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

Is there a case for a death penalty?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

In 2001, Ireland voted in favour of a Constitutional ban on the death penalty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Would people feel this ban is correct? Would a death penalty be appropriate if this crime was committed in Ireland?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/rapes-committed-with-impunity-218162.html

<...>Indian police charged six men who had been arrested in connection with the attack with murder, adding to accusations that they beat and gang raped the woman on a bus in New Delhi on Dec 16.

A police spokesman said the six suspects face the death penalty if convicted. <...>

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

seamus

juan.kerr wrote:

I'm less concerned about the deterrent, more the cost of locking the criminal up for years. One more waste of taxpayers money

So when your family member has been killed and then later found completely innocent, you'll take solace when they say, "At least we didn't have to spend any money keeping him in prison"?

Stealth Recce wrote: »

"Life" imprissonment, suspended sentances, a wrap on the knuckles are not a deterrent. Im sure for some people a death sentance would be a deterrent.

The death sentence does not deter people from serious crime. It would probably discourage people from minor crimes like shoplifting, but it has no effect on things like murder, organised crime, etc.

Lets not talk about the falsely accused or where there is probable cause. I am on about where there is 100% evidence to link the criminal to the crime...i.e witnesses, cctv, DNA, fingerprints, sane confession etc, etc.

Who decides whether a conviction is 100% certain? Where is the dividing line between 99.999999% certain and 100% certain? How do you make it infallible so that innocent people are not put to death?

Death and Taxes

Stealth Recce wrote: »

I say bring it back.

For people who have been sucessfully charged with the premeditated murder of anyone. There should be no appeals process. If you have been without a doubt found guilty of the crime then you should suffer the same fate.

"Life" imprissonment, suspended sentances, a wrap on the knuckles are not a deterrent. Im sure for some people a death sentance would be a deterrent.

Lets not talk about the falsely accused or where there is probable cause. I am on about where there is 100% evidence to link the criminal to the crime...i.e witnesses, cctv, DNA, fingerprints, sane confession etc, etc.

Does anyone know the least amount of time served for a convicted murder in Ireland? I would be interested to know.

Why not? They're the ones who would be hung innocently, how would you propose bringing them back to life?

Madam_X

Death penalty just for Garda killers wtf?!

LordSutch wrote: »

Would be tempted to vote for the death penalty after hearing about murders like the one on Christmas eve in Sheffield-England. Sixty eight year old pensioner walks from his house towards the local Church to play the organ at midnight Mass, and on his route he gets his head brutally smashed in and dies! Full story here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/i-have-not-stopped-crying-for-him-and-i-know-you-have-not-stopped-either-says-devastated-widow-after-evil-murder-of-church-organist-alan-greaves-on-christmas-eve-8433414.html
Knee-jerk reaction is rage and anger, bring in the death penalty for the murderer I say, providing the evidence is watertight (and preferably with a
confession). When I am not in knee-jerk mode then maybe a life (meaningfull term life) sentence would be a better option?

That story is just so upsetting and enraging. Another current story - the girl in india. My initial reaction to both was to re-evaluate my anti death penalty stance, but no... don't want a state to have that power. Not a deterrent anyway in the States and can makes martyrs of those condemned to it, and the miscarriage of justice issue (look up Edward Earl Johnson).
Plus it's all over quick for those guilty of horrific crimes - let them stew in jail IMO.

Fighting Irish

dollypet wrote: »

Garda killers. For me its attacking the fabric of society. Kill a garda in the line of duty- not manslaughter but murdering a guard and I think death penalty should be an option.

guards are just ordinary people like you and me, intentionally kill anyone and you die as well, but the proof of guilt has to be concrete

Praetorian Saighdiuir

seamus wrote: »

The death sentence does not deter people from serious crime. It would probably discourage people from minor crimes like shoplifting, but it has no effect on things like murder, organised crime, etc.

Im not sure either of us are right. I would imagine if the DP was properly set up and utilised it would discourgage people from murder. Presently murderers have nothing to fear. At the very least they may only murder once, no DP means if they get away with it once, there is a chance they will do it again.

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Why not? They're the ones who would be hung innocently, how would you propose bringing them back to life?

Im specifically in favour for someone who has 100% uncatagorically been found absolutely guilty of murder.....it would help if you read my post correctly. Not guys who "fit the bill" of the murderer. Cases where there is specific hard evidence.

Death and Taxes

Stealth Recce wrote: »

Im not sure either of us are right. I would imagine if the DP was properly set up and utilised it would discourgage people from murder. Presently murderers have nothing to fear. At the very least they may only murder once, no DP means if they get away with it once, there is a chance they will do it again.

Im specifically in favour for someone who has 100% uncatagorically been found absolutely guilty of murder.....it would help if you read my post correctly. Not guys who "fit the bill" of the murderer. Cases where there is specific hard evidence.

Like poor old Tim Evans?:mad:
No human system can ever be 100% certain.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

seamus wrote: »

Who decides whether a conviction is 100% certain? Where is the dividing line between 99.999999% certain and 100% certain? How do you make it infallible so that innocent people are not put to death?

Eh as stated, if CCTV or there were witnesses to the murder. I would consider that to be 100% certain....would you not?

Sure lets not have any deterrent so...........it seems to be working so far

Micky Dolenz

Madam_X wrote: »

Death penalty just for Garda killers wtf?!

Some may argue that unharmed members of AGS put themselves in harms way to protect us and the peace.
If an Guardian of the peace is slain it not only shows a lack of regard or fear for the law, it also shows how dangerous they may be to the civilian population.

Death and Taxes

Stealth Recce wrote: »

Eh as stated, if CCTV or there were witnesses to the murder. I would consider that to be 100% certain....would you not?

Sure lets not have any deterrent so...........it seems to be working so far

No need to be so childish, we have deterrants, there are currently people in this country who have done over 30 years in prison for murder, the average before getting limited temporary release is 17 years!

Praetorian Saighdiuir

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Like poor old Tim Evans?:mad:
No human system can ever be 100% certain.

Not aware of the case.

So whats the answer, just let it run the way it is? Thats seems to work alright.

How can no human system be 100% certain...of course it can. If I saw you whip out a gun and blow someones head off and if I could positively identify you. My description and hypothetically your DNA, fingerprint on the weapon is as solid a case as you will get. Yes it would be rare that all that happens but thats my point. If there is enough hard evidence to say someone did it....then thats that.

seamus

Stealth Recce wrote: »

Eh as stated, if CCTV or there were witnesses to the murder. I would consider that to be 100% certain....would you not?

CCTV can be falsified and/or unclear, witness can lie.
Are there some cases where I (as an individual) could say with certainty that the person is guilty? Yes. Is there a way that an entire state can write a law which encapsulates this certainty and ensures that nobody in any case or any circumstance is ever incorrectly put to death? No.

If I saw you whip out a gun and blow someones head off and if I could positively identify you. My description and hypothetically your DNA, fingerprint on the weapon is as solid a case as you will get. Yes it would be rare that all that happens but thats my point. If there is enough hard evidence to say someone did it....then thats that.

But that's your word against the accused's. Why is your witness testimony assumed to be hard evidence? Our eyes are painfully fallible.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

WileyCoyote wrote: »

No need to be so childish, we have deterrants, there are currently people in this country who have done over 30 years in prison for murder, the average before getting limited temporary release is 17 years!

Im not being childish, its a fair statement. I believe the DP would be a strong deterrent in this country. I find it hard to believe that 17 years is the average stint for murder.....have you stats to back it up? Im jot being smart, Im just not sure that is right.

Is it not a case that many convicted murderers have been out in fewer than 5-10. Irrespective to that, prison time doesnt seem to be a deterrent, otherwise there would be fewer murders.

Death and Taxes

Stealth Recce wrote: »

Im not being childish, its a fair statement. I believe the DP would be a strong deterrent in this country. I find it hard to believe that 17 years is the average stint for murder.....have you stats to back it up? Im jot being smart, Im just not sure that is right.

Is it not a case that many convicted murderers have been out in fewer than 5-10. Irrespective to that, prison time doesnt seem to be a deterrent, otherwise there would be fewer murders.

No , it is not the case, what it IS however, is indicitaive of your total lack of research on a subject on which you claim to have such firm views.

Can you you provide a link that shows that the DP is a deterrant, have you done any comparison on murder rates in US states which have it as oppossed to those that dont for instance?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

seamus wrote: »

CCTV can be falsified and/or unclear, witness can lie.
Are there some cases where I (as an individual) could say with certainty that the person is guilty? Yes. Is there a way that an entire state can write a law which encapsulates this certainty and ensures that nobody in any case or any circumstance is ever incorrectly put to death? No.But that's your word against the accused's. Why is your witness testimony assumed to be hard evidence? Our eyes are painfully fallible.

I know what you are saying and I agree that it should not go ahead unless there is without a doubt that someone has murdered someone.

Why not take this example.

A guy goes into a shop (unmasked) to rob it. There are 10 customers in the shop. The guy kills the employee infront of all 10 customers. As the guy panics and tries to flee he is disarmed and detained by the customers. The cops arrive and arrest the guy.

That is murder, there are 10 sane, unconnected witnesses (one of which is off duty AGS, and also a priest) a fingerprinted weapon and clear CCTV footage.

Is that not a clear cut case for the DP should it be in force? There would be no doubt that the guy did it...I reckon thats 100% certain and that is the situation where I would be in favour of the DP.

tdv123

dollypet wrote: »

Garda killers. For me its attacking the fabric of society. Kill a garda in the line of duty- not manslaughter but murdering a guard and I think death penalty should be an option.

Are they worse than "child killers"?

catallus

Some people can get a bit precious about the whole idea of the possibility of wrongful convictions. Most appeals are upheld on arcane legal minutiae or on obvious failures of defence counsel. Some people like to cite cases that are going back 70 years, others like to use cases in which the jury let a killer free because of legal definitions.

Miscarriages of Justice are not the topic of this thread and I don't think it has much bearing on the rights or wrongs of Capital Punishment.

Historically death as punishment was used sparingly, but when implemented it was done quickly and efficiently. Like it or not the EU has took the stance that Death is not an applicable sentence if we wish to remain a member.

seamus

Stealth Recce wrote: »

Why not take this example.

The problem is that you don't make laws on the basis of specific examples. Rephrase your example into a pseduo-legal framework that allows for application of the DP for a single offence across a wide range of circumstances in a way that such a law can never be gamed by individuals to create a false guilty outcome, or can never accidentally judge someone to death incorrectly.

Ultimately any framework allowing for the death penalty will require a human decision on whether the DP should be implemented.

Regardless of whether that decision is made by one judge, a panel of judges or by referendum, there is always scope for the decision to be wrong. It is functionally impossible to have the death penalty without the possibility of getting it wrong at least once.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

WileyCoyote wrote: »

No , it is not the case, what it IS however, is indicitaive of your total lack of research on a subject on which you claim to have such firm views.

Can you you provide a link that shows that the DP is a deterrant, have you done any comparison on murder rates in US states which have it as oppossed to those that dont for instance?

I dont need research to have an opinion. Im not aware of the actual serving time of murders in Irish prisons, I would be glad to see your evidence if you have any, and don't be getting snotty, you either have it or you dont....it wont hinder anyones perception of you.

This is unverified from Wiki...apologies but that all this layman has at the moment:

"In deciding on the release from prison of a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment, the Minister will always consider the advice and recommendations of the Parole Board of Ireland. The Board, as of 2007, will normally review prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment after twelve years have been served; however, the sentencing judge can extend this to a maximum of 30 years or order that the prisoner is to spend the remainder of their life in prison"

To my uneducated, lazy and unresearched eyes, it seems that criminals who have been given a life sentence can potentially be let out after 12 years. I stand corrected on the 5-10 but 12 is unacceptable.

Death and Taxes

Stealth Recce wrote: »

I dont need research to have an opinion. Im not aware of the actual serving time of murders in Irish prisons, I would be glad to see your evidence if you have any, and don't be getting snotty, you either have it or you dont....it wont hinder anyones perception of you.

This is unverified from Wiki...apologies but that all this layman has at the moment:

"In deciding on the release from prison of a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment, the Minister will always consider the advice and recommendations of the Parole Board of Ireland. The Board, as of 2007, will normally review prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment after twelve years have been served; however, the sentencing judge can extend this to a maximum of 30 years or order that the prisoner is to spend the remainder of their life in prison"

To my uneducated, lazy and unresearched eyes, it seems that criminals who have been given a life sentence can potentially be let out after 12 years. I stand corrected on the 5-10 but 12 is unacceptable.

An excellent description and one I wholly concur with.
Average life sentence duration figures are published on a yearly basis by the IPS.
John Shaw is now in his 35th year of a life sentence, Brian fortune is entering his 30th.
According to the Dept of justice and IPS the average time spent in prison prior to limited temporary release is 17 years.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/prisoners-on-life-sentences-serve-average-of-17-years-2947886.html

Holsten

No way! I was 100% for the death penalty when I was younger and less informed.

Now I'm 100% against it, it doesn't do anything, nothing for the victims of crime, nothing as a deterrent, nothing.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

seamus wrote: »

The problem is that you don't make laws on the basis of specific examples. Rephrase your example into a pseduo-legal framework that allows for application of the DP for a single offence across a wide range of circumstances in a way that such a law can never be gamed by individuals to create a false guilty outcome, or can never accidentally judge someone to death incorrectly.

Ultimately any framework allowing for the death penalty will require a human decision on whether the DP should be implemented.

Regardless of whether that decision is made by one judge, a panel of judges or by referendum, there is always scope for the decision to be wrong. It is functionally impossible to have the death penalty without the possibility of getting it wrong at least once.

Yeah I agree. When you take all the above into account, human errors can be made. But in cases where there is rock solid evidence the errors cannot be made, it doesnt matter how many judges you have.

Im sure it can be legislated but maybe only in a broad sense. I dont have the required knowledge in that area to argue for or against. To me it is very simple but it would be because I have no dealings with the complications of the legal world.

Despite my obvious ignorance to the inner workings, potential loopholes and legislation, I still feel that DP would be a deterrent to organised crime in this state. Yet again I must state, for the slim offences that are as proveable as possible.

Jail is not a deterrent in my eyes otherwise we wouldnt have such a problem. Although if a potential serial murder is taken off the streets for up to 30 years then so be it.....pity we dont have the room for them all.

Forest Demon

Holsten wrote: »

No way! I was 100% for the death penalty when I was younger and less informed.

Now I'm 100% against it, it doesn't do anything, nothing for the victims of crime, nothing as a deterrent, nothing.

Fairly difficult to re-offend after getting put to death. A lethal injection is a lot cheaper for society then 20 years feeding and sheltering the criminal.

So its not all bad.

Death and Taxes

Forest Demon wrote: »

Fairly difficult to re-offend after getting put to death. A lethal injection is a lot cheaper for society then 20 years feeding and sheltering the criminal.

So its not all bad.

Fairly difficult to bring an innocent victim of the death penalty back to life!
In the USA it costs considerably more to execute a person than to lock them up for life, fact.
All in all then it is all bad.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

WileyCoyote wrote: »

An excellent description and one I wholly concur with.
Average life sentence duration figures are published on a yearly basis by the IPS.
John Shaw is now in his 35th year of a life sentence, Brian fortune is entering his 30th.
According to the Dept of justice and IPS the average time spent in prison prior to limited temporary release is 17 years.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/prisoners-on-life-sentences-serve-average-of-17-years-2947886.html

Thanks, thats all I was looking for. It wasnt a test but heres an A+ for you. To me, 17 years still isnt enough...neither is 35. We all know how averages work and you show the high end of the scale. Have you any idea of the least time served in prison for murder? Again, dont take me up the wrong way here, Im not challenging you to a dirty internet feud. I just cant find it online myself.

Either way, jail time is still not a deterrent no matter how many links with averages you post.

RossyG

Here in the UK I can think of at least 10 reasons why there shouldn't be a death penalty:

Guildford 4
Birmingham 6

Death and Taxes

Stealth Recce wrote: »

Thanks, thats all I was looking for. It wasnt a test but heres an A+ for you. To me, 17 years still isnt enough...neither is 35. We all know how averages work and you show the high end of the scale. Have you any idea of the least time served in prison for murder? Again, dont take me up the wrong way here, Im not challenging you to a dirty internet feud. I just cant find it online myself.

Either way, jail time is still not a deterrent no matter how many links with averages you post.

The problem is all the available research shows the Death Penalty is not a deterrant either. Many of the most violent states in the US have the DP.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Fairly difficult to bring an innocent victim of the death penalty back to life!
In the USA it costs considerably more to execute a person than to lock them up for life, fact.
All in all then it is all bad.

Oh, its also hard to bring the murder victim back to life, dont forget that, sure a bit of jail time for the murderer...be grand.

I would have thought the contrary to the bit in bold. Im not doubting you in the slightest btw.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The problem is all the available research shows the Death Penalty is not a deterrant either. Many of the most violent states in the US have the DP.

Yeah quite true. But the US is a crazy diverse place with complicated dynamics. Poverty, religion, race, economics, PTSD, access to a broader range of firearms, drugs...I could go on.

I know we have the same problems, but as we are a smaller nation, I really do think that we would have a better chance of using the DP as a deterrent.

Theres only one way to find out and I genuinely would hate to see someone killed innocently by the DP. Im sure we will never have it again but we need some other sort of deterrent then.

Sin City

The Death Penalty should never be re introduced. EVER

Money should never be a deciding factor to end or keep a life (In response to state savings)

Secondly there are many people who were on Death Row in the states that have been given a reprieve at the last minute that have been found innocent and much more that havent been aquitted in time.

This country's legal system is a joke and mistakes will more than likely be made and an innocent person will die by the states hand

The case in India is a very sad one.
My only thought is that that story is on an international stage and India is being watched by the whole world on what they do next.

They need a conviction and they need to be seen to deal with abuses against women, so it might not be impossible to make the suspect fit the evidence rather than the other way around.

I wonder if the lads that they have under arrest are from the lowest caste in India?

I could be wrong, but its still food for thought

hatrickpatrick

Nobody has the right to take someone's life against their will, for any reason. My opinion anyway, which I will undoubtedly be trolled heavily for