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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


So again I'll ask you, you would've rather her had the choice? Or be forced to die? Which do you think that the political interpretations of "death penalty" entails?

And I don't appreciate you saying I would have ridiculed her kids; I may come off "hurtful" but at least I don't make up random garbage out of spite to support a moot point that I push for reasons that I don't understand.

I'll leave you with that "food for thought".
edit on 9-9-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
How about this one?

Not having the option of the Death Penalty on the table is Hypocritical.

Why you ask? It's about free choice. DNA evidence is very advanced these days and usually catch the right people. If the victims and their families of the mass murderers do not have the right to execute that person how is that right? They should have a choice! After all, they didn't have a choice when their friends/loved ones were murdered by him.

The execution law only comes into play with the most heinous crimes. And yes, some people do get wrongly convicted but everyone is innocent in prison!

The way I see it if you go on a murdering rampage and get the death penalty, you had it coming!



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   




Revenge and spite are not justice.

And how do you apologize to someone who gets the death penalty and then proven innocent at a later date using technology that never existed? Do you know how many people were executed and then proven innocent by DNA technology? If ONE person died from this, I would be against it. Innocent people don't deserve to even have the chance to be executed by a governing body for something that they didn't do.
edit on 9-9-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   





According to Wikipedia we as a nation have executed 15,269 people and have wrongly executed 57 people to date and only 15 people have been declared innocent through DNA testing. The thing is prisoners and inmates lie. I would only trust DNA evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

When comparing 15,000 people to 72 people I'd say we have had a pretty good track record. I still stand by my opinion that mass murderers don't deserve to live and their victims get the right to choose that for them.


edit on 9-9-2011 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


I sincerely hope that you or your child become one of those 15, for "justice's" sake.

That way you don't have to go through the immense hardship of using that brain in your head to come up with some damned perspective.

You can't put a victory badge on a lost, innocent life and use the fact that you killed thousands upon thousands of others of criminals that could've been put in jail as an excuse.

Sociopathy at its bolstered finest.

Disgusting.
edit on 9-9-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
The death penalty is an sad outdated embarrassment to the modern world..



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
The death penalty is an sad outdated embarrassment to the modern world..


As are its supporters.

And their "arguments".

And the fact that they all mysteriously disappear and focus on other threads when they are intellectually defeated by their own logic.

Yet we'll see them again in the next thread that they can regurgitate their partisan propaganda that they chew so proudly on... saying the exact same things that they we're defeated on before.

On goes the cycle, lambs to the slaughter.... to slaughter eachother... for slaughtering eachother... for slaughtering eachother.... for slaughtering eachother....

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind... wait, let's not quote scripture from Jesus, overt rebooblicans only seem to like Judaic laws from Leviticus; not enough separatist hate in the gospels
edit on 9-9-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
See the difference I am getting at?


Yes, but the difference you're getting at is that authorities have a moral exemption in regards to the law which prohibits someone from confining another against their will.

Why couldn't the state's special dispensation to go against the legal statute be extended to handing out the death penalty, if it was deemed to be suitable punishment for the offence ?


Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
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 don't think that justice should operate along the lines of ''an eye for an eye'', either. I'm just arguing against the notion that it is hypocritical to put people to death for murder, when it is a necessity for there to be some degree of ''do as we say, not do as we do'' in a smooth and safe criminal justice system.


Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
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.


I agree.

Imprisoning a serious offender for the rest of their lives adequately provides both public safety and punishment. Killing someone for their crime seems an unnecessary - and uncorrectable - extension in the level of punishment.


Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
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....


The possibility of a wrongful conviction is a different matter to whether the method is hypocritical.

To kill someone for killing another is not hypocritical if it can be argued that the ''punishment fits the crime'', because it could be argued that it's ''just'' for the state to kill someone, in the same way as it's acceptable for the state to confine people against their will - despite that being illegal in normal circumstances.


Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
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.


Cheers.


I'm just attempting to counter the idea that's it hypocritical, as that is one of the main points which is raised in these debates.

But, as you say, we can agree to disagree on the finer points of the ''hypocrisy'' aspect of this subject.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   


Now, yes, I understand you can get the death penalty for things other than murder, but that does not change the fact that killing is wrong.


The hypocrisy depends on fundamental idea upon which the justice system is built. Those systems that emphasise retribution and punishment are not hypocritical in this matter, IMHO, they simply respond to "wrong" with "wrong".

Those that epmhasise prevention and safety should limit the "wrongness" of their punishments to achieve this goal primarily, for which life imprisonment is enough, otherwise it can be argued that they are hypocritical.

EDIT: and as was already written above, implementing death penalty is more expensive than just life inprisonment. Unless you want to dramatically increase the amount of death penalties and lower the costs of the process, tough I dont think anyone wants to go this route.
edit on 9/9/11 by Maslo because: costs

edit on 9/9/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DieBravely

Originally posted by chiefsmom
I don't have a problem with the death penalty myself either.
There is a difference between killing and murder, at least to me.
Either way, life in prison, death penalty, it cost too much, and they have way too many privileges in prison.


Spoken like someone who's never been to prison before.


Yeah, but I would consider that a good thing.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Yes, but the difference you're getting at is that authorities have a moral exemption in regards to the law which prohibits someone from confining another against their will.

Why couldn't the state's special dispensation to go against the legal statute be extended to handing out the death penalty, if it was deemed to be suitable punishment for the offence ?


If the death penalty is deemed appropriate by the state, that is fine by me. My problem is the idea of... " hey, they have eye for an eye in other situations, so why not this one? I say, no blanket punishment. It needs to be handed out after the individual case is examined fully and properly. Then, if it is deemed appropriate to kill them for their crime.....

( ... Just trying to understand your point a bit more, getting you to explain your thoughts. I like what you have to say. Consider it a compliment.
)





I don't think that justice should operate along the lines of ''an eye for an eye'', either. I'm just arguing against the notion that it is hypocritical to put people to death for murder, when it is a necessity for there to be some degree of ''do as we say, not do as we do'' in a smooth and safe criminal justice system.


Why do you think that there has to be some degree of do as we say not as we do? I would think in an ideal society ( keep in mind that there will probably never be one of those) it would be needed to have a "lead by example" mentality. in our justice system.

What say you?




I agree.

Imprisoning a serious offender for the rest of their lives adequately provides both public safety and punishment. Killing someone for their crime seems an unnecessary - and uncorrectable - extension in the level of punishment.


Yeah, like I said, I can truly see and understand both sides of the debate. Death is so permanent... I actually still like TdawgRex's idea. It would certainly be a great deterrent for me. Though it would not work so much for crazy people or people who just don't care... and there are quite a few of those.



The possibility of a wrongful conviction is a different matter to whether the method is hypocritical.

To kill someone for killing another is not hypocritical if it can be argued that the ''punishment fits the crime'', because it could be argued that it's ''just'' for the state to kill someone, in the same way as it's acceptable for the state to confine people against their will - despite that being illegal in normal circumstances.


Okay, you know what? I am giving you that one. You make a damn good point as far as hypocrisy goes in the system. I can't really argue with that. Though some one around here probably will




Cheers.


I'm just attempting to counter the idea that's it hypocritical, as that is one of the main points which is raised in these debates.

But, as you say, we can agree to disagree on the finer points of the ''hypocrisy'' aspect of this subject.


Lots of respect for you. And I do not say that to just anyone...



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo


The hypocrisy depends on fundamental idea upon which the justice system is built. Those systems that emphasise retribution and punishment are not hypocritical in this matter, IMHO, they simply respond to "wrong" with "wrong".



Now, I may unintentionally end up taking this thread in a different direction ( I hope not because I love how it has been going so far) But the thread goes where it wants to go.

Anyway, What you wrote here got me thinking, is it just... in our nature to kill? It seems we have always killed each other for as long as humans have been around. The reasons are many. Reasons may be personal, or they could be that the state told you to do it....

But... Are we just... naturally violent and stuck on killing each other?I honestly believe that the end of the human species will not come at the hands of a meteor. It will come at the hands of humans... if that makes sense...

so... Why do we seem to be so stuck on killing?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Partisanity
 


Thats exactly what I was getting at in my earlier post. If you cannot be 100% sure that everyone executed is guilty then you shouldn't be killing anyone.

That in my opinion is hypocritical. If even one person is innocent and they are executed the system has failed and is obviously flawed. After all the system is executing a person for killing an innocent, so if the person killed is an innocent than the system becomes the murderer.

Imagine being on death row for something you didn't do....



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


How is killing 72 innocent people a good track record??



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by lZEROl
 


That is a good question. I would consider anything more than zero, a bad track record.

I wonder what they say to the families that have had their loved one killed, after it was found out they were innocent.

sure, 72 out of 15,000 means it is rare...But it also means that it happens.

Is there a way to make sure that it never happens again? I doubt it. We are only human.... but I would like to see there be no mistakes made...

What can be done? Anything? Nothing?

What say you?
edit on 9-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

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)



Hey, I have another question for you (It's okay, you can roll your eyes
)

I was thinking about your proposal, while at work. What you say would deter a lot of people. I mean, I am 24 years old. If I suddenly decided to... say... go on a shooting spree and I wound up in prison, what you offer would be so much worse to me than the death penalty. It would deter a person like me...

The very thought that after a few years, my family would have healed and moved on ( Since they would have no choice but to just consider me dead already) while I sit in there missing them.... that would be so hard.

Of course, I am not going to do that.


But also, it might not work on every person. What of people who commit violent crimes because they are crazy? Or what of people that are just so hardened they truly don't care what happens to them? I think with crazy people, such a punishment would not be fair.

Then again, we do have " Not guilty by reason of insanity", so I guess that answers that. But what of the people who just don't care? They have nothing to lose... I don't think it would deter them. So what should we do about them?

Also, people have gone crazy in solitary with far less restrictions. There are those that would call your proposal, cruel and unusual punishment. So, what do you think about that? What would you say to those who would call it cruel and unusual, and there fore illegal to do?



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



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

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)



Hey, I have another question for you (It's okay, you can roll your eyes
)

I was thinking about your proposal, while at work. What you say would deter a lot of people. I mean, I am 24 years old. If I suddenly decided to... say... go on a shooting spree and I wound up in prison, what you offer would be so much worse to me than the death penalty. It would deter a person like me...

The very thought that after a few years, my family would have healed and moved on ( Since they would have no choice but to just consider me dead already) while I sit in there missing them.... that would be so hard.

Of course, I am not going to do that.


But also, it might not work on every person. What of people who commit violent crimes because they are crazy? Or what of people that are just so hardened they truly don't care what happens to them? I think with crazy people, such a punishment would not be fair.

Then again, we do have " Not guilty by reason of insanity", so I guess that answers that. But what of the people who just don't care? They have nothing to lose... I don't think it would deter them. So what should we do about them?

Also, people have gone crazy in solitary with far less restrictions. There are those that would call your proposal, cruel and unusual punishment. So, what do you think about that? What would you say to those who would call it cruel and unusual, and there fore illegal to do?



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


Fat thumbs...see below
edit on 9-9-2011 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


I don't think that there is a perfect solution to this dilema. I don't think we should be killing people if there is a chance some of them maybe innocent. You can always just lock them up. It is not right to lock up an innocent person, but that is a mistake that can be corrected, death is forever.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by lZEROl
 


Here in Texas over the past few years, there have been several people who were on death row, that got released due to DNA evidence, proving them innocent.

So, for what it is worth, the number could have been higher... In fact it probably is. We just don't always prove everyone innocent.

Scary thought really.
edit on 9-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

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)



Hey, I have another question for you (It's okay, you can roll your eyes
)

I was thinking about your proposal, while at work. What you say would deter a lot of people. I mean, I am 24 years old. If I suddenly decided to... say... go on a shooting spree and I wound up in prison, what you offer would be so much worse to me than the death penalty. It would deter a person like me...

The very thought that after a few years, my family would have healed and moved on ( Since they would have no choice but to just consider me dead already) while I sit in there missing them.... that would be so hard.

Of course, I am not going to do that.


But also, it might not work on every person. What of people who commit violent crimes because they are crazy? Or what of people that are just so hardened they truly don't care what happens to them? I think with crazy people, such a punishment would not be fair.

Then again, we do have " Not guilty by reason of insanity", so I guess that answers that. But what of the people who just don't care? They have nothing to lose... I don't think it would deter them. So what should we do about them?

Also, people have gone crazy in solitary with far less restrictions. There are those that would call your proposal, cruel and unusual punishment. So, what do you think about that? What would you say to those who would call it cruel and unusual, and there fore illegal to do?



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


Well ,the ones who are judged to be crazy..by psyche standards, we’ll just have to lock up in a institution (Heavy security), unless they are deemed so anti-social that solitary may be a good thing for society. Gotham asylum comes to mind though. Quite the dark place for a cartoon, don't ya think?

The ones that just don’t care...well, if they go crazy in solitary, I guess that is part of their punishment. But that’s why I say that after ten years or so, if my idea were implemented, the ones who don’t care will just commit suicide by cop.

Cruel and inhumane…quite possibly, but what about the victim? Did they get any such consideration?

I think that we would be best served if people considered, especially criminals, that for every action, there is a reaction. And it would be dire.

By the way...I would include people like Bernie Madoff in the solitary scenario as he has screwed up many lives as well.


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




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join