Home Architecture Talk

what do you think about death penality ?

still.....global issues....modern architecture....dream and nightmare....design....greenhouse effect...? help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for great 9 trinity i'm asking opinions about death penality...moder architecture....global issues....greenhouse effect ...dream and nightmare are you understand?...for great 9 trinity ah ok thanks...and about others subject areas?

Public Comments

1. What are you asking? focus.
2. scary.
3. Bring it back but it should be 100% proven
4. I think suddden death penalities make shoot outs more interesting. One team misses and other has to score. Exciting.
5. What does the death penalty got to do with all you just said under the question? As for the question, I'm all for it because no sense in keeping him alive with taxpayers money after he committed some heinous crimes that will put him in the chair. When somebody say Death Penalty, alot of people would say that's wrong and should be illegal but they never thought to look at the convict's past crimes. If you steal a car, you won't get d.p. If you beat another man for having affair with your woman, you won't get d.p. They get d.p. because it's justifiable for the horrible crimes they committed to the victims and their family.
6. I am totally against it for religous reasons and also ,lets consider a typical criminal on death row. They might have had alcoholic abusive parents , they might have been exposed to violence both in the home and on television. They might not have ever had a hug from their parents, and been told how much they were loved , if they lacked being brought up in a secure home enviorment , then these factors all contribute to the situation.It is very difficult to judge the punishment due for a murder never mind whether they are wrongfully convicted . Add all this to the use of mind bending drugs. Society has failed these people , so society must take at least some of the blame but it doesnt. The whole blame rests with the person.
7. As long as there is a just legal system, death penalty is fine by me. But a just legal system is very hard to come by and maintain.
8. I think, apart from the fact that 'penality' isn't a word, nor is 'moder' this has nothing to do with the languages category in which you have posted it.
9. 42!
10. four weeks ago I responded to a question under "Law" as to whether the death penalty should be legalised, as follows: From a moral or religious standpoint?,Then it all depends on what your religion teaches. In the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, the Law of Moses forbids us to kill. Does that cover judicial execution, or is that an implicit exception? (I thnk it is) From a democratic political viewpoint? Then the sole criterion should be public opinion: does a majority of the electorate approve or abhor? (It probably does) From a practical point of view, does it work?. No one has ever tried seriously to investigate this, lest the result not be in accord with their prior conviction on the subject, yet it would be quite easy to test. Take a political unit that is small enough to be (roughly) uniform, socially and economically. Say England without Wales. Apply the penalty in half the subdivisions (e.g. counties) chosen at random, say those whose names begin with the letters of the first half of the alphabet. Refrain from the death penalty in the others. Compare the rate of whatever crimes you are so penalising at the outset of the test and again at five year intervals until at least a quarter century had passed. QED. If the only capital crime were, say, murder and you found the results were distorted by, say, murderers enticing their intended victims across the county line, even that would be useful information, implying that murderers chose to avoid the risk of being hanged. Or maybe juries might prove to be unwilling to convict, or only to convict the socially or ethnically disadvantaged_ would this matter, or is one law for the rich etc. a necessary part of our social orderP?. Or it might be that murders are so often a crime of passion or accidental circumstance that the prospect of punishment is just never considered by the lawbreaker. (I believe that, as of now, "the jury is still out" on the practical effectiveness of judicial execution as a effecxtive deterrent). And if the death penalty is to be enacted, then for which offences?. Late 18th century England reacted to a crime wave with making more and more crimes hanging offences. only to find the jury convicting the thief of a five shilling handkerchief as guilty of stealing one worth one penny less, so as to save him from the gallows. (I would have in reservce as a possible consequence of any serious crime). If you have a death penalty, how should it be applied? Every time, or as a last resort with particularly horrible crimes? Within a short time of conviction, or only after interminable appeals? (I would suggest: only very exceptionally, and probably using a guillotine: quick and always effective) And if you have no death penalty, will that not give more power to organised crime than to the state. If people are being e.g. blackmailed into drug running by death threats, how can they be given the desperate courage to say no, unless drug runners are certain to be killed by law enforcement? And if you decide to adopt the death penalty, how should it be enforced. There are simple, effective methods used every day to slaughter animals. Do we reject these simply as not being dramatic enough. Would hanging in public be a greater deterent? And making admission charges to the spectacle would even help to defray the cost, while the police could take note of who bought tickets and so build up a file of potentially dangerous pychopaths. What about possible miscarriages of justice?. May be it is more in the public interest that a wrongly convicted person be killed, so he can neither sue for compensation, nor return to ordinary life upon release with a burning desire to avenge his mistreatment? Finally is it not utterly repugnant hypocrisy to talk about the supposed sanctity of human life (whether that of the killer or of his victim) while we are prepared to kill thousands of innocents in terror bombing, or have the state's secret service carry out targeted assassinations and renditions without the victim even knowing he is to be acted against, let alone given a chance to a legal defense? My pragmatic personal conclusion was that it should be available to the state as a last resort, more as a means to threaten than as a routine practice.