Yes, the death penalty should be used for the most severe crimes like pre-meditated murder, pre-pubescent pedophelia... but, ONLY if the evidence presented is concrete like DNA. I believe this simply because someone who would actually take the time to plan a murder or have sex with a pre-pubescent child are not worried about the consequences of thier actions and pedophiles are very likely to be repeat offenders. I for one do not want to have the possibility of these people escaping or getting parole and killing more people or raping more children. These are the sickest of individuals and do not deserve to live any longer, IMHO.
It should be used in some cases. I don't want some convicted baby eater to have the chance to escape or be paroled by some "kind" governor.
I'm kinda split on the issue. On the one hand, I don't think taking another life is right, and its hypocritical. When you kill, its homicide. when the government does, its the justice system. HOWEVER there are some sickos out there that need to be taken out. and I won't lie, if one of my loved ones was killed, you bet I'd want the asshole who killed them to fry in the electric chair.
No. I have never believed that people should punish someone who has killed, by killing them - makes you just as bad. Luckily we don't have capital punishment over here.
Judge Grants Stay Of Execution To Baumhammers.. http://kdka.com/local/Richard.Baumhammers.stay.2.1522675.html
I'd say no in England and Wales becuase there are too many mistakes see below. I am currently protesting against the first trial without a jury for 350 years in England & Wales I believe rial by Jury is a fundamental civil right in the democratic world and an integral part of the legal system of England and Wales.Without a Jury; there is no safeguard on the civil rights of the public in a Court of Law. Allowing the Judiciary to make unaccountable rulings is a dangerous road and must be reversed. We are protesting outside the royal courts of justice on Monday the 1st of March at 9am everyone is welcome and any support much appreciated. I will give you some background to the case. John Twomey was arrested for armed robbery at the end of the 1970s. John's case collapsed when it was discovered that evidence ( guns & cash )were not only planted by the police but he produced tape recordings of him being threatened by the police. He gave further evidence against the police in operation countryman investigations about police corruption. John was paid £25,000 in compensation for being framed and police harrassment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Countryman Despite the previous case the grudge by the police continues and he finds himself on trial again. There is no evidence to put him at the scene of the crime , no DNA or anything. There were no weapons or stolen money found on him or in his house or car. In fact even though somebody else who John has never even met was caught by DNA evidence , John has somehow been dragged in to this the police have also presented evidence to the judge without showing it to the defence. One detective on the case has also refused to answer whether he is a) A freemason b) knows any detectives from the first corrupt trial in 1982 c) reveal why certain notes are missing The main detective has admitted to lying to a previous defendent to get information. http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/true_blue.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/18/john-twomey-trial-without-jury If you can’t make it to the protest please will you sign our petition below. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Trial-by-Jury/ http://www.************/l.php?u=http:// Here is a map for the court www.londontown.com/LondonInformatio...tice/a7cb/&h=fc76d5ca3fb86708fd65a9d6830dd337 Thanks for any help or support and any feedback is more than welcome.
I say if they are 100% SURE then THEY SHOULD DO IT!! The idiot took a life SO WHY SHOULD THIERS NOT BE TAKEN?
bottom line is, ideally, rehabilitation should be forced onto acts of harm. in our system, based on whatever is voted on pretty much even if a law is a harmless law, people are sentenced, perpetually creating influence of hate and aggression. jail is completely and utterly evil, spiteful and pointless. i find it extremely putrid when people want to take revenge on a person, by sending them to jail, because that is such an easy, and incredibly destructive decision. humans shouldn't be dancing around the two words crime and punishment, they should be acknowledging the two words life and rehabilitation to speak in modern, primitive times, i believe if a person kills two or more people in two or more seperate cases with solid evidence against them, they should be executed because they obviously have not learned from the first time, and jail sentences only drain the public's money through tax to spend on torturing another human. now this doesnt just give a free pass to kill one person in your life. after the first case of murder, one should be watched by from the government (this should be funded rather than a stupid-ass jail system) in their lives, making sure they are productive by having serving jobs, and such. thats of course after they go through rehabilitation
I can understand the ethical dilemma of sentencing someone to death.. So how about if we just made it so if someone were sentenced to spend more than your productive life expectancy imprisoned, we spare them all that misery and use assisted suicide as a merciful way out for them? We could claim its economically motivated as to detach the personal aspect of it...
Yes, if it a heinous crime and there's no doubt about guilt. Like the guys on trial for rape/murder in Connecticut. Their defense so far has been they didn't mean to rape the women and the cops didn't stop them soon enough.
I voted "yes for another reason". That reason is if there is absolutely no way to detain the individual, or if that individual's life, even while detained continues to pose a real danger to society.
Yes, and it would likely be a greater deterrent were it to be done in the most inhumane way possible, and made available for public viewing.