What are your thoughts on the death penalty?

py2006 · 30-07-2011 2:44pm #1

I just watched an interesting online documentary about legal executions down through history. I personally find the thoughts of this horrifying. It is something I don't agree with no matter what the reason. The whole concept of killing somebody because they have committed the evil act of killing to be hypocritical to say the least.

I believe its barbaric and evil and makes the government who authorizes it just as bad as the person they are going to have legally killed.

Obviously, there are some really evil people out there. We only have to look at recent events in Norway. What is an alternative to the death penalty? I am not sure! Is removing these people from society, depriving them of freedom not enough? Let them see out their remaining days isolated from people.

What are your thoughts? Would you like to see it re-introduced into Irish society?

MitchKoobski · 30-07-2011 2:50pm

Don't agree with it, but can understand the times when people would call for it. If it's ever introduced in Ireland it will be a HUGE step back.

Innocent people that are put in prison can be exhonerated and released. You can't bring an innocent person who was executed back from the dead. You can't teach people killing is wrong, and then go and kill someone and say it was in the name of the law.

I recommend this for viewing on the matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wntitiiLotk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKSV9F_-VdU

Mat the trasher · 30-07-2011 3:48pm

Calm and collected, I think its wrong.

If its about someone who hurt someone close/child etc., Kill them.

I think that sums up what happens with the death penalty debate. People are emotional and they make emotional decisions. This applies to the jury every bit as much as the defendent.

dlofnep · 30-07-2011 3:50pm

No - Because you can never be 100% certain of someone's guilt and 100% sure the system will catch the right person.

partyatmygaff · 30-07-2011 3:53pm

dlofnep wrote: »

No - Because you can never be 100% certain of someone's guilt and 100% sure the system will catch the right person.

And what if it's patently obvious?

Take for example a mass murderer where there is plenty of evidence and an admission of guilt?

I still wouldn't agree with it but there are many cases where there is no doubt whatsoever over someone's guilt.

celticcrash · 30-07-2011 3:54pm

Hang em high

Zascar · 30-07-2011 4:05pm

Sorry I'm going to go on the other side of the fence here. If someone is quite clearly guilty and beyond any reasonable chance of rehabilitation - and has proved they are absolutely unsafe to live in our society, or is definitely going to spend the rest of their lives behind bars anyway, we should not have to foot the bill of 60+ per year to keep them locked up for 50+ years. Watching all those America's hardest prisons programs where there are complete nutcases who consider themselves 'Penitentiary Orientated' and have absolutely zero consideration for any laws or other people - the death penalty is ok in my opinion. There is not enough incentive not to do really bad things over and over again. If there was, maybe they would think twice.

celticcrash · 30-07-2011 4:27pm

What about the people who murdered the economy, causing mass depression. mass stress, nervous break downs, mass unemployment,
wage slaves, homelessness, suicide, poverty, pensioners dying because they cant afford to put on their heating, I could go on and on.
There is a good days shooting left in this country.

paky · 30-07-2011 4:32pm

i'd be against the death penalty, its hypocritical and contrary to law. but if the state was at war the death penalty may be necessary.

dlofnep · 30-07-2011 4:33pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

And what if it's patently obvious?

No. There is no way to ever determine a distinction between being 100% certain, and 99% certain.

The death penalty has already seen a number of cases throughout history where the wrong person has been convicted, and killed.

py2006 · 30-07-2011 4:51pm

If you consider murder to be wrong then you must consider murder of somebody as punishment wrong!

Wolfe Tone · 30-07-2011 4:54pm

The death penalty is a disgrace and is barbaric.

Logical Fallacy · 30-07-2011 4:59pm

I'm not even going to lie, i love the idea of the death penalty for certain crimes. I think it would be a great world if by murdering someone you ended up losing your own life...and that we could be absolutely 100% certain that all convictions were accurate and that the death penalty would have the affect of lessening the instances of serious crimes.

The thing is we can't be 100% certain and endless evidence shows the death penalty is highly ineffective at preventing serious crimes.

As such, i am willing to temper my inner voice that screams for justice paid in blood and accept the fact that the death penalty is a misplaced and idiotic attempt to deliver justice.

looky loo · 30-07-2011 5:04pm

Tell that to the parents of the kids killed in Oslo, Norway. I hope he gets the death penalty, or better yet, send him out in the woods and have hunters track him with guns, on an island, the same way he treated those poor people.

Logical Fallacy · 30-07-2011 5:10pm

looky loo wrote: »

Tell that to the parents of the kids killed in Oslo, Norway. I hope he gets the death penalty, or better yet, send him out in the woods and have hunters track him with guns, on an island, the same way he treated those poor people.

He won't.

Norway doesn't have the death penalty.

celticcrash · 30-07-2011 5:10pm

No lock them up, with all their needs attended to, costing the tax payer 100,000 a year for high security. Then life does not mean life in this country, 4 years to 12 years is the avarage. The bad ones come out and do the same again, with nothing to fear but a warm bed and the best of grub and their bed linen is changed 2 times a week. free tv free everything free, they dont have to work if they dont want to.
I have to stop there its sounding very tempting.

Logical Fallacy · 30-07-2011 5:14pm

celticcrash wrote: »

No lock them up, with all their needs attended to, costing the tax payer 100,000 a year for high security. Then life does not mean life in this country, 4 years to 12 years is the avarage. The bad ones come out and do the same again, with nothing to fear but a warm bed and the best of grub and their bed linen is changed 2 times a week. free tv free everything free, they dont have to work if they dont want to.
I have to stop there its sounding very tempting.

Lock who up? Criminals? For which crime? When do you think the death penalty would be better?

Folk need to start bringing more information to their moral outrage parties.

southsiderosie · 30-07-2011 5:21pm

Zascar wrote: »

Sorry I'm going to go on the other side of the fence here. If someone is quite clearly guilty and beyond any reasonable chance of rehabilitation - and has proved they are absolutely unsafe to live in our society, or is definitely going to spend the rest of their lives behind bars anyway, we should not have to foot the bill of 60+ per year to keep them locked up for 50+ years. Watching all those America's hardest prisons programs where there are complete nutcases who consider themselves 'Penitentiary Orientated' and have absolutely zero consideration for any laws or other people - the death penalty is ok in my opinion. There is not enough incentive not to do really bad things over and over again. If there was, maybe they would think twice.

Numerous states in the US have the death penalty, and the violent crime rates there are much higher than most European countries - which not only do not allow the death penalty, but generally have more lenient sentencing guidelines. So I'm not convinced that there is any relationship between the severity of punishment and crime rates.

looky loo · 30-07-2011 5:22pm

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Lock who up? Criminals? For which crime? When do you think the death penalty would be better?

Folk need to start bringing more information to their moral outrage parties.

So maybe the maximum this guy will get is 21 years, but they are looking into him doing 21years x the number of people he killed. But essentially this guy could be out in 21 years if that doesnt happen.

Outkast_IRE · 30-07-2011 5:26pm

I have no problem with the death penalty only in cases where there can be no doubt whatsoever of guilt.

I believe the world should be seriously looking at the use of eugenics and chemical castration in the cases of extreme repeat violent offenders .

MitchKoobski · 30-07-2011 5:27pm

looky loo wrote: »

So maybe the maximum this guy will get is 21 years, but they are looking into him doing 21years x the number of people he killed. But essentially this guy could be out in 21 years if that doesnt happen.

21 years x number of people he killed is putting him away for life with no chance of parole. There is no way in hell he will ever get out, he'll die while serving his time.

A serious crime is committed, and people are given consecutive sentences for the murders. The prison time given is so long that they will die while serving their time. Leave it at that. They're going to die in prison while serving their time, killing them for a nice show of power to the public does nothing to change it other than he dies fatser and by our hands.

If the crime/s are serious enough to consider the death penalty, then they'll be given a sentence long enough to keep them in a cell until they die there.

jammstarr · 30-07-2011 5:34pm

I would of thought that I'd be in favour of the death penalty but other posters here have said that people have been exonerated and that's changed my view on it I have to say. All things in life are rarely black and white.

looky loo · 30-07-2011 5:39pm

MitchKoobski wrote: »

21 years x number of people he killed is putting him away for life with no chance of parole. There is no way in hell he will ever get out, he'll die while serving his time.

A serious crime is committed, and people are given consecutive sentences for the murders. The prison time given is so long that they will die while serving their time. Leave it at that. They're going to die in prison while serving their time, killing them for a nice show of power to the public does nothing to change it other than he dies fatser and by our hands.

If the crime/s are serious enough to consider the death penalty, then they'll be given a sentence long enough to keep them in a cell until they die there.

He might only get 21 years, thats the maximum in Norway and this is where he is likely to stay.....http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083,00.html

Will · 30-07-2011 5:40pm

I'm not sure on the subject. From a purely monetary point of view (a terrible way to view human life) it would be cheaper to just put those who commit the most heinous crimes to death than waste money locking them up in prison until they kick the bucket. Funny thing is though most prisons in the states anyway are privately owned, doing so would damage such institutions I imagine and have knock on effects.

On the flip side I don't believe that someone or some government has the right to decide whether you live or die. I know those who commit murders have done just that and in the eyes have many have forfeited that right. It's a doozie to put it simply.

eoferrall · 30-07-2011 5:43pm

Disagree as in most cases there is always the possibility of a wrong conviction. This has been shown many times as people released years later when new evidence is found.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

And what if it's patently obvious?

Take for example a mass murderer where there is plenty of evidence and an admission of guilt?

I still wouldn't agree with it but there are many cases where there is no doubt whatsoever over someone's guilt.

This is also true and brings you into the whole debate of how much evidence is conclusive? what is clearly conclusive to one maybe isn't to another looking at it from another viewpoint. Extreme cases as you use above yes clear to everyone, but rare are these cases. who would make the call as to if the information is 100% conclusive?

There are too many risks with the death penalty, aside from the as others have said about hypocrisy and its not overly a punishment if you believe it as a quick way out. making em suffer in a solitary cell would be worse!:D

celticcrash · 30-07-2011 5:45pm

Sorry about that, yes it was a rant.
There are some people in my town, well known, who have killed many people, Yes they walk the streets, out shopping 2 months ago, I and the shop keeper spotted a certain individual across coming out of a shop across the way. We looked a each other with disbelief. This individual is responable for over half a dozen murders. And thats not including the herion hes pushing on kids who overdose.
And no I dont think his going to find GOD soon.
What do u think happens when u lock up someone like that.
Do you think that society is safe from him now that hes locked away.
No he finds more connections and organises hes murderous deeds
while hes locked up safe in prison.
Given me some logical thinking here I am dying to know.

partyatmygaff · 30-07-2011 6:01pm

eoferrall wrote: »

This is also true and brings you into the whole debate of how much evidence is conclusive? what is clearly conclusive to one maybe isn't to another looking at it from another viewpoint. Extreme cases as you use above yes clear to everyone, but rare are these cases. who would make the call as to if the information is 100% conclusive?

Well if there had to be a death penalty then it would be better if it were only handed down in cases where there is doubtless evidence to support the conviction.

As cases with doubtless, foolproof evidence are rare then by consequence the death penalty would also be rarely used.

eoferrall · 30-07-2011 6:15pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well if there had to be a death penalty then it would be better if it were only handed down in cases where there is doubtless evidence to support the conviction.

As cases with doubtless, foolproof evidence are rare then by consequence the death penalty would also be rarely used.

I agree, but due to the rarity is it worth having the process? I'm not up to speed with it all, but does the injection cost much to store? can't see it being worth building a facility to house an electric chair.

I think we are debating the same point and in complete agreement! I would not like to see it in ireland, but if it was here I would like it to be used extremely rarely when evidence is overwhelming. and also that no one can apply for the death penalty in a case. should be DPP or whoever only. no applications.

paky · 30-07-2011 6:15pm

i dont think executing someone by mistake is a strong enough reason to oppose the death penalty. there are moral questions which need answering such as who has the right to take life and so on. putting someone to death makes you just as guilty as the one who is condemed and doesnt make it right

celticcrash · 30-07-2011 6:20pm

Some people read things in the paper, come on here and give there view.
Reading about something on the paper and living it are different realities.
When you know people for real and see what they go through for real, after a murder being commited on a family member by a serial killer or their kid who just died of an overdose.
There is no logic to that.
There is no reason to that.
Are you going to ask the parents to intellectualise that.
Lets do the Irish thing and talk about it while our kids die.
Lets sit on the fence and hide behind false morals while our kids die.
Lets not take action.
Lets read it in the paper and tut tut to ourselves, and than flip over to
The sports page.

The Scientician · 30-07-2011 6:28pm

The state shouldn't be allowed murder.

What are your thoughts on the death penalty?

What do you think of the death penalty? 137 votes

Comments