Turn on thread page Beta

Death penalty? watch

Announcements
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Sire)
    Yet it costs a small fortune of tax payers money to keep the pricks alive.
    If they admit they did the crime, kill em.
    If they deny it, then for God's sake don't touch em.
    Innocent people dying isn't on, let them appeal, or be reasoned to accepting the death penalty.
    I can't see many people admitting to a capital offence if it means a 100% likelyhood of death - unless they're in a position were a lifetime in prison and possible parole seems like a fate worse than death.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Yet it costs a small fortune of tax payers money to keep the pricks alive. If they admit they did the crime, kill em. If they deny it, then for God's sake don't touch em. Innocent people dying isn't on, let them appeal, or be reasoned to accepting the death penalty.
    All that would happen under that system is that even someone who is as guilty as sin but didnt want to die would just continue to plead innocent. Effectively you would be allowing people to opt out which surely would defeat the point. Now as someone who vehemently opposes capital punishment whatever the reasoning behind it that wouldnt bother me so much, but I can't see that it would be a workable system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm gonna be honest I can't be bothered to read all of the post so I'm appologising if this is a tedious and already answered system but do you believe in the eye for an eye law. In some countries e.g saudi arabia they practise whats known as sharia law not sure if i spelt it right but thats how its pronounced and its basically an eye for an eye kinda system someone killed your son you kill theirs or them I'm not too sure. But i do know if they steal you cut off their hands
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    All that would happen under that system is that even someone who is as guilty as sin but didnt want to die would just continue to plead innocent. Effectively you would be allowing people to opt out which surely would defeat the point. Now as someone who vehemently opposes capital punishment whatever the reasoning behind it that wouldnt bother me so much, but I can't see that it would be a workable system.
    Yet lala, you exemplify my point. Thus very few would get the death penalty, and even then they would be the ones who want it. It is actually better than the current system, and satisfies both sides a little. Admittedly those in full favour of the death penalty don't get exactly what they want. But hey, its better than nothing, and will save some time and money that could be better spent elsewhere. Schooling perhaps.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Yet it costs a small fortune of tax payers money to keep the pricks alive. If they admit they did the crime, kill em. If they deny it, then for God's sake don't touch em. Innocent people dying isn't on, let them appeal, or be reasoned to accepting the death penalty.
    also i dont mind paying tax towards locking up criminals as long as they stay alive and bloody suffer, all the risks that are in prison.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kissmequick)
    I'm gonna be honest I can't be bothered to read all of the post so I'm appologising if this is a tedious and already answered system but do you believe in the eye for an eye law. In some countries e.g saudi arabia they practise whats known as sharia law not sure if i spelt it right but thats how its pronounced and its basically an eye for an eye kinda system someone killed your son you kill theirs or them I'm not too sure. But i do know if they steal you cut off their hands
    I've heard of it yes, but it is flawed in that innocents suffer. Simply can't have that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Trust me people. It is something that would never go through parliament I know, but when I'm right... I'm right. But I've always hated the death penalty. Thought you may wish to know that. Since the last man to be executed by the state in Australia was definitely innocent, and there was also a case in Britain of a retarded man who was innocent being put to death also. I can't remember the name of him but yeah. That just isn't on in my book.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Yet lala, you exemplify my point. Thus very few would get the death penalty, and even then they would be the ones who want it. It is actually better than the current system, and satisfies both sides a little. Admittedly those in full favour of the death penalty don't get exactly what they want. But hey, its better than nothing, and will save some time and money that could be better spent elsewhere. Schooling perhaps.
    Your point is that people who admit to certain offences should be allowed a voluntary death then? Um, its a bit mixed up. I dont really see the sense in it myself.
    Speaking from an anti state sponsored murder perspective, it doesnt satisfy me at all because it would still be execution- though I suppose it might be seen as a form of voluntary euthanasia which brings a whole new dimension to the argument. And it isn't going to satiate the hang em and flog em brigade because they tend to be hell bent on revenge, and your way doesnt provide that.
    I also feel that taking into account cost for an issue like this and allowing it to dictate what is done could be dangerous (note I'm not saying that this is your major motivator though).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    I've heard of it yes, but it is flawed in that innocents suffer. Simply can't have that.
    The thing is the islamic community are made to look like viscious brutalists but its actually ery different they get three warnings first so the first time he is caught their have to be two witnesses who are willing to swear on the qu'ran and then the guy gets a warning after this happens three times they banish him fomr the area i think and if it happens again his hands are chopped off
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    but i say i dont agree with it, but i know if someone close to me got murdered by a low life i would want him hanged i know that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kissmequick)
    The thing is the islamic community are made to look like viscious brutalists but its actually ery different they get three warnings first so the first time he is caught their have to be two witnesses who are willing to swear on the qu'ran and then the guy gets a warning after this happens three times they banish him fomr the area i think and if it happens again his hands are chopped off
    Left hand first I think you'll find. As they don't exactly have toilet paper. Adds a little more to the punishment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Your point is that people who admit to certain offences should be allowed a voluntary death then? Um, its a bit mixed up. I dont really see the sense in it myself.
    Speaking from an anti state sponsored murder perspective, it doesnt satisfy me at all because it would still be execution- though I suppose it might be seen as a form of voluntary euthanasia which brings a whole new dimension to the argument. And it isn't going to satiate the hang em and flog em brigade because they tend to be hell bent on revenge, and your way doesnt provide that.
    I also feel that taking into account cost for an issue like this and allowing it to dictate what is done could be dangerous (note I'm not saying that this is your major motivator though).
    fair point lala, very fair. Thankyou.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Left hand first I think you'll find. As they don't exactly have toilet paper. Adds a little more to the punishment.
    they believe you left hand is your "dirty" side hence a muslim is meant to wipe his ass with that hand, kind of trivial eh?
    however you've got to find it asstonishing that their book to this day has had no discovered flaws where as every other one has
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    I never actually said whether or not I felt that total reform was possible, merely pointed out that being a corpse significantly reduces ones chances of it. Dont make assumptions. Or patronise me.
    It also seems to me that some of your views are motivated by the desire for revenge, which is disturbing. Society getting its own back on the murderer is not something which deserves to be taken into consideration.
    Sorry for the patronising tone, my views are simple - I would only consider bringing back the death penalty if it was shown to produce a reduction in the murder rate. If it did, I would be all for it. However, this is not the case as shown by America. I do think that harsh life imprisonment (as in only basic human requirements met, none of this TV etc.) would create a better image of punishment. This would benifit society in the way as public opinion would be greatened and some people may think twice before murdering someone if they knew what was in store for them for the rest of their life. If this scheme only stopped one person from murdering another then I think it would be worth it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kissmequick)
    they believe you left hand is your "dirty" side hence a muslim is meant to wipe his ass with that hand, kind of trivial eh?
    however you've got to find it asstonishing that their book to this day has had no discovered flaws where as every other one has
    Certainly is interesting. Though if you look at the latin 'sinistra' (query spelling) it was meant as a use for describing left handed people to. 'sinister' ring any bells yet lol?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Certainly is interesting. Though if you look at the latin 'sinistra' (query spelling) it was meant as a use for describing left handed people to. 'sinister' ring any bells yet lol?
    oh there are bells ringing alright
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    How would you know whether a previous murderer has been reformed or not, unless you released back into society? There should be no "reform", the victim doesn't have a chance to be released back into respectable society after all. To have a murderer released into society after someone said he has "reformed" and then to have him kill again is a situation which should never occur. And if you find me someone who has an accurate perception of the murderer's mind and could 100% say that this person is reformed, I'd give you a cookie.
    Salvador Agron, a poor Puerto Rican immigrant, went to New York and got involved in the gangs there. The gang he was in were looking for a fight and he stabbed two innocent bystanders to death in 1959. At age 16, he was sentanced to death by electric chair. Because of pleas for clemancy, by people like Eleanor Roosevelt, he served 20 years and then was released. He was a model prisioner; taught himself to read, became a kind of political activist and never again committed a violent act. He died of natural causes in 1986.
    That's probably as near as 100% reform as you can get, so can I have a cookie?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sazzles)
    Salvador Agron, a poor Puerto Rican immigrant, went to New York and got involved in the gangs there. The gang he was in were looking for a fight and he stabbed two innocent bystanders to death in 1959. At age 16, he was sentanced to death by electric chair. Because of pleas for clemancy, by people like Eleanor Roosevelt, he served 20 years and then was released. He was a model prisioner; taught himself to read, became a kind of political activist and never again committed a violent act. He died of natural causes in 1986.
    That's probably as near as 100% reform as you can get, so can I have a cookie?

    If you can give me an accurate perception of the state of his mind and his ability to kill then you can have a glass of milk as well. The point I was trying to make was that we are not mind-readers and trusting people to have 'reformed' is based on judgement which is certainly not 100% flawless.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    If you can give me an accurate perception of the state of his mind and his ability to kill then you can have a glass of milk as well. The point I was trying to make was that we are not mind-readers and trusting people to have 'reformed' is based on judgement which is certainly not 100% flawless.
    Agreed. That is so very true.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Agreed. That is so very true.
    God, people agreeing with me? Victoria Beckham will be singing decently next!
 
 
 
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.