Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leala4628)
    The death oenalty is contradictory-kill someone for killing someone? How is that humane? I couldn't do it.
    Now, is it contradictory to imprison someone for kidnapping?

    Just sayin. Imprisonment as punishment for imprisonment...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Bring back vigilante justice too.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No, the death penalty should not be brought back.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    It's not murder if it's lawful!
    What gives the state the right to take someone's life?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The irony: we should kill people to show that killing is wrong. Should we rape rapists, then, by your logic?

    No, let's not. The whole point of "punishment" is to rehabilitate (or at least should be), not for pointless revenge.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There's 2 threads about this now oh god what
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leala4628)
    The death oenalty is contradictory-kill someone for killing someone? How is that humane? I couldn't do it.
    Why don't we ask Holly and Jessica, Keith Bennett and Sarah Payne about their human rights...oh no, we can't, they're dead. Brutally murdered by beastly paedophiles who conceded their right to life when they committed their act. What is this revolting obsession with the so-called "rights" of the perpetrator? In my view, when someone commits an act of murder, they forfeit their human rights and are no more worthy of life than the cattle and swine slaughtered on a regular basis. When they kill they bring themselves down a moral peg, and the negative can only be remedied by reciprocated punishment. Otherwise, the moral balance can never be maintained. If there was a referendum in the UK on the issue, I am 95% certain that it would be brought back in. Why? Because the likes of Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting reduced themselves to the level of beasts. Executing murderers is not inhumane. It's justice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We kill a lot of things that haven't done us any harm without giving it much thought, so I don't see why killing someone that deserves it is inhumane.

    I think if they introduced law that said you lose body parts or your life for serious crimes people would be less inclined to commit crime. I mean, putting someone on a life sentence that they can get out of within 5 years isn't a deterrent, they can make up for time lost but they can't regrow body parts now can they.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    What gives the state the right to take someone's life?
    I think if you take someone else's life, you give up your own right to live yours.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Why don't we ask Holly and Jessica, Keith Bennett and Sarah Payne about their human rights...oh no, we can't, they're dead. Brutally murdered by beastly paedophiles who conceded their right to life when they committed their act. What is this revolting obsession with the so-called "rights" of the perpetrator?
    So what you're saying is: we should kill these so called "peadophiles" (God knows why you're concentrating of peadophiles, though) to get some sick sense of "revenge" for the families and the victims of peadophilia?
    In my view, when someone commits an act of murder, they forfeit their human rights and are no more worthy of life than the cattle and swine slaughtered on a regular basis. When they kill they bring themselves down a moral peg, and the negative can only be remedied by reciprocated punishment.
    How lovely. Somebody clearly doesn't believe in the power of change. Maybe if this ******* country implemented some sort of effective rehabilitation course in prison then we wouldn't have high re-conviction rates. The point of prison is supposed to be to rehabilitate, not punish, unless you're as immoral as the criminal.
    Otherwise, the moral balance can never be maintained. If there was a referendum in the UK on the issue, I am 95% certain that it would be brought back in. Why? Because the likes of Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting reduced themselves to the level of beasts. Executing murderers is not inhumane. It's justice.
    I disagree, I think most rational humans can see that capital punishment isn't an "appropriate" or "fitting" crime, it's merely an act of revenge. You have one warped sense of "justice".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    So what you're saying is: we should kill these so called "peadophiles" (God knows why you're concentrating of peadophiles, though) to get some sick sense of "revenge" for the families and the victims of peadophilia?
    Why not?

    How lovely. Somebody clearly doesn't believe in the power of change. Maybe if this ******* country implemented some sort of effective rehabilitation course in prison then we wouldn't have high re-conviction rates. The point of prison is supposed to be to rehabilitate, not punish, unless you're as immoral as the criminal.
    Why would you want to rehabilitate a murderer? I can see the sense in repealing someone's death sentence if they show that they've improved and their life is benefiting society in some way or another. But that doesn't mean the death sentence should be removed from the picture altogether. Not everyone changes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    I think if you take someone else's life, you give up your own right to live yours.
    That is not justice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    That is not justice.
    What's justice then? Letting them off easy?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    No, jail them for the rest of their lives instead
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    So what you're saying is: we should kill these so called "peadophiles" (God knows why you're concentrating of peadophiles, though) to get some sick sense of "revenge" for the families and the victims of peadophilia?
    This is nonsense because it's hideously selective. You wouldn't call giving someone a fitting jail sentence "revenge". Why is it any different when it comes to offering reciprocated punishment on a mortal level? That's just so bankrupt I'm afraid. Revenge is where the moral balance and degree of remedy is overstepped. Where, for example, a murder would be punished with the killing of the perpetrator's family or his/her entire street. And, erm, if you look up those people you clearly see that, in particular, they were paedophiles/child killers (although I'm not sure if Myra Hindley had any sexual impetus).

    (Original post by 35mm_)
    How lovely. Somebody clearly doesn't believe in the power of change. Maybe if this ******* country implemented some sort of effective rehabilitation course in prison then we wouldn't have high re-conviction rates. The point of prison is supposed to be to rehabilitate, not punish, unless you're as immoral as the criminal.
    I don't believe that any degree of "rehabilitation" could do anything. It's just a cop-out argument really. There's also no practical point behind it. Why take a risk and spend millions bothering to rehabilitate beasts when their presence in society is displaced by a new-born baby (or developing adult)? This is just liberal nonsense to be frank. You're just using a futile spout of emotive verbal diarrhoea that doesn't even make sense. How does punishing people for their sick actions per se make the upholders of the law just as "immoral" as those who committed sick crimes? They had a choice to put themselves in that situation. Their victims didn't.

    (Original post by 35mm_)
    I disagree, I think most rational humans can see that capital punishment isn't an "appropriate" or "fitting" crime, it's merely an act of revenge. You have one warped sense of "justice".
    As I said, it's justice; and most rational people would agree.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Why not?
    Because I don't believe in an "eye for an eye", I also happen to believe in the capacity for change. Also, everybody's idea of revenge is different, should we let the families of the victims choose what should be done in order to get revenge? What about if killing them wasn't enough? What about if they wanted them tortured, stoned, etc?
    Why would you want to rehabilitate a murderer?
    The whole point of prison is to act as a deterrent, to protect society from "dangerous" beings. Once these people are no longer "dangerous" I see no reason to keep them locked up, and I certainly see no reason to kill them.

    The pro-capital punishment arguments are the most absurd arguments I have ever heard. If you want to make us a mirror image of Islamic countries which illustrate how insane capital punishment is, fine: just look at the 13 year old girl who was last year raped by police in Somalia, (a muslim country with capital punishment) and then stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    What's justice then? Letting them off easy?
    Rehabilitation (when done properly) is not the easy option. When they truly recognise what they have done and the effects it has had they will be infinitely more effected than if someone had killed them.

    You don't stop murder by murdering more people!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    Rehabilitation (when done properly) is not the easy option. When they truly recognise what they have done and the effects it has had they will be infinitely more effected than if someone had killed them.

    You don't stop murder by murdering more people!
    And what about those people who never come to regret their crimes?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    And what about those people who never come to regret their crimes?
    Then they are obviously damaged and cannot function in society, so should be kept in a mental institution until they can empathise with the victims/are dead.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, for the worst offenders we either need the death penalty, or total life imprisonment, that means as soon as you step into the prison, you will end up dying there. Something that will remove them entirely from society and the gene pool.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.