I think they should get one, unless new evidence comes to light that completely changes things.
2006-06-13 05:23:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think they should be allowed only one. That means they get a full trial to start with and, if something is wrong, then they should get one additional. Why would they need two? And I also believe that the appeal should be within 30 days of the original trial, which would cut down immensely on the costs to the taxpayers. But I also believe that if someone gets the death penalty, then they should not sit on Death Row for many years - if that is their sentene, then it should be carried out almost immediately after their final appeal.
2006-06-13 12:25:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
ONly 1
2006-06-13 12:26:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by atrickycowgirl4u 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
As a taxpayer, I think none, but if it were my life on the line I would have a different opinion. Our justice system is not infallible. Unfortunately, innocent people are convicted and have even been executed. Although there are surely abuses, I think it is worth the cost if it spares one innocent person.
2006-06-13 12:29:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by blade_teh_misfit 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
One to two, depending on the crime and evidence.
2006-06-13 12:25:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
one
2006-06-13 12:23:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jack Kerouac 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
None, if beyond the shadow of a doubt they are guilty!
2006-06-13 12:22:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by nighttimewkr 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
One, and only under certain circumstances.
2006-06-13 12:22:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Seb 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
depending on the accused crime i think it should vary, but typically just one.
2006-06-13 12:23:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
One based on evidence.
One based on procedure.
That's it.
2006-06-13 12:31:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋