1. Serial Killers - Jeffrey Dahmer?
2. Cop killers?
3. Serial Rapists?
4. Serial child molesters and rapists?
5. Terrorists?
I do not support the death penalty unless the person is guilty of the above without a shadow of a doubt. It scares me that we kill innocent men and women.
2006-09-10 06:46:36 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I AM in favor of the Death Penalty IF they are guilty with overwelming evidence.
2006-09-10 06:58:40 · update #1
Dickn2000 - I am NOT a liberal. I am as conservative as you can get. My dad was a cop and I think we are sometimes TOO SOFT on crime but...I do not want to kill "innocent" people.
2006-09-10 07:09:35 · update #2
Frankly in my sole opinion, the death penalty isn't used enough. It was originally created to act as a deterrent. All of the above 5 categories should result in an automatic death penalty. With advancements in DNA research, the chance of the wrong person has been significantly reduced. The problem is not with the execution of a person, but with the legal manipulation of the system. One appeal, not countless hours and tax dollars being spent...swift and efficient. Once that happens, and criminals know that it'll have a swift course of action, sever capital crimes would be reduced...as it was intended.
The argument that it's cheaper to keep a prisoner locked away for life than to execute them is true, but only because of the legal processing.
Confusion could be resolved with a higher standard of evidence, even greater than beyond a reasonable doubt.
2006-09-10 06:53:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wow, this question reminds me of a party (get together really with a lot of close friends) I was at several years ago and someone asked this same question.
I believe in God. Only God has the right to who lives and dies. We are not God. Even a jury of our peers with overwhelming evidence to said crime can not kill that person. In some countries they believe in an eye for an eye. I strongly agree with this concept except what if the person killed another, then I'm back to someone playing God. I just do not think God would want me to kill another human being knowingly. Yes, I agree these murderers are not humane, but at some point they were born of flesh and blood. When I read about an execution or the death penalty being handed down to a criminal in sentencing I feel sorry for the person that has to carry out the actual act of killing the criminal. Does he/she have any guilt knowing that they ended anothers life, even though it was of poor quality, it was still a life.
2006-09-10 07:42:12 · answer #2 · answered by sassywv 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I do not support the death penalty either. It's proven to not really be any deterrent and even in cases like the ones you mentioned (serial killers, serial rapists, etc.) what makes us any better than the crimes they committed if we put them to death? I've never been a prisoner but I have spent some volunteer time at a state penitentiary and BELIEVE me, life with no parole is far worse than death. Plus the appeals process often drags on for years.....good point though.
2006-09-10 06:53:29 · answer #3 · answered by carpediem 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
YES!! I fully support the death penalty for ANY crime that would place a convicted felon in prison. I do not believe in incarcerating anyone. It's a waste of taxpayer's money.
If a person has committed a crime heinous enough to warrant his or her removal from society, that removal should be permanent, upon the FIRST conviction. The sentence should be carried out immediately upon conviction. I personally prefer hanging, but electrocution is also acceptable.
Other than that, let the punishment fit the crime. If a person is convicted of stealing, for example, the punishment should be the amputation of the offending hand.
Of the five criminal offenses you listed, I believe that all should receive the death penalty, but for numbers 3 and 4, I believe that they should also be neutered i.e., all genitalia amputated, prior to execution.
You need to get over your squemishness towards capital punishment. It's liberals like yourself, that have caused our system of criminal punishment to be as watered down as it is today.
2006-09-10 07:04:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I don't think I would be for the death penalty in any scenario. I can definitely understand why people (especially families of victims) might want it, but I just feel like at that point the damage has been done. It can't give victims the time they lost. I'd rather let criminals like these have plenty of time to sit and think about the horror they've caused.
2006-09-10 06:57:00 · answer #5 · answered by Holly 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
All criminals who would receive 60 years or more should be killed. Streamline the process and empty the jails. Giving them a defered death sentence(life in prison) just costs the tax payers millions of dollars.
2006-09-10 06:53:18 · answer #6 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no. mistakes are made. Even one innocent life means the whole deal is off...unless you want to put every juror, cop, judge, to death for killing that one person.
2006-09-11 03:57:29 · answer #7 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if the courts and police depts were totally free of corruption and whatnot, and if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person(s) did in fact commit the crimes s/he is being accussed of... then of course, I would say kill them all.
2006-09-10 06:51:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Once convicted in a court of law and justice, all of the above should be put to death according to the legal protocol.
2006-09-10 06:49:15 · answer #9 · answered by I'm alive .. still 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ah hah! Perhaps you aren't quite the radical right-wing facist that you've been portraying in Monday's idiotic questions!
You really ought to invest in a brain.
2006-09-11 04:13:30 · answer #10 · answered by ●Gardener● 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋