Do you think we should bring back public hangings to deter crime?
such as murder and other felonies, not misdimeanors.
and skip the long process of courts and appeals and crooked justice?
Answers:
Skipping the appeals process would be a really bad idea, to many innocent people might lose their lives. Once that process is completed, Pay-Per-View of the execution should be allowed. The proceeds going to the victims families.
It is a known fact, that countries that have public executions, have more crime !! Look at iraq!
No. I see no particular point in it.
Absolutely, sure a few of my fellow democrats that are of the "bleeding-heart" type will cry "foul". Cite that it is "cruel and unusual punishment". But I always tell my fellow democrat this... "No cruel and unusual punishment would be allowing the father of a murdered and raped 9 year old girl have 3 hours with the , court proven, guilty offender."
Yes i do and O J aught to be the first
No, in this Jerry Springer culture it would turn into a circus. People would be commiting violent crimes just to get on TV.
Yes but I think it should only be done to child predators and searial rapists who torture.
How about the countries that cut off your hand if you steal. You only got so many chances.
It would work with some people, others cannot be detered from being the bad people they are.
If child molesters got castrated, some would still do other nasty stuff to kids, but most would probably have learned their lesson.
I don't believe in intensifying punishments. I do, however, believe we need to model our prisons like some of the third world countries. If a criminal is sentenced to prison, let him rot there without air conditioning or movie night.
No one thinks they are going to get caught or it is a ''crime of passion''.so it will not work...
also.....Supreme court said abortions were illegal...they changed their minds.and might again..How many people do you want dead and can you bring back the innocent ones?
Law is fluid.
I believe that if it is proved 100 present that a person raped chopped off the hands of a young girl cut her up the gut and let her lie to die in the gutter. This should be used as an outline of their events of punishment. So in effect the scum that would do some of these crimes will be the same person that would write the law for their own payment for that crime.
Capital punishment is used by countries such as Vietnam, Libya, North Korea, China, Iraq, Sudan and Iran. Are those the countries we wish to emulate?
*Edit - How about economics then? It is well established that it is more costly to use capital punishment than keep a convicted murderer in prison for life. The reason is that by virtue of the 1976 Supreme Court Gregg. V Georgia decision, all those sentenced to die MUST go through the appeals process. When you add things up it is cheaper to house them for life than it is to go through the costly appeals process.
Deterrence - capital punishment does not deter crime.
Here are some quotes by people who state why what you are suggesting is a bad idea much more eloquently than I could:
"The death penalty makes killing an acceptable part of our American culture. In a society that strives to teach schoolchildren that violence is never an acceptable solution to their problems and that peaceful, non-violent solutions can and should be sought, we hypocritically turn to state-sponsored killing to solve our most serious problems."
-- David Lane, defense attorney, The Denver Post, 3/18/2001.
"Only in a society where state governments are intoxicated with the power to kill would you view a sentence of life imprisonment without parole as a lenient sentence."
-- Bryan Stevenson, Director of Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, Olof Palme Prize Winner 2000; (3) Huntsville Times, 7/11/1999; (4) Associated Press, 1/16/2000; (5) NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS, 1/14/2003.
"The death penalty is wrong for 3 reasons. First, it is bad philosophy: Killing a killer to prove killing is wrong does not make sense. Second, it is bad politics: America's standing in the international community is hampered because most civilized nations no longer permit the death penalty. And it is not practical: It costs more to execute defendants than to imprison them. The death penalty is bad morals, politics and economics."
-- Kenneth Michael White, attorney, Letters to the editor, Los Angeles Times, 12/18/2004.
"[Capital punishment] is inhuman because its deterrent effects are now recognized as myth. It is unjust because it leaves no remedy for mistake. It is unequal because it is exacted almost exclusively of the poor and the ignorant. It is, in effect, a relic of the barbarous days when our law demanded an eye for an eye."
-- Edward Bennett Williams (1920-1988), famous lawyer, influential Washington insider.
There are so many reasons what you are suggesting is a bad idea.
In short:
1) The death penalty does not deter crime and this is a proven fact.
2) If a person is wrongfully convicted there is no remedy.
3) It costs taxpayers more money to execute someone than to have them in prison for life without parole.
4) Race has been a factor to make people more likely to be sentenced to death.
5) The death penalty is applied pretty much randomly, only a fraction of murderers are sentenced to death.
6) Capital punishment goes against almost every major religion.
7) The USA is keeping company with notorious human rights abusers, most industrialized nations have abolished the death penalty entirely.
8) Money being spent on capital punishment could be spent on helping victim's families get help recovering from their loss. Killing another person will not being back the one they lost, and often just prolongs the grieving process for them.
9) People of lower income often end up with bad lawyers, which ends up being a big factor in why they end up getting the death penalty.
10) Life without parole is an extreme punishment that should be taken seriously.
Skipping the process of courts and appeals is unconstitutional and violates our rights of due process.
And lastly, something I think people often forget that I brought up during a panel discussion on this during law school:
Dead people can't write letters. If you kill someone for committing a crime, you aren't just punishing them. You are punishing their families, innocent people that didn't do anything wrong. Many of these people have children. Children who would never have a chance to know their parent because they were executed. If they are alive and in prison, at least their families will be able to write to them and won't have to be punished with losing their loved one. All the death penalty would do is cause more innocent people to feel the pain and loss of someone they care about being killed. We can punish these criminals by keeping them in jail, we don't need to punish their families too.
Yeah, cuz you MUST be guilty if you were arrested, right? I mean it's not like there could have been a mistake, so why bother with the whole, finding out the truth exercise... it's just an inconvenience. We might as well go back to the ancient Greek times of executing people because other citizens accused them of crimes... as Socrates how that system worked out. He was up to no good. Honestly, if you think this is a good idea, then you think killing someone for inspiring people to think deserve to die for "corrupting the youth." Reason, logic, and truth are no longer valued, and anything we can do to skip the redundant and boring procedures through which they are discovered.
And the evidence that reason is no longer valued can be viewed in the distrust for science, and an old written document called THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: