Personally I'd welcome the death penalty for certain offenders. I'd happily put the noose round the neck of Ian Brady, Ian Huntley or Roy Whiting. Their crimes were inexcusable and heinous. They don't deserve to live! They've ripped families apart and the suffering of the family runs far deeper than an act of revenge. Nothing can replace not only these people's children, but also their entire lives.
2006-09-19 22:48:48 · 44 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I agree......A life for a life...........
Men/women who want to have sex with children are not right in the head if you ask me..........They should have their balls chopped off.........
2006-09-19 22:52:18 · answer #1 · answered by spunkybadger69 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Firstly, to those who have talked about DNA being conclusive, usable DNA isn't always available at a crime scene, so only basing it on that makes a death sentence arbitrary.
Secondly, mistakes do happen. Here in North Carolina, several people have been released from Death Row in the past few years. There was one particularly notorious case where the prosecution failed to turn over all the evidence to the defense. Despite a change in the law, prosecutorial misconduct has continued.
finally, if you want to have an idea of what life is like on Death Row, take a look at deadmantalking.com especially article 41. It's well worth a read.
2006-09-20 06:47:57 · answer #2 · answered by skip 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Death penalty should not be brought anywhere in the world. What about the innocent lives? just because the law says its bad, it doesn't actually mean bad.
There has been cases, alot of cases that innocent lives has been lost due to the error in judicial system, what about that? can we bring back lives? i guess not
Life time imprisonment is good enough, it keeps them miserable and also they have time to think of their wrong doings. If the person is innocent, at least he can still live in the real world with compensation From the govt.
UK has the money to support life-time imprisonment, i mean why not? the Britishers had almost conquered the world in the past, with all that free resources, assets, gems, gold, etc, i m confident that they can support each and every British citizen life-time imprisonment.
People do villainous acts for a reason, if we are unable to understand the reason that doesn't mean we have to execute them, i wouldn't, i have no right to take anyones life and that goes to all other people. Every time we think is the government, the law, blah blah, bam bam....You wanna know the truth, go back to the past...you'll find the truth....
2006-09-19 23:11:30 · answer #3 · answered by Jendralus 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In certain cases I think the death penalty is appropriate. Why should people who rape, kill and kiddy-fiddle be put in our prisons the way they are today- they have got it better in there than half the people on the other side of the wall. Hmmm, lets see; this man just killed 3 children, I know lets sentence him to 25 years in a place where all he needs to do for himself is wipe his own ****, he can spend all day watching tele, reading playing games and sports doing a bit of work or maybe he can get and education while he is in there??!!! What madness is that????? Prison should mean a cold drippy cell with a bucket to crap in, bread and water for tea and a daily bumming by the local homo. Hang 'em all and make space in our prisons for people who can be reformed, fraudsters, drug dealers etc.... And as for the immigrants that are taking up yet more space they should be shipped home along with the rest of their family as punishment!
2006-09-19 23:24:08 · answer #4 · answered by Banny Grasher 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, capital punishment ends up in a reducing of the fee of existence. If we are residing in a society the place human beings are killed on a on an usual basis foundation interior the path of the regulation, we as a society would be desensitized to dying and the ideals of the ecu could be compromised. besides, the individuals have in many situations reported that the dying penalty will purely be administered whilst there are perplexing data to back it up. although because it did interior the US it extremely is enviable that finally an harmless guy will slip interior the path of the internet and be murdered interior the call of the regulation. those are purely 2 arguments i could desire to bypass on for an extremely long term. My staggering sympathies are with Millis kinfolk and that i be attentive to that if it replaced into my daughter i could prefer brutal justice, yet no longer on the ex pence of society.
2016-10-17 07:56:44 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One of the problems of course has always been the idea of the wrong person being hanged for the crime - which is why when Evans was hanged for something that it subsequently turned out was carried out by Christie that lead to a groundswell that lead to capital punishment being taken off the statute books. But can we guarantee that even with advances in the science of evidence (eg DNA evidence) that there would be no human error when it came to interpreting the facts and deciding on the guilt of all murderers then subject to execution? Would we end up with lots of prisoners on the UK equivalent of death's row whilst their appeals were held etc? Would it really make things better? If you believe in Divine Retribution, then maybe that will placate you. If not, well nothing really matters anyway,then, does it?! I don't trust our legal system to be accurate enough for us to confidently bring back the death penalty
2006-09-19 23:06:56 · answer #6 · answered by big pup in a small bath 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it should, and also in every other country that has abolished it, but only for really serious crimes, and only by humane means. Something similar to when you euthanase an animal at the vet, it does not hurt them. If you have decided to take a criminal's life for his crimes there is no justification for causing him unnecessary suffering when you do it. The death penalty should not be viewed as revenge.
2006-09-19 23:33:45 · answer #7 · answered by TC 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES - But only if it can be proved 100% with no chance of error. If not then life in Prison should be LIFE, not 20 years and then let out early for good behaviour just to commit more crime.
Also I think everyone should give a DNA sample. Sod the Human right arguement, If you commit a crime you deserve the punishment.
2006-09-19 23:05:13 · answer #8 · answered by Wheelspinin 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No it shouldn't. As many people have pointed out, these people are sick, and as such who is to say society has a right to terminate someone because of their sickness. Where do you draw the line? Do you progressively increase the crimes to which this applies, or is it only headline grabbing crimes that will qualify?
Society has no right to take anyone's life, and it does not act as a deterrent. Just look at the amount of people on death row in China or America.
It also makes criminals more likely to kill more people, as if you're going to die anyway, why stop the killing?
2006-09-19 23:02:33 · answer #9 · answered by fishy 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Certainly for the scum you mentioned & their kind.Why should their worthless lives be deemed more valuable than their innocent victims?It's disgraceful that these animals have a legal claim to human rights,they should be locked up 24/7 & fed on the left-overs from other prisoners,if there is nothing left,then they don't eat.Filth.
2006-09-19 23:28:50 · answer #10 · answered by michael k 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely for criminals of this calibre. These people are beyond reform and therefor could never be released from prison. The death penalty would not only serve as a deterrent but also cleanse society without taxpayers having to bear the cost of keeping these criminals in prison.
However, I do believe that if society is going to execute criminals, this should be done in public with no anonymity for the executioner. Justice should be seen to be done, if we are ashamed of applying this sanction, we should not do it.
2006-09-19 23:04:28 · answer #11 · answered by Clive 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋