Bring back the death penalty?

irishconvert

I was just reading through this thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055861049) on Ian Huntley's throat being slashed in prison and couldn't believe the number of people who seem to be in agreement with what happened to him. It makes me wonder are Irish people in favour of bringing back the death penalty for certain crimes? What is your opinion on it?

Personally I think we should have the death penalty. Certain members of society have no fear and I think it would be a big deterrant if they know a public execution could be waiting for them if they step out of line.

Some of the comments from the Huntley thread:

triple-M wrote: »

its a pity he survived although i suppose death would be taking the easy way out,i just hope he suffers

molloyjazz wrote: »

he needs a half cup of sugar filled with boiling hot water fooked in his face.. then a lad to wrap an ice cold towl around his face so his skin is stuck to it.

o1s1n wrote: »

I'm glad he survived. He has been hounded and attacked by inmates for years. More life means more attacks.

Sounds sadistic but he really is someone who deserves all he gets.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Sounds like he's getting what he deserves in prison.

Biggins wrote: »

I have no sympathy for him.
He is where he is and getting such treatement because of his own previous terrible actions.

Jenroche wrote: »

Good enough for him. He and his like deserve everything they get.

Jen ;->

Holsten wrote: »

He should have been put down years ago.

Scum.

Iamxavier wrote: »

Anger, a basic human emotion. Expressed here by the other scum in the prisons. How are they any better than this piece of shít exactly? Rapists, murderers etc etc. Anyway, it looks like he has had an extremely rough time in prison, good enough for him.

dougal-maguire wrote: »

if he doesnt deserve to have his throat slashed why should he be in prison at all?

bytey wrote: »

my throat isnt part of a murdering pedos body , he deserves everything he gets and more
- now take it outside god boy

galwayrush wrote: »

I'm not even a slight bit sorry for the scumbag, glad he'll recover so he can live in fear of it happening to him again.

galwayrush wrote: »

We treat scumbags too soft , good enough for the sick bastard, he gets all he needs in prison, the families of the girls he murdered have to live with a terrible life sentence.

Mrmoe wrote: »

I hope he dies a slow and painful death.

walshb

I think that for murder the penalty should be here. I agree with it, but do see both sides to the argument. The thing is, very few can debate both sides without getting all sensitive. Both sides have good points.

Though, sometimes I think death could be too easy for some criminals. A long long time behind bars and then release them into the real world. That in itself would be a punishment.

Can you imagine spending 40 years locked up and then being thrown out into society?
I would imagine that as being like another prison sentence for many.

Take Joe O'Reilly for example. He must be mid 30s; so release him mid to late 60s and then
see how he likes it on the outside. He might not be all that keen to leave prison

Eliot Rosewater

Executing a murderer will not bring back the dead. It will not right any wrongs. It will never result in the murderer realizing the hurt he has caused, and it will never result in him feeling sorrow. It will only ever create a very temporary relief for the bitter and hostile as they have their knee-jerk high-justice dealt to others.

Liam Byrne

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Executing a murderer will not bring back the dead. It will not right any wrongs. It will never result in the murderer realizing the hurt he has caused, and it will never result in him feeling sorrow. It will only ever create a very temporary relief for the bitter and hostile as they have their knee-jerk high-justice dealt to others.

It will also prevent additional murders when they are released.

The reason that the case the OP is referring to is a win-win is because it prevents those who are uncomfortable with admitting that some scum are unreformable from feeling guilty, because someone else did the dirty work.

rovert

Reopen Kilmainham Jail

greendom

I'm against it for a number of reasons but the bottom line is it just doesn't work. Take a look at the US to see how safe and murder free a society is with the death penalty

walshb

greendom wrote: »

I'm against it for a number of reasons but the bottom line is it just doesn't work. Take a look at the US to see how safe and murder free a society is with the death penalty

But, maybe it's not meant to "work," and maybe it's just a form a punishment.
Using this logic one could also say that prison doesn't work. No matter what, murder and heinous crimes will ALWAYS exist. Death penalty or LIFE in prison, you will still have murder, and plenty of it.

"If you decide to murder someone here, you will be put to death."

Just like what we have, if you commit murder, you get a "life sentence".
It is a form of punishment. It is one that I would agree with, as much as
I agree with a life term in prison

walshb

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Executing a murderer will not bring back the dead. It will not right any wrongs. It will never result in the murderer realizing the hurt he has caused, and it will never result in him feeling sorrow. It will only ever create a very temporary relief for the bitter and hostile as they have their knee-jerk high-justice dealt to others.

Would you also include the families of victims who have been butchered?

greendom

walshb wrote: »

But, maybe it's not meant to "work," and maybe it's just a form a punishment.
Using this logic one could also say that prison doesn't work. No matter what, murder and heinous crimes will ALWAYS exist. Death penalty or LIFE in prison, you will still have murder, and plenty of it.

"If you decide to murder someone here, you will be put to death."

Just like what we have, if you commit murder, you get a "life sentence".
It is a form of punishment. It is one that I would agree with, as much as
I agree with a life term in prison

It is often cited that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. That is palpably not the case. That's what I meant by it doesn't work.

Another reason I'm against it is that it degrades life. Societies with the death penalty are in effect saying that it is acceptable to kill people.

Liam Byrne

greendom wrote: »

Another reason I'm against it is that it degrades life. Societies with the death penalty are in effect saying that it is acceptable to kill people.

I don't agree.

I believe it is saying that it's NOT acceptable to kill people, but that if you do then you've rewritten the rules and aren't an acceptable human being, and therefore are disposable.

Which is perfectly acceptable in my view, and I do value and respect life.

walshb

Yes, I have heard this; but the same could be said about Life in prison being
a deterrent. I do believe that generally, laws and sentences do play a part
in a persons willingness and choice to commit a crime.

In Ireland, the laws and sentencing are pretty lenient. So, if I was ever going
to commit a murder, Ireland would be the country of choice. That applies to various
other crimes too.

So, maybe if we had the death penalty on conviction, here in Ireland, it could be
a deterrent. As it stands, if you commit murder here, the sentence is LIFE (about 16/17 years)
on average. Is this a deterrent? Maybe, but not as much as a death sentence I would imagine

greendom

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't agree.

I believe it is saying that it's NOT acceptable to kill people, but that if you do then you've rewritten the rules and aren't an acceptable human being, and therefore are disposable.

Which is perfectly acceptable in my view, and I do value and respect life.

But by allowing murder to be used as a punishment you are lowering society to the level of the murderer. Surely society needs to be better than that ?

bmaxi

I would say to be locked up for forty years is a pretty harsh punishment but if there's anywhere I'd like to serve the sentence it would have to be Ireland.
Prisoners are kept in conditions many couldn't aspire to in the outside world. During the cold spell in January a picture was published of the Dundon gang, stripped to the waist in a cell, playing cards. At the same time , honest, decent people couldn't afford to heat their homes.
Bleeding heart liberals like John Lonergan, along with the D4 "f*ck all to do and all day to do it" brigade, are responsible for this state of affairs and successive Governments have pandered to them.
By all means, let's not do the criminal scum any favours by stringing them up but let them pay for their crimes in a place they won't want to return to.

trapsagenius

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Executing a murderer will not bring back the dead. It will not right any wrongs. It will never result in the murderer realizing the hurt he has caused, and it will never result in him feeling sorrow. It will only ever create a very temporary relief for the bitter and hostile as they have their knee-jerk high-justice dealt to others.

Completely disagree.IMO, a murderer and a paedophile are the 2 worst people in a society.

Killing a murderer will be adequate punishment for him, will hopefully send out the right message to other would-be murderers, and will probably put the victims relatives minds at ease. Some people are just bad eggs who don't deserve to live.

Ok, maybe it doesn't work very well as a deterrent in the US but I think that's more to do with American society(i.e the fact that the poor in USA are completely left to waste away and hence might feel they've nothing to lose), rather than the death penalty itself.

The only problem I'd have with it is if one innocent person is put to death, I'm not really sure it would be worth it, no matter how many murderers get their just desserts.

irishh_bob

greendom wrote: »

But by allowing murder to be used as a punishment you are lowering society to the level of the murderer. Surely society needs to be better than that ?

high minded wooly liberal crap , if someone belonging to me was murdered , if the state didnt end them , i certainly would even it meant spending the rest of my days in jail or worse

walshb

bmaxi wrote: »

I would say to be locked up for forty years is a pretty harsh punishment but if there's anywhere I'd like to serve the sentence it would have to be Ireland.
Prisoners are kept in conditions many couldn't aspire to in the outside world. During the cold spell in January a picture was published of the Dundon gang, stripped to the waist in a cell, playing cards. At the same time , honest, decent people couldn't afford to heat their homes.
Bleeding heart liberals like John Lonergan, along with the D4 "f*ck all to do and all day to do it" brigade, are responsible for this state of affairs and successive Governments have pandered to them.
By all means, let's not do the criminal scum any favours by stringing them up but let them pay for their crimes in a place they won't want to return to.

Couldn't have said it better. Go to prison here and you end up with a lot of choices, including trades, education, gyms, pool rooms and god knows what else. It's like a holiday camp.

BTW, I am not advocating that prisoners be tortured, mistreated, but c'mon, some of the luxuries they receive would make you sick to the stomach.

And any scumbag who rapes, murders or hurts another doesn't deserve ANY
****ing luxury.....He/she deserve air to breathe, food and drink and a place to sleep, all
in relative comfort. That is it. Oh, and the odd exercise.....

Now, there are prisoners who aren't real scum, and to these I would welcome
rehabilitation. But, to low life rapists and murderers, NOTHING.....

greendom

irishh_bob wrote: »

high minded wooly liberal crap , if someone belonging to me was murdered , if the state didnt end them , i certainly would even it meant spending the rest of my days in jail or worse

Sounds like you'd rather live is some anarchic state - vigilantes rule !

trapsagenius

greendom wrote: »

Sounds like you'd rather live is some anarchic state - vigilantes rule !

Well not really, because if the murderer was put to death by the state in the first place, he wouldn't have to administer vigilante justice.

greendom

trapsagenius wrote: »

Well not really, because if the murderer was put to death by the state in the first place, he wouldn't have to administer vigilante justice.

Bearing in mind this society doesn't actually have the death penalty, and hopefully never will, the poster sounds like he's going out to administer his own justice.

Liam Byrne

greendom wrote: »

But by allowing murder to be used as a punishment you are lowering society to the level of the murderer. Surely society needs to be better than that ?

You can view and phrase it that way if you want to.

I don't.

Actions have consequences.

And the main difference is that the victim (and their extended families and friends) didn't do anything to deserve the murder.

The murderer did.

bijapos

I'm opposed to it. Reason:

Innocent people have in the past been executed for crimes they did not commit, it has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. This alone raises huge questions about the validity of the death penalty. How can anybody justify taking the life of an innocent person?

Liam Byrne

greendom wrote: »

Bearing in mind this society doesn't actually have the death penalty, and hopefully never will, the poster sounds like he's going out to administer his own justice.

The "hopefully never will" should apply to the murderers and paedophiles, not to the death penalty.

And if we don't bring in the death penalty, then at the very least "life" should mean "life"; no luxuries, no time off, no treating decently.

Hard labour, working for society, and a bare cell with the bare essentials of food.

Liam Byrne

bijapos wrote: »

How can anybody justify taking the life of an innocent person?

Ask the murderers.

greendom

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You can view and phrase it that way if you want to.

I don't.

Actions have consequences.

And the main difference is that the victim (and their extended families and friends) didn't do anything to deserve the murder.

The murderer did.

I can't argue with much you said there - except that if you accept that death is a consequence then it becomes an acceptable action.

I have every sympathy for the victim and their family and friends, but their lot won't be improved by seeing another murder

trapsagenius

greendom wrote: »

I can't argue with much you said there - except that if you accept that death is a consequence then it becomes an acceptable action.

I have every sympathy for the victim and their family and friends, but their lot won't be improved by seeing another murder

I wouldn't view executing a murderer as "murder".

hallelujajordan

I am fundamentally against the death penalty for many reasons. . . I could talk about the number of innocents who will die if the death penalty were available (at least 10 innocent Irishmen would have been executed in Britain during the 'troubles' - potentially many more) . . I could talk about the fact that as a 'deterrent' it doesn't work and I could quote lots of data to prove it . . or I could draw attention to the fact that many criminals are themselves victims of a very troubled upbringing (contrast the number of white middle class Americans on death row to the number of poor black people !).

But the main reason I don't agree with the death penalty is that I don't believe that life is something that man or society should have the right to give or take. When you allow execution you allow man to play the role of god . . and before you start telling me that the murderer chose to change the rules and play the role of god . . . think on this . .

"An eye for an eye . . and soon the whole world is blind" Mahatma Gandhi

Liam Byrne

greendom wrote: »

I can't argue with much you said there - except that if you accept that death is a consequence then it becomes an acceptable action.

No it doesn't. It becomes a CONSEQUENCE only; it is not an "acceptable action" in isolation or without cause, and it would also have been well warned in advance.

As an example, I'd never hit someone. Ever. But if they hit me, then I will reserve the right to hit back.

There's a difference.

greendom wrote: »

I have every sympathy for the victim and their family and friends, but their lot won't be improved by seeing another murder

You're phrasing that in a biased and emotive way. It's not "another murder"; it's a carrying out of the punishment as warned about beforehand, and it was the murderer's choice and within their power to avoid it if they chose to do so.

They chose not to.

Their victim was not offered that choice.

So you are not comparing like with like.

bijapos

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ask the murderers.

Well in the case that an innocent person is executed the "murderer" would then be the executioner acting on behalf of the state and indeed those who ask for the death penalty.

So I'll ask you Liam. How do you feel about an innocent person being executed/murdered?

Holsten

Yes, 100% behind bringing it back for murder.

greendom

trapsagenius wrote: »

I wouldn't view executing a murderer as "murder".

Yes I can see that - in your ideal World Capital punishment would be an acceptable punishment and as murder is unlawful killing it wouldn't really apply.

replace "another murder" with "killing the murderer".

i still don't see how the victim and his family would benefit though except for a bit of short-term schadenfraude perhaps.

Liam Byrne

bijapos wrote: »

Well in the case that an innocent person is executed the "murderer" would then be the executioner acting on behalf of the state and indeed those who ask for the death penalty.

So I'll ask you Liam. How do you feel about an innocent person being executed/murdered?

I would ensure that the ONLY innocent person being murdered is the original victim.

Any doubt, then keep investigating until there's none (including DNA and whatever else).

This is required to rid us of the scum, and I'd make damn sure that this red herring was not allowed to stand in it's way.

So let me be 100% clear; any doubt = jail with no luxuries, and serious compensation if they were found to be innocent. Compelling, irrefutable evidence (eye-witnesses, DNA, etc) = death penalty.

Liam Byrne

greendom wrote: »

i still don't see how the victim and his family would benefit though except for a bit of short-term schadenfraude perhaps.

Why focus on just this ?

Society would benefit in that there would be no additional murder, and also they wouldn't have to pay a fortune to keep them locked up.

rgt320q

I'd be for the reintroduction of the death penalty in the case where the criminal has re-offended, be it after having been paroled or while still incarcerated. They way I see it, the primary goal of prison should be rehabilitation, not punishment. In a civilised society, a second chance should be given and encouraged through work, education and/or the attainment of practical skills, all to be made available in prison. But when, through the criminal's own volition, rehabilitation has failed, then I see the death penalty becoming a realistic option. When you talk about a first time offence, however, I think we're moving into a generally rather grey area.

bijapos

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Compelling, irrefutable evidence (eye-witnesses, DNA, etc) = death penalty.

Here's one case where a person was convicted on (at the time) irrefutable evidence, i.e. he was an eye witness. Hoffman was on death row for 12 years until the one "witness" decided to come clean and admit he was lying. If the "witness" had not changed his testimony Hoffman would be dead by now.

http://heavysoundsandtheabstracttruth.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/another-death-row-exoneration/

greendom

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why focus on just this ?

Society would benefit in that there would be no additional murder, and also they wouldn't have to pay a fortune to keep them locked up.

I wasn't focusing on that just replying to the poster; if you do a bit of research you'll find that the cost of a capital punishment system is significantly higher than a life imprisonment system.

Liam Byrne

bijapos wrote: »

Here's one case where a person was convicted on (at the time) irrefutable evidence, i.e. he was an eye witness. Hoffman was on death row for 12 years until the one "witness" decided to come clean and admit he was lying. If the "witness" had not changed his testimony Hoffman would be dead by now.

http://heavysoundsandtheabstracttruth.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/another-death-row-exoneration/

And where did I say to rely on one ? Where that one could be someone with a grudge, for example ?

Common sense would indicate not to rely on one.

Like I said, I do not want this to be in the way, so I'd make damn sure it was airtight.

Any doubt = no death penalty.

You can throw in "but what ifs...." all you like, they've been covered by what I said above.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would ensure that the ONLY innocent person being murdered is the original victim.

Any doubt, then keep investigating until there's none (including DNA and whatever else).

This is required to rid us of the scum, and I'd make damn sure that this red herring was not allowed to stand in it's way.

So let me be 100% clear; any doubt = jail with no luxuries, and serious compensation if they were found to be innocent. Compelling, irrefutable evidence (eye-witnesses, DNA, etc) = death penalty.

Not sure that I understand what you are proposing. . To convict someone of murder you already have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and as another poster has mentioned this has already shown to have flaws. .(I can post lots of other examples and have already referenced the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 who were all found guilty beyond reasonable doubt)

Are you proposing that there is a higher level of guilt beyond that which is currently required . .

i.e.

reasonable doubt = acquittal
Beyond reasonable doubt = guilty
Beyond the beyond (we're absolutely certain !) = death penalty ? ?

Liam Byrne

greendom wrote: »

I wasn't focusing on that just replying to the poster; if you do a bit of research you'll find that the cost of a capital punishment system is significantly higher than a life imprisonment system.

And what about the cost of the additional murder, garda resources, witnesses, court case, compensation (the state releasing a "life imprisoned" scumbag should imply that they are culpable if that individual re-offends), counselling, possible mental health issues ?

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And what about the cost of the additional murder, garda resources, witnesses, court case, compensation (the state releasing a "life imprisoned" scumbag should imply that they are culpable if that individual re-offends), counselling, possible mental health issues ?

So . . we should execute to save money ? ? ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Not sure that I understand what you are proposing. . To convict someone of murder you already have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and as another poster has mentioned this has already shown to have flaws. .(I can post lots of other examples and have already referenced the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 who were all found guilty beyond reasonable doubt)

Are you proposing that there is a higher level of guilt beyond that which is currently required . .

i.e.

reasonable doubt = acquittal
Beyond reasonable doubt = guilty
Beyond the beyond (we're absolutely certain !) = death penalty ? ?

Well, considering none of the above mention "absolutely no doubt" (e.g. caught red-handed, camera evidence, irrefutable DNA proof) I would suggest that there is an OBVIOUS natural higher level than "beyond reasonable doubt", wouldn't you ?

You're the only one in the room and no-one enters or leaves = beyond reasonable doubt
Camera shows you identifiably pulling the trigger = absolutely no doubt

greendom

A capital punishment system is significantly more expensive than a life imprisonment system

http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well, considering none of the above mention "absolutely no doubt" (e.g. caught red-handed, camera evidence, irrefutable DNA proof) I would suggest that there is an OBVIOUS natural higher level than "beyond reasonable doubt", wouldn't you ?

You're the only one in the room and no-one enters or leaves = beyond reasonable doubt
Camera shows you identifiably pulling the trigger = absolutely no doubt

Do you not think that in principle if you create a second higher level of guilt then you undermine the current (beyond reasonable doubt) requirement. . i.e. if you cannot prove this 'higher' level of guilt, does that not then imply reasonable doubt ?

I'm no lawyer (and actually I believe this argument is beside the point as I oppose the death penalty for more fundamental reasons) but I'm reasonably confident that what you are proposing could never work.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Do you not think that in principle if you create a second higher level of guilt then you undermine the current (beyond reasonable doubt) requirement. . i.e. if you cannot prove this 'higher' level of guilt, does that not then imply reasonable doubt ?

No reason why it should.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is still exactly what it says on the tin.

Eliot Rosewater

walshb wrote: »

Would you also include the families of victims who have been butchered?

Yes. If a family member of yours has been murdered you are not in a fit state to decide what is or is not the best form of punishment. Emotional responses generally lack rationality. The last thing grieving relatives want to hear about is "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty".


To be honest I don't think the pro-death penalty arguments here are in line with the detached manner befitting a discussion on justice. Theres a lot of emotive language floating around - "butchered", "scum" etc. One of the ideas of good justice, in my opinion, is that the crowd with the pitchforks outside the courtroom aren't the ones passing judgment. Verdicts and processes should be the product of careful deliberation, not what your heart or gut instinct tells you is "right".

oppenheimer1

irishconvert wrote: »

I was just reading through this thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055861049) on Ian Huntley's throat being slashed in prison and couldn't believe the number of people who seem to be in agreement with what happened to him. It makes me wonder are Irish people in favour of bringing back the death penalty for certain crimes? What is your opinion on it?

Personally I think we should have the death penalty. Certain members of society have no fear and I think it would be a big deterrant if they know a public execution could be waiting for them if they step out of line.

Some of the comments from the Huntley thread:

Experience tells us otherwise. Most acts of crime are committed with the intention of not getting caught anyway.

Mario007

yeah...never going to happen anyway due to EU laws(thankfully) so no point in discussing it

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Most acts of crime are committed with the intention of not getting caught anyway.

Yes, but if you know the punishment in advance then you can't complain.

If driving at +10 mph = 1 penalty point and a €100 fine, then you've basically agreed to that in advance if caught.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes, but if you know the punishment in advance then you can't complain.

If driving at +10 mph = 1 penalty point and a €100 fine, then you've basically agreed to that in advance if caught.

I think you might be missing my point. If you commit a crime, but do not expect to get caught, then the punishment for that crime will only have a small bearing on your decision to carry it out. Other countries with the death penalty still have higher rates of serious crime, although other factors are also at play.

I wouldn't like to see the death penalty due to the potential for miscarriages of justice. It might only take one crooked guard to frame someone. It has happened before.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I think you might be missing my point. If you commit a crime, but do not expect to get caught, then the punishment for that crime will only have a small bearing on your decision to carry it out.

It'll still make sure that you can't carry out the second.

That's good enough for me.

thebman

greendom wrote: »

A capital punishment system is significantly more expensive than a life imprisonment system

http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html

In fairness there is no reason the death penalty should be more expensive.

It depends on the implementation.

jank

If there is a 100% cast iron case that the right person is being put to death than I would be in favour of it. If there is a shred of doubt than I wouldnt impliment it.

Anyway jail is too soft for alot of people. Bring back hard labour!