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

How can anyone seriously be against capital punishment? Watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    And the relevance of that to my argument is what exactly?
    The relevance is (if you bothered to read my post). Is that some guilt is beyond any doubt. Hence why capital punishment is a fitting price to pay.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    The relevance is (if you bothered to read my post). Is that some guilt is beyond any doubt. Hence why capital punishment is a fitting price to pay.
    I did read your post. You just posted a random article and asked if I believed he was guilty.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    I did read your post. You just posted a random article and asked if I believed he was guilty.
    You said some rubbish about identically twins and someone might been innocent.

    I gave you can example of when someone was defiantly not innocent.

    So now I am asking for another reason why we shouldn't execute people. As the innocence, not innocent thing doesn't wash with me or anyone else with an iota of common sense.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    In which case you would agree that there are instances where we can be 100% sure as to the identity of the criminal yes?
    Well yes but I never really denied that.

    Just put to it out there, I consider a state which refuses to kill a criminal for the greater good for society to have far weaker moral standing than one that does. As to what greater good constitutes, it depends on the society and circumstances at the time- you can rarely have absolutes with these kind of things.
    I think morality isn't that relevant. Whilst I detest those that actually do the worst crimes and would like to see them recieve the appropriate sentence and stay inside. I certainly don't think the death penalty makes a country more moral. I think that's equally wrong to believing it makes a country less so.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    You said some rubbish about identically twins and someone might been innocent.

    I gave you can example of when someone was defiantly not innocent.

    So now I am asking for another reason why we shouldn't execute people. As the innocence, not innocent thing doesn't wash with me or anyone else with an iota of common sense.
    Yeah, I mean since when did the distinction between innocence and guilt become so bloody important!

    The other reason is that the death penalty is morally repugnant. It has so many negatives that it is best confined to the history books. Countries which use it should think about dropping it and those who have already turned away from it should not even think about reintroduction.

    Resources are best spent on a proper criminal justice system which actually works on reducing crime rather than dishing out revenge for the sake of a few blood hungry nutjobs.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)

    So now I am asking for another reason why we shouldn't execute people. As the innocence, not innocent thing doesn't wash with me or anyone else with an iota of common sense.
    - because it's hypocritical. Why can't I kill someone; but the state can?
    - it's more expensive
    - it's the easy way out
    - not all evidence is 100%. You put someone to death and find they're innocent. Then what?
    - killing someone by lethal injection / electrocution isn't always a smooth operation
    - how can you teach that killing isn't right by killing others?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W-Three)
    Because being painfully executed accomplishes nothing. They don't learn from their punishment because they die, so the punishment is pointless outside of the seflish need for revenge. I'm sure the people who commit these acts justify their actions just as you would justify brutally killing them.

    I also don't believe violent dogs should be put down. But it's slightly different which I'll explain next.





    We are born to a family we don't choose, in a society we don't choose with genes we don't choose. These factors make up who we are, which includes our ability to reflect on those factors and attempt to make a change. Any change must come from an external force, this is where punishment and rehabilitation comes in. Unlike some animals humans (as well as others) have a well developed brain which allows our behavior to be changed more than other animals, but this change cannot come from within.

    So, everyone deserves a chance to be a fully functioning part of society, and killing someone as punishment does nothing to make that person change.
    Couldn't have said it better.

    We can try and teach someone to be an acceptable person and give them the chance to be a decent person, or we can kill them simply because we don't like them (which sounds a lot like what we condemn them for).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    - because it's hypocritical. Why can't I kill someone; but the state can?
    - it's more expensive
    - it's the easy way out
    - not all evidence is 100%. You put someone to death and find they're innocent. Then what?
    - killing someone by lethal injection / electrocution isn't always a smooth operation
    - how can you teach that killing isn't right by killing others?
    What a load of rubbish.

    I dont care about how easy it is for the criminal. Again you seem to be forgetting the victim. If someone I loved was murdered, I would want to see their killer executed, so would any other rational person. The victim is the most important person here.

    Criminals should instantly lose all their rights, including their human ones the second they are convicted. They should be considered a low form of life, and hence beyond rehabilitation.

    Where rehabilitation works it should be used, but in the case of a crime that can not bee taken back. Like murder and rape, then only the most harsh of sentences should apply, up to and including capital punishment.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aoide)
    Couldn't have said it better.

    We can try and teach someone to be an acceptable person and give them the chance to be a decent person, or we can kill them simply because we don't like them (which sounds a lot like what we condemn them for).
    You can't undo murder.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    You can't undo murder.
    Exactly. The crime they commit is done and no amout of punishment will bring them back however we can give them the chance to become acceptable people and do the right thing in the future. What has happened can't be undone, but we can try and make the future better.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aoide)
    Exactly. The crime they commit is done and no amout of punishment will bring them back however we can give them the chance to become acceptable people and do the right thing in the future. What has happened can't be undone, but we can try and make the future better.
    I disagree, for the very fact that it can not be undone, means that they should pay the ultimate price.

    However if prison meant prison, and life meant life. Then I would be against capital punishment. But sadly this is not the case.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    What a load of rubbish.

    I dont care about how easy it is for the criminal. Again you seem to be forgetting the victim. If someone I loved was murdered, I would want to see their killer executed, so would any other rational person. The victim is the most important person here.

    Criminals should instantly lose all their rights, including their human ones the second they are convicted. They should be considered a low form of life, and hence beyond rehabilitation.

    Where rehabilitation works it should be used, but in the case of a crime that can not bee taken back. Like murder and rape, then only the most harsh of sentences should apply, up to and including capital punishment.
    Well at least you admit you are after revenge. Not everyone would feel the same, some of us like to not copy the criminals behaviour.

    The justification you use could equally be used by a potential murderer to justify killing them. You are just saying that because you hate them they deserve to die. Whether or not the hate is justified is not relevant (everybody who hate somene is convinced they are deserving of it), if disliking someone is an acceptable reason to kill them then most murderers should be let free.

    However if prison meant prison, and life meant life. Then I would be against capital punishment. But sadly this is not the case.
    Wouldn't it be simpler just to call for life to mean life, as many people who codemn capital punishment (myself included) already do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A problem on the scale of the Delhi incident is a product of a society that brings males up to believe they are more powerful and important than females. Punishing the criminals by breaking their fundamental rights as humans isn't going to effect a solution to the wider problem.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    A problem on the scale of the Delhi incident is a product of a society that brings males up to believe they are more powerful and important than females. Punishing the criminals by breaking their fundamental rights as humans isn't going to effect a solution to the wider problem.
    This is exactly what I have said about it too

    It makes far more sense to look at countries that actually address the issues at their cause, and rehabilitate properly, and think about how to incorporate a similar system that is proven to be far more effective than our current one. Fixing the things that cause many people to commit such crimes, as well as making real efforts to rehabilitate individuals (making them productive members of society that not only costs us less in the criminal system, but gives back to society as a whole) is the key to solving these kinds of issues.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Post121)
    It can be equally vital as going to war for self-defence. It all depends on your criteria of being vital. Perhaps, it's best you provide this standard to clearly show that you are not using double standards.
    It's not vital otherwise the countries that don't have it would be in a lot more trouble. I wouldn't say that it's the same as a country going to war to protect itself because to do so is a last resort for a country to ensure it's borders and territory remains safe and protect and part of it. Whereas giving a person the death penalty isn't vital as such. I wouldn't say it's vital to protecting a country and it's people. Furthermore I don't need to prove it's not a double standard since the death penalty and a country going to war (whether it's to protect itself or something else) is no comparable. They are different situations.

    Why is war necessarily unavoidable if you disregard all the benefits of going to war? Many modern conflicts involve a scenario where war is clearly avoidable if the nation decides to throw away all its self-interests. It's the same way you are deeming capital punishment to be avoidable..
    Again, innocent lives lost in war is not the same as lives lost by wrongful convictions leading to Capital punishment. It is an erroneous and frankly desperate way to try and convince people that a nation has to have capital punishment and the loss of a few innocent lives is acceptable, as if it's collateral. What you don't seem to understand is that such a thing is one of the most foremost flaws of capital punishment.
    My point is that war generally results in the deaths of innocent people. It's tragic but it's a fact. With capital punishment, innocent people don't need to die but with if you are bringing in the possibility of a person who has been wrongly convicted of being put to death then it's an issue. And if you then claim it's keeping or intended to keep society safe, then that's highly debatable.

    And why is it no equally arrogant to assume capital punishment not providing safety and protection for society?
    Because it hasn't been proven that capital punishment in a western first world nation would provide saftey and protection for society and that it would reduce crime.

    From incentive argument, it's credible to believe people are less likely to commit murder when they know they are likely to face death. This has been studied with South African murder cases. In South Africa, many murders aren't impulse killing but well calculated plans of action.

    And it's absolutely reasonable to put forward such argument if one does an impassioned cost-benefit analysis.
    A study done in South Africa? So a study done in a deveoloping African nation rife with crime like carjackings, rapes, house invasions, gang trouble, and the rest. I don't think that is a valid comparison.
    Also, if people are less likely to commit murder when they know they are likely to face the death penalty, why is there still a great deal of crime in those states in the USA that have the death penalty?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Post121)
    I am talking about the first part. Like the case with capital punishment, the illegal immigrant has broken the law of the state hence doesn't have the right to claim the freedom given by Article 13.
    Erm what? I just explicitly said that illegal movement INTO a country is different from movement WITHIN a country.

    Capital punishment is a form of prophylactic method. The severe consequence of the crime enters the calculation of a prospective criminal before committing the crime. Thus deterring the incentives to commit such crime. During a period of South African crime reaching its height, criminal found, in absence of death penalty, killing witnesses gave them a better gamble than keeping the witnesses alive.
    Why not use capital punishment for everything, to deter criminals. For example, human trafficking costs countless lives. Let's kill off the odd Snakehead, and that will stop everything! Of course not. And as for rapes, many are committed while the rapist is under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Fear can affect many people, but a drunk, depraved moron on a Saturday night will not think twice before following the pretty young girl down the alleyway. After all, he doesn't think he'll get caught...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    This is exactly what I have said about it too

    It makes far more sense to look at countries that actually address the issues at their cause, and rehabilitate properly, and think about how to incorporate a similar system that is proven to be far more effective than our current one. Fixing the things that cause many people to commit such crimes, as well as making real efforts to rehabilitate individuals (making them productive members of society that not only costs us less in the criminal system, but gives back to society as a whole) is the key to solving these kinds of issues.
    Yes I agree; people are too quick to reach for 'deterrents' which aren't always effective. There's never an easy solution. Dishing out the harshest possible punishment to a handful of offenders isn't going to reverse a trend of 10% increase in rape cases in one year.

    http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/p...n-india-worst/

    The problem is broader than these extreme cases.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    What a load of rubbish.

    I dont care about how easy it is for the criminal. Again you seem to be forgetting the victim. If someone I loved was murdered, I would want to see their killer executed, so would any other rational person. The victim is the most important person here.

    Criminals should instantly lose all their rights, including their human ones the second they are convicted. They should be considered a low form of life, and hence beyond rehabilitation.

    Where rehabilitation works it should be used, but in the case of a crime that can not bee taken back. Like murder and rape, then only the most harsh of sentences should apply, up to and including capital punishment.
    what you have forgetting is that the justice system is not about feeding the blood lust of the victim.
    What the victim need is better help on restoring their lives, a better functioning correctional system that reduce re offending rate, and better crime solving rate. What the victims need is less victims. Those should be the focus.
    Capital punishment on the other hand is state sanctioned revenge, is not in line with currently updated philosophy regarding correctional system. And it doesn't reduce crime, a correctional system that actually rehabilitates and reduce re offending rate, now that would be helpful in reducing crime,and that really help both victims and society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revisaphobe)
    Erm what? I just explicitly said that illegal movement INTO a country is different from movement WITHIN a country.



    Why not use capital punishment for everything, to deter criminals. For example, human trafficking costs countless lives. Let's kill off the odd Snakehead, and that will stop everything! Of course not. And as for rapes, many are committed while the rapist is under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Fear can affect many people, but a drunk, depraved moron on a Saturday night will not think twice before following the pretty young girl down the alleyway. After all, he doesn't think he'll get caught...
    I agree.
    If Crime prevention is really the only goal of the justice system. Then I have a suggestion, kill all 7 billion people, kill them all, no human, no crimes, crimes prevented.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ncsoftlover)
    I agree.
    If Crime prevention is really the only goal of the justice system. Then I have a suggestion, kill all 7 billion people, kill them all, no human, no crimes, crimes prevented.
    Well, except us, right? We're law abiding citizens :cool:
 
 
 
  • 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.