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

How can anyone seriously be against capital punishment? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joker12345)
    Because if we start killing people, we become murderers too, and what sort of example is that?
    Murderer definition: a criminal who commits homicide (who performs the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being)

    "criminal". "unlawful".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchesterunited15)
    Murderer definition: a criminal who commits homicide (who performs the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being)

    "criminal". "unlawful".
    At the moment, it is unlawful in the UK anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is. But assuming that was changed, I'd simply change the word 'murderer' to 'killer' - the principle's the same.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by combbrah)
    After reading cases like the Delhi rape incident. "The victim was found with only 5% of her intestines left inside of her. A doctor at the hospital later stated that the "rod was inserted into her and it was pulled out with so much force that the act brought out her intestines along. That is probably the only thing that explains such severe damage to her intestines."

    Why are people who do things like this still considered human and treated as such. **** is wrong with the world
    Unfortunately as no criminal system is perfect, the likely hood is that if you bring back capital punishment to a country an innocent man will eventually be killed, that's why I am against it as a whole.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by josh_v)
    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.
    I'm talking about criminals with multiple life sentences. People who don't have a criminal record and commit a murder shouldn't be killed because there is a chance for rehabilitation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xiyangliu)
    Suffer in prison ? I am not paying my tax to feed some murders.
    The cost of executing capital punishment is higher than what it costs to imprison someone for life.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Polymath)
    People are against killing non-humans too, you know? You might just be against killing altogether as there is no going back, whereas something like exile or imprisonment is fairer.
    The trouble with exile is you've got to find somewhere that will take them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noisy06)
    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.
    You offer a rather strange fusion of left and right, but I guess we all do now, that's the nature of the political spectrum.

    I think that is the view most people take, to oppose immigration (or at least most of it) on practical grounds. But what I would add is that I think Multiculturalism has been a disaster for our country and some of the silly trends and cultures should never have been allowed to come here and become the mainstream. People should integrate.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by combbrah)
    Dogs that attack and injure people are put down. why these scum are not brutally and painfully executed i will never know. there are some things the middle east got spot on



    what the **** am i reading
    Dogs that attack and injure people shouldn't be put down, the attack is the owner's responsibility not the dog's, but that's a different argument. The main, and best argument against capital punishment is that if someone is wrongly convicted then the punishment cannot be 'undone.' If courts were 100% accurate in convicting criminals, then I could see a case for capital punishment, but until then it is unfair on the public to introduce it, though it would be quite funny if capital punishment returned and you were wrongly convicted for murder.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's an indication of the confusion that a lot of people suffer... as to be honest, the majority of people I know are against capital punishment out of fear that an innocent person may one day be treated unfairly. But, I personally see value in it. Sometimes individuals commit such extreme acts that no punishment seems suitable, eg- the rape in India. And, in all fairness, I see many of those people who were so against capital punishment becoming inclined towards it when an extreme situation arises.
    And also, I think it would be a type of warning to society... Seeing as nobody really seems to fear the retribution of prison; maybe a more severe punishment would discourage them from commit such acts?


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by soumiakarif)
    It's an indication of the confusion that a lot of people suffer... as to be honest, the majority of people I know are against capital punishment out of fear that an innocent person may one day be treated unfairly. But, I personally see value in it. Sometimes individuals commit such extreme acts that no punishment seems suitable, eg- the rape in India. And, in all fairness, I see many of those people who were so against capital punishment becoming inclined towards it when an extreme situation arises.
    And also, I think it would be a type of warning to society... Seeing as nobody really seems to fear the retribution of prison; maybe a more severe punishment would discourage them from commit such acts?


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    The main problem is that it has already been proven that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent, so one of your main points there is actually not true. This, coupled with the fact that wanting someone to be "punished" for committing such a terrible crime is a desire based on emotions rather than any logical points really show that capital punishment would do us no good at all.
    Capital punishment also costs far more to execute than imprisoning someone for life (and that's against figures that actually are life), which means not only is it an easy way out for the criminal, but it means they are a bigger burden on society than if we kept them alive.

    I would also like to pick up on the fact that you mention "punishment". The justice system is not about punishment, but about creating justice, and making our country a safer place to be (which sometimes means removing someone from society to keep others safe). It is not logical to think of things in a "punishment" and "what they deserve" frame of mind, because this is simply reacting to emotions rather than doing what is actually better for society as a whole.
    I am not suggesting that the current system is perfect, because I've already mentioned how it needs to be improved to achieve this. We need more actual "life" sentences when appropriate, but we also need to mirror the far more successful systems of rehabilitation in places like Norway.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    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.
    I did read what you said, and gave an appropriate response, but evidently you didnt understand so i will try to put it in simpler terms for you.

    Wrong convictions can be made. Wrong convictions have been made.

    I understand that of some people, you can be certain that they are guilty of their crimes. However, allowing a death penalty invariably means that whilst you may well kill all those that are guilty, you will kill a few innocents too. Completely unacceptable when prison is an alternative.

    Ive already posted the next bit, but ill post it again, to demonstrate:

    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. What more do you need to convince you that by advocating the return of the death penalty, innocent people may fall through the cracks and wind up dead?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So, following the logic that we haven't chosen our lives and therefore, aren't accountable for how we turn out, we shouldn't have prisons or punishment at all, should we? I mean, the justice system, and our confidence in it, rests solely on the assumption that individuals who make conscious, rational decisions to break the law and contravene the principles of humanity, will be given due punishment. Humane punishment has nothing to do with criminals being human, it has to do with criminals having humanity within them and showing remorse. That is how the justice system doles out justice. If there's a cold-blooded killer out there, I'd rather he die than threaten the lives of scores of people simply because my government was too weak and diffident to do what was necessary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by josh_v)
    I did read what you said, and gave an appropriate response, but evidently you didnt understand so i will try to put it in simpler terms for you.

    Wrong convictions can be made. Wrong convictions have been made.

    I understand that of some people, you can be certain that they are guilty of their crimes. However, allowing a death penalty invariably means that whilst you may well kill all those that are guilty, you will kill a few innocents too. Completely unacceptable when prison is an alternative.

    Ive already posted the next bit, but ill post it again, to demonstrate:

    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. What more do you need to convince you that by advocating the return of the death penalty, innocent people may fall through the cracks and wind up dead?
    All right, fine. Wrong convictions are made. There is margin for error in every case. And it's not like the prisoner's head is lopped off as soon as he's convicted. There's a long process, in which appeals can be made and have been made, which have succeeded in proving people innocent. Even if some people are wrongfully convicted, and some do end up being executed even when they're innocent, that's the exception, not the rule. Not condoning wrongful convictions, but what I'm saying is that dangers exist in everything. I could cut off my fingers while chopping onions; doesn't mean knives should be banned in favour of more humane cutting utensils. The government's duty is to protect society from potential harm to the maximum of their ability, and to ensure the survival and well-being of the maximum number of people, and make sure that as few people are harmed as possible. If a government doesn't take swift action, doesn't protect it's people to the maximum extent, it fails.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    The main problem is that it has already been proven that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent, so one of your main points there is actually not true. This, coupled with the fact that wanting someone to be "punished" for committing such a terrible crime is a desire based on emotions rather than any logical points really show that capital punishment would do us no good at all.
    Capital punishment also costs far more to execute than imprisoning someone for life (and that's against figures that actually are life), which means not only is it an easy way out for the criminal, but it means they are a bigger burden on society than if we kept them alive.

    I would also like to pick up on the fact that you mention "punishment". The justice system is not about punishment, but about creating justice, and making our country a safer place to be (which sometimes means removing someone from society to keep others safe). It is not logical to think of things in a "punishment" and "what they deserve" frame of mind, because this is simply reacting to emotions rather than doing what is actually better for society as a whole.
    I am not suggesting that the current system is perfect, because I've already mentioned how it needs to be improved to achieve this. We need more actual "life" sentences when appropriate, but we also need to mirror the far more successful systems of rehabilitation in places like Norway.
    That second paragraph is a load of malarkey. What seems more cheap? Keeping thousands of prisoners in jail, building more jails, hiring more wardens, cooking more food, purchasing more clothes, all through the state treasury, for years and years. or executing the prisoners who have committed heinous crimes, thereby reducing the amount of long-term/lifetime prisoners?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    The cost of executing capital punishment is higher than what it costs to imprison someone for life.
    really ...... so to hang some one cost more than food ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SANS12795)
    The government's duty is to protect society from potential harm to the maximum of their ability, and to ensure the survival and well-being of the maximum number of people, and make sure that as few people are harmed as possible. If a government doesn't take swift action, doesn't protect it's people to the maximum extent, it fails.
    You can achieve the protection of society through imprisonment.

    (Original post by SANS12795)
    That second paragraph is a load of malarkey. What seems more cheap? Keeping thousands of prisoners in jail, building more jails, hiring more wardens, cooking more food, purchasing more clothes, all through the state treasury, for years and years. or executing the prisoners who have committed heinous crimes, thereby reducing the amount of long-term/lifetime prisoners?
    What seems more cheap? Execution.

    Which is cheaper according to statistics? Prison.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SANS12795)
    That second paragraph is a load of malarkey. What seems more cheap? Keeping thousands of prisoners in jail, building more jails, hiring more wardens, cooking more food, purchasing more clothes, all through the state treasury, for years and years. or executing the prisoners who have committed heinous crimes, thereby reducing the amount of long-term/lifetime prisoners?
    It is a proven fact; just because you don't think it sounds right doesn't prove it wrong.

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty - Here is one study on the costs in certain places, with an expert concluding that "if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years."


    (Original post by xiyangliu)
    really ...... so to hang some one cost more than food ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by josh_v)
    I did read what you said, and gave an appropriate response, but evidently you didnt understand so i will try to put it in simpler terms for you.

    Wrong convictions can be made. Wrong convictions have been made.

    I understand that of some people, you can be certain that they are guilty of their crimes. However, allowing a death penalty invariably means that whilst you may well kill all those that are guilty, you will kill a few innocents too. Completely unacceptable when prison is an alternative.

    Ive already posted the next bit, but ill post it again, to demonstrate:

    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. What more do you need to convince you that by advocating the return of the death penalty, innocent people may fall through the cracks and wind up dead?
    It is sad and unfortunate, but it has done little to sway my opinion. We can not simply be light and give them cushy punishments on criminals simply on the off chance they are wrongly convicted. Anyway personally if I was them, I'd rather be put to a quick death than be spending years in jail simply because of the anger and frustration towards the system I just would not want to live. In a way, it would be more ethical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    It is a proven fact; just because you don't think it sounds right doesn't prove it wrong.

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty - Here is one study on the costs in certain places, with an expert concluding that "if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years."
    From reading up on the expense of the death penalty, I've found that the American system is massively flawed, bueaucratic and unfair towards those who aren't being sentenced to death. I mean more money is spent on lawyers, courts systems and time to do them etc on capital punishment than on life sentencing. This to mean seems MASSIVELY bias and wrong. Life sentencing court cases are just as worthy of time and expense as they are for capital punishment.

    I outlined this and the other main points in an earlier post to another person.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    From reading up on the expense of the death penalty, I've found that the American system is massively flawed, bueaucratic and unfair towards those who aren't being sentenced to death. I mean more money is spent on lawyers, courts systems and time to do them etc on capital punishment than on life sentencing. This to mean seems MASSIVELY bias and wrong. Life sentencing court cases are just as worthy of time and expense as they are for capital punishment.

    I outlined this and the other main points in an earlier post to another person.
    But the USA isn't the only example.
    And, if money wasn't spent on making sure they get a fair trial, to be represented by a lawyer, the opportunity for appeals, etc, then that is exactly what leads for more wrong convictions and the killing of innocent people.

    What about all of the other points I made in post #310? Because the cost was never my main point, so I'd much appreciate you addressing my entire post, if you disagree with it.
 
 
 
  • 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.