Would you support a law that?

Question

called for the immediate execution of a suspect if they committed a crime that required the death penalty AND they were caught in the actual commission of that crime....such as someone who just robbed a bank and killed innocent bank teller and customers then the robber walked out of the bank and police were awaiting them? Please qualify your response...thank you.

Answer 1

The possibility of IMMEDIATE and completely subjective execution as you have described, would call for a big change in our current constitutional laws. Fat chance that'll ever happen. I'm thinking you just want our reactions on this particular question. Mine is much like Big Deals posting.

Even if the evidence is overwhelming, I think everybody is entitled to ONE (1) trial where evidence is presented before a jury of peers. But when the decision has been reached, conviction made and sentencing passed, then I say we should make a quick conclusion to the sentence passed. If the sentence is death, then DO IT.

If we, as a country cannot tolerate the death penalty, then why the hell do we have it in our wordings. Either do it or don't do it. If we're not going to execute, then I think we should ship all their asses to some remote area and drop them off to survive as they can in a banishment area of the world where they can bloody well live or die as they want to but not as our responsibility. None of us can judge a man's soul, but we can judge his actions and find him unfit to live in our society.

To impose these miscreants upon an innocent society for the duration of their lives and the lives of the society that they offended, is to victimize the society twice.
First we suffer their crime and the sorrow of picking up the pieces of our lives or burying the people they killed, and then we have to support them till they die in prisons.

While I wouldn't support a law that would allow immediate (Judge Dredd style) execution, I AM totally for banishment or death as a justifiable and fitting end.

Answer 2

Everyone is entitled to due process of law under the Constitution and that means a trial. Just in case you haven't been following the discussions about the death penalty....

You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them to avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.

Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?
No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that do not.

So, what are the alternatives?
Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

What about the very worst crimes?
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

So, why don't we speed up the process?
Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 3

No, I would not. I don't believe in the death penalty for ANYONE, even serial killers and mass murderers. And how do we know whether the robber 'intended to kill' that person before commiting the robbery, or under what circumstances that killing took place? That is was a 'trial by jury' is about ... finding out ALL of the 'relevant facts' about the case and then making an 'informed judgment.' And there is NO CRIME that the 'automatic punishment' is Death ... that is a 'decision' that must be made by the prosecuting attorney AFTER THE CRIME but before the end of the trial, and in many cases before the trial starts, and if the Death Penalty is given, it must be given by the JURY and not the Judge!

Answer 4

EVERY time. Liberals ALWAYS take the side of law breakers, or they ARE the law breakers. Madoff Illegal immigrants Che Guevara Gaza blockade runners Drug dealers Welfare cheats.... The list goes on and on. Anyone anyplace in the world who is breaking the law, they are the darling of the left. Why? Because liberals ARE criminals. Leftist politics is the politics of the criminal element - someone else has what they want, so they take it. That's why most criminals vote Democrat. Democrat politics appeals to criminal minds, and Democrats actively court the criminal vote. Now they're trying to break new ground by pandering for the Hispanic vote with amnesty for illegals. More law breakers getting preferential treatment from Democrats.

Answer 5

That's nice that you trust the police who were "awaiting them". Cops, like every other human being make mistakes you know!

There's a group you might like to join over in Afghanistan, they're called the Taliban - they pretty much operate by your proposed draconian rules.

Answer 6

No. For starters, there are no laws that require the death penalty. It is an option the judge/jury can choose in certain cases. They could also give jail time instead.

Second, it could open up nasty potentials for abuse.

Answer 7

After a investigation has validated the seemingly obvious. Everyone in America has the right to a fair trial.

Answer 8

Maybe after a guilty verdict but I sure wouldn't leave them sit in jail for 20 years eating up our tax dollars. We are all entitled to a fair trial and we should all get "1" after that pop a cap in his a ss.

Answer 9

nope.

There are always mitigating circumstances that could be argued in a court of law. Witnesses lie. Identities are mistaken. People can be caused to commit crimes under duress (ie, rob this bank or I will kill your child.)

Every person is entitled to a rigorous defence and their day in court.

Answer 10

No capital punishments please. One has no right to take away anothers life, even though the other had taken out several lives. Even when one is so sure that the life taker can not be redeemed, at all, one shall not take anothrs life. (Thou shalt not kill....) Let us imrison him or depot hi to some isolated islands from where he shall never come back to civilisation, but no killings at all. We can not give lives, let us not take them away.