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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dennisraymondsmith)
    as a parent,if some one took my childs life i would have no problem with taking theirs
    I agree with this, I would feel the same way if I had a child, as I would do that for others I love. But it wouldn't mean I had the right to do it, and it wouldn't make me not a killer. That was all I was saying, it the same as going down to their level in a way, but when it is personal reasons as terrible as your childs life, I would have to agree with you.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    All murderers shouldn't get the death penalty; what if its a murder in revenge? EG if someone killed your close family..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Native British Guy)
    I get bored easily
    I understand that TSR can get frustrating but if you really try to put your point across by attacking ideas and not people, then you can have some really enjoyable debates on here.

    Out of interest, can i ask;

    Do you believe that the death penalty is a harsher punishment than life imprisonment (I mean truely life, not 15 years)?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    15 years is cheap?

    If I ever got more than 8 I would escape.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.





    do you actually believe in god?

    if so, then what do you think of the murderer who played god already? should they be given the possibility to play god again?



    i made the point before. compassion for murderers lessens the consequences of murder which in essence cheapens human life.

    if you lessen the consequences of murder then you facilitate murder because the consequences for committing murder are less than they would be in a country that enforces capital punishment.

    properly enforced capital punishment gives ultimate sanctity to human life-- which strengthens human rights-- because it ensures that the penalties for taking human life are as expensive as humanly possible--ie, life itself.

    if human rights are to mean anything, then they must be based on responsibility and action.


    if a convicted murderer has the same fundamental human rights as a decent citizen than human rights are worthless -- and it will not be long until the entire concept is torn down in righteous revolt if the distinction is not made.

    15 years average is no penalty for human life.......
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    do you actually believe in god?

    if so, then what do you think of the murderer who played god already? should they be given the possibility to play god again?



    i made the point before. compassion for murderers lessens the consequences of murder which in essence cheapens human life.

    if you lessen the consequences of murder then you facilitate murder because the consequences for committing murder are less than they would be in a country that enforces capital punishment.

    properly enforced capital punishment strengthens human rights because it ensures that the penalties for taking human life are as expensive as possible--ie, life itself.

    if human rights are to mean anything, then they must be based on responsibility and action.


    if a convicted murderer has the same fundamental human rights as a decent citizens than human rights are worthless.
    No I don't believe in God, just use the term.

    I don't have compassion as such for murderers but I have the compassion to not kill them.
    What about those who aren't of sane mind to understand responsibility and action?

    Like I said they don't have the same rights as they aren't free etc plus I would never wish death on the person who commited a crime against me (wish I could anon to explain but I can't, so you just get that detail)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    but they do have the same fundamental right -- the fundamental right being the right to life.

    this means that the concept of human rights is built of rank hypocrisy-- and an ideology built on rank hypocrisy is like a house built on sand. it will not last-- which i think will be a bad thing as human rights is not a bad concept in general.



    violent criminals are psychopathic. they are the worst human beings society has to offer. do you really think that showing compassion for violent crime will lessen the violent behaviour of the violent?

    execution is not really about the executed. its about the message a civilised society sends out to the violent gangs or the violent domestic abuser or the violent peadophile etc etc........that message should be clear. that britain is a civilised society where the sanctity of life is absolute, and those who violate that sanctity will be death with without compassion.


    showing compassion for the violent and then expecting violence itself not to increase, is madness. increased violence means increased human rights abuse.

    the only way to tackle violent crime and ensure human rights is by reintroducing the ultimate penalty for abusing the ultimate human right--which is, the right to life and safety within life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    the average sentence for a convicted murderer is 15 years......


    the average sentence for a convicted rapist is 7 years........



    so, life is cheap. but why?
    There's 62 million of us.

    The value of each individual life decreases in direct proportion to the population increase.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    but they do have the same fundamental right -- the fundamental right being the right to life.

    this means that the concept of human rights is built of rank hypocrisy-- and an ideology built on rank hypocrisy is like a house built on sand. it will not last-- which i think will be a bad thing as human rights is not a bad concept in general.



    violent criminals are psychopathic. they are the worst human beings society has to offer. do you really think that showing compassion for violent crime will lessen the violent behaviour of the violent?

    execution is not really about the executed. its about the message a civilised society sends out to the violent gangs or the violent domestic abuser or the violent peadophile etc etc........that message should be clear. that britain is a civilised society where the sanctity of life is absolute, and those who violate that sanctity will be death with without compassion.


    showing compassion for the violent and then expecting violence itself not to increase, is madness. increased violence means increased human rights abuse.

    the only way to tackle violent crime and ensure human rights is by reintroducing the ultimate penalty for abusing the ultimate human right--which is, the right to life and safety within life.
    I'm afraid I just completely disagree.
    Introducing the death penalty will not decrease the violence. If they are psychopathic as you say, then they will probably kill/rape regardless, so it would achieve nothing.
    All it would do is enhance the feeling within people that revenge is ok and an emotion to be encouraged, when it is not. That, and cost the tax payer even more money, AND get innocent people (wrongly convicted) killed.

    Aside from all of those downsides, I just think we never have the right to kill another person, regardless of if they did. They may have done something awful, but that doesn't mean their right to live suddenly disappears.
    I think we either need to rehabillitate them so they aren't a danger to society anymore, or failing that, lock them away to keep us all safe (possibly get them doing something usful in there if possible).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)

    violent criminals are psychopathic.
    Not of sane mind then? So kill those with mental disorders?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    no, a kill is not a kill. thats semantic games.

    executing a murderer that has been convicted in a court of law is justice.

    compassion for murderers is not rational. it cheapens human life and facilitates violence.
    Okay so someone is convicted by a court of murder and executed by the state on the power given to them by the community, that is what legitimises it. Well surely when it transpires that this person wasnt actually the murderer through later evidence, the state has effectively murdered someone on the command of the community. Now surely this invalidates such powers?

    It is all well and good demanding a blood revenge and hiding your blood thirsty motives behind this whole charade about justice, but have you ever considered why it was abandoned? Even one person being sent to death by mistake is a complete travesty of our judicial system and completely undermines it.

    How can it be that a civilised nation would champion the cause of taking someones life? Surely the whole point of "civilised behaviour" is deviating away from vying for revenge and blood?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    I don't have the figures for that... Because if they're wrongly convicted we don't necessarily know.

    Reducing the prison levels isn't a good reason to kill people. It actually costs more to kill someone than imprison them, and it's not fair to kill them if there's a chance that they were wrongly convicted (which probably happens more than people realise).
    But for me personally, it's never ok to kill someone else, ever.
    I understand killing for theft is stupid, But death penalty for murder? Yes? Your one of these lets rehabiltate the criminals? Yet I read somewhere 50% end up back in prison.

    (Original post by Native British Guy)
    Not many, inact in the last year probably none at all.

    Obviously execution would only be permitable where there is undeniable evidence i.e. caught in act etc.

    Don't insinuate that executions would be used hear there and everywhere.
    I understand killing for theft is stupid, But death penalty for murder? Yes?

    (Original post by clo-clo1)
    'Probably none at all' and 'next to nill'

    Still a chance of people who are wrongly convicted.
    But the chances are near zero, I understand killing for theft is stupid, But death penalty for murder? Yes?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ShadowConspiracy)



    But the chances are near zero, I understand killing for theft is stupid, But death penalty for murder? Yes?
    Near being the key word there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    'm afraid I just completely disagree.
    Introducing the death penalty will not decrease the violence. If they are psychopathic as you say, then they will probably kill/rape regardless, so it would achieve nothing.
    All it would do is enhance the feeling within people that revenge is ok and an emotion to be encouraged, when it is not. That, and cost the tax payer even more money, AND get innocent people (wrongly convicted) killed.

    Aside from all of those downsides, I just think we never have the right to kill another person, regardless of if they did. They may have done something awful, but that doesn't mean their right to live suddenly disappears.
    I think we either need to rehabillitate them so they aren't a danger to society anymore, or failing that, lock them away to keep us all safe (possibly get them doing something usful in there if possible).

    are you saying that by lessening the consequences of crime-- in this instance violent crime-- then violent crime somehow magically decreases?

    thats insane, literally.


    example: lets say that britain legalised violent crime, including murder-- what do you think would happen?

    are you saying nothing would happen?

    if you are suggesting that there is no relation to punishment as a deterrent and crime itself, then why have prisons at all?


    executing is not about revenge-- maybe it is about revenge for the families involved-. in which case, no one other than other victims families has the right to judge- but for the wider society, its is about deterrent and public safety.


    your theory is the opposite of the truth. .

    compassion for murderers does not tell society that violence is wrong, it tells the violent their actions have scant consequences. the implications of such a message are clear, as is proven by the massive levels of violent crime in british society today.

    if your theory was correct, the violent crime would have decreased dramatically since capital punishment was abolished in the 60s. the exact opposite has happened.


    psychopaths are simply defined as people with an abnormal lack of empathy. all violent people are psychopathic to certain degree.

    you cannot deal with violence by facilitating violence. its like trying to put out fire with gasoline.
    Offline

    1
    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?
    doesnt locking up a kidnapper make them a kidnapper also?

    its called a state, about 99.99% of the people recognise the state as legitimate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    life sentence should mean life.
    its ridiculous that you hear people eligible for parole after like 10 years!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Okay so someone is convicted by a court of murder and executed by the state on the power given to them by the community, that is what legitimises it. Well surely when it transpires that this person wasnt actually the murderer through later evidence, the state has effectively murdered someone on the command of the community. Now surely this invalidates such powers?

    It is all well and good demanding a blood revenge and hiding your blood thirsty motives behind this whole charade about justice, but have you ever considered why it was abandoned? Even one person being sent to death by mistake is a complete travesty of our judicial system and completely undermines it.

    How can it be that a civilised nation would champion the cause of taking someones life? Surely the whole point of "civilised behaviour" is deviating away from vying for revenge and blood?
    the death penalty is a system and like all other systems mistakes will be made. if the death penalty is ever reintroduced then the community will have to accept this.

    overturned murder convictions are extremely rare, but they do happen, so no doubt from time to time innocent people will be executed.


    however, under the current system, dozens of people are murdered every year by already convicted and released serious violent offenders.

    so, innocent people are routinely 'murdered' all the time by the state and its justice policies.

    the community will have to decide what system they would rather take their chances in. but, of course, the state will not ever grant the community a vote on the issue because it knows what the answer will be.


    civilised society is not based on criminals rights, it is based on how much crime exists and how much violence exist within a society.


    revenge is the last of the reasons for a properly enforced capital punishment system.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not of sane mind then? So kill those with mental disorders?
    pyschopaths are described as people with an abnormal lack of empathy.

    but, i see what you are saying, you are asking about my views on the violently mentally ill who are not responsible for their actions...

    well, i would say. who would you rather meet in a dark alley? a cold calculating killer who kills for motive or a violent nutcase not in control of their actions?


    the violently mentally ill are even more of a danger to the public and so the case for execution is even stronger.

    rabid dogs are not allowed to walk the streets, so why should the violently mentally ill--who are far more dangerous than rabid dogs.


    violently mentally ill patients who are know to the state murder 100 people a year. i would call that barbarism.

    heres a website started up by the son of a victim of state sponsored murder--

    hundredfamilies.org/
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    pyschopaths are usually describe as people with abnormal lack of empathy.

    but, i see what you are saying, you are asking about my views on the violently mentally ill who are not responsible for their actions...

    well, i would say. who would you rather meet in a dark alley? a cold calculating killer who kills for motive or a violent nutcase not in control of their actions?


    the violently mentally ill are even more of a danger to the public and so the case for executing is even stronger.

    rabid dogs are not allowed to walk free, so why should the violently mentally ill,?--who are a million time more dangerous than rabid dogs.
    So kill people who can't help their behaviours? cool
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So kill people who can't help their behaviours?

    so let people who cant help their behaviour slaughter 100 people a year on british streets, decimating 100 families?


    i don't believe in hospitals because ultimately they are subject to cuts and so inevitably, these violent mentally ill people will be set free, like wolves amongst sheep on an unsuspecting public.



    plus, in the case of the violently mentally ill, there is absolutely no way to rehabilitate, let alone guarantee that they will not commit violence.


    hundredfamilies.org/
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.