Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by soup_dragon87)
    Please, we are civilised people.

    Hanged from the neck til dead, or a bullet to the back of the head. Simple as. None of this needle malarkey.

    There is certainly a definite split of the sexes in this thread. Women are against it, men for it (bar one or two). But the death penalty really does make sense to me. Our prisons are full, the world is filling with people; it can't go on. Reinstating the death penalty is a way of removing the filth from our society while giving us one less mouth to feed. I suppose we could bring back transportation, but I don't think we own anywhere big enough anymore.
    Or we could stop imprisoning people for stupid offences and work on crime prevention rather than extreme punishment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Bear)
    You're thinking of standard US death row. I was thinking along the lines of keeping them in normal cells then shipping them off to the death house when their time is up.

    guitargirl, 1 is not too many. 50,000 little black kids die every day from poverty in Africa, please...look at it in f***ing context.

    A violent criminal is always a threat to society. It costs little, morally and economically, to just get rid of them. Wipe them off the face of the earth. Goodbye!

    Of course rapists and paedophiles should be killed by animals starting with something big, like a bear, if there was only one victim, to something small, like rats, if there were many.
    Yes, but poverty is extremley different from being killed due to incorrect facts.

    Also, from your Africa quote, I assume then that you donate a lot of money to charities such as Oxfam so you can help the "50,000 little black kids".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Or we could stop imprisoning people for stupid offences and work on crime prevention rather than extreme punishment.
    That is extremley true and I do agree with you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guitargirl03)
    Yes, but poverty is extremley different from being killed due to incorrect facts.

    Also, from your Africa quote, I assume then that you donate a lot of money to charities such as Oxfam so you can help the "50,000 little black kids".
    HAHAHA of course I don't donate money, I couldn't give a crap. Just like I couldn't give a crap if every once in a while some innocent was killed.

    Poverty is extremely different, mainly because it takes two seconds to solve whereas the innocent person dying has gone through a a trial and probably an appeal.

    What offences do we imprison people for that are "stupid"?

    Measures for crime prevention have failed miserably with more than enough funding. The reasons you give for the death row being expensive are the reasons I would eradicate.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by gas_panic!)
    How can you call anyone an eejit when you come out with something like this. You stupid ****. It's because of people like you that criminals are getting released early and then going on to murder more people. You really are a clown.
    Did I say all murderers should be released after three weeks? No.

    Did I say that murderers should be released when they are no longer a threat to society? Yes. If that takes three weeks, fine. If that takes their whole life, also fine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rusty33)
    Came accross this today.

    Watch it through, and especially the second portion of the video.

    I feel like crimes like this should warrant the death penalty. A older man, stopping to ask for directions, gets knocked out cold, robbed, kicked while he is down, and then shot. And, all the meanwhile the men are laughing at him and video taping it.

    The man with the camera should have gotten life, the man who shot him, and the man who punched him should have gotten the death penalty, and anyone else standing around laughing should have gotten a 5 year sentence.

    Thoughts?
    Disagree. The people standing around laughing should've gotten a SIX year sentence, and since there is little fundamental difference between standing around laughing and standing around laughing with a camera, the sentence of the cameraman should be relegated to six years as well.. perhaps 7.4 or something. Meanwhile, I agree that the man who punched him should've gotten the death penalty, but only if the guy who randomly punched me last week were to get the same thing as well.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by soup_dragon87)
    Please, we are civilised people.
    you actually think the human race is civilised?

    Apagg there is a huge differenece between having sex with a consenting adult of whicher sex you are inclined to be with and abusuing a children
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Bear)
    What offences do we imprison people for that are "stupid"?

    Measures for crime prevention have failed miserably with more than enough funding. The reasons you give for the death row being expensive are the reasons I would eradicate.
    Off the top of my head? Smoking cannabis, being drunk and disorderly - minor offences of no real consequence. There are more but I don't have a list to hand.

    Measures for crime prevention have failed? Says who? Increasing the number of police officers on the beat has been proven conclusively to reduce crime.
    Oh, great, you'd eradicate things like appeals? What a superb justice system that lacks justice.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cadre_Of_Storms)
    you actually think the human race is civilised?

    Apagg there is a huge differenece between having sex with a consenting adult of whicher sex you are inclined to be with and abusuing a children
    Which was why I asked you to imagine that they were viewed the same. If you can't manage that, stop bothering me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Off the top of my head? Smoking cannabis, being drunk and disorderly - minor offences of no real consequence. There are more but I don't have a list to hand.

    Measures for crime prevention have failed? Says who? Increasing the number of police officers on the beat has been proven conclusively to reduce crime.
    Oh, great, you'd eradicate things like appeals? What a superb justice system that lacks justice.
    But being drunk and disorderly can have disatrous consequences. When drunk, many people attack other people in the street for no reason. I mean, look outside a club/pub on a Friday night. The number of people who get into fights because they're drunk is horrendus.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guitargirl03)
    But being drunk and disorderly can have disatrous consequences. When drunk, many people attack other people in the street for no reason. I mean, look outside a club/pub on a Friday night. The number of people who get into fights because they're drunk is horrendus.
    Then imprison them for the violent crime, not being drunk. Driving can have terrible consequences, but we don't imprison people for that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Then imprison them for the violent crime, not being drunk. Driving can have terrible consequences, but we don't imprison people for that.
    But when you're drunk, you can lose your awareness of everything around you, whereas with driving, unless you're under the influence of alcohol, drugs, etc. you are aware of what you're doing. This can make drunk people more vulnerable to rapists, attackers, etc. So I suppose by arresting someone who is 'drunk and disorderly, not only are you preotecting that person but you're also protecting the people around the person.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guitargirl03)
    But when you're drunk, you can lose your awareness of everything around you, whereas with driving, unless you're under the influence of alcohol, drugs, etc. you are aware of what you're doing. This can make drunk people more vulnerable to rapists, attackers, etc. So I suppose by arresting someone who is 'drunk and disorderly, not only are you preotecting that person but you're also protecting the people around the person.
    We're not talking about arresting, we're talking about imprisoning. Pay attention.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Off the top of my head? Smoking cannabis, being drunk and disorderly - minor offences of no real consequence. There are more but I don't have a list to hand.

    Measures for crime prevention have failed? Says who? Increasing the number of police officers on the beat has been proven conclusively to reduce crime.
    Oh, great, you'd eradicate things like appeals? What a superb justice system that lacks justice.
    There has already been millions of pounds thrown at crime prevention, ironically it was money thrown at other things, like relaxing the licensing laws, that has led to a decrease in certain crimes.

    Also, as far as I'm aware the sentences you refer to are overnight police stays. It isnt a pleasant experience but I suppose you would like the pigs to say "OK so what if you pissed on a hobo and decked a woman? HIGH FIVE!"

    Also guitargirl I wasn't being insensitive. I was telling it how it is, of course you are wrapped up in the PC world when they aren't actually your opinions but opinions you feel you should have to look good. Only someone who cares and acts on that has the right to say that I am being insensitive.

    Millions of people die from avoidable causes every day, the reason for this is risk management. Finding the optimum amount of risk to the economic consequences of such risks, so you make cars as safe as economically possible but people still die.

    Similarly for the law process, you make it as foolproof as possible. This may mean that cases where evidence isn't strong enough cannot be considered for the death penalty (but in these cases a 20 year prison sentence is just as bad no?). Take for example todays verdict against that paedophile would took the kid from her bathroom, the evidence was overwhelming and really he is a sick f*** and should have been executed in the courtroom.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Bear)
    There has already been millions of pounds thrown at crime prevention, ironically it was money thrown at other things, like relaxing the licensing laws, that has led to a decrease in certain crimes.

    Also, as far as I'm aware the sentences you refer to are overnight police stays. It isnt a pleasant experience but I suppose you would like the pigs to say "OK so what if you pissed on a hobo and decked a woman? HIGH FIVE!"

    Similarly for the law process, you make it as foolproof as possible. This may mean that cases where evidence isn't strong enough cannot be considered for the death penalty (but in these cases a 20 year prison sentence is just as bad no?). Take for example todays verdict against that paedophile would took the kid from her bathroom, the evidence was overwhelming and really he is a sick f*** and should have been executed in the courtroom.
    Do you ever say anything the Daily Mail hasn't told you? The money "thrown at" crime prevention works when it is channelled into increasing the number of police officers. Unfortunately we tend to have put money into "initiatives" and increased management rather than the number of street officers.

    Imprisonment, not overnight arrest. It doesn't always happen, but the punishment does exist and will occasionally be implemented. There are too many people in prison who shouldn't really be there.

    You can't base an argument on one single case of crime.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The Daily Mail is a crap rag. It is all very well saying we should put money into more police officers but that isn't happening, primarily because the amount of paperwork required to send an officer out on the beat means more managers and time wasting for higher ranked officers.

    Basically the problem you have is that it costs more money to kill someone what with extra CPS services, more detailed investigations, special prisons etc. My argument is that, for more serious crimes, where we have the normal prosecution service tralalalala bang bang bang your guilty I sentence you to life in prison, you will be eligible for parole in 20 years I want to change it to "the normal prosecution service tralalalala bang bang bang your guilty I sentence you to death by rats in 5 years time"

    I wasnt basing my argument on that crime, I was illustrating how in that particular case, where you would have to be mentally slow to disagree with the verdict, the death sentence would not be "incorrect". Just send him into a big room with a hungry bear.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    Did I say all murderers should be released after three weeks? No.

    Did I say that murderers should be released when they are no longer a threat to society? Yes. If that takes three weeks, fine. If that takes their whole life, also fine.
    My point is that the people who are supposed to be assessing whether inmates are fit to return to society don't seem to be doing a very good job at the moment. It seems everyone being released, 2 weeks later they have burned their ex girlfriends house down.

    Do you think someone like this should ever be released again?:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6068862.stm
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by gas_panic!)
    It seems everyone being released, 2 weeks later they have burned their ex girlfriends house down.
    That's because "Man gets released from Prison, fails to commit another crime" isn't a story...so you're not likely to hear about it...

    Do you think someone like this should ever be released again?:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6068862.stm
    I'm not a probation office, so not qualified to comment. But I doubt it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Bear)
    The Daily Mail is a crap rag. It is all very well saying we should put money into more police officers but that isn't happening, primarily because the amount of paperwork required to send an officer out on the beat means more managers and time wasting for higher ranked officers.

    Basically the problem you have is that it costs more money to kill someone what with extra CPS services, more detailed investigations, special prisons etc. My argument is that, for more serious crimes, where we have the normal prosecution service tralalalala bang bang bang your guilty I sentence you to life in prison, you will be eligible for parole in 20 years I want to change it to "the normal prosecution service tralalalala bang bang bang your guilty I sentence you to death by rats in 5 years time"

    I wasnt basing my argument on that crime, I was illustrating how in that particular case, where you would have to be mentally slow to disagree with the verdict, the death sentence would not be "incorrect". Just send him into a big room with a hungry bear.
    If there are problems with increasing police numbers, address those problems. Don't avoid them by executing criminals. That has a certain suggestion of depravity about it.

    During the 5 years you mention, any number of appeals could be initiated. Prison sentences don't have this problem.

    I disagree that he should be killed, but I'm not prepared to delve into the philosophy of the matter, especially given your rabid stance on the whole issue.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    That's because "Man gets released from Prison, fails to commit another crime" isn't a story...so you're not likely to hear about it...

    Hmm, the UK experiences approximately 50% recividism. If this trend continued with your proposed early release scheme, the consequences don't bear thinking about. I'm not saying it would, mind you. I think to an extent prisons increase criminality among the inmates. But even so, it should be considered.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 20, 2006
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.