Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    But then, to play devil's advocate, you have to way up the cost of keeping a murderer in prison for the rest of his life against executing him after trial. The prisons are overcrowded enough as it is... I suppose they could always be put to use in some respectable medical testing programme!
    Yeah prison is very expensive. Although life at the minute is only 5 years more than a 25 year sentance.

    That raises another point, are there any/many cases of people reoffending after finishing a 30 year life sentence?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i think tha it shuld be legalised.......but only till some extent !!!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woodmeister)
    Yeah prison is very expensive. Although life at the minute is only 5 years more than a 25 year sentance.

    That raises another point, are there any/many cases of people reoffending after finishing a 30 year life sentence?
    Well, the judge has the ability when sentencing to fix the tariff for the automatic life sentence. The tariff can be as low or as high as the judge thinks appropriate. If at the end of that period the offender satisfies the risk assessment, he will be released. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that the public are protected because no one will be released until there has been an assessment of whether they still pose a risk to the public.
    This is what's meant to assess whether someone will reoffend anyway, and is generally an trustworthy method.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    a murderer denies a persons human right to life therefore his/her human rights are taken away (hence prison) however the punishment must reflect the gravity of the crime. therefore you could argue "an eye for an eye" in legalising the death penalty.

    However you dont fight fire with fire. putting to death a murderer is not a moral thing to do. and government is meant to promote the morals demanded for a good society. and killing is not a precedant that we should set. I think that prison is an adequate punishment for murder or any other crime. prison is about more than punishment, its about protecting society and reforming a past offender. the death penalty can achieve the first two but not the latter. If there is any chance that an offender can be released and become a good member of society again then they should be given a chance.


    Emotion shouldnt come into it. people shouldnt be demanding death for someone from a emotion zeal because emotion is normally a short term thing.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattG)
    a murderer denies a persons human right to life therefore his/her human rights are taken away (hence prison) however the punishment must reflect the gravity of the crime. therefore you could argue "an eye for an eye" in legalising the death penalty.

    However you dont fight fire with fire. putting to death a murderer is not a moral thing to do. and government is meant to promote the morals demanded for a good society. and killing is not a precedant that we should set. I think that prison is an adequate punishment for murder or any other crime. prison is about more than punishment, its about protecting society and reforming a past offender. the death penalty can achieve the first two but not the latter. If there is any chance that an offender can be released and become a good member of society again then they should be given a chance.


    Emotion shouldnt come into it. people shouldnt be demanding death for someone from a emotion zeal because emotion is normally a short term thing.
    Can a first-degree murderer ever be truly reformed?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Can a first-degree murderer ever be truly reformed?
    no but he shouldnt be killed. government shouldn't deny the right to life
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattG)
    no but he shouldnt be killed. government shouldn't deny the right to life
    I agree the death penalty shouldn't be brought back, but not because of the "rights" of the murderer, more because this isn't a substantial deterrent (as shown by America's murder rates).
    If the situation in America was different, where the death penalty was shown to reduce the murder rate by a great amount, then I would wholeheartedly support bringing it to this country. In my mind, the right to life disappears when you choose to take someone elses. However, this system does not seem to prevent murders so I think a lifetime of sub-standard imprisonment would do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Can a first-degree murderer ever be truly reformed?

    Don't jump on me for being a hippy liberal, but maybe it's possible, though of course rare. Maybe people truly can be sorry for what they've done.
    Obviously I still think they should go to prison, and not be allowed out until it can be proven that they no longer pose any threat to society.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    Don't jump on me for being a hippy liberal, but maybe it's possible, though of course rare. Maybe people truly can be sorry for what they've done.
    Obviously I still think they should go to prison, and not be allowed out until it can be proven that they no longer pose any threat to society.
    The difficulty arises in how do you actually test whether or not a reformed criminal has reformed, and has not just decieved everyone into thinking that perhaps they should be released into society again?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    The difficulty arises in how do you actually test whether or not a reformed criminal has reformed, and has not just decieved everyone into thinking that perhaps they should be released into society again?
    there is always a calculated risk that they will do it again, i would rather accidently kill an innocent convicted of murder, than to see one released and them kill anouther.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Can a first-degree murderer ever be truly reformed?
    Frying him or her would certainly minimise the chances of reform, what with the offender being dead and all.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Frying him or her would certainly minimise the chances of reform, what with the offender being dead and all.
    I can see why that might be a problem.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curryADD)
    there is always a calculated risk that they will do it again, i would rather accidently kill an innocent convicted of murder, than to see one released and them kill anouther.

    How is that better? Either way an innocent person ends up dead.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Frying him or her would certainly minimise the chances of reform, what with the offender being dead and all.
    (Original post by corey)
    I can see why that might be a problem.
    Better use a non-stick frying pan.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curryADD)
    there is always a calculated risk that they will do it again, i would rather accidently kill an innocent convicted of murder, than to see one released and them kill anouther.
    Good debater I thought you were? You would have just lost an arguement saying something that you can in no way justify
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    Better use a non-stick frying pan.
    Someone in the Bible actually died that way. It didnt reform him either. He, being dead, was in no fit state to reconsider his actions. And so it was all in vain!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Someone in the Bible actually died that way. It didnt reform him either. He, being dead, was in no fit state to reconsider his actions. And so it was all in vain!
    and they say the bible is full of wisdom! (rep for lala)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    How is that better? Either way an innocent person ends up dead.
    because he night kill more than one person after he got out of jail before he went back to prison..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Someone in the Bible actually died that way. It didnt reform him either. He, being dead, was in no fit state to reconsider his actions. And so it was all in vain!
    which person? which story.....because with that statement i cant tell who you are talking about.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    curryADD you don't really understand what you have said

    I think it is ok for an innocent man to die because the system got it wrong.

    Yes...of course...
 
 
 
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.