Harsh punishment works

Austerity

Harsh punishment against criminals and scumbags really work perfectly well. There are countries in the world that are a haven of peace and tranquillity because they punish criminals instead of letting scumbags with dozens of convictions go free.

If you beheaded people for robbery, assault, rape and so on the problems our society is facing would be gone forever. If we cut the hands of thieves are problems would be gone in no time.

Mercy against criminals is the mercy of fools. The only sollution is NO mercy.

wes

Ok, do you have any figures to back this up? The only country I have heard that does all those punishments is Saudi Arabia. So how does the crime rate compare to countries whom mete out much less severe countries?

Also, if you are correct, is the loss of freedom worth it?

Austerity

wes wrote: »

Ok, do we have any figures to back this up? The only country I have heard that does all those punishments is Saudi Arabia. So how does the crime rate compare to countries whom mete out much less severe countries?

Also, if you are correct, is the loss of freedom worth it?

What freedom do I lose if we cut the hands of thieves? What freedom do I lose if we behead violent criminals?

From what I read Singapore is the execution capital of the world and it is a very peaceful and safe place. I prefer to live in a country where scumbags have to live in fear instead of normal people.

seamus

The stats from the US don't back up your assertion. Crime rates in Texas are comparable to those in every other state in the US, despite the fact that they execute more prisoners than everyone else put together (or something insane like that).

You need stats to back this up. I wouldn't trust statistics from dictatorships.

You also have to compare like countries with like. There are many things which we consider a crime which are either ignored or which are expressly legal in countries with massive amounts of corporal punishment. So to say that Saudi is safer than Ireland (for example) is misleading if it's perfectly legal to rape your wife and children in Saudi Arabia.

Singapore is ridiculously safe because the citizens have given up most of their personal liberties in favour of strong law enforcement. It has little to do with the actual type of punishment. How likely you are to be caught for doing something has more of an effect on crime rates than the penalties for getting caught.

Gerry.L

THose countries dont have the same culture we do with getting hammered at weekends, drugs etc.

And from what I have seen in my travels, they have waaaayyy different attitudes to us on just about everything... And aswel imagine being beat to a pulp in the middle of the street because you were suspected off something :eek: and it doesnt take much to be suspected either

EDIT: In that culture you dont have to fear people in the street, but you do have to fear the legal system and if you become a victim (which is not unlikely) theres nobody to run and appeal it. So if your hands are chopped off over nothing.... theres not a thing in the world you can do.

onlyrocknroll

Austerity wrote: »

Harsh punishment against criminals and scumbags really work perfectly well. There are countries in the world that are a haven of peace and tranquillity because they punish criminals instead of letting scumbags with dozens of convictions go free.

If you beheaded people for robbery, assault, rape and so on the problems our society is facing would be gone forever. If we cut the hands of thieves are problems would be gone in no time.

Mercy against criminals is the mercy of fools. The only sollution is NO mercy.

I'm under the impression that all the research on this issue directly contradicts what you've said. Harsh punishment unfortunately doesn't work as a deterrent. If it did we could simply "solve" the problem of crime.

Btw comparisons with Arab societies are useless because western and Islamic societies are different in far too many respects. How could we say rather the difference in crime figures are a result of tougher punishments rather than levels of religiosity, economic development or any other number of things.

Cookie_Monster

well if you behead people of course repeat crime will drop

fontanalis

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

well if you behead people of course repeat crime will drop

Sometimes it works after the person is beheaded.
A country that emulates Suadi Arabia (the blister on the ballsackof humanity) can only be a better place.
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-17/world/saudi.rape.victim_1_saudi-women-victim-saudi-arabia?_s=PM:WORLD

Nodin

Austerity wrote: »

What freedom do I lose if we cut the hands of thieves? What freedom do I lose if we behead violent criminals?

From what I read Singapore is the execution capital of the world and it is a very peaceful and safe place. I prefer to live in a country where scumbags have to live in fear instead of normal people.

You were asked for figures.....

Austerity

Austerity wrote: »

Harsh punishment against criminals and scumbags really work perfectly well. There are countries in the world that are a haven of peace and tranquillity because they punish criminals instead of letting scumbags with dozens of convictions go free.

If you beheaded people for robbery, assault, rape and so on the problems our society is facing would be gone forever. If we cut the hands of thieves are problems would be gone in no time.

Mercy against criminals is the mercy of fools. The only sollution is NO mercy.

I would love to agree with you simply because I do approve of capital punishment, and yet, I have yet to see this utopia created by harsh sentencing. Where are these havens that you speak of?

I've lived in China (and traveled most of Asia) which has a no tolerance policy towards offenders either by killing them or by putting them in work prison camps (which is essentially the same thing). But it doesn't really work to remove crime. I have plenty of Chinese friends who have been on the receiving end of some rather nasty attacks both for monetary gains, and also just for pure terror. So I have to question the effectiveness of a zero tolerance policy towards crime.

TBH I don't think any one way works, but everything has to be used together. And over time through the use of such methods, newer and more humane methods will be created. But I do believe that capital punishment should be part of the system for repeat offenders.

From what I read Singapore is the execution capital of the world and it is a very peaceful and safe place. I prefer to live in a country where scumbags have to live in fear instead of normal people.

I'd highly recommend visiting Singapore for a decent period of time before making such a judgment (I stayed there two months with my ex). You'd be suprised at the level of crime that exists. Its worth considering the amount of crime that Asians do not report simply for fear of reprisals to them or their family.

Major Lovechild

It does indeed. Just look at Japan.

PapaQuebec

Wouldn't go as far as beheading....
.... loooong terms of imprisonment with minimal facilities is more to my liking.

Look at Nelson Mandela.... .... to my knowledge he hasn't re-offended!

onlyrocknroll

Major Lovechild wrote: »

It does indeed. Just look at Japan.

You're confusing correlation with causality.

By your logic I could claim that sushi reduces crime.

murphaph

Whilst I totally disagree with chopping criminals' limbs off as a form of punishment, I agree with the OP that in general the penalties for crime of all types in Ireland are simply not harsh enough.

I am not a believer in prison being a place to "reform" criminals. This belief is a God-fearing Victorian one. Before the Victorians prisons were out and out institutes for punishment and IMO that's what they should be again.

Prisons should be spartan places, with lots of reinforced concrete, not equipped with TVs and pool tables. I don't believe in unhygienic conditions (overcrowing etc.) but I do believe that we should build more large, modern prisons, outside the cities on greenfield sites where an optimal design can be achieved. An optimal design IMO means the minimum number of staff being required to oversee the prison in safety and a minimum of interaction between prisoners and basic (yes boring but nutritionally balanced) cheap food.

Sentences for just about every crime need to be longer and need to be served IN FULL, no time off for "good behaviour"...if they had behaved well in the first place they wouldn't be in prison! Visiting prisoners should be heavily restricted...it is used by far too many to smuggle in drugs etc. and again, prison should be a punishment. It also costs resources to oversee visiting hours etc. that the decent taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for.

The notion of sentences running concurrently should be abolished. If somebody has robbed three people at knifepoint then they should face three sentences consecutively, same goes for ANY crime.

The most serious crimes including murder should carry a natural life sentence. If you take someone else's life you have forfeited your own IMO. The only reason I am against the death penalty is for the simple fact that mistakes can and will be made and there is no appeal after you are dead or have had your hand chopped off etc.

Nodin

They have that approach in the states, and it doesn't work.

Frogeye

Austerity wrote: »

What freedom do I lose if we cut the hands of thieves? What freedom do I lose if we behead violent criminals?

From what I read Singapore is the execution capital of the world and it is a very peaceful and safe place. I prefer to live in a country where scumbags have to live in fear instead of normal people.

I don't live in fear and I'm normal ( I think!). Leaving in fear is a choice you make. As for violent... define violent? at what point do you start cutting? someone throws a few digs at a football match? maybe you get in a fight after a few pints.... and as for freedom, try asking the women in Saudi about freedom.

As for other comments that punishments aren't harsh enough in this country, sentences on the books for crimes having been going up and up and crime seems to be rising anyway. Fair enough the Judges might not use the full rigors open to them all of the time but its still not working.

The whole world has been getting tougher and tougher on crime and drugs for decades and its not working. If you were a football manager and you kept at the same tactics even though they never worked, you'd get the bullet sharpish. not with crime though. But its easy to satisfy the masses with more guards, tougher stances, wars on drugs. The public don't want to here about regeneration or youth development. They don't vote for logic they vote for quick fixes!So things will never change. As Tupac once said: "instead of a war on poverty they got a war on drugs ...."

Eliot Rosewater

The Norwegians would beg to differ. Their prison system emphasises humanity, and the goal of it is to rehabilitate prisoners, not to simply punish them.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html?xid=huffpo-direct

Halden, Norway's second largest prison, with a capacity of 252 inmates, opened on April 8. It embodies the guiding principles of the country's penal system: that repressive prisons do not work and that treating prisoners humanely boosts their chances of reintegrating into society.

[...]

Countries track recidivism rates differently, but even an imperfect comparison suggests the Norwegian model works. Within two years of their release, 20% of Norway's prisoners end up back in jail. In the U.K. and the U.S., the figure hovers between 50% and 60%. Of course, a low level of criminality gives Norway a massive advantage. Its prison roll lists a mere 3,300, or 69 per 100,000 people, compared with 2.3 million in the U.S., or 753 per 100,000 — the highest rate in the world.

See pictures of the prison here.

Personally, I think most of these calls for harshness are only the product of bitterness and unbridled anger. The justice system should be about "fixing" criminals so that they can live the rest of their days in harmony with society. Effectively beating them to the ground will only make them more bitter and more likely to rebel against the institutions that treated them so harshly. Bitterness breeds bitterness, it seems.

murphaph

Nodin wrote: »

They have that approach in the states, and it doesn't work.

And ours does?

Edit: there are many parts of the US where you'd be safer than in Ireland! The US is a huge country with differing legal systems throughout.

Nodin

murphaph wrote: »

And ours does?
.

Ours - as is the case with much of our social and legal structures - is neither fish nor fowl, in that it doesn't have the harsh sentences of the 'anglo saxon' approach, or the rehabilitation-oriented outlook of the scandanavians, as oulined by Eliot above.

murphaph wrote: »

Edit: there are many parts of the US where you'd be safer than in Ireland! The US is a huge country with differing legal systems throughout.

While thats true, overall theres more murders per 1,000 of population there than here.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

In addition, as far as I'm aware, we're still below the European average.

Lockstep

Last night I was lucky enough to meet Peter Pringle and Sunny Jacobs.

Excellent examples of why the death penalty is an abomination.


On a more serious note, I fail to see how it would act as a deterrent, especially in the cases of organized criminals. Gangsters face death from rivals all the time, and gangland killings are much less humane than anything the government could get away with.

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

On a more serious note, I fail to see how it would act as a deterrent, especially in the cases of organized criminals. Gangsters face death from rivals all the time, and gangland killings are much less humane than anything the government could get away with.

I fail to see how anything would deter these people. TBH I don't see capital punishment as a deterrent for serious offenders. I see it as a way to remove them entirely. I don't believe its possible to reform these kind of people, and even if it is possible, considering the time & expense needed to do so, would it be worth it? Nah. Some offenders should just be removed from the system completely.

Lockstep

Deleted User wrote: »

I fail to see how anything would deter these people. TBH I don't see capital punishment as a deterrent for serious offenders. I see it as a way to remove them entirely. I don't believe its possible to reform these kind of people, and even if it is possible, considering the time & expense needed to do so, would it be worth it? Nah. Some offenders should just be removed from the system completely.

You're comfortable with the state being able to choose if people live or die? Even though the death penalty is notorious for innocent people being put on death row?


Also, keep in mind that the appeals procedure for the death penalty make it incredibly expensive, with prisoners often spending decades on death row.

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You're comfortable with the state being able to choose if people live or die? Even though the death penalty is notorious for innocent people being put on death row?

As I have said, I'm comfortable with repeat offenders being knocked off... How many repeat offenders are innocent when convicted for the 3rd time?

Also, keep in mind that the appeals procedure for the death penalty make it incredibly expensive, with prisoners often spending decades on death row.

So, get rid of the appeals process for anyone on their third offense. Simple.

I believe that the people that continue to break the law in this manner, and have failed to get the not-so-subtle hint of previous jail time to stop what they're doing, don't deserve to be treated the same as first time offenders or even second timers (the 2nd timers being the buffer zone against mistakes happening). Naturally, any 2nd repeaters of serious crime like murder go straight to the death category.

Personally, I don't see why we have to treat repeat offenders like normal people. They've given up that privilege on their own initiative.

Nodin

So you really want a revenge system, rather than a justice system.

Lockstep

Deleted User wrote: »

As I have said, I'm comfortable with repeat offenders being knocked off... How many repeat offenders are innocent when convicted for the 3rd time?

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Mandatory sentencing is pretty notorious for being a knee-jerk reaction by those who haven't thought it through.
For example, I could be extremely unlucky and be at a party where someone shoves an illegal firearm, some pot and a jar of heroin into my hands and I could be charged for 3 counts of holding proscribed substances. Likewise, I could be wrongfully found guilty of a double murder case (as Sunny Jacobs was)
In your views, if found guilty, I could then be executed.
What a terrible system.

Deleted User wrote: »

So, get rid of the appeals process for anyone on their third offense. Simple.

So you not only want to bring in the death penalty (notorious for killing innocent/mentally innocent people) but you want to make it easier for the state to kill people?
Hardly sounds like an effective, equitable or sustainable system.

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe that the people that continue to break the law in this manner, and have failed to get the not-so-subtle hint of previous jail time to stop what they're doing, don't deserve to be treated the same as first time offenders or even second timers

Then lock them up for life.
We currently have a State which couldn't govern it's way out of a wet paper bag. You really want to give them the power of life and death over you?

Deleted User wrote: »

(the 2nd timers being the buffer zone against mistakes happening). Naturally, any 2nd repeaters of serious crime like murder go straight to the death category.

So it's 2 strikes for serious offenders and 3 for others. Does this mean that if I steal sweets three times, I should be executed?:(

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I don't see why we have to treat repeat offenders like normal people. They've given up that privilege on their own initiative.

The right to life isn't a 'privilege'.
Privileges are things like smoking cigarettes and watching TV.

Also, we're unable to bring in the death penalty anyway. Given that it is
A) Unconstitutional under Art 15.5.2
Against the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
C) Prohibited under the Council of Europe for countries which have already abolished it.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

So you really want a revenge system, rather than a justice system.

I don't know why this has to be about revenge. I'm not looking for revenge. I recognise that the system of reforming criminals is flawed, and I believe there should be a cut-off point, whereby repeat offenders no longer can sit through their "punishments" and return to crime afterwards. (I'm not seeking the death penalty for first time offenders)

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Which has not changed. :rolleyes:

Mandatory sentencing is pretty notorious for being a knee-jerk reaction by those who haven't thought it through.
For example, I could be extremely unlucky and be at a party where someone shoves an illegal firearm, some pot and a jar of heroin into my hands and I could be charged for 3 counts of holding proscribed substances. Likewise, I could be wrongfully found guilty of a double murder case (as Sunny Jacobs was) In your views, if found guilty, I could then be executed.
What a terrible system.

Why do people always use such off the wall examples, to justify the refusal of capital punishment..?

Why not someone who steals a car the first time, mugs a person the second time, and kills someone the third time... is that more acceptable, and somewhat more realistic?

I also notice you didn't answer my question to you.

So you not only want to bring in the death penalty (notorious for killing innocent/mentally innocent people) but you want to make it easier for the state to kill people?
Hardly sounds like an effective, equitable or sustainable system.

If taking out those that are repeating crimes, then, yes, I would make it easier for the state to kill people...

Then lock them up for life.

Which is not working despite the huge expense in keeping them locked up.

We currently have a State which couldn't govern it's way out of a wet paper bag. You really want to give them the power of life and death over you?

I've never committed a crime so it wouldn't apply to me. But then I have lived in other countries which do have the Death sentence and it didn't particularly bother me since I'm rather careful about my lifestyle.

So it's 2 strikes for serious offenders and 3 for others. Does this mean that if I steal sweets three times, I should be executed?:(

Hardly. Again with the off the wall examples. Why do those that argue against the death penalty use this sort of rubbish? Its perfectly obvious as to what I'm referring to.

The right to life isn't a 'privilege'.
Privileges are things like smoking cigarettes and watching TV.

Who says they have the right to life? If someone kills someone, does prison time, and then kills again, then I certainly don't believe they should be allowed to live.

Also, we're unable to bring in the death penalty anyway. Given that it isA) Unconstitutional under Art 15.5.2
Against the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
C) Prohibited under the Council of Europe for countries which have already abolished it.

So? This is a discussion board. We talk about things. besides, things change over time depending on the circumstances.

Lockstep

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know why this has to be about revenge. I'm not looking for revenge. I recognise that the system of reforming criminals is flawed, and I believe there should be a cut-off point, whereby repeat offenders no longer can sit through their "punishments" and return to crime afterwards. (I'm not seeking the death penalty for first time offenders)

Then what does executing them do?
Capital punishment is notorious for being expensive, ineffective and for frequently executing the innocent.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do people always use such off the wall examples, to justify the refusal of capital punishment..?

As those in favour of capital punishment never seem to realize how far-reaching what they want entails. Wrongful convictions occur all the time (which is why we avoid mandatory sentencing in Ireland). For example, possession of an unlawful firearm came up a few years ago, mandating 7 years in jail (If I remember rightly). Luckily it was shot down as opponents correctly pointed out that the law would require those who had an illegal firearm thrust into their hands to be required to serve the same time as those who knowingly held onto it.
One of the most crucial things to know in law is that there are extremely few examples of clear cut cases.
You might dismiss unlikely scenarios as 'off the wall' but that merely shows that you haven't really thought about your current position (or are ignorant on criminal law) If you wish to apply a hard and fast rule like mandatory sentencing) then these are questions you must answer.
Not sidestep by going "Ah well, they're not likely. Therefore I don't have to deal with them".

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not someone who steals a car the first time, mugs a person the second time, and kills someone the third time... is that more acceptable, and somewhat more realistic?

Probable; sure.
Realistic: no.

Deleted User wrote: »

I also notice you didn't answer my question to you.

Sorry, thought it was a rhetorical question.
The onus is on you to prove that those who are convicted of three offenses are always guilty, given that it is you who is seeking to put forward a proposition: that the death penalty should be introduced for 3 strike offenders.

Deleted User wrote: »

If taking out those that are repeating crimes, then, yes, I would make it easier for the state to kill people...

This would require a perfect legal system for it to be remotely feasible.

And there are 130 other reasons: the 130 death-row inmates who were exonerated by new evidence. Their deaths would have carried an awful price tag.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is not working despite the huge expense in keeping them locked up.

Neither is the huge cost of running death penalty trials

A recent study by the Urban Institute found that an average death penalty trial costs a state about $2 million more than a murder trial where no death penalty is sought. The Death Penalty Information Center estimates that keeping an inmate on death row costs $90,000 a year in extra security. Almost every state is facing a deficit, and getting smart about corrections budgets is an unexpected side benefit.

Source

Also, read this

Deleted User wrote: »

I've never committed a crime so it wouldn't apply to me. But then I have lived in other countries which do have the Death sentence and it didn't particularly bother me since I'm rather careful about my lifestyle.

Indeed but it applies to others who were merely at the wrong place at the wrong time.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" ignores the reality of the criminal justice system.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly. Again with the off the wall examples. Why do those that argue against the death penalty use this sort of rubbish? Its perfectly obvious as to what I'm referring to.

And why is it that death penalty advocates don't realise just how off the wall criminal justice cases are?
You said that those who commit 3 offenses should be executed (2 for serious offenses) I put forward an extremely likely scenario (someone convicted of theft three times) and you dismiss it as an 'off the wall example'

Take the case of Sunny Jacobs
She was found guilty of double murder (which would mean she should be executed under your desired criminal justice system) and yet the entire case was a balls up.
I met her last night, absolutely terrible story. But of course, you dismiss such cases as "off the well" and yet seek to impose mandatory sentencing.
Off the wall? Of course they are. Doesn't mean they don't happen all the time.

Deleted User wrote: »

Who says they have the right to life? If someone kills someone, does prison time, and then kills again, then I certainly don't believe they should be allowed to live.

The Irish Constitution (and therefore, the Irish population), the European Union, the Council of Europe (all of which Ireland subscribes to)
You may not believe in it, but luckily, the criminal justice system doesn't revolve around knee-jerk reactions.

Deleted User wrote: »

So? This is a discussion board. We talk about things. besides, things change over time depending on the circumstances.

Ah just pointing out that you're views are unfeasible. Things change but as it stands, the worldwide consensus has been moving away from the death penalty.
Sure it could change but let's face it, it's not exactly likely.


Sorry man, but you're inability to answer reasonable questions (such as possible scenarios) combined with your assumption that the death penalty is cheaper just shows it's not something you've thought about/researched much (if at all)

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Then what does executing them do?

Stops them from re-offending without keeping them in prison?

Capital punishment is notorious for being expensive, ineffective and for frequently executing the innocent.

Yes, you've said this every time you've responded to me. Its like a mantra. but then as I have said I refer to repeat offenders which reduces the likelihood of innocent victims, and prison time is already expensive and ineffective for them.

One of the most crucial things to know in law is that there are extremely few examples of clear cut cases.

Fair enough, but is it likely that someone will be convinced, serve one prison term, and then be convicted again, serve time, and be convicted a third time, serving time, and be innocent?

You might dismiss unlikely scenarios as 'off the wall' but that merely shows that you haven't really thought about your current position (or are ignorant on criminal law) If you wish to apply a hard and fast rule like mandatory sentencing) then these are questions you must answer.
Not sidestep by going "Ah well, they're not likely. Therefore I don't have to deal with them".

I have repeatedly (no pun intended) referred to the terms whereby I believe that capital punishment should be applicable. You seem to ignore this and paint it as If I'm applying it to everyone.

Sorry, thought it was a rhetorical question.
The onus is on you to prove that those who are convicted of three offenses are always guilty, given that it is you who is seeking to put forward a proposition: that the death penalty should be introduced for 3 strike offenders.

No, actually, you're the one stating over and over again about how often innocent people are sent for capital punishment. So the onus is on you to answer...

This would require a perfect legal system for it to be remotely feasible.

Why? Again, my view only extends to those repeating their crimes. Have served prison time, broke the law again, served time, and broke it again...

So why would a perfect legal system be needed to deal with them?

Neither is the huge cost of running death penalty trials

Good links. Don't really know why we would have to repeat the mistakes of other countries, but I take your point.

I still believe that it would be better to remove these people than letting them continue repeating their crimes. The costs involved in allowing that are larger in my eyes.

Indeed but it applies to others who were merely at the wrong place at the wrong time.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" ignores the reality of the criminal justice system.

Again, being in the wrong place on three separate occasions?

And why is it that death penalty advocates don't realise just how off the wall criminal justice cases are?
You said that those who commit 3 offenses should be executed (2 for serious offenses) I put forward an extremely likely scenario (someone convicted of theft three times) and you dismiss it as an 'off the wall example'

I said those that have served multiple prison terms... Actually my first post was a bit vague... so let me be perfectly clear. This is about those that have served prison time, released, convicted a second time, served time, etc.

Ah just pointing out that you're views are unfeasible. Things change but as it stands, the worldwide consensus has been moving away from the death penalty. Sure it could change but let's face it, it's not exactly likely.

And I have absolutely no problem with you pointing that out.

Sorry man, but you're inability to answer reasonable questions (such as possible scenarios) combined with your assumption that the death penalty is cheaper just shows it's not something you've thought about/researched much (if at all)

Well, when you continuously use examples/scenario's which are outside of the parameters that i originally set (i.e. repeat offenders), damn right I'm not going to bother answering them. Instead I get the mantra about capital punishment and innocent victims... and the one question I did ask you, is still not answered... Go figure.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know why this has to be about revenge. I'm not looking for revenge. I recognise that the system of reforming criminals is flawed, and I believe there should be a cut-off point, whereby repeat offenders no longer can sit through their "punishments" and return to crime afterwards. (I'm not seeking the death penalty for first time offenders)

....and the first and last stop on that chain of thought is "death penalty"?

Lockstep

Deleted User wrote: »

Stops them from re-offending without keeping them in prison?

Why bother when it is cheaper and sets the standard that the State cannot kill it's own citizens unless it is to urgently protect a person's life?

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, you've said this every time you've responded to me. Its like a mantra. but then as I have said I refer to repeat offenders which reduces the likelihood of innocent victims, and prison time is already expensive and ineffective for them.

I find it quite ironic that you accuse me of having a mantra given that I have sourced my arguments whereas you use general concepts and dismiss any potential outcomes as off the wall.
You don't seem to understand that someone can be given multiple charges for the same incident. Like I said, if I'm found with drugs and firearms on my person, I can be charged multiple times. This would mean I would have multiple convictions and could be executed under what you deem to be an effective legal system.
Multiple convictions doesn't mean being charged on different occasions, you can be charged for multiple crimes on a single day in court.

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough, but is it likely that someone will be convinced, serve one prison term, and then be convicted again, serve time, and be convicted a third time, serving time, and be innocent?

Possibly, but the criminal justice system has to take potential outcomes into account.
The chance of me being raped is extremely small but it doesn't mean that the courts shouldn't legislate on male-rape.

Deleted User wrote: »

I have repeatedly (no pun intended) referred to the terms whereby I believe that capital punishment should be applicable. You seem to ignore this and paint it as If I'm applying it to everyone.

You said

Naturally, any 2nd repeaters of serious crime like murder go straight to the death category.

That's mandatory sentencing right there. You didn't say "it should be an option". You said that they should go straight to the death category.
Which is what I was referring to when I was outlining the problems in mandatory sentencing.

Deleted User wrote: »

No, actually, you're the one stating over and over again about how often innocent people are sent for capital punishment. So the onus is on you to answer...

I've already proved this, unless you're just not reading what I'm citing. You have yet to substantiate your claims.
The Boston Globe link lists the 130 prisoners who were on death row but were exonerated by the provision of new evidence.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why? Again, my view only extends to those repeating their crimes. Have served prison time, broke the law again, served time, and broke it again...

You keep changing your story. One minute it's those who have multiple convictions, then it's for those who have committed double murders and then for those who have committed a crime, served time, then repeated the process twice more.
Which is it?

Deleted User wrote: »

So why would a perfect legal system be needed to deal with them?

Because a perfect legal system would ensure that only ever the guilty are punished. WHich just doesn't happen.

Deleted User wrote: »

Good links. Don't really know why we would have to repeat the mistakes of other countries, but I take your point.

I still believe that it would be better to remove these people than letting them continue repeating their crimes. The costs involved in allowing that are larger in my eyes.

Fair enough
One of the most irritatingly common justifications that people have for executing prisoners is that they claim it's cheaper.
We both agree that repeat offenders have to be kept away from the population at large. As such, I'd see life imprisonment (without the possibility of parole) and solitary confinement to be solutions which prevent the offender from committing crimes again, while ensuring that the State isn't given the power to execute it's own citizens.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, being in the wrong place on three separate occasions?

Once again, you seem to think that people are only ever convicted for one thing at a time. Using the example of Sunny Jacobs, she was convicted of double murder. Under your system, she'd already be dead.
Likewise, this man committed two acts of murder

Deleted User wrote: »

I said those that have served multiple prison terms... Actually my first post was a bit vague... so let me be perfectly clear. This is about those that have served prison time, released, convicted a second time, served time, etc.

Would you include all crimes in this category? Or are there only certain crimes that merit the death penalty?
If so, why not merely incarcerate them for life? It means that if new evidence comes up or a miscarriage of justice takes place, they can be released/compensated. This can't happen if they're executed.

Deleted User wrote: »

And I have absolutely no problem with you pointing that out.

Fair enough, just pointing out that your views are that of a minority and it;s chances of being enacted in Ireland (or the EU) are close to zero.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, when you continuously use examples/scenario's which are outside of the parameters that i originally set (i.e. repeat offenders), damn right I'm not going to bother answering them. Instead I get the mantra about capital punishment and innocent victims... and the one question I did ask you, is still not answered... Go figure.

Given that I have relied on actual cases, newspapers and law articles, I don't take kindly to being accused of repeating mantras.

Your 'one' question was an attempt to shift the burden of proof. You wish to bring in the death penalty so it is your job to show that most repeat offenders are guilty (And you'd need a very high majority to prove this).

Otherwise it goes into religious logic:
"I want to bring in religious law as God exists."
"But we have no proof of God"
"You prove he doesn't exist and then well talk"
Etc

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

....and the first and last stop on that chain of thought is "death penalty"?

How is it the first and last? I've said that I favor it for repeat offenders. They've already gone through the prison system at least once, if not twice. They haven't been reformed. So the first would be the prison system, and all those things you favor... and then if that has failed, then the death sentence.

karma_

Deleted User wrote: »

How is it the first and last? I've said that I favor it for repeat offenders. They've already gone through the prison system at least once, if not twice. They haven't been reformed. So the first would be the prison system, and all those things you favor... and then if that has failed, then the death sentence.

When you say repeat offenders, what type of crime do you have in mind, or is it all types of crime?

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Why bother when it is cheaper and sets the standard that the State cannot kill it's own citizens unless it is to urgently protect a person's life?

When what is cheaper?

I find it quite ironic that you accuse me of having a mantra given that I have sourced my arguments whereas you use general concepts and dismiss any potential outcomes as off the wall.

And yet you repeat the same mantra regardless of what I say, and again, your examples are outside of the areas that I described.

You don't seem to understand that someone can be given multiple charges for the same incident. Like I said, if I'm found with drugs and firearms on my person, I can be charged multiple times. This would mean I would have multiple convictions and could be executed under what you deem to be an effective legal system. Multiple convictions doesn't mean being charged on different occasions, you can be charged for multiple crimes on a single day in court.

Whereby you would be sent to prison to serve out your sentence, and be released at some future stage with the opportunity to be a reformed member of society or.... get caught for another crime, and go back to prison once more.

What you can't seem to get your head around is that I'm talking about those individuals that see the inside of prison multiple times for different incidents.

Possibly, but the criminal justice system has to take potential outcomes into account.

At the expense of everyone else? Nah, I can't agree with that. Basically, you seem to believe that any possibility that someone is innocent regardless of how low it is, means that the whole system should cater for that possibility...

You said
That's mandatory sentencing right there. You didn't say "it should be an option". You said that they should go straight to the death category.
Which is what I was referring to when I was outlining the problems in mandatory sentencing.

I don't see a problem with it. But then i don't have a problem with you thinking differently than me.

I've already proved this, unless you're just not reading what I'm citing. You have yet to substantiate your claims.
The Boston Globe link lists the 130 prisoners who were on death row but were exonerated by the provision of new evidence.

So answer the question... How many repeat offenders are innocent when convicted for the 3rd time? You have not provided anything which answers that question...

You keep changing your story. One minute it's those who have multiple convictions, then it's for those who have committed double murders and then for those who have committed a crime, served time, then repeated the process twice more.
Which is it?

As I have said repeatedly... those that have been convicted, served time, released, convicted for another crime, served time, etc.

Because a perfect legal system would ensure that only ever the guilty are punished. WHich just doesn't happen.

Of course not. There is no absolutely perfect system.

We both agree that repeat offenders have to be kept away from the population at large. As such, I'd see life imprisonment (without the possibility of parole) and solitary confinement to be solutions which prevent the offender from committing crimes again, while ensuring that the State isn't given the power to execute it's own citizens.

So we agree, but not about the end result. Capital punishment versus life sentencing.

Would you include all crimes in this category? Or are there only certain crimes that merit the death penalty?
If so, why not merely incarcerate them for life? It means that if new evidence comes up or a miscarriage of justice takes place, they can be released/compensated. This can't happen if they're executed.

I'd include all crimes under the conditions I've said about repeat offenders.

Fair enough, just pointing out that your views are that of a minority and it;s chances of being enacted in Ireland (or the EU) are close to zero.

I know I'm in a minority. It doesn't bother me much.

Your 'one' question was an attempt to shift the burden of proof. You wish to bring in the death penalty so it is your job to show that most repeat offenders are guilty (And you'd need a very high majority to prove this).

Just admit that you can't answer the question..

The point I'm making is that the chance of someone being innocent is likely to be extremely low for such a thing to occur.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

How is it the first and last? I've said that I favor it for repeat offenders. They've already gone through the prison system at least once, if not twice. They haven't been reformed. So the first would be the prison system, and all those things you favor... and then if that has failed, then the death sentence.

....as oppossed to the mandatory life sentence for a third conviction for a serious offence...

Lockstep

Deleted User wrote: »

When what is cheaper?

Life imprisonment.
The costs of the trials are less and given that death row often takes over 15 years, it'd be easier to place the perp in solitary confinement, which is even lower costs (less guards needed, not paying for recreational equipment etc)

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet you repeat the same mantra regardless of what I say, and again, your examples are outside of the areas that I described.

Given that you have yet to provide a single source, case or legal article, I'm bemused that you can moan about 'mantras'.
You don't seem to understand the consequences of laws, especially mandatory sentencing: you can't just apply them to cases when it suits you, they have to applied consistently.
But feel free to dismiss any criticisms as 'mantras' if it makes you feel better.

Deleted User wrote: »

Whereby you would be sent to prison to serve out your sentence, and be released at some future stage with the opportunity to be a reformed member of society or.... get caught for another crime, and go back to prison once more.
What you can't seem to get your head around is that I'm talking about those individuals that see the inside of prison multiple times for different incidents.

I see, so if I committed three separate robberies, I should be executed, whereas if I commit 50 murders, I wouldn't, provided they were all done in one go.

Deleted User wrote: »

At the expense of everyone else? Nah, I can't agree with that. Basically, you seem to believe that any possibility that someone is innocent regardless of how low it is, means that the whole system should cater for that possibility...

My friend, that is how the Irish justice system works. Sure it's possible that legislation could permit anyone looking shifty to be seized and imprisoned but that isn't how it works. The State doesn't bring in sentences so draconian that they cannot be reversed to some degree.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see a problem with it. But then i don't have a problem with you thinking differently than me.

So we agree that you believe in mandatory sentencing. That's great, given that in your previous post, you were claiming not to be painting everyone with the same brush. With mandatory sentencing, that's exactly what happens: those who fall within the crimes parameters are required to serve a sentence. No equity, no extenuating circumstances, nothing. Mandatory.

Deleted User wrote: »

So answer the question... How many repeat offenders are innocent when convicted for the 3rd time? You have not provided anything which answers that question...

You are honestly expecting me to provide links to prove your own point?
My friend, you are arguing for an action to be taken (that the death penalty should be introduced)
The onus is on you to source and cite your own arguments. Not me, no matter how many times you ineptly attempt to shift the burden of proof.
If I was to say "Blacks are criminals and they should all be incarcerated, find me the percentage of blacks who havn't raped someone" you'd laugh in my face. Rightly so.

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course not. There is no absolutely perfect system.

Great, then why should the State (an utterly imperfect entity) be given the power of life and death over us?
If we're imprisoned, we can be released and compensated. If we're murdered, then all the State can do is say to the families "Ah ****e one, sorry."

Deleted User wrote: »

So we agree, but not about the end result. Capital punishment versus life sentencing.

Indeed but my proposed system is:
1) Cheaper
2) Allows exoneration given the utter ballsup that exists in criminal law.
3) More humane
4) Legal under Irish law
5)Sends a powerful message about the taking of human life (citizens can't do it, neither can the state)
6) Doesn't require us to leave the EU

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd include all crimes under the conditions I've said about repeat offenders.

Even non-payment of library fines?
You're entire legal system is bizarre. Someone who commits multiple murders will not be executed (provided they are charged for them all at the same time)
Whereas someone who steals sweets or parks illegally can be executed, if they do it 3 times
Madness!

Deleted User wrote: »

Just admit that you can't answer the question..

No, you admit that you're argument is so weak, you're unable to back it up yourself and try to shift the burden of proof to avoid this.
Seriously, the last time I saw that argument used was by a religious fundamentalist.
"I believe in God, prove he doesn't exist."
"Hold on a second, it doesn't work like that."
"Just answer the question. See? You can't. Therefore he exists."

Deleted User wrote: »

The point I'm making is that the chance of someone being innocent is likely to be extremely low for such a thing to occur.

Again, the nuances of criminal law mean that the most unlikely cases occur. There is never anything predictable or realistic in criminal law, which is why legislators can't just go by predictable outcomes (especially when enacting mandatory sentencing). You have to take the entire rule as you find it, not just the ones that happen to fit what you want to happen.

I've been doing some thinking about what you've said, and I would admit that I haven't thought this through properly. I'll do some reading into the subject before I form a proper opinion on the subject.

Thanks for the responses. Good posts, and they've given me plenty to think about. Cheers.