hangings and firing squads even stoning
2007-12-09 01:09:30 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
yes and public floging too for minor crimes
2007-12-09 01:41:41 · update #1
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! I would prefer drawing and quartering, though. Nice and slow and extremely painful. I don't care about deterrence. Revenge on societies' parasites is good enough. Actually, this is a good deterrent. That individual is guaranteed never to do another crime.
2007-12-09 02:04:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt then yes I think that there should be public executions BUT if there are any doubts then a life sentence at hard labour (taking big rocks and making stone dust) is the better option. It has been shown that jurys are more willing to sentence someone to life on dodgy evidence than they are to a death sentence.
People will also say that the public executions didn't stop anyone from killing anyone but I feel that it did, once you hide something away it looses its impact. When I was in the military I witnessed people being punished and that made me think about what they did and the extra duties that they had to perform.
BTW the unasked question with the above is should there be public floggings as well? I know I would have like to have had some executives in companies that I've invested in flogged for theft.
2007-12-09 09:21:51 · answer #2 · answered by Dangermanmi6 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the rate of crime goes up after every execution, and lots of the people are later found to be innocent using new DNA techniques, IMO the question is more about what you think the results would be of public executions. I do not believe any government should be in the business of killing its citizens.
2007-12-09 09:28:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should do executions on pay per view television and have half of the money for each execution go the victim's nearest relative and the rest go for maintenance of the prisons.
As for the means of execution, since hangings and firing squads were deemed acceptable by those who wrote the Constitution, they should still be done now. Let the method be chosen by the people who sign up for pay per view for each particular execution. They would cast their vote when they pay to watch.
2007-12-09 09:25:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey - the U.S. is now torturing people. Why don't we become exactly like Saudi Arabia. I think they are an excellent example of what we should be doing. In fact maybe we just start some kind of Christian sharia law - holy rollers for stonings, beatings, hangings, and burning ppl at the steak. We will need our own original chant for the streets like the saudis have when they do it. ahhhh heads on spears - YES!
2007-12-09 09:33:38 · answer #5 · answered by BoogyBoo 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes! It would save us thousands of dollars a year on each prisoner's medical care, feeding them, etc. Would it slow down violent crime? Who knows, but I'd be willing to find out!
2007-12-09 09:22:39 · answer #6 · answered by enemy62301 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way public executions are unethical, brutal, terrible, and just plain cruel. I mean is that to expose young minds to this sort of thing is terrible that it gives them a message saying if you don't follow this law, then you and your friends will face the gallows. I mean come this the 21st century leave that in the past where it should stay.
2007-12-09 09:22:13 · answer #7 · answered by Icefirephantom 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Why not? Aren't lethal injection's virtually public? They limit the amount of people and who but they still allow people to watch. So what the difference? I say hell yes.
2007-12-09 10:24:33 · answer #8 · answered by maseyyy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes!
2007-12-09 09:16:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes it would slow down crime of they knowed they stronger punishment
2007-12-09 09:15:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋