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

How can anyone seriously be against capital punishment? Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    because such people are rational and not get into a tizzy when finding out about something bad happening...
    its like deciding to cover the whole of Britain in bubble wrap because a child fell off a swing... you can make the damage the child suffered as graphic as you want, but still does not warrant bubble wrapping....


    huge decisions should be made based on the majority, not on the few incidences that occur, no matter how graphic and horrifying they may be... such dopey reasoning is only one step lower than wanting a persons hands cut off because they stole something...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revisaphobe)
    Well, except us, right? We're law abiding citizens :cool:
    well, just in case, I think it's safer that we all get killed.
    I mean, I can't be sure that I won't suddenly flip out and kill someone , can't predict the future. We're all "suspicious" in some ways after all. The goal is to prevent crime at all cost, so kill them all, I'm sure you'll understand
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to post this, sorry if someone has already done it. I felt it was appropriate.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es9XrKTTc_4
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgasm19)
    The penal system is also known as the Justice system, not the Retribution system though, the law is not supposed to appease angered victims, it is supposed to ensure the prevention of crime and the protection of society from danger and harm.
    Something which I disagree with. If society taught itself first that murder and rape is wrong, then we would have no need for retribution or rehabilitation. That is why we have citizenship classes in schools. Because that person has decided to go against that teaching and decides to murder, you can't really-educate them. I mean why are they gonna listen to you the second time if they haven't the first? So they must be punished and not released. Murder Isn't some sort of light crime that you can get away with a slap on the wrists like you're implying. If the crime wasn't committed In the first place, there would be no need for punishment. Torture isn't meant to prevent crime, that is the job or parents and schools who are supposed to bring you up properly and law abiding. No torture is meant to punish (maybe with the added benefit of making people think twice as well) and that only.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    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.
    Brit. Lol I'm pro-immigration so I'm hardly BNP. There's only one reason why you are anti-immigration and that's because you are concerned with the rate of population growth in the UK. Killing off murderers and rapists helps to achieve that goal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because you kill people with it?

    You can't see how some people find this unacceptable?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aoide)
    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.
    Actually it does.

    This isn't about preventing further murder, this is about giving the murderer a taste of his own medicine. Killing a murderer doesn't cost a damn thing. A bullet to the head or beheading by sword will do just fine, it cuts cost and it sure is a lot cheaper than keeping them alive and entertained for 40 years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by josh_v)
    If you advocate the death penalty then you find it acceptable that innocent people will be put to death in order to get the guilty ones. The Khmer Rouge also took this approach.

    I advocate the scraping of the death penalty for all in order than Timothy Evans may have lived on.
    You didn't read a word I wrote did you?

    Adam lanza has beyond reasonable doubt killed 26 people

    Osama bin Laden has beyond reasonable doubt killed thousands of people

    What part of that do you not understand? You can not argue they are innocent, it's impossible. They are guilty, evidence proves it. Only people like them should be given it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Something which I disagree with. If society taught itself first that murder and rape is wrong, then we would have no need for retribution or rehabilitation. That is why we have citizenship classes in schools. Because that person has decided to go against that teaching and decides to murder, you can't really-educate them. I mean why are they gonna listen to you the second time if they haven't the first? So they must be punished and not released. Murder Isn't some sort of light crime that you can get away with a slap on the wrists like you're implying. If the crime wasn't committed In the first place, there would be no need for punishment. Torture isn't meant to prevent crime, that is the job or parents and schools who are supposed to bring you up properly and law abiding. No torture is meant to punish (maybe with the added benefit of making people think twice as well) and that only.
    The absence of the death penalty or torture as punishment for criminal activity is the mark of a civilised country, in my view (except America ). Torturing criminals would be a violation of their human rights, we are all too quick to dehumanize criminals, to simply categorize them as 'monsters'. Without wanting to offend you, what is the point of punishing someone if it doesn't deter them or others from re-offending? And I doubt it would if the death penalty does not succeed in this.

    Research shows that victims care more about emotional reparation after an offence has been committed against them, i.e. the restoration of peace of mind, trust, and the ability to forgive the person who wronged them. That's why I believe in the concept of restorative justice. So who is torturing criminals going to please? The bloodthirsty public?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    Actually it does.

    This isn't about preventing further murder, this is about giving the murderer a taste of his own medicine. Killing a murderer doesn't cost a damn thing. A bullet to the head or beheading by sword will do just fine, it cuts cost and it sure is a lot cheaper than keeping them alive and entertained for 40 years.
    Doesn't make you any better than them, if anything you're just as bad. And it isn't always a good deterrent since it can sometimes be used on the wrong person; I wonder if you'd still think it is acceptable 40 years down the line and you discover that it wasn't actually your Dad who murdered someone but someone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Death is an easy way out. I don't know about anyone else but I'd much rather be killed than serve the rest of my life in prison. Also, there's far too many cases where people have been wrongly charged with the death penalty, then of course it's too late to go back. People say if you've taken a life yours should be taken, but then what happens to the people who administer the death penalty? Technically they're taking a life.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Doesn't make you any better than them, if anything you're just as bad. And it isn't always a good deterrent since it can sometimes be used on the wrong person; I wonder if you'd still think it is acceptable 40 years down the line and you discover that it wasn't actually your Dad who murdered someone but someone else.
    Firstly, justice is only served if the execution is applied. Secondly, my idea of how convicted murderers would be eligible for the death penalty reduces the probability of executing the wrong person to a negligible level. You can't execute someone just because you found a hair or a bit of blood. The punishment isn't about deterence, it's about giving them what they deserve, it just so happens that they won't be able to re-offend which is an added bonus.

    Do you disagree with what the Allied forces did to the Nazis? The Nazis rained London with bombs so the RAF took to the skies and carpet bombed Berlin. Do you think that was wrong? A life for a life is wrong?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mollster57)
    but then what happens to the people who administer the death penalty? Technically they're taking a life.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Technically, the govt forcing you to pay tax is theft. If you have that kind of mindset then State wouldn't be able to get anything done. It's a dumb line of reasoning.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    Firstly, justice is only served if the execution is applied. Secondly, my idea of how convicted murderers would be eligible for the death penalty reduces the probability of executing the wrong person to a negligible level. You can't execute someone just because you found a hair or a bit of blood. The punishment isn't about deterence, it's about giving them what they deserve, it just so happens that they won't be able to re-offend which is an added bonus.

    Do you disagree with what the Allied forces did to the Nazis? The Nazis rained London with bombs so the RAF took to the skies and carpet bombed Berlin. Do you think that was wrong? A life for a life is wrong?
    No, 'justice' comes in many forms with capital punishment as one in some countries; we have unlimited fines, house arrests and of course imprisonment. One man's justice is another's immorality.

    It reduces it but it won't erradicate that chance. Whilst I don't like the idea of having to pay for someone's food and accomodation, nor the poor sentencing laws in the UK, I wouldn't feel safe in my country in the knowledge that we could be punished with death; you may think nothing to hide then nothing to fear, but I'd be more unsatisfied knowing that a developed nation which claims to support peaceful proceedings holds onto the attachment that murder is acceptable.

    What you think they deserve and what they receive aren't the same thing. Of course you're entitled to your beliefs but since the UK doesn't agree with Capital Punishment based upon the elected government policies, and I stress the word elected, you're not in the position to assume everyone believes in the death penalty.

    You're talking about war and 'life for a life' which is an entirely different scope from Capital Punishment - both involve an equated reaction of killing someone, but the latter is focused upon prisoners and not what people have to do in war. Personally I think after being able to accept your fate of incarseration, a quick firing squad death is an easy way out from a life of otherwise miserable imprisonment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    No, 'justice' comes in many forms with capital punishment as one in some countries; we have unlimited fines, house arrests and of course imprisonment. One man's justice is another's immorality.

    It reduces it but it won't erradicate that chance. Whilst I don't like the idea of having to pay for someone's food and accomodation, nor the poor sentencing laws in the UK, I wouldn't feel safe in my country in the knowledge that we could be punished with death; you may think nothing to hide then nothing to fear, but I'd be more unsatisfied knowing that a developed nation which claims to support peaceful proceedings holds onto the attachment that murder is acceptable.

    What you think they deserve and what they receive aren't the same thing. Of course you're entitled to your beliefs but since the UK doesn't agree with Capital Punishment based upon the elected government policies, and I stress the word elected, you're not in the position to assume everyone believes in the death penalty.

    You're talking about war and 'life for a life' which is an entirely different scope from Capital Punishment - both involve an equated reaction of killing someone, but the latter is focused upon prisoners and not what people have to do in war. Personally I think after being able to accept your fate of incarseration, a quick firing squad death is an easy way out from a life of otherwise miserable imprisonment.
    Don't be silly, you're judging based upon feelings and not really logic. If somebody eradicates another off the face of the earth, there is no reason why they should have the liberty of living when they have denied someone else that same liberty.

    I noticed you danced away from the WW2 question. The RAF killed German civilians in an extra-judicial killing which is worse than putting a murderer on trial and executing him. I repeat the question, do you agree or disagree with the life-for-life policy adopted by the RAF and allied forces?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    Technically, the govt forcing you to pay tax is theft. If you have that kind of mindset then State wouldn't be able to get anything done. It's a dumb line of reasoning.
    Not really just saying if people think it's "life for a life" then why do they think it's so right to kill someone if they've done bad? Personally, if one of my loved ones was murdered, I'd feel better knowing the murderer was suffering in prison for the rest of his/her life than if they got the easy way out. Would you rather die or spend your whole life in prison?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mollster57)
    Not really just saying if people think it's "life for a life" then why do they think it's so right to kill someone if they've done bad? Personally, if one of my loved ones was murdered, I'd feel better knowing the murderer was suffering in prison for the rest of his/her life than if they got the easy way out. Would you rather die or spend your whole life in prison?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Suffer in prison ? I am not paying my tax to feed some murders.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xiyangliu)
    Suffer in prison ? I am not paying my tax to feed some murders.
    You realise the cost of capital punishment is pretty high as well, comparable to that of life imprisonment?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xiyangliu)
    Suffer in prison ? I am not paying my tax to feed some murders.
    If we weren't paying tax for that we'd be paying tax for something else. The whole point of prison is that it takes the individual's freedom away.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How can you believe it should be so black and white? Fair enough, some murderers/rapist are just sick twisted people, but what about those that genuinely have disorders and should've been cared for better to begin with? What if technically their crime may have been influenced by improper care on someone else's behalf? Should they still be killed?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.