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

Death Penalty

Mayshine

Applied for special case murder one convictions, such as some of the gang murders recently

For or against?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Capt'n Midnight

One problem with taking off scumbags off the streets is that even lower life forms replace them.

One way to combat crime is to make sure it doesn't pay.

For petty crime for drugs money the economic damage done is far more than they get for the stolen goods. To me handling stolen goods is a far worse crime. White collar crime affects far more people, each €1m is roughly what is spent to save a life on road improvements and on public health schemes.

Perhaps have special prisons for first offenders so they don't mix with hardened crims. Perhaps more rehab / re education. But all this in conjunction with increasingly stiffer sentences for repeated offences. You get a chance to change your ways but you if you aren't changing them then society needs to be protected from you.

Maybe we could look at repeat offender rates based on scentencing or by judge or family background. Someone coming from a bad background/single parent family is satistically more likely to be a criminal , yes it means you should get more concelling and stuff, no it doesn't mean you get a shorter sentence. Yes it is societies faulty in general , but that is not an excuse for an individual.

Punishment in prison is of no use unless it acts as a deterent which it don't seem to do. Punishment may be of some consolation to the victim, but the aim should be to prevent crime first.

For serious repeat offenders who are more or less parasites on society, where most of the relatives are known to the Guards another approach might be considered. This would also apply to foreign nationals. We could subcontract prisons services to a third world country.We pay that country about €5-€10K a year to house our repeat offenders, subject to our health and safety laws.

$Photo of DonkeyStyle \o/$ DonkeyStyle \o/

Banishment... that's what we need.
Can't play by the rules of society? Then you don't get the benefits of living in that society... off you go, fúck off to Craggy island and live like the caveman you are... good luck growing your own food and rediscovering medicine.

Uncle Arthur

Sulmac wrote: »

Against, it's just an easy way out for the cowards.

Let 'em rot in jail until they die naturally.

my thoughts exactly:)

Holsten

100% for.

Murder and only murder.

Uncle Arthur

enda1 wrote: »

And what then is the benefit of this? How will society be a better place with murderers with "destroyed souls" roaming the streets? Surely such people could be even more dangerous to society than they were when they went in?

Still can't understand the common belief that punishment is how we should deal with criminals without any attempt at rehabilitation...

oh no, youre one of those:(

ScissorPaperRock

What we should be doing is focusing on real rehabilitation, especially for those who commit less "serious" crimes. As well this we should be looking towards finding the root causes within our society that allow people to develop in such a manner that would drive them to commit crimes.

People are products of their environment. The environment needs to be fixed so that such people are not produced.

nitrogen

Mayshine wrote: »

But life in jail is never life and we don't have chain gangs, nor will we.

Genuinely interested to see if the death penalty is an alternative to the lenient sentencing and also act as a real deterrent.

Just because the Irish prison system is deeply flawed doesn't mean we should start ending lives. The state taking a life is immoral, hypocritical and doesn't allow the criminal to become rehabilitated.

Life should mean life with a chance of parole, maybe after 40 years, and prisoners should have to work (12 hour days Chinese-factory style) with limited luxuries. But that will never happen with Duffy's circus running the country.

Fink Goddie

Let the family of the victims of the crimes decide, how they should be punished.

If it was someone belonging to my family that was murdered by them, the punishment would be like something out of the movie hostel.
Let them suffer for days, lethal injection is too nice

sub-x

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Let the family of the victims of the crimes decide, how they should be punished.

If it was someone belonging to my family that was murdered by them, the punishment would be like something out of the movie hostel.
Let them suffer for days, lethal injection is too nice

That would truly a novel idea seen as the most a victim of crime or their families gets is a Victim Impact statement that read out and in court and thats it.The law is pretty much in place for protecting corporate interests mostly,don't believe me ??? people get locked up for not being able to pay debts,pedos and rapist get small or suspended sentences.

Life in this country is 14 years with a 25% reduction ends up at about 8 years,for a family to get proper justice is to bring forth a civil case against the defendant,hitting them in the pocket.

Terry

Quazzie wrote: »

Make them work for their stay. We spend billions paying for labour on roads that could be done by chain gangs, and thats only one scenario.

That'll just lead to higher unemployment.
Some of the unemployed will turn to crime and the whole cycle happens again.

I'd bring back the stocks, but the EU wouldn't be happy with that.

thelordofcheese

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Let the family of the victims of the crimes decide, how they should be punished.

If it was someone belonging to my family that was murdered by them, the punishment would be like something out of the movie hostel.
Let them suffer for days, lethal injection is too nice

this is why giving the victims a say in the punishment is a terrible idea.

At the very least any system like this should be tempered by someone who's not angry, thirsty for blood and going to make decisions based on those raw emotions.

enda1

Uncle Arthur wrote: »

oh no, youre one of those:(

Yeah lets stick pitchforks up their arses and cut their cocks off!!
The idea of punishment as mentioned above should only be as a deterrant.

Seriously what use is punishment? Does it make you feel better? Is it to satisfy some morbid desire of yours?

King of Kings

i voted (with pride)to retain the death penalty in the referendum (prob 10/12 years ago now)

only 10% of the population did so screw you all you pinko do good mung bean eating liberals.

Fink Goddie

thelordofcheese wrote: »

this is why giving the victims a say in the punishment is a terrible idea.

At the very least any system like this should be tempered by someone who's not angry, thirsty for blood and going to make decisions based on those raw emotions.

Or let someone who doesnt have a clue about real life, has never been affected by such horrible crimes make a decision about something they know nothing about and that hasnt affected them in the slightest.

Fink Goddie

enda1 wrote: »

Yeah lets stick pitchforks up their arses and cut their cocks off!!
The idea of punishment as mentioned above should only be as a deterrant.

Seriously what use is punishment? Does it make you feel better? Is it to satisfy some morbid desire of yours?

Might make the families feel better knowing that the scum that killed their loved one will never walk the streets again, make everyone else feel a little safer at night too.

Scrambled egg

Keep with the chain gangs idea but reserve the death penalty for crimes like treason etc.

Capt'n Midnight

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Let the family of the victims of the crimes decide, how they should be punished.

What if a scumbag kills a wife beater ?

I'd be against victim impact statements.
Someone getting their life back on the rails after a henious crime is no reason the criminal should get off lighter. If you mug a random person why should you benefit in any way from the choice of victim :mad:

Has there been a case where someone blamed their surroundings / being a victim of crime and getting a reduced sentence as a result of that AND the person who "made them" that way getting an increased sentence ?

Someone who has many multiple convictions of violent crime or breaking and entering where there is likely hood of violence ( and I include dangerous driving and drink driving heres ) or of crimes that promote the above like drug dealing or fencing, should not be allowed back until they have been rehabilitated.

A lot of this is knee jerk stuff , does anyone have any stats for levels of reoffending by crime type / drug use / other factors that are highly statistacilly signifigant ?

enda1

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Might make the families feel better knowing that the scum that killed their loved one will never walk the streets again, make everyone else feel a little safer at night too.

You'd feel safer at night living in USA than Ireland? A positive link between rates of murder and application of death sentance or not has never even been close to proven.

Make the families feel better... It is the state versus the defendent. Not the family prosecuting therefore the sentence should not be to appease the families blood thirst.

ScumLord

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A lot of this is knee jerk stuff , does anyone have any stats for levels of reoffending by crime type / drug use / other factors that are highly statistacilly signifigant ?

Well I'd say 99% of drug users reoffend they just don't get caught as easily.

Fink Goddie

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What if a scumbag kills a wife beater ?

Then we get rid of a wife beater and a scumbag, bonus score!

Capt'n Midnight

Maybe we should have the death penalty for economic fraud for levels above €10m ?
Economic crimes that are above the levels of the average wage x 50 times effectively remove the efforts of a persons working life.

I do like the French idea of having a prosecution of manslaughter for road deaths.

Fink Goddie

enda1 wrote: »

You'd feel safer at night living in USA than Ireland? A positive link between rates of murder and application of death sentance or not has never even been close to proven.

Make the families feel better... It is the state versus the defendent. Not the family prosecuting therefore the sentence should not be to appease the families blood thirst.

Depends where in the USA your asking, would i feel safer in Compton, probably not

This is where it goes wrong.

Fink Goddie

I think Singapore proves the fact that if you have harsher sentencing and punishment for crimes, then the crime rate will go down.

kwestfan08

I dont think the death penalty should ever be implemented for the simple reason that nobody has the right to take someone's life regardless of the crime committed.

I also think that the whole hard labour thing for criminals is a non-runner. Think about it. Your going to give murders tools to maybe kill another person like shovels, picks etc. Some of the tools could also be taken and used in the prison to kill an innocent guard. Doesnt make sense IMO

whadabouchasir

To all those who are in favour of the death penalty,I ask what if an innocent person gets put to death?Surely the chance of this happening is reason enough not to have the death penalty.

Terry

Scrambled egg wrote: »

Keep with the chain gangs idea but reserve the death penalty for crimes like treason etc.

What treason is there to commit in this state?

Dear Russian spymasters, today I saw the Taoiseach take a brown envelope.

The spy would be hailed as a hero here.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Maybe we should have the death penalty for economic fraud for levels above €10m ?
Economic crimes that are above the levels of the average wage x 50 times effectively remove the efforts of a persons working life.

I do like the French idea of having a prosecution of manslaughter for road deaths.

Yeah, if they catch the ****er.

tolosenc

kwestfan08 wrote: »

I also think that the whole hard labour thing for criminals is a non-runner. Think about it. Your going to give murders tools to maybe kill another person like shovels, picks etc. Some of the tools could also be taken and used in the prison to kill an innocent guard. Doesnt make sense IMO

Give the guards high powered rifles.

whadabouchasir wrote: »

To all those who are in favour of the death penalty,I ask what if an innocent person gets put to death?Surely the chance of this happening is reason enough not to have the death penalty.

What if an innocent person gets locked away for life and has appeal rejected? 6 of one really.

StopTheDrugWar!

No. While it might be morally justifiable in some cases on a personal level, the state should never have the power to end someone's life. It is a power that is too easily abused, history will teach you that. Laws are often wrong.

I_am_Jebus wrote: »

rapists and paedophiles should have their cócks cut off on top of their jail sentence. If they can't be trusted to have a cock without committing a serious crime with it then take it off them.

To mutilate someone's genitals requires a level of evil far above that of murder or rape.

False accusations of rape are extremely common. Too many innocent people would be harmed by such an idiotically short-sighted law.

ChocolateSauce

Although there are some very good arguments for capital punishment, and I do certainly believe that some people deserve to die, I'm against it for three simple reasons:

A state should not have the right to kill. Although people may deserve to die, no one deserves the right to kill them. Especially a state, after all, if the precedent is set that a state can execute, it is then in a position to award itself extra power. Also, to whom exactly to we award the right to decide what is an isn't a capital offense? I know of no objective way to find out.

Second, what if a mistake is made? It is a punishment that cannot be reversed, and innocent people can and have been executed. This reason alone is enough reason to seriously second guess it.

Third, what could execution succeed in doing that life imprisonment could not, other than revenge? The state is not there to dish out revenge. And for anyone who says it saves money, that sounds like you're putting a very real and quite modest price on life, something I find chilling.

thecornerboy

Some seriously ignorant comments here. For a start we could earn ourselves billions in tax revenue and end gangland crime almost overnight by legalising drugs. It's not an ideal solution but it's by far the best solution. It costs more to execute somebody when you tot up the many years they'll spend in jail, security for death row inmates, legal costs and so on. Prisoners with no chance of parole could contribute to society by their voluntary labour.