Just a curiousity poll, are you for or against.
2007-10-16 09:16:49 · 25 answers · asked by John P 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
After 24 answers let me say I am for it, though I believe every effort should be made to make sure the person is 100% guilty and no I don't believe in insanity defence. I also believe that when there is absolute certainity they are guilty, no freaking appeal, from the back door of the court house straight to the gallows. Now you have a deterent.
2007-10-16 10:16:11 · update #1
I am for it, if it can be proven beyond any doubt, and if it is proven take them out to a predug ditch shoot them in head and cover them up, quit wasting tons of money delaying it, just do it.
2007-10-16 09:45:03 · answer #1 · answered by masterplumber1975 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
4
2007-10-16 09:19:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I have mixed feelings on this. Someone stole $300 from me once, and I wanted to send them to the gas chamber, so I'm sure if someone close to me was murdered, I'd want them executed. However, in my state, many men who had been on death row for years have now been exonerated through DNA, so I would say only in a case where it can be proven 100% through DNA that they are guilty. I also think that any time DNA could possibly clear somebody, it needs to be checked. If a person is 100% guilty, I don't feel bad executing that person, but I feel bad for their family. They are somebody's child, parent, spouse, sibling, etc.
2007-10-16 09:28:36 · answer #3 · answered by Brooke22365 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Against. And I'm against prisons. I believe in wilderness exile for anyone convicted of a crime. For a serious crime, a month of exile, especially in foul weather, would kill nearly everyone, and do it more slowly. If you survived you would have a much greater appreciation for society, and you wouldn't have learned those wonderful skills prisoners teach each other in prison.
Can I maintain my liberal credentials by promoting an idea that would kill by starvation and exposure perhaps 80% of all persons convicted of a felony?
2007-10-16 09:42:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Against. Any penalty is supposed to serve as a deterrant to others who would commit similar crimes but they've managed to turn the death penalty into a joke so it's no longer a deterrant. Case in point; Mumia Abu Jamal.
2007-10-16 09:38:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't want tax dollars being spent to house and feed a convicted felon! Therefore I support the death penalty!
2007-10-16 09:30:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hm-mm.............your avatar sounds like a "maximum needed "image I fairly have seen on television. of path you would be anybody right here, can't you? i'm against the loss of life penalty using my non secular ideals that for the time of uncomplicated terms the Lord can take our lives away while He calls. on the different hand..........lots tax payers monies flow to assist the criminals for something of their lives. i think that leaves with the predicament of having to % a thank you to make those prisoners on loss of life row fairly pay. interior the tip..........they pays on Judgment Day if the Lord so deems it.
2016-12-29 13:33:03 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not against it, but it's not really practical anymore. The process of putting someone to death costs more than keeping someone in prison for life. People are on death row for like more than ten years. Court trial after court trial...It just consumes more and more resources.
2007-10-16 09:20:54 · answer #8 · answered by Paperdoll 1 · 3⤊ 2⤋
For it. I think the appeals process is waaaay too long as well. I think if a criminal knows he will be executed within a month of conviction, he will think twice about doing it.
2007-10-16 09:33:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Until there is 100% possibility of never executing the wrong person, I am against it.
2007-10-16 09:25:35 · answer #10 · answered by x2000 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋