Yes, but it needs scrutiny.
It gets scrutiny. The appeals process can take 20-30 years, so there is a lot of scrutiny which goes into it.
But the scrutiny I am talking about is different.
I would be against the death penalty if and only if there was a way to guarantee that people who committed the heinous crimes that deserve the death penalty would stay in prison the rest of their lives.
I also think that prisons need to be like they were in the 1930's and before. Hard labor, busting their backsides working outside all day long on chain-gangs. Have these prisoners, of course supervised, by guards on horseback, (On horseback so that if they attempt an escape the guards can chase them and tire the prisoner out before the horse is tired out.) Build the new prisons. (This would help with overcrowding and cut costs to construct the prisons.)
Prisoners should not have TV, radios, or anything electronic, outside of simple devices like electric shavers. Prisoners should only have the right to eat if they work hard, freedom from getting beaten up by others. And a place to sleep in their cell unless they merit a trip to solitary confinement.
Persistent trouble makers in prison ought to be culled out and separated. I think solitary confinment like what can be seen in movies like Shawshank redemption and Alcatraz ought to be revisited too.
I do think there needs to be more stratification between different crime types. Murderers, Rapists, thugs etc should not be locked into the same prisons as people who swiped something or who have embezzled money.
I think that for truly sick individuals, there ought to be a revisit of lobotomies. Use this for serial killers, child molesters and the like.
I think the only reason that the death penalty is something I still agree with is because I do not believe that prison life is tough enough for habitual criminals to be a deterrent and modify their behavior.
If life with no possibility of parole was a guarantee, and not the travesty of justice where one can get out in 5 years or some other paltry fraction like it, on good behavior, then I would be against the death penalty.
Make it harsh and deterring and make those who live their want to get the hell out so that maybe they might think twice about their crimes afterward.
do you agree with the death penalty?
← View full post
Yes, but it needs scrutiny.
It gets scrutiny. The appeals process can take 20-30 years, so there is a lot of scrutiny which goes into it.
But the scrutiny I am talking about is different.
I would be against the death penalty if and only if there was a way to guarantee that people who committed the heinous crimes that deserve the death penalty would stay in prison the rest of their lives.
I also think that prisons need to be like they were in the 1930's and before. Hard labor, busting their backsides working outside all day long on chain-gangs. Have these prisoners, of course supervised, by guards on horseback, (On horseback so that if they attempt an escape the guards can chase them and tire the prisoner out before the horse is tired out.) Build the new prisons. (This would help with overcrowding and cut costs to construct the prisons.)
Prisoners should not have TV, radios, or anything electronic, outside of simple devices like electric shavers. Prisoners should only have the right to eat if they work hard, freedom from getting beaten up by others. And a place to sleep in their cell unless they merit a trip to solitary confinement.
Persistent trouble makers in prison ought to be culled out and separated. I think solitary confinment like what can be seen in movies like Shawshank redemption and Alcatraz ought to be revisited too.
I do think there needs to be more stratification between different crime types. Murderers, Rapists, thugs etc should not be locked into the same prisons as people who swiped something or who have embezzled money.
I think that for truly sick individuals, there ought to be a revisit of lobotomies. Use this for serial killers, child molesters and the like.
I think the only reason that the death penalty is something I still agree with is because I do not believe that prison life is tough enough for habitual criminals to be a deterrent and modify their behavior.
If life with no possibility of parole was a guarantee, and not the travesty of justice where one can get out in 5 years or some other paltry fraction like it, on good behavior, then I would be against the death penalty.
Make it harsh and deterring and make those who live their want to get the hell out so that maybe they might think twice about their crimes afterward.