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

How can anyone seriously be against capital punishment? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am fairly right wing - I am cynical of the NHS, the EU, government regulation in the market - and that's why I don't support the death penalty. Having trust in the state to choose between life and death is dangerous to individual liberty.

    Also, has anyone read Truman Capote's 'In Cold Blood'? That's certainly one for those interested in this topic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ncsoftlover)
    Norway is the pinnacle of human society, the model society for all, the most developed nation on earth. Of course its direction would be and should be more discussed than the direction Pakistan is heading. On any societal issue discussion I tend to look at developed nation only, why would I look at backward societies in search of future directions?
    Your definitions of ' backwards' and ' forwards' are totally subjective.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    I think you have to understand the difference between UK and US conservatives. The three big issues: Abortion, Gun Controls, Death Penalty...on all of them I would be the opposite to the GOP.

    I am in favour of gay marriage. Not for the state to say who can and can't get married. What I am not in favour of is forcing religious institutions to perform ceremonies. Why do you oppose gay marriage? It can't be on religious grounds of course, as to many, religion is a load of nonsense.

    Tags like 'conservative' are very broad. Jon Huntsman is a conservative as is Ron Paul. Perhaps I am socially liberal.

    What makes me conservative, well I'd favour further reductions in spending by the UK government, I'm in favour of Bush's foreign policy, I want a radical cut in Immigration, I (more recently) want to leave the EU, I want to see the welfare state in this country rolled back and I am very pro-America and pro-Israel.
    Right, first of all being "pro-American or Pro-Israel" doesn't make anyone a conservative. Obama and Pelosi and Blair are both, I would hardly put them in the conservative column. Secondly, foreign policy hardly has anything to do with this, US controls the foreign policy of its allies when it comes to peace and war so don't act like we in Britain have a choice there. You really think Blair could so no to Bush on Iraq/Afghanistan? No, he had no choice. Neither do you, we have everything to lose and nothing to gain by aggravating the US if we want to remain being their close ally, that's fact, it's not up for debate.

    Thirdly, I oppose abortion and gay marriage, want the death penalty re-introduced, heavily regulate the prostitution and pornography industry. On immigration, I'm in favour. Thing is, I consider myself down the middle but most of your viewpoints are to the left of mine. If you were really against immigration (presumably to cut the rate of population increase, then you should be supporting the death penalty).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    If you were really against immigration (presumably to cut the rate of population increase, then you should be supporting the death penalty).
    What? :gasp:

    The legal system and whatever punishments it decides should be solely about reducing crime and increasing the safety of innocent people. It certainly isn't and should never be a tool to acheive other political or social goals. By giving it another purpose (reducing population) you change the priority and providing justice no longer becomes the focus.

    As far as reducing population goes the death penalty is useless. Unless you are willing to kill theives and other minor criminals the death penalty will have a negligible effect on population.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aoide)
    What? :gasp:

    The legal system and whatever punishments it decides should be solely about reducing crime and increasing the safety of innocent people. It certainly isn't and should never be a tool to acheive other political or social goals. By giving it another purpose (reducing population) you change the priority and providing justice no longer becomes the focus.

    As far as reducing population goes the death penalty is useless. Unless you are willing to kill thieves and other minor criminals the death penalty will have a negligible effect on population.
    Actually, the death penalty is for punishment only. But it has other consequences such as reduction in the number of potential child, woman traffickers into the country (if rapists and sex traffickers are executed), reduction in prison population. It will also reduce prison costs which could be used for border control. It may not have a major impact, but every little helps.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHeavyWeight)
    Your definitions of ' backwards' and ' forwards' are totally subjective.
    Well if you think Pakistan is leading us into the future, then that's okay with me, it's an opinion. A personal opinion is going to be subjective, as if I need reminding.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because who would be 'qualified' to make the choice of whether these people died or not?
    Someone would have to call the shots on who was killed, and who would they be to make such a choice?

    No matter what they've done, do they really deserve to die? Wouldn't they suffer enough in imprisoned for the remainder of their lives?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SarcasticComplex)
    Because who would be 'qualified' to make the choice of whether these people died or not?
    Someone would have to call the shots on who was killed, and who would they be to make such a choice?

    No matter what they've done, do they really deserve to die? Wouldn't they suffer enough in imprisoned for the remainder of their lives?
    Fair argument, but there's an issue with that: why should taxpayers have to pay to keep a murderer alive in prison for a life sentence?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emanseru)
    Fair argument, but there's an issue with that: why should taxpayers have to pay to keep a murderer alive in prison for a life sentence?
    Because they're still people.. It's the same as keeping other people alive.. Plus it creates more jobs for prison wardens, and, be honest, do you really believe that tax payers would have to pay any less than if those people weren't imprisoned? Of course not.. Because where's it all going? Into the pockets of government officials.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Just because a murderer kills someone, it doesn't give us the right to kill them, they are being punished for taking a life, but isn't that what the state is doing too? an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind..

    But it's a difficult situation, personally i'm against it but there are flaws in both sides of the argument.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sevchenko)
    That was the 50's mate, I think we can both agree that forensic science and the technology the police have at their disposal has considerably advanced since then and detecting criminals is easier.

    What I mean by Repeat serious offences is criminals with multiple offences should die. 3 counts of murder. 7 counts of GBH. Multiple sexual offences etc
    Ok, so ill offer some more modern sentences whereby if we still had the death penalty, the defendant may very well have received it.

    Barry George, served 8 years after wrongly being accused of the murder of Jill Dando.

    Suzanne Holdsworth served 3 years after being wrongfully convicted of murdering a 2 year old.

    Sally Clarke, served 3 years for the murder of her two sons. Later found innocent. As a result of this situation she became an alcoholic and died 3 years after release.

    So there are 3 modern cases from the 90's and 2000's, whereby if the death penalty was still used, the convicted may have been put to death whilst innocent. Im not sure what else you would need to see to convince you that its possible for mistakes to be made.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    If you were really against immigration (presumably to cut the rate of population increase, then you should be supporting the death penalty).
    Are you British or American?

    If you are British, you are in the British National Party. I am on the right of the Tory Party.

    I find extreme right wing positions to be too much. I'm much more at home with President Obama and the Dems rather than the Republicans.

    You have to understand that in todays world, "far right" doesn't mean Hitler. It means the BNP. If you consider your views center, then I'd hate to see what you consider right wing.

    The quote I've put above highlights how ridiculous your viewpoint is. I oppose most Immigration on practical grounds because we have a massive housing shortage, we have 3 million people unemployed, we have a health service and welfare state simply bursting to the brim. We cannot, I repeat, cannot, sustain mass immigration.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SarcasticComplex)
    Because they're still people.. It's the same as keeping other people alive.. Plus it creates more jobs for prison wardens, and, be honest, do you really believe that tax payers would have to pay any less than if those people weren't imprisoned? Of course not.. Because where's it all going? Into the pockets of government officials.
    It's perfectly understandable to disagree, I'm just voicing my opinion. Although, if you have one of your family members murdered and the culprit's in jail, I find it very unjust that you should (albeit indirectly) pay for them to be sheltered and fed everyday for 15+ years. Also prisons are becoming crowded, that's an ongoing problem. I'm not a fan of Stalin but I'll quote him. : " No man, no problem". There's some food for thought.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    Actually, the death penalty is for punishment only. But it has other consequences such as reduction in the number of potential child, woman traffickers into the country (if rapists and sex traffickers are executed), reduction in prison population. It will also reduce prison costs which could be used for border control. It may not have a major impact, but every little helps.
    Actually it does none of these things (as many people have already said), any more effeciently than life in prison.

    1) A true life sentence prevents them commiting crime as effectively as capital punishment. If they spend the rest of their lives in prison they can't harm anyone else.

    2)It does not reduce prison costs, executing someone in a fair and humane way (if that is possible) is as expensive as locking them in prison.

    3) Making prison space is meaningless if it costs more money than it would to keep the space filled.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Capital punishment = easy way out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Capital punishment = easy way out.
    So you have said....


    Anyway.

    Forensic science has taken a few steps forward since we last executed people. So its safe to say that the chance of an innocent person been executed is now non existent.

    I understand that it is leftist philosophy to be soft on crime, but its time to put the victim first. And in cases where the criminal has clearly shown no remorse and the guilt is under no doubt what so ever, I say they should be put down, just like an animal.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    Forensic science has taken a few steps forward since we last executed people. So its safe to say that the chance of an innocent person been executed is now non existent.
    Not true. No forensic evidence is 100%. And that's even before we go into identical twins, etc. You will still have innocent people being found guilty of crimes they didn't commit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Not true. No forensic evidence is 100%. And that's even before we go into identical twins, etc. You will still have innocent people being found guilty of crimes they didn't commit.
    hmmmmmm

    please tell me how this man is innocent....


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-a-killer.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NewFolder)
    Most people don't commit serious crimes like murder because they know that it is wrong. Even if there was no punishment at all against these crimes, very few people would commit them, because nearly all people know that doing something like this is wrong.

    You get a life sentence for murder. That means that you have no freedom for the rest of your life. I'd say that was a very significant punishment, but it doesn't deter some people. People still commit some horrendous crimes in countries where the death penalty exists. Some of the crimes that are committed in those countries are far worse than anything that's happened in this country imo. Even though those people know they will be executed, they still commit the crime. Also, 'normal' people don't commit crimes like that, those who do usually have some sort of mental health issues, personality disorder, or are just plain evil, etc. Therefore, there isn't really anything that would work as a deterrent in cases like this.
    Certain criminals, like professional criminals, do consider death penalty a more severe punishment than life imprisonment. Mental disorder killing etc are minority cases in the total scheme of things.
    Life sentence fails to deter criminals as death penalty would do when you have problems of corruption etc. This is particularly severe in the developing world. Interviews of professional criminals show that they expect they are eventually set free, even with life sentence, due to corruption etc in South Africa. Even out escaping, criminals can live comfortably with help of corruption when serving life sentence. With such prospect in their minds, introducing death penalty gives a significant marginal deterrent from just having life sentence.

    What is normal, in a society, is highly dependent on society's culture, history and values etc. Henry the 8th murdered his wives which was acceptable within his regime. Throughout history, you can find numerous cases of powerful men murdering their wives, around the world, just because they had the power to do so. You don't need to be a nut case but just to have subjective values to view murdering women to be "appropriate".
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    hmmmmmm

    please tell me how this man is innocent....


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-a-killer.html
    And the relevance of that to my argument is what exactly?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.