The Death Penalty

HelterSkelter

Just wondering your views on this. The more I think about it lately the more I think we should being back the death penalty, and that we should use it. Take heroin dealers for example. How many lives have they been directly responsible for destroying? How many addicts' deaths are they responsible for? For the state to take the life of one of these scumbags they could save the lives of perhaps 10 or 20 others. It would also act as a huge deterrant to others considering getting into this death dealing business.

Kinetic^

I'd really like to see it back in action, wouldn't see it being used much but as a deterrent it would be good.

I'd like to have it in place for murderers that have been shown to have no remorse for their acts. Same again for Drug pushers, & rapists. For me , these people have no place in our society, and have shown no desire to live within the lawful boundaries that we accept.

For other offenders, I think the current prison system, while flawed is appropiate.

However I can't see them allowing the death penalty in, simply because there's too many organisations "protecting" prisoner/human rights. But then, I'm quite extreme in my own views, in that I consider anyone that kills more than once, shouldn't be allowed to have any rights...

Zombrex

HelterSkelter wrote:

It would also act as a huge deterrant to others considering getting into this death dealing business.

Fear of death doesn't seem to be much of a deterrant for drug dealers, since their illegal business is on of the most risky in terms of being shot or killed by other gangs. The threat of a nasty death doesn't seem to stop them, I doubt the threat of state execution would have much of an effect.

Also there is the argument that at the end of the day people buy herion off these people. While I'm against legalisation and I think drug dealers should face criminal prosecution, is it justifiable to kill someone for selling something to someone else that the other person wanted to buy?

bonkey

I would oppose it on the usual grounds that many people oppose such ideas - miscarriages of justice.

We can all (or most of us can) pick extreme cases where we can agree "off with their heads". The problem is when you look at the other end of the scale - people who are wrongly accused and convicted of the same crime.

We could say, to offset this, that we'll only use the death penalty when there's no doubt....but thats already supposed to be the yardstick by which we convict people.

The death penalty if used perfectly would still be of questionable benefit. There is no evidence that it is an efficient deterrant that I'm aware of, so it would seem to be either a cost-effective measure (it can be cheaper than life imprisonment) or a payback- or revenge-aspected one ('give them what they deserve'). I'm not convinced either argument is sufficient, especially given the reality that a perfect implementation would be impossible to have anyway.

ETA:

Just to clarify my position....I do believe our system needs an overhaul. I do not believe a reintroduction of the death penalty should be a result of that.

DublinWriter

HelterSkelter wrote:

Take heroin dealers for example.

Take the Birmingham Six or the Guilford Four, for example.

Would they be alive today if Capital Punishment was on the statue books in the UK in the early 1970's? Naaaaah.

HelterSkelter, is the general hypocrisy of the state killing someone for killing someone totally over your head?

...and you advocate the death penalty for drug dealers? What next, having your hands cut off for double parking? I think you'd feel a lot more at home in Saudi Arabia, HelterSkelter, there they even let you get your jollies by watching too.

Of course the death penalty is a really great deterrent...works real good in the USA doesn’t it?

humanji

DublinWriter wrote:

Of course the death penalty is a really great deterrent...works real good in the USA doesn’t it?

Actually, didn't they do some reports that found that states with the death penalty actually had statistically less crime? I'll see if I can find anything on it, I'm sure I heard it somewhere (although it might of beena dream).

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. I heard on 98fm about a sheriff in the states who took a good approach to criminals:

Joe Arpaio is the Maricopa County Sheriff and he keeps getting re-elected over and over again. Here are some of the reasons why:

He created the "tent city jail" to save Arizona from spending tens of million of dollars on another expensive prison complex.
He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.
He banned smoking and porno magazines in the jails. He removed all of their
weightlifting equipment and cut off all but "G" movies.
He says, "they're in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assault innocent people when they leave."

He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free work on county and
city projects and save taxpayer's money. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination. He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only allows the Disney channel and the weather channel. When asked why the weather channel he replied: "so these morons will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs."

He cut off coffee because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money. When the inmates complained, he told them, "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."

He also bought the Newt Gingrich (who used to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives) lecture series on US history that he pipes into the jails.

With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees
just set a new record for June 2nd), the Associated Press reports:

About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment
at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.

On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing pink boxer shorts were chatting in the tents, where temperatures reached
128 degrees." This is hell. It feels like we live in a furnace," said Ernesto Gonzales, an inmate for 2 years with 10 more to go. "It's inhumane." Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink and eat baloney sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic.
"Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things many taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves."

On Wednesday he told all the inmates who were complaining of the heat in the tents:

"It's between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to walk all day in the sun, wearing full battle gear and get shot at, and they have not committed any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"

Maybe we should do something like this. Instead of treating criminals like poor lost souls who need our help, treat them like the pieces of sh*te they are! there should be no comforts in prison, they're there as punishment, not for a free ride.

There are some criminals who don't deserve to live, but the possibility of killing an innocent kind of makes the death penalty pointless.

HelterSkelter

DublinWriter wrote:

Take the Birmingham Six or the Guilford Four, for example.

Would they be alive today if Capital Punishment was on the statue books in the UK in the early 1970's? Naaaaah.

Ok, that's a good point.

DublinWriter wrote:

HelterSkelter, is the general hypocrisy of the state killing someone for killing someone totally over your head?.

I am talking about killing one person to save the lives of 10, 20 or maybe even more. Would you rather keep the heroin dealer alive and have 10 others dead as a result?

DublinWriter wrote:

...and you advocate the death penalty for drug dealers? What next, having your hands cut off for double parking? I think you'd feel a lot more at home in Saudi Arabia, HelterSkelter, there they even let you get your jollies by watching too.

I am talking about heroin dealers, people who are directly causing the deaths of so many people every year and who are responsible for destroying families. Do you think selling heroin to someone is a trivial matter?

DublinWriter wrote:

Of course the death penalty is a really great deterrent...works real good in the USA doesn’t it?

I don't know, haven't looked into the stats regarding crime in states with the death penalty versus states without. Have you?

DublinWriter

humanji wrote:

There are some criminals who don't deserve to live, but the possibility of killing an innocent kind of makes the death penalty pointless.

If you're Christian you'll a) be familiar with the general concept of forgiveness and b) possibly would have heard the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin".

You obviously know little, if nothing, of the Irish prison system. Maybe oneday you'll grow out of that revenge fixation and open your eyes to the wider social ills happening in our country.

HelterSkelter wrote:

I am talking about killing one person to save the lives of 10, 20 or maybe even more.

Good point. I'm with you if we can bump off boy-racers too.

HelterSkelter wrote:

Would you rather keep the heroin dealer alive and have 10 others dead as a result?

He wouldn't be a very sucessful heroin dealer if he was knocking-off his customer base, would he?

Sure, break his neck or inject lethal poison into his veins. Someone else will come along and take his place and up the price because the business is now a lot riskier, causing junkies to commit more crime to pay for the inflated price.

Maybe you're looking down the wrong end of the telescope and should be thinking the demand rather than supply end? During Mao's reign in China, he had all the heroin addicts shot, thus nullifying the demand.

Zombrex

HelterSkelter wrote:

I am talking about killing one person to save the lives of 10, 20 or maybe even more. Would you rather keep the heroin dealer alive and have 10 others dead as a result?

The question is how does executing the heroin dealer save 10 or 20 lives any more than locking him up for 15 years?

Dades

Joe Arpaio is the Maricopa County Sheriff and he keeps getting re-elected over and over again.

That guy is a legend.

Reminds me of the hullabaloo (witnessed on the Late Late Show) over some Irish inmates having to "slop out".

cornbb

Wicknight wrote:

Also there is the argument that at the end of the day people buy herion off these people. While I'm against legalisation and I think drug dealers should face criminal prosecution, is it justifiable to kill someone for selling something to someone else that the other person wanted to buy?

Bang on argument here. The death penalty isn't justifiable in any case IMO. I don't believe it can be a deterrent, and if its not a deterrent then its only purpose would be for revenge. This is a sad reflection on any state which imposes it.

I am talking about killing one person to save the lives of 10, 20 or maybe even more. Would you rather keep the heroin dealer alive and have 10 others dead as a result?

If people want drugs, they will find somewhere to buy drugs. If there is no place to buy drugs, they will grow drugs. Its supply and demand. I don't believe the act of selling drugs is as morally reprehensible as Joe Duffy et. al. would have you believe, and certainly doesn't justify the death penalty.

purple'n'gold

HelterSkelter wrote:

Just wondering your views on this. The more I think about it lately the more I think we should being back the death penalty, and that we should use it. Take heroin dealers for example. How many lives have they been directly responsible for destroying? How many addicts' deaths are they responsible for? For the state to take the life of one of these scumbags they could save the lives of perhaps 10 or 20 others. It would also act as a huge deterrant to others considering getting into this death dealing business.

So, you would like to see Ireland standing there proudly alongside these other great bastions of civil rights and democracy, i.e. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, USA?

cornbb

cornbb wrote:

Bang on argument here. The death penalty isn't justifiable in any case IMO. I don't believe it can be a deterrent, and if its not a deterrent then its only purpose would be for revenge. This is a sad reflection on any state which imposes it.

Can you tell me that the prison system is any more effective? From what I gather imprisonment for a period of time isn't a deterrant, any more that you suggest that the Death Penalty is. However, I would figure that the Death Penalty would be a better option to prevent repeat offenders of hard crimes. It might not deterr them, but it sure would stop them from getting out again.

I believe in a punishment to fit the crime. If someone kills once, then they have a chance to redeem themselves in the normal system. If they kill again, then they're killed. Simple. Same with Rapists, paedophile's, etc. If they repeat the crime, then they're killed, and the problem is removed. If they do it only once, they have the chance of going through the existing flawed system (which you seem to prefer) , and returning to society later.

The thing i find is that most posters will say that the Death penalty is not an effective deterent. And they're right, in most cases it isn't. But neither is the prison system. There is nothing in place at the moment that is a good deterent, although I suppose we could go back to chopping their hands off in the marketsquare....

A Death penalty system does not have to apply to common crinimals. It doesn't have to apply to one-time-offenders. But it can be something in place that chose to commit serious crimes again. Its not a deterent. Its a punishment. Its an end to the problem that they are, by existing.

purplengold

purplengold wrote:

So, you would like to see Ireland standing there proudly alongside these other great bastions of civil rights and democracy, i.e. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, USA?

I can never understand why people believe that repeat offenders of serious crime, should be allowed to have these rights? They've chosen that the laws of our society doesn't apply to them.

HelterSkelter

purplengold wrote:

So, you would like to see Ireland standing there proudly alongside these other great bastions of civil rights and democracy, i.e. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, USA?

And what about the rights of the victims who become addicted to this horrible drug? What about all their families who suffer? What about the people who have crimes comitted against them as a direct result of this drug? Do they have any rights?

purple'n'gold

Anyway this is all totally hypothetical; the death penalty will never be re introduced here. For one thing, if it was, we would be kicked out of the EU. And Michael D Higgins would have a hissy fit.

HelterSkelter

Wicknight wrote:

The question is how does executing the heroin dealer save 10 or 20 lives any more than locking him up for 15 years?

I think the death penalty is much more of a deterrant to others thinking of getting involved in the same "business" than going to jail, which a lot of criminals have no fear of. One criminal announced in court the other day he would do his time lying down, or words to that effect.

HelterSkelter

Deleted User wrote:

The thing i find is that most posters will say that the Death penalty is not an effective deterent. And they're right, in most cases it isn't. But neither is the prison system. There is nothing in place at the moment that is a good deterent, although I suppose we could go back to chopping their hands off in the marketsquare....

Actually I read recently on the bbc news site (can't find the link right now) about a country in Africa where crime was out of control. As a last resort they introduced Sharia law and the crime rate dropped to almost nothing.

Having said that I don't agree with Sharia law but it does goes to show that the threat of severe punishment does deter people from commiting crimes.

I'll try to find the link and post back here later.

humanji

DublinWriter wrote:

If you're Christian you'll a) be familiar with the general concept of forgiveness and b) possibly would have heard the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin".

You obviously know little, if nothing, of the Irish prison system. Maybe oneday you'll grow out of that revenge fixation and open your eyes to the wider social ills happening in our country.

I'm agnostic, so christianity has little sway with me. If someone has no remorse, then why should I forgive them? Why should I have to pay for their rehabilitaion and incarceration? Oh, and note that I didn't say to bring back the death penalty. But considering the amount of reoffenders, thr prison system isn't working and certainly isn't a deterant. Of course feel free to give criminals a hug and a pat on the back. That'll dort everything out...

humanji

DublinWriter wrote:

If you're Christian you'll a) be familiar with the general concept of forgiveness and b) possibly would have heard the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin".

You obviously know little, if nothing, of the Irish prison system. Maybe oneday you'll grow out of that revenge fixation and open your eyes to the wider social ills happening in our country.

I'm agnostic, so christianity has little sway with me. If someone has no remorse, then why should I forgive them? Why should I have to pay for their rehabilitaion and incarceration? Oh, and note that I didn't say to bring back the death penalty. But considering the amount of reoffenders, thr prison system isn't working and certainly isn't a deterant. Of course feel free to give criminals a hug and a pat on the back. That'll sort everything out...

Love2love

Sometimes its too good for the criminal, no? Take Saddam, he was killed, stood up, got a noose and was dead less than 5 mins later. He had no time to reflect on what he done. He didn't have to look into the faces of people effected by his crimes.

Although, some don't show any remorse even when giving the chance. Ted Bundy was a well educated charming man. Studied both psychology and law and then killed hundreds of women by breaking into their homes at first and sometimes pretended to be a invalid asking the help of women and the killings were always sexually related. Eventually when he was caught, sent to prision and managed to escape twice in which he immediately went out and killed as some sort of revenge for being put in prision, this time his killings were no longer sexual, it was as like he was addicted to killing. Anyways, cried like a baby before getting the electric chair but still never showed remorse, didn't even pretend to.

So what I'm actually saying is.... If it was to be brought back, shouldn't it be only in very extreme cases. If the people feel that this person really will kill again and its not possible for them to change or show remorse?

Hrududu

And what about the rights of the victims who become addicted to this horrible drug?

Little Timmy was walking to school one day when a drug dealer jumped out of the shadows and injected him with heroin. Little Timmy was instantly hooked, leading to a life of addiction. Please.

johnfás

HelterSkelter wrote:

Actually I read recently on the bbc news site (can't find the link right now) about a country in Africa where crime was out of control. As a last resort they introduced Sharia law and the crime rate dropped to almost nothing.

I haven't seen the statistics which you are speaking of so I cannot comment directly. However, if you take an example like the USA - one of the only Western states to use the death penalty its pretty plain to see that it has not had an effect on reducing crime rates. Homocide rates in the USA are roughly 6 times greater than the European Union. In fact homocide rates tend to be far lower in states without the death penalty than those with the death penalty. This includes large metropolitan areas such as Boston.

humanji wrote:

I'm agnostic, so christianity has little sway with me. If someone has no remorse, then why should I forgive them? Why should I have to pay for their rehabilitaion and incarceration? Oh, and note that I didn't say to bring back the death penalty. But considering the amount of reoffenders, thr prison system isn't working and certainly isn't a deterant. Of course feel free to give criminals a hug and a pat on the back. That'll sort everything out...

Taking the example of America again. On the whole it costs alot less to rehabilitate and/or incarcerate than it does to execute. The average cost of a murder trial without option for death penalty in the USA is between $40k and $70k, this rises to over $470k when a death penalty is involved. There is then the almost endless appeals against the conviction up to the last hour before execution which add hundreds of thousands of more. In Indiana for example, it costs 38% more to prosecute, trial, convict and execute a suspect than to convict them with a sentence of life without parole.


Furthermore, there is then the issue of innocent. Over 120 people over the last 3 decades have been released from death row having proven their innocence. Were they to have been further up the list, innocent people would have been killed as a scapegoat for a crime committed. You just can't ever justify that. There has also been plenty of people executed with serious concerns over their guilt.


So then, merely on a practical scale the death penalty does not make a whole lot of sense from a financial or deterrance point of view. That's even before you get into issues of morality such as for people who are insane, mentally handicapped, juveniles etc

HelterSkelter

Hrududu wrote:

Little Timmy was walking to school one day when a drug dealer jumped out of the shadows and injected him with heroin. Little Timmy was instantly hooked, leading to a life of addiction. Please.

So you must think that there should be no punishment for heroin dealers at all? After all it is not their fault people get addicted, they are just selling it. Should we legalise the selling of heroin?

humanji

johnf&#225 wrote: »

Taking the example of America again. On the whole it costs alot less to rehabilitate and/or incarcerate than it does to execute. The average cost of a murder trial without option for death penalty in the USA is between $40k and $70k, this rises to over $470k when a death penalty is involved. There is then the almost endless appeals against the conviction up to the last hour before execution which add hundreds of thousands of more.

Well that's why I brought up the point of that sheriff who makes prison cost effective. There's no reason we should all be paying for people who have little or no respect for us. Prisoners shouldn't be molly coddled, they should be made to not want to re-offend. If prison is a thoroughly terrible place then it'd be more of a deterent than it is now.

imp

HelterSkelter wrote:

So you must think that there should be no punishment for heroin dealers at all? After all it is not their fault people get addicted, they are just selling it. Should we legalise the selling of heroin?

So drug addicts don't bear the responsibility for their habits?

By this logic, as I'm reading it at least, you would also believe that a gun salesman in the US is responsible if one of his customers murders someone.

I've a problem with drug dealers but its the addict that makes the choice and to suggest otherwise seems illogical to me.

johnfás

imp wrote:

So drug addicts don't bear the responsibility for their habits?

By this logic, as I'm reading it at least, you would also believe that a gun salesman in the US is responsible if one of his customers murders someone.

I've a problem with drug dealers but its the addict that makes the choice and to suggest otherwise seems illogical to me.

Apart from the fact that drug pushers often hand out free drugs to young and vunerable teens in the poorest parts of cities in order to get them hooked, and thereafter make alot of money from them after they become addicts of course....

HelterSkelter

imp wrote:

So drug addicts don't bear the responsibility for their habits?

By this logic, as I'm reading it at least, you would also believe that a gun salesman in the US is responsible if one of his customers murders someone.

I've a problem with drug dealers but its the addict that makes the choice and to suggest otherwise seems illogical to me.

Heroin dealers use all kinds of tricks to get people addicted including offering free drugs to kids. It can be easy to convince certain young kids to try heroin, though it might seem like a crazy thing to do to you and I.

imp

johnf&#225 wrote: »

Apart from the fact that drug pushers often hand out free drugs to young and vunerable teens in the poorest parts of cities in order to get them hooked, and thereafter make alot of money from them after they become addicts of course....

One doesn't have to be the brightest to realise that you don't have to accept free drugs, or that even if you feel pressured you can just accept them and dump them. Unless you're being physically forced to inject/ingest/etc. then its a matter of choice.

HelterSkelter

imp wrote:

One doesn't have to be the brightest to realise that you don't have to accept free drugs, or that even if you feel pressured you can just accept them and dump them. Unless you're being physically forced to inject/ingest/etc. then its a matter of choice.

Look, you are dragging this off topic. Obviously society believes that the drug pusher bears more responsibility than the user as the penalties for selling are a lot more severe than buying, which a blind eye is often turned to.

Hrududu

So you must think that there should be no punishment for heroin dealers at all? After all it is not their fault people get addicted, they are just selling it. Should we legalise the selling of heroin?

There is a big difference between the death penalty and no penalty at all. Drug dealers should be imprisoned. But not put to death. My post was commenting on the way the addicts were referred to as victims. Every addict at one point made the choice to take whatever drug they are addicted to. I dont see how that makes them a victim.

imp

It doesn't seem off-topic to me. The discussion is about the death penalty and you advocated its use on drug dealers because of all the drug-related deaths in this country. Whether or not they are actually responsible for those deaths is then quite relevant, I think.

But enough of my "off-topicness"... I'll shut up now.

No, I absolutely do not think the death penalty should be brought back.

Keeping them locked up and away from the general public and being rehabed is what I think should be done. And when I say locked up, I don't mean for 5 years or less for a major crime. What do rapists get, a few years?
And being rehabed I think is important. No point letting them out just so they can go back to their old situations and old habits again, otherwise the whole thing is pointless.
I don't think we should just kill someone because we don't like them and they're a nuisance and we can't be bothered dealing with them properly.

And of course, there's always the argument of possibly killing an innocent.

DublinWriter

HelterSkelter wrote:

So you must think that there should be no punishment for heroin dealers at all? After all it is not their fault people get addicted, they are just selling it. Should we legalise the selling of heroin?

We already do in the form of Methadone, and it's just as destructive and unhealthy as Heroin in terms of its physical effects.

As t'other poster said, there's a difference between the state killing someone legally and no punshinment whatsoever. Prison sentances are the best option.

...and as for your comment about pushers hanging around school-gates. Oh please. Put down your copy of the Daily Sun.

Demonising pushers basically takes the focus off the true nature of the problem - why people take a personal decision go on Heroin in the first place. It's a combination of peer-pressure, lack of social oppertunity and pure stupidity.

Dealers don't create the demand, they just facilitate it.

If dealers created the demand then Dublin would be awash with Crack-Cocaine and Crystal Meth right now. Personally I think when these two drugs hit the street, it really will be game-over, we'll be facing an 80's-like epidemic all over again. So far we've gotten away with it.

johnf&#225

johnf&#225 wrote: »

I haven't seen the statistics which you are speaking of so I cannot comment directly. However, if you take an example like the USA - one of the only Western states to use the death penalty its pretty plain to see that it has not had an effect on reducing crime rates. Homocide rates in the USA are roughly 6 times greater than the European Union. In fact homocide rates tend to be far lower in states without the death penalty than those with the death penalty. This includes large metropolitan areas such as Boston.

I always wonder why people make such comparisons with the US when they have a far different society to us, but in its history with different cultures, and different laws regarding the carrying of weapons. The US crime rates across the board are vastly different to Europe going back decades, simply because they have different problems than us.

For example. Compare Ireland and the US. Ireland. Guns are not commonly available. The US. They can be bought on the street easily enough. Ireland. Youth gangs are only starting to form. The US. The US has a long history of gangs based on race, religion, political belief etc. Ireland. Population of multiple cultures, relatively low. The US. many different cultures all with a history of violence of varying forms.

To compare the US to Ireland, or even Europe isn't accurate enough. Europe has a very different history, and has few of the social tensions that generate the amount of crime in the US.

A death sentence in Europe would likely have very different results in Europe, or even Ireland, compared to what has happened in the US. IMO even if it was used to rid our society of the extreme violent offenders which we haven't that many of, it would generally improve the society we live in.

Taking the example of America again. On the whole it costs alot less to rehabilitate and/or incarcerate than it does to execute. The average cost of a murder trial without option for death penalty in the USA is between $40k and $70k, this rises to over $470k when a death penalty is involved. There is then the almost endless appeals against the conviction up to the last hour before execution which add hundreds of thousands of more. In Indiana for example, it costs 38% more to prosecute, trial, convict and execute a suspect than to convict them with a sentence of life without parole.

Again its a vastly different system. The US legal system is a completely different world in comparison with most European justice systems. Perhaps compare European justice with Australia or another western nation, that doesn't have the huge investment in legal proceedings that the US has.

You cannot compare the Irish prison service with that of the US system. At least not in any realistic manner. The differences at the moment are huge, and thats with both systems being already flawed. Just as you can't really compare the Death Sentence between Ireland and the US, because they too would be vastly different due to the manner that each country processes its crinimals.

Furthermore, there is then the issue of innocent. Over 120 people over the last 3 decades have been released from death row having proven their innocence. Were they to have been further up the list, innocent people would have been killed as a scapegoat for a crime committed. You just can't ever justify that. There has also been plenty of people executed with serious concerns over their guilt.

How many of those people were released a second time? I'm not interested in the Death Penalty for single crime offenders. They at least have the chance to redeem themselves, and to go back and rejoin society in a safe manner. However, those that chose to repeat breaking the law in some major manner, should have a more severe penalty in store for them. Since they didn't value their "freedom" being taken away from the first time, perhaps they might value their lives being taken away from them for a second offense.

Secondly I assume you're talking about 120 people in three decades in the US? How many people have been processed through death row that have been found guilty, and then compare that with the population of Ireland. With the massive population of the US, I would expect that mistakes in the legal system would occur. In Ireland, with a smaller population, and a much smaller number of crinimals eligible for such crimes, the possibility would be far less.
And thats based on a death penalty that includes first time offenders. Whats the chance of being found innocent for two different incidents?

So then, merely on a practical scale the death penalty does not make a whole lot of sense from a financial or deterrance point of view. That's even before you get into issues of morality such as for people who are insane, mentally handicapped, juveniles etc

Only if you compare to a country that has no real relation to our own, and is so different its almost a different galaxy. As for the insane, & mentally handicapped, it would still be a two strike rule. 1st time prison/mental hosptal, 2nd time death. As for Juveniles, the same. If they're capable of making the decision to kill, commit rape, or some other extreme crime, then they're capable of bearing the responsibility for that action.

Catari Jaguar

Wicknight wrote:

The question is how does executing the heroin dealer save 10 or 20 lives any more than locking him up for 15 years?

Cos they still run the ring from inside. Duh :rolleyes:

Also think about how do drugs get into jail???

HelterSkelter

DublinWriter wrote:

We already do in the form of Methadone, and it's just as destructive and unhealthy as Heroin in terms of its physical effects.

As t'other poster said, there's a difference between the state killing someone legally and no punshinment whatsoever. Prison sentances are the best option.

Well I haven't 100% decided if I agree with the death penalty or not, I am just exploring the idea in my own mind and looking for other people's opinions. But let me ask you a very simple question...do you think in theory that a person who is responsible for the deaths of many others deserves to die themselves?

DublinWriter wrote:

...and as for your comment about pushers hanging around school-gates. Oh please. Put down your copy of the Daily Sun.

Erm, I never said anything about school gates or mentoned schools at all. I said that dealers give free heroin to kids to get them addicted. If you live or have spent any time in an area with a drug problem you would know this.

DublinWriter wrote:

Demonising pushers basically takes the focus off the true nature of the problem - why people take a personal decision go on Heroin in the first place. It's a combination of peer-pressure, lack of social oppertunity and pure stupidity.

Dealers don't create the demand, they just facilitate it.

If dealers created the demand then Dublin would be awash with Crack-Cocaine and Crystal Meth right now.

So do you think the pushers are equally as bad as the users? Which do you think deserve harsher punishment?

DublinWriter wrote:

Personally I think when these two drugs hit the street, it really will be game-over, we'll be facing an 80's-like epidemic all over again.

Yup, I dread to think about this happening

DublinWriter wrote:

So far we've gotten away with it.

Maybe where you live you've gotten away with it but if you ask people in places like North Inner City Dublin I'm sure they will give you a different story

HelterSkelter

imp wrote:

It doesn't seem off-topic to me. The discussion is about the death penalty and you advocated its use on drug dealers because of all the drug-related deaths in this country. Whether or not they are actually responsible for those deaths is then quite relevant, I think.

But enough of my "off-topicness"... I'll shut up now.

I think it is turning into a debate on drugs rather than a debate on the death penalty