2007-10-26 12:09:05 · 15 answers · asked by anna 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I think its the same as a life sentence, but with a longer waiting period.
I think it should be expanded to violent forms of rape as well.
2007-10-26 12:16:38 · answer #1 · answered by freebird 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I support the death penalty. Why waste MY tax dollars supporting the scum of the earth when all they have do do is lay around all day for committing a violent crime. I think they should have an express lane. No: instead of the electric chair, let's have a electric bench, so we could take care of 5 or 6 of the scum bags at a time.
2007-10-28 06:22:53 · answer #2 · answered by sllde 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i am adamentally opposed to the death penalty.
killing a murderer, isn't worth risking murdering an innocent person. even with DNA evidence, people slip through cracks all the time & i can't justify mudering someone in the name of the law who may be innocent.
there are certain violent criminals - terrorists, serial-killers, mass-murders & psychopaths, who are guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, but once you open the door to killing them, where does it stop? do we execute all killers? what about the mentally impared, self-defense, accidental death, hit & runs? where is the line drawn?
i don't believe in an eye for an eye. we don't rape rapists, or steal from thieves or beat convicted of assault, so why should kill those who kill? it makes no sense
take the case of Varnall Weeks
an Alabama state judge acknowledged he was insane but decided that he was 'competent' anyway - he was executed in May 1995.
http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/nov1998/amn-n19.shtml
or Wanda Jean Allen, who was mentally retarded with an IQ of 69 & was executed on January 11, 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanda_Jean_Allen
in America we execute the mentally impared, how is that NOT wrong?
& then there are people who have been killed on death row, despite someone confessing to the crime, there are people on death row today - Anthony Graves, for one - who has an alibi. the person who confessed to the crime & lated implicated him, recanted & he's still on death row.
considering the appeals process, it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison, so why is America so inclined to execution?
we aren't gods . . . until there is a way to absolutely know someone's guilt or innocence - the death penalty is nothing but legally mandated murder - it's revenge, not justice
~~~ morgannia
2007-10-26 19:42:34 · answer #3 · answered by Morgannia 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It does depend on the crime, but I feel that if there is any chance that the person is innocent then they shouldn't get it. Putting a person in jail doesn't really solve anything if the person doesn't get out. You see the purpose of jailing somebody is rehabilitation. However it is hard to rehabilitate some and others might be a threat to the society.
2007-10-26 19:25:15 · answer #4 · answered by banditsns1391 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i absolutely believe in the death penalty.i was brought up an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.i am of lebanese decent.with all the DNA proving guilt or innocence don't you think that the prisons would be less full of violators?and the american people would be paying less tax dollars to treat the scumbags to a holiday at the state inns?
2007-10-26 19:47:05 · answer #5 · answered by CHER 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am against the death penalty,one person executed and later found to be innocent is one too many.
I do however support longer and stiffer sentences in a prison not a hotel.
2007-10-30 18:51:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am against the death penalty for several reasons. First, it denies the offender the opportunity to reform his or her life, which the the most important reason. Those who support the death penalty argue that it is an act of justice - a life for a life. Yet, the taking of the offender's life doesn't restore the life of the victim. It merely perpetuates the notion of vengeance in our culture.
The death penalty, for me, is like an act of self-defense. For example, if a person attacks me physically, I have the right to defend myself, and I even have the right to use lethal force if that is the only means for me to save my life. However, if I can repel the attacker without using lethal force, then I am required to do so, or else I would be guilty of murder.
In the same way, society has the right to protect itself from violent people who attack it. Yet, if society can protect itself without resorting to deadly violence, then it must do so or else it is guilty of a crime as well. Now, I think we have the means available to us that enable us to lock up violent criminals who then could no longer harm us. Resorting to the death penalty is excessive.
2007-10-26 19:17:45 · answer #7 · answered by Jude & Cristen H 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?
well isn't that funny how that eye for an eye lands people on death row.
murder will never cease until men refuse to kill.
don't you see???
and could you pull the switch on someone else's life? What if you were paid to do it? So what makes you any different from the killer that you're killing?
even if they weren't murderers, they did wrong, and you are correcting their wrong by doing wrong to them?
well when that wrong comes back on you, I hope that you are just as enthusiastic about an eye for an eye!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-10-26 19:59:45 · answer #8 · answered by ktp 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Agree. Eye for an Eye.
2007-10-26 20:08:57 · answer #9 · answered by Dani (green&navy) 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i agree with that question..why waste our tax payers money on a murderer who is gonna spend the rest of there life in prison. i dont know about you but i think they need to start sending more people to death row and hopefuly get a message out that we not f-ing around anymore..kill em all
2007-10-26 19:17:38 · answer #10 · answered by Aaron S 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋