#136

seamus said:

As with all life, we are driven biologically to value two things above everything else - our own life and our offsprings' lives.

Then, since life is basically considered the highest-valued thing in existence, depriving someone of life without very good cause is generally considered to be the most heinous of crimes because there is no way that it can be undone and there is no way to make any kind of amends for it (as there can be in other crimes which can't be undone, like rape)

No, I understand that life might be considered the highest valued thing in existence. Not by everyone but it might be.

What I am asking you is why. We can't blame biology - certainly biology causes these emotions to arise, but we as a a species are quite entitled to make use of our critical faculties and trump our instincts.

It's important to know why murder is bad. As a time saving exercise I'm going to propose my understanding of why murder is bad and you can tell me whether you agree or not. I think it's bad because it is the act of elimination of human liberty without, as you say, good cause.

Now, to my mind, locking a man in a square cell and jailing him until death is not just a constraint on his liberty, it amounts to an elimination of his liberty (with good cause).

The key point is that we can't just say "well then we'll give him resources to exercise liberty" because it is dubious to what degree that can be achieved without contradicting the legal basis of imprisonment. It's likely that if you do apportion him any real liberty, you are diminishing the state's capacity for punitive redress. That's a whole another topic.

So the removal of such a man's liberty is a necessity either way. All I am saying is that (ignoring any complicating factors like risk of error), that individual ought to have his liberty extinguished more humanely, not dangled above society light a caught mouse.

I do oppose the Death Penalty-on grounds of risk that the judgement of an individual's guilt is erroneous or misguided. But I happen to think it's quite sad that we have to find more cruel ways of abolishing an individual's liberty, and sadly we here in Ireland do it particularly maliciously, as the Inspector of Prison's reports have attested.

seamus Dental Plan!
#137

Good post, but I fundamentally disagree with this;

later12 said:
I think it's bad because it is the act of elimination of human liberty without, as you say, good cause.
Liberty and life are not the same thing.
Liberty can be granted and removed at will. Life can only be removed, it cannot be granted.
I don't equate removal of liberty with removal of life, as I mention in a previous post. They are two entirely different scenarios.

#138

No but I would consider liberty to be the prime substance of life.

It would be silly of me to say that liberty=life. The removal of liberty is not a fatal act.

But the removal of life is fundamentally the removal of its prime substance, upon which everything else is built, and that (I would suggest) is liberty.

Perhaps you don't subscribe to this belief.

That's perfectly acceptable, but now we're in the realm of personal beliefs and personal principles; not things that can be proven or disproven. But at least we understand where the other is coming from, which is something.

drinkmilkkids Registered User
#139


Originally Posted by Sir Pompous Righteousness
It is my personal belief

Culleeo said:
I stopped reading here.



What are you even doing on this site if you don't want to read people's opinions? Good to see independent thought is thriving in Ireland

aidan24326 Registered User
#140

Galwayguy35 said:
I think something most people might agree on is that prisons are too cushy here in Ireland.


This is something that gets trotted out all the time but I'm not sure how much truth there is in it. The former Governor of Mountjoy has publicly stated that that prison is a mess - drastically overcrowded, dangerous, dirty and just a shambles in general. Maybe people would need to spend a few nights in there before being so quick as to declare that our prisons are 'cushy'.

They might be cushy compared to hell-hole prisons in parts of Asia and South America but we shouldn't really be comparing ourselves to that standard, and while we'd all agree that jail shouldn't be cushy it should still conform to certain standards if we want to think of ourselves as a civilized nation.

1 person has thanked this post
end of the road Registered User
#141

jaja321 said:
Show me the stats for places that have the death penalty and where crime has subsequently been reduced as a result of having the death penalty in place.

she won't be able to, because its just bull. the people who think the death penalty would reduce/be a deterrent to crimes live in la la land and don't realise that the same crime/crimes for which the death penalty are imposed keep happening, if it did work as a deterrent then their would be very few murders/other crimes for which it is imposed. but i think were banging our heads against the wall trying to explain that to them. can't ever see the government giving the people a vote to re-introduce it after all we had a vote to abolish it did we not? the people would have had a chance to keep it and didn't so tuff.

jaja321 Registered User
#142

end of the road said:
she won't be able to, because its just bull. the people who think the death penalty would reduce/be a deterrent to crimes live in la la land and don't realise that the same crime/crimes for which the death penalty are imposed keep happening, if it did work as a deterrent then their would be very few murders/other crimes for which it is imposed. but i think were banging our heads against the wall trying to explain that to them. can't ever see the government giving the people a vote to re-introduce it after all we had a vote to abolish it did we not? the people would have had a chance to keep it and didn't so tuff.


I know, that's why I asked. I agree it will never be an option to re-introduce it - thankfully!

1 person has thanked this post
Rezident Registered User
#143

ScienceNerd said:
Sounds great until somebody judged guilty is found innocent a couple of years after they've been killed by the state.


But what if it was only for incontrovertibly guilty people, like people who are captured on video rampaging in public and murdering people, like Islamic protestors for example.

FionnK86 Registered User
#144

Interesting question...

Another point to be made is that you can only kill someone once, so if for example a man who accidentally kills someone(maybe two) while drunk driving is given a death penalty, he would be in the same boat as a murdering tyrant like Hussein who got the death penalty. That's not fair, sure murder is murder but if the death penalty it is dished out to all highly wanted criminals it begins to lose its threatening nature. If a murderer knows he's in for the death penalty he/she is more likely to try and kill another person if they stand in their way(for instance, a member of the gardaì but if they know they'll be out in 25 years they are more likely to hand themselves in or take a less violent approach.

#145

Rezident said:
But what if it was only for incontrovertibly guilty people, like people who are captured on video rampaging in public and murdering people, like Islamic protestors for example.


Hi,
1/ Could the video be doctored
2/ Could the person on video be there under duress
3/ Could the person on video in fact not be that particular person - mistaken identity.

I'm sure there are other things that would need to be looked at

2 people have thanked this post
#146

Bring it back by all means, but make it for the likes of Bertie, Seanie, Quinnie, Fitzie, Dunner, Paddy De Plasterer and pals

#147

It should never be reintroduced here, and the government should call for its abolition worldwide. It's sadistic and medieval, whether carried out in a theocracy like Iran, a one party state like China or the good 'ol USofA.

All people are fallible, as are all governments and judiciaries (whether it's a democracy or not).

1 person has thanked this post
Galwayguy35 Registered User
#148

aidan24326 said:
This is something that gets trotted out all the time but I'm not sure how much truth there is in it. The former Governor of Mountjoy has publicly stated that that prison is a mess - drastically overcrowded, dangerous, dirty and just a shambles in general. Maybe people would need to spend a few nights in there before being so quick as to declare that our prisons are 'cushy'.

They might be cushy compared to hell-hole prisons in parts of Asia and South America but we shouldn't really be comparing ourselves to that standard, and while we'd all agree that jail shouldn't be cushy it should still conform to certain standards if we want to think of ourselves as a civilized nation.


Well I know someone who did time in Portlaoise and he admitted himself that he had ane easy time of it, and had a TV, and playstation in the cell.

Having said that I'm sure there is overcrowding issues that need to be dealt with.

#149

ScienceNerd said:
Sounds great until somebody judged guilty is found innocent a couple of years after they've been killed by the state.


Generally, people are exonerated within a year of being sentenced, most people are on death row for over a year, so that shouldn't be an issue.
To stop miscarriages of justice like this we should also introduce death penalty for perjury which results in death of an innocent person, similar to the law in Singapore.
When it comes to pregnant women though, I do not believe that they should be spared the death penalty, they should be given a stay of execution until they give birth to their child, then executed. I know what I am saying sounds somewhat draconian, but a woman (or man) who commits such a cold-blooded crime, doesn't deserve to be a parent.
Most of the cases of wrongful executions that happen anyway were carried out many years ago when DNA and forensic technology were highfalutin things of the future.
When it comes to a person who is mentally-impaired or disabled (which may be a very grey area in some circumstances), judges discretion should come into play, although in other circumstances, it should be mandatory, to curb sexism / racism and other discriminatory factors in sentencing.
The following is a list of crimes which I believe should merit the death penalty

  • Murder of any kind (but not manslaughter)
  • Perjury which results in execution of an innocent person
  • Serial drug trafficking
  • Membership of a drug-dealing or terrorist gang such as IRA or UVF


I know I am sounding like a hot-headed fascist, but I am a firm believer that stern deterrents DO work, if you look at Ireland and some other parts of Europe, crime rates are soaring but look at Singapore or other zero-tolerance countries and crime rates are extremely low.

1 person has thanked this post
end of the road Registered User
#150

Neewbie_noob said:
DNA and forensic technology

their not fool proof.
Neewbie_noob said:
stern deterrents DO work,

no they don't, unless you live in a dictatorship where your executed for nothing and the people are afraid to do anything.
Neewbie_noob said:
if you look at Ireland and some other parts of Europe, crime rates are soaring

ireland has a rubbish justice system in the first place so of course it doesn't work, probably these other european countries are the same.
Neewbie_noob said:
but look at Singapore or other zero-tolerance countries and crime rates are extremely low.


different cultures come into play, putting Singapore asside, most of these cuntries your talking about are probably dictatorships. just because things work for Singapore doesn't mean it will work here in ireland. we've no need for the death penalty, end of.

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!