(Just playing Devils advocate)
2007-10-26 03:07:49 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
Y! Dictionaries, why don't you take a tea break, ill make you a cuppa
2007-10-26 03:11:41 · update #1
Yes!!!
We need some form of discipline back to reduce crime etc :)
2007-10-26 10:22:53 · answer #1 · answered by Zenlife07 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One part of me says yes, because there are some sick and twisted people out there, who do things normal people cant even comprehend. And to have them deleted from society would make us all feel more secure.
Another part of me says NO, why? because if you kill a person for killing a person then you are also a killer, so therefore you should be killed, therefore where does it end. Also, if a person is killed (you can glamour it and call it all the names you want, but killing is killing)
If you kill someone buy hanging, lethal injection (which is what the Americans do and I think is twisted and just as evil), then their punishment is over once they are dead.
If prisons were actually proper prisons, like Alcatraz, or even worse than Alcatraz, then that would be a better punishment, slave labour, just enough food to survive, and chained. Locked in cages. I believe the victims family should have the last say in what happens to the prisoner, but a judge should decide the minimum that can happen to them.
I definitely do not want death penalty brought back to UK, we are a civilised society, lets keep us that way.
(no offense to anyone intended, so chill)
2007-10-26 10:23:06 · answer #2 · answered by cuffyn 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. The UK has the chance to look at how it has worked in the United States.
The death penalty doesn't 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 don’t.
124 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.
We have a good alternative. 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.
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.
The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?
The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. 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.
Problems with speeding 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.
2007-10-26 10:14:12 · answer #3 · answered by Susan S 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no.... two wrongs don't make a right.
The death penalty is the easy way out for most of the people who deserve it, I'd rather let them rot in jail and never let them see the light of day. In any case, considering we live in such a pathetic politically correct culture I can never see it being brought back as I'm sure it will impinge on someones "human rights "....
2007-10-26 11:04:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All depends hun... is it right to take another life? I think for some of the mega serious crimes then yes if we know 100% that they are guilty why should we pay to keep these people alive, and what about the mess they have left behind?
2007-10-26 10:12:30 · answer #5 · answered by Maria S © 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I think ive said it before, its only in uncivilised societies where it is practiced. It is not a deterrent, you only have to look at the homocide statistics in the US to see that. Believe it or not it is also more costly to the taxpayer - again going off the US example, the amount of money spent on legal costs and appeals while the condemmed is on death row more than exceeds what it would cost to keep that person locked up for life.
2007-10-26 10:13:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
i think so.
Without a doubt for murders, terrorists and paedophiles.
There are still 3 crimes that you can be put to death for, apparently.
Piracy in the queens dock yard
murder of the monarch
treason against the monarchy.
2007-10-26 10:10:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No they should build less shopping centres and more prisons and let them suffer instead of giving them computer consoles,televisions and part time jobs in the area where they are.
2007-10-26 10:16:44 · answer #8 · answered by Paws 'n' Claws 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only if they are 100% certain that the person they are putting to death is truly guilty of the crime.
2007-10-26 10:11:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only for premeditated BRANG !
2007-10-26 11:46:11 · answer #10 · answered by skootch 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋