I would vote for it if it were ever offered. Don't you think after the first public hanging for rape or murder that the crime rate would go down? Of course there would have to be laws involved for self-defense and so that the innocent people wouldn't suffer... but say there is an armed robbery and a shooting takes place (the robber shoots the store clerk). Shouldn't that robber be shot or hanged as an example to others: DON'T DO THIS OR ELSE?
2006-11-06 07:33:23 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I'm glad to see that most of you are in favor of this; just wanted to add a side note that if the person convicted of a crime just goes to prison, that money to keep them locked up comes straight out of our pockets as taxpayers! Why should we have to feed, clothe, and house these animals that kill our family and friends?
2006-11-06 07:46:00 · update #1
I'm in favor of it. There would be a lot less crime if there were public hangings.
2006-11-06 07:37:48 · answer #1 · answered by American dude 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Think about it.
We already have capital punishment in many states in the union, and the crime rates are not significantly reduced.
Too much tax money is currently being spent to go through all of the mandatory appeals that come up in a capital case.
Plus there have been too many cases where the wrong guy/girl was found guilty of murder in a capital case to find out later on that evidence did not support the conviction.
Just food for thought. Enjoy your day, or else. :)
2006-11-06 15:43:58 · answer #2 · answered by SmileyGirl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm in favor of it in extreme cases--the murder was clearly planned in advance, or torture or rape was used as part of it--but I don't think that having it will deter the crime. Texas has the death penalty and uses it often but is the murder rate any lower there than anywhere else? I doubt it. People acting in passion or out of mental compulsions aren't going to be thinking about getting caught and about whether they'll get the death penalty or "only" life in prison. I'm in favor of it simply to get someone out of society, and because it's a fair price to pay for a horrible act.
2006-11-06 15:39:01 · answer #3 · answered by AnOrdinaryGuy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, it's not something I want to have happen to me. . .
Seriously... the assumption is that Capital Punishment is the most severe punishment we can have with the prohibition against "cruel and unusual" things like The Rack and so on. It might be so, but that's really not the most relevant thing.
What matters most is swiftness and certainty. I could do without Capital Punishment if we could speed up trials and get the sentences started without endless appeals, during which the criminals are running loose.
2006-11-06 16:34:54 · answer #4 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Capital punishment is unnecessary. Using it as an example would not work at all. They have the three strikes rule in California as an example, and yet many people find themselves locked up for the rest of their lives. In this day and age, hanging someone or shooting them for shooting someone else is almost barbaric (no offense). Its easier to simply give that person their time in jail rather than to indulge in "eye for an eye" techniques. The problem with "an eye for an eye" is that we both end up blind.
2006-11-06 15:43:45 · answer #5 · answered by Brandon K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I think that if a person is found guilty of a crime that warrents dealth....murder(wether 1st degree or 2nd or whatever), then you should just be walked right from the court room the the chair, or injection table or gallows, or what ever......
Rape....Not dealth but the removal of the Private organ...I think that would deter men more that dealth...
Baby rapers.....just hang them
Stealing and any of the other "minor" felonies like auto theft and such....hard jail time....I don't think any minium security prison are good....I want like chain gains and forced labor....no tv, no radio,...
Infractions like speeding and such...fines....a good fine for the first one and then very hefty ones for the ones after that....
2006-11-06 16:01:31 · answer #6 · answered by yetti 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Texas baby!!! Like Ron White says, so many states are trying to abolish the death penalty, Texas is putting in an express lane!! Unfortunately they say all the court fights cost more than keeping them in prison but in the case of crimes against children or vicious crimes where there is hard proof, just kill 'em & get it over with!
2006-11-06 15:43:53 · answer #7 · answered by piethedog 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are so many mandatory appeals against the death penalty
that a person has an extra ten years of life any way.
Keeping prisoners in jail costs a phenomenal amount or on "death row" even more. A state assisted death also costs the state.
If I were the prisoner I'd prefer to die rather than spend a lifetime in jail.
2006-11-06 15:41:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, that would be abominable.
I understand that our jails are crowded and yes our taxes help pay for funding them but that does not mean we should take the lives of others. I am a baptist and generally speaking baptists believe in Capital punishment for serious offenses. Still, I cannot make that right inside me. We could have strict laws concerning these hate filled crimes where they would be imprisoned for life but no blood should be shed by another mere man.
Money is nothing compared to humanity....................
dawn
2006-11-06 15:49:55 · answer #9 · answered by flyw_me 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say apply where needed. Why should I spend my tax dollars to feed, clothe, entertain, and educate a convict that is most likely going to repeat his/her crime upon release.
2006-11-06 15:45:32 · answer #10 · answered by SHAWN G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋