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

Should The Death Penalty Be Allowed? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What's your verdict? Is it right to kill someone for killing somebody?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Nope - I don't think the death penalty is right:no:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MockingJay-)
    What's your verdict? Is it right to kill someone for killing somebody?
    I personally believe it's wrong - wouldn't killing someone as a punishment for killing someone else make us just as bad as they are???

    I think they should be left in prison for the rest of their lives and made to feel the guilt and anguish that they have caused.

    but that's just me :laugh:
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Nope - I think it's wrong. It isn't just and fair to kill someone, it doesn't bring closure to the victim's family, it pretty much doesn't do anything it's meant to do
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No, there is no going back from a false sentence and I don't trust police and courts to get it right 100% of the time. Really long read, but this case gives a story of how it can go wrong if you have the time http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20.../trial-by-fire
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Only if they can find a way of making it cheaper.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MockingJay-)
    What's your verdict? Is it right to kill someone for killing somebody?
    I think with DNA evidence it should be allowed for the rare cases where someone is never allowed out of prison.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I do think people should be punished for killing another person but not necessarily by the death penalty. I know there's no excuse for murder however sometimes certain circumstances need to be factored in - murder cases aren't simple.

    I do think the death penalty should exist for certain circumstances however e.g. serial killers, terrorists - particularly those who show no remorse whatsoever for the killings of innocent people including children.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aarora)
    I do think people should be punished for killing another person but not necessarily by the death penalty. I know there's no excuse for murder however sometimes certain circumstances need to be factored in - murder cases aren't simple.

    I do think the death penalty should exist for certain circumstances however e.g. serial killers, terrorists - particularly those who show no remorse whatsoever for the killings of innocent people including children.
    Why 'punished'? Is that any different to revenge?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I am totally against the use of death penalty for any crime.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone watch the Green Mile? Clear example of how a purely innocent person can be put to death.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No. It's immoral, hypocritical, exorbitantly expensive, and ineffective at what it's supposed to do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ODES_PDES)
    I am totally against the use of death penalty for any crime.
    Genocide? (Just a question. I agree with you.)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Why 'punished'? Is that any different to revenge?
    I mean punished in the sense that they go to prison for what they've done. But not punished to the extent that they face the death penalty.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aarora)
    I mean punished in the sense that they go to prison for what they've done. But not punished to the extent that they face the death penalty.
    Right, but what's with this medieval idea of punishing them? What does it achieve? We can keep the public safe and prevent re-offending without deliberately causing more suffering.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Well, we have to think about the consequences. Will anything good actually come of it? Clearly the victim (of capital punishment) cannot be rehabilitated and become a functioning member of society anymore. However, they won't be able to hurt anyone else ever again either, which has to be a good thing. But they're unlikely to be able hurt anyone again if they are simply imprisoned, too. Not only does imprisonment have the added benefit of being cheaper (for a whole host of complex reasons that I suspect are insurmountable), but it also doesn't 'brutalise' the population as the literature seems to indicate capital punishment does.

    I can't really see any good reasons for it at all. A popular one seems to be that some criminals just 'deserve' it, but this seems to be a very difficult position to justify for anyone who is at all concerned with the suffering of other people.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roxy1331)
    Genocide? (Just a question. I agree with you.)
    Absolutely not.
    Make a prison exile island and put all "horrible" prisoners there.
    No state has right to kill in my opinion.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No. Taking America as a model:

    - It's more expensive than a life sentence, owing to the multiple appeals involved.
    - You can't eliminate the risk of killing an innocent person, and innocent people are killed every year as a result.
    - It is unsuccessful as a deterrent
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No.

    Practically it is going to be costly due to the need for an appeals process (unless you want to go North Korean), there is scant evidence to suggest it deters individuals from committing heinous crimes and, for the UK, it would mean we'd have to leave the EU if we wanted to implement it. Added to this is the risk of killing innocent people.

    Morally I simply can't see how it brings about anything good in a horrible situation other than fulfilling a lower, baser instinct for vengeance - which I do not see as outweighing an individual's right to continue existing. I believe even those who have committed atrocities have the right to life (behind bars) so long as they pose no immediate threat to society (which I believe is one of the core purposes of prisons), to take more life is a morally bad response to morally evil actions.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by senpaipoppy)
    Nope - I think it's wrong. It isn't just and fair to kill someone, it doesn't bring closure to the victim's family, it pretty much doesn't do anything it's meant to do
    It certainly isn't, but if I kill 100 people for example, I have unjustly and unfairly deprived them of their right to live. Why is it then just and fair for me to continue to live?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.