yes it is exactly the same
The American Constitution doesn't prevent the Death Penalty, which is not the same as supporting.Another View: The US Constitution does not address Capital Punishment anywhere in the document. The only restriction on any type of punishment that is addressed in the Constitution is a prohibition agaionst "cruel and unusual punishment."
When someone refers to a 'stiff penalty' it is just a way of saying that a person will get the maximum punishment that the law allows for that particular crime. Such as armed robbery may carry a penalty of 25 years to life. The stiffest penalty for this crime would be life. The death penalty is definitely the stiffest penalty for murder in the 1st degree. It is the maximum punishment for taking someones life with premeditation or several other factors that decide if a case is elegible for capital punishment.
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, can serve as a warning to deter people from committing heinous crimes. It probably does dissuade some people from murdering, but not in every case. Some people see all forms of capital punishment as inhumane, while some think that some are more humane than others. It can provide closure to the grieving families of murder victims, but it causes further agony for the innocent families of the perpetrator.
No. The New York Supreme Court declared part of the state capital punishment statute unconstitutional in 2004, and upheld their decision in 2007. The New York legislature has not acted to reinstate the penalty or amend the law.
Capital crimes are punishable by death. Murder of a Law Enforcement officer, murder in a particular gruesome or heinous nature. Murder during the commission of a crime etc. It largely depends on the legislation of the country. What may be considered a 'capital' crime in one country may not be in another. There are many countries that have abolished capital punishment completely.
Islams believe there are three crimes that deserve the capital punishment; murder, sexual misconduct (including making false allegation) and apostasy (crimes giving up or insulting religious faiths).
Yes No, it should not. An eye for an eye. You deserve the same fate you gave your victim. Of course there should be major, flawless laws for the death penalty, and of course understandable reasons for being put under the death penalty. For example, if you steal a car, the death penalty is just too harsh of a punishment. But if you murder someone, then the death penalty is an excellent form of punishment; again, an eye for an eye.
Yes there should. But of course it depends on the degree of the charge. Most people who support the death penalty say murderers should be put under the penalty. This is correct; if you killed someone you deserve the same fate you gave that person.
Lethal injection is a form of the death penalty. Throughout the years the death penalty has been performed through hanging, electrocution, and the gas chamber.
Only if they are convicted of a crime that warrants the death penalty, such as murder (the same as straight people).
It depends on the circumstances. There is no one sentence given. It also depends on which country you are in at the time. Many still have the death penalty. But given the same circumstances the weapon would make very little difference.
The death penalty for murder was abolished under the 1965 Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty Act). The death penalty for treason and a variety of other offences was abolished under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. For the absolute avoidance of doubt the death penalty in the UK was absolutely abolished for all offences when the UK became a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights by enacting the 1998 Human Rights Act.