Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    I'm so glad to see that most people here understand that nobody is in the position to be taking lives. It always unsettles me when you ask this question on a US messageboard, and the responses are usually around 60% in favour.
    im not against it because its immoral, most states use a lethal injection that gives no pain to the victim, however, it just is money that can be spent on keeping kids off streets and out of crime in the first place....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curryADD)
    im not against it because its immoral, most states use a lethal injection that gives no pain to the victim, however, it just is money that can be spent on keeping kids off streets and out of crime in the first place....
    Pain to the family, still. Also, it has to be just slightly emotionally stressing being strapped to a table, and having a toxic solution pumped into you knowing you have a few seconds to live.

    Also, can you really say it's okay to kill someone as long as they don't feel pain whilst dying?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Human rights are so called because each and every human is entitled to them. The idea that human rights are somehow dispensable, that we promote them by denying them to those who have violated those of others, is as ridiculous as it is revolting. Britain said goodbye to that piece of barbarism a while ago and may it stay this way forever.
    I doubt you'd be so agreeable with that concept if your once best friend had been murdered by his father when he was 8. Where is the father now? Staring at the face of parole, 10 years on...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    I doubt you'd be so agreeable with that concept if your once best friend had been murdered by his father when he was 8. Where is the father now? Staring at the face of parole, 10 years on...
    THe parole system is not the prison system. You can't use a failing example of the parole/prison system to argue the death penalty is morally okay. You also can't be so emotionally attached about these things, when you're dealing with the most morally important thing we know, somebody's life.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    what is that meaning that happened to you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Pain to the family, still. Also, it has to be just slightly emotionally stressing being strapped to a table, and having a toxic solution pumped into you knowing you have a few seconds to live.

    Also, can you really say it's okay to kill someone as long as they don't feel pain whilst dying?
    no. and the pain to the family is not reelvent, think about the other families pain, it will be just as bad. i dont think its immoral because most of the people killed are serial killers, their victims were not strapped to a table and killed by injection, their victims were killed at gunpoint, being stabbed to death, after possibly being raped, i dont even think that the stress od dying like that is compaired to the pain and humilition suffered by the victims. while all humans have rights, they have taken the basic right to live from other people and therefore i believe it can be taken from them. however, because of the united states complicated court system, it takes numerous appeals to get them offically on death row. those appeals for each average inmate cost 11 million dollars, i think that money can be spent elsewhere.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    THe parole system is not the prison system. You can't use a failing example of the parole/prison system to argue the death penalty is morally okay. You also can't be so emotionally attached about these things, when you're dealing with the most morally important thing we know, somebody's life.
    I didn't say I supported the death penalty, I think we should keep them alive...on a cold slab at the bottom of some dingy prison, that is. Fed enough to keep their mind active, but slowly losing their power of imagination.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    I doubt you'd be so agreeable with that concept if your once best friend had been murdered by his father when he was 8. Where is the father now? Staring at the face of parole, 10 years on...
    I find those apologists for the death penalty always stoop to this argument when I counter theirs.
    Well, for the record, a loved one of mine has been murdered, and actually it cemented my certainty that the death penalty is barbaric and wrong.
    Thanks for bringing that whole topic up though, and reminding me of something that I would rather try not to think about.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    THe parole system is not the prison system. You can't use a failing example of the parole/prison system to argue the death penalty is morally okay. You also can't be so emotionally attached about these things, when you're dealing with the most morally important thing we know, somebody's life.
    You're right about the failing prison system not justifying the death sentence or lifelong torture.

    But, being emotionally attached to a subject is, if managed in the right way, a good thing.

    Hitler never visited a bombed city. Churchill did...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curryADD)
    while all humans have rights, they have taken the basic right to live from other people and therefore i believe it can be taken from them.
    *agrees
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    I didn't say I supported the death penalty, I think we should keep them alive...on a cold slab at the bottom of some dingy prison, that is. Fed enough to keep their mind active, but slowly losing their power of imagination.
    As you know, 'Erratum humanum est'. In your system, as in every system, errors will be made and innocents will be convicted. How do you justify such treatment to innocents, even if it is only one innocent?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    I find those apologists for the death penalty always stoop to this argument when I counter theirs.
    Well, for the record, a loved one of mine has been murdered, and actually it cemented my certainty that the death penalty is barbaric and wrong.
    Thanks for bringing that whole topic up though, and reminding me of something that I would rather try not to think about.
    I didn't say I was a fan of the death penality, I am not. I just thought that
    "I'd make sure that child murderers etc. suffer under torturous conditions for the rest of their natural life"
    I think the death penalty doesn't do anyone justice, not because I agree with the human rights breech, more that it is too good for them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Yes, but obviously not on the scale of first degree murder.
    Chris, could you reply to my pm please?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    As you know, 'Erratum humanum est'. In your system, as in every system, errors will be made and innocents will be convicted. How do you justify such treatment to innocents, even if it is only one innocent?
    In the same way we justify giving life sentences to people who theoretically could be innocent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    I didn't say I was a fan of the death penality, I am not. I just thought that
    "I'd make sure that child murderers etc. suffer under torturous conditions for the rest of their natural life"
    I think the death penalty doesn't do anyone justice, not because I agree with the human rights breech, more that it is too good for them.
    Ok, well either way I regard the 'you'd change your tune if someone you loved was murdered' line as offensive.
    I'll just reiterate the certainty that human rights are there for us all, and are not something which can be dispensed with when someone deems it convenient or decides to pander to their lust for revenge. By torturing a torturer, you become what they are. And so, floowing your logic, you are deserving of punishment too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    In the same way we justify giving life sentences to people who theoretically could be innocent.
    Yes, but life prison sentence does not attack their human rights, whereas lifelong torture does. Your logic seems to be that child-murderers somehow lose their humanity and hence are not entitled anymore to dignified treatment. But, if you treat an innocent without dignity you are committing a very serious crime.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    You're right about the failing prison system not justifying the death sentence or lifelong torture.

    But, being emotionally attached to a subject is, if managed in the right way, a good thing.

    Hitler never visited a bombed city. Churchill did...
    I don't quite understand your reasoning, is that to say if Hitler visited a bombed city he would have been 'right'?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Ok, well either way I regard the 'you'd change your tune if someone you loved was murdered' line as offensive.
    I'll just reiterate the certainty that human rights are there for us all, and are not something which can be dispensed with when someone deems it convenient or decides to pander to their lust for revenge. By torturing a torturer, you become what they are. And so, floowing your logic, you are deserving of punishment too.
    The only "someone" who can deem it convenient to dispense of their human rights is the person commiting the murder. I don't think the phase "by torturing a torturer, you...." is logical, more a liberal justification.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    I find those apologists for the death penalty always stoop to this argument when I counter theirs.
    Well, for the record, a loved one of mine has been murdered, and actually it cemented my certainty that the death penalty is barbaric and wrong.
    Thanks for bringing that whole topic up though, and reminding me of something that I would rather try not to think about.
    Yes my mum was killed but i wouldnt call it murder. She was really small and smacked by her partner. Even though i hated him at the time(especially becuase he got away with it) and still will always hate him. I would never wish death upon him.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    I don't quite understand your reasoning, is that to say if Hitler visited a bombed city he would have been 'right'?
    No, I'm saying that when deciding about important moral questions, it is better to be emotionally involved.

    Total abstraction can lead to catastrophes. It is always possible for a there to be a flaw in your reasoning. Emotional involvment will help you to discover such a flaw and prevent you from doing something absolutely horrendous.

    Had Hitler visited Dresden for instance, he might have begun to see that there was something wrong with his abstract reasoning. BTW, I think Hitler never saw a death camp either. It is easy to order the murder of millions if you never get to see them.
 
 
 
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.