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?
If you design a trap for say, hunting, and it kills someone, it would have to be on your own property (as in trespassing) where someone would be breaking Civil Law for it to not be considered criminal negligence, I would think, as you put out the means to kill someone without intending it for a human being.
Having traps out on your land with the intent of catching trespassers I do not think is lawfully correct. Right now I'm only studying the hierarchy of courts so this isn't really something I've gone into as much as I could, but you can find out about involuntary, voluntary and sub-types of manslaughter on Wikipedia.
My opinion on what should happen for a criminally negligent person is possibly the death sentence, when you consider that they have full responsibility over the weapon (as long as it's not on their property) and did not do anything about it (Not sure if a sign or anything counts for liability in a court case of this matter, though).
Because the perception on someones right to live is generally defined through innocence of acts that deems them unworthy to live, differs.
If someone attacks you, you've every right to live as you've done nothing wrong, and as such, the person attacking leaves the option between you or him.
And how do you handle attempted murder?
Same as murder. Why would it be different?
An eye for an eye just means I do it because you do it to me, without any reasoning other than the fact you landed a blow on me.
Depends on the context. The philosophy is to take one, to give one, but where you decide to use it is what matters. You could say "for killing", but you could be more specific, like premediated murder, killing in cold blood, and etc.
All I'm saying is, imo there needs to be provided evidence in each case that death sentence is better than life imprisonment, for the sake of security for example. If this can't be provided, it'd be wrong to kill the murderer because it seems a gratuitous act.
Provided the guilt has been thoroughly proven of course.
All I'm saying is, imo there needs to be provided evidence in each case that death sentence is better than life imprisonment, for the sake of security for example. If this can't be provided, it'd be wrong to kill the murderer because it seems a gratuitous act.
Provided the guilt has been thoroughly proven of course.
Well, then it's VERY debatable. How would you know the murderer is going to be a benefit to society in the future? How do you know that say, he might end up discovering the cure for cancer. A bit extreme, but you get my point. Your argument is based on a lot of ''maybes'' and it leaves a lot of ''maybes''.
How do you know the Nazi leaders at the Nuremburg trial deserved to die? We can't look into the future and predict the outcome.
it seems a gratuitous act.
Well it isn't. They have already forfeited that right and ''waged war on the State''.
Well, then it's VERY debatable. How would you know the murderer is going to be a benefit to society in the future? How do you know that say, he might end up discovering the cure for cancer. A bit extreme, but you get my point. Your argument is based on a lot of ''maybes'' and it leaves a lot of ''maybes''.
What the... I never said anything about benefits. I wasn't arguing about "maybe he'll be the next Einstein" or so; those are stupid arguments of pro-lifers in abortion debates, certainly not my arguments, and not in here. What I was saying is, between life emprisonment and death sentence, life emprisonment should be favored except if there is a risk to the security of anyone. If the prison can't guarantee protection from the murderer, then and only then, use death sentence.
Well it isn't. They have already forfeited that right and ''waged war on the State''.
It isn't for you, it certainly is for me. We're not talking exclusively about mass murderers you know. Passionate crimes, family troubles and the sort do probably make the bigger part of murders. Killing them seems paranoic and gratuitous to me.
What the... I never said anything about benefits. I wasn't arguing about "maybe he'll be the next Einstein" or so; those are stupid arguments of pro-lifers in abortion debates, certainly not my arguments, and not in here. What I was saying is, between life emprisonment and death sentence, life emprisonment should be favored except if there is a risk to the security of anyone. If the prison can't guarantee protection from the murderer, then and only then, use death sentence.
The way it was phrased sounded like it did to me. I fail to see how the State should actually cater to provide for those who have no future but to rot away in cells.
I fail to see how the State should actually cater to provide for those who have no future but to rot away in cells.
Because it costs less than the execution? Also, I agree that simply letting people rotting in cells isn't great either; you just need to find something to let them do, they can produce things, work within the prison. Use those potential workers. Don't let them rot, don't kill them.
Because it costs less than the execution? Also, I agree that simply letting people rotting in cells isn't great either; you just need to find something to let them do, they can produce things, work within the prison. Use those potential workers. Don't let them rot, don't kill them.
Letting a man live for twenty years compared to a lethal injection. Weigh the costs.
Letting a man live for twenty years compared to a lethal injection. Weigh the costs.
id didn't follow this topic but if this is about americans death sentence then its very very often (mostly) when some1 gets the death sentence that they 1st have to go to jail for 20 years befor getting that injection.
so in those 20 years you get the normale jail costs and the costs for court work to allowe some1 to give him that injection whitout that person being sued by family members because he murdered him whit that injection.
id didn't follow this topic but if this is about americans death sentence then its very very often (mostly) when some1 gets the death sentence that they 1st have to go to jail for 20 years befor getting that injection.
so in those 20 years you get the normale jail costs and the costs for court work to allowe some1 to give him that injection whitout that person being sued by family members because he murdered him whit that injection.
Well, I won't try to push my views on the American system. Over here in Singapore, it's pretty fast. A few years and the noose comes over. Clean and efficient.
