What do you think about the penalty for committing murder?
Do you believe in the death penalty?
What do you think should happen to those who are charged and convicted of murder?
I personally believe in the death penalty, BUT i also think there should have to be over whelming evidence, ie: confession, dna, malti witnesses.
I also believe in pacificism (an eye for an eye)
I think if you murder someone you should be murdered or if you shoot someone and they survive you should be shot.
What does everyone else think the penalty for murder should be?
Answers:
I believe in the death penalty if they are 100% sure they commited murder. If we had strickter laws maybe people would think twice about commiting crime.
yes there such crimes so horrrible tht they deserve the death penaty
I like your idea about overwhelming evidence but the multi-witness thing has proved to be wrong in the past.
The death penalty
The reason I don't believe in the death penalty is because I think death does not resolve death. Death of a person doesn't make an innocents death go away.
I would prefer that a murderer have to spend the rest of their life in prison, with no rights, no perks, no contact with the outside world, all of their freedoms taken away, because to me, this is exactly what they've done to the person they killed and their friends and family, taken away their freedoms.
To live with your sins and terrible, inexcusable acts is far more a punishment then to be given the gift of death, no longer having to deal with the pain and the truth of who you are.
Well, on the one hand, as Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia once said, "I defy anyone to show me even ONE case of recidivism from someone who has received Capital Punishment!", indicating that a dead person was certainly not going to repeat the crime. On the other hand, it is really hard to be sure, isn't it? As usual, it comes down to balance.
It depend's on what type of murder. If a serial killer kills and someone finds him then they should be sentenced for Death. If a innocent committed a murder for I.e. He/She killed someone for their self defence then based on eye witnesses and evidence they should be allowed to alive al though they should be in jail. Law is Law.
Witnesses are unreliable so I would hope my fate wouldn't be left up to that. DNA is not always left behind. Confessions can be coerced.
Having said that, I believe in the death penalty for premeditated murder. If you choose to take a life, then don't expect to get to live for long yourself.
For people who say death penalty doesnt solve anything I think their views are short sighted and doesnt take into account the reason for the death penalty, that form of punishment is there to show the public that murder is a very severe crime deserving of an equally severe sentence, nothing can bring back the dead true but you got to do what you got to do to protect the Living.
However the manner in which the death penalty is dished out is wrong, some people awaiting the death penalty are in prison for 10 years average before they get sent to death. This should be shortened to an average of 2 years at the most to stop overcrowding of jails and to create a stronger link and association between crime and punishment for the public at large.
I don't believe in the death penalty. Nobody can ever be 100% sure they got the person who commited the murder and theres always a chance of killing an innocent person. Plus, a lot of ways used for the death penalty are just cruel and unhumane; some countries still employ slow hanging methods, beheading by sword and even stoning. The punishement for murder should be life in prison.
Let the punishment fit the crime.
On one hand, the death penalty would eliminate the possibility that a murderer would subsequently be released and then murder someone else. ( There has to be a better way of accomplishing that, but we just don't have it. )
On the other hand, if death is the result of a guilty verdict, some jurors may be more reluctant to convict, and the murderer goes free.
I think there are a lot of murderers who go free because they use innovative ways to kill people that law enforcement and the DA's don't pursue. One example is intentionally and repeatedly subjecting a very ill person to second hand smoke until they get pneumonia and heart failure. Another example is the creation of a hidden environmental hazard, such as an uphill neighbor breaking a sewer pipe which he knows will let the seepage go into a downhill neighbor's yard and house, subjecting him to sewage related diseases.
I believe in the death penalty for murder, but disagree that if you shoot someone and they live you should be shot. There is no way to shoot someone and know it will not kill them. Instead the person who unjustly shoots another should be made to pay for all medical bills and lost income that results from the shooting. Shooting the shooter would hinder his ability to pay restitution and the delay you cause would add to the suffering of the victim.
I think if you get away w/ it, the shoe fits..
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: