Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

JJayoo · 28-06-2013 6:03pm

The reintroduction of hard labour where a person could work to lower their sentence would be a better idea IMO, obviously you would need to have much higher mandatory sentences to begin with.

Cody Pomeray · 28-06-2013 6:16pm

TheFOB wrote: »

You could argue that the police in Ireland in the 19th century were like the RUC of it's day, really just maintaining the British rule and did not have the trust of the people. How many crimes were actually solved back then, did people literally get away with murder??

That's not related to the death penalty though. That's a debate on policing more generally. Can't be lumped in with something so extreme as the Death Penalty.

If you're comparing homicide rates to the 1950s to the present day, you'd be better served looking at alcohol consumption and then drug consumption in later years. I've seen plenty of papers discuss the role of alcohol and illicit drug consumption in Irish society (which was actually quite low in the 50s) (e.g. Drinking in Ireland: A Review of Trends in Alcohol Consumption, Alcohol Related Problems and Policies towards Alcohol). This makes sense, because drug/alcohol use seems to have positively correlated with crime rates in Ireland throughout history.

The reference to the death penalty makes no sense. We had the death penalty when our homicidal crime rates were at record highs.

TheFOB · 28-06-2013 6:22pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's not related to the death penalty though. That's a debate on policing more generally. Can't be lumped in with something so extreme as the Death Penalty.

If you're comparing homicide rates to the 1950s to the present day, you'd be better served looking at alcohol consumption and then drug consumption in later years. I've seen plenty of papers discuss the role of alcohol and illicit drug consumption in Irish society (which was actually quite low in the 50s) (e.g. Drinking in Ireland: A Review of Trends in Alcohol Consumption, Alcohol Related Problems and Policies towards Alcohol). This makes sense, because drug/alcohol use seems to have positively correlated with crime rates in Ireland throughout history.

The reference to the death penalty makes no sense. We had the death penalty when our homicidal crime rates were at record highs.

People didn't trust the RIC, as a result crime was high, the police were ineffective because noone wanted to deal with them and so no crimes were solved. Therefore any law or deterrent on the books would have been ineffective.

TBH I'm in favour of capital punishment because it provides justice. Send them to prison for 30 - 40 years and then kill them.

Cody Pomeray · 28-06-2013 6:24pm

TheFOB wrote: »

People didn't trust the RIC, as a result crime was high, the police were ineffective because noone wanted to deal with them and so no crimes were solved.

Actually, academics looking into Irish crime have suggested that crime is lowest when people take the law into their own hands and don't depend on the state to do so - i.e. during the 1950s.

You're just making this up because you want to promote the Death Penalty, not because you think there is any evidence leading you to this position - there clearly isnt so whatever. Invent whatever scenarios you like.

TheFOB · 28-06-2013 6:28pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Actually, academics looking into Irish crime have suggested that crime is lowest when people take the law into their own hands and don't depend on the state to do so - i.e. during the 1950s.

You're just making this up because you want to promote the Death Penalty, not because you think there is any evidence leading you to this position - there clearly isnt so whatever. Invent whatever scenarios you like.

Yes it was just a theory of mine and I'm not an expert on 19th century Ireland.

twowheelsonly · 28-06-2013 6:28pm

frank reynolds wrote: »

maybe they could consider a life sentence meaning a life sentence. this country is horrible. a murderer will serve a "life" sentence of what - 8 years is it? so thats probably, in reality about 5-6 years... for MURDER....

ridiculous kip.

no wonder crime is high - the criminals are not afraid because they KNOW that they wont be missing out on much of their lives by being locked up with their friends with playstations and free food and board for a couple of years.

so actually, i DO think they should bring it back in... for murder or child rape etc...

It tends to be 15+ years, with many serving a lot longer, not 5-6. That's a myth. Also there's no remission on a life sentence.

Personally I think that Jail should be much tougher. Ultimately there should be 'graded' jails.
First time in or a single sentence - The 'cushier' jail so that you're deprived of your freedom and not a lot more.
Next time around, tougher Jail, no TV, less visits/phone calls etc.
3rd and subsequent sentences, Tough Jail - 1 hour exercise a day, 1 visit a month subject to good behaviour. No phone calls, gym, TV, school or any of the 'luxuries' available in the other jails.

The amount of habitual criminals doing 'life by installments' is horrific. These people offer society nothing and are mostly leading a criminal lifestyle by choice. Reward them by giving them nothing.

Most murders in this country by the way tend to be one-off by people that would otherwise never be in trouble with the law. A lot of them tend to be otherwise decent enough people that made a massive mistake. That's no consolation for the families obviously.

Spike Witwicky · 28-06-2013 6:32pm

No. The death penalty should not be brought back because if one innocent person is put to death then it's one too many

Look at Damien Echols.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three
18 years on Death Row for a crime he didnt commit but was convicted of. Based on nothing but hearsay and a forced confession.

But i do agree sentancing is too leniant. Prison should be an absolute ****hole that no sane person would ever want to return to.

namloc1980 · 28-06-2013 6:50pm

No. It has no place in Ireland whatsoever. It is completely illegal anyway under the constitution and also under EU law. And we're also a party to the European Convention on Human Rights where it is completely illegal in all circumstances. The 21st amendment removed all mention from our constitution and I doubt there is any significant movement to bring it back in Ireland.

pheno · 28-06-2013 7:34pm

Candie wrote: »

And what if the court is wrong? Should that persons family get to send to original family to the death chamber for killing their family member? How many deaths cancel one another out?

Obviously for proven cases there should be a death penalty. For example, the guy that killed a mother and young daughter recently. It is known who did it because there is visual proof. Cases like that is where the death penalty should apply. That person killed two people, why should he live? He deserves to die.

pheno · 28-06-2013 7:36pm

Holsten wrote: »

"In 1996, Issac Ramirez stole a VCR, worth $199, from a Sears in Los Angeles, CA. Walking out of the store in daylight, he was promptly caught and arrested. Having previously been convicted of two previous shoplifting related robberies, this offense was Ramirez's third strike, and he was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life"

Just an example.

In your view this man should be in prison for the rest of his life?!?!?!?!

Not the rest of his life, but 25 years yes. He is an example of a human degenerate. He done it 3 times. He won't learn.

WumBuster · 28-06-2013 7:39pm

Yes, but only in extreme cases where the person is a true psychopath who can never be rehabilitated. In that case there is no point wasting anymore taxpayers' money on these people.

crazy cabbage · 28-06-2013 7:48pm

WumBuster wrote: »

Yes, but only in extreme cases where the person is a true psychopath who can never be rehabilitated. In that case there is no point wasting anymore taxpayers' money on these people.

It isn't illegal to be a psychopath.

Some of the best business people and politicians in the world are psychopaths.

2% of people are psychopaths in the general population.

6% (3 times as many!!!) of CEO's of major corporations and politician are psychopaths.

figures taken from a ted talk

Killer Wench · 28-06-2013 7:48pm

As an observer, sometimes I can't tell if people truly hold such extreme views towards travelers and 'knackers'. If what I have read is truly reflective of how many feel towards these groups, I don't think the death penalty would be the right thing to reinstate. On my side of the world, there are several states that do have the death penalty in existence, and unfortunately, through careful re-consideration of cases, it has been brought to light that people have been executed for crimes they did not commit. Everyone has internalized stereotypes to a certain degree, so when Juries were presented evidence, they were likely to associate these stereotypes with the defendant before them. Ending the death penalty is something I think European countries have done right.

namloc1980 · 28-06-2013 7:53pm

pheno wrote: »

Obviously for proven cases there should be a death penalty. For example, the guy that killed a mother and young daughter recently. It is known who did it because there is visual proof. Cases like that is where the death penalty should apply. That person killed two people, why should he live? He deserves to die.

Nobody has the right to deny life to another human either in crime or in punishment.

WumBuster · 28-06-2013 7:54pm

crazy cabbage wrote: »

It isn't illegal to be a psychopath.

Some of the best business people and politicians in the world are psychopaths.

2% of people are psychopaths in the general population.

6% (3 times as many!!!) of CEO's of major corporations and polatiotions are psychopath.

figures taken from a ted talk

Ok well we could narrow it down to violent psychopaths. As for the ''best buisness people and politicians in the world'' it is arguably that 2-6% of the population that cause most of the problems for the rest of society. We dont 'need' these people, as they get their success/gratification at the expense of others.

Downlinz · 28-06-2013 7:56pm

washman3 wrote: »

The 'top brass' at Anglo Irish Bank would almost certainly face the death penalty, if they acted as they did here. in a country like China.
How many here would agree with that.? i would for one.!!

Yes but they wouldn't have acted this way in China, it'd be unthinkable. Society has to accept responsibility for creating an environment where this kind of behaviour is acceptable from those at the top in positions of influence. We created a society of false professionalism, where so long as you wear a suit, look and suit professional it's "ok" to act the maggot and be utterly incompetent at your job. Those kind of characters are riddled throughout politics, the gardai and the banks in particular. People aren't being held accountable at times that matter, 5 years after billions have been poured down the drain is too late. It was the same for haughy and bertie, same nonsense cover ups from the gardai to protect shatter.
It's a democracy and nothing will change until we ditch the establishment, all the major parties are rotten to their core.

Irish people are unfortunately ultra conservative and will continue to retreat to "the lads who aren't that shower in government" every time something bad happens. Other side of the same coin and nothing changes.

crazy cabbage · 28-06-2013 8:00pm

WumBuster wrote: »

Ok well we could narrow it down to violent psychopaths. As for the ''best buisness people and politicians in the world'' it is arguably that 2-6% of the population that cause most of the problems for the rest of society. We dont 'need' these people, as they get their success/gratification at the expense of others.

They get their success/gratification from being good at what they do. Just like me. Just like most of us.
They have a mental disorder and you want to put them down because of it.

No I do not agree with premeditated murder by anyone even if sanctioned by the state.

28-06-2013 8:56pm

pheno wrote: »

Obviously for proven cases there should be a death penalty. For example, the guy that killed a mother and young daughter recently. It is known who did it because there is visual proof. Cases like that is where the death penalty should apply. That person killed two people, why should he live? He deserves to die.

But ALL death penalty cases are proven to the satisfaction of the jury! They STILL get it wrong sometimes.

Innocent people don't deserve to die because of miscarriages of justice, quite apart from any moral concerns I have.

Hitchens · 28-06-2013 9:04pm

Candie wrote: »

But ALL death penalty cases are proven to the satisfaction of the jury! They STILL get it wrong sometimes.

Innocent people don't deserve to die because of miscarriages of justice, quite apart from any moral concerns I have.

what would you do to a domesticated dog who attacks and kills a child?

28-06-2013 9:10pm

Hitchens wrote: »

what would you do to a domesticated dog who attacks and kills a child?

I wouldn't treat a dog like a human being any more than I'd treat a human being like a dog.

Hitchens · 28-06-2013 9:16pm

Candie wrote: »

I wouldn't treat a dog like a human being any more than I'd treat a human being like a dog.

that is not an an answer, ma'am

Amerika · 28-06-2013 9:21pm

Don’t do it! Over here death penalty studies in the US found that the death penalty costs about $2.16 million more per execution more than the a non-death penalty murder case with a life sentence. The better thing to do would be some sort of Devil’s Island type prison penalty for their heinous crimes. Have them do something productive, and not live for very long throughout the process.

28-06-2013 9:21pm

Hitchens wrote: »

that is not an an answer, ma'am

You are asking me to equate human beings with dogs, and I won't because I don't.

end of the road · 28-06-2013 9:53pm

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I think the death penalty for some crimes is necessary

why? this backward outdated failure was abolished in many countries for a reason

end of the road · 28-06-2013 9:59pm

T-Maxx wrote: »

Nothing else seems to serve as a deterrent for some "people" it seems.

yeah, funny how the death penalty is one of those "nothing elses"

end of the road · 28-06-2013 10:02pm

SV wrote: »

When people cross that line and do a monstrous thing they give up their rights to be treated as equals.

exactly, thats why it should never be brought in, if it was, then that would mean multiple people doing a monstrous thing and giving up their rights to be treated as equals, where would it stop

end of the road · 28-06-2013 10:11pm

bumper234 wrote: »

Build a super prison like we were supposed to

would be a waste of money and a complete nightmare for those working in it, just look at america who have them, its a shambles of a system IMO.

bumper234 wrote: »

kill a guard = death penalty
Kill a child = death penalty

why those 2? surely if were to bring it back it has to be for taking the life of someone full stop? its more or less grading the importance of peoples lives by status as far as i can see.

bumper234 · 28-06-2013 10:25pm

end of the road wrote: »

would be a waste of money and a complete nightmare for those working in it, just look at america who have them, its a shambles of a system IMO.

why those 2? surely if were to bring it back it has to be for taking the life of someone full stop? its more or less grading the importance of peoples lives by status as far as i can see.

Unlike the prisons we have atm that are real value for money? I say guards because people will think twice before killing one duhhhhh. And children because they cannot defend themselves. I am not advocating one life over another but i do believe that the death penalty shod be bought back for certain crimes.

end of the road · 28-06-2013 10:33pm

pheno wrote: »

idiots like the guy who killed a mother and a daughter recently need to die.
People who commit these kind of crimes must either never see freedom or die. Death preferably.

doesn't make sense, if it was wrong for this person to kill that mother and daughter why is it suddenly right to kill him when the law says what he did is wrong? stupid logic, either its wrong to kill or it isn't

end of the road · 28-06-2013 10:44pm

TheFOB wrote: »

I don't give a **** if it's less of a deterrent

well you should, no point in having punishments that are proovin to be a definite waste of time

TheFOB wrote: »

or how much it costs.

well i and many others do, i don't want to see tax money wasted on a backward out of date failure that is as pointless as pointless as can be, keeping them in prison is cheeper so thats whats happening

TheFOB wrote: »

If the victim or victims family request the death penalty then march off to the gallows.

and then we can send them the bill and make them pay all the costs including trial investigation and so on, thankfully however they don't get a say, and nor should they ever get a say

end of the road · 28-06-2013 10:49pm

pheno wrote: »

Why should a person who has killed someones family member walk this earth?

put them in prison for life and they won't be

pheno wrote: »

How is that fair.

life isn't fair, get used to it

pheno wrote: »

They should DIE.

well i'm afraid their not going to until such time as they do

Bertser · 28-06-2013 10:53pm

In some cases yes, it really depends on whether you'd want someone like Anders Breivik to spend life in prison at a cost to the taxpayer, or for him to be dead.

end of the road · 28-06-2013 10:55pm

Me_Grapes wrote: »

**** me there are a lot of thug huggers out there.

huh? you see coming out with that crap just makes most people not want to listen to what you have got to say

Cedrus · 28-06-2013 10:56pm

NO

"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends" Gandalf

end of the road · 28-06-2013 10:59pm

Hitchens wrote: »

when we had the death penalty here - and carried it through - there were very few murders committed

more down to the fact we were once a religious country rather then the death penalty, + we had guards in every little village in the country

end of the road · 28-06-2013 11:02pm

crazygeryy wrote: »

by the way that quote was from 1868 what the hell did dostoevsky know about all the maniacs that are running around today. **** all.

i'l think you'l find their were rather a lot of maniacs running around back then.

delaad · 28-06-2013 11:15pm

end of the road wrote: »

i'l think you'l find their were rather a lot of maniacs running around back then.

The Nihilists, for example.

end of the road · 28-06-2013 11:17pm

bumper234 wrote: »

I say guards because people will think twice before killing one duhhhhh.

i'm afraid that isn't true, they won't think twice at all as if their the type to kill a guard they will do it whatever the punishment

bumper234 wrote: »

I am not advocating one life over another

but by having it for killing guards and children you are unintentionally doing so.

RealExpert · 28-06-2013 11:21pm

I read somewhere lately that to put a criminal to death costs a fortune....I dont see how (maybe the legal side of it) surely strapping them to a bed and administering a lethal injection cant be as costly as locking them up for life.
So yes I would but only if the money spared went straight into health care and education......

namloc1980 · 28-06-2013 11:38pm

RealExpert wrote: »

I read somewhere lately that to put a criminal to death costs a fortune....I dont see how (maybe the legal side of it) surely strapping them to a bed and administering a lethal injection cant be as costly as locking them up for life.
So yes I would but only if the money spared went straight into health care and education......

It's the legal side and appeals. If you are going to kill someone there has to be a very robust and hence very expensive legal framework.

And your rationale for executing people is that it would be a good idea if any money saved went to schools and hospitals.....bloody hell!

Hitchens · 28-06-2013 11:40pm

end of the road wrote: »

more down to the fact we were once a religious country rather then the death penalty, + we had guards in every little village in the country

so it was a religous country when it came to refraining from murdering but not when it came to abusing orphans and Magdalene Laundry inmates?

Christy42 · 28-06-2013 11:46pm

What are the benefits of the death penalty?

It doesn't seem to offer massive savings. Killing a child murderer leaves you with one dead child murderer and one dead child so hardly a fix. All the calls of "They deserve it." are silly. It doesn't solve any issues, the countries with the lowest levels of re-offenders have prisons nicer than my apartment. I'm not suggesting we copy them exactly as there are other issues involved. The calls for revenge are honestly a little scary, it just seems like these (from posts I have read) people are too bloodthirsty and emotional to make a rational decision. I thought it was very important in Norway that they held to their justice system and didn't reintroduce the death penalty after the horrific killings there a year? ago. I just don't see what killing people solves and with out any benefit killing people should be a last resort. State legalised killing just seems wrong unless absolutely necessary.

As for castration, what about if a woman rapes someone. Or rape that was just about dominance. They can still re-offend and you have just tortured someone for no good reason. The reason these people still have rights is that we are better then them and we show that by showing them the decency they didn't show to their victims. I never saw the argument in they did first so we can do it to them. That just means we are as bad as them.

RealExpert · 28-06-2013 11:48pm

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's the legal side and appeals. If you are going to kill someone there has to be a very robust and hence very expensive legal framework.

And your rationale for executing people is that it would be a good idea if any money saved went to schools and hospitals.....bloody hell!

Well I was going to put some towards the filling of the potholes cos the roads are terrible as well but I changed my mind!

namloc1980 · 28-06-2013 11:53pm

RealExpert wrote: »

Well I was going to put some towards the filling of the potholes cos the roads are terrible as well but I changed my mind!

Ah cool, that's alright so.

TheFOB · 29-06-2013 12:01am

Christy42 wrote: »

What are the benefits of the death penalty?

It doesn't seem to offer massive savings. Killing a child murderer leaves you with one dead child murderer and one dead child so hardly a fix. All the calls of "They deserve it." are silly. It doesn't solve any issues, the countries with the lowest levels of re-offenders have prisons nicer than my apartment. I'm not suggesting we copy them exactly as there are other issues involved. The calls for revenge are honestly a little scary, it just seems like these (from posts I have read) people are too bloodthirsty and emotional to make a rational decision. I thought it was very important in Norway that they held to their justice system and didn't reintroduce the death penalty after the horrific killings there a year? ago. I just don't see what killing people solves and with out any benefit killing people should be a last resort. State legalised killing just seems wrong unless absolutely necessary.

As for castration, what about if a woman rapes someone. Or rape that was just about dominance. They can still re-offend and you have just tortured someone for no good reason. The reason these people still have rights is that we are better then them and we show that by showing them the decency they didn't show to their victims. I never saw the argument in they did first so we can do it to them. That just means we are as bad as them.

You can't reoffend if you're dead. Look at Anders Breivik cell, the Norweign Killer, it's a disgusting insult to the victims.

As for sex offenders:

Minimum Sentences > 15 years
Castration
Public Sex Offenders Register
Ankle tagged for life after prison

Wattle · 29-06-2013 12:21am

I really don't think it's a deterrent for crimes like murder or rape. With murder people either get carried away in the heat of the moment due to jealousy or anger or they could be psychologically sick as with rapists, serial killers or paedophiles. I think people like this are going to offend even if the death penalty was re-introduced.

jigglypuffstuff · 29-06-2013 12:30am

Ive stated this before in a debate and ill state it again, its the only opinion ive had on the death penalty. Some will see my point others wont i just think its worth adding

If tomorrow the country were asked to vote on the reintroduction or total abolishment of the death penalty. The people who were to vote yes on the reintroduction of the death penalty would be conciously playing a direct part in the killing of many people which would only increase. That would (or should at least) in their own eyes make them just as subject to the death pentalty as the each and every person who died as a result of it.

namloc1980 · 29-06-2013 12:30am

TheFOB wrote: »

As for sex offenders:
Minimum Sentences > 15 years

Castration

Public Sex Offenders Register

Ankle tagged for life after prison

Castration doesn't prevent reoffending. It's sadistic and irreversible and amounts to a punishment for life.

Cedrus · 29-06-2013 1:04am

pone2012 wrote: »

Ive stated this before in a debate and ill state it again, its the only opinion ive had on the death penalty. Some will see my point others wont i just think its worth adding

If tomorrow the country were asked to vote on the reintroduction or total abolishment of the death penalty. The people who were to vote yes on the reintroduction of the death penalty would be conciously playing a direct part in the killing of many people which would only increase. That would (or should at least) in their own eyes make them just as subject to the death pentalty as the each and every person who died as a result of it.

I can still remember a comment from the army officer who was tasked with assembling the volunteer firing squad for the last man to be sentenced to death in Ireland (iirc 1980s, republican murder of a Guard) He said about the volunteers (and I paraphrase from memory) "I'd rather put these mad ****ers up against the wall, they're more dangerous than he'll ever be". The sentence was later commuted to life.

Jimmy Garlic · 29-06-2013 1:06am

namloc1980 wrote: »

Castration doesn't prevent reoffending. It's sadistic and irreversible and amounts to a punishment for life.

It is the very least a sex offender deserves, especially a child abuser. I think their penis and testicles should be surgically removed. It would be fitting punishment.

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Comments