2006-08-27 16:36:20 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Normally I would say NO!
However, what do you do with a chronic drinker who keeps getting in accidents and killing people. He didn't' mean to kill them, but he is still responsible for their murder.
I only think that the death penalty should be applied in cases where the person would be a continued threat to society. So in the case of this drunk I would have to say yes.
Recently a citizen of Texas was handed a 99 year sentence for drunk driving. A sound a little excessive doesn’t it. Well he was convicted of Drunk Driving 8 times, he had been through an alcohol abuse program, and he had served several jail terms. In fact he was on parole when he was caught the last time. This person has proved he is a continuing threat to society, and that he will not stop drinking, even if he is jailed or enrolled in an abuse program. In this case I think that the sentence was fair. It is also effectively a life term sentence since he is 55.
The circumstances of the situation should decide. If a person did not intend to kill someone, if it was a true accident, then they should not be subject to the death penalty. But, a chronic drunk driver, like the case I mentioned above, proves he has an intent to continue. If such a man killed people and if he has proved that he will be a continuing threat to society then the death penalty should be considered. But, I wouldn’t want to apply it on his first killing.
What about the case of a chronic speeder? If he kills people in one accident should he be considered for the death penalty? He has shown that he is a continuing threat to society, and he will continue to speed. When a person becomes a chronic speeder then there license is taken away. Still that doesn't stop some people from driving or speeding. If the man killed people in one accident then he should face a long prison term, not the death penalty. However, if he has killed before, if he shows the intent that he will continue to be at risk of killing more people; then I think the Jury should decide if he needs the death penalty or not.
The situation of the crime always determines the penalty, and it is up to the jury to determine how a situation applies. In the case of a chronic abuser, one who shows he will kill and kill again the death penalty may be considered. He may not mean to kill people, but his actions say otherwise. In these cases that person could have to face the death penalty.
It always depends on the situation, and the intent. A true accident is no one's fault. Legally anyone who causes a death in an accident can be charged with manslaughter. In the case of a true accident these charges are quickly dismissed, and if they aren't dismissed then the death penalty cannot be applied to a manslaughter case.
Therefore it depends on the intent. If the person is a continuing threat to society, if they have a habit of doing this; then their intent is clear, and accident or not if the intent to kill and kill again is present then the accused should be considered for the death penalty. The Ultimate decision belongs with the jury; they have to decide if this case warrants the death penalty.
2006-08-31 10:38:48 · answer #1 · answered by Dan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably depends on the actual situation. Like, was it really an accident or is that just the excuse? Now, if you have a child who was playing with a gun, whether his father's or someone else's and it accidently goes off, more than likely THAT was an accident. But if you have a young adult who has a serious attitude and he shoots someone, hell yeah, off to prison he goes and gee, if your state has the death penalty, if it was a gruesome murder, THEN put him on death row.
2006-08-27 16:43:58 · answer #2 · answered by kath68142 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually when it is an accident they will get manslaughter instead of the death penalty. They only go for the death penalty when there is obvious evidence that it was premeditated,
2006-08-27 16:45:04 · answer #3 · answered by Kelly Y 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The death penalty is reserved for those that have mens rea. (guilty mind) you have to mean to do it. So no, they should not receive it.
Cheers, Scott
2006-08-27 16:51:46 · answer #4 · answered by sarpedons 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it were an accident, no.
2006-08-27 16:38:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They usually don't. I have never heard of that happening.
2006-08-27 16:41:47 · answer #6 · answered by gin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if it was done accidentily on purpose.
2006-08-27 16:40:37 · answer #7 · answered by Clementi60 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course not!
2006-08-27 16:38:40 · answer #8 · answered by AngiesHusband 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
only if the 'other 'people remain dead.
2006-08-27 17:07:36 · answer #9 · answered by Rich B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋