The point of the death sentence is to punish them for their crime, right? So then why are they simply given a shot and put to sleep forever, or left in a cell with comfy treatment (that costs millions!) and alive?
Shouldn't they have to feel the same pain as their victims; you know, an eye for an eye.
Thank you for your input!
2007-07-13 16:12:39 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The countries that have peace and order use the "evil" death sentence (well MOST have peace.)
[Go Nebraska!!]
And the government's been rewriting the damned Constitution a lot lately so why not just cross that part out too?
2007-07-13 16:27:43 · update #1
It's that pesky Constitution again. Always putting limits on what govts can do.
In the US, the 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". That includes any punishment that intentionally inflicts pain (i.e. being intentionally cruel). Each of those execution methods has been challenged, and the courts ruled that they cannot be used because they cause too much collateral (side-effect) pain.
Making them feel "the same pain as their victims" would definitely fall under the "cruel and unusual" category. It's just not allowed under US law.
2007-07-13 16:22:16 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One answer is that most state govts have interpeted the constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment" clause to mean that electecuting, beheading, and hanging a human being is cruel and unusual. Other states feel it isnt "cruel and unusual" hence they keep doing it. Another answer is that punishments that you have mentioned have fallen out of favor with society... Any public outcry that puts a politicians political office in jeapordy will be dealt w/ quick.
We are civilized, which has its advantages for capital offenders.
2007-07-13 16:39:16 · answer #2 · answered by LoneWolfwithCub 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In some states they're still used, I think........ "Hanging, firing squad,ole' Sparky"(electric chair) but, with lethal injection also on the table. Well, that's a no decision, as to which one I'd choose. How about you? The "eye for an eye" is from Old
Testament teachings......New Testament teachings is supposed to be, "turn the other cheek." Here's one I'm sure we are all guilty of it if were honest with ourselves, and that's
"judge not lest we be judged" lol Have a Great Week-end!
2007-07-13 16:52:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read the eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which, among other things, prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment.
This has been interpreted in different ways by the Supreme Court over the years such as in the Furman decision.
The point of capital punishment is two-fold. Ostensibly, it's a deterrent (a dubious premise). And it's to use the power of the state to kill a person.
As Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes us all blind."
2007-07-13 16:23:33 · answer #4 · answered by honmani2 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It pales in assessment to the numerous capital punisment concepts of days previous, nevertheless it may be undesirable. i'm a proponent of capital punishment nevertheless... i think of it may be extra good fee in the event that they only decrease off the offenders head. This sounds merciless and mabey it is, however the predators of the international are remorseless, and as a taxpayer i stumble on it offensive that I ought to ought to pay for his or her nutrition, jails etc... additionally i think of it is somewhat unlucky that a lot of folk are placed on loss of life row just to get carry of 20 somthing appeals. sorry, i gets off my soapbox now
2016-10-01 13:56:31 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It comes from the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the constitution. Many states abolished these methods of execution for that reason.
2007-07-13 16:16:58 · answer #6 · answered by Mark A 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I live in Nebraska and we STILL use the Electric Chair.
2007-07-13 16:19:52 · answer #7 · answered by Chad 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
China harvests the organs of their executed prisoners...sounds like a good idea to me. Although, bullet to head would be the cleanest and would leave the organs intact.
2007-07-13 16:23:29 · answer #8 · answered by #1 Dunkin' Donuts Fan 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think some cases deserve it. Like this one I just saw.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070713194927AA7xl6L&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMiTBWWLZ3sd7e5eSqSJpvdi3ZlTspEu4rtcrEn72KvASpRKAI5V2MG1ak1ljxG65NmA--&paid=answered#RMZ_CGPoAjdmGOOmt7r1eFepICKb8Pv0xz9lOf3ZCN4xMwJwQnSkRMZ_CGPoAjdmGOOmt7r1eFepICKb8Pv0xz9lOf3ZCN4xMwJwQnSk
I agree the constitution needs some work. We don't live in the same society as the framers of the constitution did.
2007-07-13 16:18:26 · answer #9 · answered by Enigma 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, people convicted of capital crimes should be pampered, well fed, and kept healthy.
Until someone needs a transplant.
2007-07-13 16:17:14 · answer #10 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋