nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Death Sentence - Yea or nay

[Deleted User]

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

dvdman1

It should be decided by the family who lost their loved one, not us

sunshine and showers

kerry cow wrote: »

Yes .
Why is it that in the 80's and 90's growing up we never had many murders .what had happened in the recent years to spin this murderous era in to evil times .
Crime needs punishment .
Why not 100 lashes every Saturday morning on o connell Street .let it be a warning .
People need to wake up .
Look at the hit men , the guys who break in to old people's homes and trash them .
The rapist and murders .

Others have pointed out the murders/other crimes in the 80s/90s, but I'd like to add that there was no death penalty then either.

It wasn't removed from the constitution until 2001, but it was abolished for most offences (including so-called "ordinary murder") in 1964. It was abolished for all offences in 1990. The last execution in Ireland was in 1954. Your argument makes no sense.

Hate to burst your bubble (no I don't).

judeboy101

Life in extreme isolation with access to a suicide machine for all crimes that result in death or injury. Crimes not in that category are subject to a 3strikes rule.

Drumpot

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?

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.

If a person has 100 plus serious offences and/or convicted of multiple murder/rapes it's hard not to think there isn't enough evidence to suggest that they commited bad crimes continuously...

If you can't rehabilitate why shouldn't society choose to purge itself of people unwilling or incapable of respecting human life?! I see zero downside to having death sentance available in extreme cases.

Where is the justice For the future victims of chronic repeat offenders? Where is the benefit of locking people up and throwing away the key?

I actually think locking a human up for 30+ years is far more barbaric then putting them down. If it's not about revenge and the person will not learn, then what point does it serve locking them up? It seems like an excervise in the optics of perceived justice.

deadybai

I'm with it in certain circumstances. For instance while a Islamic terrorist deserves to die . It would drive them nuts that their kept alive.

If someone without doubt beyond repair. For instance someone who's been to jail multiple times for serious crimes . Then to hell with them.

endacl

dvdman1 wrote: »

It should be decided by the family who lost their loved one, not us

Like they do in Saudi? Not one of our nation's great thinkers, I see...

:rolleyes:

mikeybrennan

Life without parole for some murder and repeat violent offenders

It's been shown that the death penalty is more expensive anyway then LWP

shaunr68

dvdman1 wrote: »

It should be decided by the family who lost their loved one, not us

I had a car broken into once and would happily have crucified the bugger if I'd caught him!

It is for very good reason that sentencing is carried out impartially and not by somebody so aggrieved as to cloud their judgement.

On the poll: no. Though I do support stronger sentencing and in extreme cases, locking individuals up indefinitely/permanently. Too much is made of prison's role in rehabilitation, but it serves other purposes too. To punish, and to protect the public from bad people.

seamus

dfx- wrote: »

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

Absolute proof means proof beyond any doubt. Boston Bomber is not absolutely proven guilty. I can come up with a million off-the-wall theories that cast doubt on their guilt.

That's why we use "beyond reasonable doubt" as the test instead of "beyond all doubt".

Any road, single cases make bad law. What is the framework that we would use to determine that a case has been proven absolutely? And how is it infallible?

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Maybe that should be the choice some get offered. Go now while you're still in sort of decent shape or die an old man having known nothing but fear and loneliness for decades.

That's my preference. Anyone sentenced to life should be given, after a period of time, the option to end their life rather than stay in jail. If a psychologist is happy that the person is of sound mind and not just desperate because of their circumstances, then I see nothing to be gained by keeping them in prison.

Innocent people may (and probably will) end their lives, but by their own choice.

Of course, euthanasia in general would need to be legal first.

Drumpot wrote: »

If a person has 100 plus serious offences and/or convicted of multiple murder/rapes it's hard not to think there isn't enough evidence to suggest that they commited bad crimes continuously.

Consider the more extreme examples though. You need someone stitched up for a crime. So you pick up some idiot with multiple convictions. Whether or not he did it, the court finds him guilty and decides it's time to put him down.

This is the issue. The legal system will always be fallible and corrupt. Until it is infallible and incorruptible, innocent people will be found guilty. Where the death penalty is legal, innocent people will be killed.

It's unavoidable. While 30 years of jail may be barbaric, it leaves the door open to give someone back their freedom. You can't give someone back their life. They're gone.

RustyNut

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.

So you don't even think accused people should be shown fair procedure, the chance to put up a defence or plea in mitigation?

everlast75

In this country, with the current level of credibility our force has, I wouldn't be confident some of the evidence wasn't manufactured so it's a no from me.

I do believe chain gangs might be a better option btw

Malayalam

The problem isn't so much the death penalty as the improper functioning of the present punishment system. Punishment for crime does not simply serve the need of a society for vengeance or retribution or even rehabilitation, it also is supposed to mark out clearly the limit of tolerance in a society for certain behaviours. That's the kind of thing we trade our complete independence for, when we agree to be part of a''society''. When people see sentences that are too light, that are not fully served, that ''go soft'' in some way or another, then the line in the sand of what is tolerable becomes vague and this disturbs a society. Sentences that do not hold the line generate desires for vigilantism, for bringing back death penalties, they generate disrespect for those who are supposed to maintain order (police, judges, ''the system''). So, by improperly enforcing the law authority is weakened by its own actions or inaction to the detriment of the whole body of society.

To the question I cannot say absolutely yes or no (which disturbs me). I have largely been against the death penalty. Criminology studies from the earliest days tend to show that it does not reduce crime. There are other factors I sometimes consider, however; not protecting society from recalcitrant and serious criminals (murderers and rapists) seems almost a form of enabling, and society then at large could be said to bear some burden of guilt when one of their members has been insufficiently punished and goes on to cause dreadful harm or death to an innocent, such as has happened far too often. I think of the little known eastern story of a bodhisattva (saint) killing a sea pirate because he foresaw that the pirate intended to kill innocent passengers on the ship. Even if one approaches such old tales as metaphors and myths, still perhaps there is something to think about in that. Stepping in to stop greater harm...
I spoke with a man once who was given the opportunity to kill the murderer of his son and who, with gun in hand, chose forgiveness instead. He was a remarkable man. It was a sobering conversation.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The death penalty has not place in our society.

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.

This is a very naive and immature post. You obviously have no idea of the implications of drone strikes. Do you think drones fire poisonous darts with 100% accuracy and 0% error.

Are you aware of the countless civilians killed in such drone attacks? Either you have absolutely zero empathy, or you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Sven Hassel wrote: »

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

The alternative to the death penalty is not "soft sentences and hugs" as you keep droning on about. Why do you keep bringing this up?

Also, define "brutal". Does a savage beating deserve death? You haven't really thought this through, have you? It's just a knee jerk reaction.

Sven Hassel wrote: »

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

As you have mentioned multiple times in various threads, we get it. You want revenge wherever possible... :rolleyes:

Regardless of your feelings towards criminals, the question is, should we kill those criminals? Yes is a very easy and lazy answer, it involves little or no critical thinking and is based solely on feelings.

As doubt will always remain, nobody should be put to death.

end of the road

Drumpot wrote: »

If a person has 100 plus serious offences and/or convicted of multiple murder/rapes it's hard not to think there isn't enough evidence to suggest that they commited bad crimes continuously...

that's not evidence enough for the death penalty.

Drumpot wrote: »

If you can't rehabilitate why shouldn't society choose to purge itself of people unwilling or incapable of respecting human life?! I see zero downside to having death sentance available in extreme cases.

why should society have such right. maybe it should have the right to purge people who's opinions it doesn't agree with for example? if you give society the right to purge for 1 thing, it will expect it for others.

Drumpot wrote: »

Where is the justice For the future victims of chronic repeat offenders?

you can't have justice for something that hasn't happened.

Drumpot wrote: »

Where is the benefit of locking people up and throwing away the key?

get on to your local representative about bringing that in.

Drumpot wrote: »

I actually think locking a human up for 30+ years is far more barbaric then putting them down.

the death penalty has no justification and there will never be enough evidence to allow for it's implementation.

Drumpot wrote: »

If it's not about revenge and the person will not learn, then what point does it serve locking them up? It seems like an excervise in the optics of perceived justice.

it keeps them away from society and it costs less then the death penalty, a failed system which doesn't deter crime.

osarusan

Nay, state should not have this particular power.

[Deleted User]

One barbaric act should not permit another.

ginger_hammer

I voted no. Always going to be innocent victims.

However I think there should be more punishing prisons, after watching documentary's about some russian/us prisons they really are not a place you ever want to go. The preconception here is that prison is grand with tv, phones, drugs, etc.

I also think some humiliation/punishment wouldn't go amiss as a greater deterrent that you really don't want to keep re-offending.

kerry cow

There are rules for all citizens to live by , pay tax , don't speed,don't do this or that or you will be punished. That's the way it is .
If you kill or rape then dead should awaiting.
A eye for a eye .
Once you know the punishment before you act , then have no quams about the medicine .

seamus

ginger_hammer wrote: »

However I think there should be more punishing prisons, after watching documentary's about some russian/us prisons they really are not a place you ever want to go.

And yet they have crime rates much worse than ours.

Meanwhile countries with "soft" prisons are closing them because they don't have enough criminals to fill them.

It's counter-intuitive, but then being a criminal is counter-intuitive to most of us.

Harsh punishments don't work in reducing crime and can be proven to not work. Whereas "soft sentence and hugs" apparently do.

everlast75

I'd rather let a thousand guilty men go free than chase after them." - Chief Wiggum

kerry cow

Another thing that bugs me ,
You hear that such and such a rapist or murder is on suicide watch .
What a load of bunk.
There should be a two step ladder in the cell with a rope hanging from a strong anchor in the ceiling and let nature Take its course.
People need to copy on with them selves and stop the bs.

martingriff

Conall Cernach wrote: »

P.Walnuts wrote: »

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...

Maybe that should be the choice some get offered. Go now while you're still in sort of decent shape or die an old man having known nothing but fear and loneliness for decades.

What the he'll should we give them the choice to end there punishment. You think the person who is raped gets a choice after just to forget or the loved ones of someone who has died.

What is needed here is a review and complete restructure of our sentences and bail laws. Limit things in jail like tv or the choice and doung courses. But can see the justice system fighting it tooth and nail. Never mind the group's who think we should reform not punish

mikeybrennan

kerry cow wrote: »

Another thing that bugs me ,
You hear that such and such a rapist or murder is on suicide watch .
What a load of bunk.
There should be a two step ladder in the cell with a rope hanging from a strong anchor in the ceiling and let nature Take its course.
People need to copy on with them selves and stop the bs.

We should just let them escape?

freshpopcorn

kerry cow wrote: »

Another thing that bugs me ,

Another thing that bugs me is when people say back in the 1980/1990's that they were no murders compared to now a days! These people clearly never paid attention to the news back then or have forgotten it or they can't be bothered to look it up!

Barry Badrinath

eviltwin wrote: »

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

You would hypothetically rather see 10 guilty serial killers walk free among the population with a high possibilty of commiting more murders...

...than one innocent person being sentenced to death?

Really?

Capt'n Midnight

I'm against the death penalty.

It's too lenient.

There's always the possibility of reincarnation.

vita.s

ginger_hammer wrote: »

I voted no. Always going to be innocent victims.

However I think there should be more punishing prisons, after watching documentary's about some russian/us prisons they really are not a place you ever want to go. The preconception here is that prison is grand with tv, phones, drugs, etc.

I also think some humiliation/punishment wouldn't go amiss as a greater deterrent that you really don't want to keep re-offending.

There is such a thing as human rights that prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment.

Humiliation doesn't stop people from committing more crimes, it makes it more likely that the person will never want to re-integrate into a society that did that to them.

I think all the people who are calling for harsher punishments are forgetting that most crime has a societal cause, a small percentage is perpetrated by amoral psychopaths who crave blood. The solution to crime is education and support at community level, not treating people like animals and expecting that that will make them better citizens in the future.

Jayop

My issue with the death penalty isn't so much that it's harsh on the person getting put to death, more that the whole concept of it cheapens life in general. If the state is seen as killing people then in my eyes it increases the amount of people who will feel they can do that too when they feel justifiably pissed off with someone. Death follows death and I'm fairly sure that I read recently that in general countries that have the death sentence have a much higher rate of murder and violent crime than those who don't.

Doltanian

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.

Perhaps maybe a tiny amount but I firmly believe it would save the lives of far more innocent people be preventing crime and taking serial offenders out of circulation. Surely one or two innocent lives is a small price to pay to save lives of many.

We should have a three strikes rule with massive harsh punishment, all those druggies around Dublin City Centre should be rounded up and just executed. There is just people in society who will never reform and don't deserve a chance, 166 previous convictions lol, they should have been given a bullet to the head long ago if we had a proper system. Most Drug Dealers and those in possession of larger amounts of narcotics including Cannabis should be executed in my opinion. They are wasters and a drain on society.

Since we abolished the Death Penatly Crime has really spiralled out of control, what I really can't understand is how more families and people effected by crime haven't gone vigilante and just killed those responsible because you might aswell try call batman before you ring the Gardai. If I was a victim of crime I would not call the police, I did that once before for what good it did and never again.

There is no law and order or justice in this country. What exists is a disgusting system for the legal profession to make billions of euro out of the ridiculous system, I don't begrudge them and think some should get paid more but what I want as a citizen is revenge for the taxpayer and retribution for those responsible for crime. Other countries really do justice properly but this country is a sick joke.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Doltanian wrote: »

Perhaps maybe a tiny amount but I firmly believe it would save the lives of far more innocent people be preventing crime and taking serial offenders out of circulation. Surely one or two innocent lives is a small price to pay to save lives of many.

That's all well and dandy, until it's your innocent loved one banged up and awaiting the lethal injection.

It's sick that you would go far to allow innocent people suffer to get your revenge on the perpetrator. That's really disconcerting.

On the other hand, how would the death penalty save innocent lives and life imprisonment not?