Should murderers always be given the ultimate penalty? There are cases where it is only a one-time thing, and they'll never do it again - what's the point of putting them in prison for life? Most murderers kill in rare, heated passion - in some cases I'd say a 20 or 30 year sentence is more appropriate than life or the death penalty.
However you can argue that if you kill somebody, no matter how much you've changed it's not safe to bring you back into society, and of course all serial killers should never be let out since they have an incurable sickness.
2006-10-01 14:38:23 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
it can be assertained that accidental murder should not be punished as severely as someone who cannot control their emotions and commits murder.
2006-10-01 14:41:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the act of the death sentence itself is not one of revenge but purely to make an example of the murderer. In Singapore, we have been criticized for using the death penalty all too often, but in fact, mostly, quite a few cases involving murder here have been sentenced as manslaughter and the people are given life imprisonment and some sentences are re-evaluated.
And I can argue that it isnt safe to bring ALL murderers back to society. There have been many, not just a few cases, where ex-murderers have been released and have killed again. This is evident most obviously in the US. There, I find the justice system abit weird. Mainly the fact that many prisoners go home early for 'good conduct'. As such it is easier for murderers to start killing again.
However the only objection I have against the auto death/life penalty is motive. Given the right motive of the murderer, I would justify my verdict and sentence.
However, depsite my preference for all killers being given life/death, Id much rather prefer ALL drug trafickers to be given auto DEATH cause they're destroying more than just A life, they're destroying society and making money off it. They're worse than killers anyday
2006-10-01 14:54:33 · answer #2 · answered by Mirza H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In most cases, I would absolutely agree with the death sentence. I just watched a program where they highlighted the murder of a homeless man by 4 teenagers ranging from 14 to 18. The worst thing is that they beat him on several occasions as the night went on. It wasn't until the fourth beating that he died. That is clearly worth the death penalty in my opinion. That is nothing shy of evil.
But I think that there are also extenuating circumstances. A woman (or man in some cases) can be mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually abused for so long that her thinking is no longer rational, and she sometimes feels like she has no way out. In cases like that, I would have to consider a lighter sentence.
Good question.
2006-10-01 14:54:23 · answer #3 · answered by class act 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think it should depend on the circumstances surrounding the murder, and the proof provided by the prosecutor. Some people kill in self defense, but most kill just because they find they have the power to take a life. In most instances, I feel that once a killer is always a killer...and people just don't change.
2006-10-01 14:48:48 · answer #4 · answered by iceprincess_12_04 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes- All murderers should get the death penalty not because it'll keep them from killing again but as an incentive for others not to follow in their footsteps.
Choose the action- choose the consequence!
2006-10-01 14:40:34 · answer #5 · answered by Alison 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, murder should always receive at least life in prison. To whoever mentioned self-defense, that is not murder. Whoever said 'accidental murder', there is no such thing. You are thinking of manslaughter. Murder, by definition, requires intent to kill.
Please cite your source for the claim that "Most murderers kill in rare, heated passion". I don't buy it.
2006-10-01 15:01:23 · answer #6 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No Not all murderers shouldn't be given the Death penalty there are some exceptions....sometimes it is just accidental, or it was necessary to save another....
2006-10-01 14:43:34 · answer #7 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would agree with you.
But knowing myself. If someone killed a member of my family and they served their time and is now out. While my loved one is dead I think sweet revenge would be in order.
As an ex correctional officer. Many people fall for "I have found Jesus" line. Jail birds come to jail all the time and that is the first lie out of their mouth. And of course they use it because IT WORKS. Many people who have never worked with criminals fall for that lie all the time.
2006-10-01 14:43:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
death
2006-10-05 14:09:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats whats so great about the justice system. Cases are determined case by case. Circumstances are always defferent therefor the punishment will always be different.
2006-10-01 14:42:27 · answer #10 · answered by jamie s 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
personally, I think death, but after they spent so many years being in there, and then I think the death part should be more brutal.>>>getting injected to make you die, is just too easy>>>they should have to suffer a brutal murder, just like the victims>>>>like a stone death>>>or their head chopped off>>ect......IF the murderer did it on purpose, not on accident or to defend themselves....THE OLD ELECTRIC CHAIR IS NICE
2006-10-01 14:45:00 · answer #11 · answered by jan 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋