2006-09-05 08:36:50 · 38 answers · asked by Candy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
civilians should be allowed to 'stone' him to death
2006-09-05 08:43:26 · answer #1 · answered by TrudyForest 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Here in Canada we got rid of the death penalty in 1960. There has not been an increase in murders since. In Texas, Geo. W .Bush has refused DNA testing, just get rid of them. In the USA, everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. That's a JOKE!!! Can you tell me that a poor black man in Texas, charged with killing a white woman is going to get the same defence as O.J. Simpson. I think not.
All the civilized nations of the world have stopped killing it's people. Cuba has a moratorium on it with aview of ending it completely by 2009.
Most executions have occurred in 1)China,2)Saudi Arabia, 3) Iran, 4) USA. Nice club you belong to.
I know many states, Maine , Michigan and quite a few more were way ahead of most of the world in ending it. But I'm afraid Texas & Florida are somewhere in the dark ages. They both had a Bush for govenor, that should tell us something. If as a nation you would lighten up on things like pot & hash, you could clean out 1/3 of your jails, and make room for those who really should be incarcerated.
I have no idea who Ian Huntley is.
What I do believe is all violent offenders should be kept in max. Also, like in Michigan- life means life.
I also believe if the prisoner so chooses , he should be given the means to end his own life. That is his business.
2006-09-05 09:25:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm a bit divided on this one, a short while ago I would have said yes.There is a bit of a disagreement at the moment about the man who was convicted of killing Jill Dandoe, I always thought that there was too much of a circus about this case,the media was baying for blood over the murder of one of their own,It will be interesting to see the outcome of this,I hope the judiciary don't brush it under the carpet, Huntley was surely guilty,this other person was convicted on flimsy forensic evidence,if the death penalty had been in force he would have been hung
2006-09-05 08:48:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In Ian Huntley's case, I think that death would be an easier, quicker way out for him rather than having to serve his double life imprisonment.
In one way I think if he wants to die, I wonder why should we be saving him, but in another, what sort of right does he have to decide whether he lives or dies after those two poor wee girls had no choice whatsoever.
A long complicated one, with lots of arguments, but in general I think NO, the death penalty should not be re-instated.
2006-09-05 09:09:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is a real issue! My husband and I have come to real anger over this. I believe that if the murder can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt - i.e. he did it and the absolute proof is there, he should be hanged, electrocuted, injected - whatever. But my husband is really against the death penalty. I don't think societies taxes should pay for these people and they should pay for their crime with their life. Many people disagree. It's a toughy. What do you think?
2006-09-05 08:48:29 · answer #5 · answered by helen p 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It would make us feel better, but what about the innocent people who get killed? People like ian huntley should be sent down for life.. with no exception of getting out
2006-09-05 08:47:52 · answer #6 · answered by ToniLianne 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, we shoudln't, for the following reasons:
1) We can't under European law. Under that law we had to abolish it in 1998.
2) You can not always be sure beyond any doubt of guilt.
3) It would make us as bad as the offender.
4) A proper life sentence, served in prison, is absolute torture - just look at Ian Brady, who desperately wants to die.
5) The most important one of all to me - some juries would not convict a defendant if they knew execution was possible, leaving the option of guilty murderers walking free to kill again. I'd rather have them locked away where they could think about their crimes for many years.
2006-09-05 18:55:47 · answer #7 · answered by MarkEverest 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We still have the death penalty in most parts of the United States, most especially here in Texas.
Whether or not it serves as a useful deterrent to crime, I beleive it is proper justice in certain cases.
2006-09-05 08:39:50 · answer #8 · answered by deadstick325 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's not go there...realising how the police in the UK are like with guns - and the times courts have messed up. Huntley is indeed guilty...but what about the circus that is developing around Barry George, who was sentenced for murdering Jill Dando - and let's face it, 'lonely loser' killing 'blond beauty' had most Brits (and not just moronic 'white van man' & soap opera loving TV-dinner oiks) wanting him to hang. Of course the Birmingham Six etc. can be thrown in as well.
One has to understand as well as the scuzz on the streets, we also still have people in uniforms (along with gowns and wigs) who will cut corners if only to please a large section of British society...to have them holler and bawl in the name of their red-top tabloid 'decency'.
Obviously his time in jail is not doing him much good - if he was executed, his pain'll be over for ever in one swift stroke...but it's going on and on and on! Shouldn't that please the hang-em crew?
2006-09-05 08:59:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
In fairness I don't now who Ian Huntley is, sorry.
I wish it detered more crime but in any case I think the death penalty is a good option to have.
2006-09-05 08:43:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yes to that question and another one for corporal punishment to be brought back. A good public thrashing would soon cure many of our Yobs.
heavenlyhaggis
2006-09-05 11:09:12 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋