Recently the Death Penalty in CA and Florida was halted because a judge made a decision that it was inhumane. This was made because there was a Death penalty convict who was given lethal injection and it took 35 minutes for him to die because the poison was given through his veins and into his flesh. Your thoughts? I'm curious.
2006-12-16 11:03:49 · 26 answers · asked by ~~~Tara~~~ 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
until the last 3yrs or so i thought it was appropiate.
then,i noticed the number of convictions overturned because of DNA evidence.i am now against it.
someone once said,to parphrase perhaps,"it is better that 3 guilty go free than 1 innocent be convicted".
life imprisonment is the better option.if new evidence is found then a rehearing of the case can be opened.
2006-12-16 11:11:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I am completly and utterly against the Death penalty. What I think is that these convicts that are serial killers, rapists, or do serious crimes should be used as lab rats for science. That way we save more animals from being tested. And they have a use. But an eye for an eye isn't fair. There are places where if one person were to kill ten people, then the country with the dead would require that they could kill ten of the killers home country. How can we say that if some one kills someone then its inhumane, then go hang them or lethally inject someone. Use them for science and be done with it. Also why give them the satisfaction of a quick and painless death. They can be incarcerated and suffer for life. Then when they die suffer for eternity in hell.
2006-12-16 19:31:54 · answer #2 · answered by Donovan G 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think you are really asking "do you agree with the death penalty?"
I think the death penalty is a legitimate punishment in certain crimes when guilt has been proven. I would favor more alternatives to it, especially in Texas, where I live.
I do think the death penalty is appropriate in the majority of capital murder convictions. It should be carried out more swiftly than it is, and the appeal process should be simplified and carried out sooner than it usually is.
Life without possibility of parole is a viable alternative punishment, and should be available in the majority of instances where capital punishment can be pronounced.
If it is done it needs to be carried out expertly by people who know what they are doing. I don't favor torturing a person in the death chamber. But they aren't there as a reward for good behavior, so I say kill 'em, bury 'em and be done with it when the death penalty is appropriate.
2006-12-16 19:16:16 · answer #3 · answered by Warren D 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you argument about the death penalty was based on false convictions and possibly innocent individuals being put to death it would have been harder to argue for the death penalty. But you mentioned the "inhumane" way they were killed. Were their victims killed, tortured or raped humanly? Certain individuals are not able to be rehabilitated. They will always be a threat to society so they must be dealt with in the most severe way, death.
2006-12-16 19:12:43 · answer #4 · answered by HoneyC 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am completely for the death penalty and I don't mean to sound harsh, evil, or insensitive but I could care less that it took longer for that guy to die and that he may have suffered a bit.. I think it's a good thing.. I'm sure the person that he killed suffered- and I am a Democrat (because of Birdsnakes comment)
2006-12-16 19:10:43 · answer #5 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it depends on how bad the crime is say a guy killed 30 people and after so many years he gets let out because there was no death penalty when really he should hav died because he took 30 lives taking 1 is bad enough but those people will never get their lives back so i beleive that he/she/they should die if he/she/they did anything to harm another person not only die though i want the person to be brutaly killed
2006-12-16 19:17:32 · answer #6 · answered by Specter7 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ca and fl did that cuz of the chemicals used in the death could have been painful. ca will still have a death penalty. they just put it on hold so they know that the chemicals wount be painful "inhumane". i think every state should have the death penalty. but in some cases. that could be a easy way out. i think life in 23 hour lock down or life in jail could be worse. you have to struggle everyday to not get raped or punked or jumped.
2006-12-16 19:12:24 · answer #7 · answered by beach_babe971 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hello,
Yes, I do and I will tell you why.
Until random murders and premeditated murders cease to exist, which will be never (or when Jesus comes back), there will be a need to kill the killer.
Eye for an eye.
Like Polly Claus's dad said today, "We need to bring back to guillotine to ensure a proper and clean death." Or he said something to this effect.
What, don't you think a murder on another human being is cruel and unusual punishment? I think this would fall under that category.
Hope this helps you................ : - O
2006-12-16 19:09:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO.
1. It's not a deterrent.
2. It's more expensive to kill them then to keep them locked up for life. (because of the necessary appeals process)
3. We don't KNOW what happens after death, so maybe you're doing them a favor.
4. There is a risk that someone could be wrongly convicted and put to death.
5. I could never personally flip the switch.
For all of you who say 'but if it was my child who was killed, I'd want justice', consider this:
What if YOUR child was wrongly convicted and put on death row? It happens, you know.
2006-12-16 19:07:40 · answer #9 · answered by sueflower 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Democrats are Against the Death Penalty.
They believe that murderers, rapists, and child killers should be let out of prison, but should take "Sensitivity Classes".
"Democrats Care".
2006-12-16 19:09:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋