This discussion is closed.
digger10
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
what are peoples thoughts on the death penalty?

should it be bought back in the uk, do u feel evil killers should have a humane death or should if bought back they be killed in the same way as their victims a slow painful death?

any replies/ thought from others would be helpul
thanks
0
CookieArun
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
Only for murderers because it is simple - You kill, You get killed.
0
furry747
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#3
Report 12 years ago
#3
I think the OP needs the death sentence for not using the search function! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! :p:

But yh, I think it should be brought back
0
thunder_chunky
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 12 years ago
#4
No.
It's flawed.
People can be convicted and imprisoned only to be found out that they are innocent either straight away or 20 or so years later, and sometimes the suspect only admitted guilt because they were under police scrutiny or they had mental difficulties.

So now.
Plus death is too good for them. Imprison them for life, and make it for life like in the US, without the possibility of parole.
0
lodzinski
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 12 years ago
#5
sounds like a great way to liven up football games. I assume it would feature a comical sphere-o-boom.
0
digger10
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#6
(Original post by furry747)
I think the OP needs the death sentence for not using the search function! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! :p:

But yh, I think it should be brought back
how did i no someone was goin to say this??
search button was used; information wanted was not found; new thread started

(death penalty info did come up but too much, just wanted simple answers)
0
IGX_RSV2
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 12 years ago
#7
The death penalty should be brought back in, it'll save soo much money.
0
fox_the_fix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 12 years ago
#8
Nope.
If the legitimacy of every murder verdict was 100% accurate then yes, but we all know it is not and therefore i could never support something that may harm innocent people.
0
helliethepinapple21
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#9
Report 12 years ago
#9
No I strongly oppose the death penalty as Miscarriages of justice will always happen and if they have been executed then they cannot be released or compensated like those sentenced to life could be.

Statistics show that countries with the death penalty have a higher murder rate than those without it.

Many murderers do not expect to be caught so don’t think about the punishment.

Murderers who know they will be killed if caught are more likely to kill to escape capture.

Terrorists who are executed become Martyrs and encourage others to be terrorists.

Human life is the most important thing there is and no one has the right to take it; executing murderers demonstrates society doesn’t regard human life as sacred.
0
digger10
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#10

Human life is the most important thing there is and no one has the right to take it; executing murderers demonstrates society doesn’t regard human life as sacred.
i love this last point, thanks
0
danadd9
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report 12 years ago
#11
Thread was done last week I believe.
No, if you believe murder to be a solution then you're no better than the offenders.

And again with the 'it'd save so much money' argument, if you put a cost on a life then you're no better then the offender. It's like a parent resorting to petty tactics when getting their child to calm down, it's not logical.
0
drhorrible27
Badges: 0
#12
Report 12 years ago
#12
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi
0
LuhLah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 12 years ago
#13
No, let them suffer for the rest of their lives in a cell. Capital Punishment is the easy way out. Two wrongs don't make a right.
0
necessarily benevolent
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 12 years ago
#14
(Original post by danadd9)
No, if you believe murder to be a solution then you're no better than the offenders.
This is utter nonsense imo. I believe that when someone murders they forfeit their right to life, and are no better than the swine and cattle we slaughter regularly. 'Murder' can only occur when you're killing a legitimate human being which I don't consider murderers to be. Look at it this way. When someone murders they bring themselves down a moral peg, and in order to weigh up a balance the negative needs to be eradicated. Only a reciprocated punishment can be satisfactory remedy.

I'm quite sick and tired tbh of hearing about the "rights" of the criminals. Why don't we ask Holly and Jessica, Keith Bennett and Sarah Payne about their rights? Oh wait, we can't, they're dead. Brutally murdered by monstrous paedophiles who deserve the rope for their actions. Would you honestly say that Ian Huntley has more right to life than those poor kids?
0
letsdothetimewarpagain
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 12 years ago
#15
In theory it is a good idea but when it comes down to it what would happen if someone innocent was killed for a murder they did not comit. Also I think it's much harder to have to live with the fact you killed someone everyday for the rest of your life.
0
JectioN
Badges: 0
#16
Report 12 years ago
#16
(Original post by necessarily benevolent)
I believe that when someone murders they forfeit their right to life, and are no better than the swine and cattle we slaughter regularly.
That's your opinion. Who says we have a 'right to life'? Who says that people lose this 'right' if and when they take away someone else's life?

(Original post by necessarily benevolent)
'Murder' can only occur when you're killing a legitimate human being which I don't consider murderers to be.
Once again, that's your opinion.

(Original post by necessary benevolent)
When someone murders they bring themselves down a moral peg, and in order to weigh up a balance the negative needs to be eradicated. Only a reciprocated punishment can be satisfactory remedy.
1 - Many would argue that life imprisonment is a reciprocated punishment.

2 - If we are to follow your logic re: reciprocated punishments, we would also have to rape people convicted of rape as a form of punishment.
0
scanningforlifeforms
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 12 years ago
#17
no, it definitely should not be. A state cannot claim moral authority to execute (no pun intended) justice if it will only commit an act that, if done by an individual, would in turn warrant sanction.

The death penalty is irreversible, and there are hundreds of legal precedents of people being convicted of a murder and later acquitted. Despite advances in technology these are still very real.

The death penalty is not a deterrent to felonies. The state in the US with the highest murder rate is texas-also the state with the highest number of executions.

The death penalty also targets the economically and socially disadvantaged. A rich man who kills his wife will be able to afford an expensive, well trained lawyer to get him off. A poor man will probably have to rely on a state attorney with far less ability, and so is much more likely to get convicted.

Finally, the concept of Universal human rights are just that, universal. no matter how beyond the pale someone's actions are, however much we may abhor them, they are still human beings and are treated as such. It is this that separates us from them. They've crossed the line, and we should not choose to join them.
0
necessarily benevolent
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report 12 years ago
#18
(Original post by JectioN)
That's your opinion. Who says we have a 'right to life'? Who says that people lose this 'right' if and when they take away someone else's life?



Once again, that's your opinion.
I didn't state anything otherwise. That's quite a poor effort to be frank. "Your point is undermined because it's just your opinion". Everything is opinion. I don't claim to be some fountain of knowledge and I have no intention to promote a warped view of reality. It's simply my moral compass which perceives such people in a diminished light.

(Original post by JectioN)
1 - Many would argue that life imprisonment is a reciprocated punishment.

2 - If we are to follow your logic re: reciprocated punishments, we would also have to rape people convicted of rape as a form of punishment.
I don't agree with this. I think that for most things reciprocated punishment can be given by means of a prison sentence. But murder and terrorism are different. The only way by which to eradicate the intense degree of the negative is to meet them with the same intensity. This can only be done by means of death. The argument that life imprisonment is just is simply a copout. For things like theft, assault and drugs, reciprocated punishment can be enforced when the criminal is still alive. For murder this is not the case.
0
JectioN
Badges: 0
#19
Report 12 years ago
#19
(Original post by necessarily benevolent)
I didn't state anything otherwise. That's quite a poor effort to be frank. "Your point is undermined because it's just your opinion". Everything is opinion. I don't claim to be some fountain of knowledge and I have no intention to promote a warped view of reality. It's simply my moral compass which perceives such people in a diminished light.
Your moral compass perceives such people in a diminished light, mine does not. You use notions such as 'justice', 'the right to life' and so on without explaining those terms and justifying their use in that context. This is why I'm criticising your comments as mere opinions.

(Original post by necessarily benevolent)
I don't agree with this. I think that for most things reciprocated punishment can be given by means of a prison sentence. But murder and terrorism are different. The only way by which to eradicate the intense degree of the negative is to meet them with the same intensity. This can only be done by means of death. The argument that life imprisonment is just is simply a copout. For things like theft, assault and drugs, reciprocated punishment can be enforced when the criminal is still alive. For murder this is not the case.
Once again, this is a load of crap. I could argue that the act of rape creates an 'intense degree of negative' which can only be eradicated by the death penalty and therefore merits the use of the death penalty. Similarly, I could argue that the use of the death penalty increases the 'degree of negative' in society [you know, the Gandhi argument], so it ought not to be deployed.
0
Neo Con
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 12 years ago
#20
(Original post by scanningforlifeforms)
The death penalty is not a deterrent to felonies. The state in the US with the highest murder rate is texas-also the state with the highest number of executions.
Yeah but in the 1970's when executions were halted and life in prison was given, it ALSO did nothing to reduce murder rate.

Now it's perfect. Average time on death row is 15 years, then execution. Bit of a double whammy for those who take innocent life. :yes:
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How would you feel if uni students needed to be double vaccinated to start in Autumn?

I'd feel reassured about my own health (27)
17.31%
I'd feel reassured my learning may be less disrupted by isolations/lockdowns (49)
31.41%
I'd feel less anxious about being around large groups (15)
9.62%
I don't mind if others are vaccinated or not (16)
10.26%
I'm concerned it may disadvantage some students (7)
4.49%
I think it's an unfair expectation (39)
25%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (3)
1.92%

Watched Threads

View All