Time to bring back the death penalty

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!

CDfm

DublinWriter wrote: »

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.

for some translations of the bibles it is thou shalt not murder.

There are christian and catholic justifictions at a theological level for t6he death penalty in the common good.

TX123

Bring it back with full force. For all serious crimes have it as the sentence. If the threat of that is there then crime would stop. The 13 year old deserves to be tortured tho. And to anyone that disagrees your just one of those do gooders that feels sorry for everyone and everything. You take a life then you should lose your own.

thelordofcheese

TX123 wrote: »

Bring it back with full force. For all serious crimes have it as the sentence. If the threat of that is there then crime would stop.

TX123 meet reality, reality meet TX123.
I make this introduction because clearly the two of you are strangers.

TX123 wrote: »

The 13 year old deserves to be tortured tho. And to anyone that disagrees your just one of those do gooders that feels sorry for everyone and everything. You take a life then you should lose your own.

Maybe people disagree because torture isn't justice, or that given that the legal system is not infallible handing out permanent, irreversible sentances is a very bad thing?

Holsten

kickoutthejams wrote: »

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

Maybe that's why it's so messed up.

The Justice system should be based on one thing - Justice... yet so many people do not see it.

Punishment should be the main concern for the system.

TX123

i dont appreciate ypur comment. How would you feel if a family member was ginned down and they got 5 years in a prison where they are given luxuries. I think you are the one that needs to rethink your ideas

deleriumtremens

That kids action was the result of a long chain of causality and hence was always going to happen.
But I'm going to pretend I dont know that and say fry the wee fcuker!!

Then, we wont be responsible for HIS death because the decision to kill him would also have been the result of a long chain of casual events which couldnt have happened otherwise.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TX123 wrote: »

Bring it back with full force. For all serious crimes have it as the sentence. If the threat of that is there then crime would stop.

I had a comeback for this, but Lordofcheese's is better, so I'll go with that instead.

The 13 year old deserves to be tortured tho. And to anyone that disagrees your just one of those do gooders that feels sorry for everyone and everything. You take a life then you should lose your own.

And you basing that opinion on what aspect of my character, seeing as you seem to knwo me so well...?

Photi

First they came for the 13 year olds..

TX123

well then you should give a valid reason why you disagree and well see who the do gooder is

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TX123 wrote: »

i dont appreciate ypur comment. How would you feel if a family member was ginned down and they got 5 years in a prison where they are given luxuries. I think you are the one that needs to rethink your ideas

It couldn't matter how I felt, because the legal system isn't based on emotions. If you want it that way, then I suggest you move to a fundamentalist islamic country.

deleriumtremens wrote: »

That kids action was the result of a long chain of causality and hence was always going to happen.
But I'm going to pretend I dont know that and say fry the wee fcuker!!

Then, we wont be responsible for HIS death because the decision to kill him would also have been the result of a long chain of casual events which couldnt have happened otherwise.

I hope you never wind up on a jury!