Would you support limited Capital Punishment?

GombeanMan

It's not often I fell physically ill reading news articles, but this one is an exception. The long drop is a very effective method, was used throughout the world at various times. http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0303/ireland/15-years-for-repeatedly-stamping-on-mans-head-185878.html

In cases like this, I would probably agree somewhat with the notion that for disgusting violent crimes of this nature, the death penalty should apply only if there is clear and convincing evidence, otherwise life will be handed out. If you can do that to another human being, you just don't deserve to live as far as I am concerned.

Questions?

MS.ing

yes. some peole deserve to be killed for the crimes they commit

Nodin

GombeanMan wrote: »

Would you support limited capital punishment?

Yes, sort of kill the bastards. That'll teach them.

Mike 1972

Would you support limited Capital Punishment?

Of course I would

Limited to everyone except me !

dvpower

What's limited capital punishment?
You don't fully kill them?

forfuxsake

No ****ing way! limited capital punishment is gayer than a cock-flavoured lollipop

It should be completely unlimited and used on everybody.

We could easily get round the minor inconvenience of it being in direct contravention of EU law by saying 'he hung hisself in his cell'

TiGeR KiNgS

I would support hard labour for serious crimes.

MS.ing

forfuxsake wrote: »

No ****ing way! limited capital punishment is gayer than a cock-flavoured lollipop

It should be completely unlimited and used on everybody.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd5Cci_pE4

GombeanMan

When I say limited, I mean it. You could carry out the next Enron and you would not suffer this fate. Something of this nature should only be used in the most heinous of crimes. Mass/grave murder, Treason, child killers etc. Some people are just beyond redemption imo.

John Doe1

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind;)

Chuck Stone

I'm a civilised human being who doesn't have the thought processing ability of an insect.

So no - I don't support the death penalty.

wonderfulname

GombeanMan wrote: »

When I say limited, I mean it. You could carry out the next Enron and you would not suffer this fate. Something of this nature should only be used in the most heinous of crimes. Mass/grave murder, Treason, child killers etc. Some people are just beyond redemption imo.

So 'the next Enron', i.e. the equivalent of 20,000 peoples pensions vanishing due to fraud, a life shattering event, for 20,000 people, is less than 'treason' in your opinion?

And treason merits death?

And what of rehabilitation? Or indeed of punishment? Lucky murder never having to live with what they've done, nice...

MS.ing

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm a civilised human being who doesn't have the thought processing ability of an insect.

So no - I don't support the death penalty.

there is a time and a place for the death penalty. not to be handed out lightly though. as said above it needs to be used for heinous crimes. and also use it for a while on scumbags a generation or so, so that they get the message their kids obviously

also for violent career criminals they run the jails, death for them is better for us in this case. they wont suffer in prision so trade that for a few minutes of suffering while they die

Eric Cartman

serial killers, serial rapists and other people convicted of very serious violent crimes should receive the death penalty

hooradiation

GombeanMan wrote: »

Questions?

Yeah - given that any justice system is flawed and therefore wrongful convictions can occur how do you propose to deal with the scenario whereby the state has just killed an innocent person?

Also bear in mind that "clear and convincing evidence" isn't the water-tight preventative measure you think it to be, given the above.

Marcus_Crassus

I would never condone it. There have been cases where people have been proven to be not guilty after the execution -- would you like to kill an innocent man/woman?

grindle

GombeanMan wrote: »

Treason.

????

As for rehabilitation, some people don't deserve it, and certain people's punishment should be squalor, torture and a slow, agonising death.

wexie

I think it's a rather long debate frought with difficulties and moral pitfalls.

However I do fully believe there are people in this world that are well beyond any redemption and I'd have to question the wisdom of having them hang around for years to come at huge costs to the taxpayer, all the while potentially ***ing up other prisoners/inmates/scumbags (whichever your choice of terms) who 'might' have been able to be rehabilitated in due course.

be interesting to pose this question over here.

Chuck Stone

MS.ing wrote: »

there is a time and a place for the death penalty

So there's a time and a place for retributive killing is there?

GombeanMan

Marcus_Crassus wrote: »

I would never condone it. There have been cases where people have been proven to be not guilty after the execution -- would you like to kill an innocent man/woman?

No doubt this is the case. I would argue it should never go ahead without convincing evidence and at least 3 consultations to the superior courts. However, if you have CCTV footage and a sample of the untampered DNA of a person with multiple convictions stamping on the head of a person until it becomes indistinguishable, it's clearer. The system as it stands today in the USA and abroad tends to be highly flawed.

kfallon

MS.ing wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd5Cci_pE4

She had lovely bangers to be fair! Probably a better view here
http://img.karaoketexty.cz/img/artists/6958/unlimited-220919.jpg

angry kitten

I would definitely be against it. Mistakes happen in the judicial system. I think that when a person is given a life sentence they should serve a life sentence. A life sentence should mean that those sentenced to life only leave prison in a coffin. In my opinion it would be a better punishment if those guilty individuals go to prison knowing that there is no possibility of release.

GombeanMan

wonderfulname wrote: »

So 'the next Enron', i.e. the equivalent of 20,000 peoples pensions vanishing due to fraud, a life shattering event, for 20,000 people, is less than 'treason' in your opinion?

And treason merits death?

And what of rehabilitation? Or indeed of punishment? Lucky murder never having to live with what they've done, nice...

Yes it's serious to lose your life savings in that case, but you can sue for that to a limit. Life cannot be replaced. No after life. Nothing. At least in my humble opinion. Treason could be an exception, but as I have stated, life is not eternal. You only get once shot at life, then eternal darkness.

GombeanMan

angry kitten wrote: »

I would definitely be against it. Mistakes happen in the judicial system. I think that when a person is given a life sentence they should serve a life sentence. A life sentence should mean that those sentenced to life only leave prison in a coffin. In my opinion it would be a better punishment if those guilty individuals go to prison knowing that there is no possibility of release.

Keeping these people locked up costs alot of money for no real return on investment. Does it not cost something like 2k a week to keep somebody locked up in jail?

Chuck Stone

Marcus_Crassus wrote: »

I would never condone it. There have been cases where people have been proven to be not guilty after the execution -- would you like to kill an innocent man/woman?

This is a concern but should not be the reason that the death penalty is not used.

Even if a person was 100% provably responsible for multiple violent murders the state should not be in the business of killing people for retribution.

That's why most civilised nations have done away with the death penalty.

wonderfulname

GombeanMan wrote: »

Yes it's serious to lose your life savings in that case, but you can sue for that to a limit. Life cannot be replaced. No after life. Nothing. At least in my humble opinion. Treason could be an exception, but as I have stated, life is not eternal. You only get once shot at life, then eternal darkness.

Not really, not to a meaningful degree in the Enron case, which is the one you cited. Death for 'treason' is a worrying punishment tbh, says a lot about a state and it's view of it's denizens.

If you're of the same beliefs as me, that there is nothing after life, why then do you act as though it is precious to the person who lost it, they don't know, and why do you view it as a punishment, when in your opinion you would be taking away the torment and drudgery of living with the aftermath of such a crime?

And if you see life as irreplaceable, finite, why would you take it from someone intentionally, for any reason?

wexie

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Even if a person was 100% provably responsible for multiple violent murders the state should not be in the business of killing people for retribution.

So you believe that someone who is guilty beyond any doubt (lets say video footage, credible eyewitnesses etc. should go on to live a long and healthy life at huge cost to us poor taxpayers, enjoy all the benefits of free healthcare, legal representation etc. ?

angry kitten

GombeanMan wrote: »

Keeping these people locked up costs alot of money for no real return on investment. Does it not cost something like 2k a week to keep somebody locked up in jail?

There was a time when I would have agreed with you but after doing some research on the subject I learned that far too many people are wrongfully put to death. I also think it's going to really screw someone up knowing that once they go through the prison gates they are quite literally there for life.

dirtyden

GombeanMan wrote: »

Keeping these people locked up costs alot of money for no real return on investment. Does it not cost something like 2k a week to keep somebody locked up in jail?

Is keeping a dangerous criminal under lock and key not important? The benefit to society could be considered a 'return on investment'. A working society unfortunately needs prisons.

MS.ing

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is a concern but should not be the reason that the death penalty is not used.

Even if a person was 100% provably responsible for multiple violent murders the state should not be in the business of killing people for retribution.

That's why most civilised nations have done away with the death penalty.

and look at how much safer and better off we are :rolleyes:

grindle

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Even if a person was 100% provably responsible for multiple violent murders the state should not be in the business of killing people for retribution.

That's why most civilised nations have done away with the death penalty.

There isn't even an argument in your statements...

"Even if some people were 100% proven to be thieves, the state should not punish them all.

That's why most crimes don't get solved."

That's your logic? Strange.

the bolt

no,far too many people get freed on appeal so i could never agree with it.its not the principle its just that mistakes can and do happen.

GombeanMan

wonderfulname wrote: »

If you're of the same beliefs as me, that there is nothing after life, why then do you act as though it is precious to the person who lost it, they don't know, and why do you view it as a punishment, when in your opinion you would be taking away the torment and drudgery of living with the aftermath of such a crime?

(a) It's not acceptable under the principles of Law. You don't need a statute book to tell you something of this nature is fundamentally wrong. NO grey areas here.

(b) If you applied that logic to somebody you personally knew, I doubt you would accept that argument as valid. Manslaughter would not fit the criteria of this punishment.

wonderfulname wrote: »

And if you see life as irreplaceable, finite, why would you take it from someone intentionally, for any reason?

If you infringe upon the most basic civil rights of another person through such force, you aren't exactly a person who can be reasoned with. You are moving into Terrorist/Genocide Territory with crimes of this nature.

phill106

John Doe1 wrote: »

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind;)

Wouldn't both the victim and the attacker be left with one eye each?

Chuck Stone

wexie wrote: »

So you believe that someone who is guilty beyond any doubt (lets say video footage, credible eyewitnesses etc. should go on to live a long and healthy life at huge cost to us poor taxpayers, enjoy all the benefits of free healthcare, legal representation etc. ?

Yes. Unequivocally.

I've kinda grown to like living in a civilised nation in my years on this earth.

Chuck Stone

MS.ing wrote: »

and look at how much safer and better off we are :rolleyes:

Ireland is one of the safest countries on Earth. I dare say if you look at the most safe countries you will see that the death penalty is not used by the vast majority of them.

grindle wrote: »

There isn't even an argument in your statements...

"Even if some people were 100% proven to be thieves, the state should not punish them all.

That's why most crimes don't get solved."

That's your logic? Strange.

Strange indeed that you could construe this interpretation from what I wrote seeing as it has no relevance to it.

I'm against the state killing people no matter what they've done. Punishment is a different matter. I think the state punishes some people too harshly and others not enough.

Different issue.

wonderfulname

MS.ing wrote: »

and look at how much safer and better off we are :rolleyes:

Look how much safer and better off countries with capital punishment are... oh wait, it's actually the opposite isn't it?

GombeanMan wrote: »

(a) It's not acceptable under the principles of Law. You don't need a statute book to tell you something of this nature is fundamentally wrong. NO grey areas here.

Your point being? It's already against the law, and already viewed as fundimentally wrong (except in war of course, war is justified :rolleyes:).

GombeanMan wrote: »

(b) If you applied that logic to somebody you personally knew, I doubt you would accept that argument as valid. Manslaughter would not fit the criteria of this punishment.

I think you'll find someone I knew would still find themselves just as dead as someone I didn't, now I on the other hand would be pretty pissed to put it exceptionally mildly, but basing the law on the murderous rage of someone who feels exceptionally wronged is just idiotic.

GombeanMan wrote: »

If you infringe upon the most basic civil rights of another person through such force, you aren't exactly a person who can be reasoned with. You are moving into Terrorist/Genocide Territory with crimes of this nature.

Wow, that's a... special... opinion. Begs the same question though, if it's an infringement of someone's basic human right to to take their life why then is it okay in your eyes for the state to do it in retribution?

mikemac1

GombeanMan wrote: »

It's not often I fell physically ill reading news articles, but this one is an exception.

In cases like this, I would probably agree somewhat with the notion that for disgusting violent crimes of this nature, the death penalty should apply ?

You feel ill over the assualt but you ignored the sword attack

Butler’s defence claimed he and a number of women were set upon by masked men who ran down Roman Street on Cork city’s north side, some of them armed with swords.

No explanation was given for why part of the sword used in the attack on Butler was later found in the pocket of Mr Barry.

Butler claimed self defence and it was not accepted

And for that you want Butler to hang??
Have you an explanation why Barry was found with part of a sword? I don't and the garda decided they knew what happened but they could not explain it either

wexie

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes. Unequivocally.

I've kinda grown to like living in a civilised nation in my years on this earth.

Well then I think we'll just have to be civilised and agree that we disagree on what constitutes civilised in this case.

Personally I think that people that are guilty without a doubt (we can argue about how that should be defined /decided of course) shouldn't end up being a burden on good law abiding citizens.

Whether that be solved by a death penalty system or by clearing some islands somewhere and setting up a prison colony a lá 'Escape from New York' (pay per view anyone?) really is irrelevant to me. There are millions upon millions being spent on supporting a prison population that would be much better of spent elsewhere. Education, healthcare, maybe some decent supports for the people in question to prevent them from ending up in the prison population etc. etc.

I'm all for human rights however there should come a point whereby, through your actions in a civilised society that society can turn around and decide you've forfeited said rights.

Now of course where that line should be drawn exactly remains a debate all on it's own.

MS.ing

wonderfulname wrote: »

Look how much safer and better off countries with capital punishment are... oh wait, it's actually the opposite isn't it?

I can feel a straw man being made, Ill leave you to it

Freddie59

MS.ing wrote: »

yes. some peole deserve to be killed for the crimes they commit

+1.

wonderfulname

MS.ing wrote: »

I can feel a straw man being made, Ill leave you to it

Do tell, I fail to see how anyone could make a straw man out of a claim that civilised countries are less safe for lack of the death penalty, especially when there's no need as it's clearly not the case.

wexie

wonderfulname wrote: »

Do tell, I fail to see how anyone could make a straw man out of a claim that civilised countries are less safe for lack of the death penalty, especially when there's no need as it's clearly not the case.

You could always argue that these countries aren't safer because of a lack of the death penalty, but that they lack the death penalty because they are safer.

If, for example you're referring to the US you're hardly implying that it's more unsafe because they have the death penalty, rather than for example....their stance on gun control?

Are you?

forfuxsake

Why must we adhere to Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU) and the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council of Europe?

They are BORING.

We should become more like Belarus, the only European country to retain it. **** elections, democracy, human rights and the higher moral ground, they are nothing compared to barbecuing kiddie-fiddlers.

grindle

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Strange indeed that you could construe this interpretation from what I wrote seeing as it has no relevance to it.

You keep implying that the death penalty = uncivilised, and vice versa without qualifying your assertion.
Bit of a "'cos I said so" about you.

GombeanMan

This thread proves what I have been actually thinking all along. By playing Devils advocate and taking an extreme position, you would expect to get 90%+ of people to disagree, as the Politicians would like you to believe. Now, boards is not representative of Ireland, I understand that, but this just proves the issue isn't as black and white as the Politicians believe it to be.

To be honest here, I don't think this is an issue than can be resolved on anything greater than a case by case basis. Somebody should probably investigate this further.This is a topic that remains ultimately unresolved. There have been far too many people put to death innocently. But then again, do circumstances arise that allow for it's introduction?

You've been had

GombeanMan

As regard costs, throwing somebody in a dingy cell with little cost can be achieved. You can exonerate somebody fully when they are alive. You can't do that following death. It's too late then. Therefore, keeping somebody alive should be the saner position by default.

wonderfulname

wexie wrote: »

You could always argue that these countries aren't safer because of a lack of the death penalty, but that they lack the death penalty because they are safer.

If, for example you're referring to the US you're hardly implying that it's more unsafe because they have the death penalty, rather than for example....their stance on gun control?

Are you?

You should read my post again, I simply said that such countries are not safer, I never said why, that's all your own interpretation...

Chuck Stone

grindle wrote: »

You keep implying that the death penalty = uncivilised, and vice versa without qualifying your assertion.
Bit of a "'cos I said so" about you.

I don't think anyone should be killing anyone else. I think this basic principle should extend to 'the state' too.

Is that qualification enough?

Another thing.

Would you be okay with supporters of capital punishment being called up for 'execution duty'?

The King of Moo

I don't really get the assumption that a death sentence is worse than life in prison.
If I had committed a particularly heinous crime and were given a choice between the two, I know I'd certainly think long and hard about it.
Life in prison means a permanent loss of a great deal of freedom, and generally not such a pleasant life, which would only be compounded upon if some other prisoners took a dislike to me. And I'd suffer from a seriously guilty conscience.

I also don't believe that anyone is completely irredeemable. Imprisoned criminals might still do some good after having a change of heart even if they're never released, and can at the very least make themselves useful by being put to work.

Now if you're executed, that's the end of your existence, and all possible good that might come to you (which isn't much if the other option is life imprisonment). Not nice.
But your punishment is also ended, and you don't continue to suffer.
That's it.

I really don't see how capital punishment is a worthwhile punishment, before taking into account the fact that it's ineffective as a deterrent and can lead to the wrong person being killed.
People argue about the cost to the taxpayer of imprisonment, but there are so few people imprisoned in this country due to serious offences that would be punished by execution if it were available, that the saving would be minimal.
People also argue that life imprisonment isn't a worthy punishment as prison is too soft. In that case, wouldn't prison reform be a more rational, worthwhile, moderate thing to get behind, instead of resorting to capital punishment?

I just don't see any reason why capital punishment is any use.

Temptamperu

The death penalty dosent deter anyone just look at the crime rates in Florida and Texas. Im for rehabilitation through education.