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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    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.
    That's not my justification, that's my rebuttal to your justification.

    I don't care if they benefit society again. We have all kinds of other people to replace them. They had their chance.

    Also, on the point of mental illness: shall we just kill everybody who has a mental illness? Surely they pose a threat to society?
    It's really stupid that you would even compare that. People with mental illnesses don't choose to have mental illnesses. Murderers on the other hand know exactly what they're doing.

    Everybody deserves the right to life: just because you've taken one away it doesn't mean your right to life gets taken away.
    They had the right to life, but they blew it. I don't see how someone who deprived someone else of their life entirely should be granted happiness.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    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.
    I'm not going to say whether this is right or wrong. Simply because it's very fallacious. 'Deterrent' is when you need to understand two sides of the same coin and consider the number who would've potentially murdered; that information being totally irretrievable. It's alright to say "murder rates are higher" but that doesn't mean anything in light of the potential murders that were curtailed by the presence of the death penalty. How about other factors such as quality of life, general crime rates and poverty? Were these considered in the matter or would you like to put the 'murder rates' entirely down to this one entity? That's like me saying that Winston Churchill was the only PM who could've got us through WWII because of his charismatic authority. You can't know whether or not it's true due to having little or no knowledge of the counterfactual.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No the death penalty should not be reinstated. I think it would lower us to the level of the murders themselves. State sanctioned murder is still murder.

    I accept that in the current form prison is not punishment enough for some prisoners; however, that doesn't mean we should just kill them and have done with it. More effective imprisonment with worse conditions is an option as is more effective rehabilitation not only for murders but for those who commit lesser crimes.

    The issue of mental health is also important. Those in prison should have more access to mental health facilities as should the wider comunity. If mental health issues were dealt with more effectively before these people commit acts of violence then some of these crimes could be prevented. If society is failing the mentally ill it is then wrong for society to lock them up and potentially execute them.

    Let's get this clear here. If we bring back the death penalty innocent and/or mentally ill people will get killed. Whether that is a large number or not it is still wrong. I don't think the death penalty is an effective dettereant. To me a life spent in solitary confinement would be a far worse punishment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There should be more focus on crime prevention rather than leaving it until they've killed someone.

    Kids today just get off with a caution for petty crimes thinking that they will get away with it, the string of offences continue as the magnitude of the crime escalates. There needs some be some form of early intervention.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RK)
    So, we find some murderers and we, er, murder them because of what they did.

    How does that make us any better than them?


    No thanks. I'm happy to live in a country without the death penalty as an option.
    sometimes it takes a sword to defeat a sword,

    now without trying to be too influenced by the Sun and its "broken britain" i do believe that law in this country is getting worse that too many stories of soft sentences (or no sentences) and easy jail time is meaning that more nad more people are not being afraid of getting caught.

    There are genuinely evil people in this world rapists murderers etc and that executing them removes that problem. But in saying that there needs to be concrete proof they did it before the death penalty is played.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Screw the death penalty, BRING BACK THE TORTURE CHAIR!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Its not really an eye for an eye, after all people facing the death penalty have probably murdered many different people or are serial rapists/pedophiles, you wouldn't be put to death just for doing these things once.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Byllie)
    to be judged by jury on an individual basis, such as the huntley murders.



    The time for liberalism is OVER
    Byllie - while I respect your opinion, can you give us some sources, or at least a better argument to why the time for Liberalism is over?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    They had the right to life, but they blew it.
    That's your opinion.

    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    I don't see how someone who deprived someone else of their life entirely should be granted happiness.
    Yes, because life imprisonment equals happiness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JectioN)
    That's your opinion.



    Yes, because life imprisonment equals happiness.
    We all know that life means nothing in the current justice system. It hasn't done for a long time. If you murder someone you'll most likely be out in 18 years and that means you could be out at 28 if you commited the crime at 10. That is hardly life is it? This is far fetched but has happened in the past.

    I think that they shouldn't be killed because it would be the easiest way to make them suffer but also the shortest. I think there should be a death penalty for those who commit truely vulgar crimes such as 4+ killings because they are never getting out and are just sick.

    Also rapists should be castrated to stop them doing it ever again, it may seem harsh but these people ruin lives and should be punished more suitably.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomasmc135)
    I think there should be a death penalty for those who commit truely vulgar crimes such as 4+ killings because they are never getting out and are just sick.
    This 'short' term imprisonment versus the death penalty is a false dichotomy.

    (Original post by Thomasmc135)
    Also rapists should be castrated to stop them doing it ever again, it may seem harsh but these people ruin lives and should be punished more suitably.
    Castration is a suitable punishment in your opinion. I think a sensible time in prison is more just.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JectioN)
    This 'short' term imprisonment versus the death penalty is a false dichotomy.



    Castration is a suitable punishment in your opinion. I think a sensible time in prison is more just.
    Not really because they are for two different crimes, if someone commits 1 murder then stick them in for life (dependable on circumstance) but if they commit 4+ murders then kill them, why should people pay tax for them to have a cell?

    You think it's fine for people who have raped to serve say 5-7 years in most cases and then be released. It beggars belief that you would say this. So often people re-offend and with something like rape you can't take chances so if someone has shown themselves to be capable once then they should lose 'them' simple as.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomasmc135)
    Not really because they are for two different crimes, if someone commits 1 murder then stick them in for life (dependable on circumstance) but if they commit 4+ murders then kill them, why should people pay tax for them to have a cell?
    Capital offence trials cost more so the taxpayer argument doesn't work.

    (Original post by Thomasmc135)
    You think it's fine for people who have raped to serve say 5-7 years in most cases and then be released.
    I didn't say 5-7 years. Perhaps 10 years is more appropriate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Byllie)
    to be judged by jury on an individual basis, such as the huntley murders.



    The time for liberalism is OVER
    I agree entirely that the death penalty should be reinstated, but when you say "the time for liberalism is over", I can't really agree. We have made alot of progress in terms of the liberties of law-abiding citizens. Those advances should remain, time immemorial. The problem with the current system is the lax punishment of criminals and weak community standards.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JectioN)
    Capital offence trials cost more so the taxpayer argument doesn't work.

    You're saying that the cost of a trial costs more than say 45 years in jail in which they will recieve 3 meals a day, use running water and have clothes bought for them?


    I didn't say 5-7 years. Perhaps 10 years is more appropriate.
    It would be more appropriate but it doesn't happen that often. This is why people are suggesting the death penalty because the current system is too weak.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JectioN)
    That's your opinion.
    lol, of course someone would pull the the "your opinion" card...

    Tell me, why should a murderer have a right to continue their life?


    Yes, because life imprisonment equals happiness.
    I was talking to someone who was trying to convince me that we should release murderers after they've been "rehabilitated." That equals happiness.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree, but Life Imprisonment should be used for more crimes and longer, harsher sentences that should be stuck to. A good behaving pyschopath is still a psychopath. And would it hurt to make prisons more into work houses? Then they could practically fund themselves, given enough effort.
    Offline

    18
    If the evidence is concrete and you know the person committed that crime - yes hang dem clart! However if evidence is sketchy, then I dont know - haven't thought that far yet!

    After visiting a prison last week and seeing prison for my self - IMO its not tough enough!!! Holiday camp is what it might as well be called!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Byllie)
    to be judged by jury on an individual basis, such as the huntley murders.



    The time for liberalism is OVER
    Naaa
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life.
    It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual"
    The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog up court system.
    We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.
    It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong.
    Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent.
    Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death.
    The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process.
    The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death.
    Mentally ill patients may be put to death.
    It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes.
    It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.


    i've posted that before, stand by the death pen is bad, a lot of this is aimed at the USA as they have it, but you can bring it across

    lets take Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent
    For those of you who don't feel much sympathy for a murderer, keep in mind that death may be too good for them. With a death sentence, the suffering is over in an instant. With life in prison, the pain goes on for decades. Prisoners are confined to a cage and live in an internal environment of rape and violence where they're treated as animals. And consider terrorists. Do you think they'd rather suffer the humiliation of lifelong prison or be "martyred" by a death sentence?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    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

    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.