Honest answer please?

Question

Do you really believe that there are some people who deserve to be killed without a trial!? think about it..

Answer 1

Well, if u saw someone commit a crime. but eum No, a trial is always needed, coz wat if the only proof is that u saw him, u might get killed then, lol.

Answer 2

Yes because sometimes the law couldn't stop these people.

Answer 3

Yes many, those who have no mercy with their parents or children.

Answer 4

no i don't think so it will be totally unfair even if this person is known a bad person still there must be some justice

Answer 5

Yes

like bush

Olmert

rapers

bad doctors

sharon

our goverments

el by3akso

because we are not animals to do what we want  God gave us minds to do whats right and not to do whats wrong

Answer 6

Thats not easy to answer. On one hand, instinct says yes kill those who kill, rape, & abuse children, & do it fast, if caught.

But reason says that you must have a trial, its why we dont have the death penalty in England anymore, there have been mistakes made & what if you killed an innocent person ?

I think that you should have a trial, but if found guilty of murder you should face the death penalty in reality, not spend years in prison & then get released to do it again (as has happened in the UK).

Answer 7

I am not sure if you are referring to a certain situation in mind.

"Deserve" is not an absolute term, it is an opinion that will be different from one person to another. Therefore, it cannot be applied in organized juristic systems, if this what you mean. Juristic system exist even in the very primitive societies, like tribes in Africa or wherever.

So executing someone will be based on some kind of trial.

Did I understand your question right?

Answer 8

I believe trials are great in theory. As some situations calls for thorough analysis like when a person kills another in self defence. You need a trial to make sure this person does not get a death sentence. Nothing deserves a hard and strict rule (for example, kill = death sentence) as there is a reasonable explanation for most things. If you followed the hard and strict rule, the innocent guy that killed in self defense will be put to death.

But in practise, trials are favouring those that are rich and powerful. The rich can bribe or threaten their way out of punishment. So in this case, it seems hard and strict rule is more suitable.

So either way, there are flaws in both systems. You either end up killing an innocent, or you let the bad guy get away.

Answer 9

Yes-

When the crime is known to the victim/community/society and it can be proven afterwards if need be- why hurt the victims of the crime more? dragging photographic and victims evidence through long court battles for what? I have a good question now- I will ask it and wait for your answer

Answer 10

No , No one derserve that

it must be trial

Answer 11

no, there must be trial

Answer 12

we live in a civilized society .

who would kill a person without trial?

it is best for everybody that a criminal is tried , the trial shouldnt drag for years as we see nowadays .

the trial should be fast and perhaps on air for everybody to see it .

those who deserve to be Executed Fast  are :

rapists

killers of family members , mother , father , brother , sister , etc

killers of police  staff

killers of military persons

corrupt persons who harm the country's economy , politics , religion for personal gain.

i dont agree with Gigi's suggestion to kill those who biy3aksu !

these need psychological treatment and ways of facilitating their marriage so as not to be s*x oriented , marriage is half the religion .

Answer 13

yes some but it is not worth altering the law to kill those small amounts of people. ex. saddam hussein (trial?!)

Answer 14

I think that if someone committed a certain amount of murders (like, 20 or something) then that should be the death line. That way when the people are at ninteen and they know that only one more will get them the death penalty and they do it anyway, then the law will have an excuse to back it up. That seems fair to me.