Turn on thread page Beta

Do you beleive in Capital Punishment watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It was a last lesson the other day and recently we have been doing the death penalty. Well we watched the first part of being on death row. I guess even though the people had done a bad thing I felt sorry for the crimminals. I wish they weren't being put to death. It looked horribe being strapped down and being told you where going to be killed. After all they may have been arrested for killing someone so as punishment they are going to be killed. I don't think it seems right. After sort of getting to know the people I don't want them to be killed. What does everyone else think? Do you agree with Capital Punishment?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Unfortunatly, despite what the sheltered middle class students on here will tell you, some people such as from Osama Bin Laden to Derrick Bird and even Nazi war criminals such as Hermann Göring can not be rehabilitated for their crimes.

    Unless if anyone can write me a convincing argument suggesting how such people can be rehabilitated, I will continue to believe that the death penalty is justified in SOME cases.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For most criminals no, but for some yes. Only the most evil of people should get it. Also they need to be 100% sure they were guilty.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    No. On top of other reasons, we cannot condemn other people killing if the state is a murderer itself.

    (Original post by the mezzil)
    some people such as from Osama Bin Laden to Derrick Bird and even Nazi war criminals such as Hermann Göring can not be rehabilitated for their crimes.
    You've tried, have you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For the most devious rogues, whose sins are not accidental but a trade, tis a just retribution..... the gleeking knaves are fit only for the hot rod of vengeance!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm against the death penalty for a completely different reason: I'm of the opinion that anyone who's done something hideous enough to deserve the death penalty should be kept alive to suffer. They should be locked in a cell, perhaps strapped to a bed of nails, and left with the knowledge that they're never going to see the outside world again.

    There's also a point of practicality that the justice system makes mistakes and pardoning someone after they've been executed is very much a case of "too little; too late".

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No, I don't think any person/government etc should be able to have the right to take another's life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TGR)
    I'm against the death penalty for a completely different reason: I'm of the opinion that anyone who's done something hideous enough to deserve the death penalty should be kept alive to suffer. They should be locked in a cell, perhaps strapped to a bed of nails, and l everyone left with th exception knowledge that they're never going to see the outside world again.

    There's also a point of practicality that the justice system makes mistakes and pardoning someone after they've been executed is very much a case of "too little; too late".

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I would agree with you there, the death penalty is to light in some cases!
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    No, I think a life sentence should be given instead.

    An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    There have been many examples down the years of people in the UK being convicted of horrific crimes and being sentenced to life, only to be found innocent up to decades later. If they had been convicted somewhere like the USA, they would be dead. No legal system is right all the time, and therefore any attempt to enforce capital punishment will result in the death of innocents. It is not nice for someone to be kept in prison for a large chunk of their lives, but it's probably better than death. At least they can appeal, and have a chance of getting part of their lives back.

    I have other objections, moral ones, but that is the practical one. In the cases of people like Saddam Hussein, it can be argued that if they are not executed they remain a rallying point for their followers, which causes it's own problems. Whether that is sufficient justification for ending a life, I'm not sure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Look, can you stop calling me a fascist? You're making yourself sound like a complete idiot and you've never given me a proper justification why anything I'm saying is fascist.
    Ahh, now the secondary stage starts where you start offering personal insults. However, unfortunately we are not here to debate my intelligence, we can do that another time. Now could you please offer a convincing argument to my question. One wishes to confer with you as little as possible, so please, convince me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chocolate Mousse)
    No, I think a life sentence should be given instead.

    An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You do realise the world has around 7 billion pairs of eyeballs don't you? That quote is a little... simplistic, and is not a good argument against the death penalty.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    simple answer is yes.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe in the death penalty as it brings forth more problems than it solves - where is the line of who should be killed, some convicted are found not guilty later, is an easy escape for some people.
    What I think is prisons should be made tougher; a bed, tv, consoles and 3 nice meals a day is rather plush for people who have committed shocking crimes.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with it.

    Initially because there are too many miscarriages of justice to support irreversible sentences. Just the higher-profile ones are sufficient, and their outcomes were already bad enough under the current system. Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, Barry George, etc. All would conceivably have been sentenced to death for their respective convictions if we had such a penalty. And if you say they wouldn't have been, who would?

    There's also the issue that I don't think the state is entitled to take someone's life, regardless of what they have done. That's more of a personal belief than a supportable argument, but I maintain it nevertheless, and it covers those legitimately convicted.

    I do believe in whole of life sentences for the worst offenders, as it's true to say that some people should not ever be released, but I don't think death sentences have any place in our justice system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sparrowhawk4)
    There have been many examples down the years of people in the UK being convicted of horrific crimes and being sentenced to life, only to be found innocent up to decades later. If they had been convicted somewhere like the USA, they would be dead. No legal system is right all the time, and therefore any attempt to enforce capital punishment will result in the death of innocents. It is not nice for someone to be kept in prison for a large chunk of their lives, but it's probably better than death. At least they can appeal, and have a chance of getting part of their lives back.

    I have other objections, moral ones, but that is the practical one. In the cases of people like Saddam Hussein, it can be argued that if they are not executed they remain a rallying point for their followers, which causes it's own problems. Whether that is sufficient justification for ending a life, I'm not sure.
    It is unfortunate that innocent people do and will get wrongly accused, however it is not a convincing one. Innocent people died in WW2, does that mean we should not of fought the war against Adolf then? I use this very argument for the death penalty. Just because there is a risk of innocents dying, does that therefore mean that we should not offer the most extreme of punishments to those who are undoubtedly guilty?

    Moreover, I disagree with your point that life imprisonment is better than death. I would argue the opposite, and would much rather a quick death, than the trauma of spending decades to prove my innocence, but that is just me.

    Lastly, you raise another good point in your last paragraph. We can either matyr them, or provide them (the enemy) a leader and somebody to fight for. I would much rather the former out of the two, which is another reason why I would justify the death penalty for the most outrageous of crimes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No I don't think capital punishment is the right way to go about stabilising or improving the judicial system.

    I believe for crimes that one would wish for capital punishment, they should be given a life sentence with no opportunity for parole. In the UK, life, does not mean life. It means 10 years with good behaviour. It's just not good enough, we need to be much tougher on sentencing - like the US judicial system is. Life has to mean life. 25 to life has to mean 25 to life. 20 years without parole has to mean 20 years without parole.

    Murder in the first degree should equate to a life sentence in solitary confinement. No excuses or exceptions.

    (Original post by anatomical frog)
    Furthermore, I don't want to waste my taxes on life sentences when healthcare, education, energy, etc could use the money.
    The financial cost of an execution far outweighs that of a life sentence.


    Evidence from those states that have re-introduced capital punishment showed that it had absolutely zero impact on crime deterrence. Another reason for which it is commonly called to be reinstated for.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rybee)
    No I don't think capital punishment is the right way to go about stabilising or improving the judicial system.

    I believe for crimes that one would wish for capital punishment, they should be given a life sentence with no opportunity for parole. In the UK, life, does not mean life. It means 10 years with good behaviour. It's just not good enough, we need to be much tougher on sentencing - like the US judicial system is. Life has to mean life. 25 to life has to mean 25 to life. 20 years without parole has to mean 20 years without parole.

    Murder in the first degree should equate to a life sentence in solitary confinement. No excuses or exceptions.



    The financial cost of an execution far outweighs that of a life sentence.


    Evidence from those states that have re-introduced capital punishment showed that it had absolutely zero impact on crime deterrence. Another reason for which it is commonly called to be reinstated for.
    Would you find it creepy if I gave you a rep? I wholeheartedly agree with what you said.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaFa1237)
    Would you find it creepy if I gave you a rep? I wholeheartedly agree with what you said.
    Honestly? I'd lock my bedroom window and hide under my sheets :eek:
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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