Death Peno, you a fan?

Ush1

You a fan of corporal punishment? Should the state have the right to do away with someone how they see fit?

Are certain individuals only harmful to society and to be removed like cancerous tumors from a body?

4zn76tysfajdxp

I prefer silver goals.

In guaranteed guilty cases of someone being a cúnt, then yes.... Ie. the person has taken away someone else's right to life so we take his.

me_right_one

Yep. Obviously the punishment should fit d crime, so only for very bad baddies.

Atavan-Halen

No, I just don't like the thought of someone being possibly wrongly accused of something and getting the death penalty for it.

Also having your freedom taken away and rotting in jail for years is a lot worse than being killed IMO.

Zombienosh

What goes around, comes around.

we'llallhavetea_old

i don't think the death penalty is right at all. it serves feck all purpose, rotting in prison is far worse than death imo.

Ush1

Deleted User wrote: »

In guaranteed guilty cases of someone being a cúnt, then yes.... Ie. the person has taken away someone else's right to life so we take his.

Cant be very difficult to ascertain 100 percent certainty.

So you'd have it for any case of murder?

piby

I've always been undecided on it but either way I think life in prison with no facilities other than a toilet and a sink at most is just as a bad a punishment. Death is quick but jokes aside can you imagine what it would be like to spend forty years or more with nothing to do all day every day?

Ush1

atavan-halen wrote: »

No, I just don't like the thought of someone being possibly wrongly accused of something and getting the death penalty for it.

Also having your freedom taken away and rotting in jail for years is a lot worse than being killed IMO.

This costs tax payers money though usually.

artanevilla

Ush1 wrote: »

You a fan of corporal punishment? Should the state have the right to do away with someone how they see fit?

Are certain individuals only harmful to society and to be removed like cancerous tumors from a body?

Some people pay good money for corporal punishment.

storm2811

No,not in any case.

kev9100

No, I'm not. We the people are supposed to be better than murderers/rapists and we shouldn't go down to their level.

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

Cant be very difficult to ascertain 100 percent certainty.

So you'd have it for any case of murder?

Nope because I know that most cases can only be proved beyond reasonable doubt..

Superbus

I find it kind of weird that Charles Manson is still alive, but outside of cases like his (granted there aren't many) an actual life sentence in prison should suffice imo.

Columbia

I've devoted countless hours of thought and study into this area, and I will simply say that yes, to me the death penalty is irrefutably the best option.

Sure, innocent people have died on death row, but it's nowhere close to the number of people who have been murdered by escaped or released prisoners who I believe should have received the death penalty.

Joseph Edward Duncan, a serial killer, who raped and murdered dozens of young boys and tortured two children for seven weeks said to his own lawyer that "he only regretted being caught, and that he would try his best to escape prison and kill as many people as he could get his hands on before going back to prison.”

When someone explains to me why a person like that should be allowed to live another moment, then maybe we'll have something.

Chuchoter

No, I believe in solitary for the rest of your life. Papillion style. Also death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment.

Dudess

I'm opposed to a state - any state - having the power to kill. I do believe though, in the cases of horrific crimes, a life prison sentence should be literally that.

Mrmoe

I would be in favour of the death penalty in the most extreme of cases. These are not cases where there is any chance that the person is innocent. I would probably have at least 4 essential criteria for submitting someone to the death penalty.

1. Multiple murders
2. Lack of remorse
3. Certainty that they commited such crimes
4. Likelihood to reoffend

The reason why I think it is morally justifiable to kill someone in this manner relates to state use of resources. Finances used to keep a prisoner in jail, providing security, shelter and food should be spent elsewhere on people who are more deserving such as people requiring medical treatment, food and shelter who are just, innocent people.

we'llallhavetea_old

Columbia wrote: »

I've devoted countless hours of thought and study into this area, and I will simply say that yes, to me the death penalty is irrefutably the best option.

Sure, innocent people have died on death row, but it's nowhere close to the number of people who have been murdered by escaped or released prisoners who I believe should have received the death penalty.

Joseph Edward Duncan, a serial killer, who raped and murdered dozens of young boys and tortured two children for seven weeks said to his own lawyer that "he only regretted being caught, and that he would try his best to escape prison and kill as many people as he could get his hands on before going back to prison.”

When someone explains to me why a person like that should be allowed to live another moment, then maybe we'll have something.

i see your point but i would prefer to see that man in prison, solitary confinement, let him lose the plot in there til he dies.

Dudess

Columbia wrote: »

Sure, innocent people have died on death row, but it's nowhere close to the number of people who have been murdered by escaped or released prisoners who I believe should have received the death penalty.

That's still too many innocent people who have died on death row. It's horrible that this has happened at all, and I don't see how a small number somehow mitigates it. I'd urge folks to watch the documentary Fourteen Days in May about a young man who was innocent and sentenced to death in the States. It should not go un-noted that he was black and poor and it was in the Bible Belt.

scientific1982

Im not in favour. For me death would actually be a lesser penality in comparison to spending the rest of my life in jail.

round tower huntsman

Ush1 wrote: »

You a fan of corporal punishment? Should the state have the right to do away with someone how they see fit?

Are certain individuals only harmful to society and to be removed like cancerous tumors from a body?

yes sexual pedators/killers are incurable. death is best option. wont deter other predators i dont think but its at least justice for the family and saves the tax payer.

Ush1

crayolastereo wrote: »

No, I believe in solitary for the rest of your life. Papillion style. Also death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment.

Cost of drugs for lethal injection in the state of Texas is $86.08.

Keeping someone in prison for life will end up very expensive.

The Highwayman

Yes hang 'em

crayolastereo

crayolastereo wrote: »

No, I believe in solitary for the rest of your life. Papillion style. Also death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment.

Not after you sell the TV rights to Al Jazeera.

Ush1

Columbia wrote: »

I've devoted countless hours of thought and study into this area, and I will simply say that yes, to me the death penalty is irrefutably the best option.

Sure, innocent people have died on death row, but it's nowhere close to the number of people who have been murdered by escaped or released prisoners who I believe should have received the death penalty.

Joseph Edward Duncan, a serial killer, who raped and murdered dozens of young boys and tortured two children for seven weeks said to his own lawyer that "he only regretted being caught, and that he would try his best to escape prison and kill as many people as he could get his hands on before going back to prison.”

When someone explains to me why a person like that should be allowed to live another moment, then maybe we'll have something.

He just sounds stupid or clinically insane, he could locked up in padded cell realistically.

What about people who regret their crimes while awaiting execution?

aDeener

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

i don't think the penalty is right at all.

well what do you propose when a striker is cleaned out of it in the box? only option imo

Ush1

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope because I know that most cases can only be proved beyond reasonable doubt..

What about mitigating circumstances? If the person was on drugs or suffering from a mental illness?

round tower huntsman

round tower huntsman wrote: »

yes sexual pedators/killers are incurable. death is best option. wont deter other predators i dont think but its at least justice for the family and saves the tax payer.

No...Castrate the bastards..

we'llallhavetea_old

aDeener wrote: »

well what do you propose when a striker is cleaned out of it in the box? only option imo

nah, lock him in the locker room and throw away the key i say :P

CokaColumbo

If we lived in tribes and didn't have jail facilities then yes, I would promote the death penalty. But we do have jails and do have the facilities to protect the public from murderers.

I also don't agree with the "the penalty should fit the crime" justification. Is it O.K. for the state to have retributional rape squads for example?!

That said, the death penalty, even though it takes the lives of some innocent people, could actually save more lives than it takes as murderers often re-offend, both inside and outside of prison when released. But I'm still against it...

...aside from being blow-torched to death or having your head compressed by a vice grip, being executed would be one of the worst way to go, IMO. Knowing the exact date you're going to die is a terrible prospect and the lead up to it is probably so unbelievably bad.

Ush1

CokaColumbo wrote: »

If we lived in tribes and didn't have jail facilities then yes, I would promote the death penalty. But we do have jails and do have the facilities to protect the public from murderers.

I also don't agree with the "the penalty should fit the crime" justification. Is it O.K. for the state to have retributional rape squads for example?!

That said, the death penalty, even though it takes the lives of some innocent people, could actually save more lives than it takes as murderers often re-offend, both inside and outside of prison when released. But I'm still against it...

...aside from being blow-torched to death or having your head compressed by a vice grip, being executed would be one of the worst way to go, IMO. Knowing the exact date you're going to die is a terrible prospect and the lead up to it is probably so unbelievably bad.

Lethal injection isn't painless at all apparently. Electrocution is a particularly horrible procedure also.

amacachi

I'm against the death penalty. The only thing that would make me feel in any way in favour of it is how not having it seems to mean all sentences are scaled down accordingly when a life sentence is the longest available.

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

What about mitigating circumstances? If the person was on drugs or suffering from a mental illness?

No death penalty obviously.. I'm talking about the likes of the Washington Sniper here which is very different to your run of the mill murder.

brummytom

I'm completely opposed to the death penalty. For me, it seems like the easy way out - the person should have to live and face what they've done.


However, the justice systems both in here and Ireland are a joke. Life imprisonment should mean life, not a few years.

starbelgrade

The reason why we don't have the death penalty is because it serves no other purpose than to exact a from of barbaric & primeval revenge.

And because we don't have it is one of the reasons why we can consider ourselves civilised.

RMD

The Death penalty isn't required for justice to be served, a justice system where the murderer can't get out after 12 years of a life sentence for "good" behavior is what's needed.

mikemac

Nope and this country has seen more use of it last century then most.

Over 70 people shot by the state in civil war. Ok, it was wartime so a lot will exclude these

People hanged for IRA membership in the 1940's by De Valera.

And others for capital crimes like murder.
It's not so long ago you could be executed for killing a garda and this sentance was passed as recently as 1985, certainly not long ago. Commuted to life imprisonment.

Ireland is no stranger to the death penalty, I wouldn't like to see us go back to it.

brummytom

brummytom wrote: »

I'm completely opposed to the death penalty. For me, it seems like the easy way out - the person should have to live and face what they've done.


However, the justice systems both in here and Ireland are a joke. Life imprisonment should mean life, not a few years.

I'm not arsed paying to punish somebody.. If you want to put forward more of your taxes for this, fire ahead but to me, the cost of keeping a psycho killer in jail for 40 years isn't good value for money as it stands.

round tower huntsman

RMD wrote: »

The Death penalty isn't required for justice to be served, a justice system where the murderer can't get out after 12 years of a life sentence for "good" behavior is what's needed.

true. no point in death penalty when you have the likes of that sicko from clondalkin that killed 2 women and cut them up(banbridge was his name??) getting out after 12 yrs.

InTheTrees

Ush1 wrote: »

Should the state have the right to do away with someone how they see fit?

You mean should we have the right, because we are the state.

aDeener

brummytom wrote: »

I'm completely opposed to the death penalty. For me, it seems like the easy way out - the person should have to live and face what they've done.


However, the justice systems both in here and Ireland are a joke. Life imprisonment should mean life, not a few years.

agree with every word you say there

Ush1

InTheTrees wrote: »

You mean should we have the right, because we are the state.

Not in all situations. Perhaps in democracies but their is lots of places that execute people at the whim of a dictator or non democratically elected government.

starbelgrade

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not arsed paying to punish somebody.. If you want to put forward more of your taxes for this, fire ahead but to me, the cost of keeping a psycho killer in jail for 40 years isn't good value for money as it stands.

In the American states where the death penalty exists, the death penalty cases cost between 48-70% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.

In California alone, the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.

But money is not the most important issue in this debate; state executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect, when it is useful to take it - and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by the public's concerns.

InTheTrees

I should clarify something...

A life sentence IS a life sentence.

Yes, they may not do more than 15-20 years behind bars but did you know that their lives are not their own when they get let out?

They can be put back in prison without trial and for any length of time for any offense. As much a traffic ticket can put them back in prison for another 20 years.

I'm not defending the sentences at all and i'm not saying the parole way is a good thing. And I'm completely against the death penalty.

Ush1

starbelgrade wrote: »

In the American states where the death penalty exists, the death penalty cases cost between 48-70% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.

In California alone, the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.

But money is not the most important issue in this debate; state executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect, when it is useful to take it - and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by the public's concerns.

This is probably because the trials take longer. Also, I think you have a minimum term on death row of 12 years or something? There is also all the phases of appeal.

If you changed the system in the US, as it is alot simpler in other countries, I'm sure you could kill someone for alot cheaper than keeping them in prison for life.

starbelgrade

Ush1 wrote: »

This is probably because the trials take longer. Also, I think you have a minimum term on death row of 12 years or something? There is also all the phases of appeal.

If you changed the system in the US, as it is alot simpler in other countries, I'm sure you could kill someone for alot cheaper than keeping them in prison for life.

State executions are a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those other barbaric practices, executions have no place in a civilized society.

starbelgrade

starbelgrade wrote: »

In the American states where the death penalty exists, the death penalty cases cost between 48-70% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.

In California alone, the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.

But money is not the most important issue in this debate; state executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect, when it is useful to take it - and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by the public's concerns.

Cost of trials? That's nothing compared to the cost of keeping someone alive for 40 years.. Quarter of a million per inmate per year in Portlaoise. How many people have to pay income tax for a year just to keep one person in there? If there's people who deserve to die for what they've did, I'd be happier to see it than pay for their upkeep.

If they take a life in cold blood, they take away their own right to life.. After years of not being sure where I stood on the topic, I think that sums it up.

Ush1

starbelgrade wrote: »

State executions are a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those other barbaric practices, executions have no place in a civilized society.

Not disagreeing with that but perhaps in some people minds they take into consideration the tax payers money is all.

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

Not disagreeing with that but perhaps in some people minds they take into consideration the tax payers money is all.

I also don't think we've progressed so much in the last 100 hundred years that we're suddenly too good for execution. It's been done for thousands of years.
We're still the same people, being surrounded by technology doesn't give us a moral high ground.