Turn on thread page Beta

Death penalty? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    I think that part of the problem with life sentences is that there is a mandatory life sentence for first degree murder. But obviously, there are different scales of 'evil' demonstrated in these murders. The rape and murder of a little girl, for example, would more than justify life imprisonment in my mind whether it be in solitary confinement or otherwise.
    Where as, in the case of Tony Martin, it can be argued that he deserves a lesser sentence than that of 'life'.
    Because of these different scales of evil, the term "life imprisonment" when decided by a judge is becoming diluted. Life no longer means life as it covers such a vast array of offenders.
    I'm don't agree with you saying that most murders are spontaneous, there is an element of planning involved (desire to kill) which gives them time to consider the consequences. That's why many murderers try and cover up their crimes because they know what the consequences entail. The programme "Real Crimes" on ITV last night about an adopted child who killed most of his family for the inheritance, and then covered it up for 6 months was a very interesting watch. He is now looking for parole, the remainder of his family are terrified that he may get out. His parole was refused and he was told he would die in prison. I for one, am glad he will never be allowed freedom again.
    I stand by my opinion that if the death penalty was shown to reduce the murder rate as a deterrent, I would be all for it as this would benefit society as a whole. It doesn't, and can even be deemed to provoke violence. However, I don't think there is enough evidence to support either claim.
    I wouldn't particularly be bothered if people who are going to spend the rest of their lives in prison (Ian Huntley, for example, or the late Myra Hindley) become bored, a lone cold cell would contain any budding violence. What I do get through your post though is the fact that life imprisonment for all murderers may be counter-productive. Does Tony Martin deserve life for example? As with any system, there are fallacies.
    I certainly disagree that most murders are planned, I would have thought the numbers of crimes of passion would disprove that. People attempting to cover up their crimes hardly proves your point- rather that proving premeditation, it illustrates the not at all surprising fact that theres a lot of people who would rather not be executed or banged up if they can help it. Well I for one had guessed that already.
    I know what your opinion regarding the death penalty is, you've said so many times, and presumably you know how I view it so I wont bother to reiterate.

    However, I'm asking you to consider the practical side of dealing with prisoners who are serving life sentences without the possiblity of parole. You're being quite naive about how it would be possible to keep them pacified. Do you really think for example that it would be possible to imprison all inmates in their own cell? Thats costs you know, and overcrowding is endemic. Giving inmates some form of amusement is entirely practical- spare a thought for those who need to work with them. Without saying I either support or oppose life imprisonment, I'm conscious of the practcal difficulties which would need to be worked around. You don't seem to have worked out a way to deal with the unfortunate truth that its extremely difficult to make people behave when they have absolutely no motivation to do so, and something more feasible then your one idea would have to be implemented.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Okay then, if the death penalty was shown to be a valid deterrent against murders and decreased the prevalence of them, would you support it?
    If it was shown to be a deterrent, no.
    It will never be valid because it is a breach of human rights.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    If it was shown to be a deterrent, no.
    It will never be valid because it is a breach of human rights.
    So in the unlikely case that the death penalty did work in reducing murders, would still be against?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Okay then, if the death penalty was shown to be a valid deterrent against murders and decreased the prevalence of them, would you support it?
    For my Certificate III in Tertiary Preparation. I wrote a paper on the death penalty. 5000 words weighing up the pros and cons of it all. The marking takes place in Sydney with the institution I did this course through, as I left school years before, and I was proudly told by my teacher that while I got a relatively low mark for the paper, the markers were in some cases persuaded to change their view after reading my paper. I've still got the little note with signatures and approval comments on it. The death penalty isn't an effecitve deterrent at all. It never will be. Just think, if you're going to kill someone. You obviously want them dead. Whether it be revenge, heat of the moment, crime of passion. Whatever, people don't care at the time and still carry out the crime/act. Same as rape. You think a rapist is thinking about whether or not a pretty little nurse is going to be handing the doc his final needle to use you him??? Of course not. However to properly answer your question. No I wouldn't. Based solely on my previous post. Innocent people will get executed. They always have and they always will. It shouldn't be allowed, unless by volunteering, but that will never pass.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    If it was shown to be a deterrent, no.
    It will never be valid because it is a breach of human rights.
    i disagree with the fundamentally semitic idea that there is sucha thing as human rights? maybe you should not be allowed to squash the ant. It is another example of the weak joining forces.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    For my Certificate III in Tertiary Preparation. I wrote a paper on the death penalty. 5000 words weighing up the pros and cons of it all. The marking takes place in Sydney with the institution I did this course through, as I left school years before, and I was proudly told by my teacher that while I got a relatively low mark for the paper, the markers were in some cases persuaded to change their view after reading my paper. I've still got the little note with signatures and approval comments on it. The death penalty isn't an effecitve deterrent at all. It never will be. Just think, if you're going to kill someone. You obviously want them dead. Whether it be revenge, heat of the moment, crime of passion. Whatever, people don't care at the time and still carry out the crime/act. Same as rape. You think a rapist is thinking about whether or not a pretty little nurse is going to be handing the doc his final needle to use you him??? Of course not. However to properly answer your question. No I wouldn't. Based solely on my previous post. Innocent people will get executed. They always have and they always will. It shouldn't be allowed, unless by volunteering, but that will never pass.

    have you got hte paper anywhre online? where i can read it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am against the death penalty on principle, I was just curious if those against it were also against for that reason or because it was ineffective.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    i disagree with the fundamentally semitic idea that there is sucha thing as human rights? maybe you should not be allowed to squash the ant. It is another example of the weak joining forces.
    What ant? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, with either that or the weak joining forces point.
    Its interesting to know that you disagree that there is such a thing as fundamental human rights, but, without wishing to offend you, that hasnt changed my mind that there is. It being a fundamentally semitic idea is by the way not to my mind a reason not to adopt it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    have you got hte paper anywhre online? where i can read it
    I've got the piece of paper with the approval comments in the glove box in my car if you want it. Other than that, no. My house burnt down in August of 2002. I did have things backed up on disk as you're supposed to, but that didn't help me much when they burnt too. Just try convincing people that your tax records went up in smoke.... they are very hard to get along with.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    I certainly disagree that most murders are planned, I would have thought the numbers of crimes of passion would disprove that. People attempting to cover up their crimes hardly proves your point- rather that proving premeditation, it illustrates the not at all surprising fact that theres a lot of people who would rather not be executed or banged up if they can help it. Well I for one had guessed that already.
    I know what your opinion regarding the death penalty is, you've said so many times, and presumably you know how I view it so I wont bother to reiterate.

    However, I'm asking you to consider the practical side of dealing with prisoners who are serving life sentences without the possiblity of parole. You're being quite naive about how it would be possible to keep them pacified. Do you really think for example that it would be possible to imprison all inmates in their own cell? Thats costs you know, and overcrowding is endemic. Giving inmates some form of amusement is entirely practical- spare a thought for those who need to work with them. Without saying I either support or oppose life imprisonment, I'm conscious of the practcal difficulties which would need to be worked around. You don't seem to have worked out a way to deal with the unfortunate truth that its extremely difficult to make people behave when they have absolutely no motivation to do so, and something more feasible then your one idea would have to be implemented.
    In the case of "first degree" murder, there needs to be some sort of premeditation for a conviction of such. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.
    So what are the alternatives to treating someone who's has been given a life sentence with no chance of parole? I certainly wouldn't let them free out of principle. Granted, there are practical difficulties, but people who are deemed unsuitable for release into society certainly don't belong anywhere else.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    If it was shown to be a deterrent, no.
    It will never be valid because it is a breach of human rights.

    It depends what you mean by human rights. There are exceptions in the internationally accepted human rights which allow the death penalty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The death penalty is murder, same as a murderer commits murder.
    How can we say murder is wrong and then kill the perpetrator. Just doesn't make sense.
    Commit to prison for life - and life must mean life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    In the case of "first degree" murder, there needs to be some sort of premeditation for a conviction of such. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.
    So what are the alternatives to treating someone who's has been given a life sentence with no chance of parole? I certainly wouldn't let them free out of principle. Granted, there are practical difficulties, but people who are deemed unsuitable for release into society certainly don't belong anywhere else.
    Righto. Now then. Let's assume the killer is as smart as I am, and doesn't want to go to prison, or be killed by Nurse Nancy and Dr. Kevorkian. Let's assume that I'm going to use the 'amount of time needed for premeditation' to also set someone else up to take the fall for my little killing. This person is so concretely set up that they are tried, sentenced, put to sleep. I'm now the guilty party that got away with it. Justice wasn't served, a monumental ****-up certainly was. Now do you understand why the death penalty has no place within a modern society??? Please tell me this is getting through.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    The death penalty is murder, same as a murderer commits murder.
    How can we say murder is wrong and then kill the perpetrator. Just doesn't make sense.
    Commit to prison for life - and life must mean life.
    thats the 'American idea'. hypocrisy. Thats all that is. "Bad man killed someone, let's kill him too. Let's not be better, we'll just reduce ourselves to his level. Why? We're stupid bloody yanks, thats why"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    What ant? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, with either that or the weak joining forces point.
    Its interesting to know that you disagree that there is such a thing as fundamental human rights, but, without wishing to offend you, that hasnt changed my mind that there is. It being a fundamentally semitic idea is by the way not to my mind a reason not to adopt it.
    im just saying that what most people associate with morals and ethics tend to be from Christianity and to a lesser extent otehr religions.The ant, the little creature on the ground, its just that i would disagree, we are all animals, we are no difference. Most ideas that tend to be attributed to civilisation are more to protect weaker individuals, turning into a strength. ALmost going against nature.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Righto. Now then. Let's assume the killer is as smart as I am, and doesn't want to go to prison, or be killed by Nurse Nancy and Dr. Kevorkian. Let's assume that I'm going to use the 'amount of time needed for premeditation' to also set someone else up to take the fall for my little killing. This person is so concretely set up that they are tried, sentenced, put to sleep. I'm now the guilty party that got away with it. Justice wasn't served, a monumental ****-up certainly was. Now do you understand why the death penalty has no place within a modern society??? Please tell me this is getting through.
    I'm not discussing the death penalty, I've already said I'm not a fan in the sense it doesn't prevent future murders.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    The death penalty is murder, same as a murderer commits murder.
    How can we say murder is wrong and then kill the perpetrator. Just doesn't make sense.
    Commit to prison for life - and life must mean life.
    Why should life mean life?
    Why not give prisioners a chance to reform
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sazzles)
    Why should life mean life?
    Why not give prisioners a chance to reform
    Please no, not that argument again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    I'm not discussing the death penalty, I've already said I'm not a fan in the sense it doesn't prevent future murders.
    My apologies in that case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    I've got the piece of paper with the approval comments in the glove box in my car if you want it. Other than that, no. My house burnt down in August of 2002. I did have things backed up on disk as you're supposed to, but that didn't help me much when they burnt too. Just try convincing people that your tax records went up in smoke.... they are very hard to get along with.
    if you have another sleepless night, could you scan or type it in
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
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.