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 is inhumane"

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Well, I know that was a sarcastic statement, but I agree with it. They are free to walk around comitting crimes at the risk of their lives, and I refer to "shooting" them if they're breaking into your house when I say "at the risk o their lives."

At least they'd be dead, rather than living with no freedom, which is inhumane. It is petty revenge to "punish" another person like that, what gives one human the right to take another human's freedom? That's right, they do it because the society says so, but society is just other human beings. I'd you shoot them while they are commiting a heinous crime then yes, that is justified, but revenge doesn't rehabilitate people, compassion does, unless, like I said before, they have commuted the crime of murder, rape or child abuse. Other than those crimes, I really don't see a need to lock someone up for years.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
The death penalty is inhumane...

So, too, usually are the crimes which result in that sentence.

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but I also understand, though some will disagree, that some crimes warrant nothing less for the guilty.

...and no, it's not about punishment. Punishment implies that one learns from it, the dead learn nothing. Nor is it a deterrent against future offenses of that nature... Generally speaking those sorts of criminals don't care about other criminals, or their victims.

No... It's about vengeance, society at large has given the authority to the govt. to avenge certain victims in their name.

Society, any time it wants to, can stop it, too.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by domasio
 


There really is nothing "petty" about revenge. At least of this nature... Taking a life, isn't petty. Nor, I suppose, is locking them up for life plus how ever many years...

It shouldn't be an easy decision. ...and I'm sure if you asked most jurists who voted for a death penalty will tell you there was nothing petty about it. It was, as it should be, a tough call to make.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by HumanCondition
 
I think that it is inhumane to sentence someone to death, yet allow the appeal process drag on for over a decade.
If we (as a society) are going to have the death sentence then society has to take responsibility for the punishment.
Guilty or (later found innocent) society needs to "man up".



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I'm not saying it wouldn't be a hard decision, of course it would, unless you're a cold, heartless thug. Its the taking away of every freedom I would find harder though, I think that the taking of a life costs your own freedom, and possibly your own life, what I'm talking about is that it is inhumane to give either of these sentences to people lime drug dealers etc.

Like Ron Paul said, non-violent crimes don't warrant a punishment, and I reckon that the only reason most non-violent things have been made illegal anyways is for profit of some sort, I mean, if it wasn't illegal to use drugs then you wouldn't jail them, so how does it being illegal suddenly warrant a user's freedom being taken away?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by domasio
 


If you do a deed that society has deemed offensive, what then if punishment shouldn't be given out, should be done to sanction that behaviour?

...and is there such a thing as a victimless crime? I have my doubts.

ETA: A society has to have rules, and for them to be effective, there must be consequences for breaking them.
edit on 7/15/2012 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by domasio
I mean, if it wasn't illegal to use drugs then you wouldn't jail them, so how does it being illegal suddenly warrant a user's freedom being taken away?



The part where it's illegal. You may not agree with it but there are rules. And if you break them there's consequences. And sometimes the consequence is losing your freedom for a set amount of time. It's the choice they made.

And at least in the US, I think prisoners have if better than what some people think. Not that it's a walk in the park, but they have it better than some "free" people.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by domasio
 

Oh, my goodness. Surely you didn't mean to say:

Like Ron Paul said, non-violent crimes don't warrant a punishment,
It must have been a typo.

Financial crimes? Burglary of empty stores? Tax and benefit fraud? Forgery? Perjury? Spying? No punishment? Please let me know what you meant to say.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
One of the things I believe is that if there is irrefutable DNA evidence in the case, then the perpetrator should be executed with 2 hours. He gets time to say goodbye to family, which he does NOT deserve, but dies very fast.

On the other side of that, for all the argumentation that you can come back with, any prosecutor that manufactures or hides or manipulates evidence that destroys an innocent person needs to be subject to the same 2 hours with the same result.

For if prosecutors understood that their life was REALLY, not simply politically on the line, they will act differently.
edit on 15-7-2012 by akalepos because: fergot a word



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by enjoies05
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


I don't think either are too inhumane for those people who commit the crimes that would get them punished with them. Either they get a room and three meals a day or they're put to death in a controlled way. That's a lot more humanity than they showed their victims.


This attitude is a gross violation of the Golden Rule; as in, it's the sort of craving for revenge that is indulged in by someone who has never been in the position themselves, of having to lose their life as the result of having been convicted of a crime.

You might say that you'd never commit such a crime as would be deserving of the death penalty; but there's still every possibility that you could be wrongfully convicted.

A lot of Americans need to develop some humanity themselves, before they can accuse others of lacking it.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Completely inhumane, and murder as well. Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord! And also, we're supposed to forgive. The only use for any prisons should be for repeat murders or rapists, and some others need house arrest and bracelets, and alot of the laws need to be repealed as they are actually illegal.

Systems should be focused on healing and helping people, and only when absolutely necessary, protecting us from very dangerous individuals. The most dangerous are running the system by the way. And most of the most dangerous citizens are somehow affected by their Mkultra programs and cults.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
If you deliberately take a life you should lose your life.

The discussion is about how that 'deprivation of life' is accomplished when accounting for a justice system that makes mistakes.

Until the point at which we invent a flawless means of determining guilt (not likely) then life imprisonment is the best option.

As a further note, i believe life should mean life. That is, you don't get out until you die. No parole or early release.

At the moment the standard tariff for murder will get your about 15 years in the UK so murder is a case of considering if you hate the person enough to give up 15 years of your life to remove their life.

That seems less than optimal.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
There are crimes who are simply beyond retribution,no punishment our modern society has devised is appropriate.It is simply removing a menace for the greater good.I know it sounds inhumane but you can not be expected to show humanity to someone who has shunned every human element he had in himself.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by adnachiel21
 


Name one that prison wouldn't work for. And that is the only reason there should be prisons, all the other things they put people in jail for, they should not be in jail and many of them such as our drug laws and parking ticket violations etc etc, protest, or photographing a police officer, should not be legislation at all.

Its not about your feeling of outrage. Nothing can appease that. That is primitive and not compassion. In murder there is the victim and the perpetrator is also a victim, and we need compassion for everyone a determination to get everyone out of this earth hellzone and healed.

Psychopathic rapists and murderers and occult killers should be in jail, for their repeat crimes, to protect us and that is a tiny percentage of who is in jail.

But you have to understand, you are electing these people, being ruled by these people, they own our banks and instiutions, they are our CIA and Black ops, and they get paid great pensions. I mean the really bad ones who need jail to protect society.
edit on 15-7-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Been saying that for years. Either hardcore criminals would become warlords or they would learn to coexist. Either way it wouldn't be payed for by the people. Its just to expensive. And can you imagine what would happen if this countries infrastructure were to break down.We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Death penalty does not save money, the process to sentence someone to death is much more costly than with life in prison, and even with such a high level of insurance there are countless cases of wrongful conviction. Abolishing death penalty would simplify the system quite a bit and thus save money. Also, the number of executed is absolutely minimal, so even if death penalty theoretically saved money, it would be completely insignificant.
So economic arguments for death penalty are false.

Life imprisonment without parole protects the society extremely well and as a punishment it is also quite severe. I see no reason to have death penalty, except primitive desire for even more revenge.


But I do think at least all criminals with more serious convictions, and heck, maybe every adult of a sane mind, should have a right to euthanasia. So if a criminal considers death better than long imprisonment, he should be free to exercise his right to die.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The death sentence should be reserved for the animals that have had been convicted of DNA, video, or straight out non coersed admittence(on video).

100% sure that they did it, then they get the needle. I think that a bunch of people on a jury should not make that decision by witness acounts only.

That is my opinion.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


i honestly don't know which i'd choose if they were my only options, i really truly do not know,

what saddens me with the death penalty is that its not like they just go ahead and do it, from what i understand (i'm from the uk and we don't have the death penalty) the prisoner can be kept in jail for a very long time and have no idea when they will be put to death, i just couldn't for the life in me imagine what that must feel like to wake up every morning and wonder if today is the day i'd be killed, it must be one of the most horrific forms of torture,

i understand that some people on death row have done despicable things but i don't see how murdering them in retaliation is going to solve the problem,

just my opinion though



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by akalepos
One of the things I believe is that if there is irrefutable DNA evidence in the case, then the perpetrator should be executed with 2 hours. He gets time to say goodbye to family, which he does NOT deserve, but dies very fast.

On the other side of that, for all the argumentation that you can come back with, any prosecutor that manufactures or hides or manipulates evidence that destroys an innocent person needs to be subject to the same 2 hours with the same result.

For if prosecutors understood that their life was REALLY, not simply politically on the line, they will act differently.
edit on 15-7-2012 by akalepos because: fergot a word


I agree with this. I have noticed for a long time that Prosecutors are not the least bit interested in the possibility that the accused might be innocent. They are hell-bent on a conviction regardless.
Some of the court rules will refuse to enter evidence if it comes in too late or some other silly reason.
Any evidence either way should be admissible at any time.
Seems to me that's the way it worked on those Perry Mason shows.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I've been calling for anyone that is just going to sit and rot in jail until they die to be put into a gladiator coliseum. Of course everyone dies in the end...or winners get to live to fight another day.


With the exception that some trials had too many question marks to prove an individual guilty out right, they get to sit around and wait to see what happens.


Otherwise, kill em all...thugs that commit murder and rape deserve nothing in return but a swift death.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join