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

Is there a case for a death penalty?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    juan.kerr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,766 ✭✭✭juan.kerr


    I have always thought that a cost benefit analysis is the most important thing in death penalty debate.

    If we have a recidivist serving a 30 year sentence without parole for example, is it cheaper to imprison him for that length of time, or to execute him within a year?

    Note: A key requirement must be that the sentence is carried out in a reasonable timeframe e.g. within 6 months of conviction, and that there aren't a myriad of appeal processes allowed. It shouldn't be allowed to drag on for decades since that negates the savings.

    I sometimes wonder why people with hundreds of convictions shouldn't be executed. They contribute nothing to society so why do we tolerate them?


  • Options
    #33
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users Posts: 6,755 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    Gyalist wrote: »
    Confession is probably the most unsafe evidence that there is. Even without torturing the suspect it is very easy to get them to admit to a crime

    Or to get a mentally unstable suspect to confess to pretty much anything!


  • Options
    #34
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Or how to deal with the problems of the state (mistakenly) killing innocent people!

    When the state kills a person who is incorrectly found guilty for murder and posthumously found innocent of that crime, who now pays the penalty?

    Do we hang the judges, the prosecution, the police?

    Obviously in that case it should be the Defence Counsel who should be killed for incompetence.


  • Options
    #35
    juan.kerr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,766 ✭✭✭juan.kerr


    Before we go off on a tangent, how many murder convictions have ever been quashed in Ireland due to innocence?


  • Options
    #36
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users Posts: 6,755 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    catallus wrote: »
    Obviously in that case it should be the Defence Counsel who should be killed for incompetence.

    Why not the Garda who presented the counsel with the evidence?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Why not the Garda who presented the counsel with the evidence?

    The Garda would be carrying out his duty as required and expected, nothing wrong with that? The defence would be incompetent.

    It makes me wonder about all these quashed convictions, when the case is reviewed it often shows up profound mistakes by the defence in doing their job.


  • Options
    #38
    Hippies!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 555 ✭✭✭Hippies!


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.

    No it doesn't, if a person woke up one morning to find their eye missing and lets say I was arrested for eye theft and the law of the land decided that I must give them one of my eyes as punishment....who takes the laws eye? Nobody. It isn't a big hysteria of eye theft where everybody wakes up one morning to find everyone else has stolen everybody elses eyes. That's what the law is for.

    Do you feel safe walking down the streets nowadays knowing that at any moment a little fcuker of an eye thief could grab your eye and make off with it? and be able to steal many more eyes when he/shes done their 2 days in the joy for it.

    Take their eyes I say, it'll make it much harder for them to nab anyone elses and thus the world won't go blind.


  • Options
    #39
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,541 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    I was always conflicted over this one. It's pretty plain to see that the death penalty has not acted as a deterrent in many US states. And on the flip side, other forms of rehabilitation for inmates have worked really well in other countries.

    However, I know that if someone did something truely awful to one of my family memebers I'd want to see them fry.


  • Options
    #40
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Just in passing, I'd say the prospect of wrongful conviction is probably acute in that Indian case. Six people may well be convicted, but we'll never know if they are just the "usual suspects" fitted up to get past the controversy. It's a bit of a tragedy - the death penalty is probably banned in the jurisdictions that are less likely to misconvict in the first place.
    faceman wrote: »
    You've answered your question there.

    There is never justification for the death penalty.
    Just to clarify - and this is really a half pedantic point - presumably, at the same time, we'd agree that sometimes the State needs to use lethal force. For the sake of argument, an armed Garda might need to shoot someone who seemed to be posing an immediate threat to the public, or a soldier on UN service might similarly need to respond to an assault.

    The slight complication to that is (assuming you accept that point), it leaves us saying that we accept that a Garda or soldier can kill someone, even if they subsequently turned out to be mistaken. On the other hand, we ban any possibility that a judge, following balanced consideration of evidence including the case of the perpetrator, might see that the best way of securing public safety would be imposition of a death penalty.


  • Options
    #41
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    juan.kerr wrote: »
    Before we go off on a tangent, how many murder convictions have ever been quashed in Ireland due to innocence?

    Last one I remember offhand was John Diver, wrongly convicted of murdering his wife, google it.
    His original conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court and he was aquitted in a new trial. Spent a long time in prison for something he never did.
    http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/john-diver-found-not-guilty-of-wifes-murder-267476.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    As said above, the death penalty doesn't actually work as a deterrent and it's too easy to make a mistake, so there's no good reason to have it.

    That said, I reckon suicide should be available as an option for anyone convicted of a capital crime.


  • Options
    #43
    juan.kerr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,766 ✭✭✭juan.kerr


    WileyCoyote wrote: »
    Last one I remember offhand was John Diver, wrongly convicted of murdering his wife, google it.

    That's one case, are there many more? As I stated in my post there would be a period of 6 months (or up to a year) to get through the appeals processes, which should catch cases like this.


  • Options
    #44
    juan.kerr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,766 ✭✭✭juan.kerr


    seamus wrote: »
    As said above, the death penalty doesn't actually work as a deterrent and it's too easy to make a mistake, so there's no good reason to have it.

    That said, I reckon suicide should be available as an option for anyone convicted of a capital crime.

    I'm less concerned about the deterrent, more the cost of locking the criminal up for years. One more waste of taxpayers money.


  • Options
    #45
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    juan.kerr wrote: »
    That's one case, are there many more? As I stated in my post there would be a period of 6 months (or up to a year) to get through the appeals processes, which should catch cases like this.
    Wrong!
    It took six years to right this wrong! Even then the Guards who framed him refused to re-open the investigation into his wifes murder.


  • Options
    #46
    juan.kerr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,766 ✭✭✭juan.kerr


    WileyCoyote wrote: »
    Wrong!
    It took six years to right this wrong! Even then the Guards who framed him refused to re-open the investigation into his wifes murder.

    What's 'wrong'?

    That 6 years could have easily been compressed into 6 months if the judicial system functioned correctly.

    I don't think it's appropriate to discuss an individual case but I know what the following means:
    After the verdict, a garda inspector said they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the murder.

    From: http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0712/diverj.html


  • Options
    #47
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    juan.kerr wrote: »
    What's 'wrong'?

    That 6 years could have easily been compressed into 6 months if the judicial system functioned correctly.

    I don't think it's appropriate to discuss an individual case but I know what the following means:



    From: http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0712/diverj.html

    So they I , they framed an innocent man, but refused to admit it.


  • Options
    #48
    juan.kerr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,766 ✭✭✭juan.kerr


    WileyCoyote wrote: »
    So they I , they framed an innocent man, but refused to admit it.

    I'm happy to agree to disagree on that one.


  • Options
    #49
    NeVeR
    Registered Users Posts: 5,325 ✭✭✭NeVeR


    There are times when i see something on the TV and i would say "Kill him" .. it's a heat of the moment thing.

    I don't think killing people is the way to go.

    But if found guilty of murder you should be locked up for a minimum of 30 years. No early release for good behavior ... nothing...

    Make me sick when someone gets let out after a few years after committing a murder.

    On another note Garda need better tools to convict people. Better DNA and finger print databases etc.


  • Options
    #50
    amen
    Registered Users Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭amen


    That's one case, are there many more

    I can't find a link but around 2000ish a drug addict confessed to killing two people and was charged and held. Turns out it wasn't him. The guy who killed the two people then drove to the west and killed/attempted to kill a priest.

    An explanation for the confession by the person who didn't commit the murder explaining why the confession contained details of the murder was never provided.

    Think the addict later died so no court case.

    The whole corruption in Donegal. They involved drug/weapons. If there was a death penalty the corruption might never have come to light.


  • Options
    #51
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Death penalty would certainly free up the prisons and save us a few quid.

    Saying that, I like being from a state that no matter how bold I am they won't kill me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    A_Sober_Paddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,221 ✭✭✭A_Sober_Paddy


    dollypet wrote: »
    Garda killers. For me its attacking the fabric of society. Kill a garda in the line of duty- not manslaughter but murdering a guard and I think death penalty should be an option.

    Think that should apply to all frontline staff such as nurses, paramedic's and fire men...Also think assaulting any of those ppl should carry 20 year minimum too


  • Options
    #53
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    amen wrote: »
    I can't find a link but around 2000ish a drug addict confessed to killing two people and was charged and held. Turns out it wasn't him. The guy who killed the two people then drove to the west and killed/attempted to kill a priest.

    An explanation for the confession by the person who didn't commit the murder explaining why the confession contained details of the murder was never provided.

    Think the addict later died so no court case.

    The whole corruption in Donegal. They involved drug/weapons. If there was a death penalty the corruption might never have come to light.

    Dean Lyons, a homeless drug addict, was induced to confess, whole thing was a shambles, another man Mark Nash is due to stand trial next year.


  • Options
    #54
    dd972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭dd972


    No, Yorkshire Ripper, Ian Brady etc, lock them up, simples, plus I don't want to bloody know if they've SkySports in their cell courtesy of the tabloid ''news''papers.

    The state has no right to end human life.

    Read about Timothy Evans and Derek Bentley and then still see if you support this anachronism.


  • Options
    #55
    A_Sober_Paddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,221 ✭✭✭A_Sober_Paddy


    dd972 wrote: »
    No, Yorkshire Ripper, Ian Brady etc, lock them up, simples, plus I don't want to bloody know if they've SkySports in their cell courtesy of the tabloid ''news''papers.

    The state has no right to end human life.

    Read about Timothy Evans and Derek Bentley and then still see if you support this anachronism.

    But why should criminal's have more available to them than the average person. They get free tv, room, food and education. I have to pay for those, think we should lock them up, 10 to a cell and feed them water and bread, and if they die of malnutrition so be it...

    But murders should be hanged in public and you can pay in to witness it. Could be a nice money spiner for the government


  • Options
    #56
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Although I can understand why in the heat of the moment death might seem to be the only option but I just don't feel comfortable with the idea that the state/ the people having the power to decide whether some-one lives or dies.

    Not only is there are risk of the system being misused/abused and innocent people being killed, but I don't see how becoming killers oursleves makes us any better than the criminals we would put to death


  • Options
    #57
    NeVeR
    Registered Users Posts: 5,325 ✭✭✭NeVeR


    A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

    But murders should be hanged in public and you can pay in to witness it. Could be a nice money spiner for the government

    Only sick / twisted people would want to see someone die like that..


  • Options
    #58
    Forest Demon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Forest Demon


    They should bring it back in and not just for murder.

    How about 5 strikes for a major crime after the age of 18 and you are out. That's fair enough and will be cheaper in the long run. Society pay for some people if they are in prison or out. They are laughing at the people they rape, rob, beat or kill.

    It will also get the scum while they are young and have not had too much time to procreate.

    Murder, child molesters and rapists get one strike.

    If a dog bites you put it down and most dogs have more redeeming quality's then some of the scum in Ireland.


  • Options
    #59
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    In 2001, Ireland voted in favour of a Constitutional ban on the death penalty.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

    Would people feel this ban is correct?

    Yes.
    Thread over.


  • Options
    #60
    Gyalist
    Registered Users Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭Gyalist


    Capital punishment is dispropotionately applied to those with no capital. The wealthy use their capital to engage the best lawyers and game the system to their advantage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Praetorian Saighdiuir
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,968 ✭✭✭✭Praetorian Saighdiuir


    I say bring it back.

    For people who have been sucessfully charged with the premeditated murder of anyone. There should be no appeals process. If you have been without a doubt found guilty of the crime then you should suffer the same fate.

    "Life" imprissonment, suspended sentances, a wrap on the knuckles are not a deterrent. Im sure for some people a death sentance would be a deterrent.

    Lets not talk about the falsely accused or where there is probable cause. I am on about where there is 100% evidence to link the criminal to the crime...i.e witnesses, cctv, DNA, fingerprints, sane confession etc, etc.

    Does anyone know the least amount of time served for a convicted murder in Ireland? I would be interested to know.


Advertisement