Death Penalty

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

MeatProduct

I agree with LadyJ and nobody seems to be taking notice of her. Probably because she is interested in addressing the roots of societies' problems rather than what most of us do with our knee-jerk reactions. Really, putting someone to death because they killed someone, how utterly base, quite horrific and I'm shocked at the amount of people here that actually entertain such an idea. That punishment is the first response is almost as backward. How is that solving the problem? Really? It's like when someone has a headache, they take a panadol. Great, headache gone but what actually caused it so that it doesn't happen again?

Absolutely have compassion for the victim but also for the one that commited the act. We have a chance to rise above our more animalistic qualities, please lets move on....

Nick

Bottle_of_Smoke

Nuttzy wrote:

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.

Everything you said except the bolded text is completely true, was just thinking of the guy who gets jumped on, throws punches/kicks whatever and one of them ends up in the attacker's temple.

Can't really do him for murder.

The bit I underlined is really true, I mean it's like telling an insurance company you deserve the claim because you wouldn't have crashed if you were sober.

I agree with LadyJ and nobody seems to be taking notice of her.

I reckon it's because people like believing they're superior to others. And if we found out why people committed crimes we might start thinking it wasn't their fault. Then we wouldn't be quite so superior.

Just thinking - If I was offered a genuine life sentence or capital punishment I'd pay the ESB bill myself. If life sentences came in would we start getting euthenasia plea's? Then would we try to ban the death penalty because criminals deserve worse?

bonkey

Nuttzy wrote:

someone else

That would be me.

What DJdangerous is asking is how do you literally make them work from a practical point of view.

Is he/she? Thats not how it read to me.

I'd prefer the author of the comment be the one to explain what they meant. If DJD isn't interested any more in discussing the point, then I don't see any merit in discussing DJD's point of view. if DJD is interested, I'll wait for him/her to bring it up.

That alternative you speak of mightnt be practical as the prisoners can just refuse unless you want to beat them.

My alternative is simple. If they refuse, they don't get beaten or anything like that. They just don't get fed, don't get any privileges etc. For too long, revocation of indepenance has also involved revocation of personal responsibility - the state becomes responsible entirely for your wellbeing. I say its time to change that equation and allow people the choice. If they want to eat, they do what is required of them to earn their food.

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

Whats inhumane about my suggestion that people who are capable of doing so be expected to work to earn their keep?

jc

RedPlanet

It's a bit like using food as a weapon Bonkey.
I'm not sure folks would go along with that.

If a prisoner has money, are they allowed to substitute it inplace of their labour?
What about prisoners that do sh!tty work intentionally?
How about prisoners that are old or disabled, it seems a bit useless expecting manual labour from them.

I for one, have reservations about the propensity for corruption/abuse by the guards or the prisoners themselves.
When i think of prisons, i think it's wise to consider the innocent man/woman wrongly convicted.

DJ Dangerous

bonkey wrote:

Is he/she? Thats not how it read to me.

I'd prefer the author of the comment be the one to explain what they meant. If DJD isn't interested any more in discussing the point, then I don't see any merit in discussing DJD's point of view. if DJD is interested, I'll wait for him/her to bring it up.

bonkey wrote:

My alternative is simple. If they refuse, they don't get beaten or anything like that. They just don't get fed, don't get any privileges etc. For too long, revocation of indepenance has also involved revocation of personal responsibility - the state becomes responsible entirely for your wellbeing. I say its time to change that equation and allow people the choice. If they want to eat, they do what is required of them to earn their food.

Yes, Nuttzy summed up what I was trying to write. Are you suggesting that it would be more humane to starve somebody to death than to give them a lethal injection? Or are you merely assuming that nobody will have the resolve go ahead with their protest and die from hunger?

LadyJ has probably got it in one, and I would tend to agree to an extent. Prevention is better than cure.
However, the thing that stops people from killing their neighbours is civilisation. Before the rise of civilisation, humans were hunter / gatherers, and murder was a way of conflict resolution. The rise of civilisation gave people a reason not to kill everybody that they had a disagreement with. In new Guinea at the moment, young males are more likely to die from murder than any other cause.

If modern society is to blame for creating the monsters, what can we do? The frequency of murders & rapes appear to be escalating as time goes by. If it were possible to get to the roots of the problem, and prevent this from happening so often, I would say "let's do it". However, I feel that things have gone too far. While we are studying the minds of murderers and influences upon them when they were children, more and more monsters are being created by society. If we could reverse the rate at which the most severe criminals are appearing, then I would agree with abolishing the death penalty and diverting resources into research on the area.

Originally posted by Wicknight
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.

The statistic on wrongful conviction has swayed me from my former concrete stance on this issue.
Dave.