The death penalty to be brought back?

Personally, I don't think death penalties should be brought back. I mean, they would only be used for certain crimes (such as murder), but if we murder murderer, does that make us any better then they are? How can any human being, despite the reason(s), excuse any case of murder? Two wrongs don't make a right after all.

But I do agree that life sentences should be for the rest of their lifes.

Also, personally, I don't feel comfortable with my dad's (and one day soon, my own) hard earned cash, being put towards these evil people living better lifes then we do. Theres a joke I heard somewhere, it goes something like this: "I was terrified during my first night in prision. There was a horror movie on my 32 inch plasma screen TV." Says it all there, I think the money we do give them should be used for different reasons, such as charity, or improving the lifes of people who desirve it.

That's a very good point you've raised there. Why not improve the quality of life of those who are in need of it? Such as homeless people, as they would slave over a hot stone to get these things.

Also thinking back to the oldern days when there used to be slaves who worked their butts off 24/7 just to get abit of cash in their pocket.

Very good point indeed, Will. Infact, best post I've read in this topic. Others have some good opinions too, but it's nice that I can relate to somebodies post right here, as I've said about the two rights don't make a wrong.

So yeah, keep discussing This is getting remotely interesting!

Well, i think they should have a death penalty because if they are sentenced to life in prison without any chance of parol, what point is there for them to live? They are just using up food and water, and time. They would be better off and there would be more room in the prison's. If it were me and i were sentenced to life in prison without parol, i would more likely try to escape then if i had a chance of parol. So yes i personally think they should have a death sentence, so that other prisoners would have food, water, and more food, and so that the citizens are safe. Just my personal thoughts on the matter.

Im for the death penalty, but only for extreme cases. I can see someone who murders a person being sentenced to 10-12 years with a chance of parol, but like Keyblade said they just use up space. Also, who gave them the right to take a life?

IMO, anyone that takes away someones life has violated the ultimate rule, they have no right to tell someone that they are not allowed to live. And if someone does that to 2 or more people, they dont have a right to live at all. If they know that they are just going to be put in prison, many people are going to commit murder so they can get a better life, but if they know that they are going to have a chance of being given the death penalty, they might think twice.

Jakethesnake14 said:

Im for the death penalty, but only for extreme cases. I can see someone who murders a person being sentenced to 10-12 years with a chance of parol, but like Keyblade said they just use up space. Also, who gave them the right to take a life?

IMO, anyone that takes away someones life has violated the ultimate rule, they have no right to tell someone that they are not allowed to live. And if someone does that to 2 or more people, they dont have a right to live at all. If they know that they are just going to be put in prison, many people are going to commit murder so they can get a better life, but if they know that they are going to have a chance of being given the death penalty, they might think twice.

Or perhaps having the death penalty they do it twice as much? Hardly the case but the evidence suggests that on average places that implement the dealth penalty have a higher murder rate then those that don't have the death penalty.

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/...terrence
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo...er-rates

The first article is probably better and does mention the point I would have brought up anyway, that when people murder someone they don't expect to be caught, if you plan one you going to be pretty confident that your not going to be found out before you carry it out, it doesn't matter what the punishment is since you are confident it won't affect you. The article does bring up some other interesting points as well.

Also you must believe that someone has the right to tell other people they are not allowed to live if you believe that someone can be sentenced to death in the first place.

super craig said:

Jakethesnake14 said:

Im for the death penalty, but only for extreme cases. I can see someone who murders a person being sentenced to 10-12 years with a chance of parol, but like Keyblade said they just use up space. Also, who gave them the right to take a life?

IMO, anyone that takes away someones life has violated the ultimate rule, they have no right to tell someone that they are not allowed to live. And if someone does that to 2 or more people, they dont have a right to live at all. If they know that they are just going to be put in prison, many people are going to commit murder so they can get a better life, but if they know that they are going to have a chance of being given the death penalty, they might think twice.

Or perhaps having the death penalty they do it twice as much? Hardly the case but the evidence suggests that on average places that implement the dealth penalty have a higher murder rate then those that don't have the death penalty.

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/...terrence
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo...er-rates

The first article is probably better and does mention the point I would have brought up anyway, that when people murder someone they don't expect to be caught, if you plan one you going to be pretty confident that your not going to be found out before you carry it out, it doesn't matter what the punishment is since you are confident it won't affect you. The article does bring up some other interesting points as well.

Also you must believe that someone has the right to tell other people they are not allowed to live if you believe that someone can be sentenced to death in the first place.

Well what i was trying to say came off wrong ha. People who murder other people obviously dont have the right to live, nor should they. Im saying a random person has no right to take any other persons life. (Except for the death penalty victims)

And ive never heard of that before. I always thought people who randomly murdered other people did it because their life sucked and they wanted a new one.

^Possibly, but only if they believe in reincarnation.

Here's a story I thought I'd share with you all, hoping too see some interesting debates here, as usual:

There was this guy called Stan 'Tookie' Williams who was put on the death penalty quite awhile back due to having murdered 3 innocent people, one of them being a child, Tookie was involved in a gang, this gang was one of the biggest gangs in America. He served time in prison before he was put on death row & decided to make some positive changes whilst he was in prison, writing poems/stories etc for young children, which were in all the local libaries etc, infact some young children looked up to him. Now, the question is, do you think he should have still been murdered, or set free?

I personally think that he should have stayed in prison (but not murdered, as I'm against the death penalty of course) for the rest of his life, I think that he must have been bored in those cells, with nothing to do & thought to himself "I wonder if I'll get away with this by writing stories to children?"

Another point I'd like to make is that he shouldn't have been able to write books to young children, or have any contact with them whatsoever. He has to live with punishment for the rest of his life, plus if he is set free & decides to return to the gang (he was one of the leaders btw) then everybody will have to watch their backs, whereas if he's in prison then everybody is safe & protected.

Anyway, discuss.

Have any of you ever heard of the Derek Bentley Case? Its properly not the best example of a mistake when it comes to a death penalty, but I heard about it in PSE not long ago, so I know quite abit about it.

But it shows how the death penalty itself can take away an innocent life. For there have been many cases while the penalty was active when innocent people were killed because of a mistake by the court. Or a simple case of wrong place, wrong time.

And anyway, if we take the life of someone who did commit murder, some would say they got what they deserved. But did they? True, murder is inexcusable, but there are factors when most people commit murder. I mean some factors could be family life, mental proplems or sometimes they could even be forced into that situation, and thus, do something they both regret and would never normally do. There aren't as many physcos who kill for no reason whatsoever as people think. In allot of cases concerning the aforementioned proplems, they have either never been looked into or just ignored.

At the end of the day, if someone is sentenced to death because they commited murder, we might aswell of commited murder aswell.

As for the whole "taking up space in prisions" scenario, surely there are some random islands somewhere in these big ol' oceans of ours that we can slap a couple of prisions on. Sure it'll be hard, but murder is inexcusable in any case. Wether it be a penalty or not.

« Last edited by Will d (mr ramdom) on Mar 23rd 2011 »

Nobody can be forced into a murder. Its completely upon the murderer to act out of control and do it himself. As for the physcos, they should be locked up, if they are and manage to escape again, whos to say there not to do it again?

Thats the whole reason, if they are to escape, or let out, who is to say that they are not going to do it again? In most cases they probably end up right back in prison again. Yes we are basically murdering people, there is no hiding it. Its for the better, these people shouldnt be alive to do more acts of injustice, and not just a small pickpocketing, murdering innocent people.

Take KYR's example. He murdered two innocent people and a child, he doesnt deserve to do that to other people. The police should have tracked down his gang and started putting them in prison. Yes there are cases where the wrong guy is put to death, but that cant be helped. (Well, if our legal system wasnt so screwed up maybe we could be able to lessen the number)

As for the islands idea, why do that either? It would be so much easier to just put them down on the spot, instead of wasting fuel to take them to a remote island. And what if they hijack the ship? A whole ship of mass murderers loose at sea? Thats a scary thought.

Dont get me wrong, im not trying to be mean, im just pointing out why it would be easier and simpler.

(Havent they put prisoners on a remote island before?)

I think you are all missing the true point here. Even though they may have taken the lives of one or more people, THEY ARE STILL HUMAN F-ING BEINGS! I don't know how I can put it any simpler. If you think it is ever okay to take the life of another human being, then I feel sorry for you. I truly do. Because they also thought it was okay to take a life.

YoSoyJu said:

I think you are all missing the true point here. Even though they may have taken the lives of one or more people, THEY ARE STILL HUMAN F-ING BEINGS! I don't know how I can put it any simpler. If you think it is ever okay to take the life of another human being, then I feel sorry for you. I truly do. Because they also thought it was okay to take a life.

And its no better when they take the life of one! The only way to serve any kind of punishment, is to be put to death.

Jakethesnake14 said:

And its no better when they take the life of one!

I don't think I understand your point here. My point was that killing them makes us no better. That seems to be your point as well, yet you think it's an argument for your side. You want to be thought of as a murderer?

Jakethesnake14 said:

The only way to serve any kind of punishment, is to be put to death.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind - Mahatma Gandhi.

Again, your whole argument is, "They killed, so we must also kill." Am I reading that right?

No, what im saying is that, a human being has no right to take away another human beings life. Even the people that they kill are still humans.

YoSoyJu said:

Again, your whole argument is, "They killed, so we must also kill." Am I reading that right?

Well what should we do? Were not killing because they did, its not a childs fight. We are sentencing them to death because they broke the ultimate rule. Yes we are breaking it aswell, but its for a cause. What would you like to do, set them free?

Jakethesnake14 said:

Well what should we do? Were not killing because they did, its not a childs fight. We are sentencing them to death because they broke the ultimate rule. Yes we are breaking it aswell, but its for a cause. What would you like to do, set them free?

I wonder how many times in history the old 'we are killing for a cause' arguement has been used. Ironically its probably the same excuse many of the killers would make.

I'm really struggling to understand your point that we're not killing them because they killed someone but that they broke the ultimate rule, which was to kill someone. Unless I'm being particularly thick isn't that exactly the same thing?

By killing them you are just sinking to their level, showing that the way to deal with violence is with violence, and what does killing them actually achieve that imprisionment doesn't? It won't bring the victims back, their families will still have to live with that, the death of the killer won't magically return the family to normal.

As for saving money, people are frequently on death row for years, 20-odd years in some case with multiple appeals etc, hardly a massive saving. Thinking on a bit and slightly related, what should we have done with POW's etc, obviously keeping them was a drain on the taxpayer so we should just have killed them?

What would you like to do, set them free?

Umm, imprison them?

(Havent they put prisoners on a remote island before?)

Yep we British did and we called it Australia. (Nice friendly Aussie joke there )

« Last edited by super craig on Mar 24th 2011 »

YoSoyJu said:

THEY ARE STILL HUMAN F-ING BEINGS!

I couldn't agree with this more. We are killing a human being by sentencing them to death, wether they commited murder or not, were becoming murders by killing another human being, its just that we claim to be able to justify our murder. I'm pretty sure that when they sentence these people to death, they end up saying "Murder is inexcusable." and it is, but haven't they commited a murder themselfs? Yes. So shouldn't they be sentenced to death? For they took the life of another human being, as did the person they sentenced.

Jakethesnake14 said:

No, what im saying is that, a human being has no right to take away another human beings life. Even the people that they kill are still humans.

You've confused me. Yes, nobody has any right to take away the life of another human being. Nobody. Including our goverment. By sentencing these people to death, you take their life. So your saying nobody has the right to take a life, yet your arguing for a penalty which includes one human being killing another, but claiming to justify it, simply by using the whole "Eye for an eye" saying?

As for prision, do you really think that they just shove them into a cold dark room, shove some water and porridge in through a cat flap, and leave them? No. They do atempt to help them, re-educate them, help them with any proplems that lead to said murder, and it properly works with most people. So you think, even if they can be helped, they should just be killed anyway? Just because they broke "the ultimate rule"?

Jakethesnake14 said:

Yes there are cases where the wrong guy is put to death, but that cant be helped.

I don't know how you can say this. Your basically saying if the wrong person is killed, its fine. Nothing can be done, oh well. What do you do after that little hiccup then? Look into the crime again, prosecute somebody else, kill them if their found to be guilty, and then move on and hope you got it right this time? What if your wrong again? You just killed two innocent people and shrug it off. I s'pose you'll just have to kill somebody else when you look into it again and hope they were the guilty one. What if you never catch the guilty one? What if they get away? Two people just got killed for their crime, and they got off scot free. But I s'pose "that can't be helped."

Jakethesnake14 said:

Yes we are basically murdering people, there is no hiding it. Its for the better, these people shouldnt be alive to do more acts of injustice, and not just a small pickpocketing, murdering innocent people.

Sentencing people to death is in no way "for the better". How anybody can even think that is beyond me. "these people shouldnt be alive" - By saying that, aren't you as bad as the murderer(s) themself(s)? I'm sure the murderer thinks something along those lines before they commit said murder. Then it looks like we do the same, and claim to be better then they are? How so? Because they did it first? What is this, a childs game? No, its not, its a matter of life and death, and shouldn't be dealt with how a child would do so.

« Last edited by Will d (mr ramdom) on Mar 24th 2011 »

Jakethesnake14 said:

No, what im saying is that, a human being has no right to take away another human beings life. Even the people that they kill are still humans.

If it isn't right to take away another human beings life, then why do you think it's ok for these 'human beings' you speak of to be put to death by a machine?

Every human being has a right to a life, in my opinion, regardless of what they have done, whether it be bad or good. Alright, I agree it's wrong that they get good service in prison, but to be put to death? Seriously? That's just low. Also, not trying to start something here because were cool but most of your statements are rather hypocritical.

know-your-role said:

If it isn't right to take away another human beings life, then why do you think it's ok for these 'human beings' you speak of to be put to death by a machine?

Well then, what other punishment is there? Theres no punishment imaginable.

know-your-role said:

Also, not trying to start something here because were cool but most of your statements are rather hypocritical.

Its cool, I know.

Jakethesnake14 said:

know-your-role said:

If it isn't right to take away another human beings life, then why do you think it's ok for these 'human beings' you speak of to be put to death by a machine?

Well then, what other punishment is there? Theres no punishment imaginable.

The punishment of death is unimaginable. I can't see how anybody can say killing somebody is an OK way to deal with, well, anything. The rest of their life in prision seems viable to me for a punishment.

« Last edited by Will d (mr ramdom) on Mar 25th 2011 »

Completley agree with Will's post, at the end of the day we're all human beings, regardless what we have done, whether it be good or bad. Now I'm repeating myself & this argument is continuosly going around in circles, so it's rather pointless.

btw Will, was Derek a disabled young man who hung out with a dodgy crew? If so I learnt about him in Year 9 RE.

know-your-role said:

btw Will, was Derek a disabled young man who hung out with a dodgy crew? If so I learnt about him in Year 9 RE.

Not so much disabled, he just had some mental proplems resulting of some head injuries he had in his youth. I'm not sure if this resulted from one of these injuries, but he had the mental age of 11.