- 蜂欣Lv 61 0 年前最佳解答
I choose not in favor of repeal.
First, the so-called democratic countries, can be convicted of a very difficult thing,
Even if found guilty of first instance, it can continue to appeal, the appeal time is up to more than a decade, in this case,
Also sentenced to death, usually deserved.
* Second, the major offender recidivism rate is extremely high, if we continue to advocate the human rights of prisoners,
As it may become the next victim of the civilian population who, where our rights?
* Third, it was argued that if the sentence or the death penalty felony offender, he will be in order to avoid hunting,
The first to kill the victim in order to destroy evidence, it abolished the death penalty was commuted and the protection of victims.
And we can not prove that the death penalty on crime rates have helped to alleviate. I think it is illogical to sophistry. Taiwan currently has the death penalty, death row awaiting execution, are victims has been killed.
That is, if you do not murder, sentenced to death, almost impossible.
assume prisoners to escape the death penalty will kill the victim, doing is baseless statement. Furthermore, many have the death penalty, no death penalty law and order than good. Singapore and even flogging, his law and order on the good.
Taiwan's martial law era, when the heaviest sentence, order the best results.
doing bad things would be locked? Killing people is likely to be sentenced to death for it?
If you know you still committed, that the general education that you do not, can only be more profound way to let you know.
2010-04-15 01:39:07 補充：
And, if want good people, why wait until the death penalty only if, you want to start a new life, why not turn over before the murder?
You do not give victims the opportunity, why do we give you the opportunity? You do not speak with the victims of human rights,
2010-04-15 01:39:19 補充：
Why do we have to tell you the Human Rights? Since you do not think a person's right to life is important
Then we took it 』『 what relationship?參考資料： 自己, 自己, 自己
- 1 0 年前
I am the choice did not approve that abolishes
First, in the so-called democratic country, can 夠 sentence the severe sentence is quite not an easy matter, even if the first trial is guilty, can also appeal unceasingly, the appeal time is above ten years, in this case, but is also sentenced the death penalty, usually is the punishment is deserved.
Second, the significant criminal violates again the probability is quite high, if we advocated unceasingly criminal's human rights, that body to have the possibility to become the next victim the common people, our right in where?
Third, some people advocated, if sentences the criminal severe sentence or the death penalty, then he for will want to evade seizes, but will forestall to kill the injured party, with the aim of annihilating the evidence, will therefore commute a sentence as well as abolishes the death penalty is protecting the victim.
Moreover we are unable to prove that sentences death penalty to reduce the crime rate to have the help. I thought that this is the illogical paradox. Taiwan present has sentenced the death penalty, waited for execution the facing the death penalty, those, has killed the victim.
That is, if you do not kill people, must sentence the death penalty, is nearly impossible.
The supposition criminal to avoid the death penalty to kill the victim, will be radically puts the cart before the horse, absolutely groundless view. Furthermore, many have death penalty's country, the public security has not been better than death penalty's country. Singapore even has the whip punishment, his public security is very good. Taiwan martial law time time, the sentence is heaviest, finally the public security is best.