[Denver]

Not every convicted murderer is guilty

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

Why is killing a child rapist in the middle east with the parents watching backward

is letting him live for 30 years watching sky, wanking over children and his rapes and playing a ps4 progress??

i dont think so

That's an argument for looking at the prison system, not for killing someone.

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by QueenOfSheba

Not every convicted murderer is guilty

99% are.

Also what if someone confesses to the crime? Surprisingly a lot do.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

I don't understand how people think that punishment by death is any more 'worse' than making someone rot in jail for their whole lives. People let their guilty conscience rule over their moral judgement.

So if it's not any worse, what's the point in it?

And what's moral about killing anyone, no matter who that person might be?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

99% are.

Also what if someone confesses to the crime? Surprisingly a lot do.

Technicality. Some are advised to confess when a trial reaches a stage where they are likely to be found guilty by a jury. A confession sometimes leads to a lighter sentence.

[Black Dagger]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

the victims family may disagree

That's on them.

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by Mariah_Carey

So if it's not any worse, what's the point in it?

And what's moral about killing anyone, no matter who that person might be?

The point is the statement that the punishment makes.

And yes I would have no problem killing someone who was a terrorist about to carry out an attack on my home country or someone breaking into my house threatening my family. Yes it probably better to try and debilitate them but when faced in that situation I'm sure you wouldn't cry if you killed them in self-defence.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

The point is the statement that the punishment makes.

And yes I would have no problem killing someone who was a terrorist about to carry out an attack on my home country or someone breaking into my house threatening my family. Yes it probably better to try and debilitate them but when faced in that situation I'm sure you wouldn't cry if you killed them in self-defence.

A terrorist and someone who breaks into your home are two opposing ends of a very large spectrum. I'd hope the "line" would be a lot clearer were this to become a reality.

What statement does this punishment make? Killing is wrong... except when a jury of strangers decide it isn't?

[bitontheslide]

I prefer to look at the issue another way.

Do you consider human life to be precious. Do you want to do everything possible in terms of health care etc, to both improve life expectancy and quality of life

or ....

do you not put a value on life like the murderous bastards that commit these crimes

The 2 do not reconcile, you do not fight bad with more bad

We can't as a nation promote excellent health care and respect for life on the one hand, and then kill those we do not deem worthy of life on the other.

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by Mariah_Carey

A terrorist and someone who breaks into your home are two opposing ends of a very large spectrum. I'd hope the "line" would be a lot clearer were this to become a reality.

What statement does this punishment make? Killing is wrong... except when a jury of strangers decide it isn't?

Well no - someone poses a threat to your life and the innocent lives around you you’re not just going to stand around and do nothing are you? Killing is wrong of course it is but these criminals obviously don’t know that so what will locking them up do? Protect society yes but it’s not protecting them from other prisoners and from themselves.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

Well no - someone poses a threat to your life and the innocent lives around you you’re not just going to stand around and do nothing are you?

That's an entirely different question.

We're discussing capital punishment, not your instinct to defend yourself when you're attacked. Two completely different things.

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

Killing is wrong of course it is but these criminals obviously don’t know that so what will locking them up do? Protect society yes but it’s not protecting them from other prisoners and from themselves.

You suggest killing them, because they are murderers and don't know killing is wrong? You've lost me now.

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by Mariah_Carey

That's an entirely different question.

We're discussing capital punishment, not your instinct to defend yourself when you're attacked. Two completely different things.

“What’s moral about killing someone no matter what?” Is the question you asked.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

“What’s moral about killing someone no matter what?” Is the question you asked.

No, I didn't. I asked what's moral about killing someone, no matter who the person is.

Defending yourself resulting in the manslaughter of that person is something entirely different to what we were discussing. The intent in that case is to defend/protect yourself and others, not to murder someone.

Someone being incarcerated for a crime and a judge and jury who have no connection to this person or anyone they've hurt deciding they must die is what we were actually talking about. What's moral about that?

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by Mariah_Carey

That's an entirely different question.

We're discussing capital punishment, not your instinct to defend yourself when you're attacked. Two completely different things.



You suggest killing them, because they are murderers and don't know killing is wrong? You've lost me now.

Okay government says that prison is about rehabilitation except for those who are in for life because they never get out so the point is to punish. People are asking about the moral implications, and frankly I don’t see the difference between locking up a psychopathic murderer in prison or inflicting the death penalty if their crime warrants such punishment.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

Okay government says that prison is about rehabilitation except for those who are in for life because they never get out so the point is to punish. People are asking about the moral implications, and frankly I don’t see the difference between locking up a psychopathic murderer in prison or inflicting the death penalty if their crime warrants such punishment.

Why is there no difference?

[Daniel-X]

No, it does absolutely nothing to reduce crime and as APWD pointed out where do we draw the line, what's punishable and what isn't?

I'm studying crime in sociology at the moment so this topic has been popping up frequently in lesson. I do understand some of the pros to having it, such as it's cheaper (although this isn't always the case surprisingly due to how expensive lethal injections are to carry out etc.), it solves the crowding issue of prisons and so on and so forth. But there's just far too many cons that massively outweigh the pros.

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by Mariah_Carey

No, I didn't. I asked what's moral about killing someone, no matter who the person is.

Defending yourself resulting in the manslaughter of that person is something entirely different to what we were discussing. The intent in that case is to defend/protect yourself and others, not to murder someone.

Someone being incarcerated for a crime and a judge and jury who have no connection to this person or anyone they've hurt deciding they must die is what we were actually talking about. What's moral about that?

What defines morality? We say we can’t use capital punishment because it means we’re just as bad as them but we’re really not. There is a difference between killing someone, murdering them, in a pre meditated way, in cold blood, to inflicting the appropriate punishment for that crime. And if people choose not to inflict the death penalty but choose inprisonment then that’s their choice, it’s about choice.

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by Mariah_Carey

Why is there no difference?

Erm they’re both outside of society away from being able to kill more people. One is on earth and the other is hopefully in hell.

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by PoinSTEPHia Davis

No, it does absolutely nothing to reduce crime and as APWD pointed out where do we draw the line, what's punishable and what isn't?

I'm studying crime in sociology at the moment so this topic has been popping up frequently in lesson. I do understand some of the pros to having it, such as it's cheaper (although this isn't always the case surprisingly due to how expensive lethal injections are to carry out etc.), it solves the crowding issue of prisons and so on and so forth. But there's just far too many cons that massively outweigh the pros.

Yeah I appreciate that I’m just thinking more on a philosophical level

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

Erm they’re both outside of society away from being able to kill more people. One is on earth and the other is hopefully in hell.

That doesn't make them remotely the same thing.

Both protecting society from their crimes does not make them the "same".

It's like saying whether my mum is dead or alive in the next room makes no difference, she's still in the next room.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

I used to think no, but in certain cases I agree with it. You might know about that family who died in a fire, the mum and the children recently and it's near where I live. A few people have been arrested, and basically the guy not only set fire to the house with innocent children in it but also got his mates to set fire to all escape routes - they knew what they were doing.

Now I'm not saying lets hung, drawn and quarter them in public like medieval times, but privately, and in this case and in similar cases, make sure it's painful.

You from manchester riley? This happened 5 mins from my works and a lot of people who work for me knew this family. Absolutely heartbreaking. The kids barely stood a chance and mum in a coma and if/when she wakes up she has to be told her babies are dead.

Know some people who know the ****s that did it too......

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

You from manchester riley? This happened 5 mins from my works and a lot of people who work for me knew this family. Absolutely heartbreaking. The kids barely stood a chance and mum in a coma and if/when she wakes up she has to be told her babies are dead.

Know some people who know the ****s that did it too......

Yeah I do and I have talked to people who know the people who did it, and well I can’t say much on a public forum, but he deserves more than life imprisonment.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

99% are.

Also what if someone confesses to the crime? Surprisingly a lot do.

And some nut jobs confess to the crime when they didn't actually do it. The law doesn't take a confession as truth without full evidence to back up that confession.

There's been a recent re-opening of the Megan and Jossie Russel murders. Michael Stone, the convicted killer has been behind bars in a high security prison for 21 years but recently another prisoner, Levi Bellfield started telling other prisoners he did it. Its highly likely that Bellfield didn't do it but why would he admit to such a thing. Insanity perhaps?

Then again, maybe Michael Stone, one of the most hated men in Britain, will turn out to be an innocent man.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

Yeah I do and I have talked to people who know the people who did it, and well I can’t say much on a public forum, but he deserves more than life imprisonment.

Yeah I've heard a lot too.

Where in Manchester are you?

[Tom4784]

We must be better than those we judge in a court of law, I don't see murdering those we find guilty very just.

Murdering someone that's murdered someone else is stupid, backwards and below us. Why should we lower ourselves to support or commit the same acts we condemn people for in the first place?