Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That's simply insane.
    its factually correct.



    those who believe in compassion for murderers, or the act of murder , facilitate murder and violent crime because in essence their compassion lessens the consequences of murder and violent crime itself-- therefore, human life is cheapened.

    you cannot lessen the consequences of murder without cheapening the human life of the victim-- and in the process the life of all human beings.

    those who disagree must do so because they are incapable of empathising with the victim, and so are only capable of empathising with the murderer--in other words, those who support abolition are psychopathic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niceday)
    That's hardly an excuse or justification to carry out such an atrocious crime. No if's or but's, mentally ill or not.
    What the hell are you talking about?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Layabout)
    What the hell are you talking about?
    what do you want?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    [The development of a foetus is not black and white. It is a gradual process. To be either for or against abortion in the absolute sense is entirely irrational. I have no problem with a woman choosing to 'abort' a pregnancy in the early stages, as the foetus is just a bunch of cells for the first weeks of its development. The question is, at what stage of the pregnancy do I become uncomfortable with abortion taking place. Well, I'm not a medical expert, but from the little knowledge I do have, I think somewhere between 15-22 weeks is where the line should be drawn. From the evidence I've seen, I am slightly uncomfortable with the current line which sits at 24 weeks.
    How is it fair or just to kill a perfectly healthy, willingly conceived foetus with a potential whole life ahead of it, whilst murderers are legally guaranteed the right to life no matter what they do? The whole way the legal system approaches matters of life is ****ed up. It does sound like it treats the lives of the innocent as cheap fare.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The whole way the legal system approaches matters of life is ****ed up.


    true.


    everything is backwards. the termination of unborn children is considered civilised by the termination of murderers is considered barbaric.....


    babies represent life, murderers represent death. british society has compassion for death.....
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im1190)
    Who has the right to sentence someone else to death, even if they have killed another? Doesn't that make them a killer also?
    Using the same logic, you could argue that a soldier doesn't have the right to kill an enemy soldier.

    There would be CHAOS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Iv'e got an idea......send them to Australia......oh wait a minute :/

    but in all seriousness, the 15 year average (although they seem to get out after 8 or 9 years) seems a little too short. Life should be life, and TV's, excercise machines and other luxuries should be banned.

    They should be made to get really really fat and depressed for the amusement of bystanders (big brother:criminal cake binge series anyone?)...or better still they should be used as test subjects for new cosmetics and drugs instead of animals. Just imagine it....a convicted murderer in a testing chair with several shades of nail polishes and make up on surrounded by armed guards xD
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see how this government can really say it is against a death penalty of any sort when they murder people overseas quite frequently.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    true.


    everything is backwards. the termination of unborn children is considered civilised by the termination of murderers is considered barbaric.....


    babies represent life, murderers represent death. british society has compassion for death.....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM

    watch till about 1:15
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Judges actually have the power to set a whole life tariff. Used to be the Home Sec but the ECHR ruled that only trial judges should be able to.
    Problem is our judges are too incompentent to even use the full range of powers they have.
    Who gives a toss what Ken Clarke thinks? The ECHR made clear that the Judges, not the politicians, decide jail time. Grow some balls, please.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    How is it fair or just to kill a perfectly healthy, willingly conceived foetus with a potential whole life ahead of it

    They may not always be perfectly healthy although that's beside the point. The point is that it's not a person, it does not think, feel or do anything that can make it considered as an individual. If we're just talking potential people where do we draw the line? Why don't we disallow people to resist the sexual urges in the first place, don't prevent the twinkle in the eye and conception?

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    whilst murderers are legally guaranteed the right to life no matter what they do?
    Ever heard the saying 'an eye for an eye makes the world blind'? It's got an extremely important point which you have missed. Revenge is not the duty of the law. The law serves to protect society from these people, not avenge the deaths of those regrettably cut short by these villains. The law system should be indifferent to the lives of the murderers entirely, but should not ever attempt to take them. Killing is wrong in all situations except the one where killing is the only option to save and protect others.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    The whole way the legal system approaches matters of life is ****ed up. It does sound like it treats the lives of the innocent as cheap fare.
    The legal system is not responsible for what crimes have been committed it is only there to protect society from potenial ones in the future by imprisonment, deterrence, redemption et cetera.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Now I don't know about you but if you were falsely accused of any of those crimes and got the death sentence I don't think you would like it.

    And who is it to decide whether life should be ended or not after all killing is killing regardless of the situation saying otherwise is just a display of double standards.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Only idiots wish to see the death sentence reinstated as punishment for crimes such as murder. The only time people should be executed is if holding them would put people in danger. Asides that, a life sentence is harsher, it's more reversible in the case that the person has been wrongly accused, it's less painful for the family of the criminal, who more often than not had nothing to do with the crime, etc.

    Also, people really need to stop comparing rape to murder.Yeah, rape is ****ing terrible, but it doesn't come near to depriving someone of their life.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    All Rapsits/Paedophiles/Murderers, should be put in a room with the victims and/or their families, the door shut and no questions asked
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Be glad you're not living in the average third world country, a murderer could get out on parole in a day with connections. If they are put on trial that is.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gunmetalpanda)
    Be glad you're not living in the average third world country, a murderer could get out on parole in a day with connections. If they are put on trial that is.
    Or alternatively the police/paramilitaries could carry out an extrajudicial execution without proof or trial. For all it's faults the British criminal justice system trumps most of the rest of the world.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    yes, i am having trouble getting used to this quoting system.


    as for human rights, i'll make my point a different way. why should a convicted murderer have the same human rights as the person who's ultimate right--life-- he or she has taken away?

    yes, i know the official version of human rights. no, i do not agree with its inability to distinguish between the differing behaviour of humans.


    human rights in the modern sense means-- equality despite inequality of action.

    in other words, chaos......
    It was a bit harsh of me to pick up on that was tired, sorry.

    Anyway because they are still human beings, they don't have the same rights because they aren't free they are in jail (and jail isn't nice, despite what the media may have you believe- not that I've been, just know people who have).

    Many murderers do not realise they have done wrong or why it was wrong etc, you as a completely sane person know that killing them would be a punishment to them (or whatever) thus maybe even making that worse.

    You can't play God.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCurlyHairedDude)
    Or you could see it as

    Killing someone who would commit bad crimes like murder again

    Vs

    Killing someone innocent
    True, but personally I see putting someone in prison for life (and by that I mean until they die) is more of a punishment - they can't get away, they have to endure the punishment for what they have done. In a secure prison, where most murderers end up, they shouldn't be able to commit bad crimes again.


    (Original post by niceday)
    Oh so politically correct. No, it doesn't also make them a killer.
    Sorry but if you take a life, you are defined as a killer. For whatever reason you have killed that person, you have killed also. I'm actually not totally against capital punishment, but when this is about human life being cheap, it's relevant to say that killing another shows that it is cheaper. You do something wrong, you die. Who has that right to enforce that?... even though it probably would save some of our problems!


    (Original post by Pencil)
    Using the same logic, you could argue that a soldier doesn't have the right to kill an enemy soldier.

    There would be CHAOS.
    I didn't think of that :P Yeah that is true, and to be honest I don't like war or any conflict either! But of course it will carry on regardless, and I do think soldiers are so brave and such heroes. Interesting, I don't really have anything to say back to that one if I'm totally honest!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's ok in Britain, really.

    I think in Spain, the maximum sentence you can get is 25 years, no matter how many people you've killed.

    In Israel, I think you are eligible to go home from prison at weekends after half your sentence.

    On the other hand, China executes more people than the entire rest of the world combined, and is one of the only states around that still has the death penalty for children.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KJane)
    I think it's a joke, 15 years? Life here means 'Sit back and relax, have a few attempts at appeals but don't worry, you'll be out in no time.' In America, life means life, it should be the same here.

    Put them to death? I don't think so, two wrongs don't make a right and killing them just gives them an easy out.
    I want to smack patronizing ****ers who retort this moronic line.

    And no it would not make them a killer it would make them a purveyor of Justice.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.