Should we bring the death penalty back?

[Little_Alex 10]

So once we cleanse the world, or the UK at any rate, of all twisted and sick criminals we can all sit back and enjoy a safe society. A few years down the line and society not being as safe as we thought perhaps we should have a cull of the slightly twisted and iffy criminals, then people who squint, or limp or look at me strangely and spill my drink.

 

Where do we stop?

 

How is it right for us to take someone's life but wrong for them to do it?

Just the bad ones Max, just the bad ones

[Bartfarst 10]

So once we cleanse the world, or the UK at any rate, of all twisted and sick criminals we can all sit back and enjoy a safe society. A few years down the line and society not being as safe as we thought perhaps we should have a cull of the slightly twisted and iffy criminals, then people who squint, or limp or look at me strangely and spill my drink.

 

Where do we stop?

 

How is it right for us to take someone's life but wrong for them to do it?

 

I simply fail to see why there is resistance to culling the worst of our criminals. The long-term benefits would be huge because criminals beget criminals, and we could reduce the number of active scrotes within a generation.

[max 13]

I simply fail to see why there is resistance to culling the worst of our criminals. The long-term benefits would be huge because criminals beget criminals, and we could reduce the number of active scrotes within a generation.

 

You missed my point then, if we cull the worst now what's to stop us culling the not so bad, then the not really very nice, ad infinitum?

[Bartfarst 10]

If that's truly what you believe, I feel very sorry for you. No wonder you sound so bitter and twisted in most of your posts.

 

StarSparkle

 

I can assure you that I'm not bitter, I'm a rather buoyant happy type, I simply don't get emotional over the 'rights' of low-lives who I think should have no rights. The goodwill of some posters on the forum would be better directed at helping the genuinely needy, not standing up for the dregs of our society.

 

How would you answer the question I put to Halibut - should a gangland multiple murderer, who would willingly kill a witness to a robbery and think nothing of it, be offered the same human rights and protection by society as a law-abiding nurse or a young child?

[Bartfarst 10]

You missed my point then, if we cull the worst now what's to stop us culling the not so bad, then the not really very nice, ad infinitum?

 

Common sense?

[Cyclone 10]

Based on this, should a gangland multiple murderer, who would willingly kill a witness to a robbery and think nothing of it, be offered the same human rights and protection by society as a law-abiding nurse or a young child?

 

If you can answer yes to that, you are blind to reason.

 

either they are both humans and deserve the same rights, or you are talking about having good people rights and others rights.

When someone commits a crime certain rights are taken away or restricted. But that doesn't mean that they don't deserve a fair trial in the first place, or that they should be subject to torture or to being murdered.

The state taking someones life is simply right by might, all it teaches anyone is that the organisation with the most power can make whatever rules it sees fit, but need not abide by them itself.

 

The resistance on my part is mainly down to the fact that we can never be sure that we have convicted the right person, and killing one inoccent person by mistake is too many.

Never mind your argument that it might save more lives in the wrong run, it's more wrong to knowingly kill the wrong person, than it is to have a theoretical risk of x other killings weighed against it.

[Bartfarst 10]

Never mind your argument that it might save more lives in the wrong run, it's more wrong to knowingly kill the wrong person, than it is to have a theoretical risk of x other killings weighed against it.

 

So you are saying that, because of the way you view the situation morally, that the life of one innocent man can be worth more than the life of 6 innocent children?

[artisan 10]

Remember, If you hang the wrong man, the real culprit is still at large.

[StarSparkle 10]

either they are both humans and deserve the same rights, or you are talking about having good people rights and others rights.

When someone commits a crime certain rights are taken away or restricted. But that doesn't mean that they don't deserve a fair trial in the first place, or that they should be subject to torture or to being murdered.

The state taking someones life is simply right by might, all it teaches anyone is that the organisation with the most power can make whatever rules it sees fit, but need not abide by them itself.The resistance on my part is mainly down to the fact that we can never be sure that we have convicted the right person, and killing one inoccent person by mistake is too many.

Never mind your argument that it might save more lives in the wrong run, it's more wrong to knowingly kill the wrong person, than it is to have a theoretical risk of x other killings weighed against it.

 

This has never happened before on Sheffield Forum - I find myself in 100% agreement with Cyclone!!

 

Well said, Cyclone.

 

StarSparkle

[Twiglet 10]

So you are saying that, because of the way you view the situation morally, that the life of one innocent man can be worth more than the life of 6 innocent children?

 

That isn't a valid situation or question. Taking the life of that innocent man is acheiving nothing - and is putting more innocent children at risk because the real offender is still at large whilst the police are thinking he is dead.

[Cyclone 10]

So you are saying that, because of the way you view the situation morally, that the life of one innocent man can be worth more than the life of 6 innocent children?

 

well, you did say that your numbers were meaningless anyway, and we know that nearly all murderers do not reoffend.

 

But making that decision is playing god (and i'm actually with you on not believing in god, so it's just a figure of speech).

We aren't responsible for the acts that other people commit, we are responsible for what we (or the state on our behalf) does.

So if we kill an innocent man, that's murder. If we don't kill several, one of whom is inoccent, and then one of the guilty ones reoffends, we still haven't committed a murder.

A proper life sentence might be a better option, although like I said, nearly all murderers never reoffend. Maybe it's the case that 15 years in jail is actually long enough to be both punished and reform.

[Cyclone 10]

This has never happened before on Sheffield Forum - I find myself in 100% agreement with Cyclone!!

 

Well said, Cyclone.

 

StarSparkle

 

I think we have agreed on this topic before.