ok a lot of answers regarding my last question stated to jail them and never let them out. which is essentially a slow killing process. you dont let them out to live, but u dont kill them immediatley either. instead you put them in a room with free food, and free clothing. who would have to pay for this? and what would we do when the jails start overflowing? people are cosntantly being let out as others come in. should we make much much larger prisons? or much more prisons to contain people for a lifetime in a little room?
why should society have to pay for their mistakes? why should they tax my hard earned cash so that they can feed a rapists whos rotting in a jail cell?
(whos really being punished? the guy sitting in his room with free housing, food, and clothing, or the guy whos working hard as a member of society and getting his money taken to feed the one in jail?)
2007-01-25 07:00:33 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
i have no problem with that. to kill someone (who has been proven to have harmed others) to protect hundreds of others seems hardly debateable.
2007-01-25 07:12:03 · update #1
killing without reason is much different then killing to protect. someone in a mall shooting hundreds of people should be likewise shot instantly to be kept from shooting more. there should be no moral debate here. let him kill thousands or take him out early and put and end to it. how can u even debate that.
2007-01-25 07:14:55 · update #2
i agree sister steph. we used to have a jail called Alcatraz (sp), it used to be like that. however it got shut down as it was "inhumane" and now we must make a murderers life as pleasant as possible.
2007-01-25 07:15:51 · update #3
the sentance "life in prison" or "2 life sentances" a life is something like 20 years. and many get out early due to paroll and good behavior.
2007-01-25 07:17:48 · update #4
I agree with you 100%. Its only right to punish them they way they punished their victims. Its no use to put in the jail for life. To some, this may be a gift. I would have a quick trial afterwards to determine if they should die. Not a long one. I would look at the nature of their crime, how vicious, and the person also. Then make a quick decision. To me most would die. It would be highly unlikely that someone would get through with out dieing.
2007-01-25 07:17:18 · answer #1 · answered by Z 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if you take away luxeries (a lot of jails are like nice hotels) and make it miserable, small time crooks might not want to go back. THe ones who aren't dangerous (petty crime) can work for their keep, rent the convicts out to clean up America. It won't cost as much if we're not paying for cable and professional cooks, and internet. Let the time reflect the crime. Baddies, like rapists, can rot (as long as we see to the basics - food, clothing, shelter - it's not a slow death), and the not so Baddies get therepy lessons before the end of their sentence.
2007-01-25 15:14:10 · answer #2 · answered by sister steph 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tell ya what... you go live a month as a "for life" prisoner and we'll see what you think about who is being punished. Besides, by your logic, we shouldn't imprision people who have committed drug felonies, assault & battery, theft, etc. Are you looking for "an eye for an eye" in these cases, too?
Maybe part of the answer you seek is the PREVENTION of certain crimes. That would be a good use of energy.
2007-01-25 15:16:24 · answer #3 · answered by Church Music Girl 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as soon as the sentence is read.. if they are given the death penalty, they should take them out back... hang them... fire squad them... or electrocute them. Don't give them a shot to just fall asleep and never wake up... put them through what they put their victims through. Again, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH'
Its hard enough these day to make ends meet in many households in this country. We SHOULD NOT have to pay to keep these criminals alive. Many of them live better than most families across our land.
2007-01-25 15:29:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
so what do you suppose we do murder them all as they do bad things to others so should we just let violence beget violence chippy i want you to truly think about that because that would not make us any better then they are now would it well then you are just as much of a murderer as they are chippy and by the way there is always the possibility of serving life without parole or probation did you ever stop to think about that
2007-01-25 15:09:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I favor making them work to make restitution to their victims or their victims' family.
2007-01-25 15:28:11 · answer #6 · answered by wanda3s48 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Chippy, I have to say, I see your point on this one.
2007-01-25 15:09:42 · answer #7 · answered by Char 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If the Bleeding Hearts don't want to pay for their upkeep-- THEN they must be Legally Executed...................
2007-01-25 15:11:19 · answer #8 · answered by whynotaskdon 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋