every detail about every citizen (and political opponent).

    2. It is too expensive.

    3. Innocent people will be killed. There are always people being released from prison after new evidence turns up. There have also been people in America exonerated after being executed.

    4. It would be (and is) used to scare people into confessions. When you are innocent but there is good evidence against you, and you are offered a deal - plead guilty and avoid the death sentence - many people would plead guilty.

    5. It's just wrong to sanction unnecessary killing, just for the sake of getting even.

    6. Purely a guess but maybe the death penalty is one of the reasons that cop killing is so much higher in the US. If a murderer has done enough to warrant a death penalty, then he has nothing to lose by trying to escape by any means.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I HEART KFC!!!)
    IMO if you kill someone then you should be killed... its really that simple...
    This will make it difficult to find people willing to be the executioner.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    I'm fairly certain they're mentally disturbed; normal, healthy human beings don't do that sort of thing.

    But even if they aren't...you support the execution of children? :lolwut:
    When I read that story for the first time it was the also the first time in my life I have ever advocated capital punishment. They are literally the pure embodiment of evil. I think we have to accept that the majority of serial killers, rapists HAVE to be mentally disturbed to seek that kind of thrill. It seems wrong to me that the offenders seem to get all the focus from the state, ie it costs hundreds of thousands pounds a year to keep them in a prison, they are put through years and years of councilling and rehibilitation when the victims and victims families are just thrown out to deal with the effects. I just think the balance needs to be readressed. x
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

    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.