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

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

1…78101213…64

Comments

  • #272
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,006 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    SV wrote: »
    The punishment for murder is murder.
    but the first murder is illegal, so to then punish someone for doing something illegal by doing that same thing doesn't make sense.
    SV wrote: »
    That's a simple equation right there, if you don't murder then you will not be murdered by the state.
    either murder is right or wrong, the only case where it might be justified is where your life is in danger but then in many of those cases thats questionable
    SV wrote: »
    It would not be a crime to kill someone who it had been decided by judge, jury and trial that they were deserving of said punishment.
    it would be yes, and the state doesn't deserve to be able to do that.
    SV wrote: »
    I have no idea how people find it hard to get their head around this.
    they can, it just doesn't make sense is stupid and hypocritical

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #273
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,006 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Hitchens wrote: »
    Venables will receive another new identity at great expense to taxpayer.
    and? under the law he has served his time, i or you don't like it but that is how it is
    Hitchens wrote: »
    Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger said they were ‘filled with terror’ by the decision to grant parole to Jon Venables, 30.
    i'm sure they are, you would hardly expect them not to be
    Hitchens wrote: »
    Rehabilitated, yeah sure!
    he isn't, but that doesn't mean others won't be, remember the death penalty was stopped over there and completely abolished here for a reason, it failed, doesn't work as a deterrant, is expensive, DNA evidence isn't fool proof and never will be, infact no evidence will ever be good enough to satisfy me to carry it out

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #274
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,006 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    hsianloon wrote: »
    Its a very effective and cheap punishment.
    LOL, not one bit cheep, costs more then a life time in prison and no evidence will ever be good enough to satisfy carrying it out, not even worth the risk of one innocent persons life.
    hsianloon wrote: »
    Its fatal flaw is being irreversible.
    absolutely, and the rest, which is why it was abolished here
    hsianloon wrote: »
    But I don't think we should do away with it.
    ireland has abolished it.
    hsianloon wrote: »
    It has its place in crimes so heinous that anything short of ending a criminals life is travesty to the victim and justice.
    no it doesn't have its place in a modern society, only in a blood hound ferrel society, ending a criminals life might be a travisty for some but not for many who have moved on and realised that the death penalty no longer has and in fact never had its place.
    hsianloon wrote: »
    It should be used only when there is no room at all for doubt eg evidence that's so indisputable eg the defence lawyer just gets on his knees and begs for any scrap he can
    which is never going to be the case ever
    hsianloon wrote: »
    My view is that its a good punishment but encumbered by a judiciary and investigative efforts that aren't there yet.
    or never will be enough to satisfy carrying it out
    hsianloon wrote: »
    If my house window is broken...I'm going to fix it, not break the other ones so they match
    that sums up the death penalty, break one window and have yours broken for it

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #275
    Me_Grapes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 374 ✭✭Me_Grapes


    end of the road wrote: »

    either murder is right or wrong, the only case where it might be justified is where your life is in danger but then in many of those cases thats questionable

    Not all killings are the same, it's not as black and white as you're making it out to be. As you said, you can legally kill someone by self defence. There is unlawful and lawful killings as our statute books say.

    Why can capital punishment not go under the umbrella of 'lawful killing' as the perpetrator has given up his right to life by taking an innocent person?

    It's only hypocritical if you deem the perpetrator as having the same rights as the innocent victim.


  • #276
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,309 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    I support the death penalty.
    For serious crimes. Such as serial rapists, serial murders etc.

    I've read threads like this on boards before and you always get a mixed opinion. I respect another persons opinion... it's just I always come back to the same form of thinking.... and that's human rights. That a person could horrifically kill 10 people but yet we are meant to with-hold their human rights? ... but they sure as hell didnt care about the human rights of their victims.

    Then it's the whole "eye for an eye and everyone will be blind" argument. Which I always think is rather stupid to mention.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    I would like to see hangings and public floggings brought back to the town square like in medieval times.


  • #278
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Me_Grapes wrote: »
    Not all killings are the same, it's not as black and white as you're making it out to be. As you said, you can legally kill someone by self defence. There is unlawful and lawful killings as our statute books say.

    Why can capital punishment not go under the umbrella of 'lawful killing' as the perpetrator has given up his right to life by taking an innocent person?

    It's only hypocritical if you deem the perpetrator as having the same rights as the innocent victim.

    Has he?
    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    I support the death penalty.
    For serious crimes. Such as serial rapists, serial murders etc.

    I've read threads like this on boards before and you always get a mixed opinion. I respect another persons opinion... it's just I always come back to the same form of thinking.... and that's human rights. That a person could horrifically kill 10 people but yet we are meant to with-hold their human rights? ... but they sure as hell didnt care about the human rights of their victims.

    A government can not simply turn around and revoke someone's human rights.
    If they could, we'd be on a seriously slippery slope. Saying that someone revoked or gave up his human rights is merely opinion - there is no legal status.
    Then it's the whole "eye for an eye and everyone will be blind" argument. Which I always think is rather stupid to mention.

    - because...?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #279
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,309 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    A government can not simply turn around and revoke someone's human rights.
    If they could, we'd be on a seriously slippery slope. Saying that someone revoked or gave up his human rights is merely opinion - there is no legal status.

    My point was that it really isn't "fair" - fair in the sense that an evil person has rights after what they've done. If you get me.

    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    - because...?

    Because it's a stupid and flawed argument. An eye for an eye means the exact same as do onto others as they have done onto you. We are talking about the death penalty and the justice system. You can't apply "eye for an eye" to one aspect of justice without applying it to all :)

    Because each crime is different. Each crime holds a different weight. That would mean if I was to punch you... it wouldnt be charging me and suing me. No it would mean charging me and you legally punching me :pac: Or if I damaged your property you would have a legal right to do the same :pac: or if not you, by someone within the law :pac:

    That's why I say an "eye for an eye" is a stupid thing to mention.


  • #280
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    My point was that it really isn't "fair" - fair in the sense that an evil person has rights after what they've done. If you get me.

    Then what's the point of even having human rights...? The whole point being that, even if you commit a crime, you are still human, even if you don't act that way. If not, then none of us have human rights.
    Because it's a stupid and flawed argument. An eye for an eye means the exact same as do onto others as they have done onto you. We are talking about the death penalty and the justice system. You can't apply "eye for an eye" to one aspect of justice without applying it to all :)

    Because each crime is different. Each crime holds a different weight. That would mean if I was to punch you... it wouldnt be charging me and suing me. No it would mean charging me and you legally punching me :pac: Or if I damaged your property you would have a legal right to do the same :pac: or if not you, by someone within the law :pac:

    That's why I say an "eye for an eye" is a stupid thing to mention.

    The quote refers to emotive acts of vengeance, rather than laws. In a legal frame, it would refer more to taking the law into your own hands.

    Whether or not it would apply to a death penalty debate, you'd have to first clarify if the death penalty was such an act of vengeance.

    It's not a flawed argument (unless you're pro-anarchy) - it just might not be relevant.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #281
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,309 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Then what's the point of even having human rights...? The whole point being that, even if you commit a crime, you are still human, even if you don't act that way. If not, then none of us have human rights.



    The quote refers to emotive acts of vengeance, rather than laws. In a legal frame, it would refer more to taking the law into your own hands.

    Whether or not it would apply to a death penalty debate, you'd have to first clarify if the death penalty was such an act of vengeance.

    Just because a government passes a law - any law - doesn't male it morally right.

    If a person raped and killed 10 people. Do you think there is a chance of them being rehabilitated?

    And have you ever seen American prison documentaries? ... What do you think happens when a extremely violent person recieves a life sentence? They don't just get locked away in a room for the rest of their life. They still are a threat to prison staff. Do you care about the prision staff? What about other prisioners lives? Do you care about them?

    You seem to value human life blindly. Not the worst trait. But what about the lives of those who have to deal with them? ... the 'causality' of taking the moral high ground, right?

    Or do you perhaps not care to think about that.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    If a person raped and killed 10 people. Do you think there is a chance of them being rehabilitated?

    And have you ever seen American prison documentaries? ... What do you think happens when a extremely violent person recieves a life sentence? They don't just get locked away in a room for the rest of their life. They still are a threat to prison staff. Do you care about the prision staff? What about other prisioners lives? Do you care about them?

    You seem to value human life blindly. Not the worst trait. But what about the lives of those who have to deal with them? ... the 'causality' of taking the moral high ground, right?

    Or do you perhaps not care to think about that.

    Everything here is a classic straw man argument - I never made any points you replied to.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #283
    my my my
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,969 ✭✭✭my my my


    wooah black betty


  • #284
    A_Sober_Paddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,221 ✭✭✭A_Sober_Paddy


    yes...needs a poll


  • #285
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,309 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Everything here is a classic straw man argument - I never made any points you replied to.


    Fair enough :)
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Then what's the point of even having human rights...? The whole point being that, even if you commit a crime, you are still human, even if you don't act that way. If not, then none of us have human rights.

    I believe that when you cross a line... you've lost your human rights. Certain evil people come to mind when I say this ... Hitler etc.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    The quote refers to emotive acts of vengeance, rather than laws. In a legal frame, it would refer more to taking the law into your own hands.

    Whether or not it would apply to a death penalty debate, you'd have to first clarify if the death penalty was such an act of vengeance.

    It's not a flawed argument (unless you're pro-anarchy) - it just might not be relevant.

    My point was that people say killing another, who killed another, is wrong. That no matter how serious (and evil) the crime is. We should never kill them. i disagree. My opinion I know. But my opinion.


    Your turn. Reply to my points.


  • #286
    hsianloon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 66 ✭✭hsianloon


    e="end of the road;85391249"]LOL, not one bit cheep, costs more then a life time in prison and no evidence will ever be good enough to satisfy carrying it out, not even worth the risk of one innocent persons life.

    absolutely, and the rest, which is why it was abolished here

    ireland has abolished it.

    How could the death penalty cost more than life sentence ? We could just do it immediately. No way a bag of potassium, benzodiazepine, and muscle relaxants cost more than that.


    no it doesn't have its place in a modern society, only in a blood hound ferrel society, ending a criminals life might be a travisty for some but not for many who have moved on and realised that the death penalty no longer has and in fact never had its place.


    which is never going to be the case ever

    or never will be enough to satisfy carrying it out

    that sums up the death penalty, break one window and have yours broken for it[/quote]

    I know its been abolished in Ireland.

    Whats most people disagreeing about the this punishment. Was this ever voted on by the irish people or just adapted because theyre western/civilized etc. There are people here here arguing for it , so obviously its not as unanimous a decision as you're saying it it.

    I don't disagree its an imperfect solution, but so is just jailing them. How many people become repeat offenders ? Who becomes responsible when they reoffend since we judged them to be rehabilitated after spending taxpayers money on them ? People suffer to because we can't do what needs to be done both ways


  • #287
    worded
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,915 ✭✭✭worded


    Yes, but only for bankers.


  • #288
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    B.A._Baracus wrote: »



    I believe that when you cross a line... you've lost your human rights. Certain evil people come to mind when I say this ... Hitler etc.

    EDIT - furthermore, Hitler decided to take his own life: is the death penalty helping evil mass murderers?

    But again, what is the point of a human right, if you can lose it while still being human? I see your point, but as I said earlier, can this situation exist without making a mockery of human rights?
    My point was that people say killing another, who killed another, is wrong. That no matter how serious (and evil) the crime is. We should never kill them. i disagree. My opinion I know. But my opinion.


    Your turn. Reply to my points.

    But again, you need to ask what you want for a justice system - justice or vengeance? Do you want it to be based on emotion or not? Bearing in mind, as soon as you do introdcue emotion-base, the possibility of mistakes goes up because emotion is not the best state of mind on which to base such decisions.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #289
    Me_Grapes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 374 ✭✭Me_Grapes


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Has he?



    I strongly believe he/she has.

    I believe the right to life is a qualified right, the caveat being do not take the life of another innocent person. Not that difficult a principle to live by I think you'll agree. Do you think it's okay for a cold blooded killer to hide behind his right to life when said killer showed their victim absoloutly no regard for their right to life?

    I'm being hypothetical by the way, I'm against the death penalty because one miscarriage of justice is one too many, but the idea that people like Ian Huntley, the James Bluger killers and the like have the same rights as you and I enjoy doesn't sit well with me at all.


  • #290
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,309 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    But again, what is the point of a human right, if you can lose it while still being human? I see your point, but as I said earlier, can this situation exist without making a mockery of human rights?



    But again, you need to ask what you want for a justice system - justice or vengeance? Do you want it to be based on emotion or not? Bearing in mind, as soon as you do introdcue emotion-base, the possibility of mistakes goes up because emotion is not the best state of mind on which to base such decisions.


    and ... my post is #281 ? what about that. after all you made reference to me not getting back to your points. Maybe i should do the same.


  • #291
    JillyQ
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭JillyQ


    Yes in the case of child abusers, serial rapists, and for the murder of a garda, soldier or army officer in course of there duties for the state.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,006 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    JillyQ wrote: »
    Yes in the case of the murder of a garda, soldier or army officer in course of there duties for the state.
    why for the murder of those 3 and not all murders? having it like that is more or less saying the state values their life more then the average person and that murdering them is more serious, which it isn't.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #293
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,006 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    hsianloon wrote: »
    How could the death penalty cost more than life sentence ? We could just do it immediately. No way a bag of potassium, benzodiazepine, and muscle relaxants cost more than that.
    not going to happen like that, you can't just execute someone straight away, evidence can come to light later on that they may be innocent
    hsianloon wrote: »
    I know its been abolished in Ireland.
    fair enough, its just that your post suggested that you didn't realise that.
    hsianloon wrote: »
    Whats most people disagreeing about the this punishment. Was this ever voted on by the irish people or just adapted because theyre western/civilized etc. There are people here here arguing for it , so obviously its not as unanimous a decision as you're saying it it.
    yes this was put to the irish people back around 2001 2002, so the people had their vote, they voted to abolish it, so if they now want it back thats just tough as its not going to happen

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #294
    Hitchens
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,142 ✭✭✭Hitchens


    end of the road wrote: »
    not going to happen like that, you can't just execute someone straight away

    of course you can, it just takes (political) guts to do it


  • #295
    Hitchens
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,142 ✭✭✭Hitchens


    end of the road wrote: »
    why for the murder of those 3 and not all murders?

    you're right there, it should be for all murders


  • #296
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,006 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Hitchens wrote: »
    of course you can, it just takes (political) guts to do it
    no you can't, you have to allow an apeal, to execute them straight away for it to turn out later on that they were innocent would definitely be political suicide, but thankfully the EU has made sure this backward ferrel punishment is finished forever, wiped away like all the other backward things, ireland is a modern society now, get used to it.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #297
    Hitchens
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,142 ✭✭✭Hitchens


    end of the road wrote: »
    no you can't, you have to allow an apeal, to execute them straight away for it to turn out later on that they were innocent would definitely be political suicide, but thankfully the EU has made sure this backward ferrel punishment is finished forever, wiped away like all the other backward things, ireland is a modern society now, get used to it.

    no, you actually don't have to allow an appeal

    the old 'modern society' comeback doesn't stop murders, if a few judges or politicians kids were murdered you'd hear a different tune


  • #298
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Me_Grapes wrote: »
    I strongly believe he/she has.

    I believe the right to life is a qualified right, the caveat being do not take the life of another innocent person. Not that difficult a principle to live by I think you'll agree. Do you think it's okay for a cold blooded killer to hide behind his right to life when said killer showed their victim absoloutly no regard for their right to life?

    I'm being hypothetical by the way, I'm against the death penalty because one miscarriage of justice is one too many, but the idea that people like Ian Huntley, the James Bluger killers and the like have the same rights as you and I enjoy doesn't sit well with me at all.

    With all due respect, the Geneve Chater of Human Rights was not based onw hwat you beleive or not. The basis being: he is human therefore deserves human rights.

    Even in the US States that have the death penalty, they accept this. And, asI said to BA, if you can revoke a human right, what is the point in having them?


    On the topic of Ian Huntley: here's a guy who attempte suicide twice. Is killing him not giving him exactly what he wants?

    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    and ... my post is #281 ? what about that. after all you made reference to me not getting back to your points. Maybe i should do the same.

    Hang on, that was - and you accepted thus - a straw man argument. There is no point in me debating with you a point I never made!! You can't simply ignore the content of a post you reply to - deal with my questions regarding violation/revokatino of human rights and it's consequences, as well as the aim of a justice system, and then, when that topic is delt with, introduce the new one.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #299
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Hitchens wrote: »
    no, you actually don't have to allow an appeal

    Yes, you do. If you've going to kill someone, you bette be DAMN sure you have the right person and that you'er doing it legally.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #300
    Hitchens
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,142 ✭✭✭Hitchens


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Yes, you do. If you've going to kill someone, you bette be DAMN sure you have the right person and that you'er doing it legally.
    he'll/she'll be given due process and a fair trial, his/her guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, .............no worries there


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,006 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Hitchens wrote: »
    he'll/she'll be given due process and a fair trial, his/her guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, .............no worries there
    happened many, they were later found innocent, their isn't a doubt reasonable enough to allow carrying out the death penalty, no matter how good technology gets

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



Advertisement
Advertisement