do you agree capital punishment is one of the most hypocritical punishments in america?

Question

i think it is ridiculous to follow such a process that certainly contradicts itself. what punishment is that which does the same as the crime? cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional as clearly stated under the fifth amendment. is it usual to see a man or woman's foaming mouth as the smell of burning skin fills the air? okay what are youre thoughts?

how is it fitted to take someones life? how can the government fruitlessly try to justify their power to take lives. capital punishment promotes murder, excuse me, killing with justification, as a way to solve crimes. the government should practice what it preaches.

wooops i meant eighth amendment haha sorry i actually wrote like five papers on this so silly mistake.

i strongly disagree! not only is capital punishment hypocritical, it is costly, and given out capriciously where is the fairness in that?

Answer 1

It is not so much hypocritical as it is much as it is a flawed system and an ineffective way to prevent or reduce crime and it risks executing innocent people.

Many people still support the death penalty because they are not yet aware of the serious flaws in the system. Here are answers to questions often asked about the practical aspects, with sources listed below.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.

Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?
No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that do not.

So, what are the alternatives?
Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, largely because of the legal process, in the hope that innocent people will not be executed.

What about the very worst crimes?
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

So, why don't we speed up the process?
Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 2

I'm not sure I agree that it's necessarily hypocritical. After all, by that logic, you could say that imprisoning someone for kidnapping is hypocritical.

However, I AM against capital punishment for many practical reasons, including:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the people who have been released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty states. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree).

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”

5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 3

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you. In this country I believe the punishment should FIT the crime, which means if someone tortures, rapes and murders someone...the same cruelty should be given to them in capital punishment. This should especially apply to child rapists and murders. This is why prisons are so over crowded. Because people feel it is barbaric. So tell me, was the crime not barbaric? Why should a convicted murder get to have a roof over his head and 3 meals a day with a chance of parole for good behavior, while his victim lays 6 feet under with a family that cannot move on. If the man or woman committed such an awful crime, then yes, they should have a foaming mouth and burnt skin.

Answer 4

when the Fifth Amendment was written, "cruel and unusual" did not describe hanging as a method of putting a felon to death. Nor did it describe the death penalty in general.

So, in your opinion, does the meaning of the Constitution change over the generations, or not?

If it does change, how do we the people get to vote on the changes? Please recall that we the people voted on adopting the original Constitution and BIll of Rights -- seems only fair that any change from what was approved by the voters in the individual states (or their representatives in their state Legislatures) should be similarly approved, don't you think?

Oh, wait?? Isn't that exactly the process described in the Constitution itself of amending the Constitution?

Sounds to me like the voter approved meaning does not change unless and until the Constitution is formally amended.


It would follow that execution of felons, where ordered by the courts, should occur via the traditional means (hanging) unless and until the voters approve an amendment changing the method.

And, no. It is not hypocritical. When someone has gone so far outside the accepted bounds of human behavior as to forceably seize and extinguish the life of another, it is appropriate that they be put to death. It certainly prevents that individual from committing another murder and it acts as a deterent to other possible murderers, thus increasing the safety of the whole body public.


:-)

Answer 5

It's not hypocritical. If you take someone else's life it seems fitting to lose yours. Lethal injection is quite a peaceful way to die. People facing capital punishment are usually not going to recover and be able to re-enter society.

Answer 6

I am in favor of capital punishment. It is the ultimate punishment for ultimate crimes. It does not matter to me how the executions are carried out. Hanging and firing squads are as good as lethal injections.

Answer 7

I have to agree lethal injection and electric chair are not just punishments. They should receive the exact treatment they gave to their victims right down to the terror they caused til death is assured.

Answer 8

Your theory has been presented to and rejected by many courts.

Answer 9

Not at all! You kill someone you get killed yourself. Seems fair to me!!