Is the death penalty hypocritical?
My argument here is well lets say they're arresting a murderer and they put him on the death sentance surely that's just like saying you killed him now I'm going to punish you by killing you.
Yes
Side Score: 13
|
 |
No
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
It's definitely hypocritical, but I feel the government doesn't care or mind being hypocritical. And that's without saying and for many other issues as well. In my opinion a victim should be allowed to get their hands dirty (bloody) if they choose to want that burden over their shoulder for the rest of their lives. For a murdered wife, or son, or daughter, give the family the option to kill that person committing the crime, or not. But, do not let the government decide the fate. I do not feel this type of justice would work though, there'd probably be more vigilantes and boondock saints or dexters running around and I'm not sure that's the best solution either. Side: Yes
1
point
There are too many issues with the death penalty. First of all, death can't be redone - when you do it, it's over. And evidence could be mistaken, which results that innocent people could be killed by law, that is not good. Second of all, death isn't really a fair penalty for anyone. What does the criminal get out of it? Nothing, he'll never know that he is dead. I think it is better that people suffer for their mistakes. Side: Yes
2
points
Yes, it is hypocritical. Even though the situations are slightly different, one person killing an innocent person and the Government sentencing a guilty person to death. It is often said that no one has the right to choose whether someone lives or dies. When someone is sentenced to death and killed it contradicts the idea that nobody has the right to decide whether or not to kill another human. It is hypocritical because the laws you can't kill someone but then says that you will sentenced to death if you do. Also, in a lot of ways, being sentenced to life in prison is a lot worse than dying. People always say "I don't want to die" but really, who cares? Once you're dead, you're dead and that's it. You never have to deal with the guilt of what you did. You just die. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate but the only reason someone would be afraid of dying is if there is something awful (Hell or an equivalent) waiting for them on the other side. Side: Yes
1
point
|
No 1) The government has a right to bear the sword. 2) Murder is not the same as killing someone. 3) The point of government is to retain order so we do not mutual destroy ourselves. 4) Without government we would regress into a state of war with one another. 5) By living in the land of a government, we have implied our acceptance of its laws. 6) If we break the government's laws then we have regressed into a state of war with the government. 7) The government represents its people. 8) People do not want to die. 9) A person murdering someone is breaking the laws of the people who have a government to retain life. 10) The murderer and the government are regressed into a state of war with one another. 11) We have the right to preserve our lives. 12) The government can kill someone to retain the lives of its citizens. 13) Without punishment of crimes, government regresses back into a state of war. 14) Displaying penalization is a means to retain order and peace. 15) Killing a murderer is acceptable by the government. Side: No
2
points
1) The government has a right to bear the sword. Says whom? 2) Murder is not the same as killing someone. In all cases involving the death penalty it is. The point of government is to retain order so we do not mutual destroy ourselves. A brief look at the last 100 years will show that the one thing most likely to destroy us than anything else is government. Without government we would regress into a state of war with one another. Balderdash. By living in the land of a government, we have implied our acceptance of its laws. Which has no bearing on the justness or hypocrisy of said laws. The government represents its people. The government represents who it is paid to represent. People do not want to die. We finally reach one correct statement. A person murdering someone is breaking the laws of the people who have a government to retain life. Two in a row, you're on fire. The murderer and the government are regressed into a state of war with one another. War? Hardly. We have the right to preserve our lives. Says whom? The government can kill someone to retain the lives of its citizens. Can =/= should. Without punishment of crimes, government regresses back into a state of war. I fail to see where this notion of war comes from. Displaying penalization is a means to retain order and peace. Certainly, but that doesn't say anything about the alleged hypocrisy of such penalisation. Killing a murderer is acceptable by the government. Well done... this has nothing to do with the question. Whether you view it as acceptable is irrelevant, the question regarded its hypocritical nature. Side: Yes
1
point
|
