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

How can anyone seriously be against capital punishment? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    It's not really the same. Of course a country should have the right to go to war if it's to protect itself or to protect an ally. Innocent people dying in war isn't the same as innocent people dying through capital punishment. At least through the latter it's avoidable. Mainly by not having it in the first place.
    I think that the chance that even one innocent person may be put to death, wrongly, is good enough to not bring in capital punishment.
    Not to be rude, your argument appeals to use double standards. Both cases involve killing innocent people at a certain positive probability to establish protection and safety for society.

    Based on your extended reasoning, it appears you would argue country should lose its right of self-defence if there exists an effective method to remove its defence capacity?

    My main thesis is that capital punishment, like many other policies, involves risk of harming innocent people (in fact any law/regulation will do so). To achieve optimal policy, one needs to weigh in both the benefits and loss. It's simply nonsensical to evaluate the policy by only focusing on its loss.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revisaphobe)
    1. To quote another Indian: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
    I think it's easy to be consumed by bloodlust and insist that all rapists should be murdered. Unfortunately, it isn't fair. For the minority of rapists who are mentally ill, you've essentially condemned them to death. In countries like India, where mental health isn't treated well, that can have massive ramifications.
    I don't think anyone is arguing to put mentally ill rapists on capital punishment.

    I just don't get why people are persistently using anomaly/outlier cases as evidence against capital punishment's problem. And they tend to ignore these cases are usually treated differently under the law i.e. mentally ill criminal are sent to mental hospitals.

    Other than pure moral objections, all posts here against capital punishments are filled with straw man arguments.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Post121)
    So how does this data support your claim?
    Because it quite clearly shows people will still commit murder even with the Death Penalty.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Post121)
    Not to be rude, your argument appeals to use double standards. Both cases involve killing innocent people at a certain positive probability to establish protection and safety for society.

    Based on your extended reasoning, it appears you would argue country should lose its right of self-defence if there exists an effective method to remove its defence capacity?

    My main thesis is that capital punishment, like many other policies, involves risk of harming innocent people (in fact any law/regulation will do so). To achieve optimal policy, one needs to weigh in both the benefits and loss. It's simply nonsensical to evaluate the policy by only focusing on its loss.
    Nonsense, It's not a double standard.
    For starters capital punishment isn't vital to establish protection and safety for society. Perhaps there needs to be changes in the law and the judicial system and the rest to ensure people actually get the right sort of punishment and to ensure any loopholes are dealt with.
    There are obvious differences between Capital punishment and going to war to protect your own country. If you are going to war to protect yourself or any assets it is sadly unavoidable, nothing you can do can change it if that is the path you are on. It is a sad fact that innocent lives are always lost in any war or conflict. With Capital punishment, nothing is inevitable. There is always a choice, right up to the last moments.
    I think it's nonsensical to believe that a few innocent people being put to death is acceptable in any way. Equally I think it's nonsensical and frankly arrogant to assume that capital punishment would "establish protection and safety for society." I think both you and I can name more than a few countries where Capital punishment exists and where such a thing still does not exist. Furthermore I don't think it would be very comforting to the family of the people wrongly put to death if it's simply put down as a mistake with the rather causal "oh well, it still keeps society safe" attitude.
    There have been many cases over the years of people being released after lengthy time in prison having been wrongly convicted. Some of them for murder. You may think it's acceptable for those people to die for the cause but I don't, especially when there is no proof or guarrantee that it is a cause that would work. We don't need Capital punishment, what we need is to change the laws and close any loopholes.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    There's also I theory I've read about where, if you're gonna kill someone and you know you'll get caught and executed that you may as well go on a mass killing spree.

    Recent events in America would support that theory up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Capital punishment is disgusting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sheldor)
    How do you make a system that is cheaper AND lowers/removes the risk of killing innocents?(Because removing appeals only does one of those things.)



    Why not just change the sentences then, rather than resort to murder?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    By reforming I mean let people have their appeals, but once people have been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty, then punish them. No appeals for a lighter sentence because of (insert justifiable reason here for murder) even if you have been proven to have murdered someone and you pleaded guilty etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by josh_v)
    Its unfortunate you cannot and are not able to put forward a decent coherent argument, although hardly surprising given what you advocate.

    I asked you what would happen to the people you employ to murder and torture people, and youve replied by telling me you would be the one to do it, but also those people employed to murder and torture would be murdered and tortured.
    I was busy, I did say.

    I advocate torture for murders, terrorists and dictators mearly because it is not something that you can forgive someone for or something you can rehabilitate them for. They must be punished for the crimes they commit, I'm sorry but if you are willing to defend these sort of people then my debate with you stops there. I don't wish to debate with people who would defend such people those who gang raped and killed a woman on a bus, and people such as as Osama bin landen/ Stalin/ Hitler/ Adam Lanza.

    The people I would employ would not be murders as the people they put to death would be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty and the killing would be lawful. It's not really too hard to understand
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    You don't ****ing give your consent to die when you pick up a weapon, that's one of the stupidest things ive ever heard.
    Generally you pick up a weapon because you absolutely DO NOT give your consent to die, or be overpowered, you would rather fight and kill than have something taken from you.

    But the point reamains from my other post which you did not reply to, there is a world of difference between different contexts of murders, and punishments and ability to rehabilitate vary greatly as well.

    The woman who kills her husband, because she was raped, beaten, and abused for a decade and snaps one day because enough is enough.
    Is not exactly repeat offender material who is going to go out and kill someone.

    Nor is the person who gets in a fist fight one night over a spilt drink, and punches someone just a bit to hard, or catches them at just the wrong angle and ends up killing them.
    It's murder, but the person is hardly a cold-blooded pychopath who cannot be released itno mankind, for fear he is going to go round killing people.
    But you do accept the risk that by picking up that weapon your risk dying yes? I'm not asking why you would, I'm saying that you accept the risk that you might be shot by another human if you yourself pick up a rifle.

    Moreover you do realise those aren't the type of murders i'm advocating for extreme punishment for don't you? I've never said that please try not to misinterpret what I say, I'm not all for the death penalty as you seem to think.

    I'm talking about people such as the recent Adam Lanza, or those who gang raped and killed the woman on the bus, or a man named Joseph Stlain (if he was hypothetically arrested so to speak) etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    By reforming I mean let people have their appeals, but once people have been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty, then punish them. No appeals for a lighter sentence because of (insert justifiable reason here for murder) even if you have been proven to have murdered someone and you pleaded guilty etc.
    So if someone killed their abusive partner after snapping due to years of violence, you would have them killed?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    But you do accept the risk that by picking up that weapon your risk dying yes? I'm not asking why you would, I'm saying that you accept the risk that you might be shot by another human if you yourself pick up a rifle.

    Moreover you do realise those aren't the type of murders i'm advocating for extreme punishment for don't you? I've never said that please try not to misinterpret what I say, I'm not all for the death penalty as you seem to think.

    I'm talking about people such as the recent Adam Lanza, or those who gang raped and killed the woman on the bus, or a man named Joseph Stlain (if he was hypothetically arrested so to speak) etc.
    Even then, the Death Penalty is still wrong, still inhumane, immoral, impractical, expensive, and carries with it the very serious risk to kill in innocent.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    But you do accept the risk that by picking up that weapon your risk dying yes? I'm not asking why you would, I'm saying that you accept the risk that you might be shot by another human if you yourself pick up a rifle.

    Moreover you do realise those aren't the type of murders i'm advocating for extreme punishment for don't you? I've never said that please try not to misinterpret what I say, I'm not all for the death penalty as you seem to think.

    I'm talking about people such as the recent Adam Lanza, or those who gang raped and killed the woman on the bus, or a man named Joseph Stlain (if he was hypothetically arrested so to speak) etc.
    Accepting the risk doesn't mean increasing the chance of it happening. I agree that if somene was to start firing a gun in public they risk being killed by police attempting to prevent further casulties but that doesn't mean we should increase the chance of another death.

    When I cross the road I take the chance I could be hit by a car, his doesn't give people the right to intentionally hit me because I chose to take the risk.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sheldor)
    So if someone killed their abusive partner after snapping due to years of violence, you would have them killed?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, punished for what they did but not killed or tortured the same why the partner would not of been had they of spoken out and reported it. Read some of my other posts to others for whom I wish extreme punishment for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    Even then, the Death Penalty is still wrong, still inhumane, immoral, impractical, expensive, and carries with it the very serious risk to kill in innocent.
    It's not a risk to innocents if people who had been proven beyond reasonable doubt were given it. People such as Raol Moat, Adam Lanza, Osama bin Laden etc. You can not argue or give evidence that they are innocent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aoide)
    Accepting the risk doesn't mean increasing the chance of it happening. I agree that if somene was to start firing a gun in public they risk being killed by police attempting to prevent further casulties but that doesn't mean we should increase the chance of another death.

    When I cross the road I take the chance I could be hit by a car, his doesn't give people the right to intentionally hit me because I chose to take the risk.
    I never said it did, I just said by picking up a weapon and killing someone with it, you accept the risk that you yourself maybe killed. What point are you trying to make?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    It's not a risk to innocents if people who had been proven beyond reasonable doubt were given it. People such as Raol Moat, Adam Lanza, Osama bin Laden etc. You can not argue or give evidence that they are innocent.
    You would be shocked at the amount of people who have been given the death penalty, and where considered completely beyond all reasonable doubt, they even had multiple eye witnesses attesting against them.
    Then a few years later...after they were dead, things come to light...oopse they were innocent just like they said....now there dead.

    And again I say, even if they were guilty beyond all doubt...they should still not be put to death.
    Taking another life is a disgusting thing, and should not be performed for any reason..none at all.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    It's not a risk to innocents if people who had been proven beyond reasonable doubt were given it. People such as Raol Moat, Adam Lanza, Osama bin Laden etc. You can not argue or give evidence that they are innocent.
    But no evidence is 100% and you can fake evidence. Colin Pitchfork raped and killed 2 girls. This was the first case for which DNA evidence was used. He got his friend to take his DNA test in order for him to not be caught. Thankfully, they were both found out and sentenced.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    Nor is the person who gets in a fist fight one night over a spilt drink, and punches someone just a bit to hard, or catches them at just the wrong angle and ends up killing them.
    It's murder
    That isn't murder in England and Wales, it's unlawful act manslaughter. I doubt that it is murder in very many modern legal systems.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    That isn't murder in England and Wales, it's unlawful act manslaughter. I doubt that it is murder in very many modern legal systems.
    I know it is, ive had the misfourtune of having to deal with such cases myself.

    However I was simply making a point from an earlier post where he implied anyone who takes life , through negligence or any other reason should receive the Death Penalty.

    He has since recanted and cleared that position.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    It's not a risk to innocents if people who had been proven beyond reasonable doubt were given it. People such as Raol Moat, Adam Lanza, Osama bin Laden etc. You can not argue or give evidence that they are innocent.
    Everyone that get's charged with a crime has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they did 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.