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; } } }

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

Comments

micf

Juries and Judges are human. They can get it wrong. There is no appeal if you are dead.

carlybabe1

Sulmac wrote: »

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

Let 'em rot in jail until they die naturally.

Would love to agree with you, but rot they dont , they have TVs to watch, games rooms to entertain them, education if they want it, three square meals a day,heating, showers, books, all without having to worry about who is paying the bills. They can earn money working in the prison, and
drugs fcked over the walls for them so they dont even have to mug the little ol' lady, the use of mobile phones, and they probably get more head in there than they would out on the street, so ""rot"" is kind of a misnomer in this case

My name is URL

I voted no

very slippery slope imo

carlybabe1

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Thinking some 16 year old is hot makes you a paedo doesn't it? :pac:

Would do if it was my 16 yr old you were eyein up and you were older than 18, Id cut your fcukin balls off, before I rang the cops

deadhead13

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Would do if it was my 16 yr old you were eyein up and you were older than 18, Id cut your fcukin balls off, before I rang the cops

What, to come and arrest you?

Pygmalion

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Thinking some 16 year old is hot makes you a paedo doesn't it? :pac:

There's no law against thinking it, so no.
Most people wouldn't even judge you if the girl was 16+.
It becomes wrong if you act on it, and that's the only way you can be punished legally for it too.
And I think (but amn't sure) that the punishment is less if the girl is 15+ than if she's 14 or under if she consents, because she's considered more mature, it's still a crime, and a fairly serious one, but you won't be treated the same as someone who does a really young one. Not sure whether that's actually a legal thing or if it's just that the judges are generally less outraged and act accordingly.

Although as a previous poster said, be prepared to get your ass kicked by family/friends if you're perving on her, legal or not.

whadabouchasir

obl wrote: »

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

as long as they are alive there is a chance that the truth could be discovered and they could be set free e.g the birmingham six.now if the death penalty was in place then these innocent men would have been killed for no reason.This renders the death penalty pointless as it is used to punish those who take the life of an innocent person yet this is exactly what the death penalty can do.

the bolt

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.

and let me stay at home on the dole thanks:rolleyes:

TedB

People support the death penalty without genuinely considering its wider implications. Who dares give the state the authority to kill people in the interests of maintaining law and order?

A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. Think about that.

nitrogen

TedB wrote: »

People support the death penalty without genuinely considering its wider implications. Who dares give the state the authority to kill people in the interests of maintaining law and order?

A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. Think about that.

That didn't change George W.

Spiritoftheseventies

thecornerboy wrote: »

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.

on subject of legalising drugs, watch the acclaimed police drama Wire for more on what happens when you set up a "drugs commune". they call it Hamsterdam. on BBC two tonight around eleven.

Kev_ps3

Interesting to see liberal left-wing boards.ie have such support for the death penelty. I would imagine that it would be alot higher amongst the public in general. Hopefully we will bring it back soon and start with the bankers.

PK2008

thecornerboy wrote: »

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.

Thats probably the most ignorant comment

Legalising drugs is commercially unviable and wouldnt remove illegal drug selling.

If the government took over the manufacture and sale of recreational narcotics it would have to put taxes and regulations on the use of the product which would drive the price up over illegal street prices thereby allowing the black market to continue its trade. Also with the age and amount of consumtpion restrictions the government would have to put on sales it would make street dealers even more attractive to consumers. Not to mention the liability cases the governement could be subject to under the various consumer rights acts.

Legalisation will never happen and its not because the governement dont want you to have fun its because the drug trade is commercially bankrupt (nevermind morally)

Fink Goddie

TedB wrote: »

People support the death penalty without genuinely considering its wider implications. Who dares give the state the authority to kill people in the interests of maintaining law and order?

A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. Think about that.

We give them the authority to put people away for life, make laws, p1ss away our taxes on looking after these scum, whats wrong with giving them more authority in the interests of public safety.

For example in England, Rosemary and Fred West, Ian Huntley, Ian Bradley and Maura Hinley, they should have all been given the death penalty.

What use do they have in society?? Waste of tax payers money keeping scum like that breathing.

thelordofcheese

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Interesting to see liberal left-wing boards.ie have such support for the death penelty. I would imagine that it would be alot higher amongst the public in general. Hopefully we will bring it back soon and start with the bankers.

yeah, damn those murdering bankers......wait...what?

Actually, never mind. I think the answer would make my brain hurt.

smelltheglove

Sentencing is too leniant. Death penalty for murders, paedophiles and scum like those who commited this weekends killing. But leave them sit in jail for months knowing they will face the bullet..... let it drive them to insanity.

Belfast

Mayshine wrote: »

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

For or against?

I thought we did not have "murder one" in Ireland.

Against

biko

TedB wrote: »

A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. Think about that.

You forgot the second part "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged".

I could see the death penalty for home invasion crimes, not burgling an empty house but entering the home, raping and killing.
Although if the criminal knows that what he's doing carries a death sentence he will have no barriers left, "they're already going to kill me for this so moght as well take a few more with me".

Belfast

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.

It is in Britian for people who get into the tabloids Myra Hindley get life.

Spiritoftheseventies

Belfast wrote: »

It is in Britian for people who get into the tabloids Myra Hindley get life.

just as well they abolished the death penalty over there given the miscarriages of justice

Long Onion

I reckon that we could infect them all with a properly dangerous virus and see what happens - not a poxy one like the H1N1:D

SmileyPaul

if the crime they commit is bad enough for death the chances are they're gonna have a dreadful time in prison once the other inmates find out what it is
let'em get raped and beaten for their entire horible term

Belfast

Fink Goddie wrote: »

We give them the authority to put people away for life, make laws, p1ss away our taxes on looking after these scum, whats wrong with giving them more authority in the interests of public safety.

For example in England, Rosemary and Fred West, Ian Huntley, Ian Bradley and Maura Hinley, they should have all been given the death penalty.

What use do they have in society?? Waste of tax payers money keeping scum like that breathing.

In America they have found the death penalty is more expensive than to put people away for life.

Belfast

smelltheglove wrote: »

Sentencing is too leniant. Death penalty for murders, paedophiles and scum like those who commited this weekends killing. But leave them sit in jail for months knowing they will face the bullet..... let it drive them to insanity.

they already do that in America and for much longer and often change the date for death some times minutes before people are due to die.

some people were on death row many years before DNA proved they could not have committed the crime they were convicted of.

"TIME ON DEATH ROW
INTRODUCTION
The length of time prisoners spend on death row in the United States before their executions has recently emerged as a topic of interest in the debate about the death penalty. The discussion increased around the execution of Michael Ross, a Connecticut inmate who had been on death row for 17 years, and has been spurred by the writings of two Supreme Court Justices who have urged the Court to consider this issue.

Death row inmates in the U.S. typically spend over a decade awaiting execution. Some prisoners have been on death row for well over 20 years.

During this time, they are generally isolated from other prisoners, excluded from prison educational and employment programs, and sharply restricted in terms of visitation and exercise, spending as much as 23 hours a day alone in their cells."
rest of details in article below.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row

StopTheDrugWar!

I know this is off topic but i felt compelled to correct your grossly inaccurate argument.

PK2008 wrote: »

Legalising drugs is commercially unviable and wouldnt remove illegal drug selling.

If the government took over the manufacture and sale of recreational narcotics it would have to put taxes and regulations on the use of the product which would drive the price up over illegal street prices thereby allowing the black market to continue its trade.

Have you any idea how much street drugs cost to produce?

**** nothing. That's how much. If legal, you could slap a 200% tax on them and they'd still be way cheaper than on the streets. If those along the illicit supply chain weren't making such huge profits they would not take the risks involved.

To suggest that illictly produced and distributed drugs would be cheaper is laughable, not to mention the fact that most people would rather get their drugs in safe pure forms without breaking the law, even if it meant paying a tiny bit more (which it clearly wouldn't).

Also, who says the government should take over? Free market ftw. Start off with pharmaceutical companies and then allow anyone, provided they meet the safety requirments that would be typical for a pharmaceutical company nowadays.

Also with the age and amount of consumtpion restrictions the government would have to put on sales it would make street dealers even more attractive to consumers.

If the government enforce such extreme taxes and restrictions that people start going to dealers, then they've no-one to blame but themselves. Drugs could be easily legalised without being anywhere close to this happening.

Not to mention the liability cases the governement could be subject to under the various consumer rights acts.

You mean like the liability cases we see all the time with alcohol :rolleyes:?

All the situations you listed could be easily avoided, in fact you'd have to almost deliberately go out of your way for them to happen.

People didn't suddenly decide one day "hey let's legalise drugs" and then their mates said "yeah, then we'd get better quality weed. cool". It's serious debate that some of the greatest minds have argued over. Every issue that could arise has been thought about.

Sean Quagmire

Wow, this has to be the closest poll in boards history? 200 votes and its almost a tie!

And I think death penalty should be used on re-offending scum. make them wait months in a cell as one poster said. That'll learn em good.

javaboy

Belfast wrote: »

In America they have found the death penalty is more expensive than to put people away for life.

Only because of the implementation they have. The cost is mostly to do with appeals and holding them in a prison with a much higher guard to prisoner ration than usual for the guts of a life term. The actual execution is relatively cheap. It's quite possible to have a cheap+efficient death penalty system in place although it would probably require a major overhaul of the entire justice system.

b28

Why not force the 'bad' criminals to do new drug test trials instead, it would help medical science! Plus get them to work.

ScissorPaperRock

The thing is, we should be progressing towards a society that can fix these problems, i.e. remove the causes that create these kinds of people.

We'd be regressing if society went back a position where it destroys those that don't function in the way it desires.

StopTheDrugWar!

Pity so many people seem to place absolute trust in the justice system. The death penalty is too much power for any human being to be trusted with. It has been abused right throughout history, in every country, and it's being abused around the world as we speak.

It doesn't take a malicious dictator to abuse the death penalty, just an over-zealous idiot who thinks they're doing the right thing.

If someone is sent to jail for life, is it to get revenge, or is it to make sure they can never harm anyone else?