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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ixxabelle)
    What government on earth would donate the money saved to aid africa? It would go on the same things that all public money gets wasted on.

    People who try to justify capital punishment make me sad
    Actually, large amounts of government spending go on international devolpment, charity etc. I'm pretty sure it would be very easy for a government to say "the money we save will go to save thousands of lives in Africa".

    It makes you sad because deep down, you know it's the right thing to do. I don't see why they can't give the population a choice over it, as someone posted before in an article. I.e. if you have a problem with capital punishment then opt-out of it, and your potential murderer will be locked away at large expense as opposed to killed.

    Of course, in this controlling society it's unheard of to give people choices :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Do you believe in libertarian free will?
    Not sure where I stand.

    Ah, but organised criminals are exactly that. Organised hence they're likely to have corrupt lawyers who'll help them, heck they may even have a graphologist to make sure it gives out the illusion of a voluntary arrangement. And, the article you posted stated that a person may wish to free his aggressor, I'm assuming guilt or innocence isn't a factor and I can wish for my aggressor to be free even though I acknowledge his guilt?
    I believe lawyers should be held liable; if they are found to twist documents, facts and so forth they have helped in causing someone's death (since they are creating incentives for someone to kill another man by protecting them) and they should be held liable for murder (in other words, the family of a victim should be able to seek retribution, i.e. legally kill them). It is the state that protects lawyers like these. Also, with modern forensic evidence it is really hard to play the books like that; even if they are savvy with all the forensics, there's likely to come along new developments at some stage which can prove the acts of the crooked lawyers were, in fact criminal.

    Also, I don't think it would be so easy as you might make out for a lawyer to just simply do a bit of dodgy accounting.

    And there's the whole Stockholm syndrome. Which is retively common in child abuse cases and domestic violence.
    That is a truth and I don't have much to say about that but I will raise the fact that I believe the market would trend towards the most objective and ethical legal system than a monopoly on law would. Also, I believe victims should be able to seek retribution at any point in time whereas today victims of rape or child abuse can only seek justice within a certain time frame (can't remember what it is but its something like 20 years?).

    Interesting. I just read about it briefly in wikipedia and it seems like a okay/good system. I've been thinking lately about defining the law in terms of property rights and this is what the system seems to be doing. Have you read his book? And would you recommend?
    I have not read the book yet although I plan to. The system, interestingly enough is rather similar to Ireland and Iceland while they were stateless so it seems to be the natural system for people to adhere to/accept in the absence of a state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Someone brought this up a while ago. Thought it was interesting. Could the following idea technically work?

    -Capital punishment is brought in
    -Used for extreme cases such as multiple murders, murder of children
    -The amount of appeals and bureaucracy within the court process are reduced
    -The huge amount of money saved is given to charities specialising in e.g. medicine, sanitation, food/water in 3rd world countries
    -1 evil (probably) white guy dies, 10,000 African kids don't die

    I was always against capital-punishment, but tend to take a utilitarian approach to life. I've racked my brains, and I've asked many people, but nobody has ever been able to tell me why the above idea would not work. Some have simply said "it would work, but it wouldn't happen!" which as anyone with a shred of intelligence could tell you, isn't a reason against it. Thus, I converted to a pro-capital punishment stance, given the above situation is true.

    To clarify, if you want to debate the morals of capital punishment, go away, there are a billion threads on the subject. I'm hoping to keep this thread strictly about the above scenario and if it would or not work.
    It would.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    The amount of appeals and bureaucracy within the court process are reduced
    Really?
    If anything, the amount of appeals and bureaucracy would increase.

    (Original post by mellie220)
    (which are backed up with undeniable evidence)
    Is there ever such a situation though?
    You can have compelling evidence, and different peices of evidence that point the suspicion, but it is very rare that you can get evidence that is totally undeniable.

    (Original post by sswf224)
    Why oh Why do people not support Capital Punishment.

    With new DNA etc we will not make mistakes so that argument is out of the window.

    Heres a thougt for those do-gooders - With the money we save by hanging someone as opposed to life in prison it would pay for more than 3 teachers salaries - argue against that.

    If a guilty plea and 100% gulty - what on earth is wrong with it!
    Why?
    Because there are very few (if any) cases where you can be 100% sure the person is guilty.
    And as I implied above, I seriously doubt the money savings would be that huge. You have to factor in the increased appeals process, and the fact that most people on death row spend years upon years there anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Really?
    If anything, the amount of appeals and bureaucracy would increase.

    Is there ever such a situation though?
    You can have compelling evidence, and different peices of evidence that point the suspicion, but it is very rare that you can get evidence that is totally undeniable.

    Why?
    Because there are very few (if any) cases where you can be 100% sure the person is guilty.
    And as I implied above, I seriously doubt the money savings would be that huge. You have to factor in the increased appeals process, and the fact that most people on death row spend years upon years there anyway.
    I don't really argue with pro-capital punishment people anymore, as I now take the stance that if a gov't brought in capital punishment they should bring in an opt-out scheme so that people who have issues with it can ensure that if they or their family are e.g. murdered then the perp is not killed. Giving people choices is good, denying them choices is just Nazi.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People who try to say Capital Punishment annoy and sadden me a lot !

    If it was nearer home or a relative (heaven forbid) - would they still feel the same - no of course not !

    I would gladly pull the lever on the Moors Murderers (and the like) - they have taken a life - doesnt the bible say - an eye for an eye !!!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.