I agree with you...
2006-11-06 02:22:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by a kinder, gentler me 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Cruel and Unusual was written explicitly to account for changes in society's mores. All members of the Supreme Court, even the most conservative, recognize that. (They disagree on what counts, and whether we can look to international standards on deciding that.)
Hanging is cruel, as it may be death by strangulation rather than death by paralysis. It is unusual, as no one in America uses the gallows anymore.
And your view of what death row is like in a Federal Penn is GROSSLY mistaken. It's an extremely terrible, isolationist, and dangerous place. There is not "lots of recreation." Most inmates in death row are lucky to get 1 hour of "recreation" a day.
We in America realize that death is a serious sentence. We want to ensure that it is carried out only on those truly guilty (and even with all our process, we're still wrong, A LOT.) Thus, we have appellate rights, and rights to collateral attack in the federal system (due to the gross inadequacy of many state appellate systems). The Federal Government has, through the enactment of the AEDPA, severely limited an inmate's changes for collateral attack of a state conviction, and states that do choose to execute inmates can do so relatively quickly (See Missouri, Texas, South Carolina, and others).
Your "cut off a finger" analogy is true, but simply not humane. Why not castrate everyone who speeds? I bet people drive 55. What about kids, who don't really understand criminal behavior? A kid swipes a pack of M&Ms and they become impaired for life?
Certianly your barbaric suggestions would reduce crime, but it would also cause America to be a police state, always in total fear of what might happen. That is not freedom.
2006-11-06 10:30:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Perdendosi 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
i live in the philippines and death penalty has just recently been abandoned. i don't want to make a personal statement in behalf of death penalty, but when death penalty was still existing here, criminals got their trials and if proven guilty and sentenced to death, the case went automatically to the supreme court for review, which had the obligation, to render a final verdict within 18 month. the final verdict was not appealable any more and death sentence had to be carried out within 18 month after the final verdict was released. no if and no buts. the total time from sentencing to execution gives the accused ample time to come up with new and convincing evidence for a possible retrial. the supremecourt has to decide on that within the 18 month period prescribed by law, even if the evidence is only presented 48 hours before the scheduled execution. reprieve could be given only by the president. i find this a pretty fair treatment of somebody, who has commited a capital crime and 3 years i believe is acceptable for most people.
2006-11-06 10:39:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm not sure if you live in the wrong country or the wrong time period. You seem pretty sure that cutting off the finger of a shoplifter will stop him from stealing but how does that fix the reason why he stole. In your eyes its greed, but where does greed stop. If it costs Dunkin Donuts 50cents to make a cup of coffee, why do they sell it for two dollars? Greed. Do you support this type of enterprise, then you advocate for greed. Why are there some people with multiple houses and there are children in the world with no shelter and no food for their empty bellies?
So a man steals a shirt and you cut off his finger. The biggest crime isn't the shoplifting, or the act of cutting off his finger. The biggest crime is when you absolve yourself of the guilt you should feel for the way you think. You do nothing to promote peace in the world and are the root of the problems in mankind. Good luck.
2006-11-06 10:29:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I am all for trail by jury, allowing people the chance to prove their innocence. And I do believe that we would have less crime if we had severer penalties for the guilty. I am against Capitol punishment because to be human is to error, and it is a set of 12 humans who decided if a person is guilty or innocent. More then once in our system a person has been tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and years later apologized to and let out because of a mistake. How would you feel if it were you?
2006-11-06 10:32:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by novelwyrm 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Execution by hanging from a properly contructed gallows causes instant death, just as effective as the guillotine or a properly wielded sword, and often more instantaneous than a firing squad or lethal injection. Why we worry about absolutely instantaneous death is beyond me, although no one should take pleasure in the death of another person, even one as horrible as the mass-murderer Saddam Hussein. The fact remains that he was properly convicted and that he will be executed humanely according to the laws of his country.
2006-11-06 10:51:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by senior citizen 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
So...the point I'm getting from this rant is that you think America's criminal justice system should be more like Iraq's? Uh, yeah...go team.
I'm no bleeding heart liberal when it comes to crime. I'm pro death penalty in extreme cases, and I resent having to pay for some scumbag's bread and water for years of appeals when we know he's guilty. But ya know, we have our system for a reason, which mainly has to do with making sure we don't execute innocent people - like they do in Iraq.
It never ceases to amaze me the way some of these supposed Captain America blowhards sound more and more like the people they claim to hate so much. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you might as well have pictures of Saddam up on your walls surrounded by candles.
2006-11-06 10:23:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by jonjon418 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Have you any idea what it's like in jail. If being a moron was a criminal offence, then you might find out. If you really think it's a luxury, then why don't you go kill somebody and turn yourself in. You'd quickly learn all the things you need to worry about.
2006-11-06 10:49:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by Dr Know It All 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree...
I actually heard of a case in Massachusetts where a thief broke into someones house and cut his arm on the window while breaking in and sued the homeowner..and WON!!!
I also agree our legal system was created to protect the innocent..but if a person is found guilty the punishment should be swift and should fit the crime in severity.
we have people in prison who fail to pay traffic violations and criminals who abuse the system to stay free.
our legal system definately needs an overhaul.
2006-11-06 10:36:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by chefzilla65 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Okay first of all settle down or stop drinking coffee. Second our legal is set up so that people have many chances to prove that they are innocence of the crime they have been accused/convicted of. Our legal system is set up to give people the most benefit of the doubt rather than executing Innocent people.
2006-11-06 10:24:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU! The USA is way too lenient on our criminals. I do believe if people knew they would have to die w/in 60 days of being convicted that crime rates would be down..it's ridiculous how we taxpayers pay to feed, clothe, house and educate all these horrible people ...how nice it would be if we could use that money to help the homeless or feed starving children instead...OH WAIT!!! This is the USA..any money we'd save? Just be spent on bombing...er saving..cough , cough ...foreign countries!!
2006-11-06 10:35:38
·
answer #11
·
answered by ~LAX Mom~ 5
·
0⤊
1⤋