Turn on thread page Beta

Death penalty? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mjf)
    Chris, could you reply to my pm please?
    Hi! Did you send one recently? I accidentally deleted your last one, but I'll beable to get in contact with the vets next week and ask them if they mind me giving out their e-mail address. Shouldn't be a problem, but it's only courteous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    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.
    It is entirely logical. As is my point that by torturing a torturer what you are doing is no better than what they did. It is incorrect to suggest that people dispose of their own human rights- they are so called because they are due to all of humanity, whether they have done something you dont like or not, and so one can never do anything to dispose of ones own, because they will always still be due.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    both torture and the death penalty you are staying the perpertratour (murderer) took away a person's human rights which in this system ot yours is morally wrong and then you are carrying out the same action which you as the judge said was morally wrong so your morality is inconsistent something that should never happen in law
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    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.
    Hm yes, I suppose so, reminds me of the argument that the only way republicans will see their wrongs is if something bad happens to them, something I do agree with.

    Maybe we could differentiate between emotional understanding, and emotional involvement?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    It is entirely logical. As is my point that by torturing a torturer what you are doing is no better than what they did. It is incorrect to suggest that people dispose of their own human rights- they are so called because they are due to all of humanity, whether they have done something you dont like or not, and so one can never do anything to dispose of them because they will always still be due.
    Saying someone can lose his human rights by acting in a particular way is the same as denying human rights. If you can lose a right, it is not a right anymore, but a privilege, since it is only applicable to some people.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    In a topic such as this I think it's probably best to agree to disagree. I personally am not a fan of the death penalty and believe people should pay thoroughly, even sometimes against their own human rights, for the serious crimes they commit, others do not. No amount of argument will sway people either side of the divide on this issue I imagine, so it's probably best to leave it there before it becomes more personal than it was meant to be.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    It is incorrect to suggest that people dispose of their own human rights- they are so called because they are due to all of humanity, whether they have done something you dont like or not, and so one can never do anything to dispose of ones own, because they will always still be due.
    As we know, the concept of human rights and humanity is not something written into our genes or biologically viable, it is a general set of rules written by humans for humans.
    Interestingly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 has incorporated most of the human rights. It has specially enshrined the protection of the right to life. However, Article 29 recognises that human rights and fundamental freedoms are subject to limits. Though it didn't specify clearly, it is presumed that by imposing death penalty (which i do not support), right to life may be curtailed in certain circumstances. The death penalty is the only exception that is mentioned in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by munchie_rox)
    After ths attack on a policeman on boxing day, and the holly and jessica trials, the issue of the death penalty inevitably comes up...i was just wondering what people thought about it?
    It should be re-instated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    It should be re-instated.
    Why?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    It should be re-instated.
    I was beginning to think that this forum was full of liberals!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The majority of British people would like to see the death penalty reinstated, according to a poll in the Guardian last year.

    I am completely against it. An important consideration must be the possibilty of error. No system is perfect, certainly not the judicial system. A person can never be brought back from the grave, and a posthumous pardon can be of no use to them. The finalty of the death penalty, I believe, means it cannot be accepted.

    More than this however, I don't believe in the death sentence at all, even if the guilt of the person is unquestionable. It is true that human rights cannot, or should not, be taken away from anyone. Yes, they should be removed from society, but not from the earth. Neither should they be "tortured"- they are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. I also believe that they can benefit from prison, if for example they have psychiatric or psychological problems. (Please don't all jump down my throat about how they don't deserve it, or get me involved in a discussion on the parole system.)

    I just don't think anybody has the right, can claim to have the authority to take the life of another human being.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    I just don't think anybody has the right, can claim to have the authority to take the life of another human being.
    The operative word being 'think', we still have a right to democracy and t's why I think this thread is not going anywhere. It's a topic where most people are either with it or against it and there's no budging perspective changes
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    The majority of British people would like to see the death penalty reinstated, according to a poll in the 1.Guardian last year.

    I am completely against it. An important consideration must be the possibilty of error. No system is perfect, certainly not the judicial system. A person can never be brought back from the grave, and a posthumous pardon can be of no use to them. 2.The finalty of the death penalty, I believe, means it cannot be accepted.

    More than this however, I don't believe in the death sentence at all, even if the guilt of the person is unquestionable. 3.It is true that human rights cannot, or should not, be taken away from anyone. 4.Yes, they should be removed from society, but not from the earth. Neither should they be "tortured"- they are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. I also believe that they can benefit from prison, if for example they have psychiatric or psychological problems. (Please don't all jump down my throat about how they don't deserve it, or get me involved in a discussion on the parole system.)

    5.I just don't think anybody has the right, can claim to have the authority to take the life of another human being.
    1.Perhaps not a true reflection of the whole population then.
    2.However if it can be proved 100% without any doubt whatsoever, that they are guilty, then there should be no resistence whatsoever in removing the guilty person.
    3.Guatanamo bay?
    4.I disagree, why should we who follow the law, pay our taxes to confine these criminals in government run prisons? When it could be used for something more important, such as healthcare, growth, the poor, education (even TUITION FEES!!!! J/K), etc.
    5.True, nobody has the right to decide who lives and who dies, as we have moved away from such, with all our human rights acts, abolishment of capital punishment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    1.Perhaps not a true reflection of the whole population then.
    2.However if it can be proved 100% without any doubt whatsoever, that they are guilty, then there should be no resistence whatsoever in removing the guilty person.
    3.Guatanamo bay?
    4.I disagree, why should we who follow the law, pay our taxes to confine these criminals in government run prisons? When it could be used for something more important, such as healthcare, growth, the poor, education (even TUITION FEES!!!! J/K), etc.
    5.True, nobody has the right to decide who lives and who dies, as we have moved away from such, with all our human rights acts, abolishment of capital punishment.
    my thing against the death penalty.....it costs 11 million dollars to put a criminal to death in the united states......it costs about 2 million to put them in for life.....which is cheaper? that nine million saved can be used for education in run down areas and healthcare for the needy, both of which america desperatly needs....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curryADD)
    my thing against the death penalty.....it costs 11 million dollars to put a criminal to death in the united states......it costs about 2 million to put them in for life.....which is cheaper? that nine million saved can be used for education in run down areas and healthcare for the needy, both of which america desperatly needs....
    Well, it depends on your perspective.

    For example:

    'BUBBA' at the age of 20 murders somebody, gets a sentence of 25 years, released early after ten years for good behaviour.

    Then proceeds into a gun shop and shoots the clerk. Gets another life sentence of 25 years.

    After 'Bubbas' release finds a job, works there happilly and stabs somebody in the heart with a toothpick.

    Now 'Bubba' has spent most of his life in the slammer, its cost the govenrment 6 million (using your figure) to put him where he belongs, and has most importantly killed three innocent people, who perhaps have loving families, who will undoubtedly be affected.

    No which would you do? Execute to prevent further deaths, or just keep locking them up.

    btw 9 million? WTF? Surely lethal injections or electricity cant be that expensive?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    Well, it depends on your perspective.

    For example:

    'BUBBA' at the age of 20 murders somebody, gets a sentence of 25 years, released early after ten years for good behaviour.

    Then proceeds into a gun shop and shoots the clerk. Gets another life sentence of 25 years.

    After 'Bubbas' release finds a job, works there happilly and stabs somebody in the heart with a toothpick.

    Now 'Bubba' has spent most of his life in the slammer, its cost the govenrment 6 million (using your figure) to put him where he belongs, and has most importantly killed three innocent people, who perhaps have loving families, who will undoubtedly be affected.

    No which would you do? Execute to prevent further deaths, or just keep locking them up.

    btw 9 million? WTF? Surely lethal injections or electricity cant be that expensive?
    its not that the electricity is expensive, or that the injections are expensive, its the appeals process that is expensive......because each side has a certain number of appeals they can use, and oftentimes the appeals are taken FULL advantage to try to get this guy off death row. since many of the defense attornys are paid by the government, the 11 million dollars comes out of that also.....and while that COULD happen, after he killed the second person he would most likely be back in for life. personally, if we could make the death sentence cheaper, i would go with it.....but right now it is the most expensive alternitive, and with so many unable to provide healthcare for their families THAT to me, comes first....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    and PLEASE do not use the word bubba in derogatory ways, it happens to be one of my treasured nicknames......and it is also insulting the american south, which i do not appreciate.

    nice to see you got over your hangover (considering i know you were slightly intoxicated!)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    1.Perhaps not a true reflection of the whole population then.
    2.However if it can be proved 100% without any doubt whatsoever, that they are guilty, then there should be no resistence whatsoever in removing the guilty person.
    3.Guatanamo bay?
    4.I disagree, why should we who follow the law, pay our taxes to confine these criminals in government run prisons? When it could be used for something more important, such as healthcare, growth, the poor, education (even TUITION FEES!!!! J/K), etc.
    5.True, nobody has the right to decide who lives and who dies, as we have moved away from such, with all our human rights acts, abolishment of capital punishment.

    I'm sorry, was there a point to this post?
    If it was meant to be an attack on my argument then it is completely ineffectual.


    1. It was not a poll of Guardian readers, whom I believe would be more likely to be against the death penalty. It was a national survey published in the Guardian, and we must assume it to be as accurate as any other poll which does not survey everyone but a random sample. (This may have been in the Observer)

    2. I went on to talk about my objections to this, mentioning it quite specifically: even if the guilt of the person is unquestionable.

    3.I in no way support the treatment of prisioners in Guantanamo Bay.

    4. This is the price we pay for living in a civilised society, and I believe it is quite a small one. Could this argument of yours run to all criminals, even those not involved in violent crime? If your reasoning is purely financial, I don't see why not. I hope you are never falsely convicted.

    5. If you look closely you will notice that this is the point of the thread. We are discussing whether it was right to move away from capital punishment, and whether other countries should do the same.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by munchie_rox)
    After ths attack on a policeman on boxing day, and the holly and jessica trials, the issue of the death penalty inevitably comes up...i was just wondering what people thought about it?
    Generally I dissaprove of death penalty, but there are always exceptions. Penalties exist in order to scare people from violating the law. The idea is not that it is right to punish someone, but that it is neccessary in order to prevent people from doing things which are illegal. The question therefore boils down to how vile a crime must be before you can justify it with death penalty. Id say death penalty should be reserved for the most vile crimes. In the end it all boils down to where your moral limit lies. I doubt many people would have complained if Hitler had been caght and given the death penalty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i disagree with the death penalty, there are some crimes perhaps where it is deserved, but what if the wrong person is convicted?
    i read somewhere that it was studied in america and 1 in 10 people executed was actually innocent... scary eh?
 
 
 
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.