The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ozzyoscy
That I'm seeing the logic of 'killing someone who has killed makes us as bad as they are', in which case that means imprisoning a kidnapper is also wrong and we should let them all go, while thieves should be allowed to keep their possessions.


That is not how the logic against execution works, most people who are against the death penalty have come to realise it is no deterrence to murder. Your thinking is as muddle headed as those who claim to be against the death penalty apart from some 'special groups' of murderers, when in fact those people are not against the death penalty.
Original post by Underscore__
It's funny that nowhere have I claimed to be a lawyer...


Posted from TSR Mobile


Pretty sure you implied it a while back. At which you lost all seriousness.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by dozyrosie
That is not how the logic against execution works, most people who are against the death penalty have come to realise it is no deterrence to murder. Your thinking is as muddle headed as those who claim to be against the death penalty apart from some 'special groups' of murderers, when in fact those people are not against the death penalty.


But I made no mention of people who use the reasoning that execution is not a deterrence. I mentioned the logic of 'killing someone who has killed makes us as bad as they are'. Which is what I wrote.
Depends on the circumstances, if the evidence is 100% clear and the person is found guilty on clear evidence then yes.
I think that ultimately, there is simply no way that the death penalty will be abolished universally and that there are so many conflicting points with regards to whether the death penalty should or should not be in place. However, for the sake of debate, I wish to point out a few common points made by people :tongue:

Quite a lot of people mentioned that the death penalty is akin to taking revenge but I think that a clear distinction has to be made between retribution and "an eye for an eye". Society functions on a balance of the social order, and crime itself is a mechanism that disturbs this harmonious balance in society. In order to restore social order, (in the case where another person is compromised) the deserved punishment must be meted out so as to protect society morally and make the perpetrator pay for his actions. This is not the same as taking revenge, because the underlying motive is different, even though the final outcome is the same. It's all about just punishment eventually.
(edited 7 years ago)
yes, but only if they do maths a level
Original post by ozzyoscy
But I made no mention of people who use the reasoning that execution is not a deterrence. I mentioned the logic of 'killing someone who has killed makes us as bad as they are'. Which is what I wrote.


You are without doubt a fool, sticking with your claim of total word for word meaning, as if there is no need for interpretive meaning on the hearers side makes you a fool. Worse than that you are also mendacious claiming not to be talking about executing murders in a thread about executing murderers makes you a liar.

You are off my Christmas card list.
Original post by dozyrosie
You are without doubt a fool


Stop right there. You're hurling insults at me because I've suggested you were mistaken about something *I* said? Am I not the best person around to inform you of what I mean? :tongue:

Don't roleplay the omniscient internet warrior around me, it never works. Ex.: an actual intelligent, omniscient being would put the insult at the END of the post...
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Moonstruck16
Pretty sure you implied it a while back. At which you lost all seriousness.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I said I have a training contract. That really isn't the same as being a 'lawyer'.

Original post by ozzyoscy
And another quote.

It was long ago now that your only response was a spelling correction, yet you're still trying to claw something back from this disaster.


And another quote from you. It's pretty difficult to criticise someone for not dropping something when you won't either.

You're evidently a troll; you've made out as though I've said things I haven't and spouted some utter nonsense about putting people in prison being theft.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
I said I have a training contract. That really isn't the same as being a 'lawyer'.



And another quote from you. It's pretty difficult to criticise someone for not dropping something when you won't either.

You're evidently a troll; you've made out as though I've said things I haven't and spouted some utter nonsense about putting people in prison being theft.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Sweet another quote, I bet it's interesting.

You conceded your argument days ago, yet you're still trying to get the Last Word to gain some semblance of victory.

(If your reply was an apology, then ignore this reply and I accept your apology.)
Yes, with strong evidence and the right crime. Cheaper than solitary confinement and/or a life prison sentence. Totally necessary for some crimes for example; (child molestation and murder), any form of terrorism, mass shootings, serial killing, human trafficking into the sex trade (including abduction) and genocide. There are probably more crimes to note but thats all I can think of right now. I don't believe it is always justified on murder alone, since there are a lot of different cases.

In my view some people have something fundamentally wrong with them and don't deserve the right to live or the tax payer money to keep them alive 'without freedom'. It is not worth anyones time trying to change somebody who clearly has no remorse for their actions, and can theorise and carry out a crime of that magnitude.
Original post by ozzyoscy
Sweet another quote, I bet it's interesting.

You conceded your argument days ago, yet you're still trying to get the Last Word to gain some semblance of victory.

(If your reply was an apology, then ignore this reply and I accept your apology.)


Haha it's so clear that in order to avoid being shown to be wrong you're trying to attack me. Very mature behaviour


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by xyz9856
Yes, with strong evidence and the right crime. Cheaper than solitary confinement and/or a life prison sentence. Totally necessary for some crimes for example; (child molestation and murder), any form of terrorism, mass shootings, serial killing, human trafficking into the sex trade (including abduction) and genocide. There are probably more crimes to note but thats all I can think of right now. I don't believe it is always justified on murder alone, since there are a lot of different cases.

In my view some people have something fundamentally wrong with them and don't deserve the right to live or the tax payer money to keep them alive 'without freedom'. It is not worth anyones time trying to change somebody who clearly has no remorse for their actions, and can theorise and carry out a crime of that magnitude.


There's no evidence it'd be cheaper...


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
I said I have a training contract. That really isn't the same as being a 'lawyer'.



And another quote from you. It's pretty difficult to criticise someone for not dropping something when you won't either.

You're evidently a troll; you've made out as though I've said things I haven't and spouted some utter nonsense about putting people in prison being theft.


Posted from TSR Mobile


You weren't clear. You just wanted us to assume you're better than you actually are.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes - you take a life then your life should be taken
Original post by Underscore__
Haha it's so clear that in order to avoid being shown to be wrong you're trying to attack me. Very mature behaviour


Posted from TSR Mobile


So judging from that reply, you weren't apologising. I'm not surprised.

You're saying things like the above out loud to convince the neutral reader. The problem is there's already a recorded history of what's happened, and so far everyone who's commented on our exchanges have chastised only you.
Original post by ozzyoscy
So judging from that reply, you weren't apologising. I'm not surprised.

You're saying things like the above out loud to convince the neutral reader. The problem is there's already a recorded history of what's happened, and so far everyone who's commented on our exchanges have chastised only you.


That's a damn lie.
Original post by dozyrosie
That's a damn lie.


It's factual. I've seen no defence of his behaviour, as there's nothing to defend.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ozzyoscy
So judging from that reply, you weren't apologising. I'm not surprised.

You're saying things like the above out loud to convince the neutral reader. The problem is there's already a recorded history of what's happened, and so far everyone who's commented on our exchanges have chastised only you.


One person commented on what I've said, that person has also expressed some pretty ridiculous views so I wouldn't take them too seriously


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Moonstruck16
You weren't clear. You just wanted us to assume you're better than you actually are.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I specifically said I have a training contract, I don't know how much clearer I could have made that statement


Posted from TSR Mobile

Latest