Probably because the death penalty is still on the books in NY state.
Govenor George Ryan of Illinois placed a moratorium on death sentences in 2000. Although Ryan still believes in the death penalty, he wanted to make sure the evidence supported the penalty.
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.
The Marshall Hypothesis is what came of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall's belief and argument that support of the death Penalty comes from a lack of knowledge about it. He believed that the more information the populace had about the death penalty, the less they would support it. (Though he believed that knowledge would make no difference to people who supported the death penalty for retributive reasons) Social Psychologists have tested this hypothesis extensively, and found that it is partially true.
The Marshall Hypothesis is what came of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall's belief and argument that support of the death Penalty comes from a lack of knowledge about it. He believed that the more information the populace had about the death penalty, the less they would support it. (Though he believed that knowledge would make no difference to people who supported the death penalty for retributive reasons) Social Psychologists have tested this hypothesis extensively, and found that it is partially true.
It's so bad that even the Somalia Pirates enforce it and try to make it less "usable" for the government as a punishment
Not in my view. States that carry out the death penalty do not necessarily have lower crime rates. Beyond that, recent DNA technology has shown that numerous persons who were sentenced to death didn't do the crime. Finally, there's the moral issue - "you shall not murder." (The fact that the criminal murdered someone doesn't make it okay for the State to do the same.)
Yes i would, and i think that my personal profile and qualities might make me a good one.
Because their family is going to get killed!! I mean, what if your aunt was going to get her head copped off?? Wouldn't you be sad??=(
the government can make harsh punishments (like death penalty) for people who murder, after that people are less likely to murder because they know the consequence
the government can make harsh punishments (like death penalty) for people who murder, after that people are less likely to murder because they know the consequence
Traditional Jewish law, based on the Torah, is full of death penalties, but the traditional Jewish interpretation makes those penalties almost impossible to impose. Jewish law forbids circumstantial evidence, it forbids imposition of the death penalty on the testimony of one witness. The witnesses must testify that they not only observed the crime, but also that the defendant was warned, in advance, that the act was criminal. Also, Jewish law makes perjury in a criminal case punishable by the penalty for that case, so perjury in a capital case is punishable by the death penalty. Finally, the court required for a death penalty case in Jewish law is a court with 23 judges, where 3 suffice for an ordinary civil court, and conviction requires a supermajority.In summary, we give lip service to the death penalty and then make it almost impossible to carry out.
in my opinion: No. Violence is wrong but killing is worse. One saying that supports this: "Two Wrongs Dont Make A Right."