2006-11-20 07:44:25 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Singles & Dating
Absolutely NOTHING!! I'm all for it! GREAT QUESTION!!
2006-11-20 07:46:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Are you asking as in the people who kill children or the children who kill other people?
I would take the feelings of the people on the firing squad into consideration. Who wants to go out there and stare someone in the face and shoot them? What would make them any different from the murderer him/herself? Because that's what it would be, murder. Would someone have to go kill them too? Murder is murder, there can't be a double standard for things as serious as this. Two rights do not make a wrong. A death will not make up for the life that is lost. Nothing can. Does someone really have the right to take the life of another entity? I'm not telling you what to believe, I'd just like you to think on these matters before condemning someone else...
2006-11-20 07:54:17 · answer #2 · answered by Aurelien 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well its a strange place for this question to be posted.
Firing squads are wrong for child murders, paedophiles and terrorists. The problem is that it would be to kind. Stoning to death seems a more adequate punishment, preferably by the family and friends of the victim.
Alot of people are now going to say what about their rights? and are the stone throwers much different from the murderer in the first place?
In my opinion as soon as a crime like the above is commited the commiter therefore surrenders all but their most basic human rights. (I.e. the right to food, water and shelter).
In some cases it would be more beneficial to use alternative forms of punishment but that would be down to the individual crime.
2006-11-20 07:52:48 · answer #3 · answered by CW 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the parents and family of the child should be the firing squad
2006-11-20 07:47:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Total agreement, after of course they've had a damn good kicking by the families of the children, and been repeatedly raped by other inmates in the showers, and had all medical testing needing human guinea pigs carried out on them, yeah, not a bad use of a bullet at all.
2006-11-20 07:49:34 · answer #5 · answered by mizzsquitz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what state you are in and whether the convict has completed his constitutionally provided appeals circuit.
Even then, he would probably not be put in front of a "firing squad" the United States endeavors to execute its criminals in painless ways.
Oh, your apostrophe is completely unnecessary
2006-11-20 07:48:23 · answer #6 · answered by DonSoze 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hand them over to the family of the child they murdered to sort out how they feel fits the crime.
2006-11-20 07:49:10 · answer #7 · answered by Big Bruv 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've heard that firing squads don't hurt that badly.
Er, who was murdering children?
2006-11-20 07:47:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If it is not a legal form of capital punishment in that state/area, than an exception should not be made based on the crime. That's just silly.
2006-11-20 12:37:04 · answer #9 · answered by love.potion69 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same thing that's wrong with any kind of capital punishment. There are tons of morals involoved.
"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind"
Sure there are cases where it may ber aqcceptable. but I think there are very few.
2006-11-20 09:00:38 · answer #10 · answered by OhWow. 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ethical, kill someone for a crime they didn't commit? You can't bring them back to life.
It's the easy way out, rot in prison for the rest of their lives and let them be punished eternally in the afterlife.
2006-11-20 07:48:37 · answer #11 · answered by Low profile 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋