If you had two more years to prove your innocence whilst waitng on death row would you vote for or against?
2006-12-02 04:58:58 · 25 answers · asked by deeky_ward 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It sure does deter the guilty from doing it again.
I don't know of any state where the incarcerated have the right to vote.
2006-12-02 05:16:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Public hangings for 100% beyond doubt rapists, child molesters and murderers! With a nationwide minute silence whilst it was being done so that people would be aware of the magnitude of the offence. I reckon it would have a dramatic effect on deterring scum from murdering. Recently in the UK a young man was stabbed repeatedly to death in a mugging for £20 ( $35) and a mobile phone. Had those little murdering pieces of filth known they would themselves be executed do you think they would have thought twice before taking that poor guy's life?
2006-12-03 00:07:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most people if allowed to vote for CP would vote to bring CP back - including me.
BUT
The legal system and police would need to be cleaned up (dramatically) so any one in that situation would get an absolutely fair trail with the best representation - it is a life and death issue, we must be sure.
Now we have DNA evidence as a proof the system should be more safe in its decisions.
We do not want a situation like the USA with people being underrepresented and where the poor and illiterate get the CHAIR and are often innocent.
2006-12-02 20:24:21 · answer #3 · answered by ian d 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The only deterrent for murderers-rapists-and paedo's is LIFE IN JAIL...MEANING LIFE IN JAIL...RELEASED IN A PLAIN WOODEN BOX. This is because the death penalty has got absolutely NO CHANCE of being re appealed in this country. If some one is hung for taking some one Else's life, that killer would not have to think about the consequences of their actions...but give that killer/rapist/paedo the rest of his/her life in jail, and they have minimum 75years to think about what they have done....believe me-they will think about what they have done. And whilst we are on this subject, why is it that only high profile killers get "life" behind bars, people like the huntlys, sutcliffes, hindleys, bradys and wests of this country...AND the cop killers--when nowaday's a murderer could reasonably expect to be "out" with remission/time served/tarriff and all that rubbish, in about 10 years?-thats no sentence-its a walk in the park for these pigs. Just because its not as high profile as the above mentioned does not mean its any less abhorrent.
2006-12-03 23:41:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Two more years? Wow thats a short amount of time. Most of the time people that are sentenced to death sit on death row for 5 to ten years in the appeal process. I dont particuly agree with the death penalty...only because I think that they should be forced to suffer in jail for eternity to think about what they did.
2006-12-02 05:10:10 · answer #5 · answered by johnjd_cmu 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem with the deterrent idea is that statistically most murders are crimes of passion, done in the heat of the moment, without pre-meditation, or against a single, chosen victim for a specific reason. In short, murders tend not to be habitual criminals, so the thought of penalty does not really effect them.
2006-12-02 05:06:43 · answer #6 · answered by Avondrow 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No it's not a deterrent-look how many people are on death row in the US, how many executed in other countries that have it. If it was a deterrent surely these countries would be crime free? They're not, so how can it be a deterrent?
2006-12-03 20:11:44 · answer #7 · answered by fishy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As with most things in life, the answer is not a simple yes or no. The truth is that it will deter SOME people - probably those that actually think and plan ahead for their crime. It won't make any difference to those who commit crime on the spur of the moment or are under the influence of drink or drugs.
What is more sure is that it will likely save the tax payer a huge amount of money in the long term.
2006-12-02 05:07:09 · answer #8 · answered by You asked ! 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is not a deterrent.
People used to be hung publicly for picking pockets....and pickpockets were active at public hangings!!
The only effective deterrent is the likelihood of getting caught.
eg wehatecer the offence if the penalty was 12c months inside and you werte almost certain to get caught you probably would not risk it.
If the penalty was flogging and exile, but you were almost certain to get away with it, you may risk it.
2006-12-02 21:08:45 · answer #9 · answered by alan h 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the death penalty is totally necessary, , , it is a deterrent, , , if you are hung, , , or whatever, , , you are deterred.
example, , , mexico has no death penalty, , , wanna go there? course its not rare that the cops just kill you, , , or once you are locked up, , , the guards, , , or whoever, , the judge, , , just gives another inmate a pack of cigarettes to do a hit on you, , ,
in other words, , , there is no such thing as no capital punishment, , , id probably vote for it, , , i think 2 years is too long to wait, , , altho its usually a lot longer, , , always a lot longer, , , 2 weeks would suit me fine.
matter of fact, , , id just as soon the cops took me out in the first place, , , what idiot wants to spend years in prison? not me.
2006-12-02 05:06:29 · answer #10 · answered by mejicojohn 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i would still vote against...it never has been a deterrent...it never will be.
The only way that I would vote for it is if the people most hurt were allowed to pull the switch. I am for this because I think most people wouldn't be able to do it.
2006-12-02 05:10:10 · answer #11 · answered by Ted Jordan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋