I'm can't decide whether it would be a good idea or not. I can see the postive sides (less overcrowding in Jails, and it would deter people from commiting crimes), however on the negative side someone might be incorrectly sentenced (like they're killed for being guilty but they're really not)! What do you all think??
You can never be 100% certain that someone is guilty. If a person is incorrectly sentenced (which will happen eventually) that you can't exactly apologize and offer them compensation! besides, punishing a crime with another crime is hardly a great example
personally, i'm in two minds about this yes it would indeed reduce the amount of crime, but you'd have to draw the line somewhere, because, giving someone a death penalty for stealing a loaf of bread because they or their family is hungry but, the opposing argument: yes, i was in a disabling car crash nearly eleven years ago, and as for compensation, basically, my own solicitor :swear:ed that up BTW: i was going around a left hand bend and apparently crashed head on into a taxi (& as we all know, They are the BEST drivers on the road) anyway, apparently, the back of my company rental car (Vauxhall Astra) started to slide sideways (because apparently, i was speeding) but the crash was "head on" and occurred exactly on the apex of the bend, now, that doesn't make sense to me, what do you guys think ? Edit: BTW: i have no memory of the event, in fact there is about a year i don't remember Edit: there should have being 3 options on this poll Yes No Don't know
So your back end slid out, but it was a head on collision!!?? Sounds like the taxi driver came around the corner on the wrong side of the road to me (or you did, which I very much doubt, because like you say taxi drivers aren't known for their safe driving). I think the place to draw the line would be murder. An eye for an eye sort of thing. Because there are many other terrible crimes (such as rape), it is hard to say that the line should be drawn at murder, but if all murderers are sentenced to death, then there won't be overcrowding in jails, and rapists would have to stay there for longer. But what about all the DNA matching. Steve Wright has been found guilty of murdering 5 people, his DNA was on each of the women (except one), and blood from two of the women was found on his jacket and his Ford Mondeo. What more evidence do you need? Well we put people in jail, and surely that's classed as a crime then because it's denying them their freedom (or something like that). Yeah, sorry, I can't seem to edit it now!
:agree: i can't say who was at fault, because, i can't remember you can't edit it after the poll has being made, the only way i know to add an option is to ask admin to add another option (s)
It is believed, when people reïncarnate, that they got things like behaviour from their previous life. So let's say that a serial killer gets the death penalty. He might continue to murder in the new life. So it's better not to give someone a death penalty, and just throw him jail. If there's not enough room, then build more floors in a prison.
Its still possible to frame someone... what better way to frame them than putting some of there hairs, saliva etc on murder victim (and some of the victims blood on there car!). The percentages of cases that this could have happened in is probably next to none, it might never have happened, but its still possible! Being imprisoned on a life sentence for a crime you did not commit would be devastating but at least your alive, and you will have some of your life left to live outside prison.
There is no such thing as death penalty deterring criminals because criminals act by not thinking about their crime so therefore they wouldn't even think about getting caught let alone the death penalty. Look at America they have the death penalty in some states but i would really like to find out if it actually lowered crime. Also one other point to make is that it certainly wouldn't decrease prisoner numbers by a huge amount i mean there are only a few percentage of criminals who go to life imprisonment most are jailed for small offenses like steeling or drugs and get 5 months jail not actually murders. (I'm talking about the UK) People think that the death penalty will solve crime in my opinion it will create more trouble and won't solve or decrease crime at all.The death penalty is another way of saying REVENGE (that's all it is)
Nah the death penalty sucks ass. In America they have the death penalty and look how it deters criminals there from committing crime. I don't think public humiliation has been tried yet. well it has but only on people urinating in the street on a night out. Maybe it could be given a trial on other crimes.
Well guys, I voted yes. I understand all of your views and that this is a contentious issue but I voted yes on the basis that it should at least be an option in the sentencing of somebody who has been found guilty. I'm not necessarily saying it is a must in all murder cases for example but in the case of a sustained period of attacks ( like serial killers ) where it is doubtful the accused can "change their ways" I see no purpose in keeping them alive. It occured to me a while ago that people found guilty of a crime should be treated with the same respect they showed their victims. In the case of rapists I think something medical should be done so they cannot repeat their offenses. The problem is trying to impose a "system" on this kinda stuff. Each case is different and I think common sense should be used instead of trying to regulate a crime to a sentence. If your defence for such a charge is "all the evidence is coincidence" you've fallen out of your tree. Why even bother with a trial!!!!
There's only a death penalty in some states. If it would also be present in New York and California, there might be less crime then. But just as Impotence said, you can't be 100% certain that someone is guilty.
reading the views of everybody on this subject, i think it would probably be best if it was there as an option, but, ONLY if the accused requests the death penalty, but, it MUST be their request and not a suggested request made to the accused by anyone (solicitor / lawyer) then i would say the accused has the right to choose to die, anyone else have any other ideas ?
well, if someone does request the death penalty, there must be a reason, so, that person does not belong in prison, they belong in hospital, so, until that reason is discovered, they should remain in hospital, any further thoughts anyone ?
I think I would request the death penalty, I couldn't stand 30 years or more in prison, just because of the lack of freedom. I think I'd go crazy! btw, I have no plans of getting a life sentence in prison!
Then you should live here. When you kill someone, you get to jail for 8 years. And with good behaviour, it gets lowered to 4 years.
