will u favour the death sentence by the courts ?

Question

Capital punishments

Answer 1

to me its a good thing to give death sentence to culprits of this society. so that there will be a fear in the minds of criminals.and if there is no death sentence in our leagal system, there are somany loopholes in our leagal , people who got the life sentence are coming our on parole and they are continuing their criminal activities. so keep out thise people from our society these people should get death sentence.

Answer 2

The capital punishment / death sentence is a must for such of these acts done by man kind which is not expected from the man kind. These death sentence would bring about a fear that grips a person from going any wrong to a fellow human being. This is also a type of reform which brings about to others in the mind the attitude. This attitudinal change is a must for a good behaviour and peaceful society. With these explanation i do favour the death sentence by the courts.

Answer 3

Death sentence is directed for the presioner whose offence is rarest of the rare . in my openion I favour the Death sentence by the court because it is not only the punishment to the accussed but also to warm the accussed minded person to come out from the anti-social activities. Some group of society is going against nature and only remedy is that to prevent them to go on the way.prevention is beter than cure is true but here it is also true that cure makes the way to prevent curreption of the society.

Answer 4

Y E S!!
well, its surprising people have a feeling of "pity" for those cheap criminals who killed a family, raped a girl, bring a sense of insecurity to a whole area of peaceful people minding their own businesses, take decisions on who should and not live, or instill fear in an innocent soul!
their background might be anything! the criminal's father could have molested him or his family drowned in debts or he was abused when he was a kid or whatever.. HE IS A CRIMINAL!

and all those who said no.. think again!
they eat 3 meals a day, do not have any need to work and earn honestly, they get drugs pedalled into their hands right inside the prison without any problem that they had outside, they have political parties to announce his candidature in the elections to come after his term of imprisonment, they come out again to kill another family, rape another girl, etc etc.. and all these, IN YOUR HARD-EARNT MONEY!!

some might actually turn a new leaf after the term of imprisonment, but that's only a 10% maximum of the prisoners.
because, they have A HUGE PROBLEM IN THEIR HEADS AND NOT THEIR HEARTS!

if someone actually thinks their money should be put to good use, they must support capital punishment of all the deadly criminals as soon as their fault is proved, and make the government spend his money on people who really need, who, probably for the need of which, might turn criminals!

well, the problem wholly lies in this: defining "deadly"! marking a scale of what is deadly and what is not is restricted in many countries..

be liberal, hang them naked in the public, make encounters legal, shoot them in their groin.

think, people, how good the world would be if the prisoners were sent to the gallows, the prisons were empty and they were made into orphanages, homes for the destitute and medical centres for stray dogs, instead of feeding criminals???

Answer 5

Yes I do, as a deterrent. I also believe we should use corporal punishment and hard labor as well. Bring back the stockades in front of city hall, take Singapore as an example and start using caning as a punishment. Lets see the prisoners put to work to help pay for there incarceration and restitution.

It's a sad state of affairs when criminals receive college education during there incarceration while we have hard working families struggling to get by as law abiding citizens

Answer 6

Oh! sure
Hanging or stoning,as long as sadistic men like the Noida killers are dead.
Who wouldn't support death sentences ?Who in their right mind would let men like that go free ??
I certainly wont !!
Death sentences ordered by the Judiciary is a verdict which is the ultimate sentencing concluded by the courts ,by competent men who find that the accused have committed the most serious crime to humanity and to society.It is still very much welcomed by the Justice system in India,and it should be so.

Answer 7

In some cases, where the acts are too hideous and cruel and criminals deserve capital punishments for taking away one or more lives, it seems justifiable but then too, I think these persons whould rather be kept confined and studied for the reasons that made them the monsters that they are. This can have far long-lasting effects in changing the face of the society.

Answer 8

I've seen a guy that killed 60 women get 60 consecutive life sentences. What is that crap is that, he won't even begin to live out one of those sentences. I wish the death penalty would have been given in that case. However I can't say that I favor the death penalty in general perhaps only in extreme cases like that one.

Answer 9

Capital punishment ---Is it really necessary?? U can argue that to punish a crime how can you commit a crime??
But in some cases only the fear of death really prevents the convicts from committing those crimes... So I feel that capital punishment is really necessary for heinous crimes

Answer 10

NO. EMPHATICALLY NO!! The courts are a civil group of men and women who do not have the right to kill any more than a killer does. They are as prone to mistakes and errors as you and I are. They can make foolish decision just as well as a murderer can.
If the courts don't have the ability to dig up a grave of any convicted, and innocent man/women then breath life back into the body...then no. They have no right to kill someone in the name of justice if they have no power to give the lives back to the innocents convicted and hanged.

Answer 11

No one that murders (except crimes of passion) expects to get caught.

Therefore the death penalty is not a deterrant. The last official 'hangman' in England made the same comment in his autobiography.

The murderer's life if forfeit, no error but should we brutalise ourselves by performing the self same act?

The book that says 'eye for an eye' in no way suggested that we gouge out peoples eyes. It spoke of 'compensation' for acts comitted. Steal a sheep and you compensate with 5.

We have the means to make all criminals make some compensation for their acts. So why arnt we doing it? They can all work. Why arnt they doing it?

They may not die but they dont get the life they want either.

A man is murdered and his kids dont get the education they might have got. Why cant we make make the murderer work to pay for that education?

Hanging, electric chair, firing squad, lethal injection. Are we really so far removed from the time when executed criminals were publicly cut up for their various body parts?

I think we can do a lot lot better.