The Death Sentence - Yea or nay

Omackeral

For my sins, I follow the Sunday World Facebook page and their comments section is forever calling for the death sentence. ''Hang them'' is one that you'll usually see. I think sometimes that this place is a little more well read and educated than the good folk on those pages and so I pose this question;

Would you support bringing in the death penalty for certian crimes? I'm not gonna include the option for Don't Know, this is gonna be a simple Yes or No poll but it will be private. In the comments, you can discuss the merits of your answer such as what crimes you'd support it for and what circumstances and, indeed, any reservations you may have about it. I'll add my own in when it's all up and running.

Nah.

HigginsJ

I would say yes but only for the most serious and heinous of crimes. I'm thinking things like murder that shows permeditation & child sexual abuse.

Skylinehead

Nope. It serves little purpose other than "revenge", which isn't what most justice systems are based on. Death sentences don't cost less money, they don't deter crime, and beyond those two oft-mentioned points, what else is there?

seamus

No. There is no way to prove absolute guilt.

If you have the death sentence, then you will put innocent people to death. It's unavoidable.

Plus, it doesn't actually solve anything.

J.pilkington

Hay

Sven Hassel

Yes. I feel no compassion or humanity for those who rape, murder and abuse others. Let them hang.

ScumLord

I wouldn't be totally against the death penalty in extreme cases like serial rapists or murderers, terrorists that would kill a lot of people. We don't get extreme crimes here that often though.

The problem is guards have shown that they're not trustworthy enough to be sure the person on death row really deserves to be there. Our legal system is a corrupt mess, our politicians abuse the system for their own gain.

We're not responsible enough to have such a severe punishment and we could negate many of the above problems by behaving differently as a society.

grogi

Seeing how many times the wrong people are convicted, I have to vote nay.

Winterlong

What would put me off the death sentence is that there is always doubt. The judge in the Birmingham 6 case bemoaned the fact that the death sentence was not on the statute books anymore as he felt the evidence was overwhelming.
And then in the US you see people with very low IQ getting executed. And China where they harvest the organs of the executed.

And finally - I would prefer that a life sentence is a life sentence. You take a life - you get life. Death is too easy for some of the animals.

eviltwin

I'd rather see ten guilty people walk free than one innocent person put to death so no.

jamesbere

Multiple murders and child molesters, yes.

GhostyMcGhost

Skylinehead wrote: »

Nope. It serves little purpose other than "revenge", which isn't what most justice systems are based on. Death sentences don't cost less money, they don't deter crime, and beyond those two oft-mentioned points, what else is there?

Justice?

Me_Grapes

I used to agree with the death penalty, and still do in theory. You take an innocent life deliberately, you forefeit your own.

However, not in practice due to the possibility of miscarriage of justice.

ancapailldorcha

The state shouldn't have the power to kill people.

HigginsJ

Winterlong wrote: »

And finally - I would prefer that a life sentence is a life sentence. You take a life - you get life. Death is too easy for some of the animals.

What is the purpose of keeping someone locked up for life, if their crime is such that they no longer deserve the right to be part of society then why continue to house, clothe and feed them? Also it seems a "life sentence" is on average about 12 years.

Sven Hassel

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The state shouldn't have the power to kill people.

It does and it should. There is a hit list of ISIS members and everyone of them deserves to be droned for example.

valoren

For a typical 'Mad Dog' type individual, someone like a Charles Manson, who deliberately murdered people, admitted as much, was openly glad to have done so, and would in all probability kill again given half a chance then yes, just kill them and be done with it. There is no point in even thinking of rehabilitation or wasting a cell on such a lost cause. For other situations, life (actual life) imprisonement for severe crimes with no parole is probably sufficient enough punishment. Perhaps those found guilty of such horrible crimes when faced with the prospect of that punishment could be offered a choice. Death by lethal injection or life in prison. I wonder would many when faced with that prospect choose the former?

HigginsJ

Out of interest, for those who say no due to possible wronful conviction, what if the convicted person comes out and openly admits that they are indeed guilty and do not fight the charges, would you accept the death penalty in these cases?

LadyMacBeth_

It's a Nay for me. Putting someone to death is not justice and has no place in a civilised society.

Winterlong

HigginsJ wrote: »

What is the purpose of keeping someone locked up for life, if their crime is such that they no longer deserve the right to be part of society then why continue to house, clothe and feed them? Also it seems a "life sentence" is on average about 12 years.

To punish them for their crimes. They can never be reformed in to upstanding citizens.
And to let others know that if you get convicted of taking a life you will spend the rest of your life behind bars.
No parole. No sob stories. Prison for life.

Minderbinder

Yes. But first we need to build more prisons and make them a lot, lot less humane. We need to stop letting people with 100's of previous offences walk free because that is really the injustice in our society.

sunshine and showers

HigginsJ wrote: »

What is the purpose of keeping someone locked up for life, if their crime is such that they no longer deserve the right to be part of society then why continue to house, clothe and feed them? Also it seems a "life sentence" is on average about 12 years.

It's actually more like 20 years at the moment. It's been steadily increasing since the 1980s. Life sentences can be reviewed after seven years incarceration, but the final decision to release someone rests with the Minsiter for Justice.

Life sentences are only mandatory for murder, which is a hard charge to bring and successfully prosecute. That means there are around 350 people on life sentences in Irish prisons right now.

Minderbinder

HigginsJ wrote: »

Out of interest, for those who say no due to possible wronful conviction, what if the convicted person comes out and openly admits that they are indeed guilty and do not fight the charges, would you accept the death penalty in these cases?

Normally a confession would be the result of bargaining. I can't see anyone confessing if the punishment would be the same.

ancapailldorcha

Sven Hassel wrote: »

It does and it should. There is a hit list of ISIS members and everyone of them deserves to be droned for example.

The thread is about domestic criminals and I stand by my statement. There's not a shred of evidence that the death penalty lowers crime.

Ronaldinho

I have voted yay.

The way I would advocate using it would be for serial offenders. People who have a record as long as their arm and who never likely to be 'rehabilitated'.

OU812

I'd like to propose an alternative whereby Lambay island is taken over and we put our unwanted criminals there.

AirDrop food to them once a week and let them figure out the rest themselves.

Maybe televise it as the ultimate Big Brother style show.

dfx-

seamus wrote: »

No. There is no way to prove absolute guilt.

If you have the death sentence, then you will put innocent people to death. It's unavoidable.

Plus, it doesn't actually solve anything.

well you can when there is absolute proof that they are guilty. Boston Bomber being an example.

You can put innocent people to death by life incarceration or speed it up. You can mentally destroy someone with solitary confinement for 23 hours a day.

They are not necessarily any better options.

Sven Hassel

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The thread is about domestic criminals and I stand by my statement. There's not a shred of evidence that the death penalty lowers crime.

Neither does soft sentences and hugs. Those who commit brutal crimes deserve death.

Omackeral

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Life sentences are only mandatory for murder, which is a hard charge to bring and successfully prosecute. That means there are around 350 people on life sentences in Irish prisons right now.

There are dozens out in everyday society walking among you and I. Some are out basically under relaxed bail conditions/on license (ie sign on once a week and that's it) and others are released daily for work and college courses and take buses etc to get there. So the 350 in Irish prisons aren't really in those prisons right now as we speak.

Omackeral

OU812 wrote: »

I'd like to propose an alternative whereby Lambay island is taken over and we put our unwanted criminals there.

AirDrop food to them once a week and let them figure out the rest themselves.

Maybe televise it as the ultimate Big Brother style show.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale_(film)

blackcard

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The state shouldn't have the power to kill people.

The State would effectively be killing people on behalf of all the citizens. If it was up to me, I personally wouldn't pull that trigger or inject someone so I wouldn't want the state doing it on my behalf

valoren

The death penalty should be legal but invoking it should only be implemented sparingly in extreme cases. Using it ought to depend on the heinousness and callousness of the crime and should it be used, there must be irrefutable evidence or better yet eye witnesses to identify the criminal. If however, there is a lack of bona fide evidence and/or no witnesses, the death penalty should never be called upon. People need to have the confidence to know that should someone do something that can only be effectively deemed as evil per any right thinking persons moral code, then that person is going to die as soon as they are convicted per the law. Not in 10 or 20 years, as soon as possible.

People also need to have the confidence in a system that will not be abused where patently dangerous people are executed with the barest of evidence. Life imprisonment is more apt in such cases.

end of the road

HigginsJ wrote: »

Out of interest, for those who say no due to possible wronful conviction, what if the convicted person comes out and openly admits that they are indeed guilty and do not fight the charges, would you accept the death penalty in these cases?

no . i would never accept the death penalty under any circumstances.

it doesn't deterr, it doesn't lower crime, it doesn't cost less then life in prison, and the evidence could never be sufficient to remove all doubt to allow for it's implementation.

P.Walnuts

Anyone think a death sentence would be preferable to life without parole? I know I'd rather go out early doors than rot in a cell for 40+ years...

HigginsJ

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The thread is about domestic criminals and I stand by my statement. There's not a shred of evidence that the death penalty lowers crime.

I don't have the figures for the crime numbers but I assume the numbers convicted of murder/child sexual abuse are low and while technically a crime I wouldn't class it along with the likes of theft, fraud, assault etc.

In no way would I expect the death penalty to have a knock on affect for the "everyday" criminal who will go about their business regardless. It is on a completely different scale so should it not be treated completely differently?

joe40

Definitely no. Every western democracy has banned capital punishment with one notable exception. Even disregarding the potential for wrongful convictions capital punishment serves no purpose other than revenge on a society level. It is not a deterrent

HigginsJ

Omackeral wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale_(film)

I have seen a version of this that was filmed in Scotland, it was awful, terrible and enjoyable all at once. I somehow think that Stone Cold Steve Austin was in it but I could be wrong.

Kylo Ren

No.

I'd rather the government have as limited power as possible; whatever the amount to get by is. The right to kill its citizens is far beyond this.

For me, if one person has been innocently killed then the whole scheme is not worth it. I think we can all agree, far more than one person has been innocently executed by their state.

Wabbit Ears

100% yes. For sure. No doubt about it.

Minderbinder

valoren wrote: »

The death penalty should be legal but invoking it should only be implemented sparingly in extreme cases.

Isn't that the way our judges currently think about prison sentences?

freshpopcorn

It doesn't achieve much where it's legal. So without a doubt I'd be against it!

vita.s

No, absolutely not. As someone already said, it has no place in civilized society.

The amount of people who have been exonerated from death row should be conclusive evidence that the government cannot be trusted with this power.

Ronaldinho

end of the road wrote: »

no . i would never accept the death penalty under any circumstances.

it doesn't cost less then life in prison

It doesn't??

alchemist33

HigginsJ wrote: »

Out of interest, for those who say no due to possible wronful conviction, what if the convicted person comes out and openly admits that they are indeed guilty and do not fight the charges, would you accept the death penalty in these cases?

Many people have confessed to crimes they haven't committed too (e.g. for the notoriety, or to protect others) so I'd still say no.

soups05

How can anyone say the death penalty does not lower crime rates? I have never heard of someone committing a crime AFTER they have been put to death so surely it does reduce crime. As for the view that you can never be 100% certain there is an easy way around that. Have something like a 10 strikes rule,at the 10th offense hang them, no more repeat offending for that lad. if ten is too low then try 50.

no years of appeals, automatic sentence carried out on conviction.

it would at least make some think twice before breaking the law, and before anyone says what about shoplifters etc, is a one euro bar worth someone's life? well that would be up to them. how much do you want that bar? enough to risk your life but not enough to pay a euro? fine, then you have decided your life is worth less than a euro if your on conviction number 9 and you steal a bar.

I would venture that most people who are against it have never been the victim of crime, or repeated crimes.

I may be a little biased in my thinking but i have never heard a convincing reason why guys on 50,100,200 convictions are still walking around like they are untouchable.

ancapailldorcha

HigginsJ wrote: »

I don't have the figures for the crime numbers but I assume the numbers convicted of murder/child sexual abuse are low and while technically a crime I wouldn't class it along with the likes of theft, fraud, assault etc.

In no way would I expect the death penalty to have a knock on affect for the "everyday" criminal who will go about their business regardless. It is on a completely different scale so should it not be treated completely differently?

I'm not arguing that all crimes are equal. I'm arguing that the death penalty is immoral as it's just state-sanctioned murder. The state is neither competent enough to ensure that only those who are guilty would be executed nor is it honest enough that the death penalty wouldn't be abused.

houlihand

yay

Academic

While I'm against the death penalty anywhere, it needs to be said that given its history, Ireland has better reason than most countries not to want the state to have the power to kill its citizens.

Greentopia

Absolutely not. For all the reasons already given by those who feel the same. Not possible anyway as one of the rules of EU membership is to have capital punishment removed from all members statute books.

major bill

When you read stories like that Spanish girl getting raped by a man out on bail you can't help but think a trip to the mountains and bullet to the head would be the quickest option

Maybe a bit too extreme but light sentences don't help either, nobody is scared going to court.