Crime and Punishment, what's your views?

Pigwidgeon

So, I was watching something on TV a while ago and it was saying, that in the majority of prisons in Ireland now, each cell has its own televison, the recreation areas have games consoles, and a fair amount of luxuries like that.

Personally, I think this is ridiculous, you're in prison you shouldn't have any luxuries. It's your own fault, deal with the punishment you get. I think that during the day, prisoners should be made to work, and be of some value to society, be it chain gangs or whatever, they shouldn't just be allowed to sit around and play xbox or watch tv, yes where they go is restricted, but that seems very cushy to me. I think 1 hour of free time a day is plenty, be it exercise, or watching tv in a group room, the rest should either be spent working or in a cell.

I don't find it as bad for less serious crimes, but for those like murder, rape, etc. it needs to be much harsher punishment. I know that if someone close to me was murdered I wouldn't want their punishment to have luxuries, it should be mainly solitary confinement. Although, I would be against the death penalty, my reason, as horrible as it sounds, if they're dead, they won't suffer. The person's family they committed a crime against are going to have to live with what happened, and so should they. They should be put in prison for life, actually life, not the crap life sentences we have here, and have no luxuries, and have to live with what they've done.

In Ireland, 50% of the people who leave prison will commit a crime again and will end up back in prison (I don't have a source, it was something a lecturer said yesterday). So C&H what do you think? Is the prison system too lenient in Ireland? What type of punishments would you like to see? or do you think the crime system in Ireland is fine and doesn't need changing at all?

Jamie Starr

I'm glad we live in a civilised society- in some countries, they treat prisoners like criminals.

Seriously though, I never understand the satisfaction people get in debating the use of prisons and sentences. To me, it's kind of depressing that we can even justify humans punishing other humans. The reason someone murders or rapes, is the same reason someone imprisons- because they believe it's right. In a perfect world, there'd be no murder, rape, or unhappiness of any kind. It makes me sad that, though we know logically an ideal, straight-foward world isn't possible, we still try to pretend the real world is one.

What I mean to say is, using crime and punishment as an ideal, and thinking that this dynamic at least sets something right, is tough for me. "Well, that family will never be the same again, but I'm glad they gave him life." Is it right to lock another person up forever? Or even for a day? I can't bring myself to say it is. It's justifying suffering. Is it necessary? Perhaps. A bit like a lot of things in world- hunger, poverty. Necessary by our own standards.

I'm sorry if this sounds bullsh**ty, but I'm much more comfortable in grey areas than in black or white ones.:)

jefreywithonef

I thought this was about the book.

Don't mind them having televisions (maybe restrict them to watching Loose Women or something? That might be a bit harsh though) but giving them access to games consoles is a bit much.

I'd say the massive overcrowding of prisons is a more pressing issue; Mountjoy for instance is meant to hold about 25% more prisoners than it's safe. Consequently some prisoners get released early as there just isn't enough room for them. Overcrowding and knowledge that you can leave prison a substantial time before you should = higher rates of recidivism.

amacachi

Am I right in thinking that in some prisons the prisoners are still having to slop out?

People need to think about the effects on society rather than the individuals in prison tbh. Yeah sure, lock them up, have some forced labour, 2 meals a day and maybe batter them every so often. How does that help society? If you send someone to prison for a couple of years and treat them like animals there's only one thing they'll ever do when they come out.

I'm no bleeding heart liberal btw, I'm in favour of long sentences for serious crimes and it disgusts me how light sentences often are in this country. I also have no trust whatsoever in the Gardaí but that's not really for this thread.

KnifeWRENCH

kateos2 wrote: »

Personally, I think this is ridiculous, you're in prison you shouldn't have any luxuries. It's your own fault, deal with the punishment you get. I think that during the day, prisoners should be made to work, and be of some value to society, be it chain gangs or whatever, they shouldn't just be allowed to sit around and play xbox or watch tv, yes where they go is restricted, but that seems very cushy to me. I think 1 hour of free time a day is plenty, be it exercise, or watching tv in a group room, the rest should either be spent working or in a cell.

I don't find it as bad for less serious crimes, but for those like murder, rape, etc. it needs to be much harsher punishment. I know that if someone close to me was murdered I wouldn't want their punishment to have luxuries, it should be mainly solitary confinement. Although, I would be against the death penalty, my reason, as horrible as it sounds, if they're dead, they won't suffer. The person's family they committed a crime against are going to have to live with what happened, and so should they. They should be put in prison for life, actually life, not the crap life sentences we have here, and have no luxuries, and have to live with what they've done.

What type of punishments would you like to see? or do you think the crime system in Ireland is fine and doesn't need changing at all?

Pretty much agree with everything you've written there. Letting a prisoner have an Xbox is just ridiculous. Sure, they're confined to a cell and shut away from their family, but is that punishment enough? I don't really think so. I guess chain gangs are a good idea in theory, but having seeing them portrayed in movies/TV it seems so extreme. Definitely making prisoners work is a good thing; they may aswell contribute to society while they're serving their sentence, and it may do a lot towards rehabilitating them.

I also am completely against the death penalty (glad you mentioned it in your first post, since it was gonna come up eventually! :pac:) and the reason you mentioned (about them not really suffering) is just one reason. It's horribly expensive, it's been shown not to be a detterent and there's always the chance of an innocent person being executed. Living in a country where the state has the right to take a person's life would bother me a lot.

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

I'm glad we live in a civilised society- in some countries, they treat prisoners like criminals.

Well, a lot of them are criminals. Sure, some come out of prison and get rehabilitated or whatnot but some people are beyond that.

Seriously though, I never understand the satisfaction people get in debating the use of prisons and sentences. To me, it's kind of depressing that we can even justify humans punishing other humans. The reason someone murders or rapes, is the same reason someone imprisons- because they believe it's right. In a perfect world, there'd be no murder, rape, or unhappiness of any kind. It makes me sad that, though we know logically an ideal, straight-foward world isn't possible, we still try to pretend the real world is one.

What I mean to say is, using crime and punishment as an ideal, and thinking that this dynamic at least sets something right, is tough for me. "Well, that family will never be the same again, but I'm glad they gave him life." Is it right to lock another person up forever? Or even for a day? I can't bring myself to say it is. It's justifying suffering. Is it necessary? Perhaps. A bit like a lot of things in world- hunger, poverty. Necessary by our own standards.

I'm sorry if this sounds bullsh**ty, but I'm much more comfortable in grey areas than in black or white ones.:)

I'm trying to see where you're coming from here, but what's the alternative? Obviously someone who murders or rapes or whatever should not be free to do so. (and I'm not suggesting that that's what you're saying, just in case it's coming across that way.) Without punishment such as prison, what other way is there to deal with it?

amacachi wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that in some prisons the prisoners are still having to slop out?

Yup, pretty sure I heard that on the radio recently. Not sure which prison the report was talking about, but it does happen. While I'd agree with Kate about removing luxuries and so forth, I don't think anyone would advocate something like that. Treating them as criminals - yes. But treating them as animals - no.

People need to think about the effects on society rather than the individuals in prison tbh. Yeah sure, lock them up, have some forced labour, 2 meals a day and maybe batter them every so often. How does that help society? If you send someone to prison for a couple of years and treat them like animals there's only one thing they'll ever do when they come out.

Again, what alternative is there? No one really wants to make people suffer needlessly, but in the case of murderers/rapists/whatever these people often don't care about the effects that their actions have on society. The ideal situation would be to prevent all crime and have no need for punishment, but that's just not how the world works.

Like I wouldn't say I take joy from a prisoner suffering, but if they had done something to me or a loved one, then I can't deny that it would give me comfort knowing that they're locked up and won't be able to do the same thing to anyone else for a long time (or ever, hopefully.)

tl;dr version:
*Harsher prison sentences for crimes in this country.
*Remove luxuries for prisoners (like games consoles and whatnot) but keep their basic human rights (no slopping out etc.)
*Make them work; will be both contributing to society and ciontributing to their own rehabilitation; will help them readjust to working life when they get out of prison.
*No to death penalty
*Am painfully aware that the above post contains idealism and naivety, and that actually maintaining a firm but fair justice and penal system is far easier said than done.

amacachi

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Yup, pretty sure I heard that on the radio recently. Not sure which prison the report was talking about, but it does happen. While I'd agree with Kate about removing luxuries and so forth, I don't think anyone would advocate something like that. Treating them as criminals - yes. But treating them as animals - no.

There should be no electronics in the room, I completely agree on that.

Again, what alternative is there? No one really wants to make people suffer needlessly, but in the case of murderers/rapists/whatever these people often don't care about the effects that their actions have on society. The ideal situation would be to prevent all crime and have no need for punishment, but that's just not how the world works.

Aye but murders should never get out. I hate when people (you haven't done so, just mentioning it) say the death penalty would prevent re-offending when life imprisonment would do the same. The judges are a massive problem as well alas, they won't even hand down mandatory sentences when they've been legislated.

Like I wouldn't say I take joy from a prisoner suffering, but if they had done something to me or a loved one, then I can't deny that it would give me comfort knowing that they're locked up and won't be able to do the same thing to anyone else for a long time (or ever, hopefully.)

That shouldn't come into it. TBH if someone did something worth anything near a life sentence to someone in my family they wouldn't get near a court, but a society can't and shouldn't be built on that principle.

I'm not in favour of forced labour either. It undermines the rest of the economy and is basically slave labour. Some of the private prisons in America make profits by having the inmates mass-produce goods, crime and punishment is not something that should be profit-driven as far as I'm concerned, and there aren't many things I would say that about. :pac:

There was an article recently showing one of the women's prisons in this country and the difference between it and the men's was ridiculous. It's designed like a little apartment complex with a central square and all, loads of classes and education opportunities which are missing in the men's prisons.

Pygmalion

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

In a perfect world, there'd be no murder, rape, or unhappiness of any kind.

A perfect world requires perfect people, there will always be selfish assholes ruining it for the rest of us, deciding that their bit of income on the side is worth more than other people's lives or happiness.

It makes me sad that, though we know logically an ideal, straight-foward world isn't possible, we still try to pretend the real world is one.

I've never seen anyone pretending the current world is ideal, in any way, so I have no idea where you're going with that.

What I mean to say is, using crime and punishment as an ideal, and thinking that this dynamic at least sets something right, is tough for me. "Well, that family will never be the same again, but I'm glad they gave him life." Is it right to lock another person up forever? Or even for a day?

As for using punishment as an ideal, I can see where you're going with it, the fact that the perpetrator is now suffering (or would be in a different prison system) makes a lot of people feel better, simply because it's a depressing thought that someone who does a lot of wrong could go on without any consequences.

You could argue that punishment for punishment's sake is a pointless endeavour, but tbh that's not what it's really about, it's supposed to keep criminals off the streets for a while and also act as a deterrent against committing crime.
Can't really say anything about how good or bad a deterrent it is, as there aren't really any comparable countries without a prison system.

I'd argue that there should be more effort on education and rehabilitation, and maybe lighter offences shouldn't have a prison sentence (perhaps with longer ones for repeat offenders and serious crimes), but to argue against the system itself is just pointless unless you can actually offer an alternative.

Lawliet

I get where people are coming from when they say prisoners shouldn't have TV and games consoles, but on the other hand you can't just leave people sitting around doing nothing for twenty-four hours a day. That would drive anyone mad, let alone someone who's proven themselves to be violent and unstable -which a lot of prisoners are. I don't think they're giving prisoners games consoles so they can enjoy themselves, I'd say it's more likely they want to keep people's minds occupied, probably makes them easier to control.
Sure putting them to work would be a better way of doing this, but there’s probably reasons why this isn’t possible right now. Not to mention that if they put prisoners out to work in chain gains or similar, there would be uproar. Nobody wants a released rapist or murderer living in their area, how would they react to a gang of them working there?

whadabouchasir

I think that people are making too much of a big thing about prisoners having tv's and consoles.The real punishment in prison is being separated from your family and friends.tbh i wouldn't really be too bothered about living without a tv and consoles,but i'd hate to be locked away from my family and friends.

unknown13

The Death Penalty is absolutely wrong. You can never be sure the person is 100% innocent and there is no appeal from the grave aswell. Eye for an eye is not the answear.

kev9100

The key to our prison system should be rehabiltation and not punishment. What is the pont in treating pisoners like crap and punishimg them for the sake of it? Obviously, the worst of the worst should be treted differently but for the most part, rehabilatation should be favoured over punishment.


As for the death penalty, I'm completely against it. The vast magority of people would never kill, so why should the State have the right to do it?

seriousfizz

People say that criminals deserve to be locked away, and have the basic right of mobility to be taken away from them. But criminals are just people, like any of us, who have gone wrong somewhere - they've been treated badly, or seen horrible things or whatever. Criminals are a result of society.

Yes, of course they have done bad things, and of course they need to learn how to behave well somehow. But thinking about it... what I find criminal is that people can be so cold and in-compassionate, and even delight in the fact that someone else can be sentenced to time in prison. Society says that it's justified because "they're criminals" but they're really not all that different.

unknown13

Question for people regarding the death penalty. A person close to you has been murdered.

Would you rather have the person found guilty, executed after 7-10 years?

OR

Would you rather have the person found guilty, locked away for the rest of his life. Waking up everyday realising he is never leaving his prison cell and every day thinking how he got into this situation?

storm2811

I don't mind them having TV and games consoles etc, but the sentences should really be changed.

Didn't two guys kill a teacher the other day and got about 5 years, one of the guys had 63 previous convictions, how do even get that much!?

To whoever asked if they still have to slop out, yes they do. Two gardai came in to talk to us last year and in Mountjoy they do anyway, the cells are incredibly small too, one of them said he was there once, escorting a prisoner or something, and he couldn't wait to leave, the atmosphere was horrible he said.

KnifeWRENCH

seriousfizz wrote: »

People say that criminals deserve to be locked away, and have the basic right of mobility to be taken away from them. But criminals are just people, like any of us, who have gone wrong somewhere - they've been treated badly, or seen horrible things or whatever. Criminals are a result of society.

I don't think I buy that tbh. I have no idea what motivates most criminals, but saying "oh it's society's fault" is just a cop out imo. Sure it's probably true some times, but it seems like some people are just inherently "bad". Like how would you explain criminals who come from loving homes and good backgrounds?

But thinking about it... what I find criminal is that people can be so cold and in-compassionate, and even delight in the fact that someone else can be sentenced to time in prison. Society says that it's justified because "they're criminals" but they're really not all that different.

Some criminals never show any remorse for their actions. To me, that shows that they are really that different and deserve to be punished harshly by society.

I'm not some cold-hearted right wing nut or anything; as I said earlier, I'm fully against the death penalty and prisons should have decent standards of hygiene and stuff; no one should ever have to slop out. But if someone close to me was killed or raped or seriously assaulted, I can honestly say that I would feel happier knowing the perpetrator was locked up and serving time. I don't think that makes me cold or incompassionate; why should you show compassion to someone who has seriously hurt you or someone you love? Because "society failed them?" Sorry, I just don't buy that.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I'd agree prison needs to be harsher. It seems that prisoners in Ireland have it fairly easy. However I think the biggest problem with our prisons is that we have too many prison guards- we have more guards than prisoners which is ridiculous. Other countries manage to cope with one guard to four prisoners.

illiop

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue to be honest. It's a very complex one.

I do think that the prison system in Ireland it too lenient but at the same time, people deserve to be treated as people. I think having TVs in the actual cells is going too far but a common room area with a TV and maybe a games console is perfectly acceptable.

I have always found it very weird that there are no uniforms in prisons here. I suppose some people would say it's a form of psychological torture but that's bull; it's a punishment and a reminder that you have done something wrong and have become one of a mass. You are an inmate like any of the other inmates. In my mind this means that a petty thief or whatever might look at a murderer and think "Crap, if I don't watch myself I could be him." However, I know nothing about Psychology so this could be bull too.

I agree with what most people have said about more emphasise on rehabilitation instead of punishment...but we don't even know if it is possible to successfully rehabilitate criminals.

I know it would be difficult, especially now, but there should also be some sort of placement program set up for released prisoners, especially the younger ones. These people clearly need help getting on their feet and finding employment etc. Also if someone who has been institutionalised for a long time adjusting to a non-structured life can be very difficult and could potentially lead to harmful behaviour.

There should also definitely be some sort of work for prisoners. I'm not talking slavery or hard labour but they should be expected to pay for as much of there sentence as possible so that the tax-payer isn't stuck with the bill.

I also do agree with Agnostic Mantis, it's so sad to think that a perfect society isn't possible.


This all reminds me of this quote*:

The Last Battle wrote:

“It’s all arranged. And all for your own good. We’ll be able, with the money you earn, to make Narnia a country worth living in. There’ll be oranges and bananas pouring in–and roads and big cities and schools and offices and whips and muzzles and saddles and cages and kennels and prisons–Oh, everything.”

“But we don’t want all those things,” said an old Bear. “We want to be free."

*any excuse to post a Narnia quote.

legallyblonde86

I don't agree with the death penalty.

I do however believe that sex offenders are the scum of the earth and should be kept in mainstream prisons with other prisoners to get daily beatings!! I also think they should be castrated.

With regards to having tv's and games consoles, let them off. Bein stuck in those conditions is crap enough. People who go into conditions like that find it very hard to stay away from drugs which leads to more crime.

Fad

unknown13 wrote: »

The Death Penalty is absolutely wrong. You can never be sure the person is 100% innocent and there is no appeal from the grave aswell. Eye for an eye is not the answear.

What happens if the person is empirically proven to be the perpetrator of some hideous crime? Video/DNA evidence, the whole ****ing shebang, then, could the death penalty not be justified?

What is the point in keeping them in prison, costing some absolutely obscene amount of money a year, when you could just slyly syringe them something lethal >_>

amacachi

Fad wrote: »

What happens if the person is empirically proven to be the perpetrator of some hideous crime? Video/DNA evidence, the whole ****ing shebang, then, could the death penalty not be justified?

What is the point in keeping them in prison, costing some absolutely obscene amount of money a year, when you could just slyly syringe them something lethal >_>

When does that ever happen? Do you realise how few murder convictions there are in this country? No matter how little doubt there was I don't ever want a state killing someone in my name. Also the bills for getting someone executed are massive, I don't know if it's great than keeping them locked up for 40+ years but it is massive with all the legal challenges etc.

IF we lived in a society with a PERFECT judicial and legal and political system then I would be more open to the death penalty, but given when I've learned about the Gardaí in the last few years along with political interference and judicial fallibility I don't see how the death penalty can be argued for. Look at some of the people in America who were put on death row and maintained their innocence and were later vindicated, but not before several appeals and a major stroke of luck. Even if you're fine with killing people "because they deserve it" I don't see how anyone can be ok with the slight chance that one innocent person will be killed by the state, and it's done in your name.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

Cian92

Should we rehabilitate our prisoners our punish them? I think more serious criminals especially need rehabilitation... Why would you rape somebody or cruely murder somebody? There isn't something right there, give it a few years and these people will be back in our society. Do we want them to come out angry and not after having learned a thing?

I think Knifewrench said something earlier about not believing the line "society failed me". At this stage the line is a cop out and cliche, but tbh I think it still holds through. Why is it in America that more a huge proportian of blacks are in prison? Surely blacks aren't worse people? It seems to me that the system has failed them.

Now I've never met somebody who was in a prison or met somebody, but whenever I read a book about a murder at the end of the book, you realise that the murder is not always mentally stable... or that it was the systems, stereotypes and predjuices we create that drove the person to commit the crime. Now that is only fiction so I can't back it up, or use it as any sort of proof of my theory, but I think it makes sense.

amacachi

Cian92 wrote: »

I think Knifewrench said something earlier about not believing the line "society failed me". At this stage the line is a cop out and cliche, but tbh I think it still holds through. Why is it in America that more a huge proportian of blacks are in prison? Surely blacks aren't worse people? It seems to me that the system has failed them.

If you look at it in income terms rather than race terms then both races are closer, you're right that people's surroundings have a big part to play. In America race also has a big part to play as blacks are likely to get tougher sentences and more likely to be put on death row for similar crimes that whites wouldn't and so on.

KnifeWRENCH

Cian92 wrote: »

I think Knifewrench said something earlier about not believing the line "society failed me". At this stage the line is a cop out and cliche, but tbh I think it still holds through. Why is it in America that more a huge proportian of blacks are in prison? Surely blacks aren't worse people? It seems to me that the system has failed them.

Ok, I can accept it's more applicable in America. In this country though, I don't think the whole society argument is as relevant.

EuropeanSon

Personally I don't see why people are so opposed to the death penalty. At the end of the day, you are getting rid of people who make nothing but negative contributions to society, ergo, you are making society better. If they were to get life imprisonment instead, they do nothing but place a heavy financial burden on society for the remainder of their existence, and provide no benefit to society whatsoever. So what's the point in keeping them alive?

And please, don't spew BS excuses like "they might not be guilty". The chances are absolutely minute play absolutely no part in any rational discussion, especially if execution were to be done only on condition of a unanimous jury vote.

On the point that it is more expensive than life imprisonment (based on figures from that haven of overpriced lawsuits and million dollar appeals, the good ol' US of A) I would say that there is no need for it to be this way, and that such costs are not inherent in the process and can therefore be decreased with prudence, as opposed to the fixed cost of paying to feed someone and guard them for several decades, which is the case with life imprisonment.

On the issue that killing someone is somehow inherently wrong, I'd ask for a reason as to why this is, beyond "god says so" or some crap about an inherent sanctity of life, which is refuted wonderfully in this article, specifically by his first objection.

Pygmalion

EuropeanSon wrote: »

And please, don't spew BS excuses like "they might not be guilty". The chances are absolutely minute[citation needed]

.

Edit: I was going to leave the super witty subtle change to your post as is, but figured I might as well actually respond to it.

Let's assume that you're right, that the chances are tiny (and really I've read a lot to convince me otherwise, though I can't say I've really looked into it), at what point does "absolutely minute" suddenly become moral.
Is executing 1 innocent man for every 100 guilty men justifiable because overall society is a better place?
Who takes the blame when the inevitable does eventually happen?
Do we consider those who ordered the man's death to be guilty of a crime or do we just let them off because "It really seemed like he deserved it at the time"?

amacachi

EuropeanSon wrote: »

On the issue that killing someone is somehow inherently wrong, I'd ask for a reason as to why this is, beyond "god says so" or some crap about an inherent sanctity of life, which is refuted wonderfully in this article, specifically by his first objection.

Well why bother even locking up murderers then? Who is anyone to say that what they did was wrong?

Pygmalion

amacachi wrote: »

Well why bother even locking up murderers then? Who is anyone to say that what they did was wrong?

When someone kills someone else we should decide who contributed more to society, if the killer contributed more then we should let them go without any charge.
Only system that makes sense clearly

Jackobyte

unknown13 wrote: »

Eye for an eye is not the answear.

I don't think it should be an eye for an eye but in circumstances such as repetitive child molestation/murder, I definitely think the death penalty should be used.

Also, remember, we have the death penalty in Ireland. The murder of a garda can result in the death penalty but they are always pardoned by the president.

I came across a statement in a movie once that has stuck with me. Just after the good guy catches the bad guy, the bad guy is like:

"Take me to prison, I'll be out in 10 years".

"Men go to prison, dogs get put down."

And subsequently kills him. When someone preys on the most vunerable, our children, repetitively, then I believe the death penalty comes into force. I feel there is a stage where humanity ends and they're are no more than an animal. You'd put down a dog that is attacking people, so why is this beast any different?

amacachi

Jackobyte wrote: »

I don't think it should be an eye for an eye but in circumstances such as repetitive child molestation/murder, I definitely think the death penalty should be used.

Also, remember, we have the death penalty in Ireland. The murder of a garda can result in the death penalty but they are always pardoned by the president.

I came across a statement in a movie once that has stuck with me. Just after the good guy catches the bad guy, the bad guy is like:

"Take me to prison, I'll be out in 10 years".

"Men go to prison, dogs get put down."

And subsequently kills him. When someone preys on the most vunerable, our children, repetitively, then I believe the death penalty comes into force. I feel there is a stage where humanity ends and they're are no more than an animal. You'd put down a dog that is attacking people, so why is this beast any different?

No we don't, it went with the Nice Treaty IIRC.

unknown13

Jackobyte wrote: »

I don't think it should be an eye for an eye but in circumstances such as repetitive child molestation/murder, I definitely think the death penalty should be used.

Also, remember, we have the death penalty in Ireland. The murder of a garda can result in the death penalty but they are always pardoned by the president.

I came across a statement in a movie once that has stuck with me. Just after the good guy catches the bad guy, the bad guy is like:

"Take me to prison, I'll be out in 10 years".

"Men go to prison, dogs get put down."

And subsequently kills him. When someone preys on the most vunerable, our children, repetitively, then I believe the death penalty comes into force. I feel there is a stage where humanity ends and they're are no more than an animal. You'd put down a dog that is attacking people, so why is this beast any different?

The death penalty was totally abolished in 1990 and taken out of the Constitution in 2001

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

unknown13 wrote: »

The death penalty was totally abolished in 1990 and taken out of the Constitution in 2001[/QUOTE

Thats correct. Also the offence of capital murder was never enforced- the last execution in Ireland was in 1955 for the rape and murder of a woman, not for murder of a garda.

unknown13

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

unknown13 wrote: »

The death penalty was totally abolished in 1990 and taken out of the Constitution in 2001

Thats correct. Also the offence of capital murder was never enforced- the last execution in Ireland was in 1955 for the rape and murder of a woman, not for murder of a garda.

I believe there was a case in the 80's where there was someone found guilty of killing a member of An Garda Siochana. The Judge obviously decided against the Death Penalty and went for the mandatory life sentence.

Jackobyte

Jackobyte wrote: »

I don't think it should be an eye for an eye but in circumstances such as repetitive child molestation/murder, I definitely think the death penalty should be used.

Also, remember, we have the death penalty in Ireland. The murder of a garda can result in the death penalty but they are always pardoned by the president.

I came across a statement in a movie once that has stuck with me. Just after the good guy catches the bad guy, the bad guy is like:

"Take me to prison, I'll be out in 10 years".

"Men go to prison, dogs get put down."

And subsequently kills him. When someone preys on the most vunerable, our children, repetitively, then I believe the death penalty comes into force. I feel there is a stage where humanity ends and they're are no more than an animal. You'd put down a dog that is attacking people, so why is this beast any different?

Punishment is also about deterring crime through fear of said punishment. There is evidence to show that the death penalty is a worse deterrent than life sentences. Simply put, people see death as easier than years of institutionalisation.

challengemaster

Blah, too many posts to read - I'll do that later.

My view?

My cousin works as a prison officer, I've heard of proper criminals and the like going to prison for time off, or holidays from their busy life of crime! There's a lot of people in the country worse off tbh, it's not even funny. Some of what you hear makes you wonder WTF is wrong with this country.

I was in the garda station getting a passport sorted out, few proper criminals were around chatting about where they're just out of, where they're going next etc etc, and it was so blasé, it's laughable to them...

Prison is meant to induce rehab, and in the US, it does. It's properly enforced, they get sweet FA luxuries unless they're the best little kids in the playpen, and every time they step out of line they pay for it 10x. Over here, there's no incentive for them to get better, because the punishment is a fúcking joke. If anything, it's like saying to them "well, you can do what you want and the worst that will ever happen to you is LUXURY, all paid for by the taxpayer of course".

But of course, that's only the prison side of the system, and the tip of the ridiculous icebergjoke that is the Irish law system

The way it is at the moment, I could rape and kill a family, and I'd be out in about 2 years with all these bullshít "suspended" sentences.

I'd be very in favour of the death penalty, and there's a lot of people who I'd love to see get it too. So much so I'd bring popcorn to the execution. There's far too much scum in the gene pool, and sending them all to scum congregation places isn't exactly making things any better.

If they're not going to be any contribution to society, or get better, I don't see why they're allowed live at a continued cost to the rest of society. Get rid of 'em and make room for more deserving people.

edit: conorstuff: maybe in somewhere like the US, however, over here where the years of luxury they get awarded... if you start offing them they'll soon start behaving. I'd bet on it.

KnifeWRENCH

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Personally I don't see why people are so opposed to the death penalty. At the end of the day, you are getting rid of people who make nothing but negative contributions to society, ergo, you are making society better.

Not the case in some countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran, where the death penalty can be issued for homosexuality, witchcraft and adultery, among other things. I'm not suggesting that you advocate the death penalty for gay people (or witches) but it goes to show how the system can be so grossly abused in the wrong hands. It's not just criminals that get sent down.

If they were to get life imprisonment instead, they do nothing but place a heavy financial burden on society for the remainder of their existence, and provide no benefit to society whatsoever. So what's the point in keeping them alive?

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both are horribly costly, so why choose state advocated murder and a quick get out of jail card for the perpetrator as opposed to punishing someone to life in prison, whereby they deal with the consequences of their actions and the rest of us continue to live in a country where the state doesn't have the right to end people's lives.

And please, don't spew BS excuses like "they might not be guilty". The chances are absolutely minute play absolutely no part in any rational discussion, especially if execution were to be done only on condition of a unanimous jury vote.

:rolleyes: Love how you call it a BS excuse simply because it's a (valid) point that goes against your argument. But Pygmalion has already addressed this and I'd just be repeating what he said.

On the point that it is more expensive than life imprisonment (based on figures from that haven of overpriced lawsuits and million dollar appeals, the good ol' US of A) I would say that there is no need for it to be this way, and that such costs are not inherent in the process and can therefore be decreased with prudence, as opposed to the fixed cost of paying to feed someone and guard them for several decades, which is the case with life imprisonment.

If there was no need for it to be this way, do you not think the US would have somehow realised this by now and fixed that system? Sure, the death penalty is probably cheaper in other countries than in the US, but compare the other countries that actually have the death penalty to the US: in said countries it is likely that the prison system also costs less. And the costly legal mumbo jumbo is avoided by the fact that the accused is less likely to be given a fair trial.
I suppose Japan would be a possible exception; I'm not sure how much the death penalty costs the state over there. Either way though, I don't think "it's cheaper" is a good enough reason to advocate the death penalty. Putting a price on human life is wading into very dodgy territory.

On the issue that killing someone is somehow inherently wrong, I'd ask for a reason as to why this is, beyond "god says so" or some crap about an inherent sanctity of life, which is refuted wonderfully in this article, specifically by his first objection.

I'm always amazed when people are pro-life and pro-death penalty. So it's ok to stamp on women's rights by claiming it's inherently wrong to terminate an unwanted foetus that's not yet a fully developed human, yet it's perfectly acceptable for the state to execute an ACTUAL living breathing human?

Foetuses are cuter than murderers, I guess....

EuropeanSon

Pygmalion wrote: »

.

Edit: I was going to leave the super witty subtle change to your post as is, but figured I might as well actually respond to it.

Let's assume that you're right, that the chances are tiny (and really I've read a lot to convince me otherwise, though I can't say I've really looked into it), at what point does "absolutely minute" suddenly become moral.
Is executing 1 innocent man for every 100 guilty men justifiable because overall society is a better place?
Who takes the blame when the inevitable does eventually happen?
Do we consider those who ordered the man's death to be guilty of a crime or do we just let them off because "It really seemed like he deserved it at the time"?

I would say that yes, it is. And I think the rate would be vastly, vastly lower than 1 in 100.
The legal system, of course, takes the blame. However, it is also due credit for the benefits of its successes, and overall I think that would leave it in positive karma, so to speak.

amacachi wrote: »

Well why bother even locking up murderers then? Who is anyone to say that what they did was wrong?

I did not say murder, or many other kinds of killing, weren't wrong. I said killing in and of itself wasn't inherently wrong in all circumstances. There is a substantial difference.

EuropeanSon

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Not the case in some countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran, where the death penalty can be issued for homosexuality, witchcraft and adultery, among other things. I'm not suggesting that you advocate the death penalty for gay people (or witches) but it goes to show how the system can be so grossly abused in the wrong hands. It's not just criminals that get sent down.

We are not in those countries. Do people who advocate imprisonment for murder or other heinous crimes here automatically support it for premarital sex, because they do that somewhere else? This point is really quite ridiculous.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both are horribly costly, so why choose state advocated murder and a quick get out of jail card for the perpetrator as opposed to punishing someone to life in prison, whereby they deal with the consequences of their actions and the rest of us continue to live in a country where the state doesn't have the right to end people's lives.

The purpose of prisons in the case of violent crimes, as I see it, is (a) as a deterrent, in which case I suspect execution might work better, and (b) as a means of keeping people safe, which is achieved equally well (better when you consider the potential to escape in the case of imprisonment) by execution. Also, "state advocated murder" is a stupid, emotive term, the use of which is childish. "Murder", you'll find, has a separate definition. "Killing" is more accurate.

:rolleyes: Love how you call it a BS excuse simply because it's a (valid) point that goes against your argument. But Pygmalion has already addressed this and I'd just be repeating what he said.

I've already addressed this re: Pygmalion's post.

If there was no need for it to be this way, do you not think the US would have somehow realised this by now and fixed that system? Sure, the death penalty is probably cheaper in other countries than in the US, but compare the other countries that actually have the death penalty to the US: in said countries it is likely that the prison system also costs less. And the costly legal mumbo jumbo is avoided by the fact that the accused is less likely to be given a fair trial.
I suppose Japan would be a possible exception; I'm not sure how much the death penalty costs the state over there. Either way though, I don't think "it's cheaper" is a good enough reason to advocate the death penalty. Putting a price on human life is wading into very dodgy territory.

You refute your own point with the Japanese example, and also, "it's cheaper" alone certainly isn't good enough, but is another minor advantage to add to the multiple other advantages.

I'm always amazed when people are pro-life and pro-death penalty. So it's ok to stamp on women's rights by claiming it's inherently wrong to terminate an unwanted foetus that's not yet a fully developed human, yet it's perfectly acceptable for the state to execute an ACTUAL living breathing human?

Foetuses are cuter than murderers, I guess....

A foetus isn't a menace to society, and hasn't murdered anyone. And I don't find them particularly cute, no.

challengemaster

Pygmalion wrote: »

.

Edit: I was going to leave the super witty subtle change to your post as is, but figured I might as well actually respond to it.

Let's assume that you're right, that the chances are tiny (and really I've read a lot to convince me otherwise, though I can't say I've really looked into it), at what point does "absolutely minute" suddenly become moral.
Is executing 1 innocent man for every 100 guilty men justifiable because overall society is a better place?
Who takes the blame when the inevitable does eventually happen?
Do we consider those who ordered the man's death to be guilty of a crime or do we just let them off because "It really seemed like he deserved it at the time"?

If you want to get into technicalities... How many road deaths are there per year? Since records began in 1959, 22,682 people have been killed on Irish roads(2009). However, there are always going to be accidents and road deaths, it's just a consequence of driving, and is accepted as such. The alternative is that nobody drives ever, which is insane. What makes that any more or less moral than introducing the death penalty, and having a minute error percentage there?

Keep looking into it and eventually you'll find the moral thing would probably be if nobody ever did anything ever.

It's really no different. No system is perfect, errors will always happen. You just have to accept it.

Pygmalion

challengemaster wrote: »

What makes that any more or less moral than introducing the death penalty, and having a minute error percentage there?

Well for one the point of introducing cars isn't to actively try and take people's lives?
Perhaps that's not enough of a difference though.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I would say that yes, it is. And I think the rate would be vastly, vastly lower than 1 in 100.
The legal system, of course, takes the blame. However, it is also due credit for the benefits of its successes, and overall I think that would leave it in positive karma, so to speak.

Oh, ok, as long as you believe that the odd innocent person getting killed is ok then I guess it's ok.
I strongly urge you to run for election with that strategy.

amacachi

Deleted User wrote: »

Punishment is also about deterring crime through fear of said punishment. There is evidence to show that the death penalty is a worse deterrent than life sentences. Simply put, people see death as easier than years of institutionalisation.

3 strikes doesn't work either. You're a maths head, fancy plotting a graph of general severity of sentence against crime levels? Generally it's almost an inverse relationship from what I can see.

challengemaster wrote: »

Prison is meant to induce rehab, and in the US, it does. It's properly enforced, they get sweet FA luxuries unless they're the best little kids in the playpen, and every time they step out of line they pay for it 10x. Over here, there's no incentive for them to get better, because the punishment is a fúcking joke. If anything, it's like saying to them "well, you can do what you want and the worst that will ever happen to you is LUXURY, all paid for by the taxpayer of course".

LOL. The US prison system rehabilitates!? Thanks for giving me a laugh.

But of course, that's only the prison side of the system, and the tip of the ridiculous icebergjoke that is the Irish law system

Agreed.

The way it is at the moment, I could rape and kill a family, and I'd be out in about 2 years with all these bullshít "suspended" sentences.

Bet ya couldn't.

I'd be very in favour of the death penalty, and there's a lot of people who I'd love to see get it too. So much so I'd bring popcorn to the execution. There's far too much scum in the gene pool, and sending them all to scum congregation places isn't exactly making things any better.

You stay classy.

If they're not going to be any contribution to society, or get better, I don't see why they're allowed live at a continued cost to the rest of society. Get rid of 'em and make room for more deserving people.

I know what you mean, I'm sick of all those disabled people who can make no contribution to society and even cost the rest of us money in having to put in wheelchair ramps and elevators everywhere.

edit: conorstuff: maybe in somewhere like the US, however, over here where the years of luxury they get awarded... if you start offing them they'll soon start behaving. I'd bet on it.

Sign of madness right there, do the same thing repeatedly and expect different results.

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I'm always amazed when people are pro-life and pro-death penalty. So it's ok to stamp on women's rights by claiming it's inherently wrong to terminate an unwanted foetus that's not yet a fully developed human, yet it's perfectly acceptable for the state to execute an ACTUAL living breathing human?

Foetuses are cuter than murderers, I guess....

Can we not go down the abortion road please? I do think it's a horrible irony though when they take it one step further and kill the people who work in abortion clinics, despite my views on abortion and lack of religion.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I would say that yes, it is. And I think the rate would be vastly, vastly lower than 1 in 100.

LOL.

amacachi

challengemaster wrote: »

If you want to get into technicalities... How many road deaths are there per year? Since records began in 1959, 22,682 people have been killed on Irish roads(2009). However, there are always going to be accidents and road deaths, it's just a consequence of driving, and is accepted as such. The alternative is that nobody drives ever, which is insane. What makes that any more or less moral than introducing the death penalty, and having a minute error percentage there?

Keep looking into it and eventually you'll find the moral thing would probably be if nobody ever did anything ever.

It's really no different. No system is perfect, errors will always happen. You just have to accept it.

That's the exact same!

Pygmalion

amacachi wrote: »

That's the exact same!

Yeah, also I tripped up going upstairs a while back, could have killed me.

Strairs are exactly as bad the death penalty and there's nothing anyone can say that will change it.
And don't get me started on tall buildings or prescription medication.

almostnever

Pygmalion wrote: »

Yeah, also I tripped up going upstairs a while back, could have killed me.

Strairs are exactly as bad the death penalty and there's nothing anyone can say that will change it.
And don't get me started on tall buildings or prescription medication.

Did I ever tell you of the time I almost choked to death on some chicken skin? Frankly, had I suffered any injury as a result, I should've sued the State for allowing me to eat!

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

unknown13 wrote: »

I believe there was a case in the 80's where there was someone found guilty of killing a member of An Garda Siochana. The Judge obviously decided against the Death Penalty and went for the mandatory life sentence.

That was at Ballaghaderreen a town near my home village. At the time a lot of people were calling for the death sentence for those accused.

KnifeWRENCH

EuropeanSon wrote: »

We are not in those countries. Do people who advocate imprisonment for murder or other heinous crimes here automatically support it for premarital sex, because they do that somewhere else? This point is really quite ridiculous.

The point is not ridiculous (although feel free to dismiss it as such if it makes life easier for you.) Just an example to show that the death penalty is not always just some special punishment reserved for heinous criminals. I'm well aware we don't live in such countries but there's no point in pretending that it doesn;t happen elsewhere.

The purpose of prisons in the case of violent crimes, as I see it, is (a) as a deterrent, in which case I suspect execution might work better, and (b) as a means of keeping people safe, which is achieved equally well (better when you consider the potential to escape in the case of imprisonment) by execution.

For point (a), it's been fairly well documented that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Certainly no more so than the threat of life imprisonment anyway.
Point (b) - ok, can kind of see where you're coming from here. But the chance of a dangerous mass-murderer escaping a high-security prison would be comporably minimal to the chance of an innocent person being convicted of murder. Both are rather unlikely scenarios.

Also, "state advocated murder" is a stupid, emotive term, the use of which is childish. "Murder", you'll find, has a separate definition. "Killing" is more accurate.

Ok, fine. Killing is more accurate, you're correct. A poor choice of words on my part, however it was not intentionally emotive or sensationalsit. Labelling me "childish" just because I used slightly incorrect terminology does your position no favours here.

I've already addressed this re: Pygmalion's post.

Yup, read that. You basically say it's worth one innocent person dying for 100 guilty to be convicted. I realise those numbers wouldn't be an accurate reflection, and it would more likely be 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 or something. Still, you feel that one innocent person dying is worth it. I can't agree with that.

You refute your own point with the Japanese example,

Eh, no I didn't. :rolleyes: Try reading my post properly. I fully admitted that I didn't know how much it cost in Japan. I'd imagine it's certainly cheaper there than in the US, but would that not mainly be because Japan doesn't execute as many people as the US does? It's something I have to read up on more, but even if Japan had managed to make execution super cost efficient it wouldn't make me feel any differently.

and also, "it's cheaper" alone certainly isn't good enough, but is another minor advantage to add to the multiple other advantages.

Those multiple advantages you speak of just do not resonate with me. It's sort of like the abortion debate; very unlikely anyone's seriously going to be convinced and change sides here. It's an interesting topic though...

A foetus isn't a menace to society, and hasn't murdered anyone.

It could grow up to be one, though. Could even grow up to be the next Hitler!* :pac:

*tongue firmly in cheek - not actually debating that point. And simultaneously, I get to invoke Godwin's Law. I never get to do that....

amacachi wrote:

Can we not go down the abortion road please?

Fair enough. Point taken; it's a different debate.

challengemaster wrote:

But of course, that's only the prison side of the system, and the tip of the ridiculous icebergjoke that is the Irish law system

The way it is at the moment, I could rape and kill a family, and I'd be out in about 2 years with all these bullshít "suspended" sentences.

Oh trust me, even those against the death penalty can see that the Irish legal system is woefully inadequate when it comes to some sentencing.

challengemaster

amacachi wrote: »

...

It'd be nice to see an actual arguement instead of one liners and such 'superb' wit :rolleyes:

amacachi

challengemaster wrote: »

It'd be nice to see an actual arguement instead of one liners and such 'superb' wit :rolleyes:

Hold on, you actually want me to argue that state-mandated killing is different to car accidents? Seriously?

challengemaster

amacachi wrote: »

Hold on, you actually want me to argue that state-mandated killing is different to car accidents? Seriously?

LOL IDK TEL U WUT. DNT BDR. LOL

Pygmalion

challengemaster wrote: »

LOL IDK TEL U WUT. DNT BDR. LOL

You win, if he doesn't go into the details of why a car accident is not a state-mandated execution then clearly it's because there is no difference.

amacachi

Pygmalion wrote: »

You win, if he doesn't go into the details of why a car accident is not a state-mandated execution then clearly it's because there is no difference.

Yup, I sure did get pwned. Sigh.
Also think I was outdone on the wit front.