Is it time to bring in the death penalty

supermonkey

OK with the drug gangs terrorising people in Limerick and the so called dissident republicans killing soldiers and planting bombs in the north is it time to bring back the death penalty.

It needs a referendum and we would be criticised by the European court of human rights and the council of Europe but they are just talking shops.

The Gardai know who the criminals are so is time to BRING BACK THE ROPE!

opinion guy

Three words for you: miscarriage of justice.

Your answer: No.
Next thread

supermonkey

OK very good point.
Is there any information on how many innocent people are in jail in Ireland? Or is there any probablistic estimate of this number?

Dean Lyons might have been hanged (though the cops might not have framed him if there was a death penalty).
Nicky Kelly would probably have been hanged.

That's bad. But the McCarthy Dundons would all be dead. The Finglas drug gangs would be dead. That's good.

From a golden rule perspective death penalty is never justifiable.

From a utilitarian perspective it is vital! (or is it?)

opinion guy

Well quite apart from that there is another fundamental flaw in your argument. These people are free on the streets because the guards can't convict them of anything. Changing the penalty doesn't change the process of prosecution. So they would still be walking around the street. Your proposed law change would only hang people who are already in jail (including those who are wrongfully imprisoned - sorry I have no idea the stats). Incidentally I have no idea who any of the people you mention are (nor do I want to so please don't enlighten me).

Unless you are proposing the guards just go around trussing up people who they just know are criminals? At which point I refer you back to the miscarriage of justice point.

supermonkey

Sorry I have just seen that this was discussed very recently on boards. My apologies. I have another question but I will wait a bit before asking.

Dotsie~tmp

I'd would be in favour for certain crimes. As for miscarriage of justice, an unusually high burden of proof could be used where death penalty is sought. I think a radical reform of criminal justice is necessary anyway. Criminality is out of control in some parts of the country (including where I live).

I'd also like to see a three strike policy for serious crimes. Your third bags you a life sentence. Too many guys going around with 40 convictions ending up killing someone. Lets also have and end suspended and concurrent sentencing.

seamus

supermonkey wrote: »

Is there any information on how many innocent people are in jail in Ireland? Or is there any probablistic estimate of this number?

Well obviously we've no idea how many innocent people are in jail in Ireland, cos then they wouldn't be in jail

Seriously though, it's a hard one to estimate because false conviction rates vary depending on a multitude of factors including the location of the court, the race and sex of the perp, the race and sex of the victim, the nature of the crime, etc etc.

The Innocence Project in the US works on re-investigating crimes and evidence based on DNA evidence.

That have found (so far) 17 people who had been sentenced to death who were in fact innocent of the crimes they'd committed.

There's an saying of, "I would rather 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man was sentenced to death", but a lot of people don't actually believe that and would accept a certain small of mistakes in this regard. However, 17 false convictions discovered in a 20-year period represents a very large number of mistakes (around 0.5%), which I don't think most people could comfortably get behind.
When you consider that these are discovered by volunteers on a select basis and not by any systematic check or review of convictions, you can expect the false conviction rate to be a good deal higher.

seamus

I'd also like to see a three strike policy for serious crimes. Your third bags you a life sentence. Too many guys going around with 40 convictions ending up killing someone. Lets also have and end suspended and concurrent sentencing.

Well, much of this is distorted by the way it's reported in the media.

A guy with 40 convictions, may have only committed 4 distinct acts, each carrying ten separate charges. So he won't have been up in front of a judge 40 times.

Though some of these scumbags have been.

I would end suspended sentencing, though I would introduce a rule where the judge cannot suspend more than x% of any sentence which is over 1 year. The longer the sentence, the less he can suspend. So someone can get two years with one suspended, or ten years with a maximum of one suspended.

Concurrent/consecutive sentencing is also not quite so simple. A single act might break 5 laws and result in five convictions, but the idea of rehabilitation doesn't support distinct punishment for each conviction, instead that you do jail time for the most severe conviction.

One concept which I've only heard recently, but which I quite support is that sentences are concoted on the basis of "what would be a good deterrent for me", instead of, "What would be a good deterrent for this piece of **** standing in front of me?". Clearly the two would be miles apart.
One good example came last week. A guy had been previously banned from driving for 25 years. He later then got in a car and was caught drink-driving, speeding, no insurance, a whole pile of stuff.

The judge decided to increase his ban to 45 years. How is that any more of a deterrent than a 25 year ban? He now has effectively no reason to not get in a car now because it can't get much worse.

It's this kind of thinking that we need to combat. Judges need to impose sentences which befit both the offender and the crime.

CantGetNoSleep

I think even if we got rid of 1,000 of the most dangerous, scummiest, evil, Ian Huntley throw away the key type criminals just one miscarriage of justice would make it all so pointless, it will never happen in this country and we can be thankful for that

Caveat

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I think even if we got rid of 1,000 of the most dangerous, scummiest, evil, Ian Huntley throw away the key type criminals just one miscarriage of justice would make it all so pointless, it will never happen in this country and we can be thankful for that

Agree.

What we need is very simple. Two things only:

1) Punishment for every crime. That's every single crime. No excuses.
2) The punishment to be consistent and appropriate.

I think you would see a big difference.

TheNewMe

I think even if we got rid of 1,000 of the most dangerous, scummiest, evil, Ian Huntley throw away the key type criminals just one miscarriage of justice would make it all so pointless, it will never happen in this country and we can be thankful for that

If we translated this attitude to motoring then every car would be limited to run at 5mph so that we would never have any crashes. In medicine there would never be any operations done because somebody might have a bad reaction or a surgeon might make a mistake.

Any system or activity humans ever do is going to have an associated error rate. A responsible, mature society (not us of course) weighs the negative and positive aspects and determines an acceptable balance.

Personally I'd like to see the death penalty introduced as I think some crimes deserve that sanction. I wouldn't apply it willy nilly though but I would have it available as an option. It's a moot issue though as I don't expect it will happen any time soon.

This is a post I wrote in the discussion thread on the old poker forum (R.I.P) when the former President of the High Court stated he was in favour of the reintroduction of the death penalty and I was asked my opinion:

1. Legal
Ireland cannot reintroduce the death penalty for a number of legal reasons. Primary among these is that it would require the country to vote in a referenda on 2 issues. Firstly we would have to revoke Art. 15.5.2 of the Constitution ("The Oireachtas shall not enact any law providing for the death penalty") as well as voting to remove ourselves from the European Union as the 13th Protocol to the Convention on Fundamental Human Rights as well as the European Charter of Human Rights both specifically outlaw the death penalty.

2. Reality
The death penalty has never been shown to have any deterrent effect, contrary to what the Honorable former President of the High Court asserts, from criminal behaviour. The possible penalty is not a deterrent, it is the likelihood of apprehension that has a deterrent effect.
The corollary of the failure as a deterrent effect is that we can be wrong about convictions and, where the death penalty has been utilised, there is no corrective mechanism. The judge himself states in the interview that had the British courts had this punishment available to them at the time then the Birmingham Six would be dead now. (The British trial judge actually stated he wished he could hang them if memory serves me correctly). Instead of 16 lost years we would have 6 lost lives.

3. Moral
No person or institution should have the power of life or death over anybody, and the State least of all. The judiciary would be charged with determining whether a person should die and that is a power they cannot have and, I am quite sure, would not want.
We are creatures of unimaginable potential but who are prone to unbelievable errors of judgment. As someone here commented recently, when one considers that a conviction for murder can be gained on the decision of 10 out of 12 individuals in a once off trial situation, the astute poker player should realise the sheer madness of allowing such a final and irreversible punishment when the mechanism of assigning guilt is prone to such horrible variance as in the present case.

Every time a discussion like this comes up it worries me. We accept so much these days. Invasive surveillance, massive amounts of data being kept on us without a mechanism for us to check it, the continuing incremental surrender of our freedom in the name of securing a more secure and safe society. Benjamin Franklin once wrote, they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Every time we give the State a little more power over us (and what power is there greater than that of life and death?) the more we lose the very freedoms which make living worthwhile.

So, in short, no, I do not think the death penalty is a good idea.

Victor

Introduce the death penalty and criminals will start shooting gardaí on a regular basis, so as to not be caught.

Dave!

Don't the states in the U.S. with the death penalty also tend to have higher crime rates?

MagicSean

supermonkey wrote: »

OK very good point.
Is there any information on how many innocent people are in jail in Ireland? Or is there any probablistic estimate of this number?

Dean Lyons might have been hanged (though the cops might not have framed him if there was a death penalty).
Nicky Kelly would probably have been hanged.

That's bad. But the McCarthy Dundons would all be dead. The Finglas drug gangs would be dead. That's good.

From a golden rule perspective death penalty is never justifiable.

From a utilitarian perspective it is vital! (or is it?)

He wasn't framed. He confessed freely.

PCPhoto

we dont need a death penalty - but do need judges to actually give proper sentences.


we need to stop concurrent sentencing and ensure prison conditions are slightly above the mimimum requirements for european regulations for human rights.

also we need greater presence of gardai on the streets (not extra random checkpoints to get the overtime up and catch speeders) ..... and an introduction to a nice scheme where people with multiple convictions (repeat crimes) are given reduced or even no help from the state (no social welfare/rent allowances etc)

death penalty = too easy to take an innocent life, (my best example would be how the McBrearty's were blamed and almost framed for the Richie Barron death in Donegal a few years ago....gardai took it upon themselves to blame someone - this could easily happen)

we also need more accountability/transparency as to prisoners - why do they get time off EVERY sentence (so they don't cause trouble while in prison) - prisoners should in some way compensate the victims of their crimes, any money they earn while in prison should be given to victims families.

ooohhhh this topic makes the blood boil - personally I'd like to organise a BIG meeting between the government leaders and the gang leaders (and just blow up the building when they are all inside)

MagicSean

PCPhoto wrote: »

we dont need a death penalty - but do need judges to actually give proper sentences.


we need to stop concurrent sentencing and ensure prison conditions are slightly above the mimimum requirements for european regulations for human rights.

also we need greater presence of gardai on the streets (not extra random checkpoints to get the overtime up and catch speeders) ..... and an introduction to a nice scheme where people with multiple convictions (repeat crimes) are given reduced or even no help from the state (no social welfare/rent allowances etc)

death penalty = too easy to take an innocent life, (my best example would be how the McBrearty's were blamed and almost framed for the Richie Barron death in Donegal a few years ago....gardai took it upon themselves to blame someone - this could easily happen)

we also need more accountability/transparency as to prisoners - why do they get time off EVERY sentence (so they don't cause trouble while in prison) - prisoners should in some way compensate the victims of their crimes, any money they earn while in prison should be given to victims families.

ooohhhh this topic makes the blood boil - personally I'd like to organise a BIG meeting between the government leaders and the gang leaders (and just blow up the building when they are all inside)

We need more prisons. The Gardaí are doing their job. There's just no room.

Dazd_N_Confusd

I hold an 'eye for an eye' mentality yet don't like the idea of the state having the power to end someones life. If you truly believe someone should die then why not do it yourself? Oh yes, because it's so much easier to let an abstract entity such as the government do it for you!

There's no justice like your own.