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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    And what about those people who never come to regret their crimes?
    And...? What are you actually achieving by killing these people? The only answer I can formulate is "revenge", which is not what punishment should be about.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    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?
    Who cares if they change? I can understand if like an alcoholic changed, or if a thief changed, or if a con artist changed. It's different when you murder someone. You've taken someone's life. Once you've done it the first time, you're very capable of doing it again. It's not a risk worth taking.

    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.
    And how exactly are you able to decide whether a murderer is suddenly "safe" again?

    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.
    "He may have killed a bunch of people, but he can change!" seems pretty absurd to me as well.

    And that is also the most ridiculous comparison I've ever seen. It's a little different when you humanely execute someone who's murdered a person, than when you torture a child to death for being a victim.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    And...? What are you actually achieving by killing these people? The only answer I can formulate is "revenge", which is not what punishment should be about.
    You're also ensuring that they never wind up in a position where they can kill again.

    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    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.
    Going to a mental institution isn't that bad, and it isn't going to make you start empathizing either.

    Also, you can't just assume that everyone who kills people without regret is crazy.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Going to a mental institution isn't that bad, and it isn't going to make you start empathizing either.
    I'd say being in a prison/mental institution (I'm not talking regular hospital here) for the rest of one's life would be pretty bad, but hey that's just me.

    Also, you can't just assume that everyone who kills people without regret is crazy.
    So what are they then? Simply born evil?
    (Please answer no)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    I'd say being in a prison/mental institution (I'm not talking regular hospital here) for the rest of one's life would be pretty bad, but hey that's just me.
    I'd rather be there than in prison.

    So what are they then? Simply born evil?
    (Please answer no)
    Of course not, it's a trait they develop over time.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Who cares if they change?
    I do.
    I can understand if like an alcoholic changed, or if a thief changed, or if a con artist changed. It's different when you murder someone. You've taken someone's life. Once you've done it the first time, you're very capable of doing it again. It's not a risk worth taking.
    As I've already said, various times: the primary purpose of imprisonment is to act as a deterrent, not to act out "revenge". Do we automatically kill everybody who's murdered? What about the bloke who kills a guy who raped his 9 year old daughter? What about the woman who kills her husband after a paticularly violent argument? Shall we kill these two too?
    And how exactly are you able to decide whether a murderer is suddenly "safe" again?
    Psychiatry, risk assessments.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    You're also ensuring that they never wind up in a position where they can kill again.
    Imprisonment does this too, without the added murder.

    So too, I would argue, can effective rehabilitation.

    If you don't believe that people can change, then that's where we disagree, and fair enough.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    I do.
    Wonderful

    As I've already said, various times: the primary purpose of imprisonment is to act as a deterrent, not to act out "revenge". Do we automatically kill everybody who's murdered? What about the bloke who kills a guy who raped his 9 year old daughter? What about the woman who kills her husband after a paticularly violent argument? Shall we kill these two too?
    The death penalty, when properly implemented, isn't a blanket sentence given to everyone who commits murder. It always depends on the circumstances.

    Psychiatry, risk assessments.
    And are these things perfect? You don't think anyone would ever go out and murder again?

    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Imprisonment does this too, without the added murder.

    So too, I would argue, can effective rehabilitation.

    If you don't believe that people can change, then that's where we disagree, and fair enough.
    Imprisonment doesn't stop people from murdering. Not only is there the chance of escape, but they may also pose a danger to other inmates.

    I do believe people can change, and in those cases, that they shouldn't be executed. Do I think murderers should be released though? Absolutely not.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    As I've already said, various times: the primary purpose of imprisonment is to act as a deterrent, not to act out "revenge". Do we automatically kill everybody who's murdered? What about the bloke who kills a guy who raped his 9 year old daughter? What about the woman who kills her husband after a paticularly violent argument? Shall we kill these two too?
    It's pointless for you to ask such questions because the issue is actually with giving judges the option to hand out the death sentence. They, not the creators of the law, make the decisions on individual cases with all factors taken into consideration.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    I'd rather be there than in prison.
    Well what I was proposing was a mental institution *** prison, nothing like the current institutions we have now. Obviously they would not have a great life, but they would have an acceptable one - being damaged goods and all.

    Of course not, it's a trait they develop over time.
    How do you mean?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Brutally murdered by beastly paedophiles who conceded their right to life when they committed their act.
    Your opinion.

    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    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.
    Your opinion.

    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    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.
    Your opinion.

    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Because the likes of Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting reduced themselves to the level of beasts.
    Your opinion.

    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Executing murderers is not inhumane. It's justice.
    Your opinion.


    Let's put aside emotive, reacitonary opinions and discuss facts.
    FACT 1: The death penalty is expensive
    FACT 2: The criminal justice system is fallible and innocent people will be executed if we bring back the death penalty
    FACT 3: The state has ever more power over us and allowing them to kill people in custody who no longer pose a threat is furhter power conceded to them FACT 4: There's scant evidence that the death penalty works as a deterrant
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    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.
    Again, you don't consider mental problems in this? Or are they the fault of the murderer?

    Punishing people for their sick crimes is fine, it just depends how you punish. If you open the mind of the killer to the evil deed they have committed then that is infinitely more punishment than killing them.

    We should also 'take a risk' to rehabilitate humans because every human is worth something, whatever happens. Human life is a wonderful precious thing and should never be thrown away in angry revenge (just as it should never be taken away in a vile deed)

    Your hypocrisy is also quite laudable. You whine about liberal nonsense and go on to speak about how the other person is spouting diarrhoea, even though you insist upon repeating stale ad hominem (JUST LIKE EVERY DISCUSSION WITH YOU LOL), and use just as emotive language as your opponent.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Do I think murderers should be released though? Absolutely not.
    Yeah? Absurd. If after 20 or so years a former (let's not live in the past ) murderer has shown that he has changed, then what's the point in keeping him locked up? Please, show me the logic. It's a waste of money, and moreover, it's a waste of a life. It's ridiculous how you can believe that somebody should rot in prison for something they did in the past and have, in the present, been reformed from, and have a minimal risk of reoffending.

    If they do reoffend, once released, then by all means lock them up for life!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    How do you mean?
    Life experiences shape our personalities and the way we perceive the world and life in general. Take Richard Ramirez, the serial killer known as the Night Stalker. He His older cousin was a soldier in Vietnam, and photo documented his experiences there. During the war, his cousin raped and murdered several Vietnamese women and took pictures of it. Years later he showed Ramirez the pictures, then went and murdered his wife right in front of the kid.

    As a result, psychologists think that these experiences had an affect on Ramirez that later led him to sexually assault women and then murder them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    It's pointless for you to ask such questions because the issue is actually with giving judges the option to hand out the death sentence. They, not the creators of the law, make the decisions on individual cases with all factors taken into consideration.
    :blah: So we allow judges to put their emotive two cents into the case?

    Great. Capital punishment judges all murder to "wrong", regardless of circumstance. The death penalty isn’t a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states and nations with the death penalty than in those that do not have the death penalty. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think about the consequences or even that they will be caught (if they think at all.)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Yeah? Absurd. If after 20 or so years a former (let's not live in the past ) murderer has shown that he has changed, then what's the point in keeping him locked up? Please, show me the logic. It's a waste of money, and moreover, it's a waste of a life. It's ridiculous how you can believe that somebody should rot in prison for something they did in the past and have, in the present, been reformed from, and have a minimal risk of reoffending.

    If they do reoffend, once released, then by all means lock them up for life!
    "Showing" that he's changed doesn't mean he has changed. You can't release him just because it "seems" like he's an okay guy now. Show me that logic.

    And waste of life? That person already took at least one life, he doesn't deserve it himself.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Life experiences shape our personalities and the way we perceive the world and life in general. Take Richard Ramirez, the serial killer known as the Night Stalker. He His older cousin was a soldier in Vietnam, and photo documented his experiences there. During the war, his cousin raped and murdered several Vietnamese women and took pictures of it. Years later he showed Ramirez the pictures, then went and murdered his wife right in front of the kid.

    As a result, psychologists think that these experiences had an affect on Ramirez that later led him to sexually assault women and then murder them.
    But that's evidence for my position!

    It's not wholly the perpetrator's fault, they are who they are because of their environment and their life. Punishing them (I make it clear, punishing them for the sake of punishment as opposed to punishment for rehabilitation) is simply immoral as we're punishing them for things that are not their fault, such as a ****** upbringing, or childhood trauma.

    They should instead be helped.

    EDIT: Now, before other people come in and shout at me for the fact I am advocating helping the perp. as opposed to the victim (most probably because of some sort of evil liberal tendency), I am advocating help of both. It's simply wrong to help one damaged human and to ignore the other.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't a life being bored in a cell worse than the death penalty?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    But that's evidence for my position!

    It's not wholly the perpetrator's fault, they are who they are because of their environment and their life. Punishing them (I make it clear, punishing them for the sake of punishment as opposed to punishment for rehabilitation) is simply immoral as we're punishing them for things that are not their fault, such as a ****** upbringing, or childhood trauma.

    They should instead be helped.
    For people like this, it's far too late to help them. They've allowed themselves to succumb to evil, and they have no regrets. It's not wholly their fault, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished.


    Now. Bed time for me! I'll be back in the morninnn. I'm sure I'll be waking up to all kinds of brand new negative rep.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    "Showing" that he's changed doesn't mean he has changed. You can't release him just because it "seems" like he's an okay guy now. Show me that logic.
    Is that the only justification you have? If it can be proved that somebody has completely changed, reformed, and shown themselves to be able to benefit society again, would you still disagree with their release? If so, you're as inhumane as the crime they commited, and on some pointless quest to get revenge.

    Also, on the point of mental illness: shall we just kill everybody who has a mental illness? Surely they pose a threat to society?
    And waste of life? That person already took at least one life, he doesn't deserve it himself.
    Everybody deserves the right to life: just because you've taken one away it doesn't mean your right to life gets taken away.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.