Death Penalty

LongLang said:
Markt85 said:
LongLang said:
I have thought and commented on this subject a good few times and beforehand i have always been an advocate Of the death penalty.
Now however my outlook on life has changed. An innocent man/woman can be release from prison. They cannot be ressurected from death.
This is the crux of the 'con' argument.
And i have to say i now tend to agree.
However people who kill must be punished. It is not a punishment to live thw next 20-30 years in relative luxury (comparedto some) fed 3 times a day, receive education, wages and perks.
I would prefer prison to be hard. Im talking hard labour, breaking rocks for no reason, Digging for coal, make them actually work back a debt to the society they chose to abandon when they killed another human.
If i had my way, i would have every prisoner in england sorting out rubbish into recycling piles. It would aave local councils a small fortune in the 5 bins each household has ro have emptied every other week and save the world a bag at a time as well.
(obviously im being a little tongue in cheek here but i think you get my meaning)
Make jail a proper punishment!
Click to expand...

And if they refuse to do any Labour ?
Click to expand...

They dont get fed!
Click to expand...

A lot would starve to death in protest ...
 
I see the death penalty as a just way to punish the perpetrators of the most horrific crimes. The killers of Lee Rigby and the child killers sentenced yesterday would be the easiest examples of such crimes.

The US shows us that this punishment is not a deterrent , but judging by ours and theirs full Prisons neither is anything else and quite frankly I don't care whether it is or not.

I accept that this punishment will never be introduced , but it will never alter my view that the perpetrators of these crimes should have the ultimate penalty.
 
Paul Lake's Left Knee said:
No but i do think that the families of the victim should be consulted on the length and type of punishment. I also think that life should mean life.
Click to expand...

Those two sentences seem to contradict each other a bit.

As for the first point. I really don't think that would be very fair. Your sentence should reflect your crime. Not how forgiving the victims family happen to be.
 
People should just call it what it really is, and that's the revenge penalty. It's been proven it isn't a deterrent, it certainly isn't cheaper and there's always the chance you are killing an innocent person. The only reason people want the death penalty is for vengeance and to satisfy their own bloodlust.
 
East Level 2 said:
SkyBlueFlux said:
If even one innocent person is killed by the government for a crime they didn't commit, then that is one too many. This is why it can never be brought back, even if you shirk the obvious hypocrisy of murdering murderers.
Click to expand...
So you can steal from a thief (they probably won't pay a fine willingly) and you can imprison a kidnapper, but you can't kill a murderer.

Just being awkward as it will never be brought back.
Click to expand...

It's a decent point, and I actually think the notion that capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder is one of the weaker arguments, simply because it's all down to labelling.

I still think it's an argument though.

The one thing that is different about your other examples is that the government takes money and imprison more than just those who steal and those who kidnap respectively. These methods aren't 'eye-for-an-eye' in their methodology, they are ad-hoc solutions for ways in which to punish offenders. We have to punish them somehow, after all. We don't attempt to punish a criminal with exactly the same thing as the crime they committed.

If we introduced the death penalty for murderers then that would be purely eye-for-an-eye in its justifications, and it's that underlying reasoning which is the hypocritical part.
 
stony said:
People should just call it what it really is, and that's the revenge penalty. It's been proven it isn't a deterrent, it certainly isn't cheaper and there's always the chance you are killing an innocent person. The only reason people want the death penalty is for vengeance and to satisfy their own bloodlust.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with calling it the death penalty? It's not like it's called the deterrent penalty now.
 
Barcon said:
stony said:
People should just call it what it really is, and that's the revenge penalty. It's been proven it isn't a deterrent, it certainly isn't cheaper and there's always the chance you are killing an innocent person. The only reason people want the death penalty is for vengeance and to satisfy their own bloodlust.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with calling it the death penalty? It's not like it's called the deterrent penalty now.
Click to expand...

I just think people should be honest about it. They don't want to execute the vermin to keep them off the streets, they want to do it for revenge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.