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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    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.
    So far I like your answer the best I think. Sometimes its justified.. sometimes its not.. I like that one... I think.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    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.
    Makes sense..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    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?
    I know what you mean.. but still.. so much money goes into keeping a prisoner for just a little while.. and even more for people who are in there for life, expecially if they are young. This whole subject could really go either way.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    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.
    eh.. I live in NYS, we pay the highest taxes out of all the states.. or so it used to be. Already we pay taxes on food, clothes, etc. And the tax-rates raise every year. Its awful.

    And I wasn't forcing my opinion on anyone.. I was merely stating it. I'm open to anyone who wishes to try to change my opinion. I will listen with open ears.. I just require a good argument for either side to help me change it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can't say I would ever agree with the death penalty. It is irrational and hypocritical basically. You killed a man, so now we're going to kill you. That sort of mentality just isn't right. Eye for an eye sure, but that is in the context of a schoolyard scuffle. Innocent people die with the death penalty and that simply isn't allowed. Take the last man to be sentenced to death in Australia. Ronald Joseph Ryan I think his name was. (Definitely surname of Ryan) He was hanged for killing a prison guard during a break out attempt. Even though another guard later admitted to firing the fatal shot. He simply didn't come forward thinking that Ryan would get a slap on the wrists and nothing more. Long story short. Prison guard shot dead, innocent man hanged until he was dead dead dead.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Can't say I would ever agree with the death penalty. It is irrational and hypocritical basically. You killed a man, so now we're going to kill you. That sort of mentality just isn't right. Eye for an eye sure, but that is in the context of a schoolyard scuffle. Innocent people die with the death penalty and that simply isn't allowed. Take the last man to be sentenced to death in Australia. Ronald Joseph Ryan I think his name was. (Definitely surname of Ryan) He was hanged for killing a prison guard during a break out attempt. Even though another guard later admitted to firing the fatal shot. He simply didn't come forward thinking that Ryan would get a slap on the wrists and nothing more. Long story short. Prison guard shot dead, innocent man hanged until he was dead dead dead.
    Did Ryan fire a shot at all? If so it sounds a bit like Clegg, and so, that would be manslaughter.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Did Ryan fire a shot at all? If so it sounds a bit like Clegg, and so, that would be manslaughter.
    Then there was that guy in britain ages ago when we still had it. Most people know of him I think he was called derek Bently. He didn't even kill anyone
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    If there was a full/fool proof method of ensuring legitimate and honest conviction for crimes then i would have no problem with the death penalty for certain cases, this will never happen though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Can't say I would ever agree with the death penalty. It is irrational and hypocritical basically. You killed a man, so now we're going to kill you. That sort of mentality just isn't right. Eye for an eye sure, but that is in the context of a schoolyard scuffle. Innocent people die with the death penalty and that simply isn't allowed. Take the last man to be sentenced to death in Australia. Ronald Joseph Ryan I think his name was. (Definitely surname of Ryan) He was hanged for killing a prison guard during a break out attempt. Even though another guard later admitted to firing the fatal shot. He simply didn't come forward thinking that Ryan would get a slap on the wrists and nothing more. Long story short. Prison guard shot dead, innocent man hanged until he was dead dead dead.
    lmao.. hanging.. how old fashioned.. drug it up.. pssht.. how awful. oh oh.. just came across the mind.. *rolls eyes* "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU..."
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Then there was that guy in britain ages ago when we still had it. Most people know of him I think he was called derek Bently. He didn't even kill anyone
    http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...310197920&rd=1

    His conviction was pardoned in 1998 and the then Lord Chief Justice gave a damning report on Lord Goddard, who was his trial judge, because he failed to give a fair trial which every citizen of this country is allowed. I heard the trial judge had 'knuckledusters' on his bench during the trial.

    There was also recently a very similar situation which happened on Waking The Dead, a crime series on BBC1.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...310197920&rd=1

    His conviction was pardoned in 1998 and the then Lord Chief Justice gave a damning report on Lord Goddard, who was his trial judge, because he failed to give a fair trial which every citizen of this country is allowed. I heard the trial judge had 'knuckledusters' on his bench during the trial.
    What are "knuckledusters?"
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    What are "knuckledusters?"
    Something like this:

    http://www.editing.org.uk/tanis/pakdbl.jpg

    Used as a weapon in fights to inflict more damage.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i'd support the death penalty if there was firm evidence to show that it does reduce the murder rate. if it was an effective deterrent (which it's not, i.e. America) then i would certainly cast aside any ethics even if just a few people were deterred from commiting murder.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Something like this:

    http://www.editing.org.uk/tanis/pakdbl.jpg

    Used as a weapon in fights to inflict more damage.
    Why would the judge have it then? As evidence? :confused:

    EDIT:AHHH!! like brass-knuckles.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    i'd support the death penalty if there was firm evidence to show that it does reduce the murder rate. if it was an effective deterrent (which it's not, i.e. America) then i would certainly cast aside any ethics even if just a few people were deterred from commiting murder.
    Does anything really deter crime? No not really.. if we use your reasoning we can do away with police, and prison all-together.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    Why would the judge have it then? As evidence? :confused:

    EDIT:AHHH!! like brass-knuckles.
    Ah you see being American you change words

    It was evidence only to the crime scene itself, not really evidence on the defendent's part. I never knew this happened until my lecturer told me. But back then if you did anything against the police you would be in for it. Now it's a totally different story.

    Even if it was evidence it should not be with the judge. Evidence is only examined by the two counsels mainly. The idea that he had this weapon on his desk was to send a message to the jury that because he's violent, he must have been the killer. This is not true.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    Does anything really deter crime? No not really.. if we use your reasoning we can do away with police, and prison all-together.
    Surely it depends which crimes and how you go about it. CCTV helped an 80% decrease in theft in the operating parts of the London Underground.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Ah you see being American you change words

    It was evidence only to the crime scene itself, not really evidence on the defendent's part. I never knew this happened until my lecturer told me. But back then if you did anything against the police you would be in for it. Now it's a totally different story.

    Even if it was evidence it should not be with the judge. Evidence is only examined by the two counsels mainly. The idea that he had this weapon on his desk was to send a message to the jury that because he's violent, he must have been the killer. This is not true.
    Talk about biased.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Surely it depends which crimes and how you go about it. CCTV helped an 80% decrease in theft in the operating parts of the London Underground.
    lol, don't use abbreviations.. I don't know what they are (English ones anyways) CCTV?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...310197920&rd=1

    His conviction was pardoned in 1998 and the then Lord Chief Justice gave a damning report on Lord Goddard, who was his trial judge, because he failed to give a fair trial which every citizen of this country is allowed. I heard the trial judge had 'knuckledusters' on his bench during the trial.

    There was also recently a very similar situation which happened on Waking The Dead, a crime series on BBC1.
    Yeah I saw that, it is a great program. This is my point though a person can be pardoned and the judge condemed but it doesn't make much of a different because the person is dead.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.