should the death penalty be brought back?

deadduck

hey ppl, the title says it all. seriously, aren't some crimes serious enough. or instances where a person keeps reoffending, where prison isn't proving to be any deterrant. what ye think?

AngelofFire

Absolutely not,Firstly as a member of amnesty international i have done a lot of campaigning against the death penalty.It is a draconian and outdated approach to justice.It is ineffective as a crime detterent, is america devoid of rape murder and violent crimes? No.

If the authorities practises killing as a way of "combatting crime", they are demonstrating a distinct way of reasoning which will inevitabley filter down into all levels of society.As Mahatama Ghandhi said "An eye for an eye makes society blind".

deadduck

but if a repeat offender keeps getting banged up in jail and its costing the state money that could be spent on education or medical stuff, surely we'd be better off without the toe-rag

Lainey

no way.. its mental cruelty (to the prisioner and also their family who are innocent)and although the crimes can be horrendous, such as murder, nothing can bring back a loved one.. i do think life should mean life though..

emaherx

Even if the death penalty is a good punishment for horendous crimes.
What about all the people who have been executed in the wrong?

thousands of people have been executed and then proven inocent afterwards.

deadduck

apparently it costs something like €70k (i could be wrong on that, but not by much) to house a prisoner for a year in ireland. assuming there was only 15 repeat rapists imprisoned in the country, that'd be over €1million euro that could go into cancer research or something if we got rid of them. it's a win-win.

deadduck

say a person's convicted of 3 rapes/murders one after the other(any really serious crime). i don't think they'd find him guilty 3 times only for all these convictions to be proven wrong

DadaKopf

No to the death penalty.

The death penalty is just one arm of a whole system of coercion and murder that's designed to keep us from thinking about and therefore addressing the true causes of crime, the solution to which would irritate the dominant interest groups who benefit from an unequal structure of social relations in any given society.

ozt9vdujny3srf

deadduck wrote:

apparently it costs something like €70k (i could be wrong on that, but not by much) to house a prisoner for a year in ireland. assuming there was only 15 repeat rapists imprisoned in the country, that'd be over €1million euro that could go into cancer research or something if we got rid of them. it's a win-win.

You shouldn't let money conerns get in the way of something that is a matter of morality.
Execution is nothing but state endorsed pre-meditated murder, and cannot be justified.
It is also hypocrical to have someone killed for being a murderer.

Sure the prison system is a money sucker, and there should be methds used to cuts costs and to rehabilitate prisoners, execution is certainly not an acceptable one.

AngelofFire

The economic cost of keeping prisoners is completely irrelevant when it comes to debating the question of the death penalty.

I think rapists should be made to pay special levies to rape and violent crime support groups after they are released, and then go on a special sex offenders course.

emaherx

So only some one who murders 3 people should be executed?

Lainey

its never a win-win situation.. as emaherx said, what do you do when you execute an innocent person, apologise to the family??? realistically all the law can do is try to keep these offenders off the streets and away from the public..

in my opinion there is no reason to justify the death penalty, locking them up in prison for the rest of their miserable lives maybe.. though, thankfully, i've never hated someone enough to wish that, so what would i know, circumstances and opinions change..

AngelofFire

deadduck wrote:

where prison isn't proving to be any deterrant. what ye think?

I dunno why so many people think that prison is a detterent, its not. Its just a way of punishing people who have done wrong and keeping them away from harming others in the future.

deadduck

if you get rid of the offender, he won't be repeating any crimes. and the economic side of things is relevant, it's good money that could be used to help people who have bad luck (terminal illnesses and the like) instead of putting roofs over bad peoples heads.

So only some one who murders 3 people should be executed?

People who are obviously gonna keep offending should be executed, yes.

emaherx

Apart from any thing else execution is a slow painful way of killing some one.

the electric chair takes several blasts of electricity over several minets to kill some one.

even lethal injection is not like the nice little injection vets use to put dogs to sleep. It designed to cause extreme pain followed by death, any one who adminsters this on an other person is just as guilty of murder.

AngelofFire

if you get rid of the offender he won't be repeating any crimes

.

Also if offenders are properly rehabilitated, they are less likely to repeat crimes.

that could be used to help people who have bad luck

Social exclusion is a big factor that leads to criminality,the government should develop a seperate appartus to deal with it, not by killing prisoners.

deadduck

emaherx wrote:

Apart from any thing else execution is a slow painful way of killing some one.

the electric chair takes several blasts of electricity over several minets to kill some one.

even lethal injection is not like the nice little injection vets use to put dogs to sleep. It designed to cause extreme pain followed by death, any one who adminsters this on an other person is just as guilty of murder.

why the hell should it be painless? if they're up for execution they commited crimes that warrant such a punishment. whoever administers it is doing the rest of us a service by making sure the criminal won't cause anyone else any trouble

Also if offenders are properly rehabilitated, they are less likely to repeat crimes

if we punish them the way i suggested, they are 100% less likely to reoffend

Pubert

what can someone keep offending that is worthy of the death penalty, but they arent in jail for? unless they are commiting the crime behind bars.

AngelofFire

if we punish them the way i suggested, they are 100% less likely to reoffend

Please refer to my first post and look at the reason as to why i think people should not be punished the way you suggested.Also look at DadaKopfs post.

deadduck

it's obvious i ain't gonna win any admirers here (maybe i'll get one or two) but i think it would be fair to put the topic up for reforrendum (possible bad spelling there) and let the ppl of the country have there say. failing that, go with lainey's idea, life meaning life. i think some people are getting pissed off with the way serious criminals are being treated in this country.

deadduck

Pubert wrote:

what can someone keep offending that is worthy of the death penalty, but they arent in jail for? unless they are commiting the crime behind bars.

drug dealing

deadduck

theres a poll for the craic, see what the general opinion is. i'll get the ball rolling with my yes vote.

tba

deadduck wrote:

apparently it costs something like €70k (i could be wrong on that, but not by much) to house a prisoner for a year in ireland. assuming there was only 15 repeat rapists imprisoned in the country, that'd be over €1million euro that could go into cancer research or something if we got rid of them. it's a win-win.

It shouldnt cost that much in fairness,

UN Declaration wrote:

Article 29
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

I am a great believer in this, and it is down to individual countries, but I dont believe that prisoners should be given free time outside, books, access to news and social outlets.

They should be given Adequate sustance, occasional sun light, and proper sanitaion, but no stimulation, they refused to give other people their full rights why give them theres.

But definitely no death penalty

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by deadduck
if you get rid of the offender, he won't be repeating any crimes. and the economic side of things is relevant, it's good money that could be used to help people who have bad luck (terminal illnesses and the like) instead of putting roofs over bad peoples heads.

But the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were also considered "offenders". Also, in the UK there have recently been a fair few cases e.g. Angela Canning, of mothers who were wrongly convicted of killing their babies, and who were later found to be innocent and released. Not to mention the ruling that the conviction of Sion Jenkins (who was jailed for murdering his foster daughter Billie-Jo) was unsafe. And then remember that the former Governer of Illinois, George Ryan, commuted many death-sentences on the basis of a possibility than many of them were innocent.

To return the death penalty would be to return to a system that encourages corrupt police-officers to frame individuals for murders they did not commit, in the knowledge that after their execution, these persons will no longer be able to appeal their conviction themselves, and there is no certainty that others would appeal the convictions on their behalf.

You refer to the cost of imprisoning convicted murderers. However, the cases I mentioned above ought to remind us that some of those convicted later turn out to be innocent. This alone is sufficient reasoning for opposing the return of the death-penalty.

It would seem hypocritical for a State to execute a person in the name of deterring others from killing. It is like saying that murder is okay if done by the State but not by anyone else. It would only encourage a culture where more would turn to extreme violence to settle scores. I am very glad that we voted to prohibit the re-introduction of this colonial relic in 2001.

Moriarty

Why execute them when you can lock 'em up for the rest of their lives and get them to do something useful like.. break rocks, or... sort rubbish into piles that can and can't be recycled. There's a hundred and one ways cheap/free labour could be helpful to society.

You also have the benefit of a sentance of life imprisonment being far less final than an execution when it comes to the inevitable problem of the wrong person being caught and convicted.

Hobbes

deadduck wrote:

but if a repeat offender keeps getting banged up in jail and its costing the state money that could be spent on education or medical stuff, surely we'd be better off without the toe-rag

It was shown in the US that it costs more to house death row inmates then life imprisonment inmates.

Then you have the issue of people being found not guilty after being executed. What do you say to them? Whoops sorry?

Gurgle

deadduck wrote:

it's obvious i ain't gonna win any admirers here (maybe i'll get one or two) but i think it would be fair to put the topic up for reforrendum

There was a referendum a couple of years ago to remove the death penalty from the constitution. It was passed.

Besides, theres much better ways:
Convicts should spend 12 hours per day of their sentence pushing a big wheel to generate electricity. That would be a deterrent.
Serial rapists should be neutered, remove their favourite weapon & reduce their aggressive instincts.
Seriously, its done my dog no harm.[not that my dog was a serial rapist]
Vote *me* for a new improved (profitable) criminal justice system.

rs

Gurgle wrote:

Convicts should spend 12 hours per day of their sentence pushing a big wheel to generate electricity. That would be a deterrent.

Now that's a great idea, seriously. You've got my vote.

Generally, I don't believe in the death penalty. It's not that I don't think re-offending violent criminals should be killed.

The only reason I oppose it it that there is a very real possiblilty that innocent people could be killed.

ionapaul

Gurgle wrote:

Besides, theres much better ways:
Convicts should spend 12 hours per day of their sentence pushing a big wheel to generate electricity. That would be a deterrent.
Serial rapists should be neutered, remove their favourite weapon & reduce their aggressive instincts.
Seriously, its done my dog no harm.[not that my dog was a serial rapist]
Vote *me* for a new improved (profitable) criminal justice system.

Yes yes yes. Why don't we have hard labour any more?

I think we need to stop looking at prison/the justice system as a means of delivering rehabilitation. Maybe it is society's fault (though that must infuriate the vast majority of socially-marginalised people who never commit serious crimes and work hard throughout their lives!) but some people (IMO) cannot be rehabilitated and will simply keep on breaking the law until they die. Look at the ringleader of the gang that gang raped the woman in Clare and seriously assaulted her partner. He had been convicted over 30 times, still in his teens, and is now in jail for a few years. Can anyone argue that keeping him alive is in any way good for the wider society? In the knowledge that once he is out, he will certainly continue to reoffend?
Prison/the justice system is a means of delivering punishment, and increasingly in Ireland the punishment does not fit the crime. Life does not mean life. Stab someone a few times, let your lawyer say you come from a broken home/stressful marriage/whatever, but are 'looking for work' and trying to control your drinking, and you get off with a two year suspended sentence! Maybe judges nationwide are not as lenient as those I recall from the local Galway papers.
Should serial rapists or child molesters be allowed back into society after their 3rd, 4th, 5th offence? I really don't think so.

Lozjm

Hobbes wrote:

It was shown in the US that it costs more to house death row inmates then life imprisonment inmates.

Don't house them - it could be done right after the trial. - Round the back of the courthouse.

Poll for that job and see the response !!!!

Nuttzz

It should be brought back, Cop killers, Solider killers should all face capital punishment, and after reading about the 4 nackers who carried out a gang rape in limerick I would happily apply to be part of the firing squad for those scum.

BuffyBot

i think some people are getting pissed off with the way serious criminals are being treated in this country.

You think, you think. I wonder what people are thinking sometimes. Thinking something isn't good enough. Your gut feeling isn't good enough. When it comes to the matter of life and death you need more than what you think to support your position.

There are so many cases of wrongful execution along those which would have been terrible mistakes had the death penalty been an option to even consider it. It's very easily to rationalise off these mistakes for "the greater good".

bonkey

BuffyBot wrote:

It's very easily to rationalise off these mistakes for "the greater good".

And thats what a lot of it boils down to, isn't it...

I'm reading with a degree of amusement the posts commenting that rehabilitation/deterrance/punishment doesn't work, so lets just shoot the fsckers.

Why? Because it will be a cheaper way of dealing with society's failures in not preventing these crimes and in not finding a way (do we even try any more) to actually work on concepts like rehabilitation.

Killing the convicted is an easy way out. It avoids having to ask many difficult questions, and face many difficult truths.

Its particularly convenient for re-inforcing the belief (for those seem to hold it) that anyone who makes a claim about their social background / mental condition / whatever being at least a contributing factor must be just abusing the system to get off easily, because then we don't need to deal with the questions that would otherwise be raised....

We just have to deal with the criminals - who often are the symptoms of the problem - rather than the conditions that gave rise (or helped give rise) to the problem in the first place.

And lets not forget miscarriages of justice. I'm sure every advocate of the death penalty will say that sometimes you just have to accept these things as the unfortunate consequences of an imprefect world....but doesn't that sound like one of those cop-out pleas that the same people are typically complaining about? Not only that, but what if it was you who was wrongly accused? Or your loved one(s)? Would you be happy to see them tried, sentenced, and shot without you having further time to try and prove that there was a miscarriage. Would you accept a "Gee, sorry about that, but it is all for the greater good" apology if you lost a family member to such a miscarriage of justice?

jc

whosurpaddy

ionapaul wrote:

Yes yes yes. Why don't we have hard labour any more?

I think we need to stop looking at prison/the justice system as a means of delivering rehabilitation. Maybe it is society's fault (though that must infuriate the vast majority of socially-marginalised people who never commit serious crimes and work hard throughout their lives!) but some people (IMO) cannot be rehabilitated and will simply keep on breaking the law until they die. Look at the ringleader of the gang that gang raped the woman in Clare and seriously assaulted her partner. He had been convicted over 30 times, still in his teens, and is now in jail for a few years. Can anyone argue that keeping him alive is in any way good for the wider society? In the knowledge that once he is out, he will certainly continue to reoffend?
Prison/the justice system is a means of delivering punishment, and increasingly in Ireland the punishment does not fit the crime. Life does not mean life. Stab someone a few times, let your lawyer say you come from a broken home/stressful marriage/whatever, but are 'looking for work' and trying to control your drinking, and you get off with a two year suspended sentence! Maybe judges nationwide are not as lenient as those I recall from the local Galway papers.
Should serial rapists or child molesters be allowed back into society after their 3rd, 4th, 5th offence? I really don't think so.

i was just thinking about that case when reading this thread(wasnt it limerick though?). can anyone say in all honesty, that those 3(possibly 4) guys dont deserve the death penalty for what they did, they destroyed that couples lives. they are sub-human to have dont what they did.

I would definitely believe in life imprisonment meaning just that. with a strong leaning toward the death penalty. Id also subscribe to the "prisoners should be doing something beneficial to society while serving their sentence" sentiment.

deadduck

ionapaul wrote:

Prison/the justice system is a means of delivering punishment, and increasingly in Ireland the punishment does not fit the crime. Life does not mean life. Stab someone a few times, let your lawyer say you come from a broken home/stressful marriage/whatever, but are 'looking for work' and trying to control your drinking, and you get off with a two year suspended sentence! Maybe judges nationwide are not as lenient as those I recall from the local Galway papers.
Should serial rapists or child molesters be allowed back into society after their 3rd, 4th, 5th offence? I really don't think so.

exactly what i mean, this countrys become too bloody lenient. As stated above, the punishment no longer fits the crime. crime is gonna keep going up and up til serious measures are taken, mark my words.

as for that crowd of rapist scum in clare, you can all guess my opinion there. how the do-gooders of the country can say they don't deserve to die is mind boggling.

Nuttzz

Why? Because it will be a cheaper way of dealing with society's failures in not preventing these crimes and in not finding a way (do we even try any more) to actually work on concepts like rehabilitation.

Personally i dont see how gang rapists or kiddie fiddlers can be rehabilitated, or why my tax euros should be wasted on trying to either.

ionapaul

The 'it is society's fault' argument - though somewhat valid - is also a kick in the teeth to the vast majority of people born in the run-down areas of Limerick, Dublin, Galway, wherever who never decide to go down the route of violence and crime.
Is it also society's fault when a white-collar banking executive steals his employer's money to go from being merely rich to super-rich? After all, in this horribly inequitable world, who can fully describe the hurt and pain the rich must feel when they see others EVEN richer! If I had a '04 BMW and saw some bastard in a '04 Bentley swan around town, I'd definitely feel justified in doing whatever I could to resolve the inequitable situation and return things to a more even footing.
Sorry for inserting an element of the ridiculous into the debate, but you see my point.

A little off-topic, that American schoolteacher who mothered two children by her teenage lover just was released from prison today, after 7 1/2 years for her second child rape (though consensual, so no violence) offence - does anyone doubt that the Limerick lads will be all out in a year or two? Why is our system so lenient? Again, does anyone know offhand why we got rid of hard labour in this country? Was it abused or was it reaction by the Home Rule government to an instrument overused by the British?

Lemming

:rolleyes:


Here's a suggestion for all the blood-thirsty "reality-tv" addicts out there ....

Why don't we just nuke the planet. Scour it clean of the human race. Then there'll be 100% likelihood of no further crime. And it wont cost anything to maintain either .....

Addict: "But what about all the innocents that'll die".

Me: "What about them? They're probably all criminals anyway"

:rolleyes:

Oh, and you've all missed the point about serial rapists and "neutering" them thinking it'll do any good. And no, killing them isn't an answer either.

whosurpaddy

Lemming wrote:

:rolleyes:


Here's a suggestion for all the blood-thirsty "reality-tv" addicts out there ....

Why don't we just nuke the planet. Scour it clean of the human race. Then there'll be 100% likelihood of no further crime. And it wont cost anything to maintain either .....

Addict: "But what about all the innocents that'll die".

Me: "What about them? They're probably all criminals anyway"

:rolleyes:

Oh, and you've all missed the point about serial rapists and "neutering" them thinking it'll do any good. And no, killing them isn't an answer either.

wow. what a great arguement, youve convinced me. cheers for the "blood-thirsty reality-tv addicts" generalisation and the :rolleyes: btw


oh and whats the problem with chemically castrating the rapists?

deadduck

Lemming wrote:

:rolleyes:


Here's a suggestion for all the blood-thirsty "reality-tv" addicts out there ....

Why don't we just nuke the planet. Scour it clean of the human race. Then there'll be 100% likelihood of no further crime. And it wont cost anything to maintain either .....

Addict: "But what about all the innocents that'll die".

Me: "What about them? They're probably all criminals anyway"

:rolleyes:

Oh, and you've all missed the point about serial rapists and "neutering" them thinking it'll do any good. And no, killing them isn't an answer either.

thats a load of balls and you know it

Flukey

Of course the death penalty should not be returned. It is completely contradictory. Basically you are saying: "Murder is completely wrong and because you murdered we are going to murder you." If a person is later found innocent, you can't exactly go down to the graveyard, dig them up and send them on their way. Lock them up permanently, unless they are found innocent later. What then happens to the judge, jury and executioner that sent them to their death? They have now been proven to have killed an innocent person with absolutely no doubt. Shouldn't they be then hanged, by the standards of their own justice?

Anyway, even if you do support the death penalty, by your own logic you would never use it. "What?" I hear you say! Well, think about it. If you support the death penalty you therefore think it is OK to kill people. So if someone is found guilty of murder, you won't see that they have done anything wrong, so would have no reason to sentence them to death, would you? You can't have it both ways. Either killing people is wrong or it isn't. It is wrong, so you can't justify the death penalty without contradicting yourself. Lock them up, permanently!

Morpheus

death penalty is a good deterrant.

you honestly think that theres not at least one criminal out there who would reconsider commiting a serious offence if they knew they could end up in an electric chair for it?

personally i voted to keep it in the constitution, i think it was a mistake to remove it, even at least for killing on duty gardai or defence forces personel, i mean the gardai are usually unarmed. I think it would serve as a deterrent to armed criminals to shoot one of them.

ionapaul

Lemming wrote:

Here's a suggestion for all the blood-thirsty "reality-tv" addicts out there ....

Why don't we just nuke the planet. Scour it clean of the human race. Then there'll be 100% likelihood of no further crime. And it wont cost anything to maintain either .....

To be fair, I think what people are discussing here are solely murderers, rapists, and other such henious violent criminals. No-one is suggesting the death penalty for graffiti artists or TV license evaders! Or even NIB management
In my mind there is a world of difference between a violent and non-violent crime. Perhaps that is just cultural/economic class prejudice coming out! But I think someone using a hammer on a little old lady for €10 is a worse criminal than an executive pilferring €10,000 from his employer's accounts. Doubt the employer sees it that way though!

deadduck

Flukey wrote:

Of course the death penalty should not be returned. It is completely contradictory. Basically you are saying: "Murder is completely wrong and because you murdered we are going to murder you." If a person is later found innocent, you can't exactly go down to the graveyard, dig them up and send them on their way. Lock them up permanently, unless they are found innocent later. What then happens to the judge, jury and executioner that sent them to their death? They have now been proven to have killed an innocent person with absolutely no doubt. Shouldn't they be then hanged, by the standards of their own justice?

Anyway, even if you do support the death penalty, by your own logic you would never use it. "What?" I hear you say! Well, think about it. If you support the death penalty you therefore think it is OK to kill people. So if someone is found guilty of murder, you won't see that they have done anything wrong, so would have no reason to sentence them to death, would you? You can't have it both ways. Either killing people is wrong or it isn't. It is wrong, so you can't justify the death penalty without contradicting yourself. Lock them up, permanently!

i think you'll find it'd be a case of lawful vs. unlawful, not right vs. wrong

oscarBravo

Morph&#233 wrote: »

death penalty is a good deterrant.

you honestly think that theres not at least one criminal out there who would reconsider commiting a serious offence if they knew they could end up in an electric chair for it?

That explains the low murder rate in the US, then.

deadduck wrote:

thats a load of balls and you know it

How about answering some of the other points that have been made? Like bonkey's, for example?

Why execute them when you can lock 'em up for the rest of their lives and get them to do something useful like.. break rocks, or... sort rubbish into piles that can and can't be recycled. There's a hundred and one ways cheap/free labour could be helpful to society

And the same people, that protest the introduction of the death sentence, would protest saying that its against the rights of the convict. Lets face it. If these groups have managed to convince the government to supply tv & internet access to convicts, they're going to be able to block any move to make convicts pay for their crimes.

Of course the death penalty should not be returned. It is completely contradictory. Basically you are saying: "Murder is completely wrong and because you murdered we are going to murder you." If a person is later found innocent, you can't exactly go down to the graveyard, dig them up and send them on their way. Lock them up permanently, unless they are found innocent later.

Ahh thats the rub. Imprisonment in its current form isn't a punishment. These people broke the laws of Society. They chose to live outside of societies guidelines/lifestyle. The idea of prison is to rehabilitate or punish individuals for crimes that have committed. Perhaps you could provide another option, instead of the death penalty, since Prison obviously doesn't work?

Lock them up, permanently!

Which is not going to happen. At least not in Ireland. We live in a nanny state where "prisoner right" groups have too much influence. A "life" sentence will still mean at most 20 years (for lesser "life" crimes). Repeat crimes will cointinue to be given 5-10 years with them serving 4. Wooptie Do! Wonderful.

Personal Opinion: Allow life sentences to be a maximum of 40 years, with those convicted beyond that stage, being hit with the death penalty. That way only those with excessive crimes would be killed, and the remainder would serve in the traditional ineffective manner.

ionapaul

Morph&#233 wrote: »

death penalty is a good deterrant.

you honestly think that theres not at least one criminal out there who would reconsider commiting a serious offence if they knew they could end up in an electric chair for it?

personally i voted to keep it in the constitution, i think it was a mistake to remove it, even at least for killing on duty gardai or defence forces personel, i mean the gardai are usually unarmed. I think it would serve as a deterrent to armed criminals to shoot one of them.

Although I would favour a restricted re-introduction of the death penalty (definitely in the circumstances you outline), I don't think it is a deterrant at the end of the day. None of the criminals thinks they will be caught - otherwise why do it? Like none of us think we will die young - it is just something you block out. I am in favour of the death penalty as a punishment for henious crime. Even if a government promised to execute the entire family/circle of friends/home village of a murderer, people would still murder I am afraid Likewise with rapists/sexual predators, their motivations are not financial or resulting from the inequity of society - what deterrent will stop them if their actions stem from a (twisted and inhuman) psychological need?

If life really meant life - without a large drain on the state's resources - I might be happy. Though nothing could convince me that keeping serial rapists alive is a benefit to society - surely they have relinquished their claim to humanity and life through their actions?

deadduck

bonkey wrote:

And thats what a lot of it boils down to, isn't it...

I'm reading with a degree of amusement the posts commenting that rehabilitation/deterrance/punishment doesn't work, so lets just shoot the fsckers.

Why? Because it will be a cheaper way of dealing with society's failures in not preventing these crimes and in not finding a way (do we even try any more) to actually work on concepts like rehabilitation.

Killing the convicted is an easy way out. It avoids having to ask many difficult questions, and face many difficult truths.

Its particularly convenient for re-inforcing the belief (for those seem to hold it) that anyone who makes a claim about their social background / mental condition / whatever being at least a contributing factor must be just abusing the system to get off easily, because then we don't need to deal with the questions that would otherwise be raised....

We just have to deal with the criminals - who often are the symptoms of the problem - rather than the conditions that gave rise (or helped give rise) to the problem in the first place.

And lets not forget miscarriages of justice. I'm sure every advocate of the death penalty will say that sometimes you just have to accept these things as the unfortunate consequences of an imprefect world....but doesn't that sound like one of those cop-out pleas that the same people are typically complaining about? Not only that, but what if it was you who was wrongly accused? Or your loved one(s)? Would you be happy to see them tried, sentenced, and shot without you having further time to try and prove that there was a miscarriage. Would you accept a "Gee, sorry about that, but it is all for the greater good" apology if you lost a family member to such a miscarriage of justice?

jc

don't mean to pick on bonkey, but since i was asked to address your points, here goes.

cheaper = better: more money for services the rest of us deserve

so what if it is an easy way to deal with the problem. as stated already, using social background/area as an excuse is a kick in the teeth to everyone else in similar situations who don't go out and commit unspeakable crimes

and are all the do-gooders of the belief that no-one has ever been imprisoned with 100% certainty

fiacha

i really don't think that it will be an affective deterrent. look at america or thailand. hundreds of drug dealers are sentenced to death in thailand each year. the financial rewards for these people far outway the risks, so people keep offending.

how would you like to be sentenced to death for a rape / murder you didn't commit ? how many false rape cases have ended in a conviction? last year, a neighbour of mine was all over the papers and was sentenced for a sexual assault. six months later, the "victim" admits that the claims were false. his life has been ruined by the event. if the other party had not come clean, and rape/ serious sexual assault etc carried a mandatory death penalty an innocent person would have been killed. have not heard what happened to the other person, but I hope he gets a long sentence.

i know that example is a bit extreme and that 99.99% of people convicted are guilty, but in my opinion 1 person wrongly convicted is too much.

I believe that a life sentence should mean life. the 3 strike rule that they use in parts of the states is a good idea. three convictions for a serious crime and you get a mandatory life sentence.

i do agree that in general sentences are not severe enough, but I don't think that culling the serious offenders would make much of a difference.

Gurgle

whosurpaddy wrote:

oh and whats the problem with chemically castrating the rapists?

Chemical castration ?
I had something more along the lines of a pliers in mind - and maybe a 3 strikes & your an opera singer system to protect against false accusations.

AFAIK the max sentence for rape is 12 legal years, roughly equating to 4 calendar years.

how would you like to be sentenced to death for a rape / murder you didn't commit ?

not very. But I'd hope my defense would prove my innocence. But is the problem people have with the death sentence to do with, the justice system and its effectiveness, or rather the punishments it can dish out?

i really don't think that it will be an affective deterrent. look at america or thailand. hundreds of drug dealers are sentenced to death in thailand each year. the financial rewards for these people far outway the risks, so people keep offending.

Ahh but look at the crimes within Ireland that would constitue a death sentence. And then look at the financial rewards for the people that will perform them. In Ireland, there are no poppy fields or massive rewards for kidnapping. The Death sentence would be applied to Violent offenders. In fact does anyone know that the death penalty would be applied to sex offenders?

i know that example is a bit extreme and that 99.99% of people convicted are guilty, but in my opinion 1 person wrongly convicted is too much.

And the people that are released from prison, without serving their full sentences, and continue to commit crimes, are ok? I'd ratehr 1 person being killed wrongly, than 40 people dying because our punishment system is too lenient.