Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Capital Punishment for the UK Poll watch

  • View Poll Results: Capital Punishment Poll
    Yes
    39
    29.10%
    No
    95
    70.90%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Solves prison overpopulation and save lots of tax payers money.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaughingBro)
    Solves prison overpopulation and save lots of tax payers money.
    yeah thats true
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Disagree: The idea of miscarriage of justice is too daunting and whatever minority it would ever effect I just don't like the idea.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B_C_89)
    Leaving aside for the moment that the state engaging in premeditated killing is utterly barbaric, the OP states:


    Implying that it does not cost so much to execute people. In fact it is cheaper to imprison them, see for instance:
    - MSNBC
    - Amnesty USA
    is it cheaper to keep them in prison for about 40 years though, and besides in that situation they get free food and accomodation for the rest of their life
    i'm honestly just asking you if you know (Y)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goerigi)
    is it cheaper to keep them in prison for about 40 years though, and besides in that situation they get free food and accomodation for the rest of their life
    i'm honestly just asking you if you know (Y)
    To be honest I don't know certain. However, the Amnesty site points out the Californian system would be less than 1/10th of the cost without the death penalty.

    Even with the death penalty prisoners are still likely to spend many years in prison and considering that the US imprisons ~2,000,000 people I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that it wouldn't cost too much more to imprison 2,001,243.

    Similarly, again according to Amnesty, it costs $3million (In Maryland at least) for a death penalty case in contrast to ~$1million for non-death penalty. I seriously doubt that a prisoner in Maryland would cost $2million to imprison for 40 years (it would mean that the prisoner cost the equivalent of the median wage in the US). The other examples given aren't quite so high but you get the idea.

    Of course this doesn't take in to account that prisoners are likely to work whilst in prison (in fact I read somewhere recently that prisoners aren't happy when they don't work) - for instance the US military gets prisoners to build/make a surprising amount of their stuff. (None of this is to say that I think prisoners should be treated as slave labour of course)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goerigi)
    i agree with your second paragraph yes, prisoners do not have a hard enough life in prison. but for example, do you honestly believe (say if he hadnt killed himself) hitler had the right to live after the horrific genocide he made happen? i think he deserved to be slow and painfully tortured and killed. do you really think that is wrong. i dont think of it as 2 wrongs make a right, more like do they really have a right to live after what they have done. but thats just my opinion and i respect yours
    If Hitler was to be captured, tried and found guilty, he should have been put into prison. Otherwise we would be hypocrites. Also, what gives us the right to take away the life of a human? (Not to mention any intelligent animal/biosphere/ecosystem, but that's a different argument.) Would we be any better than them?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    this thread again...

    yes btw.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    this thread again...

    yes btw.
    again?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh please let's not regress
    It's extremely expensive in the USA at any rate.
    Basically it comes down to one thing; primeval revenge. I though we'd got past that by now, glad to see most people here have
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    There are many things wrong with the UK, but the lack of capital punishment is not one of them. I wonder how many would still be for it if they were the ones who had to do the executing?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michael Locke)
    I wonder how many would still be for it if they were the ones who had to do the executing?
    Or if they or their families were the ones being sentenced to death, just adding to your point.

    I'm against it. There is only on possible scenario that I find it justifiable to kill someone and that is if your own or someone else's life is in immediate danger. For example if a person has a gun pointed at your head and is going to kill you, then it is justified to kill them first.

    The main problem I have with CP is the factor of a miss carriage of justice. If one innocent person is put to death by the state then the cost of capital punishment rises to a priceless amount.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goerigi)
    yeah thats true
    No it absolutely isn't.

    After a death sentence is given in the United States, for example, the appeals process is so time-consuming in that inmates can wait years before their execution, and thus eat up taxes similar to inmates not awaiting death. The most striking example I can think of (there are probably many more) is that of Lawrence Bittaker, who is still alive today after being convicted in 1981 of five murders.

    Add to that appeal costs, and there you have a very costly process. Capital punishment is already a primitive crime against humanity with all the American attempts to make it "fair", any attempt to "cheapen" it would reduce it to an act inexplicable by vocabulary.

    Plus I fundamentally disagree with the idea putting a price on a human being's head; it's nothing more than a relic of slavery.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goerigi)
    So do you agree in capital punishment for the worst crimes? yes or no

    Do you really think some people deserve to live after the worst crimes?
    For example:
    Serial killers
    paedophile-rapist-murderer
    etc

    do you think its worth the many thousands of pounds to rehabilitate these people (when there is a chance they will do it again when released) or do you think for the safety of society they should be got rid of at the cost of even more money.
    Yeah, I completely agree with capital punishment. We need to be more realistic in the ways we punish hardened murderers and rapists. The death penalty must be an option for the worst crimes. Justice depends on it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    No it absolutely isn't.

    After a death sentence is given in the United States, for example, the appeals process is so time-consuming in that inmates can wait years before their execution, and thus eat up taxes similar to inmates not awaiting death. The most striking example I can think of (there are probably many more) is that of Lawrence Bittaker, who is still alive today after being convicted in 1981 of five murders.

    Add to that appeal costs, and there you have a very costly process. Capital punishment is already a primitive crime against humanity with all the American attempts to make it "fair", any attempt to "cheapen" it would reduce it to an act inexplicable by vocabulary.

    Plus I fundamentally disagree with the idea putting a price on a human being's head; it's nothing more than a relic of slavery.
    tell me why you think some people derserve to live afert the horrific crimes they have committed?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Yeah, I completely agree with capital punishment. We need to be more realistic in the ways we punish hardened murderers and rapists. The death penalty must be an option for the worst crimes. Justice depends on it.
    i think it would work as a deterrent very well
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goerigi)
    tell me why you think some people derserve to live afert the horrific crimes they have committed?
    Because I believe that the right to life and the right to not have it taken by another human is necessarily, fundamentally and utterly inalienable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Because I believe that the right to life and the right to not have it taken by another human is necessarily, fundamentally and utterly inalienable.
    you think that a serial killer who has taken so many's people rights to their lives, still has a right to live? i cannot agree
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Because I believe that the right to life and the right to not have it taken by another human is necessarily, fundamentally and utterly inalienable.
    If only murderers believed that.

    But so-called "inalienable rights" don't make sense. They are a social construct. Something which we can take away from a person should they abuse them.
    It is reasonable to kill someone for murdering others (by murdering I mean killing wrongfully and knowingly).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    If only murderers believed that.

    But so-called "inalienable rights" don't make sense. They are a social construct. Something which we can take away from a person should they abuse them.
    It is reasonable to kill someone for murdering others (by murdering I mean killing wrongfully and knowingly).
    Of course rights can be taken away from people otherwise divine force would step in. But in their "inalienability" I am obviously suggesting I will go as far as enforcing this social construct as much as possible and I will encourage others as much as I can to follow me, whether or not they decide to do so, because it is a moral obligation of mine. I'm not much of a man for morals but I believe that killing a live human being without their documented consent is morally unacceptable.

    The application of "reasonable" is subjective. I certainly don't believe that killing someone for killing another is reasonable, rather that we are performing an equally unreasonable act in order to attempt to bring justice to a situation.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.