Posted on Oct 4, 2014
Do you support capital punishment in the military and civilian courts?
15.9K
250
71
9
9
0
Do you support capital punishment in the military and civilian courts? Does being in the military mean higher standards and only should be in military courts? Does being in the military mean you should be mitigated down to life sentences and only have capital punishment in the civilian courts? Or no capital punishment overall?
Posted in these groups: 
Death Penalty
Death Penalty
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 45
1
1
0
But not as we currently do it.
In my view, the state should not have greater latitude with life than the people from whom their authority comes. A US citizen is justified in taking another life in only a few circumstances, the most common being self-defense, or the defense of the life of a third person.
If it were up to me, in the penalty phase of a capital case, the prosecution would have to show a compelling case that the lives or liberty of others are still in jeopardy despite the defendant being incarcerated. This is not a far fetched notion, especially if the defendant is a terrorist or organized crime figure.
If such a case cannot be made, if imprisonment is sufficient to prevent the defendant from being such a threat to others, then the death penalty is not justifiable.
In my view, the state should not have greater latitude with life than the people from whom their authority comes. A US citizen is justified in taking another life in only a few circumstances, the most common being self-defense, or the defense of the life of a third person.
If it were up to me, in the penalty phase of a capital case, the prosecution would have to show a compelling case that the lives or liberty of others are still in jeopardy despite the defendant being incarcerated. This is not a far fetched notion, especially if the defendant is a terrorist or organized crime figure.
If such a case cannot be made, if imprisonment is sufficient to prevent the defendant from being such a threat to others, then the death penalty is not justifiable.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I've said it before and I will say it again. If they can prove without a doubt that someone committed a murder or another severe violent crime the punishment should be carried out, and not even waiting years to do it.
"You have been found guilty of murder in the first degree and are hereby sentenced to death. Bailiff, my pistol."
"You have been found guilty of murder in the first degree and are hereby sentenced to death. Bailiff, my pistol."
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If someone is caught red-handed, there should be no appeal and the execution should be carried out immediately after sentencing. The more public the better.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think it should be used more often, and they should move the process along faster than they do currently
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
I believe if a person take a life they should be put in jail until the love ones of the person whose life was taken have there say in what the punishment should be.our courts will keep someone in jail while we the tax payers pay for what they have done.When the family decides what should be done if its death make it swift.if a life was taken their rights were also.the offender should lose his or her rights to a fair trial they didn't give a fair trial to the person they killed why should they have one.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Interesting points. Most courts probably started out in a similar fashion hundreds of years ago. The only issue with letting victim's families make the decision is you run into the problem when in one town a family offended for some commoner not bowing deeply enough to the patriarch would have that person drawn and quartered but in another town someone who has cruelly and brutally raped and murdered a 3 year old child will be forgiven by the family and the town now has a convicted and punished rapist and murderer in their midst. Both individuals were punished by the families - but the punishment did not fit what the majority of the people saw as the proper punishments.
Over history most court systems developed to a point of determining that offenses that are criminal in nature are defined as crimes against the state and the state will handle the criminal issue in a fair and even hand for all towns and people in the state. Thus someone who murders someone gets the ultimate penalty - death. Someone who steals from others is sent to jail, etc. etc. The idea is to have the same punishment for the same crime. As we all know, not even in the U.S. are our criminal systems close to being the same - but it's at least reviewed by the courts on a regular basis.
Over history most court systems developed to a point of determining that offenses that are criminal in nature are defined as crimes against the state and the state will handle the criminal issue in a fair and even hand for all towns and people in the state. Thus someone who murders someone gets the ultimate penalty - death. Someone who steals from others is sent to jail, etc. etc. The idea is to have the same punishment for the same crime. As we all know, not even in the U.S. are our criminal systems close to being the same - but it's at least reviewed by the courts on a regular basis.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Capital Punishment if it fits the crime. Too many times I see people assume the worse before the facts. I also think that there are too many politically correcting ideals that remove this and wasting money. I could go on.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google