The Death Sentence - Yea or nay

20-07-2017 06:53PM

The judge in the Birmingham six or Gilford four case said if the death penalty was an option he would have imposed it.
No death penalty imo

the_syco · 20-07-2017 06:56PM

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?

More room for long term inmates.

Sofiztikated · 20-07-2017 06:59PM

Doltanian wrote: »

Complete waffle and hyberole.

Doltanian wrote: »

Other countries really do justice properly but this country is a sick joke.

Which countries would that be?

freshpopcorn · 20-07-2017 07:03PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Which countries would that be?

La La Land!

end of the road · 20-07-2017 08:21PM

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.

can't be done. the prison has a duty of care to it's inmates.

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

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?

frankly if that's how it has to be then yes. someone innocent being killed is not an option for me.

end of the road · 20-07-2017 08:34PM

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.

no . no innocent life is a price worth paying.

Doltanian wrote: »

We should have a three strikes rule with massive harsh punishment

not cost effective and harsh punishment doesn't work.

Doltanian wrote: »

all those druggies around Dublin City Centre should be rounded up and just executed.

no they should be rehabilitated instead and drugs legalised. way way cheaper then murdering them.

Doltanian wrote: »

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.

nope. a proper system doesn't murder.

Doltanian wrote: »

Most Drug Dealers and those in possession of larger amounts of narcotics including Cannabis should be executed in my opinion.

why. they are selling a product people want.

Doltanian wrote: »

They are wasters and a drain on society.

how are they a drain on society. they are wasters yes, but chances are the big lads aren't relying on the tax payer for anything.

Doltanian wrote: »

Since we abolished the Death Penatly Crime has really spiralled out of control

nothing to do with the abolition of the death penalty. the only crime that really has brought up crime rates is gangland crime and that came long after the last execution.

Doltanian wrote: »

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.

because they will end up in jail. that is obvious, surely?

Doltanian wrote: »

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.

as long as you are okay with possibly going to jail, having a criminal record, and everything that will bring with it.

snowflaker · 20-07-2017 08:35PM

No.

snowflaker · 20-07-2017 08:36PM

Are Renua doing some new market research???

Agent Coulson · 20-07-2017 08:43PM

No need for the death penalty as much as when I see something horrific I say hang them from the highest tree.

What this Country does need is proper sentencing and an end to concurrent sentencing.

Then bring in proper hard labour and chain gangs working eight hours a day instead of being cooped up in cells or prison yards etc.

freshpopcorn · 20-07-2017 08:44PM

snowflaker wrote: »

Are Renua doing some new market research???

I was actually going to mention Renua!
When Lucinda suggested a three strike rule she got a lot of abuse!

Skylinehead · 20-07-2017 08:48PM

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.

Bet you wouldn't be ok with it if you were one of the innocent lives.

snowflaker · 20-07-2017 08:50PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I was actually going to mention Renua!
When Lucinda suggested a three strike rule she got a lot of abuse!

Its so stupid! It doesn't work anywhere it was ever implemented

branie2 · 20-07-2017 08:53PM

Nay

20-07-2017 08:59PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

The State acts on behalf of the people. I don't want any agent of the State taking a life on my behalf, it makes us all complicit in a killing even if we're vehemently opposed.

mikeybrennan · 20-07-2017 09:18PM

snowflaker wrote: »

Its so stupid! It doesn't work anywhere it was ever implemented

3 strikes is a disaster
Bill Clinton admitted it

We need to tackle the problem with violent repeat offenders being out here but not throw away the key for minor stuff

20-07-2017 11:28PM

Presuming that this is a purely theoretical exercise, so: a safe conviction is presumed.

I'm for it for violent crimes: murder, rape, assault causing serious harm. Child abuse. I'd advocate for a system where previous convictions made the death penalty a much more likely sentence. Let's tackle multiple offenders, let them know we're keeping an eye on them.

Don't care if studies that set out to show it doesn't work as a deterrent unsurprisingly show that it doesn't work as a deterrent. It'll deter the fcukers one at a time, guaranteed.

Don't care if people who support a system of endless appeal funded by the state contend that endless appeal funded by the state is more expensive than life imprisonment. In my theoretical system, there'd be no endless appeal funded by the state. Hurrah, sorted.

Don't care about 'it could happen to any of us' arguments, as per the thread on the rape yesterday. No it bloody well couldn't. If you have multiple previous convictions or the evidence against you is overwhelming, away ta fcuk with you. Kisses XXX.

Completely disagree that the state doesn't have the right. Inalienable rights in a society is a nonsense concept without the threat of withdrawal of those rights for crimes against that society.

Unfortunately, I must concur that the state could only be satisfied to the required degree on the most rare of occasions. So it's a practical non-goer, though if you had a sod bang to rights for a sufficiently serious crime, then I'd be all for telling the EU to do one and mind their own business. Hang em high!

end of the road · 20-07-2017 11:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't care if studies that set out to show it doesn't work as a deterrent unsurprisingly show that it doesn't work as a deterrent. It'll deter the fcukers one at a time, guaranteed.

wrong. if the evidence shows it doesn't deter, which it does because it clearly doesn't, then it won't deter.

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't care if people who support a system of endless appeal funded by the state contend that endless appeal funded by the state is more expensive than life imprisonment. In my theoretical system, there'd be no endless appeal funded by the state. Hurrah, sorted.

not sorted as if the person is found innocent, you would have to pay billions in compensation.

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't care about 'it could happen to any of us' arguments, as per the thread on the rape yesterday. No it bloody well couldn't.

yes it could.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you have multiple previous convictions or the evidence against you is overwhelming, away ta fcuk with you. Kisses XXX.

the evidence would never be overwhelming enough to implement the death penalty.

Deleted User wrote: »

Completely disagree that the state doesn't have the right. Inalienable rights in a society is a nonsense concept without the threat of withdrawal of those rights for crimes against that society.

not life. life is a right that cannot be withdrawn.

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately, I must concur that the state could only be satisfied to the required degree on the most rare of occasions. So it's a practical non-goer, though if you had a sod bang to rights for a sufficiently serious crime, then I'd be all for telling the EU to do one and mind their own business. Hang em high!

not when the EU funding dries up, we are facing huge fines and we are a bankrupt basket case. then you won't be telling the EU to do one, you will be changing your mind quick.

freshpopcorn · 20-07-2017 11:41PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Presuming that this is a purely theoretical exercise, so: a safe conviction is presumed.

I'm for it for violent crimes: murder, rape, assault causing serious harm. Child abuse. I'd advocate for a system where previous convictions made the death penalty a much more likely sentence. Let's tackle multiple offenders, let them know we're keeping an eye on them.

Don't care if studies that set out to show it doesn't work as a deterrent unsurprisingly show that it doesn't work as a deterrent. It'll deter the fcukers one at a time, guaranteed.

Don't care if people who support a system of endless appeal funded by the state contend that endless appeal funded by the state is more expensive than life imprisonment. In my theoretical system, there'd be no endless appeal funded by the state. Hurrah, sorted.

Don't care about 'it could happen to any of us' arguments, as per the thread on the rape yesterday. No it bloody well couldn't. If you have multiple previous convictions or the evidence against you is overwhelming, away ta fcuk with you. Kisses XXX.

Completely disagree that the state doesn't have the right. Inalienable rights in a society is a nonsense concept without the threat of withdrawal of those rights for crimes against that society.

Unfortunately, I must concur that the state could only be satisfied to the required degree on the most rare of occasions. So it's a practical non-goer, though if you had a sod bang to rights for a sufficiently serious crime, then I'd be all for telling the EU to do one and mind their own business. Hang em high!

So, you would support the death penalty even it meant Ireland would become more dangerous?

20-07-2017 11:43PM

Hi end of the road

You will have been observed historically agreeing with yourself ad infinitum in threads and endlessly reposting your opinions as direct factual contradictions of points made or of other opinions.

It's a fairly unattractive set of traits in a poster.

In my thought experiment, you wouldn't get the death sentence....but we'd be watching you....

21-07-2017 12:34AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Hi end of the road

You will have been observed historically agreeing with yourself ad infinitum in threads and endlessly reposting your opinions as direct factual contradictions of points made or of other opinions.

It's a fairly unattractive set of traits in a poster.

Wrong, end of the road's new gimmick is quoting a long post and saying "nope" after each subsection. I, for one, love the new approach!

21-07-2017 12:37AM

Omackeral wrote: »

Wrong, end of the road's new gimmick is quoting a long post and saying "nope" after each subsection. I, for one, love the new approach!

Nope

21-07-2017 12:46AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope

N
O
P
E

AllForIt · 21-07-2017 02:06AM

I'm not convinced by some of the arguments made against it in this thread.

One poster said that the justice system is not about revenge. That might be true in a Star Trek fantasy world but I don't think it is true in reality. I think the justice system is hugely inspired by revenge but we would rather not admit it. When ppl say they want justice often what that means is they want revenge.

On the points made about wrongful convictions DNA evidence has ensured that wrongful convictions have been overturned so why not the other way round i.e DNA evidence proves to a certainty that one is guilty.

Often bitter relatives of murder victims say that they would rather that the perpetrator spend the rest of their natural life in prison suffering. I'm not sure that thought is best for them psychologically. Often the most notorious murderers get press for whatever reason. For example Andres Brevek got a lot of press recently because he was involved in a court case where I think he complained that he wasn't being treated humanely. I'm sure the parents of the victims did not enjoy one bit this case resurfacing in the media, rather it brought it all back as if it were the day it happened. Wouldn't it be better for them that they could move on rather than to be continually reminded of that monster and that terrible day in their lives that has changed their lives forever.

Channel 4 just last week did a piece on the case of Sarha Payne who was murdered by a Paedophille (Roy Whiting) in Essex UK. The interview focused on Sarha's 2 brothers who were with her on the day she was snatched, where they recounted that they seen him driving off with Sarha where he waved at them as he drove off with her. The pain and sense of guilt for not preventing this is something they will have to deal with for the rest of their lives. And they will clearly never get over it.

The reason I mention that case is because I think that it's easy to be holier than thou when one considers the issue of death sentences in an general way rather than looking at specific cases. If I were part of the Payne's family the last thing I would want is to see him 'reforming' in prison. I wouldn't want to give him the opportunity to reform or even express remorse. It would turn my stomach that the state gave him the means to reform where he turns out alright albeit in prison. I would personally prefer that he was put to rest and I think that would be the best outcome particularly for Sahras family and it would help them to put it behind them a little bit better not that they ever fully can.

I also think that a life sentence in prison isn't worth living. The life pre prison wasn't worth living either so I don't see why it would be in prison.

Manic Moran · 21-07-2017 09:01AM

A couple of comments.

I agree with Allforit that the justice system is not just about rehabilitation or protection. It it were, it would be called the rehabilitation system, or the protection system. To take an old phrase slightly out of context, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, to the satisfaction of the population upon whose behalf the justice is being carried out, and this certainly includes victims, or next of kin of the victims. To this end, there is something to be said for the concept of "blood money" as practiced in various Arabic countries, which merges national sentiment, while it can be overridden by the mercy of those most affected. (Choose money, servitude, imprisonment, whatever. To a point, this is conducted to a lesser extent during the victim statements in the sentencing phase of a US trial).

The question which holds most weight is that of miscarriages of justice, the execution of those who are innocent. It s worth noting that most such incidents have been from quite some time in the past. Forensic and video technology has advanced substantially since then, even before one gets to the question of multiple witnesses. There are ample instances these days of murders being captured on police dashcam, CCTV, shop or bank security cameras, or outright 'caught red handed' such as Jared Loughner. I submit that the requirement for a capital sentence be changed from "jurors convinced beyond reasonable doubt" to "jurors convinced beyond any doubt". This, I think, would pretty much eliminate further such miscarriages.

seamus · 21-07-2017 09:19AM

AllForIt wrote: »

i.e DNA evidence proves to a certainty that one is guilty.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I submit that the requirement for a capital sentence be changed from "jurors convinced beyond reasonable doubt" to "jurors convinced beyond any doubt". This, I think, would pretty much eliminate further such miscarriages.

You see, there is no such thing as certainty. DNA evidence doesn't prove anything, it supports a theory, places someone in a location at a time.

And DNA has been shown to be wrong in the past. It's a very strong smoking gun, but not perfect.

The "beyond any doubt" test would mean it's impossible to impose a capital sentence.

Remember, any doubt can be anything. The defence can submit that the defendant was briefly under the control of alien influences during the murder. That's a doubt about their guilt. The prosecution would have to prove that was absolutely 100% not possible.

That's why we use "reasonable doubt" as the test - because that limits us to the set of things which are reasonable. "Any doubt" is the superset containing any crazy theory.

We don't have a perfect justice system and we never will. You can put in all sorts of gates and checks to make it unlikely that an innocent person will be put to death, but you cannot guarantee it.

branie2 · 21-07-2017 09:35AM

You only have to look at the cases of Timothy Evans and Derek Bentley to prove that it doesn't work

El_Duderino 09 · 21-07-2017 09:47AM

I'd say yes under certain circumstances.

If a person has a compulsion to do things that harm others such as sexual abuse and murder. If someone has committed those crimes in the past and you know they will almost certainly commit them again if released, then death sentence is an option.

If you can't rehabilitate someone and your best option is to warehouse them in prison until they die, then I think you might as well have the courage of your convictions and put the person to death. Life in prison is no life anyway so we're fine with taking away peoples liberty and warehousing them.

I thought I we should continue researching ways to rehabilitate people though.

El Weirdo · 21-07-2017 12:15PM

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation

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.

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.

Wow.

seamus · 21-07-2017 01:35PM

El Weirdo wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation
Wow.

You see when people say, "an innocent life is a small price to pay", what they really mean is, "someone else's innocent life is a small price to pay".

If it was their own or a family member's innocent neck on the chopping block, they wouldn't shrug their shoulders and say, "ah shure lookit, it's a small price to pay. Swing away there, Mick".

Thinking that the execution of innocent people is a justifiable evil is a sure sign of someone who hasn't given it much thought.

Lollipops23 · 21-07-2017 01:47PM

eviltwin wrote: »

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

100% agree.

There's too much room for error. That alone is enough to make me against it, although I was more on the fence about it once upon a time.

The Death Sentence - Yea or nay

Comments