Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amazingtrade)
    And 500 years isn't really as long as it seems.
    It is to mankind.. no one lives that long... therein lie the lives of many many men. We learn from our mistakes.. or we're supposed to anyways. I really don't see the reason that you brought up the past in this instance.. we.. definitly aren't the same as we were then.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    Gun control is a completely different topic.. If we were to get rid of guns.. how would we control the animal population? I've use this on a gun control thread a while ago.. "Where I live.. in the nothern country of the US, there is a continual increase in the deer population, resulting in more car accidents and car/deer related deaths. We need guns here to control that population. Hence hunting season."

    Not to mention.. if we were to get rid of guns.. I believe there would be an increase in the number of gun-related deaths.. because people would 1-retaliate, and 2-do the opposite of what people tell them to do. Also.. what would the police use to protect themselves from irate criminals?
    In Britain, if you are a farmer you're allowed guns to control the animal population in the countryside. I'm not saying this is right, it's just the way it is.

    There is also the possibility that the UK police will be allowed guns in the future, but at the moment they have batons, defensive equipment and a stern look. This seems to do the job, but I wouldn't be completely against them having guns for real emergencies.

    No one is allowed to own a gun for their own personal use here, which is what I was referring to - the problem is most significant when you allow people to have a handgun in their bedside cabinet etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    the possible alternatives do not decide whether prison is just or injust, that is a matter of practiality rather than morality, in my eyes its unjust to take another persons life as does the majority of world when it condems killing people, and no body/country/group has the authority to authorise killing here either.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trousers)
    In Britain, if you are a farmer you're allowed guns to control the animal population in the countryside. I'm not saying this is right, it's just the way it is.

    There is also the possibility that the UK police will be allowed guns in the future, but at the moment they have batons, defensive equipment and a stern look. This seems to do the job, but I wouldn't be completely against them having guns for real emergencies.

    No one is allowed to own a gun for their own personal use here, which is what I was referring to - the problem is most significant when you allow people to have a handgun in their bedside cabinet etc.
    First of all.. I'm referring to the US.. not Britain. Secondly.. Violence here in america.. I'd say is alot worse than violence there. Police need the guns.. because the difference in having one and not having one could be the difference between life and death for the officer.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    First of all.. I'm referring to the US.. not Britain. Secondly.. Violence here in america.. I'd say is alot worse than violence there. Police need the guns.. because the difference in having one and not having one could be the difference between life and death for the officer.
    My point is that if the public were not allowed to carry guns, the violence problem in America wouldn't be so bad. I'm using the UK as an example of what happens when you don't allow guns, and I think America should follow that example.

    I'm sounding like a bit of a mad British nationalist or something :eek: - believe me, I don't go on about how great the UK is most of the time. It's just that I think we've got this bit right.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anybody think that the american gansta rap/films culture is encouraging gun crimes in the UK?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think we are out of our depth as humans when we start taking people's lives. So I don't support it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trousers)
    My point is that if the public were not allowed to carry guns, the violence problem in America wouldn't be so bad. I'm using the UK as an example of what happens when you don't allow guns, and I think America should follow that example.

    I'm sounding like a bit of a mad British nationalist or something :eek: - believe me, I don't go on about how great the UK is most of the time. It's just that I think we've got this bit right.
    I'm all for gun control. But I still think in some cases its better for people to carry them.

    And even if the public were "not allowed to carry guns" they would still do so... no one listens.. thats just the way it is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amazingtrade)
    Does anybody think that the american gansta rap/films culture is encouraging gun crimes in the UK?
    If you think its encouraging gun crimes there.. then write your PM and ask said person to ban it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    The death penalty.. Justified... or injust?
    In my view it in unjustified. The death penalty sends out the wronge message it is basically saying that killing is wronge but it is ok for the government to do it. Yes keeping people in prison costs money but I think it is a better alternative than putting someone to death, as it is sentancing in the UK for murder can sometimes be a joke and I am all for making sentances harsher meaning for premeditated murder life should mean life. As can be seen in the case of Nick ingram (I think it was) the death penalty can brutalise the wardens and guards responsible for prisoners. In this case the man was given a stay of execution hours before he was meant to go to the electric chair. However the guard still took him down to a room and shaved him and prepared him for the chair before telling him that his execution was stayed. He was later executed.

    Then there is the permenany risk of executing an innocent person. Atleast if a person is put in prison they can be released if their conviction is later overturned. If someone has been put to death there is very little that can be done other than compensation for the family.

    However the thought that gets to me most is that of a person having to sit in a cell for years and years on deathrow knowing that they have been sentanced to death. Then lets say this person has been sentenced to go to the electric chair they have to be taken to another room shaven and then they have a large electric shock run through their body until they are dead. This could happen because of a crime that was comitted at the age of 18 when that person is barely and adult. Personally I don't see how any civilised society can say that this is justified.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Then there is the permenany risk of executing an innocent person. Atleast if a person is put in prison they can be released if their conviction is later overturned. If someone has been put to death there is very little that can be done other than compensation for the family.
    There is always this risk. Personally.. if I was convicted of a crime, and I was innocent, I would rather die than stay in a prison my whole life. You are more free in death than you are in life. Death is a release, not a punishment(in most cases anyways), if I were to sit in prison for most of my life, with the knowledge that I am innocent yet everyone else thinks I am responsible... I wouldn't be able to stand that. I'd prefer death.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    The death penalty.. Justified... or injust?
    You need a third option! there are way too many possible scenarios for a simple yes/no poll. Personally in some cases i think its justified, but overall im against the death penalty being part of law.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    There is always this risk. Personally.. if I was convicted of a crime, and I was innocent, I would rather die than stay in a prison my whole life. You are more free in death than you are in life. Death is a release, not a punishment(in most cases anyways), if I were to sit in prison for most of my life, with the knowledge that I am innocent yet everyone else thinks I am responsible... I wouldn't be able to stand that. I'd prefer death.
    I respect that it is your opinion, however I think you are entering a dangerous area when you put your oppinion onto other people. You may feel this way but not everyone who is on deathrow will. Maybe their should be a situation when a person in prison for life is allowed to opt into having an overdose of morphine of something humane but then there is the high potential for abuse of this system so there would have to be a court hearing. I wouldn't have a problem with a scheme like this but there would have to be tight regulations.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    There is always this risk. Personally.. if I was convicted of a crime, and I was innocent, I would rather die than stay in a prison my whole life. You are more free in death than you are in life. Death is a release, not a punishment(in most cases anyways), if I were to sit in prison for most of my life, with the knowledge that I am innocent yet everyone else thinks I am responsible... I wouldn't be able to stand that. I'd prefer death.
    Which is why many people view life (when it really does mean life) as a harsher sentence than death. Many lifers have committed suicide - Shipman is the lastest one I know of. So why advocate the death penalty if murderers rather have it that way?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    Bah.. the only difference is the fact that the tax-payers don't pay for the lawyer that defends said person. SO.. economically.. it is cheaper for us to kill the person. right?
    Well I think if they can't afford a laywer, then the tax payer does have to pay for one- although I'm not totally sure. Plus, it's the people who can't afford to pay for the expensive laywers themselves who are more likely to end up on death row anyway.

    Also, it's not just the cost of the laywers for the defendent- the whole process costs money.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Facts and figures on the costs:

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...=7#From%20DPIC
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Can we put a price on justice?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Can we put a price on justice?
    £2.57
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Can we put a price on justice?
    I don't think you can but then I don't think that the death penalty is Justice therefore I don't think it is too expensive to keep people in prison for life.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I don't think you can but then I don't think that the death penalty is Justice therefore I don't think it is too expensive to keep people in prison for life.
    *points*

    What she said.
 
 
 
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.