Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    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/
    lol, sorry but lol.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    lol, sorry but lol

    death and misery are funny are they?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    death and misery are funny are they?
    No but comparing killers to wolves was, hense why I highlighted it. Made me think troll too because who on earth would do that.

    You don't believe in hospitals? Fair enough, but how is killing these people with mental disorders okay? They can not help it, so kill them because it would be easier? What about someone who killed their child because they were mentally ill and it was too hard to look after them?
    What then?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ShadowConspiracy)
    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.



    I understand killing for theft is stupid, But death penalty for murder? Yes?



    But the chances are near zero, I understand killing for theft is stupid, But death penalty for murder? Yes?
    You seem to have repeated yourself there.
    No, I don't think the death penalty for murder is right. Killing them actually costs more than imprisoning them for life (actual life), AND it doesn't solve anything, AND there's too much chance of a wrong conviction which is just horrible.
    Aside from that, I don't believe it's EVER okay to take a human life.

    I already made the point of people ending up back in prison. This is because the current system DOESN'T rehabillitate the offenders at all. At the moment, prison creates criminals out of people who made mistakes.
    We need to take a leaf out of Norway's book... They actually aim to rehabillitate, and their attitudes are much better.
    Sometimes prison isn't the answer at all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clo-clo1)
    Clearly not a believer of 'human rights'
    Don't forget the rights of society as a whole to be safe from crime.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheFatController)
    Don't forget the rights of society as a whole to be safe from crime.
    Killing murderers wouldn't stop other people being killed, raped etc. Otherwise some american states would have no crime. Fair enough it would stop the same people commiting crimes but so would a number of other things.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No but comparing killers to wolves was, hense why I highlighted it. Made me think troll too because who on earth would do that.


    how about if i use the analogy of rabid dogs amongst school children? would that be less funny.




    Killing murderers wouldn't stop other people being killed, raped etc. Otherwise some american states would have no crime. Fair enough it would stop the same people commiting crimes but so would a number of other things.

    america doesn't have a properly enforced death penalty system--its a ceremonial system. america executes only 50 people a year, but its murder rate is over 15,000.

    for it to be a deterrent, all convicted murderers must be executed.


    weak justice and fawning compassion for violent criminals is the biggest single human rights abuse in the world today.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    how about if i use the analogy of rabid dogs amongst school children? would that be less funny.







    america doesn't have a properly enforced death penalty system--its a ceremonial system. america executes only 50 people a year, but its murder rate is over 15,000.

    for it to be a deterrent, all convicted murderers must be executed.


    weak justice and fawning compassion for violent criminals is the biggest single human rights abuse in the world today.
    But, as has been stated, there can be wrong convictions. That's just not right.
    Since improvements in DNA evidence in the US, a lot of people have had their cases reviewed and have been removed from death row... But DNA evidence actually doesn't provide much help sometimes, and in many cases doesn't play a part at all.
    This is why the death penalty is wrong, it's just too easy to kill an innocent person.

    But I personally think it's wrong to kill someone even if they're no "innocent".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But, as has been stated, there can be wrong convictions. That's just not right.
    Since improvements in DNA evidence in the US, a lot of people have had their cases reviewed and have been removed from death row... But DNA evidence actually doesn't provide much help sometimes, and in many cases doesn't play a part at all.
    This is why the death penalty is wrong, it's just too easy to kill an innocent person.

    But I personally think it's wrong to kill someone even if they're no "innocent".








    like is said in previous post to another poster, mistakes happen, so if the death penalty system is reintroduced, then the public will have to accept that.

    innocent people dies all the time because of our present weak justice system that treats violent people with kids glove.......example,

    in 2010, serious teenage offenders on probation committed 124 serious offences. including 25 murders*

    for adults the figures are even worse, and the reoffending rates for released violent criminals is also very high.

    in real terms, this means compassion for the violent results in human misery on a massive scale.

    i'm not sure what the exact numbers are, but released murderers kill roughly 5 people every few years. if you want me to dig out the exact numbers i will, but its not far off from that.....


    how many overturned murder convictions happen? barely any.

    the fact is compassion for the violent increases violence.

    either your compassion is reserved for the victims and potential victims, or it is reserved for the convicted violent, but its impossible to have compassion for both.

    you choose. its one or the other.








    * dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363997/Teenagers-reoffend-probation-including-murder-rape-kidnap.html
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    like is said in previous post to another poster, mistakes happen, so if the death penalty system is reintroduced, then the public will have to accept that.

    innocent people dies all the time because of our present weak justice system that treats violent people with kids glove.......example,

    in 2010, serious teenage offenders on probation committed 124 serious offences. including 25 murders*

    for adults the figures are even worse, and the reoffending rates for released violent criminals is also very high.

    in real terms, this means compassion for the violent results in human misery on a massive scale.

    i'm not sure what the exact numbers are, but released murderers kill roughly 5 people every few years. if you want me to dig out the exact numbers i will, but its not far off from that.....


    how many overturned murder convictions happen? barely any.

    the fact is compassion for the violent increases violence.

    either your compassion is reserved for the victims and potential victims, or it is reserved for the convicted violent, but its impossible to have compassion for both.

    you choose. its one or the other.








    * dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363997/Teenagers-reoffend-probation-including-murder-rape-kidnap.html
    If you're talking to me, please quote me so I know.
    It's not one or the other. I believe in HUMAN RIGHTS, which includes everyone's right to life. If someone takes that from another, that doesn't mean they forfit their own right; it means that they need to be rehabillitated, or failing that removed from society and forced to provide for it (labour, etc).

    Your re-offending stats don't really disprove my point, as I've discussed that earlier. Prison doesn't work, especially not the way our country does it. Rehabillitation needs to be the focus, and as I've said, better things for if that's not possible.

    I'm not reading an article from the Daily Mail... But it's late and I'm off to bed. Good night.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand how the OP can be for the death penalty yet have a user name about human rights?!!

    The main thing about human rights is "Everybody has a fundamental right to life"



    allow me to be facetious, but i don't class convicted murderers as human. do you?


    human rights are worthless if they are not based on behaviour and action. if a murderer has the fundamental right to life despite their actions then the concept of human rights is obviously based on rank hypocrisy, meaning the concept itself will descend into farce, ridicule and ultimate collapse.

    i dont want that as i support basic human rights, but they must be based on responsibility of action.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you're talking to me, please quote me so I know.
    It's not one or the other. I believe in HUMAN RIGHTS, which includes everyone's right to life. If someone takes that from another, that doesn't mean they forfit their own right; it means that they need to be rehabillitated, or failing that removed from society and forced to provide for it (labour, etc).

    Your re-offending stats don't really disprove my point, as I've discussed that earlier. Prison doesn't work, especially not the way our country does it. Rehabillitation needs to be the focus, and as I've said, better things for if that's not possible.



    the death penalty is about deterrent. tough justice is about deterrent. the whole point is to send out a message that violence is not acceptable in a civilised society.

    rehabilitating an individual is not going to send out a clear message to violent street gangs for example that violence is unacceptable. they see rehabilitation and compassion as weakness. as will all violent people.

    its a cop out. a fudge.


    and besides, its impossible to guarantee that rehabilitation will work anyway. the facts are, british justice already attempts to rehabilitate but its fail miserably. 'rehabilitated' criminals commit hundreds of serious violent crimes every year after release--including murder.

    if these dangerous violent offenders were executed then they would never have the opportunity to commit more horrors.

    so, you don't have to worry about the hypothetical 'innocent person' being hanged because dozens of innocent are brutally slaughtered every year in the present system. a system you support.


    america has proved that tough sentences lowers crime. americas violent crime has dropped quite significantly since it begun its incarnation programmes in the early 90s.

    proving that sentence is directly linked to violent crime itself.

    the tougher the sentences, the fewer the crimes. thats a fact.

    meaning, that its also a fact to say that permissive attitudes to crime allow crime to flourish.


    there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest otherwise as all the evidence proves that weak justice means increase in crime.


    btw, the mail article simply prints justice board data.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Take a look at the word EVERYBODY in my quote from the human rights act

    even a murderer?

    your version of human rights is clearly not based on humanism. but anarchy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you sound like an anarchist not a humanist.


    do you even believe in prison?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    the death penalty is about deterrent. tough justice is about deterrent. the whole point is to send out a message that violence is not acceptable in a civilised society.

    rehabilitating an individual is not going to send out a clear message to violent street gangs for example that violence is unacceptable. they see rehabilitation and compassion as weakness. as will all violent people.

    its a cop out. a fudge.


    and besides, its impossible to guarantee that rehabilitation will work anyway. the facts are, british justice already attempts to rehabilitate but its fail miserably. 'rehabilitated' criminals commit hundreds of serious violent crimes every year after release--including murder.

    if these dangerous violent offenders were executed then they would never have the opportunity to commit more horrors.

    so, you don't have to worry about the hypothetical 'innocent person' being hanged because dozens of innocent are brutally slaughtered every year in the present system. a system you support.


    america has proved that tough sentences lowers crime. americas violent crime has dropped quite significantly since it begun its incarnation programmes in the early 90s.

    proving that sentence is directly linked to violent crime itself.

    the tougher the sentences, the fewer the crimes. thats a fact.

    meaning, that its also a fact to say that permissive attitudes to crime allow crime to flourish.


    there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest otherwise as all the evidence proves that weak justice means increase in crime.


    btw, the mail article simply prints justice board data.
    You're not quoting properly, because I'm not receiving a notification. It seems you're deleteing my name when you do or something?
    No, you're wrong. Introducing the death penalty will not deter people; especially as a lot of these violent crimes are because of psychological issues and emotional responses... It will not decrease these.
    You're using the USA as an example? Their homoside rates are MUCH higher than here. They have 5.0 per capita (down from 5.5 in 2000), where we have 1.28 per capita... Huge difference, we are near the bottom.

    I already said the current prison system doesn't work, so using that to say rehabillitation won't work is a bit stupid.
    The current system is ****. We need a BETTER system (more like that of Norway), which ACTUALLY rehabillitates people.
    Of course it doesn't always work... See my other comment about puting them to work to MAKE money and revenue out of them, instead of costing us ridiculous amount in killing them.

    You haven't proven that stricter laws decrease crimes... But actually permissive attitudes (as you put it) doesn't increase crime.
    Again, look at Norway. They have much better attitudes, and actually seek to help those people who have done wrong and try to integrate them back into society (more often, at least)... Things are much better there.

    I'm seriously going to bed now, it's late. Please don't just repeat things that I've already addressed because it's going to go round in circles otherwise.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the point is, when america started handing out harsher sentences in the 90s crime started to fall markedly.

    crime in america-- and all across the western world-- begun rising dramatically in the 60s and 70s-- coinciding exactly with the abolition movements in europe and the various american states.



    empirical evidence suggests that permissive attitudes to violent crime facilitate violent crime……….those who disregard such empirical evidence to suit their world views are religious in nature as empirical evidence i s the basic of scientific method.

    the norway example is a poor example because it relies again on comparison with other countries medium crime rates…….comparison with britain or america is not the issue, the issue is what method reduces reduces crime in real terms.


    the equation is simple: lessen the consequences of crime and crime obviously crime will increase.

    therefore, the opposite must be true.


    there is a direct link between severity of sentence and crime itself, but, even if rehabilitation was 100% successful, it still does not deter those who have not yet committed their crimes -- which is the whole point as public safety comes before individual rehabilitation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What is with this "i dont know how to reply so i will insult you" post? i never claimed to be a humanist- i just said theres no way you are with these views.


    so i support the governments decision that the death penalty is wrong and am therefore am anarchist?
    Death penalty is illegal in this country - you are more of an anarchist as you want to ignore the law.

    You obviously just like to argue - i doubt you believe half of what you're saying! But unlike you i believe in human rights and therefore believe you have the right to expression.

    i'm talking in general terms about anarchy. human rights without link to responsibility is recipe for anarchy.


    right to life for those who tale life is rank hypocrisy of the most obscene kind.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)
    the point is, when america started handing out harsher sentences in the 90s crime started to fall markedly.

    crime in america-- and all across the western world-- begun rising dramatically in the 60s and 70s-- coinciding exactly with the abolition movements in europe and the various american states.



    empirical evidence suggests that permissive attitudes to violent crime facilitate violent crime……….those who disregard such empirical evidence to suit their world views are religious in nature as empirical evidence i s the basic of scientific method.

    the norway example is a poor example because it relies again on comparison with other countries medium crime rates…….comparison with britain or america is not the issue, the issue is what method reduces reduces crime in real terms.


    the equation is simple: lessen the consequences of crime and crime obviously crime will increase.

    therefore, the opposite must be true.


    there is a direct link between severity of sentence and crime itself, but, even if rehabilitation was 100% successful, it still does not deter those who have not yet committed their crimes -- which is the whole point as public safety comes before individual rehabilitation.
    The Norway example isn't poor... It's an exact example of them actually helping criminals instead of punishing them, and their crime rates going down!
    It's clear evidence... You can't just dismiss it.

    What empirical evidence are you talking about? Becuase you haven't shown me any... Your america example isn't really very valid when they have "harsher" sentences and they still have a much higher crime rate (and it hasn't improved much over time at ALL).

    I'll explain AGAIN... Harsher sentences will not deter these people. This is because, most people commiting crimes like murder, rape and other violent crimes do not THINK about it logically before doing so. It's mostly crimes to do with psychological issues, and emotional responses... No matter what their sentence would be, they would still have these issues.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by humanrights)

    empirical evidence suggests that permissive attitudes to violent crime facilitate violent crime……….those who disregard such empirical evidence to suit their world views are religious in nature as empirical evidence i s the basic of scientific method.

    the norway example is a poor example because it relies again on comparison with other countries medium crime rates…….comparison with britain or america is not the issue, the issue is what method reduces reduces crime in real terms.

    the equation is simple: lessen the consequences of crime and crime obviously crime will increase.

    therefore, the opposite must be true.

    there is a direct link between severity of sentence and crime itself, but, even if rehabilitation was 100% successful, it still does not deter those who have not yet committed their crimes -- which is the whole point as public safety comes before individual rehabilitation.

    Working out whether or not longer sentences act as a deterrent is very difficult as so many other factors come into play.

    However, this is quite an interesting paper:

    http://federation.ens.fr/ydepot/semi...GAL2008DET.pdf

    In 2006, Italy introduced the “Collective Clemency Bill” which reduced all inmate’s sentences by 3 years, resulting in the immediate release of 22000 of them. The interesting point is that, if they re-offended, their original remaining sentence would be added to their new sentence. So a large, quasi-randomised, group was created who all lived in the same country but who effectively were being threatened with difference lengths of punishment for committing a crime (i.e. the normal tariff plus whatever remained form their original sentence).

    The authors of the paper did an analysis on re-offending rates of the released inmates in 2008. They found that, on average, an additional one month in the expected sentence tended to reduce the chance of the crime being committed by 1.4%. This suggests that, in general, longer sentences do act as a deterrent.

    However, this trend wasn’t found to hold for the most serious offenses (sentence longer than 72 months – see Section 4.4 of the paper). The study backs up my (very unscientific) gut feeling that, for lesser crimes, bigger sentences act as a deterrent, but for really big crimes (GBH, murder, rape) the perpetrator isn’t making a rational calculation about their likely punishment.

    I haven’t had time to study the paper properly, so I can’t comment on how valid their method is (in may be a load of rubbish), but in any case there are a couple of obvious caveats:

    - It only applies to people who have already been in prison, not to first time-offenders.
    - It may be specific to the culture and legal system of Italy.

    And, of course, this says nothing about the deterrence effect of capital punishment verses prison versus rehabilitation.
    Offline

    5
    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.
    Not if you kill innocent unarmed Afghan civilians for sport it doesn't...
 
 
 
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.