do you think ireland should have a death penalty?

There are many reasons for not introducing the death penalty in Ireland. I do support the death penalty, but I'm not going to suggest it's even a possibilty in Ireland. I would like to bring some balance to this debate though.

With that,

super_furry wrote: »

If there's even a chance that one innocent person would be put to death, you can't have it.

Disagree in principle. Thousands of people are killed every year by people who have killed before but were released, only to repeat their crimes. The number of wrongful executions is a tiny percentage of this figure. How can you justify protecting the few at the risk of the many?

You could turn that statement around and say "If there's even a chance this person could kill again, it must be prevented."

The difference is, thousands of innocents DO die at the hand of repeat offenders. Very very few die wrongfully at the hands of the state.

Mark200 wrote: »

I never understand when people try to justify a call for the death penalty by pointing at serious criminals who were released from prison. You don't need to kill them to stop them from being released... just change the courts system.

And the thing about serial murderers and rapists is that they don't expect to be caught, so the death penalty won't work. I don't buy for a second that there are people out there who might think a crime is worth committing because the punishment is life in prison, but then all of a sudden the crime is not worth committing because the risk is death.

Dudess wrote: »

Even though it's not a deterrant in the United States?

orourkeda wrote: »

No.It's never worked

anti-venom wrote: »

A rational and clear thinking person would see a death penalty as a deterrent to commiting murder. If you believe the death penalty is a deterrent, then you must be assuming that that everybody else, including murderers and potential murderers, would also think likewise. You can't assume that everyone has the same ability to think rationally and weigh up the potential consequences of their actions to the same degree.

Would the death penalty deter a drunk from beating to someone to death in a street brawl? Hardly likely, is it?

Would a child rapist be in any way influenced to change his actions at the thought of being arrested, tried and executed? Their sick urges have to be satisfied at whatever cost. Someone who is capable of such a deparved crime surely wouldn't be deterred by fear of capture . If they did then they would probably never offend. If the thought of spending the rest of your life in prison and being universally despised is not enough to deter you from raping kids, then it's hardly likely that a death penalty would be any more effective a deterrent.

I'd be more inclined to keep these vile scumbags in prison for the rest of their natural lives. At lesat if they're alive, and in the off chance that they prove they were wrongfully convicted, then their convictions can be overturned and some degree of reparation can be made. Killing one wrongly convicted person would be one too many.

Not sure how to put in an image but



Self explanatory graph (for the US). Everyone keeps saying it's not a deterrent. Sure looks that way to me.

thetonynator wrote: »

I would not support the death penalty for two reasons, the first is simple enough- the appeals process is so long that most just die in prison before being executed.

The other reason is a proper one:

If it is not right for you to kill someone, how the hell is it right for the criminal justice system to kill you???

It is not right for you to imprison someone in your home if they wish to be let go. I assume you wouldn't use that comparison to say prisons are "not right"?

There is a difference between the actions of an individual and the actions of the state. Would you condemn the guards chasing after a joyrider at high speeds? The actions they are taking are the same...aren't they...

anti-venom wrote: »

You seem to be convinced that it would act as a deterrent. The evidence available form countries where the corporeal punishment is used suggests the contrary; that there is no decrease in murder levels, and an increase in murder levels, if anything, in some places. This suggests that we are not dealing with people (killers, rapists) who are thinking clearly about their actions and are not worried about the consequences.

I don't believe that the cost of maintaining prisoners should be a factor either. Custodial sentences are over used. Too many people in prison for petty crimes where more fitting punishments should be handed down. For instance why jail a fraudster, who is not a particular physical danger to anyone? A more fitting punishment could be sought which would free up a jail cell, reduce prison costs, and make cells available for those scum who really should be occupying them for life.

I agree with your second paragraph, but I question the validity of your deterrent statement. I'm open to be proved wrong - re the graph I posted above.

hooradiation wrote: »

the problem here is that you have made the assumption that the death penalty is a deterrent, despite evidence to the contrary, and everything you're saying is working backwards using as many fallacies as you can cram into one post to back up the initial assumption.

You're working this backwards and that's why your argument is without merit.

Same as above.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The death penalty is a joke.

I'm from the US and have seen the state kill numerous innocent men, come close to killing others and at the same crime crime rates have gone up in many places.

It's not a deterent, it tends to kill innocent people and in the states at least it costs more (due to the costs of legal appeals) than life w/o parole.

Plus I think it's kinda not as bad as spending decades in jail.

Repeating myself here, but the deterrent angle keeps cropping up.

Also, MASSIVE CONTRADICTION ALERT.

How can you condemn a system (capital punishment) because of the risk to innocents, then state spending decades in jail as being worse for the prisoner? You really got it in for those innocents eh?

Not trying to be an arse, I just strongly disagree with some of things said in here. I'm open minded and willing to be corrected

Not sure how to put in an image but

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/execute.jpg

Self explanatory graph (for the US). Everyone keeps saying it's not a deterrent. Sure looks that way to me.

The only explanation for that graph would be the progressive rise in popularity of rap music during that period. You can actually see a large spike coinciding with the rise of NWA. That has surely caused more murders. Rap should be banned. Guns don't kill people, rappers do.

Damned if you do - Damned if you don't...

I've been to university debates on the topic, and don't see any point in discussions on the topic. The same old tropes keep popping up, such as "the American system is not working as a deterrent", which is pointless.

a: There is no "American system", there are State systems.
b: the systems in those States are broken to various degrees. There's nothing wrong with automatic appeals, but even when that process has ended, the condemned prisoners spend years on Death Row. (1/4 of all Death Row prisoners die of natural causes, about 1/4 are executed, and the rest have their sentences removed or commuted. (Lots of stats here.)

I am not pro Death Penalty in practice, for the technical reason that it requires a conviction to be more certain than is usually possible. The situation in US States shows just how unreliable capital crime convictions are. The lack of deterrent there doesn't surprise me, but it also tells me nothing about the deterrent value of the Death Penalty, does it? I shudder to imagine how such a system might work in Ireland, with its organised crime, rampant Garda corruption and seven-year Tribunals.

On the other hand, the idea of someone dying an unjust death does not fill me with avoid-at-all-costs horror, given the number of people who die unjust deaths in the world. Last January about 200,000 people died in a matter of minutes, in Haiti. They didn't deserve it, but what does "deserve" have to do with the results? If I suffer an unjust death, not one of you would even pretend to care.

Don't know about the death penalty but I think there's defo an opportunity to bring back internment camps.

Throw all the scumbags in there for just being scumbags and get them off the streets. Might negate the necessity for the death penalty.

Slugs wrote: »

Seem to be forgetting a few things like WW2 in that murder checklist of yours

As far as I can see, that graph is flawed, with too many points to get into. Changing times, more access to dangerous weapons, greater forensic cases allowing for homocide to be used rather than natural death or other methods of death, etc. etc. The re-introduction of execution will not bring justice for anyone.

Another point, how many of those murders were commited by discharged soldiers who served during the wars such as 'nam, gulf 1 and 2, and Iraq war?

falan wrote: »

I say no..Just look at the case of Dereck bentley WRONGFULLY hanged in Britain in 1953....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRrcaC2Jass


He was recently given a full pardon though fat lot of good that was to him...

Scott Lehr, convicted of murder but later released.

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special32/articles/0616lehr-ON.html?&wired

Went on to kidnap and rape ten women, killing three.

Or what about Arthur Shawcross, paroled in 87 after serving 14 years for child rape and murder?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Shawcross

Killed another 11 women while on parole.

OutlawPete wrote: »

In other words, if you KILL are you NOW any better than the KILLER?

What a silly thing to say.

If you incarcerate, are you any better than a kidnapper? Of course you are, what you are doing is lawful.

Comparing capital punishment to murder is illogical. There is a distinct difference between an unlawful crime and a lawful punishment.

Like I said before, you wouldn't condemn a guard for speeding after a joyrider. Just because the physical actions are the same, they are not morally equal.

Slugs wrote: »

Seem to be forgetting a few things like WW2 in that murder checklist of yours

As far as I can see, that graph is flawed, with too many points to get into. Changing times, more access to dangerous weapons, greater forensic cases allowing for homocide to be used rather than natural death or other methods of death, etc. etc. The re-introduction of execution will not bring justice for anyone.

All reasons for the number of murders to go up. None of which are explanations for the number of murders to go down.

Slugs wrote: »

Another point, how many of those murders were commited by discharged soldiers who served during the wars such as 'nam, gulf 1 and 2, and Iraq war?

Of the 20 odd thousand per year? Not that many.

Oh, and numerous studies, several of which were conducted by anti death penalty professors, are coming out with the same findings. Capital punishment is a detterent.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003742913_execute11.html

OutlawPete wrote: »

You are asking me pointless questions.

I believe that killing people for crimes is barbaric.

Even if there was no such things as miscarriages of justice it would still be a hypocritical act, but there is so it is even more of a senseless form of punishment.

Pointless questions :rolleyes:

You refuse to answer because of the hypocrisy it would show.

I have no issue with someone who is against DP because they think it barbaric. That's a fine opinion. It's some of the other reasoning that bothers me.

Don't try and justify your beliefs with bogus statements. Just leave them as they are.