This House believes that all murderers should be executed.
What is a fair and just punishment? Is an eye-for-an-eye a fair judgement? Does society have the right to take away a life? Do some criminals deserve death?
Look at some of the information provided. Please refer to some evidence to support your arguements:
Amnesty (statistics on the death penalty) Amnesty and USA (USA and capital punishment)
Ten Crimes of Men on death row (a disturbing and frightening list. But, these descriptions of crimes for which these people are on 'death row'- will be executed by the state)
The Guardian Date Blog statistics from around the world
USA death penalty information centre statistics from the USA
N.B There is no capital punishment in the U.K.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI remember a good argument: It is proved that a person could be killed for a reason if the murderers should be executed. Therefore why shouldn't a person kill other one for some perfect reasons.
ReplyDeleteI believe the capital pulishment is not fair and just because nobody can be killed by any other one even if it is the law
I agree with Iris's opinion in some extent.
ReplyDeleteWhen did the death penalty ever deter anyone from murder? The answer is abolutely not.In my opinion,The vast majority of murders are unpremeditated domestic violence or a fight outside a pub or something like that where tempers flare.How is the death penalty going to deter people from a burst of anger? Sometimes, it is depends on the case, if there is a serial killer, then there is no doubt at all then yes. But sometimes those criminals are probably poor and had a difficult childhood, it is not their fault and they are viscous animals.
I agree with Iris, too. Everyone has the right to defend his life, even if he makes unforgivable mistakes. Whether the government, the social or the law, which all don’t have the right to end the life of a human being. Some people may think that a man killed another one, the murderer should be put to death, which is fair and just. But it is really right? There were a people dead, if we let the tragedy happened again, we have no different with the murderer. So the eye-an-eye is not a fair judgement. Many countries in the world are support to abolish the death penalty. The data from the Amnesty International proved the view. The number of countries carrying out executions was in a reduced trend form 1991 to 2010. I believe that there are more and more countries will agree to abolish the death penalty.
ReplyDelete"I don’t think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don’t think that’s right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s lives."
ReplyDeleteStated by GEORGE W. BUSH, presidential debate, Oct. 17, 2000
Even though who kill the people will pay with life, but in my opinion, not all the murderers should be executed, so I agree with vivian. I think person live in the world have two standards, one is his conscience, another is the law. Everyone know the case about HuWenHai in Shanxi province, although HuWenHai was illegal, but he was conscience. because those people who were killed by him were absence for laws and their own conscience. In this case, I think the murderer should not be killed, HuWenHai help the social masses put the scourges away, so he did a well done.
ReplyDeleteThe Death Penalty is the most comfort behavior to the family members of the sufferer. If the condemned of death person can not get the supplicium more maiorum that it is the bigest hurt to the sufferer and their family.
ReplyDeleteIf cancel the Death Penalty that it maybe has more heavily crime behavior to happen, and it maybe come up the hurt profit and safe for the social people, nation benefits and others.
"Punishment is not for revenge, but to lessen crime and eform the criminal" Euripides,1889
I agree with lisa's opinion,Everyone has the right to defend his life, even if he makes unforgivable mistakes. is very nice answer.
ReplyDeleteAnd in my opinion,although killed the people is a bad idea.But I think we should think the murderer,why did he/her can killed somebody?may be he/her was manslaughter,if he/her is not intentional homicide,I think he/her do without suffer death penalty.
I agree with Iris. According to the law, the murderer should be executed. The law is formulated, and if who are not in accordance with the law, the world will be random. Kill will be dead, it is a Chinese ancient adage, it is also a kind of fairness, such fairness were recognized by most people.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with summer's opinion.Although he/her was not intentional homicide, but on the victim's family made a bad influence .So no matter it is intentional homicide,he/her should be strictly punished.I think murder is the biggest crime!
ReplyDeleteI know indeed what evil I intend to do, but stronger than all my afterthoughts is my fury, fury that brings upon mortals the greatest evils.——Euripides
ReplyDelete"The motives for the death penalty may be for revenge. Legal vengeance solidifies social solidarity against law breakers and is the alternative to the private revenge of those who feel harmed."
ReplyDeleteStated by Grant McClellan,1961
I disagree with summer's opinion. Everyone in the world is equality. If someone break the law, they should be punished. however, I think punishment should be flexible and personalized. The punishment should be according to what kind of illegal activitise they did. To talk about killing, it must be punished. But court should think about reason why the murderes kill other. Maybe the murderes is aim to protect others aviod violence or hurt. Like if there is a criminal, he want to kill a person, they are fighting. At last the criminal deaded. According to this situation, we can not judge the person is a murdere.
ReplyDeleteNo one can take others' life rights away. Government also can not do that.
I disagree with Iris.
ReplyDeleteI think this opine of national situation, for developing countries and poor countries, large population, and the technology is not advanced, in order to prevent the murderous prisoners worse on the community impact, it is only through to the end of their Murderers life. Although the life is valuable, but if he knew of crime will be let him to death, but still chose the crime, it can only be executed him. This penalty may restrain many people who want to crime.
Of course, if in developed countries, I think Murderers should not be executed, because developed countries have advanced measures to prevent escape. Maybe, one day, when a country can control the prisoners, perhaps the death penalty can be abolished.
“The punishment of criminals should be of use; when a man is hanged he is good for nothing”
ReplyDeleteVoltaire (French Philosopher and Writer. One of the greatest of all French authors) ,1778
I think above all viewpoints also have some truth that everyone have rights to choose how to get the life. However, the capital punishment have a necessity in the law.
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view, the capital punishment have a necessity in the law beacuse the capital punishment have the minacious effect that let people can not easily to crime. In addition, the capital punishment can be used to punish the most serious prisoners in the last resort.
ReplyDeleteThe law which attempts a man's life is impractical, unjust, inadmissible. It has never repressed crime -- for a second crime is every day committed at the foot of the scaffold.
ReplyDeleteMARQUIS DE SADE, Philosophy in the Bedroom,2000
I'm sorry, Zhao. I can't agree with your opinion.Murderers should be executed,Regardless of whether the victim committed a capital offense.everyone who against laws will be punished.
ReplyDeleteHowever,death penalty is not suitable.It is too cruel,and is too easy for criminals.May be the murderers should be imprisoned for life.
Well, it seems I am in disagreement with some people again! I would put forward the idea that the death penalty is bad, because it encourages criminals to try and work around the law.
ReplyDeleteIntroducing the death penalty would encourage criminals to protect each other, by lying or obstructing police, and encourage them to 'get organised'. While it is not discussed in Teacher Summan's websites, a lot countries which uphold the death penalty for murder will have large crime syndicates or act as bases for various kinds of crime, for example USA, Japan, Russia and Italy. If brought to the UK, it could strengthen the attitudes and loyalties of career criminals and organised crime, giving people reason to seek their 'protection'.
It can also put criminals in situations where they are more willing to kill people to avoid sentencing, capture or the possibility of capture, increasing risk to innocent people, such as law enforcment officers and witnesses and bystanders. Here, the risk goes up for everyone in society.
Also, if a murder is put forward for execution, there is no opportunity for re-trials. This is when new evidence is discovered or old evidence is found out to be inadequate, and the trial is opened up again. Obviously, the trialing system then becomes much more expensive, because each prisoner is allowed a maximum amount of appeals. The date of execution can be put off, and put off, wasting tax payer money.
Also, execution goes against the European Convention of Human Rights, under Right to Life, which applies to everyone. So this could not be introduced again to the UK.
Zhao, can you please explain about Hu Wen Hai, or provide a news link? Not everyone who reads this blog will be aware of the details of this situation, and it may not have been broadcast on British news.
Has anyone considered what might happen if the death penalty for murder was introduced? How would crime change? Try and reference what Teacher Summan has given you!
Also, please be careful of using quotes, as their meaning is not always clear and can contradict what your really want to say.
I think I have a different point from evashandor.Then I'll show you evidences and explain the reason.
ReplyDeleteGrant McClellan (1961) claims:
In 1958 the 10 states that had the fewest murders –fewer than two a year per 100,000 population -were New Hampshire Iowa, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Utah, North Dakota and Washington. Four of these 10 states had abolished the death penalty. The 10 states, which had the most murderers from eight to fourteen killings per100,000 population were Nevada, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and Virginia - all of them
enforce the death penalty. The fact is that fear of the death penalty has never served to reduce the crime rate.
The fear of the death penalty has never reduced crime. Through most of history executions were public and brutal. Some criminals were even crushed to death slowly under heavy weight. Crime was more common at that time than it is now. Evidence shows execution does not act as a deterrent to capital punishment.
I agree with Iris that we do not have the right to kill any people. Every people have the right to live in the world. It's a rule in the world. But the law is controlling the balance of people's dying.
ReplyDelete"Everything alive could not be killed by the laws"
In my opinion, death penalty is bad. It is not enough to give criminals punishment.Let them repent in hell? That's a joke. It only make other people feel bad.
ReplyDeleteMaybe a long period of imprisonment is suitable for murderers.Let them reflect alone in their whole life time in prison.
Did you read my comment Micheal? Respond to the question I asked!
ReplyDeleteThe death penalty in Britain has been abolished for murder since 1965. The Conservative government now wishes to retore it in the U.K. Petitions on both sides are being carried out.
ReplyDeleteRead the news article below and tell me what you think.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14412701
Also, while your opinions are interesting, where is your Evidence?
Yes, Kiran.I have read the article.I think death penalty is not helpful to punish criminals.It is too cruel.The purpose of criminal law is to transform people, not to blindly go for retribution-style punishment.
ReplyDelete'The value of the death penalty is gradually reduced, so death penalty should be abolished eventually.'
ReplyDeletestated by Guo Yuchuan, 2005
Why do we want to recommission a law which should be repealed?
Who the hell is 'we'?
ReplyDeleteSorry, Kiran. That's my mistake. There are some members of parliament think death penalty should return. However,I think it should be decided by public.Because law is for every.
ReplyDeleteSorry again,OMG. The end is everyone.
ReplyDelete“The practice of executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society." stated by Justice John Paul Stevens,2002
ReplyDeleteMary, I think you might be wrong. I still insist the opinion that execution should be abolished.
ReplyDeleteThe result of capital punishment will be completely the opposite to your imagination. The statistics in the article "The Death Penalty and Deterrence" showed that the homicide rate in non-Death Penalty states has been lower than the rate in States with the Death Penalty. While the execution might prevent the violent crime, it might also lead to more crimes when a person knew he/she will be executed.
FOR TINA 1.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it depends on. I do not think all murderers should beexecuted. Actually, the murder also can be divided into different kinds, suchas some murderers kill people only to want self-defence when they facedangerous situation. Also, every person’s life is given by the God, sogovernments should be very careful and cautious when they judge murderers bythe laws. So if the murderers’ crime does not deserve death for them, theyshould not be enforced the capital punishment. Moreover, maybe the murderersare teenagers. Therefore, governments can use much more suitable and fair judgmentto punish them.
However, some criminal behaviourshould be adjudged the death penalty, such as manufacturing, smuggling andselling illegal drug and selling illegal guns. The criminals which heavily endangerthe safety of countries and societies should be executed. At some times, maybe thedeath penalty is the best way to avoid some heavy violence events to endanger thesocieties and people, even the whole world.
2. In fact, I agree withKarl on some extent. I also believe that death penalty is needed in the law todecrease the criminal rate. But, I also consider the capital punishment shouldnot be used for all murderers.
3. “I have long believed that the death penalty is anappropriate punishment in cases where there have been multiple murders or amurder has been committed in a particularly heinous manner.” States by Lisa Madigan,March 2nd, 2011.
"I don’t think you should supportthe death penalty to seek revenge. I don’t think that’s right. I think thereason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s lives." States by GEORGE W. BUSH, presidential debate, Oct. 17, 2000.