|
Welcome to Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest with limited access. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. You can also take part in our Private Debates where you can test your skills against an opponent. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. After you Register the advertisements will disappear on the site! |
|
||||||
| Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Discuss Civil Liberties and Civil rights here. Also discuss discrimination against minority groups as well, and ways to solve these issues. |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
no because after three apeals some of the good evidence like hair and blood DNA can't be held onto because it deteriorates and when they go to make the case again they don't have all of the evidence that they had in the begining. then they get off because the jury doesn't see everything. i think they should get like 2 apeals give then a best out of three type thing if they havent gotten off by then they need to stay in jail for how ever long they sentence or be put in the chair i know we don't use that anymore but we should. anyway there you go thats my opinion
|
|
|||
|
You forget something Skywatch NC.
The needle has to be sterilised (By prison law!) BEFORE the lethal injection can take place. How does that work? :confused: You'd be dead in 3 minutes anyway so who gives a **** whether the needle is sterilised or not? DOH!! Phil. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
In a cost to society standpoint:
It's cheaper to keep prisoners incarcerated for life than have them wait on death row which constantly burdens our legal system with expensive appeals, which is deserved as their rights given by law, paid by our government and is morally justified since THEY ARE fighting for their life. The failed benefits it tries to implement: There is no evidence that the Death Penalty works as a deterrent. Most people who cause crimes that are eligible for the death penalty are already beyond the scope of being deterred or don't have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. Last but not least... On a moral standpoint: (and my strongest stance) "The degree of civilization can be judged by its prisoners." -- Dostoyevsky If it's OK to grant the death penalty to punish those who are just products of our society, you get a reciprocal cycle. If it's OK to kill prisoners, then it is OK for them to kill members of our society. As long as there is a justification for killing, there will always be killing. Let's stop setting a bad example... End the Death Penalty. |
|
|||
|
Reciprocation is just reward.
In the Bible, it quotes... "An eye for an eye." In a perfect world, (which it is far from!) then we'd all live happily in a Utopian kind of society. But it will never happen under the current regimes that the UK, US and other countries all over the planet have to currently endure. I hate war, I hate politics and all that these overpaid neer-do-wells stand for. They only look after number one and that being themselves. Agree or slate me for but that is the way I see things. Phil. |
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|