Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Reintroduce the Death Penalty in Ireland

Options
24567

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 45,361 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Can we send our troublemakers to Australia?

    Ongoing..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭opti0nal


    Mickey H wrote: »
    You kill someone, you get killed yourself. End of.
    Say, hypothetically a mother kills her young son or daughter - what's the penalty? And do you think such an act would be deterred by the death penalty?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,787 ✭✭✭tvnutz


    Thing is, its not actually a deterrant, and it costs a lot of money to execute a person,based on how long they spend on death row.
    It might seem that the prospect of receiving a death sentence would deter would-be murderers from committing such offenses. However, many studies on deterrence and the death penalty do not support this idea, nor does the rate of murders in states with the death penalty. The murder rate in states that do not have the death penalty is consistently lower than in states with the death penalty. The South, which carries out over 80% of the executions in the U. S., has the highest murder rate of the four regions.

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    Hmm.

    In the long run it will. Plus, it'd may make people think twice before they execute their murderous intentions.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    We'd be better off if sentences were completed, eg 10 years means 10 years and life means life.
    We could also do without the bleeding hearts/do gooders crying every time about 'what a hard upbringing he/she had' and that type of ****e.
    In saying that I think pedophiles and rapists and scum who attack old people, securely convicted 100%, could do with a bit of lead behind the ear.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭3ndahalfof6


    andrew wrote: »
    1. You're probably gonna end up executing an innocent person, eventually. It's not like it hasn't happened before. You can't compensate someone when they're dead.

    2. Life imprisonment is worse IMO anyway; everyone dies anyway, a dead person isn't being actively punished because they're dead. Better to lock them up and remove their freedom, and let them experience the crushing monotony of prison and then die.

    3. If someone is no longer a threat, then what justifies killing them over locking them up? On principal, how can you say that the state should both condemn the murder of a defenseless person, yet engage in that same act?

    The cost of it all, at least if they were made give something back to society, by the way of work, menial task,

    chain gangs is something I would prefer to see rather than the death penalty, while it would not be chains, the technology is there to contain them within a certain area.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    In the long run it will. Plus, it'd may make people think twice because they execute their murderous intentions.

    How so? Most murder sentences would be around the 10-15 year mark, right? Or are you talking about eliminating recidivists?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Killing people to show people that killing people is wrong is it?

    Stupid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,050 ✭✭✭token101


    For instance, if you tortured, raped and murder someone in the most sadistic way possible, then the way you’re put to death after receiving the death penalty should be slow, tortuous and reflect the inhumanity with which you treated your victim. In my view, it would be morally wrong to humanely execute someone in such a case, as you didn’t afford your victim such a privilege....I do not think that the value of the life of a murdering sadist ought to be treated with the same respect in the eyes of the law as the life of a decent citizen

    Bit of a logic fail there
    Don’t get me wrong, I am quite liberal myself

    :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    tvnutz wrote: »
    Thing is, its not actually a deterrant, and it costs a lot of money to execute a person,based on how long they spend on death row.



    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

    Nitrogen gas doesn't cost too much, neither does carbon monoxide. Hell, bullets are also cheap nowadays.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    token101 wrote: »
    Bit of a logic fail there



    :pac:

    Yeah, maybe you should have read on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,050 ✭✭✭token101


    Yeah, maybe you should have read on.

    I didn't need to. Really I didn't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    How so? Most murder sentences would be around the 10-15 year mark, right? Or are you talking about eliminating recidivists?

    Just because most murder sentences are 10-15 years long doesn't mean that 10-15 years is all they deserve.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭McCrack


    This thread is pointless, the death penalty cannot be reintroduced into Ireland.

    Our constitution prevents it and Ireland is a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) which prevents the death penalty.

    It will never be reintroduced.

    Personally I am not in favour of it for many reasons but mostly because a Court can get it wrong and send an innocent person to death.

    Google Harry Gleeson for a good example from this country.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    McCrack wrote: »
    ...European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)...

    Quit your jibba-jabba, that's liberal-speak.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭3ndahalfof6


    Quit your jibba-jabba, that's liberal-speak.

    Only if your holding a snickers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,251 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    In my opinion, the punishment of a crime ought to be proportional to the crime itself. I believe that this should be a firm and unwavering legal principle. Therefore, in the case of clear intentional murder, I think that the death penalty ought to be established.

    If you extinguished another human life intentionally, you should pay with your life. If you killed someone and caused them severe pain, distress and torture in the process, the way in which your death sentence is administered should reflect that. For instance, if you tortured, raped and murder someone in the most sadistic way possible, then the way you’re put to death after receiving the death penalty should be slow, tortuous and reflect the inhumanity with which you treated your victim. In my view, it would be morally wrong to humanely execute someone in such a case, as you didn’t afford your victim such a privilege.

    I do not think that the value of the life of a murdering sadist ought to be treated with the same respect in the eyes of the law as the life of a decent citizen whose greatest run in with the law was a parking ticket. In fact, I take such a view to be an insult to the vast majority of the population. I believe that we need to strike fear into the hearts of the criminal classes and cut the liberal attitude towards punishment and how criminals are treated.

    I simply think that our criminal justice system is a farce, so if you’d like to be spared a dubious unoriginal Liveline-esque rant then I suggest you stop reading now. Cereal/career criminals get off scot-free with legal loopholes and are released shortly afterward into society to continue again where they left off. In hindsight, there is always money to be made off these legal cases:
    More crime = More criminals that need representation = More money for judges and lawyer specialising in criminal law.
    Therefore, I don’t expect many in the legal profession (especially those whose specialty is criminal law) to be pushing for a reform of the criminal justice system any time soon. However, I'm not going to totally condemn solicitors/barristers/judges though, there is good people in the legal profession.

    The workload of the already understaffed and underfunded Gardaí is increasing all the time because of our twisted legal system. If I got robbed and/or bet up in Dublin City Centre tomorrow afternoon, the chances of the Gardaí investigating the incident would be slim to none because they have to prioritise their resources on more serious investigations.

    I have a lot of respect for the Gardaí and I think they have to put up with a lot of bullshit as it is. Some Gardaí might even avoid dealing with some cases where they may be putting their life or the lives of their families at risk. If two unarmed Gardaí were to walk down Abbey St. in Dublin on a Friday night and confront a gang who were a visible threat, they might get stabbed or worse and they have mightn’t have the time to call for back up plus they have no real way of defending themselves then and there. Isn’t it only obvious why Garda would try to avoid these areas if they could? Would you blame them? After all, they have family and loved ones like everyone else.

    The death penalty will free up overcrowded prisons and make a scumbags think twice about sliding a knife into someone for the sake of a €50 note. Criminals are only profiting from the liberal attitudes that have seeped into the law.

    Don’t get me wrong, I am quite liberal myself in relation to other things like equal rights in front of the law (marriage equality, abortion, secularisation of the state, etc...). I even agree with the legalisation of most drugs in an effort to get their distribution out of the hands of gangland criminals. In relation to crime and punishment though, I take a different view on things all together.

    /RANT

    By the way, in before “Go live in America”, “How long has it been since we’ve had one of these threads?” or any invocation of Godwin's Law.

    why bother with the death peno???.... if the prisons wernt such a holiday in this country id be happy for them to rot away in prison.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭DazMarz


    It is wrong to take a life, regardless of what they have done. Nobody should take a life.

    Eye for an eye and all that is ancient and barbaric. Fair enough, a murderer has taken a life. But killing them will not bring their victim back, it will accomplish absolutely nothing. It will not deter future murderers. If the death penalty deterred murder, there would not have been a murder in the United States for at least 20 years (at least in the states where the death penalty is applied).

    The only argument I heard of that I almost agreed with was that while the death penalty is not an effective method of deterring capital crime, it will (very obviously) stop the perpetrator from committing further crimes. Particularly in the case of sadistic child murderers and others who would repeat their offences if they ever got released (as we know, in this country a life sentence usually is 20 years; people who get life almost invariably get back out before they die). It simply stops potential habitual perpetrators by eliminating them.

    But even that argument did not persuade me that the death penalty is justified, regardless of the crime. If someone is sentenced to life, the only way they should ever leave prison is in a hearse. But they should not be killed by the state.

    The death penalty is wrong. It is revenge and it is rooted in ancient history.

    There is also the risk of a completely innocent person getting executed. Not only is this a tragedy, but it has another unacceptable consequence; the true perpetrator goes free. While everyone believes justice has been done, case closed and no further investigations into the crime... the real perp is walking around. He is either grinning like a mad thing and loving it, or he packs up and legs it just to be safe. And there is potential that he will do it again. And again. And again.

    Thankfully, it will never be introduced in any EU country again. We should be thankful for that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    Just because most murder sentences are 10-15 years long doesn't mean that 10-15 years is all they deserve.

    So, the 10-15 years you're allowing prisoners in case new evidence arises would be longer than now?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭3ndahalfof6


    DazMarz wrote: »
    It is wrong to take a life, regardless of what they have done. Nobody should take a life.

    Eye for an eye and all that is ancient and barbaric. Fair enough, a murderer has taken a life. But killing them will not bring their victim back, it will accomplish absolutely nothing. It will not deter future murderers. If the death penalty deterred murder, there would not have been a murder in the United States for at least 20 years (at least in the states where the death penalty is applied).

    The only argument I heard of that I almost agreed with was that while the death penalty is not an effective method of deterring capital crime, it will (very obviously) stop the perpetrator from committing further crimes. Particularly in the case of sadistic child murderers and others who would repeat their offences if they ever got released (as we know, in this country a life sentence usually is 20 years; people who get life almost invariably get back out before they die). It simply stops potential habitual perpetrators by eliminating them.

    But even that argument did not persuade me that the death penalty is justified, regardless of the crime. If someone is sentenced to life, the only way they should ever leave prison is in a hearse. But they should not be killed by the state.

    The death penalty is wrong. It is revenge and it is rooted in ancient history.

    There is also the risk of a completely innocent person getting executed. Not only is this a tragedy, but it has another unacceptable consequence; the true perpetrator goes free. While everyone believes justice has been done, case closed and no further investigations into the crime... the real perp is walking around. He is either grinning like a mad thing and loving it, or he packs up and legs it just to be safe. And there is potential that he will do it again. And again. And again.

    Thankfully, it will never be introduced in any EU country again. We should be thankful for that.

    I think there are plenty of situations where the taking of a life merits the taking of that humans life,

    just not in public.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭Augmerson


    Fact: Those who commit crimes rarely think about the punishment if they were to be caught. They believe they won't be caught and make their best efforts not to be. Some American states have the death penalty and people still go and intentionally kill.


  • Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Wereghost


    "No" to the suggestion of introducing the death penalty for a single murder.

    No doubt in the past there would have been a robust Darwinian argument for taking the lives of such offenders, but IMO as society matures and a better understanding of human nature is available there's less and less need for the ultimate penalty, and I'm not sure that in single-murder scenarios the "a life for a life" mantra has ever been justifiable.

    I would be a bit more equivocal in the case of multiple homicides, repeat offences and active membership of certain banned paramilitary organisations. However, in order for the justice system to live up to the name, the process of justice must necessarily be disinterested, in the sense of not being swayed by how the deceased's relatives feel or whatever headline-grabbing tactic some tabloid paper employs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    Augmerson wrote: »
    Fact: Those who commit crimes rarely think about the punishment if they were to be caught. They believe they won't be caught and make their best efforts not to be. Some American states have the death penalty and people still go and intentionally kill.

    It's not all about deterrence though, it's about proper justice. And by the way, this isn't America.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭3ndahalfof6


    It's not all about deterrence though, it's about proper justice. And by the way, this isn't America.

    So they are a different type of human.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    So they are a different type of human.

    No, but I don't think the state should equate the value of their life to the lives of the vast majority of other human beings.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭McCrack


    Quit your jibba-jabba, that's liberal-speak.

    No its the law.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    McCrack wrote: »
    No its the law.

    Just because it's the law doesn't necessarily mean it's right or even unchangeable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,458 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    Why does this come up all the time?

    A modern society should not punish murder with state sponsored murder.

    It should be above all that. Simple.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    Op you should have loaded the question and asked should IRA members get the death penalty, the liberals would quickly vote yes.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    murpho999 wrote: »
    A modern society should not punish murder with state sponsored murder.

    It should be above all that. Simple.

    Why should it? Why should this "modern society" of your hold back on absolute justice. A modern society in my opinion should administer proper and absolute justice, no exception.


Advertisement