because the main goal for the murderer was to kill the victim, and whether the victim survived or not has nothing to do with the murderer.....yet in most cases which the victim survives, the criminal gets lighter sentences than when compared to if the victim dies.........
do you agree or disagree? and why?
thank you
2007-10-10 12:17:30 · 8 answers · asked by Moore55 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Personally, I agree. I also think that someone convicted of rape and child molestation forfeit their right to live.
However, we don't live in a perfect world and, despite what I WANT, there is a draw back to it. One main idea behind the death penalty is to be a deterrent. You diminish that effect if you assign lesser crimes the same penalty (b/c there is no greater penalty than death!). Example: Bob is beating John with a bat. John goes unconscious and Bob stops. Then he realizes that since he will probably be charged with attempted murder and get the same penalty as if he HAD killed John; so he goes ahead and finished John off (possibly eliminating a key witness also). Since he has already passed the point of highest punishment, he is not deterred by completing the act.
~Z~
2007-10-10 12:50:42 · answer #1 · answered by Z-Force920 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well if you think about it, murder in the first degree gets a different sentence than murder in the second or third, right? If it's all about motive, then if they tried to kill somebody and failed, they had the same motive they would have had if the person had died. I think I kind of agree with you.
And Tiffany H... who said anything about the death penalty? Lots of states don't have one.
2007-10-10 12:21:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anniekd 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
people that convicted murder should not get a death sentence because they already took somebodys life, now if you kill them they have no pain, you might as well torture them. But then there is the possibility of them breaking out...but its a very low percentage...I would hope...
2007-10-10 12:21:18 · answer #3 · answered by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.....? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm gonna might desire to disagree. it extremely is barbaric to decrease ourselves to a similar standards as a killer. case in point if somebody died from being stabbed it would be ridiculous for the government to reserve the stabbing of the murderer. The dying penalty itself is debatable, yet i'm going to settle for it on the instant. although, something different than deadly injection is mindless.
2016-11-07 22:37:46 · answer #4 · answered by hohl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ATTEMPTED MURDER IS NOT A MURDER.
TAKE A CASE OF LETS HYPOTHETICALLY SAY YOU HAVE A 14 YEARS OLD DAUGHTER.
YOU DAUGHTER COMES IN CRYING THAT THE GUY DOWN THE BLOCK JUST RAPED HER.
YOU WENT AFTER HIM TO KILL HIM. YOU BEAT HIM DOWN AND NEAR DEATH SO HE HAS TO SPEND A COUPLE OF DAYS IN THE HOSPITAL.
THEY ARREST YOU FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER?
NOW WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR OWN POSTULATION?
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE A COURT SYSTEM, A JUDGE, A JURY, A TRIAL, SENTENCING AND APPEALS. TRUE IT IS SLOW BUT USUALLY JUSTICE IS WEEDED OUT IN THE LONG RUN.
2007-10-10 12:31:01 · answer #5 · answered by ahsoasho2u2 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have a good point. But murder is the killing of someone. If the victim does not die, then you can't charge them with it.
2007-10-10 12:23:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
people convicted of attempted murder should get life, mabey parole. They are to dangerous, if they wanted to kill someone once, they probably will want to try and kill again.
2007-10-10 12:38:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think so because they tried to which is basically the same thing as actually doing it. Its just as bad of a crime as well bc even though the person still gets to live, they have to live with the trauma of the incident and also in fear.
2007-10-10 12:22:27 · answer #8 · answered by emmy4dogs 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋