Although I'm not in favour of death penalty but in certain cases if you see the facts of the case you will yourself pray for giving death penalty to such a criminal. The recent example is the Noida killing where a large numbers of innocent children were sexually assaulted, raped ,killed & their dead body parts eaten by 2 criminals, what lesser punishment you can think for these two than death penalty?????
2007-01-09 22:20:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by bisexualmale s 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I oppose the death penalty. In answer to your question, the death
penalty is prohibited for people with mental retardation, but it is left to the states to determine standards for mental retardation. This is being worked out.
Severe mental illness, including schizophrenia, does not exempt someone from the death penalty. Someone who hears voices, is delusional, can be executed. The standard here is that at the time of execution they must be sane enough to know that they are being killed, and what the reason is. In a recent case, a schizophrenic was forcibly medicated so that he could meet this standard. The judges said "the only unwanted side effect of the medication will be the patient's death." A similar case, that of Scott Panetti, seriously mentally ill, facing execution in Texas, will be heard by the Supreme Court in the next few months.
My question is why wasn't this man receiving mental health care prior to the murder for which he was executed. Two lives lost.
One standard that applies, the "McNaughton Rule" requires that a defendent know what he did was wrong, goes back to the 19th century, way before we knew much about mental illness or the chemistry of the brain.
2007-01-10 11:20:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Susan S 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is not a penalty imposed on a particular individual. It is expected to have a demonstrative effect on others from committing similar offence. It depends upon the moral and spiritual power of the individual who decides to impose such penalty, since he too have some limitations like personal feelings, arguments put forth before him. It is better to avoid imposing such penalty rather than prohibiting.
2007-01-10 02:34:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by ravipati 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Death penalty is warranted when the offended is too harded to reform and his continued living will pose a threat to the general public.
2007-01-10 01:52:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
First degree murder. When you plan and willing take the life of another human being. Yes I believe in it. When someone can, while in "their" right mind kill another individual just because they wanted to yes they are no longer of any use in the world of civilized human beings and should definetly be executed. If they are mentally retarted no they should not be. I have to agree with the laws concerning the death penalty.
2007-01-09 15:59:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I don't like the death penalty, because as long as we have it there's always a chance someone innocent will get executed.
2007-01-09 15:54:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by kberto 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I believe in it in principle, but not in practice.
Our judicial system is a mess, and although I believe some people deserve the ultimate punishment, the process of sending people there is too flawed.
2007-01-09 15:53:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Geico Caveman 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes. If it's an accidental death like manslaughter. Nobody get ideas, this can be proven, okay?
2007-01-09 15:53:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by vanamont7 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'll say it this way. If someone murders someone, they deserve to die. And the act of murder forfiets a persons right to live.
2007-01-09 16:08:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by A Gabbi 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
yes i do. and i am not sure when it is prohibited, probably mental incapacity?
2007-01-09 19:08:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by D 5
·
0⤊
0⤋