Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    You can't say with any certainty that you are 'right' because it is all a matter of opinion.
    So you're saying any ethical view cannot be right? Even when the opposite view seems incredibly barbaric?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Why do you think that forgiveness is purely the prerogative of Christians? Most of humankind seek to forgive as it leads to inner peace. Ask a Buddhist
    Very true. I can't be happy with myself if I have unresolved conflicts. If people were more forgiving and tried to see other's point's of view there would be less terrorism and war (that sounded cleverer in my head).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    I certainly would if given the chance. All I ask is an open mind, and teach I shall. Unless of course someone can prove me wrong on the topic. Then I shall be the one learning. The easiest way to go about is this. If you were the sucker whom I set up in the earlier post. Would you wish for the death penalty to be carried out on you? Answer honestly, and it has to be no. Nobody wants to die for a crime someone else committed. Unless you begin to talk about the old fashioned loyalties of the Mafia, Yakuza etc. But that is sacrifice, and something different entirely.
    yes, but do you want to pay taxes, However, if you believe in the welfare state somebody has to. Killing someone is something i would have (maybe?) considered and the death penalty is an effective deterrent (to me at least, i think it would). But, should you kill people for crimes, what crimes. Victims would say different things, rapists victims would want rapists killed but it could sometimes have been a drunken mistake. ITs all crazy and i think the current status quo is cool although Utah should not have removed the right to a firing squad and forced them to take a lethal injection.
    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.
    First degree murder is, as far as I'm aware, not the only degree of murder for which it is possible to be convicted. There are therefore, murders which are in no way premeditated.
    The alternative to a life sentence is obviously parole- the fact that you dont agree with doent mean it isnt an alternative. Comments about whether letting murderers out is right or not are not relevant to the point I made about what best to do with lifers though- you've repeatedly said what you think there and that wasnt the question. I wanted to know if you had any idea of the practical difficulties involved in pacifying lifers without entertaining them, and what if any your ideas for alternatives were.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    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.
    Ok, now its clearer. I dont share your views about ants having the same rights as humans though- did you mean you're someone who believes that what most people term pest control is actually animal murder, of the same magnitude as killing a human? I'd be interested to know.
    I dont have a problem with many people having religious sources for their ethical beliefs, though I'd be careful saying that if I were you as I think there are some atheists on here who wouldnt appreciate your suggestion!
    I have never bought into the 'going against nature' argument, do you mean that you see laws protecting the weak as a bad thing then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    I think after all that we'll have to agree to disagree *sigh*
    Well, I tried. But I suppose there will always be a hang em and flog em brigade with us- though I would have thought your opposition to the death penalty is pretty entrenched anyway, from what you've said?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    yes, but do you want to pay taxes, However, if you believe in the welfare state somebody has to. Killing someone is something i would have (maybe?) considered and the death penalty is an effective deterrent (to me at least, i think it would). But, should you kill people for crimes, what crimes. Victims would say different things, rapists victims would want rapists killed but it could sometimes have been a drunken mistake. ITs all crazy and i think the current status quo is cool although Utah should not have removed the right to a firing squad and forced them to take a lethal injection.
    Well I'm not a fan of taxes. But if paying a bit more in tax ensures that there is a definitive degree of fairness in our legal system, then by all means. My only gripe is that innocent people will suffer wrongly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    when it comes down to it, there would be a guy paid to kill people.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    First degree murder is, as far as I'm aware, not the only degree of murder for which it is possible to be convicted. There are therefore, murders which are in no way premeditated.
    The alternative to a life sentence is obviously parole- the fact that you dont agree with doent mean it isnt an alternative. Comments about whether letting murderers out is right or not are not relevant to the point I made about what best to do with lifers though- you've repeatedly said what you think there and that wasnt the question. I wanted to know if you had any idea of the practical difficulties involved in pacifying lifers without entertaining them, and what if any your ideas for alternatives were.
    First degree murder (ok, US phrase, but I like it) warrants a life sentence. I don't think a murder which is not premeditated warrants the same sentence.
    And yes, I understand your question about alternatives, it would be hard to get control of people who have no hope left in their life, but what other option do we have? Especially where parole could never be considered? From what i've read, many prisoners given life for murder become subdued and their violence levels do not increase or they'd be subjected to even more harsh conditions (e.g. the block). I'm just not a big fan in supporting lifer's precious 'civil liberties' when most of them plainly show no regard for anyone elses (and yes, I know there are hundreds of phrases about everyone being entitled to "human rights" etc, but even human rights allow for the death penalty to be instated (the exception in the human rights law)).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Well, I tried. But I suppose there will always be a hang em and flog em brigade with us- though I would have thought your opposition to the death penalty is pretty entrenched anyway, from what you've said?
    You do make good points. I don't think they should be hanged, how could they even possibly show any remorse or guilt for their crimes if they are dead? The longer people like Ian Huntley stay alive behind bars the better, even if they would rather be dead. I'm just not too fussed in paying the taxes to support the "holiday camp"-like atmosphere. Saying that, they do say it costs a few million per death row inmate in the US so it's a bit of a puzzle. Can I ask which political party you support (if any)...?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    First degree murder (ok, US phrase, but I like it) warrants a life sentence. I don't think a murder which is not premeditated warrants the same sentence.
    And yes, I understand your question about alternatives, it would be hard to get control of people who have no hope left in their life, but what other option do we have? Especially where parole could never be considered? From what i've read, many prisoners given life for murder become subdued and their violence levels do not increase or they'd be subjected to even more harsh conditions (e.g. the block). I'm just not a big fan in supporting lifer's precious 'civil liberties' when most of them plainly show no regard for anyone elses (and yes, I know there are hundreds of phrases about everyone being entitled to "human rights" etc, but even human rights allow for the death penalty to be instated (the exception in the human rights law)).
    Right.
    What I was inviting you to consider is the practical side- its all very wells saying they should suffer, but spare a thought for the people wh would have to work with the mental cases that would ensue! I'm sure some prisoners might become subdued, but where did you get this evidence, since I dont know of anywhere which just leaves lifers to rot, as it were, so I would have thought its kind of in the realm of hypothesis. The account I read from one who was incarcerated with them talked of levels of violence much higher than for other prisoners.

    The suggestion that human rights allow for the death penalty is hugely debatable to say the least- this provision having been made in the Geneva Convention (was it?) is neither here nor there. Like I said, I'm not surprised it was put in as it was written at a time when state sponsored murder was considered acceptable and also when there was huge pressure to execute war criminals. I can see why the death penalty is in this case exempted, but that in no way means that it should have been. The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to life, and no state has the right to violate it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Right.
    What I was inviting you to consider is the practical side- its all very wells saying they should suffer, but spare a thought for the people wh would have to work with the mental cases that would ensue! I'm sure some prisoners might become subdued, but where did you get this evidence, since I dont know of anywhere which just leaves lifers to rot, as it were, so I would have thought its kind of in the realm of hypothesis. The account I read from one who was incarcerated with them talked of levels of violence much higher than for other prisoners.

    The suggestion that human rights allow for the death penalty is hugely debatable to say the least- this provision having been made in the Geneva Convention (was it?) is neither here nor there. Like I said, I'm not surprised it was put in as it was written at a time when state sponsored murder was considered acceptable and also when there was huge pressure to execute war criminals. I can see why the death penalty is in this case exempted, but that in no way means that it should have been. The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to life, and no state has the right to violate it.
    We seem to be going around in circles. When you talk of human rights, it's not some supreme biological right, it's the rights considered necessary for all humans to have to ensure a level of civilised society. Humans have a right to freedom, and the state has the right to violate it for the best of society as a whole.
    I am considering how it would be like to work with these people, something I do not envy in the least. Basic prisons many years ago with such luxuries as TVs etc. did not have a revolution of violence. They have come to expect a hightened level of living standards which I think is money best spent else where. I don't think they should be cut off completely, it's dependent on the severity of the crime.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    We seem to be going around in circles. When you talk of human rights, it's not some supreme biological right, it's the rights considered necessary for all humans to have to ensure a level of civilised society. Humans have a right to freedom, and the state has the right to violate it for the best of society as a whole.
    I am considering how it would be like to work with these people, something I do not envy in the least. Basic prisons many years ago with such luxuries as TVs etc. did not have a revolution of violence. They have come to expect a hightened level of living standards which I think is money best spent else where. I don't think they should be cut off completely, it's dependent on the severity of the crime.
    I know we are. I never said it was a biological right, in fact I think your definition is quite good, seeing as how no society which thinks state sponsored murder acceptable deserves the term civilised. The violation of freedom by the state is hardly of the same magnitude as the violation of the right to life.
    Of course they didnt have TVs when they werent around, but that doesnt mean they didnt see the need to entertain the inmates- and there has certainly always been violence in prisons. Even were your assertion to be correct, what applied then doesnt necessarily translate well today. Basically, I stand by my point about the no TV argument being naive. Like it or not, prisoners have to be pacified, and one of the cheaper ways to entertain them is television. The pragmatic argument here is very strong.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by lala)
    I know we are. I never said it was a biological right, in fact I think your definition is quite good, seeing as how no society which thinks state sponsored murder acceptable deserves the term civilised. The violation of freedom by the state is hardly of the same magnitude as the violation of the right to life.
    Of course they didnt have TVs when they werent around, but that doesnt mean they didnt see the need to entertain the inmates- and there has certainly always been violence in prisons. Even were your assertion to be correct, what applied then doesnt necessarily translate well today. Basically, I stand by my point about the no TV argument being naive. Like it or not, prisoners have to be pacified, and one of the cheaper ways to entertain them is television. The pragmatic argument here is very strong.
    I agree. In days gone by the pacified them by allowing their wives/women to come visit them, or, failing that, hoares.
    Nothing more easy to handle than a post copulation male
    J
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    I agree. In days gone by the pacified them by allowing their wives/women to come visit them, or, failing that, hoares.
    Nothing more easy to handle than a post copulation male
    J
    Well that is another option, yes!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Well that is another option, yes!
    Don't tell me, we are infringing their liberty to reproduce as well... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Don't tell me, we are infringing their liberty to reproduce as well... :rolleyes:
    Hmm, anyone would think you'd made an assumption about my moral views on prison conditions! I was discussing the practicalities of life imprisonment, and was very careful not to say whether I agreed with it or not.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by lala)
    Hmm, anyone would think you'd made an assumption about my moral views on prison conditions! I was discussing the practicalities of life imprisonment, and was very careful not to say whether I agreed with it or not.
    there was actually a case of someone saying it was his right to have children whilst in jail. cant remember the outcome though
    J
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Hmm, anyone would think you'd made an assumption about my moral views on prison conditions! I was discussing the practicalities of life imprisonment, and was very careful not to say whether I agreed with it or not.
    Well, what is your view on life imprisonment?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Well, what is your view on life imprisonment?
    Don't feel I know enough about it to have a concrete view, and I haven't become immediately struck by moral arguments either way. Which is why I confined myself to the practical. Of course, I favour life imprisonment over execution but I suppose you'd guessed that, and it doesnt necessarily follow that it has to be either/or.
    Just shows that you shouldnt make assumptions...
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.