Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Death Penalty review watch

  • View Poll Results: Reinstate death penalty
    Yes, given thorough reform
    38.89%
    No, it's immoral in all cases
    61.11%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thought it would be interesting to look at the pros and cons of the death penalty, as some fringe politicians in the UK and France have advocated it's return.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita...United_Kingdom

    Now, as far as I can see, the number one reason it was scrapped (that is, the point politicians laboured to the public) - and most argued talking point for it's removal- was that innocent lives are unjustly taken. Abolished in '65 due to the last chap being innocent. Is this right? Is it not so that innocent lives are taken everyday in car accidents? How about we ban road vehicles too.

    On the topic of innocent lives being taken, however, there have been many technological improvements. The UK is one of the most monitored countries in the world, via CCTV. If one can produce evidence of 100% certainty of the perpetrator, with no doubt, there won't be any justification for the innocent lives argument.

    When people bring up cost/benefit analysis, these are usually the US people who took the electric chair and lethal injection route. Not nearly as sophisticated as hanging, which can also become a spectacle for observers. Parents can bring their children to show them what happens to naughty men and women who harm others. It may frighten the child, and give satisfaction to the parents that there is one less nasty in the world to interfere with their lives. It's all about making the environment safe for the children (whilst not going nanny state about it). The true cost is whatever you make it. There must be a trial, and there must be a more stringent set of rules to ensure the right man is being hanged, but this isn't going to cost much more than keeping them alive for 20-50 years in a single cell.

    Finally, there is the question of which crimes are deserving of the highest punishment? Premeditated murder? Treason? Immense destruction of property or rape, when such cases can be proven? These are the moral choices we must make, not whether the penalty should exist at all.

    Those on the Right believe Blair repealed the treason death penalty because of his actions in parliament that destroyed the nation's fabric. Some say he should be held accountable, whilst others take the warping back further.

    So, who is in favour of the return of the death penalty?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Absolutely, totally against it. There is no reason why killing a human being suddenly becomes moral or justified just because a jury or judges have decided they think it is. As far as I'm concerned, a state that kills its own people is no better than the criminals it is persecuting. There's nothing moral or justified about killing a person in cold judge. There are a host of other arguments I have against the death penalty but the argument above is already enough in my view.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I totally favour it
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Well, I think…
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Absolutely, totally against it. There is no reason why killing a human being suddenly becomes moral or justified just because a jury or judges have decided they think it is. As far as I'm concerned, a state that kills its own people is no better than the criminals it is persecuting. There's nothing moral or justified about killing a person in cold judge. There are a host of other arguments I have against the death penalty but the argument above is already enough in my view.
    … that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Absolutely, totally against it. There is no reason why killing a human being suddenly becomes moral or justified just because a jury or judges have decided they think it is. As far as I'm concerned, a state that kills its own people is no better than the criminals it is persecuting. There's nothing moral or justified about killing a person in cold judge. There are a host of other arguments I have against the death penalty but the argument above is already enough in my view.
    You think it far more moral to issue a 400 year life sentence in prison, then?

    "All common law offences, rape, inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent, treason, aggravated burglary, criminal damage with intent to endanger life, hijacking, destroying or endangering safety of an aircraft, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, possession of a firearm with criminal intent, use of a firearm to resist arrest, terrorism, Importing or supplying Class A controlled drug"

    ^ this will get you a life sentence in the UK, at the judge's discretion, but murder and rape are a sure way to get locked up for life. With the Muslim controlled rape gangs and lack of a war on drugs; there are soon to be a large number of those in prison. Who pays for their hospitality? Why is it more moral to lock someone up for life, isolating them from their loved ones and removing any last ounces of sanity they once had?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    You think it far more moral to issue a 400 year life sentence in prison, then?

    "All common law offences, rape, inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent, treason, aggravated burglary, criminal damage with intent to endanger life, hijacking, destroying or endangering safety of an aircraft, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, possession of a firearm with criminal intent, use of a firearm to resist arrest, terrorism, Importing or supplying Class A controlled drug"

    ^ this will get you a life sentence in the UK, at the judge's discretion, but murder and rape are a sure way to get locked up for life. With the Muslim controlled rape gangs and lack of a war on drugs; there are soon to be a large number of those in prison. Who pays for their hospitality? Why is it more moral to lock someone up for life, isolating them from their loved ones and removing any last ounces of sanity they once had?
    Firstly, did I ever say I agree with the status quo? All I said was that the death penalty is completely immoral, I never said the current system is good. And talking about imaginary "Muslim rape gangs" really isn't a great way to persuade someone to engage in a reasonable conversation with you...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    The use of the death penalty in the US is also disproportionately used against ethnic minorities, those with mental illnesses, and those with learning disabilities.
    Ask yourself, why was it disproportionately used against minorities and those with mental disorders? Could it be that certain ethnic minorities commit more violent crime? You seem to be suggesting a watered down, or even two-tiered justice system, just to maintain the egalitarian ideal that we're all the same.

    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Firstly, did I ever say I agree with the status quo? All I said was that the death penalty is completely immoral, I never said the current system is good. And talking about imaginary "Muslim rape gangs" really isn't a great way to persuade someone to engage in a reasonable conversation with you...
    Ok... Rotherham didn't happen, I see. Best keep your head in the sand: out of sight, out of mind!

    So, you want less justice in general. How do you see this working out for the majority who do not commit crime?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    America has 1% of its population locked up, more than basically every country except maybe North Korea. It is only one of the few Western countries to have the death penalty. It also still happens to one of the most violent and criminal of societies.
    We're not talking about the US prison system. We're talking about the death penalty in the UK. Correlation=/=causation. "oh we have death penalty and the highest prison population, the two must be connected!"

    Also, you need to delete your posts and edit your first reply- stop stacking up single-sentence posts. I won't respond in future if you do this.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Not only is the death penalty immoral, it's also not very good as a means of punishing or preventing crime. Waste of time and a shameful thing to do.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    "To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice" - Desmond Tutu

    Obviously that quote applies to murder, but it could be about any serious crime. What gives one person the right to decide when somebody else deserves to die? (especially as, like others have said, there is no proof that Capital Punishment acts as a deterrent).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    You think it far more moral to issue a 400 year life sentence in prison, then?
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    So, you want less justice in general. How do you see this working out for the majority who do not commit crime?
    You keep telling the guy what his opinions are. Why don't you let him do that?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mogwai98)
    "To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice" - Desmond Tutu

    Obviously that quote applies to murder, but it could be about any serious crime. What gives one person the right to decide when somebody else deserves to die? (especially as, like others have said, there is no proof that Capital Punishment acts as a deterrent).
    Apart from your homomarriage activism judges, the majority of them do not sentence on a whim. They are well versed in law, which is impartial. Thus, justice, not revenge.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    When people bring up cost/benefit analysis, these are usually the US people who took the electric chair and lethal injection route. Not nearly as sophisticated as hanging, which can also become a spectacle for observers. Parents can bring their children to show them what happens to naughty men and women who harm others. It may frighten the child, and give satisfaction to the parents that there is one less nasty in the world to interfere with their lives. It's all about making the environment safe for the children (whilst not going nanny state about it). The true cost is whatever you make it. There must be a trial, and there must be a more stringent set of rules to ensure the right man is being hanged, but this isn't going to cost much more than keeping them alive for 20-50 years in a single cell.
    You're quite right - it would be easy to reduce the expense of the death penalty. Look at the Chinese system, for example: They allow a person accused of a capital crime no appeals whatsoever. The accused is tried in court, once, and if convicted, they are taken outside, made to kneel, and shot in the back of the head. The family of the accused is then billed for the cost of the bullet.

    The death penalty in America costs so much because they try their best to ensure they have apprehended the right person through the appeals system, and then they try their best to execute the convicted humanely. There is a sort of sliding scale of cost against ethics that could be drawn up. I would prefer the U.K. to remain off that sliding scale entirely.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Are you seriously comparing systematically killing people to innocent people dying in car accidents? Of course they are the same hey? Killing someone purposely is exactly the same and comparable to someone dying in a car ACCIDENT. You're right, the UK is heavily monitored through CCTV, have you seen the quality of CCTV ? Would you trust a low quality CCTV footage to sentence someone to death?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    The death penalty in America costs so much because they try their best to ensure they have apprehended the right person through the appeals system, and then they try their best to execute the convicted humanely.
    I'm not sure the last bit is accurate. The injections aren't working, the gas chamber isn't humane and the electric chair is a drawn-out horror.

    There are ways to kill someone almost instantly; a cannonball to the head doesn't leave much opportunity for suffering.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    I'm not sure the last bit is accurate. The injections aren't working, the gas chamber isn't humane and the electric chair is a drawn-out horror.

    There are ways to kill someone almost instantly; a cannonball to the head doesn't leave much opportunity for suffering.
    Yeah, I know. I guess the point I was trying to make was that they spend an awful lot of money trying to humanely execute people, even if they still fail at it.

    I think the main problem is that there is no way to humanely kill someone. The slaughter of a human being is simply not a humane act.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Apart from your homomarriage activism judges, the majority of them do not sentence on a whim. They are well versed in law, which is impartial. Thus, justice, not revenge.
    They are well versed in law but they sometimes make mistakes. To take just one example: Stephen Downing, who was sent to prison for murder and then found to be innocent after 27 years. If Capital Punishment were legal in the UK, we'd be talking about an innocent man who was killed for a crime he did not commit. How is that justice?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    On one level, there's the chance of mistakes and therefore of the state killing its own innocent citizens. They crop up all the time.

    On another level, it's a ****ing moronic policy purely in terms of solving a problem.

    On a third level, it's horribly immoral and unethical.



    So no. Under absolutely no circumstances. And I worry for the people who can't see at least one of my objections.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    I guess the point I was trying to make was that they spend an awful lot of money trying to humanely execute people, even if they still fail at it.
    I was trying to suggest, without arguing, that I think the Americans intentionally do not really use humane methods, but can't openly admit that. It seems there is a degree of revenge and cruel punishment in the process. If they wanted to kill someone with sub-second total destruction of all brain matter, they could do it. I don't believe they want to.

    And the preceding ten years on death row must be worse than a full-term life sentence.

    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    The slaughter of a human being is simply not a humane act.
    I cannot grasp how a modern, democratic, forward-thinking, civilised society should consider killing its citizens. Nor those of other countries, for that matter.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by College_Dropout)
    Are you seriously comparing systematically killing people to innocent people dying in car accidents? Of course they are the same hey? Killing someone purposely is exactly the same and comparable to someone dying in a car ACCIDENT.
    I didn't make myself clear enough, or perhaps you're struggling with English: this is about degrees of error. It is an accident that the wrong person has been sentenced to death, as it is an accident that a driver ends up in a car crash.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

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.