2007-01-05 02:29:44 · 19 answers · asked by bob 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I agree with the death sentence. They just need to speed up the appeal process so that they can die quicker.
It's cheaper to inject lethal drugs, and to house them for a lifetime. Of course, if they went back to a rope, it would be even cheaper. A rope can be used more than once.
2007-01-05 02:37:54 · answer #1 · answered by My world 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I feel that if anyone recieves the death penalty then that is exactly what they should get, DEATH. Why should the criminal get to sit in prison and live off of the tax payers money? I think rather than sit, sleep, and eat all aforded to them by hard working people, the tax payers money should go to a worth while cause. Besides if the death penalty were more enforced, I do not think that we would have such a large number of people crowding our prisons.
2007-01-05 02:38:52 · answer #2 · answered by ?Confused? 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO NO NO. I do not believe in the death sentence and I feel that they should be put in prison to be miserable for the rest of their life. Death is the easy way for a criminal. Look at Saddam Hussein, I was horified when I watched TV and they put the rope around his neck. I didnt sleep that night and still cant stop thinking about it. Its horific.
2007-01-05 02:44:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with DEATH! If they are convicted and sentenced to DEATH then they need to carry out the punishment. If you tell your children their punishment is to be grounded for a week from the telephone and then they skip desert one night, did they pay the consequense for their actions? NO! You have to be consitent with criminals, if the punishment for their crime is death then anything less is not fair to the people all around.If you knew your punishment would not really have to be served what would make you not do the crime? Death is not the answer when it comes to crimes like stealing or running from the cops, death sentences are only handed down to convicted criminals who have done hanous crimes that warrant an extreme message.
thank you
2007-01-05 03:04:54 · answer #4 · answered by moonbeam7896 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It relies upon on the nature of the crime, if there's a guy or female stumbled on to be a serial killer or really someone who takes sadistic exhilaration in killing yet somebody else, confident, what's the component of conserving them alive? specifically circumstances inspite of the indisputable fact that, it has handed off the position the inability of life penalty has been used and the guy placed to lack of life has been stumbled on threat free after their lack of life. for someone who's a pedophile, this is going to be made public to the detention middle inmates and they could desire to take delivery of a life sentence, some component like which may be more suitable honest than killing them. a minimum of that way they could experience many of the discomfort they placed the childrens by creating use of in the previous they're killed in detention middle. There are alot of arguments for both for and hostile to the inability of life penalty, yet in my opinion i have were given self idea it comes each of ways all the way down to the perfect nature of the crime, some crimes deserve the inability of life penalty, others do now not.
2016-12-01 21:00:03 · answer #5 · answered by barnas 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I absolutely hate the idea of the death penalty. It's just useless killing. What if these people really ARE sorry, or can become a better person after these crimes? What if they are mentally ill and need help? I think they should stay in prison instead. Everyone deserves a second chance.
2007-01-05 02:38:41 · answer #6 · answered by jasdlkdfhd 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The death sentence. I would rather use the money I earn to feed my kids.If you put in prison for life, I have to give some of my money to keep him in there and my kids will have less. Think about it!
2007-01-05 02:41:42 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Honestly I can't say I agree with the death penalty simply because sometimes our justice system isn't always right about who is guilty.
If not for this problem, then I would fully support it.
Not to be a bible freak, but God did mention to Abraham that he would not destroy a city full of bad people if it would spare 50 righteous people.
2007-01-05 02:44:37 · answer #8 · answered by N 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm all for the death sentence for ADMITTED offenders of murder, child molestation/abuse, etc. If the person denys his/her complicity in the offense, then no. There are too many "Oops" out there with insufficient evidence or the wrong evidence to take a chance. Again for ADMITTED offenders (those who admit they did the crime), then yes. Don't waste time, money, space, and energy with them.
2007-01-05 02:39:06 · answer #9 · answered by teacherhelper 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. It should be quicker though. Hang them within an hour of finding them guilty on the 1st appeal.
Why should so much of our tax dollars go to supporting these useless peices of crap? Put that money to better use.
2007-01-05 02:47:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋