2007-11-02 07:02:44 · 38 answers · asked by bao187 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Fairness has little to do with it. It's a matter of civility. By robbing them of that final choice, we become no better than them.
2007-11-02 07:08:19 · answer #1 · answered by damlovash 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I dont think a last meal is all that unreasonable. Most states limit the last meal to items that can be produced by the prison commisary with their on hand supplies. IE- no lobsters, caviar, etc. Some states are a bit more lenient if they rarely have an execution. Usually, method of execution is decided by the sentencing judge. Most states to lethal injections, which is humane and theoretically painless. Other states still have hanging and electricution, but those are starting to be ruled cruel and unusual.
2007-11-02 07:09:10 · answer #2 · answered by Brad 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. The Victim of this heartless murderer was not aware of what would be happening to them that day and did not get to choose anything to be his or her last. Why should the murderer have any rights? You can't act like a normal civil person then you shouldn't be treated like one either!
Sadly,I think that criminals have it made in jail and prison facilities. The don't have to do s**t all day. They get three meals a day and just chill. It's vacation with free living. They get more in there than a lot of ppl out here in the real world.
Losers.
2007-11-02 07:22:26 · answer #3 · answered by NiNi 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion yes it is fair and humane that a last meal can be chosen ( Food deprivation is torture).
Method of Execution choice is more complicated as it presumes that there is a choice. Still not 100% sure about execution. Though. Choice or no choice,
2007-11-02 07:16:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would it be unfair? Who does it hurt if he chooses hot dogs instead of chicken?
As for choosing a method of execution, they usually do not get to do that. Methods are set by state law, if they are not declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
2007-11-02 07:07:54 · answer #5 · answered by raichasays 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not, they should die by the exact same means in which they commited the murder.
As far as the last meal, well if they were feeding thier victim a nice meal at the time they took their life, ok.
2007-11-02 07:19:50 · answer #6 · answered by Tom S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, he's going to die anyway, & he has been supported by all of our tax money for as long as he was incarcerated, so what the heck is one more meal, & a needle or electric chair? If he chosses the needle, at least it will save energy!
2007-11-02 07:12:52 · answer #7 · answered by fairly smart 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell no, especially if it is a rapist, or a brutal murderer, he should be torture till his last day and not accepted any pity. Think about that child or whomever he killed. If he wants mercy all of a sudden, how convenient. People like that deserve what they get.
2007-11-02 07:05:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, because if they are going to die why should it matter? One last meal and a choice of death they are not getting out of. They are going to suffer because of what they did they will lose not only their life but their family, friends, and everyone who once cared about them.
2007-11-02 07:08:21 · answer #9 · answered by Waiting for Madelyn :) 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-11-02 07:05:23 · answer #10 · answered by defiler78 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋