Turn on thread page Beta

Bring back the Death Sentence? POLL watch

  • View Poll Results: Bring back the Death Sentence for murderers?
    Yes.
    37.40%
    No.
    62.60%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexx53)
    Execution is a type of punishment?
    Execution is a safety measure. Granted a few people may regard it as punishment, but this number will dwindle when they get out of their moral mire. Punishment is a base and precariously emotional concept.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SteveCrain)
    It has nothing to do with punishment. They shouldn't be punished, but they should be executed/deported no less.
    It is about punishment. Execution/deportation are punishments. People should pay for their crimes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clara78)
    Then what do you suggest should be done they cant allow these crazy mad men to walk around giving them the death sentence will make the country a safer place its not hypocritical if its for the right reasons.
    Rehabillitate them / imprison them for life and make them work...
    Much better, keeps society equally safe, is cheaper than execution... And is morally right (in my opinion).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WackyJun)
    How long will it be until someone sees the technical flaw in this?
    "OF" is missing and sentence is spelt wrong?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The death penalty is one of the few things I would get off my arse to actively protest against. No crime is ever really proven; there are plenty of cases both in this country and the US where those convicted of serious offences, and capital offences in the states, have been proven innocent years later, sometimes after their death. I would not wish to play fast and loose with lives when the truth in criminal cases is often elusive.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clara78)
    Then what do you suggest should be done they cant allow these crazy mad men to walk around giving them the death sentence will make the country a safer place its not hypocritical if its for the right reasons.
    Put them in prison for ever. What would you suggest?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clara78)
    Then what do you suggest should be done they cant allow these crazy mad men to walk around giving them the death sentence will make the country a safer place its not hypocritical if its for the right reasons.
    The point is that it's a bad way to send the message that killing people is wrong.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is that it's all a bit "final".. imagine how it would feel if you were innocent, and forced to die. At least with a life sentence you have the chance to appeal, and always that tiny glimmer of hope that your case might be brought to justice.

    PLUS- for those who are guilty, I think death is the easy way out. They should be made to take their punishment, and made to suffer for their crime.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    nope. in my mind the point of the prison system is to try and re-integrate people into society not just punish them. killing somebody is simply giving up
    This. Though not just giving up, but hypocritical as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SteveCrain)
    Execution is a safety measure. Granted a few people may regard it as punishment, but this number will dwindle when they get out of their moral mire. Punishment is a base and precariously emotional concept.
    Yes, it's a safety measure, but it's also a punishment.

    "Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal or property, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles"

    Someone has killed somebody (which is the disobedience part), and so you are punishing them by taking their life away (imposing something unpleasant).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mel2606)
    "OF" is missing and sentence is spelt wrong?
    Haha not what I was thinking of. It's a small point and I'm guessing the OP doesn't know any better (bless) but it's mightily important to the concept of law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexx53)
    Yes, it's a safety measure, but it's also a punishment.

    "Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal or property, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles"

    Someone has killed somebody (which is the disobedience part), and so you are punishing them by taking their life away (imposing something unpleasant).
    The concept of "Punishment" was contrived to give respect to those who accuse the ones they fear.

    I don't think it is necessary anymore.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of evidence will never be enough to be certain. It would be massaged with corruption and how is it morally correct to punish someone by doing what that person did. It would mean a never ending cycle of the killing of the human race.

    As Ghandi said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    People decrying capital punishment wouldn't assume such a position when their loved one is raped and the killed by a serial killer that was let loose after serving a "life sentence".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hunagdi)
    People decrying capital punishment wouldn't assume such a position when their loved one is raped and the killed by a serial killer that was let loose after serving a "life sentence".
    That would not make me want to bring back capital punishment. It would make me want 'life sentence' to mean 'stay in jail until you're dead'.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleangel9914)
    I think either way something has to be done about the british justice system
    it's getting to a piont where the rights of the victims are less important then the rights of the criminal Some sentences handed out for serious crimes are a joke
    The death sentence would be a better detterent, safety measure and punishment
    I mean foe example does a peadophile that's raped and killed children really deserve to live
    Specific punishments as a deterrent actually don't work. They've done studies in the US with states at times when the death sentence was the main punishment for murder and when life imprisonment was the main punishment. They covered up which time had which punishment and then asked people to tell them which one they thought it was. Because the figures of people convicted for murder were so similar, no one could actually work it out.

    Furthermore, people consider the *risk* of being caught but not what happens when they are caught. A burglar will work out the risk when they burgle from a house (e.g. is anyone there? Is there an alarm?) but studies find that 9/10 of those convicted of burglary didn't consider what would happen *if* they were caught. It's even less for murder because many murders are not planned (and considering the UK's wide definition of murder, many are accidental!). Or put it like this. When you cross a road, you look for cars. When you decide not to cross, it's because the risk of being hit by a car is too high. Few people decide not to cross the road because a car might kill them - it's the risk and not the consequence which primarily stops you. The same principle applies to specific punishments and deterrence.

    People are receving longer and longer sentences. A study by Hough and Roberts shows that 75% of the population would actually sentence people to lesser sentences than are currently given (the study was done by giving groups of people a scenario and then saying "What would you sentence this person to?") but about the same amount believe the criminal justice system sentence too leniently. In part, this is because people don't understand how the system itself works and so rely on the media who don't report how the system works. Britain is the most punitive country in Western Europe.

    Why would decreasing prisoner rights increase victim rights? It's a fallacious argument to say that one must decrease in order for the other to increase. Both can improve independently. Victims are becoming increasingly involved in the process, especially in youth crime.

    Also, considering the state of British prisons, prisoners' rights are actually pretty awful.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I'mBadAtMaths)
    Killing someone for murder is simply hypocritcal. It's a terrible idea.
    You miss the point of the death sentence.
    It is not there as a punishment, but as a viable economic solution to protect people.
    Why pay to keep someone dangerous locked up when you could save the money and kill them?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andy_mcnally6)
    A lot of evidence will never be enough to be certain. It would be massaged with corruption and how is it morally correct to punish someone by doing what that person did. It would mean a never ending cycle of the killing of the human race.

    As Ghandi said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
    I have no say in this btw, just trying to justify some stuff..

    Well, other people will learn wouldn't they?
    There's not going to be a killing spree after someone is accused of murder...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gethsemane342)
    Specific punishments as a deterrent actually don't work. They've done studies in the US with states at times when the death sentence was the main punishment for murder and when life imprisonment was the main punishment. They covered up which time had which punishment and then asked people to tell them which one they thought it was. Because the figures of people convicted for murder were so similar, no one could actually work it out.

    Furthermore, people consider the *risk* of being caught but not what happens when they are caught. A burglar will work out the risk when they burgle from a house (e.g. is anyone there? Is there an alarm?) but studies find that 9/10 of those convicted of burglary didn't consider what would happen *if* they were caught. It's even less for murder because many murders are not planned (and considering the UK's wide definition of murder, many are accidental!). Or put it like this. When you cross a road, you look for cars. When you decide not to cross, it's because the risk of being hit by a car is too high. Few people decide not to cross the road because a car might kill them - it's the risk and not the consequence which primarily stops you. The same principle applies to specific punishments and deterrence.

    People are receving longer and longer sentences. A study by Hough and Roberts shows that 75% of the population would actually sentence people to lesser sentences than are currently given (the study was done by giving groups of people a scenario and then saying "What would you sentence this person to?") but about the same amount believe the criminal justice system sentence too leniently. In part, this is because people don't understand how the system itself works and so rely on the media who don't report how the system works. Britain is the most punitive country in Western Europe.

    Why would decreasing prisoner rights increase victim rights? It's a fallacious argument to say that one must decrease in order for the other to increase. Both can improve independently. Victims are becoming increasingly involved in the process, especially in youth crime.

    Also, considering the state of British prisons, prisoners' rights are actually pretty awful.
    Excellent answer, couldn't have put it better myself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hunagdi)
    People decrying capital punishment wouldn't assume such a position when their loved one is raped and the killed by a serial killer that was let loose after serving a "life sentence".
    You can't make a fair judgement on something if you're subjective - surely, because this is something that will affect not only you, but everyone else under the sames laws as you, it's a decision that has to be made objectively? What if you're a family member of the convicted, would it be fair to take away someone's sibling/parent/child etc? No need to punish the family if the family wasn't involved.

    On a related sidenote: I think we should make convicts run on hamster wheels all day, generating electricity for the local area!
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.