Death Penalty vs Life Imprisonment
Poll
Which one?
Which one would you opt for? Because now, at the moment life does not mean life.
For both options, I'm talking about the absolutely nailed on cases, no doubt. Those like Joseph McCann, or those where there is absolutely no doubt. If something was actually done to prevent the escalation of these cases, as is the case with some of the high profile cases at the moment, lives could have been saved, both physically and mentally. Which one would you opt for for the worst of criminals?
For both options, I'm talking about the absolutely nailed on cases, no doubt. Those like Joseph McCann, or those where there is absolutely no doubt. If something was actually done to prevent the escalation of these cases, as is the case with some of the high profile cases at the moment, lives could have been saved, both physically and mentally. Which one would you opt for for the worst of criminals?
Scroll to see replies
Life imprisonment.
Who are you to say someone should be killed?
I think the death penalty is ethically/morally wrong.
I do know that in some countries, those that are killed on the death penalty are forced to give their organs (as donation) to people who need it. Which I think is fair.
But then again, research has shown time and time again that the death penalty in certain countries (as a method of deterrence) has little effect, take America for example.
Who are you to say someone should be killed?
I think the death penalty is ethically/morally wrong.
I do know that in some countries, those that are killed on the death penalty are forced to give their organs (as donation) to people who need it. Which I think is fair.
But then again, research has shown time and time again that the death penalty in certain countries (as a method of deterrence) has little effect, take America for example.
(edited 4 years ago)
You're assuming cases are open and shut.
Very few cases are actually like this.
So again, an innocent person may be killed.
You can't just factor this 'out'.
@squeakysquirrel having read your reply from the prison AMA, I'd like to know your view towards this too
Very few cases are actually like this.
So again, an innocent person may be killed.
You can't just factor this 'out'.
@squeakysquirrel having read your reply from the prison AMA, I'd like to know your view towards this too
(edited 4 years ago)
Death penalty for murderers and pedophiles.
Life imprisonment- with no opportunity of ever being released except to the morgue.
I am very anti the death penalty. Many murders are committed by people who are mentally ill or on drugs. This does not take away from the severity of their crime.
I will add that until you have walked a mile in the victims family shoes, you can never completely say though
I will add that until you have walked a mile in the victims family shoes, you can never completely say though
"Absolutely nailed in cases"
Not really how the system works though, is it? Once a person has gone through and exhausted the entire appeals process, the person is assumed to be "absolutely nailed in" guilty. Yet sometimes they still get it wrong.
The reason I'd say life imprisonment is more appropriate, someone that's been executed can't attest their innocence.
Not really how the system works though, is it? Once a person has gone through and exhausted the entire appeals process, the person is assumed to be "absolutely nailed in" guilty. Yet sometimes they still get it wrong.
The reason I'd say life imprisonment is more appropriate, someone that's been executed can't attest their innocence.
Original post by squeakysquirrel
I am very anti the death penalty. Many murders are committed by people who are mentally ill or on drugs. This does not take away from the severity of their crime.
I will add that until you have walked a mile in the victims family shoes, you can never completely say though
I will add that until you have walked a mile in the victims family shoes, you can never completely say though
What should happen to this person: death or life imprisonment?
Peter is a recreational drug user. It is his choice to take drugs. He is generally consistent when he consumes his class As. One unfortunate day, he takes a bit too much whilst out with his lads. On their way home, Joe slightly bumps into a high Peter. Peter gets upset and calls out Joe to watch where he is going. Peter has an altercation with Joe and this quickly evolves to a full on fight.
A high-on-drugs Peter grabs a rock and hits Joe on the head. Joe drops to the floor. Peter runs away with his mate. The next morning, Peter finds out that Joe died. Fortunately, the police uses CCTV to track down Peter and he is arrested and charged.
Joe is dead and leaves behind a wife and 4 young children. No father for the kids and no husband for the wife.
Now, should Peter, the drug taker and the murderer, be sentenced to death for murder or should he be sent to life in prison, where Joe’s wife and possibly children would indirectly pay for his welfare in prison, when he killed their father and husband?
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Wired_1800
What should happen to this person: death or life imprisonment?
Peter is a recreational drug user. It is his choice to take drugs. He is generally consistent when he consumes his class As. One unfortunate day, he takes a bit too much whilst out with his lads. On their way home, Joe slightly bumps into a high Peter. Peter gets upset and calls out Joe to watch where he is going. Peter has an altercation with Joe and this quickly evolves to a full on fight.
A high-on-drugs Peter grabs a rock and hits Joe on the head. Joe drops to the floor. Peter runs away with his mate. The next morning, Peter finds out that Joe died. Fortunately, the police uses CCTV to track down Peter and he is arrested and charged.
Joe is dead and leaves behind a wife and 4 young children. No father for the kids and no husband for the wife.
Now, should Peter, the drug taker and the murderer, be sentenced to death for murder or should he be sent to life in prison, where Joe’s wife and possibly children would indirectly pay for his welfare in prison, when he killed their father and husband?
Peter is a recreational drug user. It is his choice to take drugs. He is generally consistent when he consumes his class As. One unfortunate day, he takes a bit too much whilst out with his lads. On their way home, Joe slightly bumps into a high Peter. Peter gets upset and calls out Joe to watch where he is going. Peter has an altercation with Joe and this quickly evolves to a full on fight.
A high-on-drugs Peter grabs a rock and hits Joe on the head. Joe drops to the floor. Peter runs away with his mate. The next morning, Peter finds out that Joe died. Fortunately, the police uses CCTV to track down Peter and he is arrested and charged.
Joe is dead and leaves behind a wife and 4 young children. No father for the kids and no husband for the wife.
Now, should Peter, the drug taker and the murderer, be sentenced to death for murder or should he be sent to life in prison, where Joe’s wife and possibly children would indirectly pay for his welfare in prison, when he killed their father and husband?
As I said, I am very anti the death penalty. I don't think jail is a holiday camp. Being deprived of your freedom must be terrible.
I work in a big London hospital and regularly see prisoners coming for treatment - sometimes handcuffed to two officers. This is not I life I would want. The joy of just stepping out in the morning to sniff the day ahead, wandering round a park - all this denied. And mistakes happen - miscarriages of justice
Original post by Wired_1800
What should happen to this person: death or life imprisonment?
Peter is a recreational drug user. It is his choice to take drugs. He is generally consistent when he consumes his class As. One unfortunate day, he takes a bit too much whilst out with his lads. On their way home, Joe slightly bumps into a high Peter. Peter gets upset and calls out Joe to watch where he is going. Peter has an altercation with Joe and this quickly evolves to a full on fight.
A high-on-drugs Peter grabs a rock and hits Joe on the head. Joe drops to the floor. Peter runs away with his mate. The next morning, Peter finds out that Joe died. Fortunately, the police uses CCTV to track down Peter and he is arrested and charged.
Joe is dead and leaves behind a wife and 4 young children. No father for the kids and no husband for the wife.
Now, should Peter, the drug taker and the murderer, be sentenced to death for murder or should he be sent to life in prison, where Joe’s wife and possibly children would indirectly pay for his welfare in prison, when he killed their father and husband?
Peter is a recreational drug user. It is his choice to take drugs. He is generally consistent when he consumes his class As. One unfortunate day, he takes a bit too much whilst out with his lads. On their way home, Joe slightly bumps into a high Peter. Peter gets upset and calls out Joe to watch where he is going. Peter has an altercation with Joe and this quickly evolves to a full on fight.
A high-on-drugs Peter grabs a rock and hits Joe on the head. Joe drops to the floor. Peter runs away with his mate. The next morning, Peter finds out that Joe died. Fortunately, the police uses CCTV to track down Peter and he is arrested and charged.
Joe is dead and leaves behind a wife and 4 young children. No father for the kids and no husband for the wife.
Now, should Peter, the drug taker and the murderer, be sentenced to death for murder or should he be sent to life in prison, where Joe’s wife and possibly children would indirectly pay for his welfare in prison, when he killed their father and husband?
Context is important here, why is Peter taking drugs?
Is he taking them for the hell of it or is he taking them to combat the unfortunate circumstances of life? Is he taking them to combat mental illness in the first place? Has he been abused as a child? Was he a veteran who saw his friends die during war?
If it's any of the latter reasons, why is the death penalty more morally sound? Do you not think people with the latter problems should be supported instead of being punished further?
Original post by MidgetFever
Context is important here, why is Peter taking drugs?
Is he taking them for the hell of it or is he taking them to combat the unfortunate circumstances of life? Is he taking them to combat mental illness in the first place? Has he been abused as a child? Was he a veteran who saw his friends die during war?
If it's any of the latter reasons, why is the death penalty more morally sound? Do you not think people with the latter problems should be supported instead of being punished further?
Is he taking them for the hell of it or is he taking them to combat the unfortunate circumstances of life? Is he taking them to combat mental illness in the first place? Has he been abused as a child? Was he a veteran who saw his friends die during war?
If it's any of the latter reasons, why is the death penalty more morally sound? Do you not think people with the latter problems should be supported instead of being punished further?
^^ this!
Original post by squeakysquirrel
As I said, I am very anti the death penalty. I don't think jail is a holiday camp. Being deprived of your freedom must be terrible.
I work in a big London hospital and regularly see prisoners coming for treatment - sometimes handcuffed to two officers. This is not I life I would want. The joy of just stepping out in the morning to sniff the day ahead, wandering round a park - all this denied. And mistakes happen - miscarriages of justice
I work in a big London hospital and regularly see prisoners coming for treatment - sometimes handcuffed to two officers. This is not I life I would want. The joy of just stepping out in the morning to sniff the day ahead, wandering round a park - all this denied. And mistakes happen - miscarriages of justice
Someone is still dead though. No father for the children, no partner for the wife. Where is his justice? This was not a mistake. Who pays for the death of an innocent family man?
So Peter should have his life after taking another person’s life and destroying a family?
(edited 4 years ago)
China, Saudi, Pakistan, North Korea - all pillars of democracy eh!
But it is OK of they give their organs - what if you are innocent - or even if you are guilty - Saudi - drug dealing - probably got hepatitis, HIV - the checks they do on the bodies will not be particularly rigorous
But it is OK of they give their organs - what if you are innocent - or even if you are guilty - Saudi - drug dealing - probably got hepatitis, HIV - the checks they do on the bodies will not be particularly rigorous
Original post by MidgetFever
Context is important here, why is Peter taking drugs?
Is he taking them for the hell of it or is he taking them to combat the unfortunate circumstances of life? Is he taking them to combat mental illness in the first place? Has he been abused as a child? Was he a veteran who saw his friends die during war?
If it's any of the latter reasons, why is the death penalty more morally sound? Do you not think people with the latter problems should be supported instead of being punished further?
Is he taking them for the hell of it or is he taking them to combat the unfortunate circumstances of life? Is he taking them to combat mental illness in the first place? Has he been abused as a child? Was he a veteran who saw his friends die during war?
If it's any of the latter reasons, why is the death penalty more morally sound? Do you not think people with the latter problems should be supported instead of being punished further?
No offence, but Peter is a drug taker. I don't know why he consumes class As.
All those excuses don't apply to this scenario. Peter is just a standard drug taker. Has a good background and no “issues” to receive sympathy.
Would you still give Peter his life after he killed someone else?
Original post by Wired_1800
What should happen to this person: death or life imprisonment?
Peter is a recreational drug user. It is his choice to take drugs. He is generally consistent when he consumes his class As. One unfortunate day, he takes a bit too much whilst out with his lads. On their way home, Joe slightly bumps into a high Peter. Peter gets upset and calls out Joe to watch where he is going. Peter has an altercation with Joe and this quickly evolves to a full on fight.
A high-on-drugs Peter grabs a rock and hits Joe on the head. Joe drops to the floor. Peter runs away with his mate. The next morning, Peter finds out that Joe died. Fortunately, the police uses CCTV to track down Peter and he is arrested and charged.
Joe is dead and leaves behind a wife and 4 young children. No father for the kids and no husband for the wife.
Now, should Peter, the drug taker and the murderer, be sentenced to death for murder or should he be sent to life in prison, where Joe’s wife and possibly children would indirectly pay for his welfare in prison, when he killed their father and husband?
Peter is a recreational drug user. It is his choice to take drugs. He is generally consistent when he consumes his class As. One unfortunate day, he takes a bit too much whilst out with his lads. On their way home, Joe slightly bumps into a high Peter. Peter gets upset and calls out Joe to watch where he is going. Peter has an altercation with Joe and this quickly evolves to a full on fight.
A high-on-drugs Peter grabs a rock and hits Joe on the head. Joe drops to the floor. Peter runs away with his mate. The next morning, Peter finds out that Joe died. Fortunately, the police uses CCTV to track down Peter and he is arrested and charged.
Joe is dead and leaves behind a wife and 4 young children. No father for the kids and no husband for the wife.
Now, should Peter, the drug taker and the murderer, be sentenced to death for murder or should he be sent to life in prison, where Joe’s wife and possibly children would indirectly pay for his welfare in prison, when he killed their father and husband?
The scenario that you have described sounds more like unlawful act manslaughter than murder.
Might be better if you changed it to make Peter a class drug abuser and scumbag hate criminal who brutally attacks a random stranger.
Someone that kills a defenceless victim encountered on the street by chance, having yelled death threats and multiple slurs that clearly suggest Peter's motivation was hostility on the basis of the victim's ethnicity/sexuality/religious affiliation.
Definitely against the death penalty. I just find death penalties to be highly hypocritical. We feel sorry for the victim's family for their loss but at the same we are willing to end the killer's life, which ultimately leads to another family mourning their loss. Also, the costs of the death penalty are much greater than life imprisonment (due to the large amounts of legal fees etc). Besides, the majority of those on death row are diagnosed with psychosis, or/and severe schizophrenia etc. So regardless of our own moral standards, we have to remember that there are some among us who unfortunately lack emotional intelligence and are unable to see any wrong-doing in their actions. The x-ray images of the brains of many killers show that they are unable to develop a sense of attachment and belonging to the world, meaning they don't empathize with their victims, which allows them to kill them.
Original post by Wired_1800
Someone is still dead though. No father for the children, no partner for the wife. Where is his justice? This was not a mistake. Who pays for the death of an innocent family man?
So Peter should have his life after taking another person’s life and destroying a family?
So Peter should have his life after taking another person’s life and destroying a family?
Look, I understand - you are pro death penalty and I am not - and never the twain shall meet.
There have been miscarriages of justice and innocent people have been executed. But... and this is the clincher if you like. Is it fairer to kill someone and put them out of their misery or let them suffer the rest of their lives - there are many cases of reformed prisoners who seriously regret their crimes and have come good. It does not take away from their evil deeds of course.
Because Peter took a life - it does not mean that we have to be biblical - eye for an eye etc. ( also his mind was altered by the drugs - and that does not make it right - but we all do things in an altered state)
Original post by Wired_1800
No offence, but Peter is a drug taker. I don't know why he consumes class As.
All those excuses don't apply to this scenario. Peter is just a standard drug taker. Has a good background and no “issues” to receive sympathy.
Would you still give Peter his life after he killed someone else?
All those excuses don't apply to this scenario. Peter is just a standard drug taker. Has a good background and no “issues” to receive sympathy.
Would you still give Peter his life after he killed someone else?
"Excuses"
It's so easy to just dismiss these things as excuses when you haven't lived the life they've lived.
I honestly think that life imprisonment is sufficient.
Some people might argue that life imprisonment is worse. Would you rather everything end quickly or would you rather suffer for years with no human rights? Potentially being beaten by others day in and day out.
This whole life imprisonment v Death penalty argument is rather circular in itself, and depends on each person's moral views.
Original post by Wired_1800
What should happen to this person: death or life imprisonment?
Peter is a recreational drug user. It is his choice to take drugs. He is generally consistent when he consumes his class As. One unfortunate day, he takes a bit too much whilst out with his lads. On their way home, Joe slightly bumps into a high Peter. Peter gets upset and calls out Joe to watch where he is going. Peter has an altercation with Joe and this quickly evolves to a full on fight.
A high-on-drugs Peter grabs a rock and hits Joe on the head. Joe drops to the floor. Peter runs away with his mate. The next morning, Peter finds out that Joe died. Fortunately, the police uses CCTV to track down Peter and he is arrested and charged.
Joe is dead and leaves behind a wife and 4 young children. No father for the kids and no husband for the wife.
Now, should Peter, the drug taker and the murderer, be sentenced to death for murder or should he be sent to life in prison, where Joe’s wife and possibly children would indirectly pay for his welfare in prison, when he killed their father and husband?
Peter is a recreational drug user. It is his choice to take drugs. He is generally consistent when he consumes his class As. One unfortunate day, he takes a bit too much whilst out with his lads. On their way home, Joe slightly bumps into a high Peter. Peter gets upset and calls out Joe to watch where he is going. Peter has an altercation with Joe and this quickly evolves to a full on fight.
A high-on-drugs Peter grabs a rock and hits Joe on the head. Joe drops to the floor. Peter runs away with his mate. The next morning, Peter finds out that Joe died. Fortunately, the police uses CCTV to track down Peter and he is arrested and charged.
Joe is dead and leaves behind a wife and 4 young children. No father for the kids and no husband for the wife.
Now, should Peter, the drug taker and the murderer, be sentenced to death for murder or should he be sent to life in prison, where Joe’s wife and possibly children would indirectly pay for his welfare in prison, when he killed their father and husband?
The legal costs of death penalties are around 3x more expensive to the tax-payer than the legal costs for life imprisonment
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 3 minutes ago
Ordinarily Resident - living abroad for last 2 yearsLast reply 4 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
PA Consulting Degree Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 6 minutes ago
What do I need - I've a UK passport but live in EULast reply 8 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 10 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 13 minutes ago
student finance - mothers boyfriend taken into accountTrending
Last reply 10 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 10 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
