Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

thewayiam · 29-06-2013 5:34pm

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Not this **** again

Couldn't be bother to rewrite so i will copy and past

I will try and break it down a little further for you.
Two people kill someone is separate instances. Both almost the exact same. One has a mental illness. The other doesn't. Let go and kill the one with the mental illness.

either way the vast majority of psychopaths will live their lives out normally. Hell they will most properly be more successful that either of us. Why do people keep bringing in psychopaths into the debate?

Am i the only one that thinks psychopaths get a bad time?

Ted Bundy was a Saint.

crazy cabbage · 29-06-2013 5:35pm

thewayiam wrote: »

Ted Bundy was a Saint.

Do you want me to start listing off murders who weren't psychopaths? :pac:

thewayiam · 29-06-2013 5:52pm

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Do you want me to start listing off murders who weren't psychopaths? :pac:

My only fear of death is reincarnation.

blackdog2 · 29-06-2013 5:53pm

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Do you want me to start listing off murders who weren't psychopaths? :pac:

Let's list off those who have been executed, and gone on to murder again

crazy cabbage · 29-06-2013 5:59pm

blackdog2 wrote: »

Let's list off those who have been executed, and gone on to murder again

**** it. Yea. I agree. How about we just kill everyone that way no one will be able to murder anyone.

Your being silly. An eye for an eye just doesn't work imo

Manc-Red · 29-06-2013 6:00pm

For me someone who kiddie rapes deserves death.

At the very least they deserve a public battering.

stoneill · 29-06-2013 6:05pm

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

With all the forensic technology available now the chances of a wrongful conviction are very slim.

CSI isn't real you know - that's all makey uppy computery stuff on telly.
While fallibility exists then to put someone to death is wrong, but even if the courts were always 100% correct then to take a life is still morally wrong.

Hitchens · 29-06-2013 6:16pm

stoneill wrote: »

CSI isn't real you know - that's all makey uppy computery stuff on telly.
While fallibility exists then to put someone to death is wrong, but even if the courts were always 100% correct then to take a life is still morally wrong.

how is it morally wrong in the case of a convicted murderer, or in defence of your life or the lives of other innocents?

Norwesterner · 29-06-2013 6:38pm

vibe666 wrote: »

until you can guarantee 100% with zero chance of error that there will NEVER EVER be a wrongful conviction leading to the execution of an innocent person, there is no room for the death penalty in Ireland or any other country. anything else is nothing more than state sanctioned murder.

think if it this way. if someone you love is wrongfully sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit and nobody is able to prove the their innocence, are you willing to sacrifice them for the "greater good"?

until there is zero chance of a wrongful conviction, that is what you are advocating if you support the death penalty and that is what will inevitably be forced on innocent families if the death penalty is introduced.

Well, theres the recent case in Woolwich.
Guy witnessed cutting the head of young fella.
Witnessed shouting Allah Akbar.
Gives interview to media justifying his actions.
Arrested by police holding the murder weapon and covered in victims blood.

There are many cases of 100% clarity in guilt.

stoneill · 29-06-2013 6:42pm

Hitchens wrote: »

how is it morally wrong in the case of a convicted murderer, or in defence of your life or the lives of other innocents?

That's two different arguments.
The debate is about a death penalty handed down by the state, it is not a debate where you take the life of someone when you are in a position of trying to defend yourself or others.
If you intend to kill someone, that is morally wrong.
If you did not mean to kill someone, that's a different story.

Hitchens · 29-06-2013 6:48pm

stoneill wrote: »

That's two different arguments.
The debate is about a death penalty handed down by the state, it is not a debate where you take the life of someone when you are in a position of trying to defend yourself or others.
If you intend to kill someone, that is morally wrong.
If you did not mean to kill someone, that's a different story.

but what authority defines what is morally wrong?

also, if someone, in your opinion, is about to kill your loved one, so you shoot to kill him, is that morally wrong?

Renegade Mechanic · 29-06-2013 6:50pm

crazy cabbage wrote: »

An eye for an eye just doesn't work imo

But when someone wrongs you, badly, and theres absolutely nothing you can do. He smugly grins at you knowing it. How does that make you feel? Im not saying if someone breaks your leg, break both of theirs, but "turning the other cheek" is just an open invitation to being walked into the ground by many.

demanufactured · 29-06-2013 6:56pm

Yes for murderers.
For child abusers and rapists......basically anyone who has done something so awful that they have scarred another person for life....they should be left to rot in a prison designed only for them and other rapists/ abusers.

Renegade Mechanic · 29-06-2013 6:58pm

And to those who think death is too good for some things. You're right. But the whole "put 'em in a room with the victims family" is a bit fanciful. I don't think modern society would adopt it well. Which leaves only one option. Let the taxpayers pay for twenty years (or shamefully less) of three meal, heated, health providing comfort? I can't think of anything more insulting to a family than to know their hard earned money is feeding, heating and entertaining their childs killer. Some people just cannot be saved.

Jumboman · 29-06-2013 6:59pm

I'd support it for bankers.

stoneill · 29-06-2013 6:59pm

Hitchens wrote: »

but what authority defines what is morally wrong?

also, if someone, in your opinion, is about to kill your loved one, so you shoot to kill him, is that morally wrong?

My opinion is what defines morally wrong for me.
Your opinion is different, I accept that but it doesn't change mine.

And again - in a life/death situation defending yourself or someone you love then no, it is not a morality issues, in my opinion.
Not only that but being human and open to all human emotions and failing, I would also probably burn their house down and ensure their family suffered intolerably.
However the debate is about the state killing people, not hypothetical situations.

Hitchens · 29-06-2013 7:05pm

stoneill wrote: »

My opinion is what defines morally wrong for me.
Your opinion is different, I accept that but it doesn't change mine.

And again - in a life/death situation defending yourself or someone you love then no, it is not a morality issues, in my opinion.
Not only that but being human and open to all human emotions and failing, I would also probably burn their house down and ensure their family suffered intolerably.
However the debate is about the state killing people, not hypothetical situations.

fair enough answer

gw80 · 29-06-2013 7:26pm

The argument that the death penalty as a punishment is to easy or good for some people may be the wrong way of looking at it, maybe it should be looked at as simply a way to eradicate someone from society,not as a punishment.

I,m talking about people who can not be "cured",repaired or whatever you want to call it.

Is,nt it more civilised to "take them out of society" than to have them linger in a prison. and also just because someone is in prison does not mean they cant murder anymore, and cause more suffering

Just get rid, out of society,out of the gene pool,

Jimmy Garlic · 29-06-2013 7:29pm

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Not this **** again

Couldn't be bother to rewrite so i will copy and past

I will try and break it down a little further for you.
Two people kill someone is separate instances. Both almost the exact same. One has a mental illness. The other doesn't. Let go and kill the one with the mental illness.

Using the mental illness excuse is asinine. The majority of psychopaths are not insane, they are fully aware of what they are doing.

Norwesterner · 29-06-2013 7:30pm

and harvest their organs for us decent folk.

vibe666 · 29-06-2013 7:36pm

and who gets to decide what qualifies as 100% definitely guilty without any shadow of a doubt?

would someone have to kill someone else on tv or would x number of eye witnesses be enough?

bumper234 · 29-06-2013 7:45pm

Norwesterner wrote: »

and harvest their organs for us decent folk.

Soylent green ftw

thewayiam · 29-06-2013 8:58pm

My view is that rapists should be sent to jail. If they repeat what they did on release then they should be chemically castrated and paralysed from the waist down and a GPS chip inserted so they can always be tracked.

If a person is a repeat offender of assault, stabbing etc then they shoud be paralaised from the waist down and a GPS chip inserted so their movements can always be tracked.

Death Penalty is too easy of a way out

Renegade Mechanic · 29-06-2013 9:31pm

All ideal solutions (I especially like the chemical castration idea) but all at the expense of the taxpayer.

Lawrence1895 · 29-06-2013 9:32pm

If the guilt is proven and if it was a crime like serial rape or murder...Yes.

vibe666 · 30-06-2013 3:06pm

Lars1916 wrote: »

If the guilt is proven and if it was a crime like serial rape or murder...Yes.

guilt is always *proven* when someone is convicted, that's the whole point. but proven in court and 100% true aren't always the same thing and miscarriages of justice are common enough that before too long the death penalty will end up murdering an innocent man.

get rid of the following and then we can talk about the death penalty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justice

Causes of miscarriages of justice include:
Plea bargains that offer incentives for the innocent to plead guilty, sometimes called an innocent prisoner's dilemma
Confirmation bias on the part of investigators
Withholding or destruction of evidence by police or prosecution
Fabrication of evidence or outright perjury by police (see testilying), or prosecution witnesses (e.g., Charles Randal Smith)
Biased editing of evidence
Prejudice towards the class of people to which the defendant belongs
Misidentification of the perpetrator by witnesses and/or victims
Overestimation/underestimation of the evidential value of expert testimony
Contaminated evidence
Faulty forensic tests
False confessions due to police pressure or psychological weakness
Misdirection of a jury by a judge during trial
Perjured evidence by the real guilty party or their accomplices (frameup)
Perjured evidence by supposed victim or their accomplices
Conspiracy between court of appeal judges and prosecutors to uphold conviction of innocent

like i've already said, i'm not against the death penalty as a punishment, but I am very much against killing innocents in the name of justice.

Cody Pomeray · 01-07-2013 2:25pm

Radiosonde wrote: »

Are there really thousands or are you exaggerating?

It's no exaggeration. There are literally thousands of successful criminal appeals in the UK and Ireland each year.

So despite all of the benefits of forensic technologies, courts can, and do, err. Personally, I'd prefer if we retained a legal system that both acknowledges this fact, and stands ready to compensate and make restitution towards those whom it has wronged. You can't really do that when you're dealing with a corpse.

I Heart Internet · 01-07-2013 2:29pm

Answer to OP: No

It's never ok to take a human life. Certainly not where it can be avoided.

Hitchens · 01-07-2013 3:28pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Answer to OP: No

It's never ok to take a human life. Certainly not where it can be avoided.

Ian Brady? yes, if he was here we would have 'rehabilitated' him long since!

I Heart Internet · 01-07-2013 3:34pm

Hitchens wrote: »

Ian Brady? yes, if he was here we would have 'rehabilitated' him long since!

I don't get your point.

Some criminals will never be rehabilitated. Ian Brady looks like a case in point.

Still doesn't mean it's remotely right to kill him or people like him.

Ush1 · 01-07-2013 3:53pm

No as it's expensive and not a deterrent. We'd be kicked right out of the EU also.

allibastor · 01-07-2013 3:55pm

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I would but only in circumstances where it would be appropriate and if the sentence was carried out quickly (within 12 months). I think the death penalty for some crimes is necessary, eg, premeditated murder, serial rape, child abuse. Who agrees with me?

I agree that sometimes people dont have the right to thier own life, look at ian Huntly in the UK. costing upwards of 200k a year to keep. what is he doing for anyone in the world.

dd972 · 01-07-2013 4:01pm

No, state has no right to end a person's life and if they f**k up there's no coming back for the poor sod hanged.

Jumboman · 01-07-2013 10:02pm

Ush1 wrote: »

No as it's expensive and not a deterrent. We'd be kicked right out of the EU also.

And being kicked out of the EU is a bad thing ?:rolleyes:

end of the road · 01-07-2013 11:47pm

Jumboman wrote: »

And being kicked out of the EU is a bad thing ?

considering their one of many keeping us a float yes it would, we have nothing that could keep us a float by ourselves and britain isn't going to take us either, while their are a lot of problems with the EU its better to be in it then out, i know the OP is so desperate for the death penalty that he would like us out of the EU possibly to end up even more screwed then we currently are with austerity unlike anything we have possibly seen (the fact he thanked your post suggests to me that that is the case) however if you put this question to the people
would you like to leave the EU so we could re-intraduce the death penalty even if it meant we are worse off then now? the majority would definitely say no

seb65 · 01-07-2013 11:50pm

Ush1 wrote: »

No as it's expensive and not a deterrent. We'd be kicked right out of the EU also.

It actually is a deterrent. If the serial killer/rapist is dead, they ain't committing no more crimes.

Jumboman · 02-07-2013 1:20am

end of the road wrote: »

considering their one of many keeping us a float yes it would, we have nothing that could keep us a float by ourselves and britain isn't going to take us either, while their are a lot of problems with the EU its better to be in it then out, i know the OP is so desperate for the death penalty that he would like us out of the EU possibly to end up even more screwed then we currently are with austerity unlike anything we have possibly seen (the fact he thanked your post suggests to me that that is the case) however if you put this question to the people
would you like to leave the EU so we could re-intraduce the death penalty even if it meant we are worse off then now? the majority would definitely say no

Bringing in the death penalty would not be main reason for leaving the EU the main reason would be that its bad for Ireland. The EU has took more money out of Ireland through fisher, Tax and "loans" than it has given us . The claim that the EU is keeping us a float is laughable when it is the EURO which is the cause of many of our problems. If we did not have the EURO we would have come out of the recession by now just look at iceland. The only people who benefit from Ireland being in the EU are the politicians and civil servants who get massive salaries from the EU.

end of the road · 02-07-2013 1:50am

seb65 wrote: »

It actually is a deterrent. If the serial killer/rapist is dead, they ain't committing no more crimes.

it isn't a deterrent to others though which some supporters of it would have you believe

Dostoevsky · 02-07-2013 3:50am

Jumboman wrote: »

And being kicked out of the EU is a bad thing ?:rolleyes:

We'll just see how incredibly bad it is when the rightwing dregs of British society start, in the event of our being "kicked out" of the EU, claiming the Irish people as British and part of what they call their "British Isles" and advocating, through their numerous media outlets in Ireland, that the Irish "reunite" with them against the rest of Europe.

Irish people have come a long way from the bad days of being the whipping boy for Britannia, of being John Bull's other island. The EU, and our membership of it, is a protector of Irish sovereignty against the abuses of the British state. People who don't realise just how dark the dark days were and how important our membership of the EU is to creating a new Ireland should start reading/watching more than British media/Sunday Independent.

Dostoevsky · 02-07-2013 3:52am

seb65 wrote: »

It actually is a deterrent. If the serial killer/rapist is dead, they ain't committing no more crimes.

Exactly, and this is particularly effective when the dead person is later proven to have been innocent. Right?

Do people even remember the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four anymore?

Ush1 · 02-07-2013 10:21am

Jumboman wrote: »

And being kicked out of the EU is a bad thing ?:rolleyes:

Most definitely.

Ush1 · 02-07-2013 10:23am

seb65 wrote: »

It actually is a deterrent. If the serial killer/rapist is dead, they ain't committing no more crimes.

They'd find it hard to kill someone locked up for life in solitary also.

Look at crime statistics for states where the death penalty is regularly used, it's not a deterrent.

Jumboman · 02-07-2013 12:40pm

Dostoevsky wrote: »

We'll just see how incredibly bad it is when the rightwing dregs of British society start, in the event of our being "kicked out" of the EU, claiming the Irish people as British and part of what they call their "British Isles" and advocating, through their numerous media outlets in Ireland, that the Irish "reunite" with them against the rest of Europe.

Irish people have come a long way from the bad days of being the whipping boy for Britannia, of being John Bull's other island. The EU, and our membership of it, is a protector of Irish sovereignty against the abuses of the British state. People who don't realise just how dark the dark days were and how important our membership of the EU is to creating a new Ireland should start reading/watching more than British media/Sunday Independent.

The EU is a protector of Irish sovereignty ? Are you taken the piss ? We have no sovereignty left thanks to the EU.

I advocate a independent Ireland which is neither part of the UK or the EU something along the lines of Iceland or Norway. But the eurofiles would not like that because they have an inferiority complex about Ireland.

Hitchens · 02-07-2013 1:07pm

Ush1 wrote: »

They'd find it hard to kill someone locked up for life in solitary also.

Look at crime statistics for states where the death penalty is regularly used, it's not a deterrent.

How does anyone know? It's likely the murder rate would be a lot higher if those states didn't have the DP.

(and you can ignore the USA statisics as they have been debunked many times)

upstairs for coffee · 02-07-2013 1:22pm

How can any state prohibit murder by law but then sanction the death penalty? Contradiction?

Ush1 · 02-07-2013 2:06pm

Hitchens wrote: »

How does anyone know? It's likely the murder rate would be a lot higher if those states didn't have the DP.

(and you can ignore the USA statisics as they have been debunked many times)

Well states with the death penalty have the highest violent crime rates.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

What do you mean by "debunked"?

end of the road · 02-07-2013 2:58pm

Hitchens wrote: »

How does anyone know?

because common sense dictates that if someone is going to murder someone else their going to do it whatever the punishment, same with any crime

Hitchens wrote: »

It's likely the murder rate would be a lot higher if those states didn't have the DP.

nonsense, if they have a high murder rate even with the death penalty chances are more likely that if they abolished it the murder rate would stay the same, the only reason why they have the death penalty is because their revengeful blood hounds who preach about the bible yet do everything that goes against its teachings. you couldn't make it up

Hitchens wrote: »

(and you can ignore the USA statisics as they have been debunked many times)

no they haven't

rox5 · 02-07-2013 3:31pm

Yes I would support it. Life should mean life (as in they stay their prisons and rot until they die) for rapists, murderers, etc, but some seem to just get out of jail way too soon for good behavior and stupid excuses like that, and they up re-offending again.

Jimmy Garlic · 02-07-2013 5:45pm

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

How can any state prohibit murder by law but then sanction the death penalty? Contradiction?

A few examples from the UK:

Beverley Allitt: also known as "Angel of Death"; paediatric nurse who killed four babies in her care and injured at least nine others; sentenced to life imprisonment in 1991

Ian Brady and Myra Hindley: also known as "Moors Murderers"; murdered five children, aged between 10 and 17, and buried them in Saddleworth Moor

Levi Bellfield: also known as the "Bus Stop Stalker"; convicted of the 2002 Murder of Amanda Dowler and two fatal hammer attacks on young women in South West London in 2003 and 2004

Peter Sutcliffe: also known as the "Yorkshire Ripper"; convicted in 1981 of murdering 13 women and attacking seven more from 1975 to 1980

Getting rid of psychopaths like them would not be murder, it would be a public service. The fact that millions of pounds is spent every year to look after those animals is scandalous (they can't be put in the general prison population after all, they need special units)

mattjack · 02-07-2013 6:04pm

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

A few examples from the UK:

Getting rid of psychopaths like them would not be murder, it would be a public service. The fact that millions of pounds is spent every year to look after those animals is scandalous (they can't be put in the general prison population after all, they need special units)

Three of those individuals were/are diagnosed as being mentally ill , hardly appropriate to be executing people with severe mental illness.

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Comments