Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    simplistic view of murder and as i said earlier killing someone to save money is an appalling devaluation of human life
    It also fails to recognise that there are larger wastes of money.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    i was talking about rehabilitation i think people can be rehabilitated and be freed and, though i hate the term, useful to society
    oh my gay. ok.. lets rehabilitate the worst killer where you live. Then lets free him. THEN lets see if he comes to your house or the house of another and kills them. AGAIN! I wouldn't want to have a person with murder on their record roaming free.
    And whats your take on serial-killers? Would you want to rehabilitate someone who'se so F'd in the mind that they keep killing and killing! Would YOU want to live next door to a person who keeps human fingers in their fridge because they are like trophies to them..Personally.. I wouldn't.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    oh my gay. ok.. lets rehabilitate the worst killer where you live. Then lets free him. THEN lets see if he comes to your house or the house of another and kills them. AGAIN! I wouldn't want to have a person with murder on their record roaming free.
    And whats your take on serial-killers? Would you want to rehabilitate someone who'se so F'd in the mind that they keep killing and killing! Would YOU want to live next door to a person who keeps human fingers in their fridge because they are like trophies to them..Personally.. I wouldn't.
    Please be a bit more contructive, this is the D+D section not the GC section. Serial murderers are never released. You fail to realise this. I find it ironic that someone is so pro-death penalty but is inconsistent with the abortion argument.

    I have seen a possible scenario where there is this serial killer who would qualify to have his killings reduced from murder to manslaughter. This was on Waking The Dead. If you have doubts about this, I will describe it for you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    oh my gay. ok.. lets rehabilitate the worst killer where you live. Then lets free him. THEN lets see if he comes to your house or the house of another and kills them. AGAIN! I wouldn't want to have a person with murder on their record roaming free.
    And whats your take on serial-killers? Would you want to rehabilitate someone who'se so F'd in the mind that they keep killing and killing! Would YOU want to live next door to a person who keeps human fingers in their fridge because they are like trophies to them..Personally.. I wouldn't.
    these people would receive life sentences and anyway if they were released they would have to pass a psychological exam (which doesn't always work i must admit look at the camden killer). Not all murderers keep fingers in their fridge what about the farmer who shot a burglar breaking into his house? do you think he should be given a lethal injection or never let out of prison? because i don't the man merely made a very unfortunate mistake and he is spending time in prison because of it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    oh my gay. ok.. lets rehabilitate the worst killer where you live. Then lets free him. THEN lets see if he comes to your house or the house of another and kills them. AGAIN! I wouldn't want to have a person with murder on their record roaming free.
    And whats your take on serial-killers? Would you want to rehabilitate someone who'se so F'd in the mind that they keep killing and killing! Would YOU want to live next door to a person who keeps human fingers in their fridge because they are like trophies to them..Personally.. I wouldn't.
    That's ridiculous. Nobody's proposing that. Everybody here is bright enough to know that the public's safety is primary, and that they shouldn't be put at risk at any cost. Fortunately, the public are still perfectly safe if murderers are kept in secure prisons, they don't need to die to protect the public. If you kill them, you can't say you're doing it for the public's safety, you're doing it for punishment alone. You can't even say you're doing it to deter murderers, as it's widely agreed that it simply doesn't.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Please be a bit more contructive, this is the D+D section not the GC section. Serial murderers are never released. You fail to realise this. I find it ironic that someone is so pro-death penalty but is inconsistent with the abortion argument.

    I have seen a possible scenario where there is this serial killer who would qualify to have his killings reduced from murder to manslaughter. This was on Waking The Dead. If you have doubts about this, I will describe it for you.
    This is the death penalty not abortion. So no need bringing that up.
    I was making an argument about "rehabilitating people and then releasing them." NOT about whether or not people who are serial killers are ever released in today's world. This is a hypathetical world we are talking about.. obviously because.. correct me if I'm wrong.. murderers are NOT rehabilitated and released at the present time!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    This is the death penalty not abortion. So no need bringing that up.
    I was making an argument about "rehabilitating people and then releasing them." NOT about whether or not people who are serial killers are ever released in today's world. This is a hypathetical world we are talking about.. obviously because.. correct me if I'm wrong.. murderers are NOT rehabilitated and released at the present time!
    But unless I've misunderstood, you're saying that because people shouldn't be rehabilitated and released, they should be put to death. There's surely other alternatives?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    these people would receive life sentences and anyway if they were released they would have to pass a psychological exam (which doesn't always work i must admit look at the camden killer). Not all murderers keep fingers in their fridge what about the farmer who shot a burglar breaking into his house? do you think he should be given a lethal injection or never let out of prison? because i don't the man merely made a very unfortunate mistake and he is spending time in prison because of it
    First off.. if a burglar were to enter a farmers house, obviously the farmer has the right to shoot him, TRESPASSING!
    Secondly, if the burglar were to attack him, its self-defense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    First off.. if a burglar were to enter a farmers house, obviously the farmer has the right to shoot him, TRESPASSING!
    Secondly, if the burglar were to attack him, its self-defense.
    actually i think the farmer went to prison because it was adjudged that there were other ways in which he could have stopped the burglar. do you really think there is any situation (bar war perhaps though personally i don't agree) where you have the right to shoot someone
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    But unless I've misunderstood, you're saying that because people shouldn't be rehabilitated and released, they should be put to death. There's surely other alternatives?
    In some extreme cases.. serial killers.. people should be put to death.
    In the less extreme cases, fine, I give, people don't have to be put to death.. but you know.. we should change the taxes. People who are for letting people rot away in prison all their lives, THEY should pay the taxes, let THEM support the killers. Those of us who don't, we can continue to pay every other tax there is. hmm.. yeah.. that'll work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    This is the death penalty not abortion. So no need bringing that up.
    I was making an argument about "rehabilitating people and then releasing them." NOT about whether or not people who are serial killers are ever released in today's world. This is a hypathetical world we are talking about.. obviously because.. correct me if I'm wrong.. murderers are NOT rehabilitated and released at the present time!
    Don't be so bloody hard line. There's good in people, they are few people who are evil to the bone.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    actually i think the farmer went to prison because it was adjudged that there were other ways in which he could have stopped the burglar. do you really think there is any situation (bar war perhaps though personally i don't agree) where you have the right to shoot someone
    war? war is no reason for people to kill other people! its merely an excuse. And correct me if I'm wrong.. but after WWII the Nuremburg Trials got rid of many of the people who were responsible for "CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    Don't be so bloody hard line. There's good in people, they are few people who are evil to the bone.
    heh, you've obviously never been here.
    Its part of the human race to have some evil within us. And some people do indeed have more than others.. and IT SHOWS!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    In some extreme cases.. serial killers.. people should be put to death.
    Why should serial killers be put to death? They are just as secure in prisons as small time killers.
    People who are for letting people rot away in prison all their lives, THEY should pay the taxes, let THEM support the killers. Those of us who don't, we can continue to pay every other tax there is. hmm.. yeah.. that'll work.
    No it won't. We have to make decisions as a society, then we all have to stick by the majority to operate successfuly. Also, most people would probably claim to not support long term prison for killers, in order to avoid taxes, until the death penalty was reintroduced, then it would be abolished because people hated it, it would just fail, voluntary taxes are clearly doomed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Why should serial killers be put to death? They are just as secure in prisons as small time killers.


    No it won't. We have to make decisions as a society, then we all have to stick by the majority to operate successfuly. Also, most people would probably claim to not support long term prison for killers, in order to avoid taxes, until the death penalty was reintroduced, then it would be abolished because people hated it, it would just fail, voluntary taxes are clearly doomed.
    Except for the small fact that, if people were to vote for the death penalty to get rid of the taxes then the death penalty would still be there. If they were to vote against it, they would pay the taxes.. so if they don't want the death penalty yet they vote for it.. they lose.. they lose either way. So yes it would work.. BECAUSE if someone's so dead-set against it, they wouldn't vote for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    Except for the small fact that, if people were to vote for the death penalty to get rid of the taxes then the death penalty would still be there. If they were to vote against it, they would pay the taxes.. so if they don't want the death penalty yet they vote for it.. they lose.. they lose either way. So yes it would work.. BECAUSE if someone's so dead-set against it, they wouldn't vote for it.
    No because their refusal to pay taxes does not reflect their view on the subject! You alone refusing to pay prison-for-killers tax will not result in the death penalty, but everybody taking such a selfish view would.

    It's like saying "everybody who doesn't vote will be automatically be counted as a vote for labour." They don't want to vote because they're selfish, but they don't necessarily support labour.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    No because their refusal to pay taxes does not reflect their view on the subject! You alone refusing to pay prison-for-killers tax will not result in the death penalty, but everybody taking such a selfish view would.

    It's like saying "everybody who doesn't vote will be automatically be counted as a vote for labour." They don't want to vote because they're selfish, but they don't necessarily support labour.
    Oh well.. not my problem as of yet. I'm still a minor.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    This is the death penalty not abortion. So no need bringing that up.
    I was making an argument about "rehabilitating people and then releasing them." NOT about whether or not people who are serial killers are ever released in today's world. This is a hypathetical world we are talking about.. obviously because.. correct me if I'm wrong.. murderers are NOT rehabilitated and released at the present time!
    Usually when people talk about this topic it's easier to establish what is murder before going on to discuss it further. I have asked this question earlier and all I had was this, " :eek: ".

    I would consider it as this:

    Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same.

    For the purposes of convenience, we can say that murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought. However, death no longer need occur within a year and a day.

    Anyone like to differ?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Usually when people talk about this topic it's easier to establish what is murder before going on to discuss it further. I have asked this question earlier and all I had was this, " :eek: ".

    I would consider it as this:

    Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same.

    For the purposes of convenience, we can say that murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought. However, death no longer need occur within a year and a day.

    Anyone like to differ?
    ummm what would you define malice as? and what's the Queen's peace?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    pssht.. *shrugs* I was in a hurry.
    OK I won't tell anyone
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.