If the death penalty is used it should be carried out quicker and in a public area. If the person was executed in the town the original crime was committed then it would help deter people from continuing that same type of behavior. Instead of taking years for the execution to be carried out it should be quicker, around thirty days. Rob is that how quick they do it in Texas?
The process of appeals at least gives a good chance of an innocent person getting off. That is why I'd prefer to execute the most definite of the guilty.
Perhaps they could later chop the body up and hand it out to the bloodthursty barbarians watching for thier lunch.
If it will help deter crime and the country is going to employee the death penalty that might be reasonable.
Yeah, take your kids along... or failing that, why not just kick a puppy to death in front of them to satisfy your bloodlust.
Well Muslims do that but lots of people say that's barbaric too, but they do have low crimes rates. Maybe the USA needs to do it proper. It would be better to kill all in 30 days then the stats would show nobody was innocent, all were guilty and killed. However there's no chance for innocents who's appeals take years if not decades to complete. LOL
No, actually, the only thing that should be "abolished", because it is "barbaric" is that which would warrant the "death penalty". According to Scripture, the "death penalty" is ONLY the result of a cause. . .but never the cause itself. Can you say "abortion/murder"?
The two are not even comparable. One is a penalty for breaking the law, one is an act of convenience for a mother. We obviously don't treat law abiding citizens and criminals the same way, nor should we be expected to. To put the two into a comparison is absurd. It is like saying we don't believe in locking up our children, but we lock up criminals... why?
There are a lot of people I've come across in my travels (here included) that I found decidedly inconvenient. Does that mean I should prematurely terminate them? The two are very comparable in the context of the discussion, especially since it was indicated in this thread that there is a possibility that an innocent life might be taken in the case of an execution. The same can be argued about the life of the unborn.
yeah it doesn't take long for them to expose thier hypocrisy and willingness to completely reject thier silly little books the instant it doesn't support a view they already have.
I'm all for the death penalty. People keep throwing out the word innocent out there "killing the innocent"..if they've gotten to the point where the death penalty comes into play, then they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not saying the justice system is flawless, but I am saying that you can pretty much bet that no judge is going to sentence someone to death with some faulty eyewitness descriptions and a coerced confession as proof in the court of law. By the same standard, I think abortion should be completely up to the discretion of the mother. It cannot be outlawed completely because there are variables; babies by rape, etc that have to be taken into account. It's a good argument both ways, but in my opinion, an unborn-fetus of 2 months is not a person.. So yeah..let's see my message get quoted and dissected, please?
I am against the death penalty because of a number of reasons. 1.) Rarely can we be 100% sure of the guilt of anyone. There have been numerous instances throughout US history of innocent people being convicted of murder. We should not risk putting any innocent person to death. 2.) It's a barbaric act that I think reflects very poorly on our society. It's telling that the US is one of very few countries around the world where the death penalty has not already been banned. 3.) There's no strong evidence that it's an effective deterrent. 4.) The death penalty process is very expensive.
Woot a good post Even though I'm personally against abortion. But that's impossible, how can you be prove something beyond a reasonable doubt when it never happened? Well actually they do judges can be just as biased as anyone else, your law enforcement has had, have currently and always will have crooks in it (all do) that are willing to twist facts, and coerce not only confessions but witnesses too.
Judges CAN be biased, but a jury is what finds someone guilty in the court of law and few jurys are BIASED considering they're sleected equally by both the defense and the prosecution. It can be proven beyond a resonable doubt if it happened..if not, obviously, then there will be some doubt and they won't be sentenced.
That's nice in theory. That's how the system is supposed to work. But there have been numerous instances in US history where this has not been the case. PROOF: "Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions."