Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Dealing with rape and serious crime......The Iranian way.

13

Comments

  • #62
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    Tobias Narrow Swine wrote: »
    We are backwards in that aspect,i still think the whole church running the place still exists along with the other taboo subjects of brothels,euthanasia,if abortion was approved here all sudden there would be uproar with doctors and td's living a death sentence by hardliners.

    I agree. Theres a taboo that exists about those subjects because of the church.

    But I think capital punishment is something that needs to be looked at with a modern perspective too. Some people should be taken out of society and society should be under no obligation to protect their life or keep them alive at the expense of the state.


  • #63
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    niallsparky wrote: »
    I'm not saying it. Obviously that's what the respective people and cultures believe.

    Exactly they are beliefs, not facts. And those beliefs give society the rights to do what it does. If those beliefs were the opposite then society would execute people. Meaning society as a whole HAS the right to end a human beings life if it so chooses to do that.


  • #64
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,622 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Skunkle wrote: »
    I agree. Theres a taboo that exists about those subjects because of the church.

    But I think capital punishment is something that needs to be looked at with a modern perspective too. Some people should be taken out of society and society should be under no obligation to protect their life or keep them alive at the expense of the state.

    It's more expensive to execute someone than to put them in prison for life without parole.


  • #65
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    twinQuins wrote: »
    And if society decided that all people of a certain colour should be executed (to give an oft used example)?

    I believe that if a society did that it would be morally wrong. However that doesnt change the fact that the society HAS the right to do it if thats what the people want. Slavery was a right until that right changed. It was wrong, horribly horribly wrong but when it was legal people had a right to buy and sell slaves.
    Society isn't always right, which is why we don't have mob rule. Our system of governance prevents minorities from being brutalised by majorities.
    You may not like that criminals have rights but they're still human beings and have certain rights no society can collectively decide to take away.

    I'm not sure of your confusing me saying "society has a right to do so" with "society is right to do so". The system does what the people want (when directed by the likes of a referendum). The fact that the people voted a certain way in such a referendum means the system has the right to act accordingly. If people voted for capital punishment then the a judge has a right to condemn a person to death if the sentence fits the crime.

    A person only has the rights that society allows them to have.


  • #66
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    niallsparky wrote: »
    It's more expensive to execute someone than to put them in prison for life without parole.

    I'm not saying cost is the sole reason to end a humans life. I'm saying if the person has no place in society because of the horrific crimes he commits and execution is an option (as I think it should be) then what reason to keep them alive at any expense ?

    And there are lots of cheap ways to kill someone.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,622 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Skunkle wrote: »
    I'm not saying cost is the sole reason to end a humans life. I'm saying if the person has no place in society because of the horrific crimes he commits and execution is an option (as I think it should be) then what reason to keep them alive at any expense ?

    Because it's less expensive to keep them alive? :confused:

    There may be cheap ways to kill someone but trials that involve the potential of a death sentence are invariably more expensive.


  • #68
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    niallsparky wrote: »
    Because it's less expensive to keep them alive? :confused:

    Sorry I left out a bit in that last post.

    "There are lots of cheap ways to kill someone."

    Bullet in the head is cheaper than keeping them alive or the gas chamber. Bang, job done.


  • #69
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Where exactly is this magical country? Because it certainly isn't any of the authoritarian regimes that still practice capital punishment, and it DAMN SURE isn't the US.

    I am not debating that the death penalty is administered properly in these authoritarian countries or even in the US. These countries usually have bigger problems than the way the administer the death penalty such as womens rights, freedom of religion etc.

    The main point I was trying to make is that just because Iran administers the death penalty in a barbaric way does not mean than more developed nations would. If we had the death penalty here we would not be executing 17 year olds for having sex, we wouldn't be executing women or men for sex outside of wedlock. To claim that the death penalty in Iran and Ireland would be the same would be disingenuous. The chances are you would probably have to commit genocide in this country to receive such a sentence when you look at the paltry custodial sentences for serious crimes in this country.

    I wish we had capital punishment in this country. It would be reserved for people who commit multiple murders or rape. I do not see it as barbaric executing these. What I see as barbaric is diverting much needed funds away from innocent people who need operations and vaccinations towards security and shelter for heinous criminals.


  • #70
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    Skunkle wrote: »
    I believe that if a society did that it would be morally wrong. However that doesnt change the fact that the society HAS the right to do it if thats what the people want. Slavery was a right until that right changed. It was wrong, horribly horribly wrong but when it was legal people had a right to buy and sell slaves.

    And systems of governance have evolved since then. Such abuses would not be allowed just because a minority want it, which is what you seem to be ignoring.
    I'm not sure of your confusing me saying "society has a right to do so" with "society is right to do so". The system does what the people want (when directed by the likes of a referendum).
    And now you've missed my point: our system of governance doesn't allow this. There are certain rights that the populace can't decide to revoke precisely because of the framework of our government and legal system.

    It's not a case of saying "it's not right" it's a case of "it's not realistically going to happen".
    The fact that the people voted a certain way in such a referendum means the system has the right to act accordingly. If people voted for capital punishment then the a judge has a right to condemn a person to death if the sentence fits the crime.

    A person only has the rights that society allows them to have.
    And sometimes governments step in and stop society from making such decisions. That is what it means to live in a country like ours.

    I know I'm just repeating myself but it seems you still don't get it: what you're describing is mob rule. That doesn't exist in our society (or most Western societies for that matter).
    A simple majority is not always enough to say rights should be revoked.


  • #71
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,622 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Mrmoe wrote: »
    What I see as barbaric is diverting much needed funds away from innocent people who need operations and vaccinations towards security and shelter for heinous criminals.

    I don't see why people keep using this point when it has repeatedly been proven false. It costs more to kill somebody than to simply imprison them when you factor in legal bills, security costs and the much higher cost of their stays in prison.

    "Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons: They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses.
    After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.

    In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice."


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    niallsparky wrote: »
    Because it's less expensive to keep them alive? :confused:

    There may be cheap ways to kill someone but trials that involve the potential of a death sentence are invariably more expensive.

    Many things are more expensive than they should be, it only takes so much to prove someone’s guilt or innocence regardless of the sentence that might be imposed.


  • #73
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,622 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Skunkle wrote: »
    Many things are more expensive than they should be, it only takes so much to prove someone’s guilt or innocence regardless of the sentence that might be imposed.

    "Some of the worst cases occurred in Illinois. In 2000, then-Gov. George H. Ryan placed a moratorium on executions after 13 people had been exonerated from death row for reasons including genetic testing and recanted testimony. Ryan declared the system "so fraught with error that it has come close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life."

    He commuted the sentences of all 167 death row convicts, most to life imprisonment without parole. His moratorium is still in effect."


    It often takes more than you can allow for.


  • #74
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    twinQuins wrote: »
    And systems of governance have evolved since then. Such abuses would not be allowed just because a minority want it, which is what you seem to be ignoring.

    What? I'm not saying that capital punishment should be introduced to please a minority. I'm saying that if the majority wanted it and voted for it then the judicial system would have the right to condemn someone to death.
    And now you've missed my point: our system of governance doesn't allow this. There are certain rights that the populace can't decide to revoke precisely because of the framework of our government and legal system.

    Our system gave people the choice did it not ? If the people had of voted the opposite of what it did then the system would most definitely allow it. If it wouldnt then why would it have put it to referendum in the first place ?
    It's not a case of saying "it's not right" it's a case of "it's not realistically going to happen".

    It does happen. Just not here. And whether or not it happens it doesnt change the fact of whether its right or not. But if it does happen whether it be right or wrong the system will have the right to execute people.
    And sometimes governments step in and stop society from making such decisions. That is what it means to live in a country like ours.

    By stepping in to stop it you mean offering people the choice by putting it to referendum ? I dont follow you. How did our government step in to take this decision away from the people because they thought it was wrong ?
    I know I'm just repeating myself but it seems you still don't get it: what you're describing is mob rule. That doesn't exist in our society (or most Western societies for that matter).
    A simple majority is not always enough to say rights should be revoked.

    I dont think you get it. We are talking of a referendum. Read up on them. Its where a majority decides the outcome.


  • #75
    7sr2z3fely84g5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭7sr2z3fely84g5


    Criminal law has being used for political gain,bush junior had a nickname of texecutior for amount of death penalties carried out,there's being numberous debates about cost of life vs death,heres a good detail breakdown here of cost- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/


  • #76
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    niallsparky wrote: »
    "Some of the worst cases occurred in Illinois. In 2000, then-Gov. George H. Ryan placed a moratorium on executions after 13 people had been exonerated from death row for reasons including genetic testing and recanted testimony. Ryan declared the system "so fraught with error that it has come close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life."

    He commuted the sentences of all 167 death row convicts, most to life imprisonment without parole. His moratorium is still in effect."


    It often takes more than you can allow for.

    Are you under the assumption that I want to execute people who have not been proven to be 100% guilty ? If there is no genetic testing/dna actual scientific proof that they are guilty, regardless of testimony then you cant execute someone.

    I dont know about those specific cases but I'd imagine if recanted testimony proved their innocence the proof of guilt musnt have been a whole lot to begin with.


  • #77
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    I know what a referendum is and what you're talking about but what you don't seem to get is that just because we have referendums on some subjects doesn't mean we get to have them on every subject of rights.
    It just won't happen because the public can't be trusted to make an informed decision or otherwise it's not for society to decide if x is allowed or denied y rights.

    The government stepping in to stop is is the act of not putting the decision to a referendum.

    Sorry, you're still talking about mob rule. Dress it up any way you want but basically you're saying 51% of the population gets to decide the rights of the other 49%, which is not how it works.


  • #78
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    twinQuins wrote: »
    I know what a referendum is and what you're talking about but what you don't seem to get is that just because we have referendums on some subjects doesn't mean we get to have them on every subject of rights.
    It just won't happen because the public can't be trusted to make an informed decision or otherwise it's not for society to decide if x is allowed or denied y rights.

    We had a referendum on this exact subject. We are talking about this exact subject. What do you think I'm talking about in addition to capital punishment?
    The government stepping in to stop is is the act of not putting the decision to a referendum.

    They didnt though did they ? So I dont understand what your on about. They put it to a referendum.
    Sorry, you're still talking about mob rule. Dress it up any way you want but basically you're saying 51% of the population gets to decide the rights of the other 49%, which is not how it works.

    I dont think you know the difference between mob rules and a democratic society.


  • #79
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    Skunkle wrote: »
    We had a referendum on this exact subject. We are talking about this exact subject. What do you think I'm talking about in addition to capital punishment?

    And because we had it once we'll have it again? Doesn't follow.
    They didnt though did they ? So I dont understand what your on about. They put it to a referendum.

    See above.
    I dont think you know the difference between mob rules and a democratic society.

    Funnily enough I don't think you do. Democracy isn't 51% lording over 49% - well, pure democracy is but there is no pure democracy in action, that I know of at least.
    Every democratic nation has certain checks to prevent a majority from removing certain rights from a minority.


  • #80
    Crazy Horse 6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,474 ✭✭✭Crazy Horse 6


    Love to see this happen to bertie,biffo,fingers etc.. right in the middle of O'Connell street.


  • #81
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    twinQuins wrote: »
    ???????.

    If you have no response to my original point then dont respond. I'm tired of you inventing points to respond to.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    sgb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 770 ✭✭✭sgb


    That punishment is horrific bet they wish they should have had a w*nk


  • #83
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    ILikeBananas wrote: »
    Read the comments at the end of that article, especially the ones that are ratest the highest. Gives you a good snapshot of the average daily mail reader.

    Half way down the article there's this link:
    More...
    Al Qaeda to release cartoon film that encourages children to commit acts of terrorism

    It seems that the average daily mail editor thinks these two completely unrelated topics have something in common. Iran -> Middle East -> Al Qaeda -> Snap.


  • #84
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    Skunkle wrote: »
    If you have no response to my original point then dont respond. I'm tired of you inventing points to respond to.

    What, that you'd be happy to see capital punishment used? I disagree with that.
    Since then you have brought this off on a tangent (with your post here) about whether society can decide such a thing, I've just been responding to that. If I wanted to address your original point I would have quoted the particular post but I was responding to this new point.

    Now, if you want to discuss the original point I'd be happy to but don't blame me for something you did.


  • #85
    lightspeed
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,377 ✭✭✭lightspeed


    Ok ive tried to see all points of view but i really cant see how its logical that we dont have a death penalty and here is why,
    innocent children starve to death everyday and countries from the developed world give little aid to help and certainly not enough as africa nations live with their life long austerity and debt repayments. So as humans we accept that its is ok for us to allow children to starve to death but we decide that we need to save rapists and murderers. how is that logical?
    If it costs thousands each year for each rapist and i see adverts on the tv saying that €3 a month can save a childs life then do the math, are we not making a conscience decision to sentence thousands or at least hundreds of starving children for each and every rapist and murderer we spend our money on to save?
    If i showed you 2 rooms and in one room there 200 children starving to death and in the other room there was 1 convicted rapist and i only gave you enough money to save the lives of one room which would you choose the rapist or the children?
    Most i think would choose to save the children but yet all across the world governments choose the opposite and most people support this despite that if pushed to accept that the above illustration is a reality would choose otherwise.
    So where is the logic? why do we look at our money and say lets save the rapists and let the children starve?
    At the moment Somalia is about look even more like Auschwitz and yet we cry for rapists? why do some people choose the room with the rapist?


  • #86
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    twinQuins wrote: »
    What, that you'd be happy to see capital punishment used? I disagree with that.
    Since then you have brought this off on a tangent (with your post here) about whether society can decide such a thing, I've just been responding to that. If I wanted to address your original point I would have quoted the particular post but I was responding to this new point.

    Now, if you want to discuss the original point I'd be happy to but don't blame me for something you did.

    Sweet jesus. That "Tangent" your talking about is the original point of the argument we have been having. You may have responded to the post you you didnt respond to the point.

    My point was (directed at someone who said "what gives you the right to decide") that society has the right to decide. And that the referendum about capital punishment put the decision to the people about whether or not to strike it from the constitution. The people voted to abolish it. But if they didnt, and it remained law. The judicial system had a right (power and mandate) to use it. Thats how someone had the right to execute someone.

    You responded to that with various nonsense about me wanting it brought back to please a minority, then you waffled on about not having referendums on every subject despite the fact that I never mentioned anything about any other subject and then you say "because we had a referendum once we will have it again?". With all sorts about mob rule, governments stepping in to stop referendums and god knows what else in between.

    It was all about the right to do it. Your the one who brought it off on tangents.


  • #87
    lightspeed
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,377 ✭✭✭lightspeed


    Skunkle wrote: »
    We had a referendum on this exact subject. We are talking about this exact subject. What do you think I'm talking about in addition to capital punishment?



    They didnt though did they ? So I dont understand what your on about. They put it to a referendum.



    I dont think you know the difference between mob rules and a democratic society.


    Im sorry but i certainly dont understand by definition the difference between mob rule and democracy if you define mob rule as majority decision then that is democracy even if you dont like it. Democracy is nothing more than the most efficient form of control for the rich and walls street nobles to control the poor and middle class. Think about it , in a monarchy when the people become too poor and unhappy they no longer fear death and how can you prevent them from overthrowing you just like we saw recently in Tunisia and Eygpt. In a democracy the people/peasants are not as willing overthrow the government because well the attitude of hey its our own fault we elected them to power.What id there was a vote for ireland to remove all refugees in the country? most likely it would pass but would that not be mob rule/democracy. Same argument that can be made for Iran or al qaeda in Afghanistan which is what if he majority or people want them in power? Is that not democracy if certified by a fair voting system?


  • #88
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    Skunkle wrote: »
    Sweet jesus. That "Tangent" your talking about is the original point of the argument we have been having. You may have responded to the post you you didnt respond to the point.

    Well maybe if you actually had some idea what you were talking about this would have gone a little smoother.
    My point was (directed at someone who said "what gives you the right to decide") that society has the right to decide. And that the referendum about capital punishment put the decision to the people about whether or not to strike it from the constitution. The people voted to abolish it. But if they didnt, and it remained law. The judicial system had a right (power and mandate) to use it. Thats how someone had the right to execute someone.
    But it's a moot point because it isn't on the books! Good grief, I understand what you mean but it's a pretty flimsy justification at best.
    If you want to go down that road then you could justify just about anything because "society says so".

    Which was my point about a majority deciding to off all coloured people: it just wouldn't happen.
    You responded to that with various nonsense about me wanting it brought back to please a minority
    This is getting a little frustrating and frankly I think you're just purposely misunderstanding what I've said.

    I said majority not minority. Do you get it now? That was the whole point about mob rule: that just because a majority wants something doesn't mean they should (or do, as is the case in most Western nations) get it.

    Might does not make right. We've moved past that in terms of governance.
    then you waffled on about not having referendums on every subject despite the fact that I never mentioned anything about any other subject
    Oh dear god, the point was that just because you vote on right A it does not automatically follow that you get to vote on right B. Your point about holding referendums on such substantive subjects doesn't make sense given this.

    There, I've put it in as simple terms as I can.
    and then you say "because we had a referendum once we will have it again?". With all sorts about mob rule, governments stepping in to stop referendums and god knows what else in between.
    Well gee, if you didn't understand how the point I was making addresses yours maybe you should have said so from the outset and saved us both this pointless exercise.
    It was all about the right to do it. Your the one who brought it off on tangents.
    I think, perhaps, you just don't understand the rather simple points I've been making.

    This whole exchange, I was demonstrating a point counter to yours. I could give you something much more succinct but I doubt you'd like it.


  • #89
    policarp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,680 ✭✭✭policarp


    Iran and Iraq are supposed to be the cradle of What?


  • #90
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    twinQuins wrote: »
    Well maybe if you actually had some idea what you were talking about this would have gone a little smoother.

    The reason it didnt go smoothly is because of you and you alone. My point has been clear form the start and was directed at somebody else, your the one who insisted on draggin this out.
    But it's a moot point because it isn't on the books! Good grief, I understand what you mean but it's a pretty flimsy justification at best.
    If you want to go down that road then you could justify just about anything because "society says so".

    Which was my point about a majority deciding to off all coloured people: it just wouldn't happen.

    Your point about a majority deciding to kill coloured people is ridiculous. Capital punishment exists elsewhere its not an absurd law that discriminates against people for no good reason. And my point about society having the right to decide is not flimsy. How is anything lawful ? Its lawful because society says its lawful. Its fact and it was a direct reply to someone elses post. If you didnt want to get into that you shouldnt have replied.
    This is getting a little frustrating and frankly I think you're just purposely misunderstanding what I've said.

    I said majority not minority. Do you get it now? That was the whole point about mob rule: that just because a majority wants something doesn't mean they should (or do, as is the case in most Western nations) get it.

    You said the following leading me to believe you were talking about the minority of people in favour of capital punishment.
    Such abuses would not be allowed just because a minority want it, which is what you seem to be ignoring.

    Thats what I was referencing. If you mean something say it, I'm under too much strain trying to understand your confused position to read your mind or correct your mistakes at the same time.
    Might does not make right. We've moved past that in terms of governance.

    We havent. The majority of people on this Island decided not too long ago that FG are best suited to lead this country. Majority rules in a democratic state. Just as the majority voted to abolish capital punishment from the constitution so too can they vote to re-introduce it by changing the constitution. The constitution is what protects minorities from a majority of lunatics or whatever your talking about. But a constitution can be changed has been changed and will keep on changing.

    The rest of your post was the same old nonsense, and I'm done talking to ya. Goodnight.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    Far be it for me to continue attempting to correct you (especially seeing as the tautologies are out), clearly you're not interested in even trying to understand my points.


Advertisement
Advertisement