It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Death Penalty: Hypocritical or justifiable?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 



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


Different scenario...Someone is trying to kill your spouse and child. To protect the life
of an innocent third party, your spouse and child, you pull a handgun and kill the perpetrator.
Hypocritical?

By using the death penalty, society is protecting the lives of innocent people. Society
has deemed the individual not fit to live among said society, and the crime they committed
was heinous enough to warrant the death penalty.

Caring for them at the public's expense is not the answer. If we do not use the death penalty,
I like the idea of dropping them off on an island with the clothes on their back, and sailing off
into the sunset. I spent 20+ years working with these types of folks, and very few have any
remorse for the lives they have affected.




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiefsmom
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.
edit on 8-9-2011 by chiefsmom because: sp


Almost missed your post.

Anway yeah, prison is not meant to be fun. But at the same time, some of them might actually put it to good use. I have an uncle by marriage that actually spent 25 years on prison for armed robbery ( It was the 70's and the three strikes rule was going... His other two offenses were drug related... He was also on unsolved mysteries because there was strong evidence to suggest he was innocent... that is a thread for another day though)

He spent his time earning 4 masters degrees... and all I can say is.... If he did do it, he has certainly changed for the better. Good man.

But I digress, in general, I am all for making jail as crappy as possible. It's jail, it's not meant to be fun.

Oh, I would love to see chain gangs. I do know my uncle got a prison job farming... he said it was like farming in the 1700's. No machines to help... Just a shovel and his hands. He hated it



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by retiredTxn

Different scenario...Someone is trying to kill your spouse and child. To protect the life
of an innocent third party, your spouse and child, you pull a handgun and kill the perpetrator.
Hypocritical?



Like I said though,while I do not believe in eye for an eye in every situation. There are situations in which it is appropriate.

I truly can understand both sides of the argument.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 

reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


We each have our own thoughts and opinions on the subject. How do we decide who's right?
This is a debate that has been going on for a century or more.
The only clear point is that REHABILITATION does not work.

If you lock someone in a cell for the rest of their lives, electricute them, give them lethal injection, shoot them in the back of the head or hang them, it is still a life sentence.
The only thing I think the OP is trying to decide, is which would help him sleep better at night.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium

The only thing I think the OP is trying to decide, is which would help him sleep better at night.


What I am trying to decide is exactly what the thread title says. Is the death penalty hypocritical or justifiable. Simple really. If you think I am that concerned, read my previous post.

I sleep just fine thank you.
In other words you are wrong about my intentions. I just love a good debate.

And by the way Rehabilitation does not work due to the lack of rehabilitation in prison...

I agree, something needs to be done different.. What you have suggested is not different. Punishment in public has been going on since society has existed and yet here we are, still over run with crime.

Got a better idea? I would love to hear it...

Side note: the death penalty ( and the debate) has existed for much longer than a century. the methods have changed though. Now days we use a needle, thousands of years ago, we boiled them in oil, burned them alive, crucified..... decapitation...before that, they probably hit them over the head with a rock..
edit on 8-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium


We each have our own thoughts and opinions on the subject. How do we decide who's right?



There will never be an answer to who is right... There will always be people on both sides. I understand both sides.

Does not mean a debate cannot take place or that we should not share our thoughts and opinions.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Some food for thought.
( this first one is more or less my state of mind on the subject, what can I say, I'm old fashion)

Reform by regimen: the penitentiary.
Although various types of institutions had previously existed, the United States is generally credited with—or blamed for, depending on one's perspective!—the invention of the state-administered, modern prison system (Barnes; Eriksson; McKelvey). Before the 1820s and 1830s, prisons as we think of them today did not exist. Local counties operated jails, but these facilities often had the architecture of a house (with the jailer and his family living on the premises) and were used to detain offenders awaiting trial or punishment. Offenders were typically fined, publicly embarrassed by being placed in the pillory, whipped, banished, or executed, but they were not incarcerated for the purpose of punishment or reform. Indeed, the notion that locking up offenders could serve a larger purpose would have struck colonial Americans as odd (Barnes).


Reform by individualized treatment: the new penology and beyond.
Notions of how best to rehabilitate offenders are dynamic, not static. Three decades or so after the penitentiary was initiated, the idea that the internal design and daily regimen of the prison would have transforming powers could no longer be sustained. In the aftermath of the Civil War, prisons began to fill to the brim, rendering obsolete any hopes of bunking inmates in solitary confinement and of maintaining total silence. Beyond such practical limitations, observers believed the penitentiary's blueprint had a fatal flaw: no matter what offenders did
while in prison, they were released when their sentence expired. What self-interest, they wondered, did inmates have to better themselves while under lock and key? It was clear that the earlier theory of reforming offenders was bankrupt.



Reform by corrections.
By the end of the Progressive Era, then, the notion of individualized treatment had emerged as the dominant correctional philosophy and the basic contours of the modern correctional system—probation, parole, juvenile justice, and all the policies and practices they entail—were in place. As Rothman (1980) painfully details, the ideals of effective rehabilitation were infrequently realized. Shortages of knowledge, trained staff, resources, and institutional commitment often resulted in treatment that was poorly delivered or absent altogether. Still, confidence abounded that rehabilitation was possible and, with sufficient support, could be effective.

Conclusion


Researchers make many bold assertions, but most are forgotten or subjected to critical scrutiny; neither occurred in Martinson's case: his research immediately received national attention among academics and the media, and his findings were accepted by most observers as obviously true. A few scholars rose up in opposition, such as Ted Palmer, who demonstrated that nearly half of the treatment programs reviewed by Martinson actually reduced recidivism. But given the tenor of the times, people were ready to hear Martinson's "nothing works" message and unprepared to question empirical findings that reinforced what they already believed. With scientific findings on their side, they now could declare that "rehabilitation was dead."

The source......... law.jrank.org...

Very interesting read. A little long but worth while in understanding others point of view on the subject.
Quad














edit on 8-9-2011 by Quadrivium because: Fixed the first part of the external content.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


I have to amend what I posted earlier. I should have added that what I proposed would be the sentence after the appeals process, which opens a whole new can of worms.

There have been trials that have been appealed up to ten times, dragging out the sentence and wasting taxpayers money, all the while making lawyers richer. I think that it should be reduced to at most three.

Also to add to what I earlier proposed is when I said, no reading material, that includes letters (Mail in or out), no Bible, Torah , Qu'ran....anything. And when they passed away, their family and friends would never know and they would be buried in a unmarked grave.
edit on 8-9-2011 by TDawgRex because: Just not paying attention to my spelling.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 




And by the way Rehabilitation does not work due to the lack of rehabilitation in prison...



Definition of REHABILITATE transitive verb
1 a : to restore to a former capacity : reinstate
b : to restore to good repute : reestablish the good name of
2 a : to restore to a former state (as of efficiency, good management, or solvency)
b : to restore or bring to a condition of health or useful and constructive activity

Source - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

My problem with rehabilitation in prison, is we are assuming an individual can be restored to a previous
state, or be changed into a useful citizen. It will and does work on some folks, but is very difficult with
many. Imagine, if you will, someone who knows nothing but the life of living on the street, or relies on
a gang for their upbringing. Despite all the classes, therapy, and religion they may acquire in prison, the day
they leave prison, they return to that gang, or living under a bridge in a cardboard box.

Happens every day in America. In spite of the good intentions of those who scream for rehabilitation,
there are not enough aftercare programs to provide for these folks. So, is it hypocritical to kill a person
who has killed, and has very little chance of returning to society as a useful member of society, or justified
to kill them and not take the chance they will be a repeat offender?

We as a society may never know the right answer, but until a better one is found, what else should we
do? IMO every answer in this debate only leads to more questions. I wish there was an easy answer.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by retiredTxn
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 




And by the way Rehabilitation does not work due to the lack of rehabilitation in prison...



Definition of REHABILITATE transitive verb
1 a : to restore to a former capacity : reinstate
b : to restore to good repute : reestablish the good name of
2 a : to restore to a former state (as of efficiency, good management, or solvency)
b : to restore or bring to a condition of health or useful and constructive activity

Source - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

My problem with rehabilitation in prison, is we are assuming an individual can be restored to a previous
state, or be changed into a useful citizen. It will and does work on some folks, but is very difficult with
many. Imagine, if you will, someone who knows nothing but the life of living on the street, or relies on
a gang for their upbringing. Despite all the classes, therapy, and religion they may acquire in prison, the day
they leave prison, they return to that gang, or living under a bridge in a cardboard box.

Happens every day in America. In spite of the good intentions of those who scream for rehabilitation,
there are not enough aftercare programs to provide for these folks. So, is it hypocritical to kill a person
who has killed, and has very little chance of returning to society as a useful member of society, or justified
to kill them and not take the chance they will be a repeat offender?

We as a society may never know the right answer, but until a better one is found, what else should we
do? IMO every answer in this debate only leads to more questions. I wish there was an easy answer.


Maybe that definition should be posted everywhere in Prisons. And until you meet the standard, you don't get out.

To many people learn news ways of commiting crimes while imprisoned, though a few do learn their lessons and do not want to go back.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by retiredTxn

My problem with rehabilitation in prison, is we are assuming an individual can be restored to a previous
state, or be changed into a useful citizen.


I agree, a lot of them are too far gone, but as far as that goes, I don't think that does not mean we should not try. Though we are getting off subject.

My fault though. Go figure.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


I have to amend what I posted earlier. I should have added that what I proposed would be the sentence after the appeals process, which opens a whole new can of worms.

There have been trials that have been appealed up to ten times, dragging out the sentence and wasting taxpayers money, all the while making lawyers richer. I think that it should be reduced to at most three.

Also to add to what I earlier proposed is when I said, no reading material, that includes letters (Mail in or out), no Bible, Torah , Qu'ran....anything. And when they passed away, their family and friends would never know and they would be buried in a unmarked grave.
edit on 8-9-2011 by TDawgRex because: Just not paying attention to my spelling.


Ah, okay, that changes it a bit for me then. I like it as an alternative to death.

I have no problem with them not being able to get or send mail, or read any of those religious texts.

Though, I think their family should be notified when they die. Why punish them to?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Very good. Thank you


Looking through it now.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I think religious thought plays a part in Americas support for the death penalty, if they think by killing a criminal he is going to zoom off to never never land to be judged or tortured for all eternity, then it makes sense...of course in reality it doesn't make sense and is a very easy way out. People in jail for life or on death row should instead do hard labor to pay for their own upkeep, and have just the basic necessities.....spending decades in prison and doing hard labor everyday or get a few jags which kill you in minutes? I know which i would pick if given the option....As i said, it's the easy way out, plus there is always the chance of killing an Innocent person.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Solomons because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


If the punishment was so, and it may take awhile to take affect people’s thoughts, it may just well make people think twice about committing a crime.

Some people don't care whether they live or die. But I don't think anyone wants to be forgotten and ignored.

There are those who feel that way, but to be truly and literally tossed into the dungeon is another thing.

I think it would take about ten years before we would see a drop in murders and violent crimes.

Of course, you would also see a lot of criminals committing suicide by cop rather than face incarceration like that.

Gotta give ya a S&F (if it matters and I rarely say that) as you are making people think and reason their ideas out.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex

If the punishment was so, and it may take awhile to take affect people’s thoughts, it may just well make people think twice about committing a crime.

Some people don't care whether they live or die. But I don't think anyone wants to be forgotten and ignored.


That is a great point. I didn't even think of that. yeah, everyone wants to be remembered, good bad or otherwise... What you propose, could actually be a really good deterrent.




Gotta give ya a S&F (if it matters and I rarely say that) as you are making people think and reason their ideas out.


Thank you, that actually means a lot. I do try my best here on ATS.

I am the same way with S&F's. There are quite a few star worthy posts in here.
edit on 8-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


In a sense, the family would know the individual who has been sentenced, is already dead and they can grieve in their own way upon sentencing.

That alone may have a effect on how they raise their children in the future.

Think about it. Many of us do not want to be looked upon as a failure or disappointment to the family. And knowing that you will never have contact of any kind with the exception of your own voice has gotta be hell on earth. The idea of that you are forgotten can be a strong deterrent.

But then, you have nutjobs who just want to get in the history books.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


In a sense, the family would know the individual who has been sentenced, is already dead and they can grieve in their own way upon sentencing.

That alone may have a effect on how they raise their children in the future.

Think about it. Many of us do not want to be looked upon as a failure or disappointment to the family. And knowing that you will never have contact of any kind with the exception of your own voice has gotta be hell on earth. The idea of that you are forgotten can be a strong deterrent.

But then, you have nutjobs who just want to get in the history books.


Yeah, I think your idea, really might actually work on a lot of people. Even a lot of hardcore criminals still have a heart when it comes to their family...

But yeah, like you said, there are also the crazy people. Sometimes there are people with no friends or family... things like that.... But I think it would work on a lot of people.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Emotionally I like the death penalty sometimes..... sometimes.. Intellectually I hate it. Spiritually, I have no use for it whatsoever.

The problem is the software, not the computer. If we have a virus and our machine malfunctions maybe we want to blow it up, but we don't (usually). We fix the bad software. A true "correctional facility" would fix the bad software, test for proper functioning, then release.

As a civilization we are not quite at a point where we can think like this especially if we either know or are (likely to be) the victim. At the end of the day we all know and "eye-for-an-eye" cannot solve anything. It never has. Bad software does not respond ( as a deterrent) to the fear of consequences if apprehended. It just kills, kills, kills.

Now, CAN we fix people who kill? Maybe some (but how can we be sure?) And what about the unfixable machines?
Well, we're talking about (human) life here. As much as I don't like to say it, if every effort has been made to fix the problem, but the fix just won;t stick, I think you're stuck providing basics (food, shelter, clothing) for the balance of the killer's life. At least, the killer can usually be made to do some useful work even if incarcerated. I do not feel obligated to provide convicted killers with 5-star hotel accommodations, though. Just basics. In most cases I would bet they could understand that they cannot be free for obvious reasons and they cannot be given all the wonderful amenities that come with living freely, but maybe they can do something to earn some of those things, just like the rest of us do.

So is it moral to kill the killers? No. There is no duty to kill anyone ever except in self defense. Even then, it is not as clearcut as it might seem. Life..even a defective one...is precious. To kill a killer is to say that you have the right to end here and now any and all lessons this person may ever learn from now until the time of their own death. As justified as such a punishment may seem, claiming such a right seems quite the stretch to me in most cases.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

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?

On the assumption that all murder is committed by psychopathic serial killers of which there are very very few in the world. Most murder is a one off and all studies have shown the death penalty is NOT a deterrent. This means the death penalty is only a form of revenge and/or financial "saving". Both of which are immoral reasons for killing somebody.

By the way. If somebody is found to be innocent you can unlock the door. Unless you firmly believe that a copper would never lie and witnesses would never lie and that there has never ever been an innocent person in jail or executed....yeah right. John Christie was a serial killer in the UK who testified at the trial of Timothy Evans who was hung for murders committed by Christie himself.

Oh let me guess the infamous beyond all reasonable doubt because there is hi-def video evidence of the child being raped, person mutilated etc etc. As if!. Most trials involve doubt, there is rarely any incontrovertible video evidence of severe crimes most is dependent on witnesses and forensics. Therefore irrespective of the crime the possibility of a miscarriage can occur.

If you believe in God you cannot believe in the death penalty. That power lies with God and God alone. Ironic that I the atheist have to remind folks of that basic rule of God!




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join