The Death Penalty: Hypocritical or justifiable?

Originally posted by Sevensight
Cue the ATS pro-lifers to come in here praising the death penalty in
3...2...

It is perfectly valid for someone to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, or pro-abortion and anti-death penalty.

Neither position is contradictory, as they relate to two completely separate issues which have different, complex factors which are relevant when adopting a ''for'' or ''against'' position on either one of those issues.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I don't support the death penalty, but I would question the ''hypocrisy'' argument against it.

Is it hypocritical to imprison people who have been convicted of kidnap or false imprisonment ?

No, because they are not being falsely imprisoned. If they were being falsely imprisoned as well, for some other crime they did not do then yes it would be.


Killing a person because they killed a person...that is hypocritical...At least from where I am sitting at the moment.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
No, because they are not being falsely imprisoned.

They are being imprisoned against their will as punishment for imprisoning someone else against their will.

That's no different to premeditatedly killing someone as punishment for premeditatedly killing someone else.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
No, because they are not being falsely imprisoned.

They are being imprisoned against their will as punishment for imprisoning someone else against their will.

That's no different to premeditatedly killing someone as punishment for premeditatedly killing someone else.

Your argument spoke of false imprisonment,not jailing people against their will...One is locked up for breaking the law, the other is not..... Sooo...

No, if they are in jail for false imprisonment,then they have committed a crime and there fore there is no hypocrisy. If they were say... falsely imprisoned for something else, that they did not do...that would be both Ironic and hypocritical.

Killing some one because they killed some one is hypocritical.

Hmmmmmmm............
How can I put this?
If someone is arrested for raping and or killing a child they should be given three trials, back to back.
If found guilty in two out of three, take them out for public execution.
This should also be done for those that just enter a building and start shooting, with only one trial because most of the time there are plenty of witnesses. But the key is to have a PUBLIC execution.
For petty crimes and armed robbery where no one was injured, PUBLIC BEATINGS.
One of the main problems we have is that criminals know that there is no consequence for their crimes. They sit in jail, watch tv, play ball, lift weights, get a paid for education and three square meals a day.
Show them there are severe consequences to their actions and watch the crime rate plummet.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
But the key is to have a PUBLIC execution.
For petty crimes and armed robbery where no one was injured, PUBLIC BEATINGS.

Show them there are severe consequences to their actions and watch the crime rate plummet.

They used to do that here. Still do in some parts of the world... Crime is still pretty rampant though.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


They've got public beatings by the authorities here! It's just before trial instead of after...

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Ahh, gotcha.

I think if you kill someone, whom has murdered innocent people for no reason, in killing them, you are protecting other innocent people. If he were to get out of jail, or maybe even in jail, how many others might he/she kill that you could have prevented?

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Show them there are severe consequences to their actions and watch the crime rate plummet.

That doesnt work.

If it did given how many speeding idiots wrap themselves around trees and telephone poles in plain sight of every passerby out you'd think people would stop speeding like idiots.

There is no such thing as a deterrent. There is always a way to justify ignoring the consequences and going through with the action.

Heat of the moment (not thinking)
Completely crazy (not thinking)
Premeditation (belief that you wont get caught regardless of the consequences)

No deterrent exists. If one could be deterred by any means that one likely isnt going to commit the crime in the first place whether or not that deterrent exists.

Law and punishment or this simple minded system of vengeance based pseudo-justice has no affect on crime or criminals and only makes criminals out of those who would commit non-crimes created through innumerable layers of legislation and bureaucracy.

But, hey, if it makes you feel better to spread misery by all means go for it.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

I guess I am of more cruel bent. I think that anyone given a life sentence with no possibility of parole should be given solitary confinement, with no windows or contact with the outside world. Other than the guard that feeds them and gives them a change of clothes and blankets. And the guards are forbidden to talk to the prisoners. No visits from anybody, no friends, family, clergy.

6x8 room, One crapper and sink and bed. No chair or desk, soundproofed, no radio or TV or reading material. A lumpy mattress and kept at 60 degrees at all times and one dim bulb for light that can be changed from the hall. If they need medical treatment, it is brought to the cell.

And that is how they would live. For the rest...of...their...life.

edit on 8-9-2011 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)

That honestly to me...Sounds like a more fitting punishment for those people on Death row....

I mean...Solitary to that extent...

I don't think people realize how much hell solitary can be.... Honestly, if I was thinking about killing some one,your punishment would be more of a deterrent than the death penalty. Is that weird of me?

Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

Ahh, gotcha.

I think if you kill someone, whom has murdered innocent people for no reason, in killing them, you are protecting other innocent people. If he were to get out of jail, or maybe even in jail, how many others might he/she kill that you could have prevented?

I am curious what you think of TdawgRex's Solution....

Solitary really can be torturous... Especially to the extent they suggested

( Look a post or two up. I responded to what they had to say)

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by mongomuggins
Could someone provide a list of developed countries that still have the death penalty. I can only think of one.

Well I don't know what you might consider to be developed ( I may consider it something else), so here is a link with a list of all countries that have the death penalty.

www.infoplease.com...

That should help you find your answer.

Thank you sir.

Death penalty permitted - Afghanistan Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belize Botswana Burundi Cameroon Chad China (People's Republic) Comoros Congo (Democratic Republic) Cuba Dominica Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Ghana Guatemala Guinea Guyana India Indonesia Iran Iraq Jamaica Japan Jordan Korea, North Korea, South Kuwait Laos Lebanon Lesotho Libya Malawi Malaysia Mongolia Nigeria Oman Pakistan Palestinian Authority Qatar St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone Singapore Somalia Sudan Swaziland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Uganda United Arab Emirates United States Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Read more: The Death Penalty Worldwide — Infoplease.com www.infoplease.com...

reply to post by mongomuggins


Glad I could be of assistance.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Your argument spoke of false imprisonment,not jailing people against their will...

The crime of false imprisonment is confining someone against their will - exactly the same punishment which is handed out for someone who is convicted of this crime.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
One is locked up for breaking the law, the other is not..... Sooo...

The same justification could be used in support of the death penalty, citing the punishment as reasonable because of the law which was originally broken.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
No, if they are in jail for false imprisonment,then they have committed a crime and there fore there is no hypocrisy. If they were say... falsely imprisoned for something else, that they did not do...that would be both Ironic and hypocritical.

If they are executed because they committed murder, then they have committed a crime and therefore there is no hypocrisy.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Killing some one because they killed some one is hypocritical.

There are many good arguments against the death penalty, but I don't think you're going down the right avenue with this one.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


I actually think more people for the most serious crimes should have what T suggests, not just Death row. I think it is complete BS, that here in Mich, some of the prisons have a law library that lawyers actually go and use. I think to many have it to easy in prison, so yeah, I'm all for it.

LOL but I also think we should bring back the chain gangs in this state too.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

The crime of false imprisonment is confining someone against their will - exactly the same punishment which is handed out for someone who is convicted of this crime.

They are not the same thing... You are talking about a person who was falsely imprisoned. This person did nothing wrong. Then you have a person who is imprisoned justifiably for committing the illegal act of false imprisonment.

See the difference I am getting at?

I just don't believe in eye for an eye in every situation. yes, some situations call for it... Such as when a person is wrongfully imprisoned or kidnapped and held against their will. The punishment is jail time and justifiably so....

I just am having trouble justifying killing some one because they killed some one... Killing some one is on a whole different level to me, than kidnapping. Both are horrible crimes. but justifying executing some one... It's hard for me.

If they are executed because they committed murder, then they have committed a crime and therefore there is no hypocrisy.

and if the person was wrongfully accused? that said, I agree. Murder is a crime. As I have said, I am not saying they do not need to be punished... The punishment of choice is hypocritical....

Killing a person for killing a person.... It's hypocritical. personally I like TdawgRex's idea.

Doesn't let the murders get off so easy. You think they care about death? clearly not....

There are many good arguments against the death penalty, but I don't think you're going down the right avenue with this one.

Thanks for your opinion.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

You have honestly put up the best argument in favor of it so far.... Or rather, countered my argument bettr than anyone, so far. , in my opinion... Got me thinking and challenged my own thoughts.

thanks for that.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

That doesnt work.

If it did given how many speeding idiots wrap themselves around trees and telephone poles in plain sight of every passerby out you'd think people would stop speeding like idiots.

While colourful, you analogy is a bit flawed.
Most people who speed have the "that will never happen to me mentality". Most of their thoughts are probably on where they are going or how late they are, not on what would happen if they wrecked.

Take a gangsta out in the hood, lash him down and commence to beating him with a leather strap, in front of his thug friends. They will think about the consequences BEFORE their next run in with the authorities.

I admit this probably will not effect the older hardened criminals but it will deter the younger ones. And if they get deterred it will lead to less of the older hardened criminals.

Law and punishment or this simple minded system of vengeance based pseudo-justice has no affect on crime or criminals and only makes criminals out of those who would commit non-crimes created through innumerable layers of legislation and bureaucracy.

Lol no you didn't, really? What about the "innumerable layers of legislation and bureaucracy" we have today?
How is it that a rich or well known person gets off with a slap one the hand for doing something that anyone else gets put away for?

Our judicial system needs to be simplified. A set punishment for a set crime. NO MATTER WHO YOU OR YOUR FAMILY MAY BE.

But, hey, if it makes you feel better to spread misery by all means go for it.

Misery? Eh, riiiight.

Originally posted by Quadrivium


Take a gangsta out in the hood, lash him down and commence to beating him with a leather strap, in front of his thug friends. They will think about the consequences BEFORE their next run in with the authorities.

.

Again though, public punishment has taken place across the world for as long as society has existed. Call me crazy, but crime still seems to be pretty rampant.

Your idea, I don't think it works.

reply to post by Quadrivium


That "gangsta out of the hood" shares the same "never happen to me" mindset of the driver.

I refer back to the three criminal types: heat of the moment, crazy, premeditated.

Originally posted by drivers1492
I support the death penalty. My view is looked down upon by many because I personally don't think the huge cost is warranted in the ways we carry them out. A bullet to the back of the head would be quick and cheap. Sure that seems a bit barbaric but I just don't see the problem.

There will always be crimes and instances that people will have issue with this particular punishment but the ones who commit said crimes are aware of their actions and the possible outcomes. So with that in mind why should society provide them with the housing, meals, and laundry service for the rest of their lives?

547000-If your concern is that they have time to find god, I seriously think from the time that they commit the crime to execution is more than plenty to work it out. If not, well, they had their chance.

It some times takes a very long time to realize hell is no fairy tale and how important repenting is. It took me 19 years, and I wasn't even a criminal, convinced that I am somehow justified because my criminal behavior is society's fault.

I can see your point, but the fact that hell is forever and ever disturbs me a little.