Crime and Punishment

[Rupert]

I bet not one of you would think twice about putting down a dog that has simply bitten a young child, and yet when it comes to human life somehow that's different?

Disregarding the rest of this argument (since this is a Crime and Punishment as a whole topic) - I would think twice about putting down a dog that has bitten a young child, in face I wouldn't do it at all. Nor would I hunt down a shark that has killed a man, or any of the other instances where this takes place. Maybe it is because I am vegetarian so take a different view on a society that kills 3 billion cows a year, but in this case we are killing animals that act on instinct; have no comprehension of the morals we uphold; think what they're doing is right and often do it for defensive reasons, even if there is no real threat.

With that regard to me it makes less sense to kill an animal with no concept of our accepted morals, than it does to murder a human who can comprehend the moral consequences of their actions.

That by no means makes it acceptable to enforce the murder penalty though, I just wanted to address the bizarre comparison to the killing of animals which I believe is also wrong in most cases.

 

[BigT]

And we vote the parties into Parliament in the first bloody place!

So the government won't mind giving us a referendum on it then will they.

Seriously though the last vote on the subject had a three line whip against by all parties so it's hardly going to get voted for is it.

Why do we need a referendum on it? Unless it was post-legislative it would be nothing more than a useless opinion poll. The parties we voted into the Commons all oppose the death penalty, therefore giving democratic backing to the opposition to the death penalty, which is what we should be debating anyway, not politics.

And even better, you stropped off the forum claiming people were treating you like an idiot, and then parade around in here accusing us all of being plebs who can't understand politics.

Your use of the word ALL is not correct twice in this statement.

 

[Cariba]

And your argument has been incoherent throughout the topic but there we go.

 

[BigT]

I bet not one of you would think twice about putting down a dog that has simply bitten a young child, and yet when it comes to human life somehow that's different?

Disregarding the rest of this argument (since this is a Crime and Punishment as a whole topic) - I would think twice about putting down a dog that has bitten a young child, in face I wouldn't do it at all. Nor would I hunt down a shark that has killed a man, or any of the other instances where this takes place. Maybe it is because I am vegetarian so take a different view on a society that kills 3 billion cows a year, but in this case we are killing animals that act on instinct; have no comprehension of the morals we uphold; think what they're doing is right and often do it for defensive reasons, even if there is no real threat.

With that regard to me it makes less sense to kill an animal with no concept of our accepted morals, than it does to murder a human who can comprehend the moral consequences of their actions.

That by no means makes it acceptable to enforce the murder penalty though, I just wanted to address the bizarre comparison to the killing of animals which I believe is also wrong in most cases.

There's common sence in that statement Rupert. I agree with most of it execpt the veggie bit.

 

[Fredward]

I bet not one of you would think twice about putting down a dog that has simply bitten a young child, and yet when it comes to human life somehow that's different?

Disregarding the rest of this argument (since this is a Crime and Punishment as a whole topic) - I would think twice about putting down a dog that has bitten a young child, in face I wouldn't do it at all. Nor would I hunt down a shark that has killed a man, or any of the other instances where this takes place. Maybe it is because I am vegetarian so take a different view on a society that kills 3 billion cows a year, but in this case we are killing animals that act on instinct; have no comprehension of the morals we uphold; think what they're doing is right and often do it for defensive reasons, even if there is no real threat.

With that regard to me it makes less sense to kill an animal with no concept of our accepted morals, than it does to murder a human who can comprehend the moral consequences of their actions.

That by no means makes it acceptable to enforce the murder penalty though, I just wanted to address the bizarre comparison to the killing of animals which I believe is also wrong in most cases.

Thanks,

I'm glad you have a very similar view to me! besides the last paragraph!

 

[Cariba]

And we vote the parties into Parliament in the first bloody place!

So the government won't mind giving us a referendum on it then will they.

Seriously though the last vote on the subject had a three line whip against by all parties so it's hardly going to get voted for is it.

Why do we need a referendum on it? Unless it was post-legislative it would be nothing more than a useless opinion poll. The parties we voted into the Commons all oppose the death penalty, therefore giving democratic backing to the opposition to the death penalty, which is what we should be debating anyway, not politics.

And even better, you stropped off the forum claiming people were treating you like an idiot, and then parade around in here accusing us all of being plebs who can't understand politics.

Your use of the word ALL is not correct twice in this statement.

Given you love providing evidence, as a genuine question which political party that sits in the current parliament supports the death penalty?

 

[BigT]

I beg your pardon, I thought I read All MP's must need new glasses.

The other Use is still not correct though.

 

[Martin]

You're the same person that blamed Labour for the economic situation, then when presented evidence against that you said we were wrong and you needed to dish out a 'history lesson'. I'm still interested in this presuably revelatory lecture.

If that many people want capital punishment, why was it abolished? And either way, people wanting it doesn't make it ok. There's a difference between what is right and what is popular. We want evidence capital punishment works and is morally and ethically acceptable, not how popular it is amongst certain people.

And if it was brought back for child killings, what's stopping it then being brought back for other crimes? Why not just get all Sharia on ourselves and behead anyone with a nasty word to say about the Church of England? Because it's patently absurd.

Don't insult you? You insulted Sam several times in that post alone. But I'm not sure you know how to debate either, as you've not presented any valuable evidence and instead made side arguments, made insults and played the victim.

Revenge is not justice. Murder is murder.

 

[John]

Essentially this is a pointless discussion in my eyes.I have not heard from a single person who doesn't believe in the death penalty, describe why i think it's right in certain cases, and I doubt you will.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. People who are opposed to the death penalty are, by definition, opposed to it in all cases

You have all decided it's evil, wrong, immoral, inhumane, monstrous, brutal... I disagree and don't like being referred to as sort.

I do not extend my disgust at the concept of the death penalty to those that support it, but I will passionately defend my own views in a debate.

Different people believe different opinions, and debates like this relies on ones perspective of human rights, humane beliefs, what human life is worth.

I find the concept of taking someone's life because they took someone else's to be entirely contradictory. By extension you would then have to execute the executioner.

I bet not one of you would think twice about putting down a dog that has simply bitten a young child, and yet when it comes to human life somehow that's different?

Slightly off topic, but I don't believe full human rights apply to animals (by definition). As an extreme example, I am not vegetarian but I wouldn't eat a person. I don't think there's any double standards there.

 

[Sam]

I beg your pardon, I thought I read All MP's must need new glasses.

The other Use is still not correct though.

Is this the start of a ground-breaking piece of surrealist poetry?

Anyway, the Democratic Unionist Party seem to support the death penalty, and they sit in the House of Commons with eight seats, but it's not really relevant since they're a Northern Irish unionist party, and not representative of the views of the rest of the UK population on anything.

 

[Cariba]

I beg your pardon, I thought I read All MP's must need new glasses.

The other Use is still not correct though.

Is this the start of a ground-breaking piece of surrealist poetry?

Anyway, the Democratic Unionist Party seem to support the death penalty, and they sit in the House of Commons with eight seats, but it's not really relevant since they're a Northern Irish unionist party, and not representative of the views of the rest of the UK population on anything.

I wondered if they did, but their website doesn't mention it. Then again, they also oppose homosexuality and back creationism.

 

[BigT]

You're the same person that blamed Labour for the economic situation, then when presented evidence against that you said we were wrong and you needed to dish out a 'history lesson'. I'm still interested in this presuably revelatory lecture.

If that many people want capital punishment, why was it abolished? And either way, people wanting it doesn't make it ok. There's a difference between what is right and what is popular. We want evidence capital punishment works and is morally and ethically acceptable, not how popular it is amongst certain people.

And if it was brought back for child killings, what's stopping it then being brought back for other crimes? Why not just get all Sharia on ourselves and behead anyone with a nasty word to say about the Church of England? Because it's patently absurd.

Don't insult you? You insulted Sam several times in that post alone. But I'm not sure you know how to debate either, as you've not presented any valuable evidence and instead made side arguments, made insults and played the victim.

Revenge is not justice. Murder is murder.

That history lesson might come one day when I can be arsed to write it!
I don't play victim, I was just trying to get back on topic and get rid of the personal insults.
Sam threw the first punch as they say!

 

[delta79]

I don't support the death penalty. But I can understand why some would.

The question I asked myself over it is. If someone killed me would I want them to be dispatched from the moral coil, without the chance of learning it was wrong and allowing they own consent to be their internal 24/7 punishment.

Now is it right to say 'We all hold our own views on this, and although we may not agree with other views. agree that we have a right to have them'

can we move on from the death penalty to other areas of Crime and Punishment, Please.
(and can we leave the personal insult there too, it would be appreciated)

 

[BigT]

I don't support the death penalty. But I can understand why some would.

The question I asked myself over it is. If someone killed me would I want them to be dispatched from the moral coil, without the chance of learning it was wrong and allowing they own consent to be their internal 24/7 punishment.

Now is it right to say 'We all hold our own views on this, and although we may not agree with other views. agree that we have a right to have them'

can we move on from the death penalty to other areas of Crime and Punishment, Please.
(and can we leave the personal insult there too, it would be appreciated)

I was quite hoping there might be a interest in what I said earlier about corporeal punishment, seeing as I'm maybe the only one on here to have received it.

 

[delta79]

To be honest, I would of liked to have a joined in with a good clean debate on the subject. But then I was put off by some of the comments being make.

The word inhumane was banded around. now with modern science, it's done humanely with drugs so the offender does not feel pain as the sentence is carried out.

Now I am one of these people that believes forced removal of a human off the moral coil is something I personally could not have a hand in. I also believe the the Hippocratic oath is also relevant to First Aiders.

 

[Squiggs]

Quite apart from the moral and legal implications of the whole debate, what I don't quite get about the death penalty is what the point of it is.

If the point is to remove the guilty party from society then it does indeed work as a system (much like life imprisonment, which also removes said person from society for the rest of their life, though at a higher cost).

However if the point of it is as a punishment, I'm not so sure. For the most serious of crimes, the death penalty seems like a very light weight punishment indeed. Sure there is a relatively intense period of (potential) anguish in knowing that you will be killed for whatever act you have carried out followed by the brief physical pain in the actual act of death. But then that is the extent of the guilty party's actual punishment, to be removed from the the world.

This to be would seem to be nothing in comparison to the punishment (and therefore deterrent) of living day after day with the knowledge of the fact that whatever you have done will mean that you will never again be free, and that you have forfeited the life you knew and any comfort you had therein. That you would never again be able to make your own decisions, eave the confines of the prison, choose who's company you spent time with or indeed be intimate with another person ever again.

So having spent some time thinking about it this evening, I don't think I could seriously support the death penalty, for this simple fact I do not believe it is actually constitutes much of a punishment at all.

 

[MrMutterson]

Been a busy day and first chance I had to reply to my last post...
A lots been posted since then but I couldn't just leave it

I disagree that most crime comes from poverty..., stupidity, greed, addiction, lack of respect all play equal parts.

There is a common believe that seems to be held by a reasonable proportion of society that council / tax credit house holds are the lowest of the low (please note this is not my opinion!!) I have dealt with numerous well off, high flying owning£250k+ house holds, business execs, that deal in drugs, stolen property, violent offences etc. I've also found pedophiles and sex offenders that are very Wealthy from respected families and areas. On the flip side some of the poorest and most unfortunate people I've encountered are the politest, most hard working and respectable people you could wish to meet.

Crime doesnt fit any one profile

So you disagree that there are reasons and causes for crime and it's just people being greedy? It's much easier to blame everything on the perpetrator of crime then realise what leads them to do it, but doing so inconveniently solves nothing, as the crimes rates continue exactly the same.

It is just a statistical fact that poverty breeds crime and there has to be a reason for that correlation. You can disagree with my conclusions about social mobility and what the causes are but you cannot pretend that there are no causes. I'm not saying there isn't crime in the wealthier sectors of society, far from it, but the proportion is admittedly lower (and that's bitterly coming from a born and bred working class guy). Just look at http://www.police.uk/ where poorer income areas consistently have higher crime figures. But again I want to reiterate, even crimes committed by richer people have their origin in social issues, although I think they are often more difficult to define.

I don't disagree that there are reasons and causes for crime. Poverty defiantly breeds crime, I'm just saying that it's is one area of a much bigger picture.
Greed, "because I can" and an unwillingness to get of your backside and earn something along with upbringing and peer pressure also apply.

Stealing from the local supermarket to feed and clothe your family because you can't afford to for whatever reason is one thing, going on the rob in asda and nicking a widescreen tv, 50 bluerays and 3 Xboxes is a little different.

I spent 8 years dealing with this day in day out and well aware that the wealthy steal the middle class steal and the working class steal poverty can't really be blamed in all cases.

Crime statistics are also recorded on the place the crime happened, not where the offender lives.
People that live in poor areas generally have older cars, poor home security etc which is a far easier target than a big house with CCTV and a new BMW on the drive. Because of this crime is high in these poorer areas. I'm not suggesting for one minute that this is the only reason at all. But as with most figures they are not a true representation of fact.
My point being that the person up the road who has a better home more money etc can still walk down the road and screw over the people less fortunate.

I think one of the biggest problems is the people that think the world owes them a favour... The ones that could work but chose not to as society will pay for them. I have dealt with more robberies, burglars, shop lifting, no insurance, no driving licence no tax etc that fit the people in the above category than anything else.

The world does owe them a favour as it owes a favour to me and it does to you. Instead of ignoring all the social problems, we should be looking out for each other and be funding genuinely good education for poorer children, giving them opportunities and raising aspirations. Almost all studies into criminology show that those who had the biggest range of opportunities are the least likely to live a life of crime.

Every crime is society's failure. It's our responsibility to stop crime before it happens. Now that doesn't mean I think criminals shouldn't be punished, as that is also a necessary part of the justice system, but pinpointing why the crime happened in the first place and dealing with that is what I want to see heavily prioritised

I don't for one minute think the world owes anyone a favour and I don't see how society as a whole can be blamed for the minority that for whatever reason ends up in the criminal system. I think people believing the world owes them is part of the problem, you don't get handed anything in life unless you are in the very small minority of the rich and famous. The majority of society goes out there and makes it happen for themselves in whatever way they can and the majority manage to do it within the confines of the law!

There is a culture that thinks a criminal record or a prison sentence is some sort of fashion accessory and this is a big problem too.

That strikes me as being exactly what I meant by having low aspirations in life. You must see that? Surely?

I totally see that but who is to blame? It's sure not my fault that some people choose to aspire to be nothing, I'm responsible for me and my kids and so far (although only 4 and 7) they have managed to get through life without stealing or getting into trouble!




An interesting debate Mr Meat Pie! I look forward to your further views

 

[Poisson]

Time to shake things up a bit: If Judges get harsher, will it be too harsh on people who do petty crimes?

 

[James]

Several posts have been edited and removed this morning.

May I remind everyone of our Member Expectations while using TowersStreet. With a particular focus on respecting members.

A few posts in here have been blatant personal attacks towards others. As well as very rude accusations and name calling. This is not welcome on TST at all. Several PMs have been issued this morning - and if ANY members continue to post in such a aggressive or rude manner than further action will be taken and you could lose membership privileges on TST.

When getting involved with debates remember to stay constructive, adult and ensure you add to the debate. A few posts in here have been posted solely to insult others. Make sure you're adding to the topic!

As always if you see a post that you feel steps out of line then flag the post so a member of the team can deal with it - and if you have personal issues with members or their posting style contact a member of the team that will be able to take any action needed.

Let's keep TowersStreet a friendly and happy community! Thanks.

 

[Fredward]

Mooooving on (hopefully)


I can't for the life of me remember the name of the movie, but it had a really interesting concept.

They had technology to see forward in time (or travel back in time, can't remember which!) But it meant law enforcement can see murders and rape before it happened.

The police would burst in and apprehend the murderer, before he did the crime, thus saving the victims life.

I think its an interesting concept to be honest. Can you sentenance someone who hasn't committed a crime, but know for sure they were going to?

It's obviously hyperthetical because I doubt this technology will ever exist. But its interesting.

Would love to hear what everyone had to say.





Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2