Pkiernan wrote: » Most car crashes are not accidents, they are acts of negligence. Stop and have a think about that before replying! Doesn't change the logic of my argument. Why does your right to drive a car supercede people's right to live? Banning cars in Ireland would save a lot more innocent lives than ending the death penalty in the US. But you're just trying to make tired left wing arguments.
Wibbs wrote: » God no. And I'm no hippie, I love firearms and would love a small collection of working vintage pieces(Mauser C96 please). I would support a loosening on the restrictions here alright. However it would be a madness to have anything like the US model here. It's a bloody disaster there. The death rate from firearms is insane. Now we can look to the Swiss where firearms are pretty common on the ground, including military grade weapons, but they're a very different culture. Clearly, as unlike the US mentaller muppets going on shooting rampages are bloody rare to nonexistent. I'm not sure we're like the Swiss on this score.
Gael23 wrote: » Most of the appeals are down to the lethal drugs used. Change the method and death row will be cleaned out much sooner
davidk1394 wrote: » What about the two 13 year old boys who killed that young girl in 2018 or Larry Murphy. The likes of these people should get the DP, once the evidence can prove 100% that it was them.
batgoat wrote: An estimated 1 in 25 people on death row are innocent. That's a pretty high chance of error when it comes to killing a person wrongfully. Also the risk of execution doesn't actually put people off committing incredibly violent crimes.
eagle eye wrote: If somebody ends another person's life they should pay with their own.
Wanderer78 wrote: And this has prevented others from murdering by.....
eagle eye wrote: » If somebody ends another person's life they should pay with their own.
eagle eye wrote: I don't care if it doesn't stop some other people. The punishment is the nearest thing to fitting the crime.
batgoat wrote: Did you conveniently ignore there's a 4 percent chance they're innocent?
eagle eye wrote: » If there is a doubt then they can use the legal system.
eagle eye wrote: » I don't care if it doesn't stop some other people. The punishment is the nearest thing to fitting the crime.
batgoat wrote: Innocent people can and do executed regardless. Also the US justice simply doesn't work that well if you don't have money. So ultimately, you're concluding it's fine to execute the innocent as long as you get the guilty ones as well.
corner of hells wrote: Is it revenge you're looking for moreso than justice ?
eagle eye wrote: » Where are you getting your stats regarding innocent people being executed? How far back are you going? Has it been proven beyond a reasonable that they were innocent?
Zaph wrote: Since 1973 153 innocent people have been released from death row in the States (
Zaph wrote: » Between 1973 and 2015 153 innocent people have been released from death row in the States (source). That would suggest that it clearly hadn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty.
batgoat wrote: » That is also just 1.6% of those on death row. 4.1% estimated to be innocent. One case below basically concluded arson but in retrospect, that may simply have been bad signs in the court room.https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/cameron-todd-willingham-improper-or-wrongful-conviction-19571
eagle eye wrote: » Justice. As I said earlier the crime should fit the punishment. Paedophiles, rapists and people who seriously assault others should have a minimum sentence of being incarcerated until the victim has fully recovered both physically and mentally. If that means they spend the rest of their lives in jail. If you murder someone there can be no restorative justice for that person so ending the murderer's life is a fitting punishment.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: Having the punishment fit the crime using your logic would mean raping rspists. Don't know that it means with regard to Pedophiles....
eagle eye wrote: » No, I said the sentence length should be at a minimum as long as it takes the victim to recover mentally and physically from the crime. So for instance a serious assault that leaves the victim in a wheelchair for life should result in life behind bars.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: That's not sentence fitting the crime. Life imprisonment (meaning full life) for murder would be te application of the same logic as the logic expressed here.
eagle eye wrote: » No it wouldn't and I've already explained that. Restorative isn't possible where the victim is dead.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: Punishment fitting the crime means doing to the criminal what they did to someone else. It's not designed to restore anything. It's designed to extract revenge.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: Restorative isn't the issue. You can't unmurder someone - correct - but you can't unrape someone either. Your explanation was flawed. I pointed that out.
eagle eye wrote: » What are you on about. Our society does not condone rape or murder. In the case of crimes where the victim survives there is the possibility of restorative justice. I'm saying that in non-murder cases that until the victim recovers from all issues which resulted from the crime that the perpetrator should remain in jail. When the victims life is ended by murder there isn't the possibility of restorative justice so ending the murderer's life is the fitting punishment. I can't help you if you don't understand what I'm saying. Nothing flawed about what I said.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
