The guy who took 34 minutes to die, or the electric chair etc, many say those who get the death penalty should be a completely painless death, is it forgotton that those people are murderers? What if they killed your mom or daughter, very very slowly and tortured to death. They are getting it for murder, why are people thinking they deserve a quick painless one? If anyone in your family was slowly tortured to death, would you want the murderer to get the easy way out?
2006-12-15 08:44:27 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think they should have to die the way their victim died. if it was long drawn out and painful than that's how they should go. AN EYE FOR AN EYE. You know there are countries where they cut off your hands if you are caught stealing, and in some countries 1 hand is used for eating and the other for well we all gotta go.
2006-12-15 08:55:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't really think this guy had the easy way out, since he's been in prison for 27 years. But the point is that the state is sanctioning murder by killing the convicted murderer for the family. Some people do not agree that the state should seek vengenance for every murder. And then when it takes the man this long to die, it looks like torture.
2006-12-15 20:40:06 · answer #2 · answered by Shelley 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The real question is, "Are you seeking justice or vengeance?" Vengeance means an eye for an eye. Justice means you get what you ask for or sometimes deserve.
The real problem with the death penalty is that people want to feel good about it. Death is never pretty or neat. You accept that or you don't accept the death penalty. If people were truly concerned about how fast death occurred, then decapitation as well as explosives would be used. If suffering were a concern then drowning and various forms of CO poisoning would be used as well as explosives.
In short, people don't want a mess. People also don't want to be the one to carry out the sentence. It's that simple.
2006-12-15 16:50:35 · answer #3 · answered by Jack 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our system of law is based or should be based on a philosphy of rehabilitation and not retribution. In court it is not the family vs. the murderer rather it is the State vs. the murderer. The courts exist to provide society with the greatest benefit. It is not ment to bring some satifaction of revenge for a the people who morn the death of the victim. Personally I disagree with the death penalty. It is to arbitrary. The geography of where you live, your race, income, who happens to sit on the jury etc. can all determine whether someone lives or dies. What is the benefit of someone suffering no matter how evil they are or are suspected to be?
2006-12-15 16:58:30 · answer #4 · answered by boyle_jm 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you want to execute someone painfully just because they did, wouldn't that be the same as what they did in the first place? When a sentence is appointed by the justice system it should take place with the same separation of feelings as what is supposed to be in the judgment process (justice is supposed to be blind even though in the real world it really doesn't happen that way). I believe that is really the problem with our judicial system is that many decision are made with feelings and not facts. If you took out that factor many of the failures would be gone.
I just realize that this is the real world and people have feelings, so that is why you have problems on both sides.
2006-12-15 16:53:59 · answer #5 · answered by Michael C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The death penalty is meant to be used as a tool by a civilized society. By executing a person who has committed a CAPITAL crime (not sexual crimes), it is a message to all members of society that every single life is precious, even though it may seem ironic to use death in order to prove the importance of life. But if a society were to torture people to death who, themselves may have tortured others would not be civilized in any sense.
2006-12-15 17:18:54 · answer #6 · answered by Utilitarian 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If that happened to me I hope I would be able to follow the example of Father Charles Stroebel and his sister. Their mother was stabbed 15 times. Her murderer was arrested and brought to trial. Father Stroebel and his sister were briefly jailed for contempt of court for refusing to cooperate with the prosecution during the trial in NAshville. They would not dooperate unless the death penalty was taken off the table. It finally was.
Would you give up on your deep beliefs if some part of a question involved your family? I hope I wouldn't.
2006-12-15 16:48:46 · answer #7 · answered by toff 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My fiance was shot several times and lay there dieing for hours just so his brother could borrow the car..his brother got 2 years...I have no sympathy for murderers. As far as I concerned I don't care if it takes them 34 minutes or 34 hours..Maybe that's cruel but they don't think about how long or how much the victim is suffering. My fiance's brother didn't think about how much I would suffer or his parents would suffer for the rest of our lives or how long and how much my fiance suffered needlessly for a STUPID car key...
2006-12-15 22:35:35 · answer #8 · answered by chilover 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps the government would allow prisoners with life sentences and death penalties to give back to society. Give them several choices in which they opt out anytime and go back to prison/death
a) be subject to experiments that would correct their behavor
b) be subject to human drug trials
c) serve in situations where no volunteers are available
The result is essentially the same...just what happens beforehand changes.
2006-12-15 17:18:24 · answer #9 · answered by xt_oo_tx 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think when given the death penelty it could be concluded in 24 hours. and charge the family for the items.
and for those what if he is innocent. it is called acceptable losses and clearing out of the shallow end of the gene pool
2006-12-15 16:54:32 · answer #10 · answered by ML 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋