ok this is a big thing hears the deal whut do you want to hapin to a person that kills one of your family member would you want them to stay in prison for life like what it is now where prisons is overflowing becase of this or would you like to have them exicutid becase they took a life so should theres be taken too???
But they killed the person, so killing the killer doesn't help bring back the dead person.
And plus, it doesn't allow the killer to be able to witness his own punishment. It isn't really a punishment if you never find out the outcome of it, now is it?
The death penalty should stand, and be expanded. I would rather one innocent die so that ten guilty are punished then let ten guilty go to save the one life. It makes me think of the military, our troops die so that we can enjoy freedom. Its the same thing to me. If I was wrongfully accused/convicted and used up all my appeals, I would just say "Well, at least I know some guilty people are going down too" instead of trying abolish the death penalty. Some people just deserve to die.
For one, the phrase is "correlation does not imply causation". If this is true in this scenario, please supply me with Factor C. A occurs in correlation with B Therefore, A causes B. because, in this situation B can not cause A. There is a correlation between cause and effect in my statement, "In addition, states and countries that have abolished capital punishment have decreased their murder rates on the average of 39% since the year 2000." The number is too high for there NOT to be a correlation.
Only for planned murders, not ones that just happen because of a spur of the moment.
Most murders are first time offenders, usually it happens because someone hit their metaphorical berserk button and it ended up with that person being dead.
What if the person who murdered someone didn't get what they did wrong? How would you make them see that what they did was take a life? THAT would be pretty difficult.
A occurs in correlation with B Therefore, A causes B. because, in this situation B can not cause A.
you get popsicals (A) in 2000 and 39% of them don't melt. the others turn into liquid (B). therefore when time and popsicals mix the popsical will melt. what about a freezer? my point is there are too many dependant variables for you to say This Causes That.
The fact that law must be objective and even-handed in every way, means that the law must be clear to every single person, and those who carry out the law must be objective and not be swayed by emotions at all.
how do you murder someone by accident? It isn't really murder if it's done accidentally, now is it...
In this cases is considered negligent or accidental murder. A death is considered negligent murder when it's caused for example by a professional in a drunk state - in connection with his job duties or by a vehicle driver with BAC above legal limits or in a drunk state.
Goumas, even though that person was drunk when he killed that person, death penalty is a suitable punishment. Drinking and driving is a crime in itself, and no person should die because a person decided to drink. By doing so, he's putting both himself and others at risk.
Really? What if that innocent sentenced to death was you or a loved one?
selfishness will only get you so far. this is about reality, not idealism.
Reality - innocent people have been put to death through our justice system in the U.S., where is the idealism in that? If I was being idealistic I would state that "People shouldn't murder". However the reality is that people DO murder and there ARE innocent people being put to death for the murderer's acts of brutality. I'm STILL trying to find the idealism in that fact.
