Crime and Punishment, what's your views?

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.

challengemaster

Well if you're going to reply with shíte like "LOL" instead of actually argueing a point, why should anyone else bother?

amacachi

challengemaster wrote: »

Well if you're going to reply with shíte like "LOL" instead of actually argueing a point, why should anyone else bother?

I used "LOL" twice, once followed by an explanation for the LOL because I can't believe that someone actually thinks that the US system has a good record for rehabilitation and the second LOL didn't require any explanation, as any reading of any study into the matter will show, as I would hope someone had done before trying to argue a point.
But hey, maybe I'm expecting too much.

amacachi

amacachi wrote: »

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.

Oh, I wasn't arguing that the specific punishments we have in Ireland are any better. I believe in real life sentences. "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" style punishments.

If I were to try to model it, my initial guess would be that it's logarithmic - the more severe the fine gets, the less years they add on to the existing punishment.

The parameters need tuning. This is 10 ln( ln( x+e )), with the Y-axis being years of punishment, and the X-axis being severity of crime.

*Not actual figures, or even serious maths. Just note the idea. :P

I also don't believe in getting out on good behaviour. Good behaviour is what should keep people out of jail in the first place, it's not an afterthought. (To embellish your point, in case it seemed I was arguing against it).

amacachi

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, I wasn't arguing that the specific punishments we have in Ireland are any better. I believe in real life sentences. "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" style punishments.

Agreed.

The parameters need tuning. This is 10 ln( ln( x+e )), with the Y-axis being years of punishment, and the X-axis being severity of crime.

*Not actual figures, or even serious maths. Just note the idea. :P

Pfft, I could've done that. :pac:

I also don't believe in getting out on good behaviour. Good behaviour is what should keep people out of jail in the first place, it's not an afterthought. (To embellish your point, in case it seemed I was arguing against it).

Absolutely.


One caveat though, even though spending on things other than prison is more effective than locking everyone up, on principle I couldn't follow the softly-softly approach on sentencing. Even if would work better I still think punishment is too important.

EuropeanSon

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

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.

I didn't pretend that it doesn't. However, I fail to see how that could be relevant, any more so than the giving of prison sentences for premarital sex and other ridiculous things that are done elsewhere is a reason for us not to give prison sentences for what we believe are crimes.

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.

(a)I don't know about documentation of this, and if you can provide some I may revise this point, but I personally would consider th threat of dying to be considerably more of a deterrent than the threat of being locked up.
(b) I know that, however, as you insist on persisting with the one innocent person example as a counterargument (as you do so below, "you basically say..." etc, that paragraph), you should have no issue with me using an equally statistically irrelevant point.

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 cannot read minds over the internet, and so your "intentions" are of zero interest to me, the meaning of what you have written is the only thing that matters. The meaning of what you have written is indeed "emotive", sensationalist" and "childish" in the context of this discussion, and so I pointed that out.

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.

Don't you contradict this above where you say"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."?

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.

The cost I presume we refer to is on a per person basis, in which case volume is of no importance. A search for "cost of executions in japan" and a brief scan of the first results page returned no relevant results, and I don't have time or energy to devote to more extensive research, but if you do happen upon something, please enlighten me.

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...


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....

There is no argument or points of relevence here, so I'll leave this as is. I'll agree that it is a very interesting topic.

KnifeWRENCH

EuropeanSon wrote: »

A search for "cost of executions in japan" and a brief scan of the first results page returned no relevant results, and I don't have time or energy to devote to more extensive research, but if you do happen upon something, please enlighten me.

If I get around to looking into it more, I will. I don't have the time either, so it'd only be if I came across something by chance.

There is no argument or points of relevence here

I was trying to be funny. Humour me at least!

so I'll leave this as is.

Grand.