Time to bring back the death penalty

mountainyman

Is it time to bring back the death penalty and actually USE IT?!

That 13 year old who shot the mechanic
Option 1 hold his hand
try and rehabilitate him
lock him up again
hold his hand again
lock him up again

Option2 dangle him at the end of a rope dangle the fellow who gave him the gun at the end of a rope


Which option is the best

I know that innocent people will die if we introduce and use the death penalty but it is a price worth paying.

4zn76tysfajdxp

mountainyman wrote: »

I know that innocent people will die if we introduce and use the death penalty but it is a price worth paying.

Are you willing to pay it?

MagicMarker

Even if there was one I sincerely doubt we'd start executing 13 year olds:rolleyes:

It's quite retarded to even suggest it.

Lockstep

Keyboard warriors: ATTACK!

AnonoBoy

Even Texas wouldn't fry a 13 year old.

beertons

Hell yes, bring it back. Currently the jails are full anyway. And pay for it: do you mean the chair that fries them or the dodgy syrenge that zaps them. All are freely available on various side streets.

Davexirl

I believe we should use it, there is scum out there who arent afraid of the law here. Bring it back but not on 13 year old kids.

Lockstep

I find the idea of executing 13 year olds appalling.

These are kids who are not mature enough to smoke, have sex or drive by law.
Yet we'd view them as mature enough to die.


Strange rationality but there you go.

mountainyman

Fine hang the person who gave the kid the gun.

if we hanged 200 people we could wipe out the drugs gangs

if we hanged 2000 we could wipe out serious criminlaity

hanging 20000 only 1% would solve a huge amount of problems

get rid of the worst 1%

MagicMarker

What's the problem with building a big giant prison anyway? The construction would create jobs, the final product will create jobs and it will create room for scumbags with a 'sheet' as long as my cock (for all you know it's really long!) who shouldn't be on the streets.

How many prisons are there currently in Ireland, and what's the total capacity?

Highsider

Yes but it must be not only for murder. Child abusers,rapists,heads of banks etc...must all pay the ultimate price.

mountainyman

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I find the idea of executing 13 year olds appalling.

These are kids who are not mature enough to smoke, have sex or drive by law.
Yet we'd view them as mature enough to die.


Strange rationality but there you go.

He was old enough to kill. He saw life as having value. We place the value on his life that he does on ours.

FLUSH

mountainyman

MagicMarker wrote: »

What's the big problem with building a big giant prison anyway? The construction would create jobs, the final product will create jobs and it will create room for scumbags with a 'sheet' as long as my cock (for all you know it's really long!) who shouldn't be on the streets.

How many prisons are there currently in Ireland, and what's the total capacity?

Costs money to keep people in prison . he more you kill the more you save one of the rewasons they love it in the states.

beertons

Regardless of his age, look what he did. Imagine the same guy in 10/15 years. How will he escape next time?

4zn76tysfajdxp

mountainyman wrote: »

Fine hang the person who gave the kid the gun.

if we hanged 200 people we could wipe out the drugs gangs

if we hanged 2000 we could wipe out serious criminlaity

hanging 20000 only 1% would solve a huge amount of problems

What if we run out of rope? That's a problem.

Lockstep

mountainyman wrote: »

He was old enough to kill. He saw life as having value. We place the value on his life that he does on ours.

FLUSH

So we arbitratily allow kids to be seen as mature.

Does this mean if a kid seems mature we'll let him drink, smoke and f*ck?


FLUSH

mountainyman

Highsider wrote: »

Yes but it must be not only for murder. Child abusers,rapists,heads of banks etc...must all pay the ultimate price.

Agreed. The landlord class must be destroyed, hang white collar criminals ad estate agents in the 20,000

Raze_them_all

Was there not an 8 or 9 year old being charged for murder as an adult in the states or somewhere recently for pre meditating killing his grandfather?

MagicMarker

mountainyman wrote: »

He was old enough to kill. He saw life as having value. We place the value on his life that he does on ours.

FLUSH

A 4 year old is old enough to kill in the right circumstances, should we execute them too?

No offense, but your ''argument'' is moronic. At first I though you were just messing, now I think you're trolling.

mountainyman

kickoutthejams wrote: »

So we arbitratily allow kids to be seen as mature.

Does this mean if a kid seems mature we'll let him drink, smoke and f*ck?


FLUSH

Yeah as long as we let HER drink and smoke and ****.

Full BOAT

truecrippler

Angela Wooden Roadwork wrote: »

What if we run out of rope? That's a problem.

Then we'll strangle them with our bare hands!

Lockstep

mountainyman wrote: »

Yeah as long as we let HER drink and smoke and ****.

Full BOAT

I actually like this way of thinking.

Kids are now mature enough to be tried as adults and can be treated as such.

I'm heading on down to the local secondary school to pick me up some impressionable teenage kids.


FLASH IN THE PAN

Wibbs

beertons wrote: »

Hell yes, bring it back. Currently the jails are full anyway. And pay for it: do you mean the chair that fries them or the dodgy syrenge that zaps them. All are freely available on various side streets.

You can get leccy chairs on the streets of Dublin now? Heeeeeaaavy buuuuuzz. Jeez I am old...

Holsten

Yes the punishment should fit the crime, he took a life, his should be taken from him.

No matter of age.

Ok. Lock the kid until they're 18. And then hang them.

delta_bravo

mountainyman wrote: »

He was old enough to kill. He saw life as having value. We place the value on his life that he does on ours.

FLUSH

Not to dampen your rabble with pitchforks or anything but do remember this person has not been charged with anything. They have been arrested, big difference

Lockstep

Holsten wrote: »

Yes the punishment should fit the crime, he took a life, his should be taken from him.

No matter of age.

DOes this mean we can start executing three year olds if they kill someone?

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. Lock the kid until they're 18. And then hang them.

Hold on now, the issue here isn't is he old enough to allow to execute him, but rather, was he mature enough at the time of the crime to take full culpability for doing so.

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

DOes this mean we can start executing three year olds if they kill someone?

Poor Maggie

Guy:Incognito

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I find the idea of executing 13 year olds appalling.

These are kids who are not mature enough to smoke, have sex or drive by law.
Yet we'd view them as mature enough to die.


Strange rationality but there you go.

They are mature enough to murder though.

**** them.

Robbo

mountainyman wrote: »

Agreed. The landlord class must be destroyed, hang white collar criminals ad estate agents in the 20,000

mountainyman wrote: »

Fine hang the person who gave the kid the gun.

if we hanged 200 people we could wipe out the drugs gangs

if we hanged 2000 we could wipe out serious criminlaity

hanging 20000 only 1% would solve a huge amount of problems

get rid of the worst 1%

And perhaps hang the namby pamby PC brigade who surround us on all sides?

Hell, let's start a proper decimation in the classic sense. Live text voting for who dies with Laura Woods and Marty Whelan hosting the whole affair and Joe Duffy manning the noose.

Guy:Incognito

MagicMarker wrote: »

What's the problem with building a big giant prison anyway? The construction would create jobs, the final product will create jobs and it will create room for scumbags with a 'sheet' as long as my cock (for all you know it's really long!) who shouldn't be on the streets.

How many prisons are there currently in Ireland, and what's the total capacity?

A huge filing cabinet is all thats needed.Smallest cells possible and locked up 24hrs a day on their own.

mountainyman wrote: »

Costs money to keep people in prison . he more you kill the more you save one of the rewasons they love it in the states.

It costs lots of money to keep people in the current nice warm and amenety filled prisons we have now. Small square boxes with cot bed are cheap to build and cheaper to maintain.


I'm on favour of the death penalty btw.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Does this mean if a kid seems mature we'll let him drink, smoke and f*ck?

No but if he chooses to do those things he is participating in adult acts and should be treated as such.

MagicMarker wrote: »

A 4 year old is old enough to kill in the right circumstances, should we execute them too?
.

A 4 year old is not a 13 year old. 13 year olds are well on the way to the maturity they will have at 18 and are well able to decide right and wrong especially in circumstances like what happened last night.

Robbo

Robbo wrote: »

And perhaps hang the namby pamby PC brigade who surround us on all sides?

Hell, let's start a proper decimation in the classic sense. Live text voting for who dies with Laura Woods and Marty Whelan hosting the whole affair and Joe Duffy manning the noose.

Sounds like something I'd be willing to pay a TV license for.

Lockstep

Stekelly wrote: »

They are mature enough to murder though.

**** them.

No, because we, as a society have decided that children lack the rationality, maturity and cognitive ability to perform certain acts.

This is a kid we're talking about here. He's unable to do many things by law as he's too immature. It's a cruel and unusual punishment.
Kids are also impulsive so applying the death penaltiy as a deterrence is useless.


Check out the case of Roper v. Simmons.
Interesting read.

shoutman

Research has shown that the death penalty actually costs more then putting someone in prison for life due to legal fees etc. So economically it is not the right way to go. Also I'm against the death penalty, rotting away in jail is far worse a punishment imo.

Guy:Incognito

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Kids are also impulsive so applying the death penaltiy as a deterrence is useless.


.

I care very little for deterring people. Scumbags are scumbags and do scumbag things, regardless of the possible punishement.

What I do care about is all the affected innocent people that are involved while these people build up the 100 or so convictions it takes to have them locked up. I fiond the death penalty cuts reoffending rates by 100% , those are good numbers in my book.

Hellm0

[Lies]Personally I find homosexuals, communists and political deviants offensive and immoral. Anyone who deviants from the norm must die, rehabilitation is too costly, druggies are the devil yadda yadda yadda. [/Lies]

I am intolerant of the intolerant, intolerance will not be tolerated!

TPD

Can everyone here please look back for a moment to when you were 13: Surely, even at that age you knew that killing someone is just about the worst thing you can do, you understand that they are gone forever once you do it.

In fact, at 13 I wouldnt be suprised if kids take advantage of the law, I certainly remember hearing kids in my secondary school talking about how they would only get 'done' as a juvenile for stealing mopeds (Which seemed a regular passtime for them).

A 13 year old does know the law, and (unless I was an unusually bright 13 year old), they would accept that killing someone intentionally without provocation or a direct life threat is the worst thing to do which deserves the worst punishment.

Maybe not killing 13 year olds, but putting them in an insane asylum (Not sure if thats the PC term) untill theyre 18 and then in prison until theyre 25 or so, and only released after extensive character analysis.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Stekelly wrote: »

A 4 year old is not a 13 year old. 13 year olds are well on the way to the maturity they will have at 18 and are well able to decide right and wrong especially in circumstances like what happened last night.

As a matter of interest, when is it alright for the state to punish children by death?

tony1kenobi

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. Lock the kid until they're 18. And then hang them.

It'd be cheaper to hang them now, then lock them up till they are 18. No need for heat/food and so on......

CDfm

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Even Texas wouldn't fry a 13 year old.

This was the youngest kid executed in the USA in the 20th Century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney

I am not at all convinced that our current system is too lenient on serious criminals. Its gone in the completely opposite direction.

monkeyfudge

mountainyman wrote: »

get rid of the worst 1%

People who think it's acceptable to murder a child would be in my worst 1%.

Lockstep

Stekelly wrote: »

I care very little for deterring people. Scumbags are scumbags and do scumbag things, regardless of the possible punishement.

Fair enough, usually people try to argue the death penalty as a means of deterrance.
I'm glad yo see it's bollix.

Stekelly wrote: »

What I do care about is all the affected innocent people that are involved while these people build up the 100 or so convictions it takes to have them locked up. I fiond the death penalty cuts reoffending rates by 100% , those are good numbers in my book.

Building up convictions? We don't have a "three strikes and you're out" system like New York did.

If someone does something wrong, we should punish them. No need for the death penalty.


YOu might also like to see some of the conventions Ireland has signed up to such as the

Convention on the Rights of the Child wrote:

Article 37
States Parties shall ensure that:
(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age

Or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICCPR wrote:

5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.

Stekelly wrote: »

A 4 year old is not a 13 year old. 13 year olds are well on the way to the maturity they will have at 18 and are well able to decide right and wrong especially in circumstances like what happened last night.

Fairly arbitrary man.
Would you be in favour of giving all the rights of an adult to a child then?

Tom65

kickoutthejams wrote: »

No, because we, as a society have decided that children lack the rationality, maturity and cognitive ability to perform certain acts.

This is a kid we're talking about here. He's unable to do many things by law as he's too immature. It's a cruel and unusual punishment.
Kids are also impulsive so applying the death penaltiy as a deterrence is useless.


Check out the case of Roper v. Simmons.
Interesting read.

+1

Children aren't fully capable of processing consequences, and their rationality isn't as fully developed as an adult's. It's the reason the state protects children. If we can hang 13 year olds why not let them vote, drink, drive, join the army, get married etc. etc?

To the OP, How many innocent 13 year olds are you willing to kill to hang a guilty one in the name of justice?

Holsten

(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age

Wow.. that is stupid as hell, so a few hours after turning 18 then they can only get life.

Seems that below 18 you are above the law.

old boy

Holsten wrote: »

Wow.. that is stupid as hell, so a few hours after turning 18 then they can only get life.

Seems that below 18 you are above the law.

that is what the scummers in my area keep telling the cops

Lockstep

Holsten wrote: »

Wow.. that is stupid as hell, so a few hours after turning 18 then they can only get life.

18 is the time a child is held to be an adult so yes, that is exactly how it works.

Holsten wrote: »

Seems that below 18 you are above the law.

It seems someone is fairly unfamiliar with the concept of a justice system.
A minor is not "above" the law. They are however, given protections due to their immaturity, level or rationality and youth.
A kid killing someone isn't getting off scot free. I honestly don't know where you pulled the idea of "above the law" out of.

DublinWriter

mountainyman wrote: »

Costs money to keep people in prison . he more you kill the more you save one of the rewasons they love it in the states.

Ah yes, love it when those old worn out old arguments are trotskied out.

Costs more to process a prisoner through death row and final execution that it would to keep them alive. Fact. Google and research it for yourself. Don't ask me to produce any links for you as a) I'm not your PA and b) you might learn some other interesting facts about the American penal system en-route.

Two more good arguments against the death penalty - the Guilford Four and the Birmingham Six.

Lastly if you're a Christian, then maybe you'll explain to me why I didn't see that astrix after the commandment "Thou Shalt not Kill" and the later indemnity paragraph.

Flex

Not referring to this specific case (of the 13 year old), I would be all in favour of the death penalty being brought back.

I think that the victims or people whose loved ones are raped, molested, murdered would feel far greater degree of justice being carried out and retribution being served if the murderer/rapist/paedophile was put to death rather than spending a few years in prison where they'll be "rehabilitated" so they can be "productive" members of society.

Lockstep

Flex wrote: »

Not referring to this specific case (of the 13 year old), I would be all in favour of the death penalty being brought back.

I think that the victims or people whose loved ones are raped, molested, murdered would feel far greater degree of justice being carried out and retribution being served if the murderer/rapist/paedophile was put to death rather than spending a few years in prison where they'll be "rehabilitated" so they can be "productive" members of society.

THe justice system in this country doesn't work on retribution and vengeance. It's trying to balance out the wrong that was enacted.

That's why we have an impartial jury of peers and a judge, the idea being a detached and fairer system that doesn;t take personal opinions into account.

Any time you hear the radio asking family members of victims what they thought of the sentencing then you usually hear "it was too lenient" or whatever.



The idea behind our system of punishment is not to give the victim's family a sense of justice ( as they will usually seek vengeance) and a justice system condoning retribution would worry me intensley.

marcsignal

I've said it more than once, and ill say it again, and again, and again:

"Off with the Goolies"

if you can't hang a 13 year old, then pinch off the feral f*ckers at this generation......

beertons

Wibbs wrote: »

You can get leccy chairs on the streets of Dublin now? Heeeeeaaavy buuuuuzz. Jeez I am old...

Well not quiet leccy chairs, but there's enough chairs and dodgy sparlies out there, surely one of them could wire it badly/the way we want it!