2006-09-09 15:27:15 · 17 answers · asked by Thomas W 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
What purpose would it serve - the person will be dead and that achieves the purpose of the punishment. Inflicting pain would just be vengeful.
2006-09-09 15:34:33 · answer #1 · answered by LivingDownSouth 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good question. The humane-ness of execution wouldn't be affected - either it's already barbaric, or it's not barbaric enough. It definitely isn't doing any good - violent crime rates haven't dropped when its used. So maybe what we need is instead of lethal injection or gas, burying people in sand up to their necks right beside a nest of fire ants.
Plus it would make great prime time TV!
*****
Just Ducky!: You are an idiot. No one commits a violent crime thinking, "Hey, it'll be okay, because if I get caught, I'll still get cable TV and 3 meals a day for a few years." Nobody thinks they're going to get caught! Making harsher penalties won't help that.
Is there some crime you would commit if it meant 20 years in jail, but not if it meant execution?
2006-09-09 22:34:46 · answer #2 · answered by abram.kelly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Apparently a lot of people don't seem to give a damn about the poor victim the perpetrator tortured and killed to get where he is. You see, most people would rather the perp be coddled and "rehabilitated" with cable tv and three squares and a bed for a few years. Then let out so he can do it again. Look up recitivism rates for prisons sometime and see how effective the current system is. Buncha pansies.
2006-09-09 23:09:21 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Peachy® 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure that Roger Ailes, and the neo- Nazis that run Fox Television would love to start a new "Reality" show, that featured public executions. They would most certainly try to make State governments forego boring methods such as lethal injection, and encourage drawing and quartering, or burning at the stake. The gore and howls of agony would keep viewers glued to their seats. They would even want to show the program during family hour, because it would serve as a reminder to children to be good little boys and girls. Otherwise, the same fate could await them.
2006-09-09 22:42:35 · answer #4 · answered by Proud Liberal 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Constitution bars cruel and inhuman punishment - that would prevent intentionally inflicting an excrutiatingly painful death.
2006-09-09 22:33:13 · answer #5 · answered by Clockwork Grape 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our government can carry out justice only through the penalty of death, not the means of that death. Besides, what the unrepentant face after death will be far more excruciating than anything we can devise. Pray that the prospect of the first death inspires them to seek freedom from the second.
2006-09-09 22:37:55 · answer #6 · answered by Str8ShootR 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think it has something to do with not giving people cruel and unusual punishments.
2006-09-09 22:48:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, in the US, that's a constitutional (8th Amendment) violation.
Elsewhere, probably because people are squeamish.
2006-09-09 22:29:04 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What if they are innocent and we dont know?
Once they are dead God will judge them and then they will recieve a just punishment.
Could be excruciating pain or forgiveness.
2006-09-09 22:29:45 · answer #9 · answered by BoredomStrikes 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because it would be in-humane, and we can't do that, no matter how horrible the crime the criminal commited. To bad, HUH?
2006-09-09 22:30:35 · answer #10 · answered by creeklops 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋