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: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


hang em high, I want cruel and unusual punishment.I want them to be afraid of the punishment.I want them very afraid of the punishment. Texas for ever!!!




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Society run with government as always claimed the right to kill any individual it sees as a threat to the rest of society, just like it has always claimed the right to invade and fight any nation it sees as a threat. Government run with society defines the circumstances which allow a person to kill, whether it's the enemy, each other, animals, unborn babies or whatever. If you don't like it, you have to move somewhere else or start your own country.

It's worked pretty good for 10,000 years or so.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Partisanity
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?


...you didnt ask that the first time - you insinuated an argument of your own making, which you topped off with insults... therefore, your "again" is as disingenous as your intial post to me...

...however, to answer your question - what i would have preferred for my friend has no bearing on how things go... if you want to discuss how things might work in fantasy land, create a thread for that purpose...


Originally posted by Partisanity
And I don't appreciate you saying I would have ridiculed her kids;


...your presumptuous accusations warranted it...


Originally posted by Partisanity
I don't make up random garbage out of spite to support a moot point


...your words below prove the contrary...


previously posted by Partisanity
So give the perp a choice, death or prison... that's your argument, right? Oh wait, nope, partisan rhetoric took over for your linear logic. ALWAYS KILL, MUST KILL.





posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Was watching a short documentary on the death penalty and I guess in the case of lethal injection, they hook up 3 IV lines to the person, one of which is a dummy line that isn't hooked up. So the "health professionals" pushing the deadly drugs from behind a curtain don't know if they gave it or not, said it was a liability issue. Seems a bit cowardly really. Trying to make killing someone "clean", a bit ridiculous.

Although if the person was later found to be innocent, I suppose the ones pushing the drugs could be included in a lawsuit. But if you aren't sure enough of someone's guilt to withstand the "inconvenience" of a lawsuit, you probably shouldn't be killing a person in the first place. Talk about covering your rears.

edit on 9-9-2011 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Turq1
Was watching a short documentary on the death penalty and I guess in the case of lethal injection, they hook up 3 IV lines to the person, one of which is a dummy line that isn't hooked up. So the "health professionals" pushing the deadly drugs from behind a curtain don't know if they gave it or not, said it was a liability issue. Seems a bit cowardly really. Trying to make killing someone "clean", a bit ridiculous.



They have had forms of hiding the identity of the executioner for a long time.Think back to those guys working the guillotines with those black masks on. I always assumed it was to avoid retribution from friends and family.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
Most prosecutors are politicians in waiting as are many of the defense attorneys...they have forgotten their code.

Innocent until proven guilty.


...maybe... or maybe they understand that old phrase was a con from the get-go...

...if you're the most likely suspect (or the first easy target) - more often than not, you get to go to jail asap and you're treated as if you are guilty...

...sure, they'll let ya post bail eventually but if you're a poor person or an average person that lives from paycheck to paycheck, you're gonna sit in jail until your trial, which can take years sometimes and you have no legal recourse...

...guilty until proven innocent - thats how its always really been here (except for the wealthy and/or well connected) but thats jmo...



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
It depends on the circumstances. I think if someone commits a minor offence then they should be sent to a rehabilitation centre that, if they successfully complete, will remove their criminal record from their name allowing them to get a job and not fall into a life of crime that blights so many ex convicts.

If a serious offence is committed (murder) then I think that the person should be sent to prison proportional to their crime. They should then be rehabilitated and try to be reintegrated into society. If that fails then send them back to prison until they are. (Again, this depends on the circumstances - self defence vs. cold blooded murder)

If they repeatedly commit offences, with no remorse or chance of rehabilitation (serial paedophile/ serial rapist) then they should be executed.

I know this isn't perfect and in the real world, there would probably be endless amounts of problems with this scenario. But it's just an idea - of which there are many

On a slightly similar note, I only found out what the 3 strikes and you're out rule was a couple of weeks ago courtesy of QI and I am shocked.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by morrow2112
 


I'd take the death penalty over these options thank you



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo


On a slightly similar note, I only found out what the 3 strikes and you're out rule was a couple of weeks ago courtesy of QI and I am shocked.


It put away a lot of people for a long time for minor crimes. Screwed over a lot of people who made mistakes but deserved a chance. Never did like the 3 strikes rule.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
100% against killing or ....
eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nfflhome
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


hang em high, I want cruel and unusual punishment.I want them to be afraid of the punishment.I want them very afraid of the punishment. Texas for ever!!!


Well, to be more accurate... Maybe you should say, Texas State Government forever. Not everyone in Texas agrees with it.
edit on 9-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Yeah, I think they said on QI that someone was on his last strike and they sent him down for life for stealing a handful of DVDs


It really does beggar belief



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I am against the death penalty also, because it is not our place to be judging others to the extent that we decide whether they live or die. What I do support, however, is life in prison with hard labor and no parole. Imagine a criminal thinking about committing murder, knowing that if he is caught, he will be swinging a hammer making little ones out of big ones every day for the rest of his life. I think that would be a much better deterrent than lethal injection.

Oh, wait, that's cruel and unusual, right? I guess we can't treat killers inhumanely like they treated their victims, but we can kill them.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
to believe in the death penalty is to believe i, you, we, are perfect and cant make mistakes or be corrupt 100% of the time. it has been documented we have executed innocent people. it s inevitable even if we are perfect and non corrupt 99.9% of the time that eventually we will execute an innocent person and that is absolutley murder! the fact that its murder by a society or legal so to speak is really scary when no one here can confirm that this country isnt run by a military industrial complex, bank, jews.lizard people, aliens, elite scumbags etc. in short i wouldnt trust a government that i believed in with that level of power. think of all the people you know, what % of them are smart/wise/honorable/honest enough to make these decisions?

also i dont want to live in a society that pays people to kill people as a job. if you kill enough people eventually one will be innocent and you will know it.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I'm against the death penalty and also against abortion. I don't think we should kill, although I would certainly kill in pure defense of self or family where in the heat of the moment their didn't appear to be a better option. I still can't imagine that I would feel good about it, even if the killing were considered "justified."

In cases of abortion, I would favor criminal punishment for the doctors but not the mothers. I would prefer to see the mother encouraged to undergo psychological counseling.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by nfflhome
 


that contributed nothing whatsoever to the debate. Ok, you'r emotional about the subjest. But do you feel about it after thinking about it for a while?

Execution has not prevented murders, and many feel no remorse so obviously, their are those who don't fear the reaperman.

Whether executed or removed from society for the rest of their born lives accomplishes the same thing. They have been removed from society.

But all this still doesn't mean I'm am anti-death penalty. And if and when someone is executed, it should come as a shock to all in the way it is done. Hanging was a pretty effective tool back in the day because no one wanted to go out like that. Kicking at the end of a rope.

See? It's not that hard to debate now, is it?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
You make the argument that killing is wrong........ by who's standards? Christianity? The Bible condones killing or putting to death, who then is saying killing is wrong.. mind you were talking about those who kill other people and then are processed through the justice systems for their crime. Not just killing to waste time away, like is happening in mexico. Murders deserve to be put to death in nearly all cases. Self defense is a entirely different construct. There are those who should be put to death imediatly, but the bleading hearts will spend other peoples money to give them Life in Prison. Ofcourse if these same Libs had to foot the bill themselves, a lot more would get what they deserved.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plotus
You make the argument that killing is wrong........ by who's standards?


Society as a whole. Yep killing happens all over the world, yet most societies say Killing is bad.

Double standards for sure... But standards none the less.
edit on 9-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 
Why dont you ask the victims what they think?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Tarzan the apeman.
 


Hard to ask a question to a dead person. Never had any real luck with ouija boards. So, instead we are left to ponder and debate.


What are your thoughts on the issue? Because, as of right now, I have no idea.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join