Well by that I mean, should it only be used on the killers who killed their victims brutally and had commited a lot more. Like a serial killer. Also if he continues killing in the prison he is in.
Also if there is supporting evidence, DNA, and a confession or boast from the killer themselves. Especially if the killer says OK on the being executed.
Also to avoid executing an innocent person, that's why I say, should it be used on vicious serial killers only.
2007-04-10 13:50:35 · 22 answers · asked by sleez_boy 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
If not give your opinion. I appreciate this if you answer.
2007-04-10 13:51:20 · update #1
Oh my god, by vicious I mean torturing and giving their victims a painful death. Look at Richard Ramirez, Alber Fish, Jeffrey Dahmers, Ed Kemper, Charles Manson, Ed Nislen (can't pronounce his name) Ted Bundy, BTK, Pee Wee Gaskin, John Wayne Gacy, Anatoly Onoprienko, Houston Mass Murderer, and some other.
By painful and brutally I mean the person suffered horribly
2007-04-10 14:01:38 · update #2
Yes, for they have earned that "reward".
The Death Penalty does not deter crime, let us understand that.
But as long as one vicious person is removed, it works for me
2007-04-10 13:57:30 · answer #1 · answered by Experto Credo 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The problem is how do you define, legally, just what constitutes a really brutal killing. Right now, the death penalty does not apply to the "worst of the worst" but to the people with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was executed? Sentenced to death? Convicted of a murder where he could have faced a death sentence?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. Many confessions are false, even confessions leading to a death sentence. (Juveniles, people with mental retardation, coercion include manipulation and beatings of the suspect- confessions in these cases have happened.)
Testimony of jailhouse snitches, mistaken eyewitnesses - all of which have happened- have also led to innocent people being sentenced to death (You can read about the problems at http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/)
Men facing execution who say "okay to being executed", so called "volunteers", frequently do so because conditions on death row are so horrible, or because they suffer from mental illness. Since 1976, the first execution in many jurisdictions has been of a volunteer. Then the floodgates open.
In the United States, so far, no state has crafted a death penalty law which allows only for the situations you mentioned (vicious, serial killers, DNA) and finds a way to exclude coerced confessions, jailhouse snitches, mistaken eyewitnesses.) On the other hand, 48 states now have life without parole on the books. It means what it says, is rarely appealed, and is sure and swift (as a punishment must be to serve as a deterrent.)
2007-04-11 03:13:01 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why could he be perfect? i've got not seen something to characterize that the generally used homicide convict is probable to deliver approximately the death of a dozen or extra human beings if left at great. sounds like a crackpot to me. i'm going to offer his op-ed a study yet i'm skeptical... Wow. that's some rather sloppy writing. Even an undergraduate could be marked down for this way of extensive and unsubstantiated declare: "whilst defined as executions in step with homicide committed, teachers discover that the death penalty deters murders and saves lives." Lott fails to quote the source of this assertion that's best to his thesis.
2016-10-21 14:07:24 · answer #3 · answered by shakita 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The death penalty should be used more often.
There should be 3 conditions.
1. Brutality
2. Measurable guilt
3. Admission of guilt
2007-04-10 13:55:35 · answer #4 · answered by Homeschool produces winners 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It should only be applied in cases when the guilt of the defendant is proved beyond ANY doubt. The prosecution can convict after proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, but for the death penalty to be applied, the case should be proven beyond any doubt with near 100% certainty. Otherwise, the defendant should receive life in prison.
2007-04-10 13:55:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The death penalty should apply to all violent crimes.
Prison should be abolished entirely. It doesn't work. It's only a breeding ground for criminals, and in any case it's far less humane than putting someone to death painlessly. Any prison sentence longer than 1 year effectively condemns someone to a life of crime. How is that better than death?
Petty and non-violent criminals should do community service instead.
Mentally ill criminals should get locked up in hospitals and treated until cured.
2007-04-10 14:18:40 · answer #6 · answered by bergab_hase 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think the death penalty should even be an option. I see it as letting the person off easy. They don't suffer, they don't have to deal with anything else, they simply just die painless. It's not really much of a punishment in my opinion. I think a life sentence is worse because they have to live knowing they ruined the rest of their lives and they will never see freedom. They would be constantly looked down upon and loose all their rights rotting away in a cell.
2007-04-10 13:56:00 · answer #7 · answered by Shnse 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yeah of course, especially the guys who are rapist-murderers. Especially child molester. Wow, I'm usually against the death penalty, but it should be used on the brutal killers, cause I don't want my body to be found naked!
2007-04-11 06:50:55 · answer #8 · answered by <3 Loving Lace <3 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anyone convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder should be put to death. Within about a year, not this 15-20 years on death row before it's done!
2007-04-10 13:58:43 · answer #9 · answered by Bunz 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
nope. here's how i rank people who should get the death penalty, with 1 being the people most deserving of it.
1. child molestors
2. murderers
3. drug dealers
4. drug users-they're just too much trouble.
Mike C, why should they get a less harsh punishment just because they were smart enough to manipulate someone like you and say, "i feel so terrible for my crime"? anyone can say i'm sorry. they count on people like you to let them off easy because of a few words. sorry doesn't cut it when you kill someone, except for in self defense, or the cases where someone just snaps because the person has been torturing them for years.
2007-04-10 13:59:48 · answer #10 · answered by 2ofspades 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it depends on the killing. If you kill someone completely innocent and you knew they were innocent you deserve death. But if you kill someone who wronged you badly or something then no. And I think if death will be administered they must take extra care in proving innocence.
2007-04-10 14:00:14 · answer #11 · answered by scooter 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋