Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Me_Grapes · 05-07-2013 05:50PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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?

I realise what the Geneva convention and EU law say, and I know my opinion of what rights these 'humans' have isn't going to make any difference in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't mean I'm not entitled to my opinion. You can hide behind what the convention says on murderers, just as much as I can give my view on what rights I feel they are entitled to.

Re is it what he wants? What Ian Huntley wants or doesn't want should not come into the equation at all as far as I'm concerned.

Ruudi_Mentari · 05-07-2013 06:53PM

this country is thankfully too small, for such daring egos to develop and commit such widespread crimes to even suggest calls for a death penalty. But it's getting there...

B.A._Baracus · 05-07-2013 07:13PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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.

No how about you hang on... I made points. But you said reply to yours. Fair enough. This is a discussion board. But after I got back to your points you still never replied to mine. Why? out of fear you'll loose your agument? here is is again:

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.

Sounds like you are just doding the points raised.

end of the road · 05-07-2013 08:39PM

Ruudi_Mentari wrote: »

this country is thankfully too small, for such daring egos to develop and commit such widespread crimes to even suggest calls for a death penalty.

it has no place in any country

Ruudi_Mentari wrote: »

it's getting there...

it isn't, don't believe what you read in them gutter trash rags, it will do you no good and make you paranoid.

SpaceTime · 05-07-2013 08:43PM

It's actually a requirement of EU membership not to have the death penalty and also for membership of the Council of Europe.

I can't see any circumstances arising where we would be likely to reintroduce it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-07-2013 09:00PM

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

Except that doesnt alwas happen, hence the right to an appeal. Even if found guilty, you can still appear the severtiy of the sentence. Should/were mitigating circumstances be brought into account, for example?

Me_Grapes wrote: »

I realise what the Geneva convention and EU law say, and I know my opinion of what rights these 'humans' have isn't going to make any difference in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't mean I'm not entitled to my opinion. You can hide behind what the convention says on murderers, just as much as I can give my view on what rights I feel they are entitled to.

Re is it what he wants? What Ian Huntley wants or doesn't want should not come into the equation at all as far as I'm concerned.

Of course you do, and I've answered the point and asked a question, which seems to go unasnwered by you and BA below, which is this:

If a human right can be revoked based on nothign mor than opinion, what is the point in having them in the first place?

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

No how about you hang on... I made points. But you said reply to yours. Fair enough. This is a discussion board. But after I got back to your points you still never replied to mine. Why? out of fear you'll loose your agument? .

No, you didn't. Here's your responce:

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Fair enough
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.

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.

Again, the two questions went unaswered:

1 - what is the point of a human right, if you can lose it while still being human? (NOT whether or not it should be taken away!)
2 - what do you wish the function of a justice system: vengeance or justice?

Fruthermore, I neve made the point that "no matter how serious (and evil) the crime is. We should never kill them.". The point you make is fair enough, but not a responce to any argument I put forward, hence the straw man.

Hitchens · 05-07-2013 09:10PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Should/were mitigating circumstances be brought into account, for example?

but didn't you say it's always wrong to murder someone?

05-07-2013 09:10PM

JillyQ wrote: »

Yes in the case of child abusers, serial rapists

There's a huge flaw in that plan that's quite apart from any moral objection I have to the State killing people.

If you have the same penalty for rape and child abuse as you do for murder, then all you're going to do is get more rape and child abuse victims killed.

If the rapist is going to get the death sentence anyway, he's going to be less likely to let his victims walk away and potentially identify or incriminate him or her.

They literally have more to gain by killing their victim (and likely only witness) than they do in letting them live.

It's been widely shown not to deter crime, and in this scenario all it would achieve would be to turn rape and abuse victims into rape/abuse and murder victims.

Hitchens · 05-07-2013 09:12PM

Candie wrote: »

It's been widely shown not to deter crime

how has this been widely shown?

05-07-2013 09:13PM

Hitchens wrote: »

how has this been widely shown?

There's a very good link in one of my previous posts on this thread.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-07-2013 09:15PM

Hitchens wrote: »

but didn't you say it's always wrong to murder someone?

I think you'll find that was someone else.

Hitchens · 05-07-2013 09:24PM

Candie wrote: »

There's a very good link in one of my previous posts on this thread.

throw up the post number

05-07-2013 10:11PM

Hitchens wrote: »

throw up the post number

You could do some of the work yourself :P

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/law-enforcement-views-deterrence#lawenforcement

In states where the death penalty is used, police officers are more likely to be killed.

One of the most interesting things is how low Law Enforcement officers themselves rate the use of the death penalty as a tool in making society safer.

B.A._Baracus · 05-07-2013 10:20PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Except that doesnt alwas happen, hence the right to an appeal. Even if found guilty, you can still appear the severtiy of the sentence. Should/were mitigating circumstances be brought into account, for example?

Of course you do, and I've answered the point and asked a question, which seems to go unasnwered by you and BA below, which is this:

If a human right can be revoked based on nothign mor than opinion, what is the point in having them in the first place?

No, you didn't. Here's your responce:

Again, the two questions went unaswered:

1 - what is the point of a human right, if you can lose it while still being human? (NOT whether or not it should be taken away!)
2 - what do you wish the function of a justice system: vengeance or justice?

Fruthermore, I neve made the point that "no matter how serious (and evil) the crime is. We should never kill them.". The point you make is fair enough, but not a responce to any argument I put forward, hence the straw man.

:pac: you clearly wont get back to me. Your reply was just a smoke screen.. "oh erm... see...erm you didnt really get back to me so... " :rolleyes: ... ah am wasting my time. You aint looking to "discuss" things. You just wanna spout your opinion and feel right. It's gas tho, you told me to reply back to your post. But when I say it? ... hypocrite.

SpaceTime · 05-07-2013 10:23PM

The death penalty has worked fantastically well in the USA. (to be read in sarcastic tone)

Homicide Rates:

USA : 4.8 / 100,000 deaths.
Belgium 1.7
Canada 1.6
Ireland : 1.2
UK 1.2
France 1.1
Australia 1.0
Sweden 1.0
Denmark 0.9
Spain 0.8

So, you're only 4 to 5 times more likely to be murdered in the US than much of Europe despite the lack of a death penalty in Europe.

If you want to tackle the murder rate / violent crime rate in Ireland (or the US or anywhere) you need to look beyond penalties. In Ireland and the UK it's mostly gangland crime related issues.

Rape, sexual assaults and child abuse aren't going to go away just because of a death penalty either.

You need to look at the causes behind those too. You'll never totally eliminate them but things like Ireland's complete lack of transparency in the past and shame around anything to do with rape / sexuality played a huge factor in why those things happened. Institutional abuse was also caused by complete lack of transparency and lack of accountability.

I also think we need to look at longer custodial sentences for people convicted of violent crimes and freeing up space for them by looking at more sensible ways of dealing with non-violent criminals. We could make a hell of a lot more use of community service orders and attachments to earnings, electronic tagging and stuff like that to free up space in prison for people who should actually be there and who are regularly getting out too soon.

Me_Grapes · 05-07-2013 10:38PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Except that doesnt alwas happen, hence the right to an appeal. Even if found guilty, you can still appear the severtiy of the sentence. Should/were mitigating circumstances be brought into account, for example?

Of course you do, and I've answered the point and asked a question, which seems to go unasnwered by you

I did answer your question, the right to life is a qualified right, the simple caveat being do not take the life of another innocent.

The concept of forfeited rights isn't the leap of logic or point of no return that you are making it out to be. Sure if it was, why do we incarcerate criminals at all, sure don't they have a right to freedom. Why do we evict people from their homes, don't they have a right to own property? The right to life, like all rights, comes with responsibilities. You don't have to have lots of money to keep your right to life, all you have to do is not murder an innocent.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-07-2013 10:42PM

I think it's me who's wasting m time. Let's recap:

Four times I've asked you two questions

1 - what is the point of a human right, if you can lose it while still being human? (NOT whether or not it should be taken away!)
2 - what do you wish the function of a justice system: vengeance or justice?

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

:pac: you clearly wont get back to me. Your reply was just a smoke screen.. "oh erm... see...erm you didnt really get back to me so... " :rolleyes: ... ah am wasting my time. You aint looking to "discuss" things. You just wanna spout your opinion and feel right. It's gas tho, you told me to reply back to your post. But when I say it? ... hypocrite.

Three straw man replies I've received and now an ad homeinem to boot. At NO POINT have you EVER addressed the points I raised. If you can't address the points made, fine - admit it and we'll move on. If you can, please do so and we'll move on.

B.A._Baracus · 05-07-2013 10:48PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I think it's me who's wasting m time. Let's recap:

Four times I've asked you two questions

1 - what is the point of a human right, if you can lose it while still being human? (NOT whether or not it should be taken away!)
2 - what do you wish the function of a justice system: vengeance or justice?

Three straw man replies I've received and now an ad homeinem to boot. At NO POINT have you EVER addressed the points I raised. If you can't address the points made, fine - admit it and we'll move on. If you can, please do so and we'll move on.

Nice try. Know when i'm dealing with someone who just wants to be right. Best of luck.

Qualitymark · 05-07-2013 10:50PM

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I would but only in circumstances where it would be appropriate and if the sentence was carried out quickly (within 12 months). I think the death penalty for some crimes is necessary, eg, premeditated murder, serial rape, child abuse. Who agrees with me?

My granddad, my mother's godfather and my grand-aunt's husband were executed. I would not support killing by the State under any circumstances.

bnt · 05-07-2013 10:50PM

I wish people would stop citing the USA when trying to judge the effectiveness, or not, of the death penalty. Their system is fundamentally broken and the results don't tell us anything useful either way.

Getting sentenced to death is a notch on a criminal's belt, since he knows that the sentence is rarely carried out. In 2012, 43 people were executed out of 3,146 on "death row", and each of those costs $millions. In the USA, "Death Row" is not a serious deterrent, it's a record label.

Hitchens · 05-07-2013 10:53PM

Candie wrote: »

You could do some of the work yourself :P

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/law-enforcement-views-deterrence#lawenforcement

In states where the death penalty is used, police officers are more likely to be killed.

One of the most interesting things is how low Law Enforcement officers themselves rate the use of the death penalty as a tool in making society safer.

Ha ha, as usual they didn't survey the beat cops, only the chiefs, ye'll never learn.

have a look here: http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-07-2013 10:57PM

Me_Grapes wrote: »

I did answer your question, the right to life is a qualified right, the simple caveat being do not take the life of another innocent.

The concept of forfeited rights isn't the leap of logic or point of no return that you are making it out to be. Sure if it was, why do we incarcerate criminals at all, sure don't they have a right to freedom. Why do we evict people from their homes, don't they have a right to own property? The right to life, like all rights, comes with responsibilities. You don't have to have lots of money to keep your right to life, all you have to do is not murder an innocent.

Fair enough, I missed this.

But if the right to life is qualified, surely the revocation of said right should also be qualified?

The right to freedom is not actually a human right and even when imprisoned, people have certain freedoms. Their rights are restricted, but not taken away totally.

Nor is such a thing as a right to home.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Nice try. Know when i'm dealing with someone who just wants to be right. Best of luck.

I take it that's a "no" then?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-07-2013 11:00PM

bnt wrote: »

I wish people would stop citing the USA when trying to judge the effectiveness, or not, of the death penalty. Their system is fundamentally broken and the results don't tell us anything useful either way.

Fair point, but then no one's even tried to come up with statistics to prove it IS a deterrent, despite repeatedly makign the claim.

Hitchens · 05-07-2013 11:15PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair point, but then no one's even tried to come up with statistics to prove it IS a deterrent, despite repeatedly makign the claim.

of course it is, he'll never murder another helpless victim :rolleyes:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-07-2013 11:16PM

Hitchens wrote: »

of course it is, he'll never murder another helpless victim :rolleyes:

Again, I donlt think ou know what "deterrent" means

Hitchens · 05-07-2013 11:19PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again, I donlt think ou know what "deterrent" means

oh believe it, I do

are you aware of the MAD doctrine?

Me_Grapes · 05-07-2013 11:26PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough, I missed this.

But if the right to life is qualified, surely the revocation of said right should also be qualified?

Well I'll put it to you this way. We are all born with the basic fundamental human rights. In order to keep them, you must obey by the laws of the land. You risk revoking your human rights if you disobey the laws of the land. This applies to all human rights, and the right to life is no exception as far as I can see.

The right to freedom is not actually a human right and even when imprisoned, people have certain freedoms. Their rights are restricted, but not taken away totally.

You're splitting hairs here. You can put whatever tag you want on a right, 'it's not a 'human' right' but as far as I'm concerned the same principles apply.

Nor is such a thing as a right to home

What do you mean here? That the right to home is okay to be qualified but the right to life isn't?

I agree that the right to life is the most basic, most important human right. But with that, it comes with the most responsibility, and that taking an innocent life is showing total disregard to the right, so why should they have theirs upheld?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-07-2013 11:28PM

Hitchens wrote: »

oh believe it, I do

are you aware of the MAD doctrine?

No, but I assume its seomthing to do with the magazine.

A deterrent means to deter someoen from committing the crime (i.e. murder) in the first place, so nohting to do with "another" anything.

Hitchens · 05-07-2013 11:31PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, but I assume its seomthing to do with the magazine.

ha, ha :pac:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-07-2013 11:33PM

Me_Grapes wrote: »

Well I'll put it to you this way. We are all born with the basic fundamental human rights. In order to keep them, you must obey by the laws of the land. You risk revoking your human rights if you disobey the laws of the land. This applies to all human rights, and the right to life is no exception as far as I can see.

You're splitting hairs here. You can put whatever tag you want on a right, 'it's not a 'human' right' but as far as I'm concerned the same principles apply.

What do you mean here? That the right to home is okay to be qualified but the right to life isn't?

I agree that the right to life is the most basic, most important human right. But with that, it comes with the most responsibility, and that taking an innocent life is showing total disregard to the right, so why should they have theirs upheld?

I'm going by the official document that outlines what is and is not a human right. There's no other yardstick. It's not my definition or your opinion or anyone's tag that means anything - it';s what the damn phrase is officially defined as.

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Comments