Topic: Do you agree in death penalty? - page 35. (Read 33423 times)
I disagree. Because we need to give a chance for a person to change him or herself. If death penalty were passed, there would be some person who are not really a suspect who would be killed.
I believe that if you are going to think rationally death penalty is reasonable. Me myself cannot afford the thought and risk of being a possible target of a exconvic or a loose killer running around the street. Even if a criminal or killer promised to change and has his parole due to years of imprisonment there is no telling that he/she wont comeback to his wrong doings. For example will you risk the chance of 10 innocent people getting killed by one criminal or killer? Or save the 10 innocent people in exchange for the killer? Of course not if you think rationally. Without Ironhand innovation and change will not be successful so I agree with death penalty
I believe that we just borrow our lives from God. And He is the only one who have right to take them away from us.
no because we have a right to give a chance we have a chance to change and only god can give and take our borrow life so i disagree to the death penalty
Originally justice and self defense belonged to the people. So it was a good idea to respect other peoples life, liberty, and estate-the basic concept of natural law. In the wilderness who really knows what grievance would invoke a fatal remedy. The Romans i believe recognized the ideas of natural law too, but had procedures to protect the accused and believed the crimes should be proportional to the acts committed-like many other early cultures. Those prosecuting a crime were often the victims or their families, and in most early societies the punishment for a false accusation was proportional to the crime alleged. A false accuser could have been sent to Rome to be killed, sold into slavery, or pay a fine-so there was substantial risk in proceeding with a prosecution.
The English system essentially perverted the justice system in that they allowed state prosecutions. And so a murder against john doe basically was a crime against the state/crown/commonwealth. In the modern era you have many victimless crimes, following the US civil war plea bargains became common practice, and the police (an 1829 invention) now swears out many false warrants as they extort people or to make quotas.
I think that under a roman type system that the death penalty is acceptable. However, in the English/US system it is almost always unacceptable. Even the borderline folks may say it should be reserved for serial killers. But even the Colorado movie theater shooter took plea bargain to avoid the death penalty. Many killers and sometimes innocent people in the preservation of their own life plead guilty to life, or even a lesser manslaughter charge. only a handful of death penalty cases occurr, and sadly they involve people who are not mentally competent to take a plea or stand trial, people who don't think the evidence is strong enough to convict, people gambling the state made an error that the conviction will b reversed on appeal, and people who are actually innocent. I met a serial killer (already sentenced to life), beat another murder charge, wanted by the feds for an alleged hit job, and accused of yet another killing who took a plea deal to a murder he claimed he didn't commit just to get out of jail-cause the American jails are much worse than the prisons; they want people to plead guilty even though pretrial detainees, unlike convicts, cannot be punished. Because of qualified and sovereign immunity and the often short term nature of jails which can render a case in equity moot, there is rarely any federal judicial oversight of the jails and they are much worse than the prisons. Basically the justice system we have under an English based system of laws end up protecting the criminals, and punishing innocent people severely-which in a capital murder case is death. In so many ways the English based legal system is flawed, and it is too flawed to continue to allow the death penalty. And even if someone beats their case, at least in the united states, many states do not have programs to compensate those falsely imprisoned and the courts will always try to immunize the police and municipalities. international treaties hold that there must be compensation, but they are not enforceable in the federal courts.
i don't think America can take much more of the corrupt judicial and police system. But the death penalty should be opposed with how flawed the system it.
The English system essentially perverted the justice system in that they allowed state prosecutions. And so a murder against john doe basically was a crime against the state/crown/commonwealth. In the modern era you have many victimless crimes, following the US civil war plea bargains became common practice, and the police (an 1829 invention) now swears out many false warrants as they extort people or to make quotas.
I think that under a roman type system that the death penalty is acceptable. However, in the English/US system it is almost always unacceptable. Even the borderline folks may say it should be reserved for serial killers. But even the Colorado movie theater shooter took plea bargain to avoid the death penalty. Many killers and sometimes innocent people in the preservation of their own life plead guilty to life, or even a lesser manslaughter charge. only a handful of death penalty cases occurr, and sadly they involve people who are not mentally competent to take a plea or stand trial, people who don't think the evidence is strong enough to convict, people gambling the state made an error that the conviction will b reversed on appeal, and people who are actually innocent. I met a serial killer (already sentenced to life), beat another murder charge, wanted by the feds for an alleged hit job, and accused of yet another killing who took a plea deal to a murder he claimed he didn't commit just to get out of jail-cause the American jails are much worse than the prisons; they want people to plead guilty even though pretrial detainees, unlike convicts, cannot be punished. Because of qualified and sovereign immunity and the often short term nature of jails which can render a case in equity moot, there is rarely any federal judicial oversight of the jails and they are much worse than the prisons. Basically the justice system we have under an English based system of laws end up protecting the criminals, and punishing innocent people severely-which in a capital murder case is death. In so many ways the English based legal system is flawed, and it is too flawed to continue to allow the death penalty. And even if someone beats their case, at least in the united states, many states do not have programs to compensate those falsely imprisoned and the courts will always try to immunize the police and municipalities. international treaties hold that there must be compensation, but they are not enforceable in the federal courts.
i don't think America can take much more of the corrupt judicial and police system. But the death penalty should be opposed with how flawed the system it.
I believe that we just borrow our lives from God. And He is the only one who have right to take them away from us.
No because thus people can be change give them a chance to change thier life because you dont have a unprivileged to kill them and you do not create them so we can stop death penalty
I have to agree with death penalty especially in our country Philippines. Crime incidents are high and the number of rapists continue to rise. It's scary. Even an 8-month old baby suffered from these animals.
yes' I agreed in death penalty, because base on Bible in Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death.
In severe cases. If a guy rapes and murders a child, does he not deserve to have his life and liberty taken? The death penalty is obviously way over used, and innocent people die. But there should be a place for removing someone who is basically a monster!
yes because some killers must be killed if you stopped death penalty those killers will keep do bad things
I believe that we just borrow our lives from God. And He is the only one who have right to take them away from us.
I think it's already 21th century and people are still being supertitive like this ?? 
I believe that we just borrow our lives from God. And He is the only one who have right to take them away from us.
basically, I agree. I believe that we are the great masters of life, but without the participation of God nothing happens, it's for sure
I support capital punishment in certain cases where grave crime took place.
I do not agree with the death penalty. Besides that only god has the right to give us life and to live our lives, the death penalty is also a form of human rights violation and includes gross violations of human rights
In today's time, death penalty is really necessary. If you don't give someone an ultimatum, many people will still commit crime since the punishment is just light.
Yes I do believe in death penalty although God is the only One who can take a life He had given.Death penalty will be something that criminals will be thinking of a much heavier punishment for them makinif they will be committing a heinious crime.
Yes, I do. developing country with low security need that punishment to decrease criminality such as Drugs, narcotics and murderer. Even though death penalty rejected by the reason a Human Right.
Yes, because if you did not resist the criminal they can kill many more. Prevention is better than cure, isn't?
I believe that we just borrow our lives from God. And He is the only one who have right to take them away from us.
I don't really agree with death penalty for any crime,I think the best way to punish a criminal who committed a very serious crime should be life imprisonment ,
They should be in jail and they should feel the presence of their punishment for everyday that they would live for the rest of their life.
No, i don't!
it's so inhuman ... a person should not decide the fate of another person
Jump to: