Is the sentence a good or bad policy? Some states allow it, and some countries aloow it, yet others dont. Yes, I know some of might say everyone deserves to live, and most of the time i would agree with you, but what if there is a man that has been tested positive for some sort of disorder that causes him to have a strong urge to kill at random times, and he was either about to be set free in your town or put to death. What would you say? There is the unethical and the inhumane reason, but a large reason many places ban it is the cost. Some states are backed up with people on death row, because they have to pay lawyers to file paperwork, and keep those hundreds, maybe thousands, of people alive for howver long. Think, do you really want your tax dollars going there?
Of course if we were to implement the Death Sentence everywhere (and make it a successful deterrent to crime), it would have to also try to include "swift justice" such as singapore where the criminal is punished quickly, not years later when the Media loses interest in the case and nobody knows what's happening or happend.
Once again I am using the Bible as a source as well
When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, peopleâs hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong. Eccl. 8:11 NIV
Countries such as Singapore and Saudi Arabia enforce a swift death penalty, due to this being carried out so fast, people know what happens to a criminal, and deteres them from attempting crime themselves knowing the swift justice that will follow. Compare Singapore to LA as they have similar populations, but in one year: Singapore had 58 murders, while LA had 1,063. ~
While I agree with your statement your analogy is somewhat flawed, as Los Angeles is a metropolitan city with a history of crime whereas Singapore is an actual country. This means that while the population is similar, in Singapore the metropolitan areas are not as congested with people.
it would have to also try to include "swift justice" such as singapore where the criminal is punished quickly, not years later when the Media loses interest in the case and nobody knows what's happening or happend.
Evidence has to be considered into this aswell though. Some people are held for suspect of murder, where the evidence provided can prove they were involved and thus give reason to hold them, but not enough to prove they actually murdered - this would affect swift justice.
I think he was referring to death row years spending years in prison rather than just being killed, I think they should be granted two appeals and then executed forthwith.
[quote] it would have to also try to include "swift justice" such as singapore where the criminal is punished quickly, not years later when the Media loses interest in the case and nobody knows what's happening or happend.
Evidence has to be considered into this aswell though. Some people are held for suspect of murder, where the evidence provided can prove they were involved and thus give reason to hold them, but not enough to prove they actually murdered - this would affect swift justice. [/quote]
I guess they will just have to find out how Singapore does it. If they could get swift justice in, people will relise that "Hey, I shouldn't do this, I might get killed myself!" Due to the media not losing interest in the quick trials (that are factual).
it would have to also try to include "swift justice" such as singapore
In the case for swift justice, I think it should only occur if the convicted person admitted to the crime, or if there was unquestionable evidence. Otherwise, cases like the one of Oklahoma v. Ron Williamson could be repeated. In this case, the judge was corrupt, the witnesses lied, and the jury considered thrown out evidence. Had swift justice occurred, then Ron's habeas corpus petition would not have had a chance to be considered, and he would have been executed.
I say it depends on what the criminal did. If they have 100% proof that so and so did something worth the death sentence. Then sure let them have it. Like on the news with the mother who killed her daughter and she didn't get the death sentence. I was blown away, she should have gotten it for taking the kids life. They had all the proof they needed yet she doesn't get the death sentence. I should have put this on a different thread though :l
Like on the news with the mother who killed her daughter and she didn't get the death sentence
If you are talking about the Casey Anthony, then you should know that the evidence was mostly circumstantial, and that a conviction wouldn't stick on appeal.
If you are talking about the Casey Anthony, then you should know that the evidence was mostly circumstantial, and that a conviction wouldn't stick on appeal.
The Casey Anthony trial is perfect for why swift justice can only be used on people who have been 100% convicted.
Capital punishment is, although cruel, an option. If people were being killed for petty crimes, like stealing someone's handbag, crime rates would drop like a dead bird. I'm not saying, or implying, that i's right, but it would be an effective way to accomplish that. Just another one of my different opinions.
