Death penalty should be revisited, says ex-judge

marcsignal · 16-11-2009 08:42AM #1

I have to admit, I'm not disappointed about this, but doubt it will ever come to anything. It seems our membership of the EU would be a problem for a start. Would be interesting to see how a referendum on the issue would pan out though.

THE QUESTION of the death penalty for certain kinds of murder, for example those committed during armed robberies, should be revisited, according to the former president of the High Court, Mr Justice Richard Johnson.

Speaking to The Irish Times , the judge said: “The Government should look at it. Then if the people want it they should have it.”

A constitutional ban on the death penalty was introduced as the 21st amendment to the Constitution in 2001. Another referendum would be necessary if the death penalty were to be legislated for.

“I am not totally in favour of it. But it should be revisited,” the former judge said. “It would have to be for specific offences. If people arm up and go out to rob and decide to take out anyone who gets in their way, they should pay the price. It should be a matter for each individual case.”

He believes the death penalty had a deterrent effect in the past.

“When I was growing up if a murder took place there were headlines in the press for a week. Now no one notices. Murder is no longer shocking anybody. People have far less respect for each other than they used to,” he said.

Some of this he blames on the prevalence of sex and violence in advertising and the media. “We’re becoming unshockable,” he said.

However, he acknowledged it was very difficult to be absolutely certain a person was guilty of murder, and that he would be deeply concerned about wrong convictions. “If the death penalty existed in Britain the Birmingham Six would have been executed,” he said.

The last person executed in Ireland was in 1954, when Michael Manning was hanged, with the sentence being carried out by English official hangman Albert Pierrepoint. No further executions were carried out and it was abolished in law in 1990.

The abolition of capital punishment is also a condition of EU membership and exists in a protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Ireland is a signatory.

The 21st amendment inserted a clause preventing the Oireachtas from reintroducing the death penalty without a further referendum. It was passed in a referendum held the same day as the first Nice referendum by 62 per cent of those who voted, with 38 per cent voting against the ban. Voters also voted that day for Ireland to sign up to the International Criminal Court.

The former judge also said that there was a “culture of dishonesty” in Ireland. “In England they are just as dishonest, but once they are found out they are gone,” he said.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1116/1224258922186.html

.

Karoma · 16-11-2009 08:50AM

It wouldn't get enough votes. It's seen as a barbaric a practice that only totalitarian regimes like China or America maintain.

marcsignal · 16-11-2009 08:54AM

I know what you mean, I'm just curious about whether the Irish public today would be in any way de-sensetised to death, per say, as a penalty, due to all of the violent murders/shootings going on these days.

Bandit12 · 16-11-2009 08:57AM

Yes we can

Karl Hungus · 16-11-2009 08:58AM

Judges in this country are lenient to the point of lunacy, giving out slaps on the wrist and suspended sentences. Now there's a judge talking about the death penalty? It's just one extreme to another, isn't it?

I don't support the death penalty, no matter how many pillocks would support it, it's not something Ireland needs. It needs competant judges.

minidazzler · 16-11-2009 09:07AM

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Judges in this country are lenient to the point of lunacy, giving out slaps on the wrist and suspended sentences. Now there's a judge talking about the death penalty? It's just one extreme to another, isn't it?

I don't support the death penalty, no matter how many pillocks would support it, it's not something Ireland needs. It needs competant judges.

First part I agree with.

Judges are much too lenient, especially against career scumbags. It's not uncommon to see lads up for 30 different offences in a day in the circuit courts, mostly minor things, but still get off because everything was only "small".

But then someone who has done nothing wrong in his life is bricking it and might get a ****e load thrown at them!!

However, I do, in extreme circumstances agree with the Death Penalty!

But, I disagree with your last statement. We need a competant prison service that can accomodate everyone that can be convicted. Judges are sometimes just forced to let lads off because of over crowding!!!

Or even when someone is locked up, they can just apply for Temporary release and be out after a few weeks. Even for violent crimes.

MagicMarker · 16-11-2009 09:25AM

We can't even get the basics right ffs! Once we have a competent judiciary system I'm willing to listen to anything. But the death penalty will never get my vote. What will get my vote is more prisons and more Gardai.

Tar.Aldarion · 16-11-2009 09:31AM

No need for a step backwards, thanks.

Joey the lips · 16-11-2009 09:33AM

Should the death penality be revisited.... No. For many resons. 1. The birmingham 6 second, any murder outside the greed and lust aspect has the ability to be an underline insanity. There is no rehabilitation in death and if this is the justification for killing people why dont we introduce euthenasia for the elderly. They cost us to much as well.

However its clear we need more prisions and longer sentences. However the master fcukup that is thornton hall seems to confirm the govt cannot get this right either!

AckwelFoley · 16-11-2009 09:35AM

Im always split about the death penelty to be honest.

i would bring it back only for people using txt spk on the internet

Jumpy · 16-11-2009 09:46AM

I would be against death. But definitely for Hard Labour.

I think the hotel style prisons we have are a joke.

dan719 · 16-11-2009 10:22AM

Karoma wrote: »

It wouldn't get enough votes. It's seen as a barbaric a practice that only totalitarian regimes like China or America maintain.

I think you should learn the meaning of totalitarian. :rolleyes: Hint; It doesn't mean America.

Edit; I would be in favour of the death penalty for anyone who knowingly kills or critically injures any man/woman who works in either the armed forces or emergency services. Anyone who opens fire on an unarmed Garda can be killed in as barbaric a manner as one desires.

Edit no.2; And for the crew of the sea shepard on whale wars.

K-Ren · 16-11-2009 10:22AM

I think the last people to ever re-instate the death penalty would be this government, it'd be suicide.

fryup · 16-11-2009 10:26AM

its being discussed now, on the gerry ryan show

the_syco · 16-11-2009 10:34AM

The last line is so f**king true, it's not funny.

The former judge also said that there was a “culture of dishonesty” in Ireland. “In England they are just as dishonest, but once they are found out they are gone,” he said.

Tar.Aldarion · 16-11-2009 10:37AM

dan719 wrote: »

I think you should learn the meaning of totalitarian. :rolleyes: Hint; It doesn't mean America.

What role do the population play in the decision making process?

K4t · 16-11-2009 10:39AM

I dunno, it's dodgy. If the government decide to bring it back and we vote no, will we be asked to vote again?

dan719 · 16-11-2009 10:39AM

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

What role do the population play in the decision making process?

They vote for their representitives. By that definition you could claim Ireland is totalitarian.

Tar.Aldarion · 16-11-2009 10:42AM

dan719 wrote: »

They vote for their representitives. By that definition you could claim Ireland is totalitarian.

And in a totalitarian democracy people are allowed to vote the representatives in, so? How was Karoma wrong, do go on...

Caoimhín · 16-11-2009 10:45AM

I dont believe it is right to take another's life under any circumstances.

Herbal Deity · 16-11-2009 10:49AM

dan719 wrote: »

I think you should learn the meaning of totalitarian. :rolleyes: Hint; It doesn't mean America.

You can view the "or" as separating "China" and "America", which means "totalitarian regimes" describes both of them, or "totalitarian regimes like China" and "America".

You determine which is the correct interpretation by the context. I think it's fairly obvious in this case.

dan719 · 16-11-2009 10:50AM

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

And in a totalitarian democracy people are allowed to vote the representatives in, so? How was Karoma wrong, do go on...

Sorry, I didn't read 'totalitarian democracy', I read totalitarianism. I know it's fashionable to have a pop at the US these days, but it's just ridiculous to claim it is a totalitarian state.

Regarding your claim. In most states, citizens, as well as voting for the law makers, they also vote for the judges that interpret these laws. Most public office positions are also filled by election. (who can forget Homer Simpson as springfield's sanitation commisioner?)) I assume most peope would have access to politicians, at least at a local level to lobby for certain decisions. Unless you wish to introduce a system of partial direct democracy ala the Swiss model, I don't see how you can get any more democratic than that?

TheZohanS · 16-11-2009 10:53AM

K-Ren wrote: »

I think the last people to ever re-instate the death penalty would be this government, it'd be suicide.

They couldn't, it's against EU law afaik.

Keano · 16-11-2009 10:55AM

Not in favour of the death penalty. In Ireland, life should mean life not this mickey mouse 25 year sentence.

drkpower · 16-11-2009 10:59AM

Caoimhín wrote: »

I dont believe it is right to take another's life under any circumstances.

I am standing on the roof of a skyscraper and am about to shoot your oinly child; the only way to stop me is to push me off the edge. What would you do?

Moral absolutes may sound attractive but they inevitably lead to absurd results.

On the substance, the only good reason against the death penalty is that it is irreversible and therefore will always lead to incredible injustices. Other than that, I'm all for it but determining those cases where you are 100% positive that someone is guilty and one's where you cannot be 100% is quite difficult. Therefore, best to keep it off the books and instead, change the prison system to have different types of prisons and prison experiences to better reflect the nature of the crime.

Dyr · 16-11-2009 11:05AM

my only problem with it would be that they would need to ensure guilt beyond doubt before a death sentence could be passed. But let's say for the toe rags in limerick who've shot innocent people, I've no problem with them guys facing a death penalty.

tbh we'd need a police force and prosecution service that can secure convictions before we worry about sentencing :pac:

Tar.Aldarion · 16-11-2009 11:06AM

dan719 wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't read 'totalitarian democracy', I read totalitarianism. I know it's fashionable to have a pop at the US these days, but it's just ridiculous to claim it is a totalitarian state.

Regarding your claim. In most states, citizens, as well as voting for the law makers, they also vote for the judges that interpret these laws. Most public office positions are also filled by election. (who can forget Homer Simpson as springfield's sanitation commisioner?)) I assume most peope would have access to politicians, at least at a local level to lobby for certain decisions. Unless you wish to introduce a system of partial direct democracy ala the Swiss model, I don't see how you can get any more democratic than that?

What I am saying is that is a lot of places are totalitarian deocracies, I don't see the massive problem with that, it can be fair, but America is 'more totalitarian' than other countries in the way that the government 'strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible'. Alos, teh propaganda used during things like Iraq, the media outlets over there etc. Might change with the new president, but it certainly has been quite like this until now.

Tar.Aldarion · 16-11-2009 11:08AM

drkpower wrote: »

I am standing on the roof of a skyscraper and am about to shoot your oinly child; the only way to stop me is to push me off the edge. What would you do?

Moral absolutes may sound attractive but they inevitably lead to absurd results.

I would kill you in defense of myself or the one I loved. However, if you would do something it does not make it right. You can know it is wrong to do it yet not be strong enough to carry this out.

drkpower · 16-11-2009 11:14AM

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I would kill you in defense of myself or the one I loved. However, if you would do something it does not make it right. You can know it is wrong to do it yet not be strong enough to carry this out.

Are you suggesting that it is 'wrong' to kill another person to prevent them from killing you or your loved one, where it is the only way you can prevent them from so doing??

It may not be nice, but it is most certaily not 'wrong', under any reasonable moral or ethical code.

Lux23 · 16-11-2009 11:24AM

I am not in favour off it. Its not that I would have alot of sympathy for people who commit horrible crimes its more that I don't see how the death penalty is a deterrent in any way. Can anyone actually prove that it is? Frankly if I were to murder someone I would prefer to get executed than spend the rest of my life in prison. I also read somewhere that gangbangers in LA have a longer life expectany on Death Row then they do on the street so its hardly going to stop them once they get started.

If you want to prevent crime you need to spend money on removing the root causes not on buildling gallows.

Tar.Aldarion · 16-11-2009 11:32AM

drkpower wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it is 'wrong' to kill another person to prevent them from killing you or your loved one, where it is the only way you can prevent them from so doing??

It may not be nice, but it is most certaily not 'wrong', under any reasonable moral or ethical code.

Says who? Gandhi certainly didn't agree, but you are objectively right and somebody else is objectively wrong?

Why is it not nice? I mean if it's morally fine, why would you feel something is not nice?

Death penalty should be revisited, says ex-judge

Comments