for people who rape and pheadophiles, they are scum and our women and children need protecting!. buy comiting one of these crimes you forfit your right to live on this earth.
after all murder can sometimes be forgivable but rape and phaedophiles there is simply no excuse.
2007-08-20 09:36:37 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
when i refer to rape i dont mean cry rape i mean street attacks that there is no doubt the attacker was an attacker and not simply an unfortunatly accused!!
2007-08-20 09:52:09 · update #1
Public execution in its day was a god send to all vulnerable people in any socially deprived background where events such as the above listed were common. It provided a public humiliation of the reprobate and signified a capitalist status of the British law enforcement which I feel any person would not risk their life to breach. (With the exception of a minority.)
Sadly I feel that with the law becoming somewhat lenient, impotent and less punishing to delinquents and potential threats acting out these derogatory crimes it becomes easier to commit the offences.
In my own opinion I feel that public execution should be brought back to show some backbone and authority of the law to the criminal. It would also have its evident benefits such as making the public safer from homicidal, sadistic and psychologically impaired killers/paedophiles/rapists. It would also clear prison cells and subsequently prison congestion to an extent, which is one critical problem for the government at present.
Everyone wins so what implication is there to say not to bring it back?
2007-08-20 13:37:45 · answer #1 · answered by PJB 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Rather, why not something like "Death Sport" or "Death Race?" Make some money off of the gore and violence that ALL Americans love to see. That's why horror movies have become TORTURE movies to begin with. All a public execution will do is give the murderer or whatever his extra 15 minutes of fame, in public, instead of being locked away for 40 years before he's put to death. Death is not a deterrence to crime. Look at the recent murderers who killed themselves, or who wanted to be shot down by the police. That was one of the first lessons we were taught in Law Enforcement 101. It doesn't even save any money. Worse, how many could be put to death when they are actually innocent, now that we have DNA and other tests to run, just to put politicians in office? Manson was given the death sentence after the murders and then it was reduced to life in prison. Either way, he's got it better off that most of us trying to live day to day under a system that makes more and more minor issues crimes. Perhaps even worse would be public torture for some crimes, like they did in Salem Mass. IF you want to lower crime, change the system. Punish government criminals, which counts most people elected, and stop making minor issues, like pot possession, felonies and just punished by fines, IF that. Stop major drugs? Help Mexico handle their drug issues, even if it means going all the way to South America, by force, to END the war on drugs, that has been going on since the 1980s, with Uncle Sam making a killing from it in funding. Even the CIA funds some of it's ops with drug money. Prison is a big boost to a person's rep in the crime circles. Saudi Arabia has a lot of differences than our system. First, they have "religious police" as well as criminal police. Trust me, it works for them because they believe it is G-d's Law, not man's. Here, most are non-believers to begin with, and Christians already think they can rape and murder one day, ask for forgiveness, and then do it all over again, each time they feel like it. Islam doesn't view it that way, so...If you want examples of this in a Christian world, look to the Amish as an example. Could YOU live under laws that strict? Oh, and that includes America's number one and two favorite past-times. Adultery and fornication. Can you refrain from sex until you marry, and then stay loyal to only one person? Most men can't, and a growing number of women find it harder.
2016-05-18 01:55:49 · answer #2 · answered by ola 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Public executions (campaigned against by Charles Dickens amongst others) were abolished because they had become carnivals when the idea was to use them as a deterrent.
Execution is state sanctioned revenge and while emotionally I can't argue that paedophiles and rapists should be shown any mercy, I still believe that if you don't have an infallable justice system you can't kill criminals - and we haven't.
How many men are released from prison after the alleged rape victim has admitted she lied?
Those men would have been executed and that is just not acceptable.
2007-08-20 09:46:40 · answer #3 · answered by Nexus6 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Whilst you're at it, you had better define 'Paedophilia' as well, because, in addition to 'rape', there are an assortment of alleged sex crimes that fall within its definition. In your book, murder, child abduction and/or torture, seem to be lesser crimes. What would you do with those that falsely accuse others of rape?
Are you sucking up to the extremist feminist lobby? who incidentally, do a good job already in protecting the female interest.
Don't agree with Capitol punishment, particularly when its for the entertainment of sicko-es.
2007-08-20 22:49:37 · answer #4 · answered by Veritas 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the death penalty is the easy way out, and as for public executions omg what has happened in your life to make you think this way? I am anti death penalty, however I do believe that when life is passed down in a court of law that it should mean life, throw in a lot of hard labour and make them produce their own food let them know there is no such thing as a 'free lunch'
2007-08-20 10:57:50 · answer #5 · answered by angela m 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. The death penalty is not a deterrant. People were executed for just about any crime in the middle ages, yet crime was far higher then than it is even now. The US is the only western country to have the death penalty, yet they have the largest prison population and highest incidence of violent crime.
As for PUBLIC execution, how much more barbaric can you get? Are you really willing to sink to the level of animals so that you can have your party whilst another human being is killed?
2007-08-20 10:41:47 · answer #6 · answered by Mordent 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
It would present a deterent and that is one thing that we do not have. Deterents do work.
One major reason it was outlawed in the past was because of the innocent people that were executed.
Today we have DNA and all the science necessary to prove without reasonable doubt. Any less than that would be appealed and converted to life sentences.
Bring it back and include the birch as well.
2007-08-20 09:48:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
so what form of justice do you know that is unable to make mistakes. The reason we don't execute people is beacuse you can never totally prove that someone is guilty of whatever crime they've been charged with.
2007-08-20 11:39:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
only if westart with president G W BUSH.. seriously no i dont think its a good idea. to many innocent have gone to the gallows on a lie or false accusation. besides it has neverstopped any crimes, ever!! just read history
2007-08-20 10:09:39 · answer #9 · answered by IHATETHEEUSKI 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Public execution???
Are you mad? There is more than enough violence on our streets already without legalising it & making it having the government provide it.
Where do you suggest we have these public executions? The village green perhaps or the local park on a Sunday afternoon?
2007-08-20 10:55:06 · answer #10 · answered by monkeyface 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋