Do murderers deserve to die?

bhavv said:
Which doesnt work for 74% of criminals.
Click to expand...

It does work for 26%, even despite our prisons being badly run and rehabilitation being poorly implemented.

We need to spend a great deal more money per head on prison population, because the end result would be cheaper. The prison system we have now doesn't work. For people outside of the margin of normal working society prison isn't a great deterrent and there's little or no rehabilitation, if we don't break that cycle then people will re-offend.

Because it doesn't work 74% of the time now doesn't mean that is the best we can do.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Can you provide some statistics of how many murderers actually get released from prison? Any of the murderers who you could name off the top of your head, most likely, are either still in prison, will be in prison for the rest of their lives, or have already died in prison.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe...,cf.osb&fp=8687a6c20ce419a5&biw=1920&bih=1137

[FnG]magnolia;21594014 said:
What about those who rape adults?
Click to expand...

They can stay in jail.
 
bhavv said:
I fully believe that murders and paedophiles deserve to die, maybe with severe physical torture beforehand aka Saw style minus the chance to escape.

However I do not believe that it should be enforced by law or allowed in any constituency, because there are too many misrulings and mistakes made by the courts on these issues, people can be framed, there is no 100% conclusive way to determine with 100% accuracy that a person was guilty or not guilty, and under capital punishment innocent people can be too easily sentenced as guilty, and they would likely be executed before their innocence or misjudgement could be proved.
Click to expand...

So you're basically saying there is no way to decide who dies or not??? You can't simply go around killing people because they upset you.
 
bhavv said:
Google is your friend

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe...,cf.osb&fp=8687a6c20ce419a5&biw=1920&bih=1137



They can stay in jail.
Click to expand...

That gives no indication of the percentage of murderers released unfortunately. I know there are some, Issei Sagawa, for example. But he's no longer dangerous despite his crimes. How can you judge who and who will not kill again.

I completely agree that they should remain in prison, but this is a failing of the legal system, not something that justifies them being killed. Justice is failing, not the murderers.
 
[FnG]magnolia;21594027 said:
So child rape means death but adult rape is ok and means they can stay in prison?
Click to expand...

Child rape is 100000000x worse.

Plus adult rape is very easy to fake by the 'victim'.
 
Im not even going to bother arguing why raping an infant / child is worse than raping an adult, you surely cant be that stupid.
 
[FnG]magnolia;21594052 said:
I know you've talked about your issues and medication before. For full transparency, can you run it past us once more? I think it's important.
Click to expand...

Far less significant than the issues that you have.
 
Can the state, which represents the whole of society and has the duty of protecting society, fulfill that duty by lowering itself to the level of the murderer, and treating him as he treated others? The forfeiture of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process. And I believe that future generations, throughout the world, will come to agree.


Kofi Annan, Ghanaian diplomat and Secretary General of the United Nations 1997 -2007.
 
Last edited:
There are obvious reasons, however, you just applied the 100000000x worse rule to it, which evidently means nothing. And surely if you rape a baby, they are less likely to remember it than an adult is? People who commit such crimes deserve to rot in prison as far as I'm concerned, but not to die.

Once again I'll state this; you can't, on one hand, say no you cannot kill anyone, and then on the other hand say, but we'll kill you just this time. This outrageously hypocritical.
 
Castiel said:
Can the state, which represents the whole of society and has the duty of protecting society, fulfill that duty by lowering itself to the level of the murderer, and treating him as he treated others? The forfeiture of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process. And I believe that future generations, throughout the world, will come to agree.


Kofi Annan, Ghanaian diplomat and Secretary General of the United Nations 1997 -2007.
Click to expand...
 
Castiel said:
Can the state, which represents the whole of society and has the duty of protecting society, fulfill that duty by lowering itself to the level of the murderer, and treating him as he treated others? The forfeiture of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process. And I believe that future generations, throughout the world, will come to agree.


Kofi Annan, Ghanaian diplomat and Secretary General of the United Nations 1997 -2007.
Click to expand...

I aagree with that. But it doesnt mean that the murderer deserves to carry on living and potentially killing others in the future.

Addicted said:
I say no to death, there's worse punishments!
Click to expand...

Like a room with a television and release 10 years later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom