Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual"
    It's been standard throughout the entire world since the dawn of time, so I don't think I'd call it unusual.

    And modern means of execution are extremely humane, so I wouldn't call it cruel either.



    Now, what exactly is using equal punishment to show that what you did is bad? If someone kidnaps someone else and holds them prisoner in their home, would you say it's wrong to hold the kidnapper prisoner in jail to show that what he did is wrong?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fawn)
    Shipping them to Australia worked in the past.
    No, no no. Leave them here, then we all **** off to Australia and relax on a sandy beach with a blue sky and the sun a shining!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    It's been standard throughout the entire world since the dawn of time, so I don't think I'd call it unusual.

    And modern means of execution are extremely humane, so I wouldn't call it cruel either.



    Now, what exactly is using equal punishment to show that what you did is bad? If someone kidnaps someone else and holds them prisoner in their home, would you say it's wrong to hold the kidnapper prisoner in jail to show that what he did is wrong?
    its a bit unusual now, for the state to go no killing people is wrong, but when we do it, its ok, bit like when Nixon said its not illegal if the president does it, and when governments condemn people in other countries for killing their own people, yet still do it them self

    the lethal injection not that humane, there are so many cases of where its gone wrong, taken the person over a hour to die, the first drugs failed, so the person comes back round as they inject the muscle relaxant, lines fail, they place the lines in flesh not vains, lines are place facing the hand, and not towards the heart, a lot of it is down to they don't use trained staff, as doctor's won't do it, and plus it taken in some cases up to a hour just to fine a vein in the first place(using the lethal injection as its the main form now), the way Angel Nieves Diaz execution was carried out, it was so bad that executions in that state were suspended

    thats a bit of a different case, you brake the law your going to jail, kidnapping is very bad, and you would hope that person was sent to jail for that crime, that could start going down the root off eye for a eye
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    It's been standard throughout the entire world since the dawn of time, so I don't think I'd call it unusual.

    And modern means of execution are extremely humane, so I wouldn't call it cruel either.



    Now, what exactly is using equal punishment to show that what you did is bad? If someone kidnaps someone else and holds them prisoner in their home, would you say it's wrong to hold the kidnapper prisoner in jail to show that what he did is wrong?
    Eye for an Eye?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    its a bit unusual now, for the state to go no killing people is wrong, but when we do it, its ok, bit like when Nixon said its not illegal if the president does it, and when governments condemn people in other countries for killing their own people, yet still do it them self
    It's not unusual, because half the world still does it. In America we still do it, so it's certainly not unusual here.

    And the Nixon example is not relevant at all. The state does it to enforce the law - not as a "we do it because we can" kind of thing.

    the lethal injection not that humane, there are so many cases of where its gone wrong, taken the person over a hour to die, the first drugs failed, so the person comes back round as they inject the muscle relaxant, lines fail, they place the lines in flesh not vains, lines are place facing the hand, and not towards the heart, a lot of it is down to they don't use trained staff, as doctor's won't do it, and plus it taken in some cases up to a hour just to fine a vein in the first place(using the lethal injection as its the main form now), the way Angel Nieves Diaz execution was carried out, it was so bad that executions in that state were suspended
    The fact that accidents happen doesn't make it inhumane.

    thats a bit of a different case, you brake the law your going to jail, kidnapping is very bad, and you would hope that person was sent to jail for that crime, that could start going down the root off eye for a eye
    How is it different? You're essentially being kidnapped by the state because you kidnapped someone else. Capital punishment is the exact same thing, only for a more severe case of law breaking.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Why execute them when you can imprison them in the phantom zone, as I always say.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NinjaBread)
    No, no no. Leave them here, then we all **** off to Australia and relax on a sandy beach with a blue sky and the sun a shining!
    I like this plan. We can ship the spiders and snakes back :p:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    It's not unusual, because half the world still does it. In America we still do it, so it's certainly not unusual here.

    And the Nixon example is not relevant at all. The state does it to enforce the law - not as a "we do it because we can" kind of thing.


    The fact that accidents happen doesn't make it inhumane.


    How is it different? You're essentially being kidnapped by the state because you kidnapped someone else. Capital punishment is the exact same thing, only for a more severe case of law breaking.
    in the USA same say its goes against the 8th amendment, of cruel and unusual punishments, its a bit excessive it put someone to death, i know the argument for the death penalty and well agree with some of them, but it won't work in the UK, plus its against the EU human rights arts, which mean we would have to leave to get it in place

    it is a bit inhumane, enough the person has to die at the hands of the state, but messing to up, plus a lot of the people on death row are from poor backgrounds, who couldn't even afford a lawyer, so had a state appointed one, which cases where the lawyer been asleep in court

    yeah but people are not going to say that's wrong for the state to do ,its against the law to do it, so you should pay for it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    lol, of course someone would pull the the "your opinion" card...
    It was a valid point.

    (Original post by Delta Usada)
    Tell me, why should a murderer have a right to continue their life?
    I didn't say that a murderer should have a 'right' to continue his or her life. However, I do oppose the imposition of the death penalty for many reasons, such as: 1) it's impossible to rule out the possibility of a miscarriage of justice; 2) the death penalty sometimes makes martyrs of people who commit politically or religiously motivated crimes; 3) the death penalty is more costly for the taxpayers; 4) I think life imprisonment is a harsher sentence for a murderer than a quick and relatively painless death; 5) I'm not comfortable with the government - ridiculously powerful as it is - possessing the right to kill people who no longer pose a threat to society; etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm 50/50 about this. We're putting people in prison, and we are paying for them to be there. In prison inmates get things such as TV, snooker tables, their own money etc. They should be being punished, not rewarded. Also, life sentences do not mean imprisonment for life. Isn't it like, 25 years or something? When someone is charged for life, it should mean life. Death penalty is harsh, but maybe it would work. A downside to this however, would be that there would be nothing we could do if an innocent person was punished by being put on death row. There is always going to be people for and against this, whatever happens.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I say we take George Carlin's advice and commercialise it. Put it a pay-per-view channel and do it in amusing ways.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hmmm interesting thread but by killing someone theyre not really suffering for the crime they committed, some might even call it the easy way out. i think murderers and extreme pedos should be locked up for 23 hours a day in a room with no entertainment (Tv, music, games), **** food and no one people contact for the rest of their life.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Flogging? Torture? Hanging looks so painless compared to the lethal injection in Yankee land.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JectioN)
    1) it's impossible to rule out the possibility of a miscarriage of justice;
    That's why execution should only used in extreme cases. Cases like that, such as serial killers, you pretty much know without a doubt that they did it.

    That's not necessarily how it is utilized today, but it could be done if brought back in the UK.

    2) the death penalty sometimes makes martyrs of people who commit politically or religiously motivated crimes;
    Couldn't care about martyrs.

    We made a lot of martyrs out of Al Queda members right after 9/11, but I hardly see that as a bad thing.

    3) the death penalty is more costly for the taxpayers;
    That's simply because of how it's implemented. There are more efficient ways they could do it.

    4) I think life imprisonment is a harsher sentence for a murderer than a quick and relatively painless death;
    Maybe we should make the electric chair more common? Or bring back the rack.

    5) I'm not comfortable with the government - ridiculously powerful as it is - possessing the right to kill people who no longer pose a threat to society; etc.
    They pose a threat to other prison inmates, and society if they escape from prison.
    Offline

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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In the UK punishments are too soft and justice is not administered. If someone killed a member of my family, justice is the murderers death. In todays world i would kill them myself. The courts are a joke.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJudge)
    In the UK punishments are too soft and justice is not administered. If someone killed a member of my family, justice is the murderers death. In todays world i would kill them myself. The courts are a joke.
    If someone killed a member of my family, justice is them working until they have rectified the damage to society. Killing people doesn't help at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    Death Penalty in extreme cases should be considered. The prisons in the UK are like Halls of Residence.

    You were locked in your halls of residence? With restricted communication with people you love? You should report that to the police mate.

    Oh wait, you were just being short sighted and didn't really think your answer through. Silly me.

    I cannot be bothered to go into why I do not support the death penalty in great detail, however I think its a completely stupid idea to bring it back. Stop living in the past!
    Offline

    10
    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
    Agreed. The successive Labour and Tory governments broke their promise to the British people when they got rid of the death penalty. They said at the time that a NATURAL life sentence would be the ultimate punishment for horrific crimes. I myself think if they had kept to that ,not for all murderers but for some of them who I think were especially hideos then that would be okay.

    But over the years a life sentence means less and less.It is now taken to mean a certain amount of time in prison and then you spend the rest of your time on licence in the community. That may be suitable for some criminals but some I believe the public would like to see rot. Not just in my eyes because of the revenge factor but because they feel safer with them behind bars. I totally agree with that sentitment.

    Now because we cannot trust politicians or liberals to protect the public interest I believe the death penalty should return as it is a guarantee that someone will never see the light of day again. And people should also realise a majority in this country are in favour of the death penalty so it's all very well ****ging off us hangers but you are in a minority everywhere but the union bar.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyche05)
    If someone killed a member of my family, justice is them working until they have rectified the damage to society. Killing people doesn't help at all.
    Yes it does.What do we do with a rabid or dangerous dog? we kill it .Why? for fun? No because the public need to be protected and feel safe. People who committ the worst crimes are in fact worse than rabid animals because they are in fact human beings and we expect a higher standard. The only ultimate option to remove a threat and for true justice for society is to make a few people (not all murders when we had hanging it was only the worst who swung) to swing from a rope.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.