Yes
Yes
I meant real deterrent; I'm the only one who broke the rule (yours was okay, I think, Joplinfrk). Whoopsie.
Yes.
yes
no
Yes
Yes
I can't understand why death row inmates crying for going to humanely to sleep, when they raped, shot, blungeoned, stabbed, beat, someone to death. Give them a choice of dying the way their victims did, or go to sleep. 100% of them want to be put to sleep. fair and true cruel and unsual punishment would to be die the way their victims did. If that was the case how many death row inmates would there be?
Yes
I used to, not Im not sure.
Yep
no
No
Sometimes.
I know that's a vague answer...but it really does depend on the situation.
no.
Yes
nah mate
I cannot agree. There have been too many exonerated, over the years, for me to support the death penalty. You cannot bring the innocent ones back. And where is the morality in ignoring that?
Take a look around this site http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
It's better to say life with no parole.
Oh I know for sure, if I saw you kill anyone I love, I'd want to kill you myself. But tell me Bill killed Jack 40 miles away, how the Hell would I know unless I was there?
Tell me we should kill someone with the same method they used? Even if they're guilty, I have to ask, What makes us better?
I am completely for it, especially for any child killer/molester, as many of you have stated. I live in FL and the Jessica Lunsford case was chilling....young girl kidnapped, hidden and repeatedly molested, then buried alive. Tell me her killer (and those that knowlingly harbored him) don't deserve to fry.
There are so few cases where I can see exceptions.... ie battered women's syndrome. You take someone's life or even cause irreparable harm to a person (say the person you intended to kill survived but is now in a wheelchair for life), I don't want to spend my tax dollars supporting you. I say let the victim's families have at them........
There is a chilling story called Campbell's Revenge in Ann Rule's A Rose for Her Grave where a young single mother is sexually assaulted, perp goes to jail, gets out without victim's knowledge, and comes back for her. What happens is horrifying and tragic. These violent offenders don't deserve the opportunity to commit further crimes IMO.
Yes
No
But I've always fancied an artic prison for those with a > 20 year sentence.
Unlike death, there's plenty of time for DNA tests and recanting of testimoniesâ?¦
While removing such unsavory elements from those being punished for non-capital crimesâ?¦.
(cripesâ?¦ there I goâ?¦ tap-dancingâ?¦.)
Yes.
Yes
If you commit a crime that results in death, you die.
If you commit a crime that is violent, but, does not result in death, you lose whatever body part was used in the commision of that crime. A stabbing will result in loss of the arm. Rape results in loss of the penis and testes. Drunk driving accidents results in the loss of legs and arms.
...or...anyone that has been convicted of a viloent crime can be dressed in their underwear, tattooed with Pro-American slogans and anti-muslim slogans, and air-dropped into the mountains of Afghanastan with a .44 revolver and a stick of beef jerkey, and they can look for Osama Bin Laden. If they can find him, kill him, and return to the U.S. with proof, they get to go free. Thier debt has been re-paid to society.
Who's with me?
Yes
Yes
yes and yes
I agree, it doesn't make us any better, but, what it does do is demonstrate that there is a finite consequence for their actions. It's the same as the nuclear arms standoff of the 70's and 80's. Russia can nuke us, but they will be nuked back. Mutual destruction. As a result, there were no nukes lobbed at us, nor at them. Everyone knew that doing so would not fare well for anyone. Same thing here. Sure, go ahead and kill someone, but, doing so you forfeit your life. What is there to deter anyone now? They MIGHT get a life sentence, but, more than likely, unless it's David Berkowitz or Charles Manson, it's gonna be 25 to 50 years, and that's if the lawyers are not able to get them off on a technicality. There has to be a clear line drawn in the sand, and those that cross it pay the price. It's not about "bringing back the person that was murdered" it's about accountability. There seems to be little of that virtue anymore.
No
Exactly!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]peek-a-boo!!
No
YES!!!
yes
yes
Sorry I haven't gone through all the posts on this topic yet but this is something I have been thinking about recently so I thought I'd give my thoughts. I was watching a quiz show recently and the question was how many states in the US still have death penalty: A. 8, B. 18 or C. 38 I was shocked it was 38. I mean I just thought it was a few of the more conservative states in the bible belt who still stuck with it and I couldn't believe that even though every other country in the Western World cannot condone it, the US has a different sense of right and wrong. We're always being told we share a culture and set of guiding beliefs and I don't suggest that people in the east are wrong but it goes against our apparent common Christian values. Jesus apparently was against violence and preached forgiveness, he lost his own life to capital punishment but didn't tell his followers he wanted retribution. The way I see it we can't be sure that the people we punish now are guilty and whether we will later overturn their sentences. There's no way to make anything right if we've slaughtered them. What if we in Britain had murdered the Birmingham 6 and other terrorists involved with IRA? Later on the Good Friday Agreement would have happened and there would be no one to free, how could you make a bargain let alone get forgiveness? It allows governments to kill previous leaders or those who do not fit in with their ideologies even if later generations would see their actions as wrong. Nelson Mandela would have been killed.
Sorry if I'm woffling, it's late. The main points are that I think living with your guilt and not being able to live in freedom for the rest of your life is a far worse punishment for terrible crimes than being killed. And intrinsically I believe that killing someone who has killed makes you as bad as the killer. These laws for capital punishment in certain states (although I believe many hardly even practise them) and the right to carry muskets are the main reasons I have never visited America.
No
Yes
Yes, very much so.
NO.
Yes.
No.
Yes!
No
yes
I totally agree with the death penalty and wish the UK grew a backbone and brought it back. We have too many childkilling scum locked away who should be executed (Ian Brady (hurry up and die from starvation), Ian Huntley - the man cant even get suicide right!! Roy Whiting and so on). But we have to be 110% sure that they are guilty. Anyone who knows the story of Derek Bentley will know he was unjustly hung and it took 45 years of his family fighting to get him posthumously pardoned.
It's all very well some people saying to stay in jail for life will cause the guilty suffering, but it's at the taxpayers' expense. I, for one, would be totally satisfied to hear of a hanging (think saddam), lethal injection and electric chair, but maybe thats the morbid in me
As long as there are overzealous (and ambitious) prosecutors and the possibility of human error when people are convicted, I'd have to say I'm against it.
I understand where everyone is coming from about Charles Manson, child molesters, etc. And I don't like the idea them being around myself.
But the problem is that innocent people do get railroaded from time to time. And I've always understood that justice was all about "Better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer."
Because that innocent man could be someone you love. Or you.
Well... devil's advocates like to argue that once in a while we take an innocent man. Seems to me that losing even 1 in a thousand would be pretty fair. We aren't killing killers fast enough. I'm pretty liberal but I have some liberal friends who think I'm thumping a bible saying "an eye for an eye". I'm not thumping anyone's bible but when you're right you're right. They also tried to tell me that the death penalty doesn't deter killing. THAT'S BECAUSE WE ARE KILLING ENOUGH CONVICTS. If a dog kills someone, and god-forbid it's a child, we don't lock it up until it dies of natural causes - because that isn't humane.
Guilty until proven innocent. If you are innocent you won't have any problem proving it.
That's the Napoleonic Code. And perhaps there's a good reason why it isn't more widely adopted.
Can you tell me exactly what you were doing at this time three weeks ago? How about six months ago? And with whom you were doing it? Maybe, maybe not.
And yet, people are sent to jail/death all the time based on the testimony of other people who are asked to recall such details. And these other people may be cutting deals where they throw their friends to the wolves so that someone ends up in jail.
And if there's a prosecutor involved who wants to make a name for himself (or perhaps just wants an early weekend) then that's going to compound the problem.
I understand perfectly that some people think that, say, a 1% failure rate is acceptable (i.e. one innocent person convicted of/executed for a crime they didn't commit for every hundred that go to jail) and that's okay: that's their take on the matter.
And as long as they are comfortable with someone they care about (or themselves) falling into the crosshairs, then that's not necessarily an unreasonable position to take.
All I'm saying is that if you, yourself, have had your tits drawn through the wringer (or have had to stand by while someone close to you has) then you might assume a different perspective.