The Death Penalty: Yea or Nay? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Dylank96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Why?
0
minor bun engine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Hell to the no.

Extremely high cost, lack of deterrence, chance of innocent person being killed. Leave that **** in Saudi Arabia
3
Carl Friederich
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Yay
1
josh_v
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
No. I don't grant the state the right to kill people.
1
N-R-G
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by josh_v)
No. I don't grant the state the right to kill people.
You do when they go to war.
0
driftawaay
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
You cannot murder someone for murdering someone.

Its like raping someone who raped someone.

We live in a civilized society, not Saudi Arabia or the USA
1
EquityResearch
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
I have never been a fan of the death penalty.
I think that mental torture is worse than a death sentence, a dead man can't feel anything!
0
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
Nay. It's not suitable for the British justice system and way of life. We're better off without it.
1
Everglow
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
Nay.

Unless used barbarically, it's so much more expensive than life imprisonment. Furthermore, if you want a person to be punished for their crime, how does taking their life achieve that? Surely that is the easy way out. Also worth considering is how it's a dud of a deterrent and sends a contradictory message that suggests it's somehow morally permissible to kill someone because they killed someone else. It's wrong to kill others, yet the state somehow gets a free pass on killing citizens as some kind of do-good for society. Something doesn't quite add up there. Not to mention that the pursuit of retribution only seems to bring out the ugly, spiteful side of human nature.
0
jamestg
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
Two words... :

Derek Bentley
0
Kaneki
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by driftawaay)
Its like raping someone who raped someone.
We both know where you got that example from :')
0
redleader1
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
Yes !! An eye for an eye and for murderers. One could argue that it could be done for murder which personally I think would be fair but who has the right to take someone's life ?

But on a serious note no, it could result in innocent people being killed. Some people do deserve a second chance



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Dylank96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Carl Friederich)
Yay
While you're welcome to state your position in any manner you wish, such is the nature of a public forum, it would still be helpful if you explained it. Otherwise it ceases to be a debate but, rather, a poll and that would be much too bland.
0
Carl Friederich
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Dylank96)
While you're welcome to state your position in any manner you wish, such is the nature of a public forum, it would still be helpful if you explained it. Otherwise it ceases to be a debate but, rather, a poll and that would be much too bland.
Child rapists and murders and other filth deserve nothing less
0
Flame Alchemist
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
No. I view capital punishment as essentially a violation of human rights, leaving no room for error and being a fundamental misrepresentation of what our retribution system should take the form of.

Miscarriages of justice are probably the most obvious reason why it's a bad idea. Aside from the possibility of killing innocent people, it depends on whether or not you consider death to truly be the worst thing to inflict on someone.

If there's nothing worse than death... well, it is a human right to not be killed. Human rights are so named because all humans possess them, even murderers and rapists who violated someone else's human rights. So we should strip their rights? The problem is, where do we draw the line with that?

However, I think death can, in many ways, be an easy way out. A whole life order is, above all else, a more fitting punishment. I think capital punishment is less 'retribution' and more 'vengeance'.
0
Dylank96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Carl Friederich)
Child rapists and murders and other filth deserve nothing less
No, but we deserve so much more.
0
Handles
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
Nay. The chance of a miscarriage of justice alone is a good enough reason to never bring it back (in most cases). Even if someone admits their guilt for a heinous crime, I still don't think that it should ever be used. It's expensive, ineffective (at deterring future crime), and it may lead to those sentenced becoming martyrs.
0
Dylank96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Handles)
Nay. The chance of a miscarriage of justice alone is a good enough reason to never bring it back (in most cases). Even if someone admits their guilt for a heinous crime, I still don't think that it should ever be used. It's expensive, ineffective (at deterring future crime), and it may lead to those sentenced becoming martyrs.
Can we really use the rare occurrence of a miscarriage of justice, and it is rare, to solely justify the abolishment of the system? Surely most systems are flawed but does that compromise their existence itself? Some politicians are majorly flawed but we don't consequentially abolish the system of government. Just a thought.
0
Handles
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Dylank96)
Can we really use the rare occurrence of a miscarriage of justice, and it is rare, to solely justify the abolishment of the system? Surely most systems are flawed but does that compromise their existence itself? Some politicians are majorly flawed but we don't consequentially abolish the system of government. Just a thought.
It might be rare, but that means the loss of an innocent person's life (assuming that the miscarriage of justice is realised after they have been killed), not to mention a ruined family. As for your analogy, yes, but our general system of government is quite effective. Abolishing that system would make our country worse. The death penalty isn't particularly effective, so abolishing it would make justice more effective. I don't think there are many situations in which revenge can be classed as justice.
0
Dylank96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by Handles)
It might be rare, but that means the loss of an innocent person's life (assuming that the miscarriage of justice is realised after they have been killed), not to mention a ruined family. As for your analogy, yes, but our general system of government is quite effective. Abolishing that system would make our country worse. The death penalty isn't particularly effective, so abolishing it would make justice more effective. I don't think there are many situations in which revenge can be classed as justice.
All I can say is that I agree.
1
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (133)
20.68%
Before I was 12 (219)
34.06%
13 (99)
15.4%
14 (77)
11.98%
15 (41)
6.38%
16 (19)
2.95%
17 (9)
1.4%
18 (5)
0.78%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (11)
1.71%
Over 25 (2)
0.31%
12 (28)
4.35%

Watched Threads

View All