Death Penalty

DJ Dangerous

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, so I apologise if it is out of place.
Should the death penalty be introduced in Ireland for serious crimes such as murder, gang rape and so on?
Thanks for any opinions and ideas.
Dave.

Victor

Whats your opinion?

DJ Dangerous

I think that it should, without question.
That said, I'm not exactly the sort of person who fits in very well, so maybe my whole mindset is too far off the norm.
Dave.

Zillah

Why is death neccessary?

- Do you feel such a severe penalty would disuade potential criminals? Would not life in prison evoke as negative a reaction? Clearly people who commit such crimes intend to get away with it; a rapist doesn't think "Yeah, this is worth a decade in prison."

- Is it revenge? Do you feel that criminals should be made to suffer the ultimate penalty? If it serves no other end then a modern society should find better solutions.

- Is it a requirement? Do certain crimes/criminals just require the death penalty as such people are simply too dangerous to allow to exist? In which case why does a high-security prison not suffice?

- Is it about money? Does keeping a prisoner in jail cost too much, and hence they should be killed? Surely a progressive society should be willing to pay the expense to avoid having to destroy other human beings?

DJ Dangerous

Revenge is not one of my motives for thinking that the death penalty may be a good idea.
Perhaps, if a life sentence actually meant life, it would act as a strong enough deterrant not to warrant a death penalty.
I have not been imprisoned yet, but I have spoken with many people who have been. Most of them don't mind it - they have access to mobile phones, the internet, television, cigarettes, extacy and they are provided with meals and exercise. The only thing that the people whom I have spoken with disliked, was being away from their girlfriends / wives and their children.
Following on from that, maybe if prison was a deterrant itself, the thought of being caught would be enough to make them stop before they commit the crime.
I hadn't thought about the money aspect, but now that it has been mentioned, it is incredibly stupid to pay to incarcerate somebody for a long term, when there are so many better ways to spend that money.
Are we living in a progressive society? Are we part of a progressive society? Some aspects of our society are very progressive. However, some aspects are not. This is one area where I feel that the punishments currently being handed down are not severe enough, not by a long shot.
Summation:
I think that the death penalty should be introduced.
Dave.

pH

The death penalty in itself a barbaric act. It sends out the fundamental message that sometimes it's OK (and in fact necessary) to kill people. Once you've established that, all that's left to argue about is the details.

You can debate all you want about justice and due process, but what you end up saying is that "It's correct to kill people sometimes, and you know what I know exactly what those times are". That's an incredibly arrogant (and ultimately indefensible) position to take.

You end up supporting this, unless you take the position that it was fine for her to be executed, just not for those reasons. So then you are arguing morals with an Islamic scholar, but you agree in principal with the result.

mountainyman

The death penalty is society's way of saying 'I give up'. If a person cannot be rehabilitated in my opinion they should be eliminated.

We know that there are conditions of sociopathology and psychopathology if those who suffer from these illnesses won't seek a cure there is only one that can be imposed externally.

Death is the cure.

MM

Moriarty

It puzzles me why people are so quick to campaign for the death sentance when candidates for it could instead be put to work for the state breaking rocks or something equally menial.

.. and with the recommendation of state slavery, my hat is now firmly in the political arena. Vote me for president.

LadyJ

DJ Dangerous wrote:

Perhaps, if a life sentence actually meant life, it would act as a strong enough deterrant not to warrant a death penalty.
I have not been imprisoned yet, but I have spoken with many people who have been. Most of them don't mind it - they have access to mobile phones, the internet, television, cigarettes, extacy and they are provided with meals and exercise. The only thing that the people whom I have spoken with disliked, was being away from their girlfriends / wives and their children.
Following on from that, maybe if prison was a deterrant itself, the thought of being caught would be enough to make them stop before they commit the crime.

I don't think it really matters if prisoners have small luxuries like tv,internet etc. as long as they are off the streets. They don't have freedom,at least no real freedom when they are inside and I think that looking at the real world through bars is a pretty heavy sentence in itself.

I really don't think that making prisons into some kind of Azkaban is going to stop people from committing crimes and neither will the death penalty.

A previous poster said that the death penalty is society's way of giving up. I'm inclined to agree.

There is so much that we yet don't understand about the criminal mind and it seems to me that by introducing the death penalty we would just end up trapped in our own ignorance.

These people should be made to give something back to society while they are serving their time. They should not just be put to sleep so that we don't have to deal with them anymore. We should be moving forwards,not backwards. How will we ever be able to do that if we start killing off the people who can teach us about what we may have to face again in the future.

We must first gain an understanding of these people and then work on how we can do something constructive with them,instead of trying to control our country with fear.

Zombrex

DJ Dangerous wrote:

Should the death penalty be introduced in Ireland for serious crimes such as murder, gang rape and so on?

No

A few points

1 - The death penalty doesn't work as a deterent for serious crimes, which is its main justification over life imprisonment

2 - The legal system is not perfect, far from it, so a death penalty system would result in the execution of innocent people.

3 - I personally believe that the state does not have the moral authority to execute someone in cold blood, even if they are guilty

I don't see any point of the death penalty over proper life imprisonment, except as a cost saving measure, and that isn't acceptable justification given points 1-3 above

A lot of people who call for the death penalty would actually be happier with a change in sentencing that is more reflective of the crime. There are a lot of things that need to be reformed, such as automatic reduction in sentencing for pleading guilty, but introduction of the death penalty is not the answer

RedPlanet

I find the concept that The State has the right to determine if someone is worthy of life, abhorrent.

journo75

First post!

It's proven to be an insufficient deterrent, and the Republicans in the US are generally pro-death penalty, so those two facts are sufficient to convince me that I'm anti-death penalty.

bonkey

DJ Dangerous wrote:

Perhaps, if a life sentence actually meant life, it would act as a strong enough deterrant not to warrant a death penalty.

What you're effectively saying is "maybe life without parole should be introduced", then.

As for the deterrant argument - can you show that the death penalty is a deterrant? Can you show its a better deterrant than the life-without-parole option?

Following on from that, maybe if prison was a deterrant itself, the thought of being caught would be enough to make them stop before they commit the crime.

So maybe we need to change our rules regarding incarceration.

it is incredibly stupid to pay to incarcerate somebody for a long term, when there are so many better ways to spend that money.
Are we living in a progressive society? Are we part of a progressive society?

I don't know. Is arguing that spending money to avoid taking a human life progressive?

Maybe we should decide that once the bullet is more cost-effective than incarceration, we should use it. There are so many better ways to spend the money, right? So why not change all sentences over, say, 3 days into the death penalty. Cheaper, and probably a better deterrant too.

Progressive enough?

Have you considered miscarriages of justice in there?

"Sorry, Mrs. Jones. Your husband was in fact innocent, but it was cheaper to put a bullet in his head than to keep him alive. In a less progressive society, he'd be released from life imprisonment now, but in our progressive world, an innocent man is pushing up daisies for the greater good of society"

And before someone argue that the death sentence only be used when we're sure, I would remind you that surity is supposed to be a requirement for finding someone guilty in the first place.

This is one area where I feel that the punishments currently being handed down are not severe enough, not by a long shot.

Yeah. We should be more like those nations, where they chop your hand off for stealing, and stone you to death for various crimes. They've practically no crime.

Summation:
I think that the death penalty should be introduced.

After musing that maybe we should haev life without parole, an maybe we should have less cushy prisons, and maybe we should have stiffer sentences....you see this as a summation of your musings?

bonkey

mountainyman wrote:

We know that there are conditions of sociopathology and psychopathology if those who suffer from these illnesses won't seek a cure there is only one that can be imposed externally.

I know this one....

Induced coma!

Death is the cure.

Damn. I was wrong.

jc

metrovelvet

The state does not have the right to take away your existence. That this happens in the US is a violation of the US constitution [imo].

Prison doesnt work either. Its an outdated and ridiculous way to to think it will cure criminality.

We need another solution.

mountainyman

I wish that the Mr C who was released this summer had been hung when he was convicted and bet McDowell does too.

The death penalty would be a deterrent if it was applied quickly and without appeal. The failure to deter is a function of the crimes for which it is applied.

Speeding = Death
Public Drunkenness = Death
Tax Evasion = Death
Smoking Hash on the Bus = Death
Marketing Alcohol to Children = Death
Failing to Indicate= Death

Use it to punish minor offenses and they will decline markedly. If everyone who smoked hash on the bus was hung within 2 days no one would do it.

In India they have a penalty of a fixed term of imprisonment followed by death. We should save that for the real bad guys. though of course they don't go to jail.

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

I wish that the Mr C who was released this summer had been hung when he was convicted and bet McDowell does too.

Or maybe just not released .....

mountainyman wrote:

The death penalty would be a deterrent if it was applied quickly and without appeal.

What do you base that on?

Someone will rape and murder someone if they have a 5 year stretch on death row and are then executed, but not if they are wheeled out to the gallows straight after the trial?

mountainyman wrote:

The failure to deter is a function of the crimes for which it is applied.

No the failure to deter is due to the fact that the criminals do not believe they will be caught at the time they carry out the crime.

mountainyman wrote:

Speeding = Death
Public Drunkenness = Death
Tax Evasion = Death
Smoking Hash on the Bus = Death
Marketing Alcohol to Children = Death
Failing to Indicate= Death

Oh, ok you're a troll ... right so I'll leave you to your posts ... :rolleyes:

The_Minister

I think that the death penalty should be re-introduced for repeat offenders, ie. murder one person and you go to jail, murder several (say as a hit-man) and you get the death penalty, as your crimes were not due to some temporary situation but were a cold choice that you made.

To those who say that the innocent could be executed, I would say that the many mandatory re-trials and appeals, as well as the many years before the execution, allow sufficient oppurtunity for any evidence that exhonerated the person to come to light.

DJ Dangerous

Hi Guys.
Thank you for the response.
I haven't read any arguments or suggestions that have changed my mind yet.
Most of the arguments sound like they are (not that they actually are) coming from lawyers or theologans, who haven't actually suffered the hurt or loss that a serious crime can cause.
Somebody compared this to a scenario in Iran where corruption resulted in the wrongful excecution of a young girl. I personally don't feel that sex is a capital crime, but murder and drug dealing... Maybe the Iranians are on to something, although I think that we have progressed to the point where women are viewed as being equal to men, and rightly so.
Also, the only poster who seems to know, or have spoken with people who have been imprisoned, is Mountainyman. In my limited experience, people who have been in prison don't care if they go back. I'm talking about trivial (in comparison with murder) things like stealing cars and taking drugs.
Surely progress involves learning from our mistakes? I think that not having the death penalty is a mistake. Only me, nobody else, and I'm not trying to launch a petition or start a campaign. I just want somebody to try change my mind through reason as opposed to something like electroshock therapy.
Somebody else said that we should learn as much as possible from serious criminals for the future. In theory this is a fabulous idea, and one of the posts that intrigued me most on the surface. However, I think that killing people who have already killed, is a better solution than letting them run around killing as they please. OK, you say, give them life and make it mean life? Study them while they are imprisoned so that they cannot kill again? What will deter others from following their path? Prison is too cushy.
I think that making small crimninals break rocks and build our roads for less than the Japanese are charging, would be a splendid idea, and one that I have thought about many times myself. However, I don't think it would be right for more serious criminals.
As Metrovelvet has implied, is there a better way altogether?
Come on, collective thinking and arguing should be able to convince me that I am wrong in supporting the death penalty.
Thanks.
Dave.

(Please note, I am not saying that I believe stealing cars and taking drugs to be harmless actions, as I understand the potential repercussions of stealing a car and driving wrecklessly in it. I understand that EVERY single person who buys any illegal drugs is fuelling the drugs trade, be they a D9 scum-bag or a D4 toff.)

Bottle_of_Smoke

DJ Dangerous wrote:

However, I think that killing people who have already killed, is a better solution than letting them run around killing as they please. OK, you say, give them life and make it mean life? Study them while they are imprisoned so that they cannot kill again? What will deter others from following their path? Prison is too cushy.

Being cushy to me has nothing to do with the punishment that is prison. Being in the joy right now, 5 star conditions wouldn't comfort me in the slightest!

Removing your freedom is sufficient punishment for anything. Prisoners hate being there. I don't know how you could possibly think otherwise. Pills or no pills. Excluding the properly institutionalised I suppose

"run around killing as they please" Okay come on. Don't think that's what anyone's suggesting. Doesn't matter if they still want to kill again or not -the serial killers will be kept behind bars. However we might learn what tends to cause people to be serial killers. Then using that knowledge there might be less serial killers in the future. Same with Rapists/Paedophiles etc.

Prison should be for two simple catogories - high risk - Would apply to lifers - Kept behind bars because they're too dangerous for society, ie I cannot see logic in ever releasing a rapist for a second time offence. Would only be realeased if no longer seen as a danger.

or low risk - Smaller crimes say stealing cars/non violent crimes/drug dealing where the sentence would depend on how much you want to deter others from committing whtever the crime.

If anything I think the prisons themselves should be safer & more cushy, with a much higher emphasis on psychological rehabillitation. Education should be pushed as well. I honestly believe this would fewer repeat offenders.

esskay

Moriarty wrote:

It puzzles me why people are so quick to campaign for the death sentance when candidates for it could instead be put to work for the state breaking rocks or something equally menial.

.. and with the recommendation of state slavery, my hat is now firmly in the political arena. Vote me for president.

I have to agree with you there, make them work so hard that every evening all they can do is sleep, but make it something productive rather than menial. Make them work on playgrounds for children, make them work on public facilities, anything that benefits society . I think a person convicted of a serious crime (rape, murder, etc) forfeits all right they have to the comforts of a normal life, so it's not really slavery. No acess to phones, internet, tasty food or anything of the sort. Life in prison should be boring, hard work. I am not saying rehabilitation should not be a factor, prisoners should definately have access to rehabilitation services, but prison life itself should not be easy. The prisoners should have to "pay" something back to society. But the death penalty is just stooping to their level, a life of hard labour would be far harder than a quick, painless death. If normal people have to slave away every day in the hope of living in modest comfort, criminals should have to work their way through prison imho! :mad:

DJ Dangerous

How would you make them work? Surely the only methods to force somebody to work would be as unethical & barbaric as the death penalty?
Also, how do you make prisons less comfy without breaking European human rights laws; the same laws that make the death penalty illegal?
I got an email from somebody earlier implying that some people can be rehabilitated while others cannot. Surely if this can be determined definitively, the death penalty can be justified.
Cheers.
Dave.

The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones.
William Shakespeare

Girl Friday

What makes you work? Incentives perhaps? BTW, I dont see forcing someone to work as being as bad as killing them, that is a bit ott. You can make prison less comfy by taking away some of the priviliges they have already, maybe make them work for them Make them aware of the fact that hard work equals reward (like the rest of us!), education equals beter work, crime equals ****e conditions for the duration of your sentence. It could be part of the rehab process, maybe after certain goals are met the could be relieved from manual work?

Either way, I see killing them as more unethical than making them work and as an easy exit for those with really long sentences ahead of them.

Would you consider it even for the real sick feckers that show no remorse for their crimes?

Zombrex

DJ Dangerous wrote:

Most of the arguments sound like they are (not that they actually are) coming from lawyers or theologans, who haven't actually suffered the hurt or loss that a serious crime can cause.

Thats good, people how have suffered the hurt of loss of a serious crime make rash un-thoughtout decision based on desire for revenge. These often end up being unworkable or unjust.

DJ Dangerous wrote:

Maybe the Iranians are on to something

They still have murder they still have crime.

DJ Dangerous wrote:

I just want somebody to try change my mind through reason as opposed to something like electroshock therapy.

You seem to dismiss any rational arguments on the subject (see first quote) so it is kinda hard to see how someone can convince you either way.

DJ Dangerous wrote:

Prison is too cushy.

Why do you want to hurt the prisoner? As a deterent to others? Or as revenge?

Prisions were "cushy" to stop prisioners losing it. Despite what you think being locked up in a prison 24/7 is not a natural set up for a human. The prisioners are given things like TVs to stop them becoming aggressive and causing trouble in the prisions.

The simple fact is that prision has never been a serious deterent to most hardened crimnals. It wasn't when they were breaking rocks, it wasn't when they were hanging people, it isn't now.

The answer is to look at other ways to be preventing crime.

DJ Dangerous

@ Girl Friday - I work for several reasons; principally because I want money, but also because I want a strong economy. An economy built with foreigners doing the menial jobs is an economy waiting for collapse.
My staff work hard because they understand the task at hand and believe in our goal, they take pride in their work, they respect me and they fear me.
I cannot see many of those values being imbued in somebody who has killed and may be likely to do so again, when all it amounts to is "state slavery" to quote Moriarty ((s)he has my vote).

@ Wicknight - I apologise. I didn't mean to personally attack you, so I regret you perceiving my posts that way. At least that is what I read from your response.

Thank you also to everybody else for your replies and contribution.
Any more contributions are also welcome.

The main reason for this thread is to find out if people think that we should / shouldn't have the death penalty in Ireland, and why, either way.

I feel that the current punishments are nowhere near heavy enough, and I wonder if the death penalty would be going too far. Maybe I have spent too much time watching the likes of "Forensic detectives" and "FBI Files", but I cannot imagine how humans can place anything above the value of their loved ones, such as a man murdering his wife for her house, or a woman murdering her own young children for an insurance payout. I cannot imagine the perpetrators of such crimes being rehabilitated, yet the example of Stanley "Tookie" Williams is a fine one.

Thanks.
Dave.

LadyJ

DJ Dangerous wrote:

Maybe I have spent too much time watching the likes of "Forensic detectives" and "FBI Files", but I cannot imagine how humans can place anything above the value of their loved ones, such as a man murdering his wife for her house, or a woman murdering her own young children for an insurance payout. I cannot imagine the perpetrators of such crimes being rehabilitated

I'm sorry but it seems to me that if a man murders his wife for a house and a mother murders her kids for an insurance payout,then they already had a problem. More so in the case of a mother who murders her kids perhaps.

I mean,a sane human being does not just wake up one day and decide to murder her kids. You can't give the death penalty to someone who is not in their right mind.

Also,with regard to what I said earlier about studying criminals,let's just say (for the sake of argument) that we discovered there was a gene for serial killing. I mean,then we couldn't possibily justify killing them off. We'd have to try and help them,which is what we should be doing now anyway.

If you don't understand what you are dealing with,then how can you really take any action,especially something as drastic as execution? The best option is to put them in prison,let them see a therapist and,as Bottle_Of_Smoke said,educate them. At least then something constructive is being done.

metrovelvet

Im going to step in here and say that these monsters that some people want to kill off - these monsters - we, as a culture, as a society, a family, a community, create them.

Rehab- environment is the key. Monkey see monkey do.

You get bullied, you learn to bully.

You get abused, you learn to abuse.

You get robbed, you learn to steal.

You see death all around you, you learn life is cheap.

Some people make mistakes, and genuinely feel remorse. Some people commit crimes which shouldnt be classified as crimes in the first place. Some people are plain cruel mother****ers who are **** bags and take it to new levels. Some people are mis medicated on the wrong psychiatric drugs [prozac has been known to make people do some crazr things]. But the government does not have the right to kill you.

When you apply the death penalty you have to ask WHO EXACTLY IS THE CRIMINAL?

What we need to do is find out how, as a culture, as a community, to prevent these monstrosities from happenning in the first place.

dublinshane

I am totally against the death penalty for any number of reasons. Firstly saying the state has the ability to kill its people means that the state isn’t much better than killers themselves. I am always surprised that so many people who support the penalty are those who are most against abortion - especially in America.

There is always some doubt and new methods of proving people's innocence can com ealong. People always mention the cases of the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 in England and the fact that they may well have got the death penalty if it had been around then. Here in the past few days there has been alot of talk about a case involving the murder of 2 women years ago. That guy might have got the death penalty if we had it. He made a confession after all - what more proof can you need. People can be released from prison but they can't be brought back from the grave.

There is no evidence that it is a deterrant either given the much higher murder rate in America although murder has always been much more 'regular ther'. They also say that the cost of all the appeals and court cases that would happen in a death penalty case end up costing more than the actual cost of keeping somebody locked up even for life.

DJ Dangerous wrote:

Revenge is not one of my motives for thinking that the death penalty may be a good idea.
Perhaps, if a life sentence actually meant life, it would act as a strong enough deterrant not to warrant a death penalty.
I have not been imprisoned yet, but I have spoken with many people who have been. Most of them don't mind it - they have access to mobile phones, the internet, television, cigarettes, extacy and they are provided with meals and exercise. The only thing that the people whom I have spoken with disliked, was being away from their girlfriends / wives and their children.
Following on from that, maybe if prison was a deterrant itself, the thought of being caught would be enough to make them stop before they commit the crime.

If some people have a really bad life and are repeat criminals maybe you could argue that prison isn't too bad but for most people it is an unnatural place to be and the loss of your freedom is a real punishment.

I've been in prison and never want to go back. Yes you have a TV, discman and can smoke but that's because people need something to do with their time when they are locked up for 16 hours a day. Yes some people do manage to smuggle in drugs and maybe mobile phones but they aren't allowed and there is a system for dealing with those things - people can lose privileges like their TV, being able to smoke etc or can get locked up for 23 hours a day if they are caught.

You've seen recently how bad things were in Mountjoy with one guy being murdered and others beaten up and you are always worried about something kicking off. I got through it OK but I just wanted to keep my head down, not cause or get involved with any trouble and just get out as soon as I could. They still don't have toilets in the cell in Mountjoy and at night you do your business in a piss pot and have to slop out every morning - not good.

Some people will say that prisons should be tougher and talk about the way they were years ago but everybody's life has changed over the years. Prisons didn't have TV years ago but neither did anybody else. Bad conditions only mean that people in there get more restless and most guards would say that having TV and other stuff suits them as it stops people kicking off.

Most people would prefer to do some work - any thing to help the time go quicker - but there isn't enough to go around in Mountjoy. Some of the people who say that prisoners should be made work would also give out if they were doing something where they were - and would be assuming that everybody in prison is a murderer or paedophile or whatever.

There are a lot of people who do go back to prison but it is very tough when you are released. I was lucky to have my family stick by me, somewhere to live and good mates to get me back on track. It was very difficult to get any type of job at first but that's OK now. If you don't have all taht there - no job, no home and all that it is very eash to go back to your old ways. It's not an excuse but it is the reality especially if someone is on drugs and there are alot of people in prison like that.

Zombrex

DJ Dangerous wrote:

@ Wicknight - I apologise. I didn't mean to personally attack you, so I regret you perceiving my posts that way. At least that is what I read from your response.

Don't worry, I didn't take it as a person attack

I was just pointing out that it seems a little strange to be on the one hand calling for people to convince you of something, yet on the other hand to be dismissing the vast majority of arguments because they do not come from someone who has had first hand experience with murder or rape.

Thank god I have never had a member of my immedate family raped or murdered. I have had a member of my extended family raped and murdered, in New York recently.

Neither of these facts has much baring on the merit of arguments for or against the death penalty. It is the points you should be listening to, not those who are saying them. If an argument is only valid from one person and not another then it isn't a valid argument to begin with.

DJ Dangerous wrote:

I feel that the current punishments are nowhere near heavy enough

Heavy enough for what, that is the question?

Heavy enough to act as a deterent. There is little evidence that the death penalty is more of a deterent than life imprisionment.

Heavy enough to make the prision suffer? What is the point in that. You are getting into the realm of revenge there, which is supposed to be outside of the legal system.

Tha Gopher

Ive always found it odd that a great deal of people who are pro abortion are massively opposed to the death penalty for adult offenders.

My 2 cents......

bonkey

DJ Dangerous wrote:

How would you make them work?

How do you make people work outside prison? You make their survival dependant on their ability to provide for themselves, and you make the means of that provision to be linked to the work they do.

Outside prison, you work, you earn money, you buy food, you get to eat and survive to continue working. In short, you work to live.

We have social programs to help those who are unable to fit to this pattern for whatever reason, and accept a certain amount of abuse of the system from those who are unwilling to do so.

Inside prison...remoove the freedom to choose how to spend one's earnings, but make the supply of, well, everything, dependant on someone continuing to fit to a "work to live" model. Refuse to accept unwillingness to participate as grounds for exemption or assistance.

I have no problem with hunger strikers deciding to starve themselves to death in protest for something. Thats their choice, freely made from amongst the alternatives. If someone chooses to starve themselves to death in prison rather than work to be fed, I'm willing to accept that as their choice too.

Surely the only methods to force somebody to work would be as unethical & barbaric as the death penalty?

You are in favour of the death penalty. Why is this alternative not acceptable to you?

Also, how do you make prisons less comfy without breaking European human rights laws; the same laws that make the death penalty illegal?

You are in favour of the death-penalty. Your position must require a change or violation of the existing laws. Why then do you have a problem with alternate suggestions that might require other changes to the laws?

Arguing that a legal change would be required for other approaches is a logical non-sequitor. There is no suggestion that anyone here suggesting alternate approaches has an issue with the law being changed. It is a question of what change to make rather than whether or not to change.

I got an email from somebody earlier implying that some people can be rehabilitated while others cannot. Surely if this can be determined definitively, the death penalty can be justified.

If it can be determined definitively, you'd certainly have a case to make.

I'm confident that you're not going to suggest that this email constitutes a reasonable basis for anyone here to conclude that it can be.

Can you show that it (rehabilitation capability) be determined definitively?

Come on, collective thinking and arguing should be able to convince me that I am wrong in supporting the death penalty.

I think you have the "burden of conviction" the wrong way around here.

The death penalty is currently not in Ireland. It would be, as you say, in violation of a number of Human Rights conventions and Laws. Why should we implement it? Surely if you believe we should, you can give us a convincing argument.

Why should we convince you that you're wrong to want a change in the existing laws? People who don't want the death penalty currently have the law on their side (in Ireland at least). They may want other changes, but they want no death penalty and they have no death penalty.

You want a death penalty, but don't have it (assuming you live in Ireland). You have to get enough people to agree with you before a change in your favour can come about. You are the one who has to do the convincing, but thats not what you're doing.

Why should we convince you that you're wrong?

jc

Zombrex

Tha Gopher wrote:

Ive always found it odd that a great deal of people who are pro abortion are massively opposed to the death penalty for adult offenders.

My 2 cents......

Why?

LadyJ

Wicknight wrote:

Why?

God,do you really want to hear more?

MrPudding

The_Minister wrote:

To those who say that the innocent could be executed, I would say that the many mandatory re-trials and appeals, as well as the many years before the execution, allow sufficient oppurtunity for any evidence that exhonerated the person to come to light.

Oh really? Have a look at this:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_200107/ai_n8998358

Governor Ryan wrote:

Until I can be sure, with moral certainty, that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate.

Do a google search for this guy. He basically asked the DA to tell him for sure that no innicents would be put to death. They couldn't. But hey, boards knows best. Right?

MrP

MrPudding

Hmmm, that would be me then. Now that you mention it there is no difference. Oh no wait, there is.

MrP

The_Minister

Name me five innocent people put to death over the last 20 years.

No punishment can ever by 100% certain of falling only on the guilty. Even if one goes beyond reasonable doubt, there is always a chance of it being wrong - tis is as true for life imprison as the death penalty.

Dublinshane wrote:

Here in the past few days there has been alot of talk about a case involving the murder of 2 women years ago. That guy might have got the death penalty if we had it. He made a confession after all - what more proof can you need.

People who confess are not put to death generally (except for war crimes).

Diogenes

The_Minister wrote:

Name me five innocent people put to death over the last 20 years.

There are so dozens of people killed who either through dubious mental capaicity should not have been tried for murder, or on the basis of reasonable doubt should not have been convicted.

This article puts the figure at least 100
http://forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/DNAexonerations.html

Exonerated on the basis of new evidence but already executed.

No punishment can ever by 100% certain of falling only on the guilty. Even if one goes beyond reasonable doubt, there is always a chance of it being wrong - tis is as true for life imprison as the death penalty.

Yeah but in the case of life imprisonment the sentence can be reversed, how many innocent men can you justify going to their death to defend the death penalty.

People who confess are not put to death generally (except for war crimes).

Thats simply not true many US states have a manditory death sentence for certain crimes.

mountainyman

Look there are 6 billion people on the Planet; In Iraq people are dying at a rate of knos, then there's darfur, Kashmir, Palestine etc.

If Dean Lyons had been executed so what? He was a retarded junkie. what contribution was he ever going to make?

The question is not 'how can you justify the death penalty?' it is 'how can you justify not using the death penalty?'.

Is there a sigle person at a Fianna fail Ard Fheis who doesn't deserve death.

As I say one penalty the death penalty.

MM

Zombrex

The_Minister wrote:

Name me five innocent people put to death over the last 20 years.

Would 1 not be enough?

Since 1973 123 people who have been conviced and sentence to death have been offically found innocent of the crime. These are the ones with good laywers, or who got lucky. You don't think 5 or 10 or 15 more weren't so lucky?

That is out of approx 1000+ executions since the 70s

So we know for certain that approx 1 in 10 people convinced are innocent. That is a horrific precentage, and the actual number could be much higher.

There are no reliable statistics for innocent men who have been excuted, though we know there have been some, since once the person is executed their apeals process is closed and people stop looking for evidence to free them.

But the idea that with the 1 in 10 statistc that some (a lot) of innocent men weren't executed is ludicrous.

The_Minister wrote:

No punishment can ever by 100% certain of falling only on the guilty.

That is a very strong reason why the state should not be allowed to execute someone, since no one can be 100% sure they are guilty, and execution is rather final punishment.

It is also btw a reason against things like mutalation for crimes such as stealing.

With life imprisionment the appeals process is open since the person is still alive.

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

Since 1973 123 people who have been conviced and sentence to death have been offically found innocent of the crime.

You mean the state was unable to prove its case according to the ridiculously high standards of proof. If someone mugs an old woman and steals her handbag that person should be put to death. Child molestors Death, Political Corruption Death.

The death penalty should be applied widely enough to help in acheinving zero population growth for the planet.

Or don't you care about the Earth?

MM

Diogenes

mountainyman wrote:

You mean the state was unable to prove its case according to the ridiculously high standards of proof. If someone mugs an old woman and steals her handbag that person should be put to death. Child molestors Death, Political Corruption Death.

The death penalty should be applied widely enough to help in acheinving zero population growth for the planet.

Or don't you care about the Earth?

MM

Right, okay, just step away from the rifle and just climb down the building...

RedPlanet

mountainyman wrote:

The death penalty should be applied widely enough to help in acheinving zero population growth for the planet.

Or don't you care about the Earth?

MM

Ireland used to host a estimated population of 8 million just 150 years ago.
Did you ever consider that it's not the human population that is the problem, rather, it's our wasteful over-consuming way of life?
Don't cull the people, cull the unsustainable lifestyle.

LadyJ

I hate to keep harping on like this with the same point but,seriously,to all the people in favour of the death penalty,be it the people who would support it in the case of repeat offenders or those who seem to think execution is the answer to an unpaid parking ticket,I say,what are you really hoping to achieve?

You can kill off these people but more will come. There will always be murdereres and paedophiles.

However,if we took the time to study and understand criminals and start listening to our fellow man once in a while then I seriously think some good would come of it all.

We are so quick to judge and eagar to condemn the things that we do not yet understand. The death penalty is not the answer. The death penalty will never help us move forward or achieve anything truly solid for the future. It is a quick fix and I do believe that it is too harsh a punishment for anyone.

We need to find a long-term solution to our problems. We need to start listening to our families and to our friends,instead of pretending that their problems don't exist. We need to start helping people instead of putting them to death. They are only human. We should not be so afraid of them that we need to kill them off. We should be making an effort to explore and learn about what we don't understand.

MrPudding

mountainyman wrote:

You mean the state was unable to prove its case according to the ridiculously high standards of proof.

Ah no. You do realise it is possible for someone who is *not* actually guilty to find themselves in court? Actually being tried for something does not mena you are guilty of it, afterall, if it did you wouldn't need to try them would you?

There are a number of reason why an innocent person might get found guilty. This could range from bent cops to downright bad luck. Does anyone rememeber a programme called "14 days in May?" I saw it when I was in my teens. It followed the last 14 days in the life of a man on death row. It was very interesting. Like a lot of people on death row he protested his innocence right until they murdered him. Two weeks after his death a witness that would have proven his innocence appeared. She had been told to go away by the police on several occasions and her exsistence was suppressed by the prosecution. Justice?

Then we get to persons being not of sound mind, ie, mad not bad. If an person is mentally ill or mentally retarded or otherwise simply incapable of knowing or controlling what they do then how can they be guilty of a crime?

A state should be held to higher standards than its citizens. It has responsibility to protect its citizens. This responsibility should cover not just protecting them from criminals but protecting them from being persecuted, prosecuted or executed in the wrong.

Some old American bloke (Washington perhaps) once said "I would rather see 100 guilty men walk free than see one innocent man lose his freedom." Losing you freedom in error is one thing, your life is another.

mountainyman wrote:

If someone mugs an old woman and steals her handbag that person should be put to death. Child molestors Death, Political Corruption Death.

The death penalty should be applied widely enough to help in acheinving zero population growth for the planet.

Or don't you care about the Earth?

MM

I am not even going to comment on this tripe.

MrP

KerranJast

The argument that the death penalty should be (re?)introduced to Ireland is redundant anyway. As per a previous post the EU human rights laws prohibit member states having it and we'd have to seceed if we wanted to. It was one of the main obstacles to Turkey joining the EU.

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

You mean the state was unable to prove its case according to the ridiculously high standards of proof.

Nope, these were all people who were convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the crime. They were convicted and sentenced to death. The state "proved" the case that these men should be executed for their crimes. Yet they were innocent.

mountainyman wrote:

If someone mugs an old woman and steals her handbag that person should be put to death. Child molestors Death, Political Corruption Death.

Groan ... I seriously doubt you believe that mountainyman, or if you do that you have actually thought that one through :rolleyes:. If you wish to troll in this manner I suggest you take it to After Hours.

mountainyman wrote:

Or don't you care about the Earth?

Groan (again) ... :rolleyes:

Bottle_of_Smoke

Tha Gopher wrote:

Ive always found it odd that a great deal of people who are pro abortion are massively opposed to the death penalty for adult offenders.

My 2 cents......

Why is it odd?? - most pro-abortion people are of the opinion it's ok once the feotus doesn't realise it exists or feels any pain - which can be proved by brain development research.

However executing a person who has full consciousness is actually taking someones life.

If you want to argue the soul theory I want some actual evidence & no, quotes from the bible won't be accepted.

Sgt. Sensible

mountainyman wrote:

You mean the state was unable to prove its case according to the ridiculously high standards of proof. If someone mugs an old woman and steals her handbag that person should be put to death. Child molestors Death, Political Corruption Death.

The death penalty should be applied widely enough to help in acheinving zero population growth for the planet.

Or don't you care about the Earth?

MM

Why these boards are a joke. Exhibit A.

Rudolph Claus

mountainyman wrote:

You mean the state was unable to prove its case according to the ridiculously high standards of proof. If someone mugs an old woman and steals her handbag that person should be put to death. Child molestors Death, Political Corruption Death.

The death penalty should be applied widely enough to help in acheinving zero population growth for the planet.

Or don't you care about the Earth?

MM

Lol, well that came out of nowhere.
I reckon there should be a population cap on our little country sort-of.

Bk to topic though, the jail sentences in this country are a fooking joke. Murder should be a "LIFE" sentence not 14 or whatever pathetic amount it is which usually ends up being a fraction of the sentence anyway.

Muggings/robbery/criminal damage/car crime should be a minium of 3-6months jail for 1st offences. Repeat scumbags should get a yr or more for said offences.

A kick to the head under any circumstances should result in a trial for atempthed murder. Even manslaughter should not be allowed be pleaded in such a case as if a scumbag kicks some1 in the head they know its likely to kill/vegatate a person. This seriously needs to be toughned up and clamped down upon in this country.

Breaking a bottle/glass on someones head should be a mandatory 5yrs jail.

Also the laughable but seemingly "acceptable" excuse of drunkenness and excuses like, the drink made me do it and i didnt know what i was doing and i dont remember doing this crime, should be completely ignored in a court case. People are getting away with attempted and even murder in this country becaus judges are letting them off with trivial sentences because they were drunk/spaced out whatever. And then the politicians are saying how they want to change the country`s drink culture but then let the hypocrite situation arise where scum can use drink as a way of getting a lesser sentence. If a scumbag says he was drunk when commiting a crime he should get a more severe sentence not a more lenient one ffs.

Rudolph Claus

DjDangerous

Surely the only methods to force somebody to work would be as unethical & barbaric as the death penalty?

someone else

You are in favour of the death penalty. Why is this alternative not acceptable to you?

What DJdangerous is asking is how do you literally make them work from a practical point of view. If you have a gang of 20prisoners we`ll assume working on a chain breaking rocks and they all just sit on the rocks and literally refuse to work/break them how can you make them do the work without enforcing an equally barbaric act such as whipping them or beating them or other such methods to get them to break the rocks. That alternative you speak of mightnt be practical as the prisoners can just refuse unless you want to beat them.

Basically they should just be locked up humanely within reason but given much longer sentences than the weekend breaks currently being handed out.

MrPudding

Nuttzy wrote:

D
Basically they should just be locked up humanely within reason but given much longer sentences than the weekend breaks currently being handed out.

If someone is in prison, that is the punishment, the actual removal of freedom. There is no need for to be cruel and unusual. I know that when you look at it subjectively and emotionally you think they should be beaten every day and have electrodes attached to their nuts but in reality that probably won't help.

I think prison may be used too much. It does not help our society to put people in prison for minor things thereby ensuring that when they get out they will never ever be able to get a job.

It is very easy for a person to fall in with the wrong crowd and do something stupid. A prison term for minor offenses might not actually be the best for our society. To send a young person to prison where he will be surrounded by more experienced criminals is probably not the best way to try to change his life.

MrP