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

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Jimmy Garlic

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hitchens wrote: »

ha, ha :pac:

What is it about this topic that suddenly renders people completly unable to engage in a logical debate? With apologies to Me-Grapes, who can at least provide something substantial, good night.

[Deleted User]

Hitchens wrote: »

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

How does that negate the findings? You know that police chiefs are promoted from officers in the ranks, right?

And the website you quoted has a very interesting take on the interpretation of those statistics, but I wouldn't put any faith in it.

Ruudi_Mentari

"They have the death penalty, don't they?"

Never a good reflection on a nation even if merited, and is an absolute last resort! ..we may see our share of terrible crimes that we'd love to see those people burn for, but not nearly enough to stain a nations reputation at a glance from an outsiders point of view.

Greentopia

Absolutely not. Not in any case.
And judging by some of the posts here I'm glad it will never be put to a public vote, as long as we're party to the European Convention on Human Rights and remain an EU member.

Jumboman

Are people here really concerned about the "Human Rights" of people like Larry Murphy Anders Breivik and Jon Venables etc ?

Why should we care about their "Human Rights" ?

[Deleted User]

Jumboman wrote: »

Why should we care about their "Human Rights" ?

Because as civilised non-criminal people, we're supposed to behave better than they do. Otherwise we aren't much better than they are.

Mr. G

No.

There were issues with the new abortion legislation here, so I don't think this will be allowed. I've no doubt Catholic Bishops will probably make strong statements about this, when really they're not in a position to do so, especially after what they have done ruining other peoples lives etc.

I do think prison for life should be for life though.

Jumboman

Candie wrote: »

Because as civilised non-criminal people, we're supposed to behave better than they do. Otherwise we aren't much better than they are.

Those people are animals we should only be concerned about the "Human Rights" of victims. Theirs too many liberal do gooders out there who want to excuse the behaviour of scumbags its no wonder crime is out of control.
I remember when Larry Murphy was relased from jail the former Governor of Mountjoy John Lonergan was saying that Larry Murphy should be "left alone" yes thats right someone like Larry Murphy should be let get on with his business. This is the mentality of the fools running our "Justice" system.

[Deleted User]

Jumboman wrote: »

Those people are animals we should only be concerned about the "Human Rights" of victims. Theirs too many liberal do gooders out there who want to excuse the behaviour of scumbags its no wonder crime is out of control.
I remember when Larry Murphy was relased from jail the former Governor of Mountjoy John Lonergan was saying that Larry Murphy should be "left alone" yes thats right someone like Larry Murphy should be let get on with his business. This is the mentality of the fools running our "Justice" system.

Just because you don't want anyone killed doesn't mean you aren't concerned with victims rights. The two are not incompatible or mutally exculsive.

And it's not excusing any crime to not want to kill someone else, nor is it liberal do gooding to consider it wrong to kill someone, even if they are a guilty party.

Don't forget that the guilty have families too, and their families will also be made victims by more killing.

osarusan

Jumboman wrote: »

Those people are animals we should only be concerned about the "Human Rights" of victims. Theirs too many liberal do gooders out there who want to excuse the behaviour of scumbags its no wonder crime is out of control.

This is one of the most annoying misrepresentations of the argument of people who oppose the death penalty.

I don't oppose the death penalty because I want to excuse the behaviour of scumbags, or because I care more about the perpetrator than the victim, or other such nonsense. They deserve to stay in prison for a long time, even until they die if that is necessary for the safety of others.

It's not because I care about the criminal, it's because I care about society. I would hate to think that Irish people, as a society, believed that giving the state the power to end the life of a criminal, was the right thing to do.

meathstevie

namloc1980 wrote: »

No. It has no place in Ireland whatsoever. It is completely illegal anyway under the constitution and also under EU law. And we're also a party to the European Convention on Human Rights where it is completely illegal in all circumstances. The 21st amendment removed all mention from our constitution and I doubt there is any significant movement to bring it back in Ireland.

I think you're wrong; below is a verbatim quote of the European Convention;

"Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to life The article contains a limited exception for the cases of lawful executions and sets out strictly controlled circumstances in which the deprivation of life may be justified. The exemption for the case of lawful executions has been subsequently further restricted by Protocols 6 (restriction of the death penalty to war time) and 13 (abolition of the death penalty), for those parties who are also parties to those protocols. The European Court of Human Rights has commented that "Article 2 ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention"[1] The obligations on a State under Article 2 consist of three principal aspects: the duty to refrain from unlawful deprivation of life, the duty to investigate suspicious deaths; and in certain circumstances, a positive obligation to take steps to prevent avoidable losses of life.

“Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained.

c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. "

It's just a simple fact of life that Western European countries have taken a step further and have given up on the death penalty as a fit for purpose means of punishment for crime in their own legislation but have kept adequate provisions in place for a state to be able to take someone's life as an outcome of policing/military activity with the goal of protecting their populations from extremely violent crime.

Simple example would be a Garda shooting at an armed robber if the Garda was certain at the time and based on what he/she knew at the time that not to fire would result in potential loss of life other than that of the armed robber.

From a personal point of view; I'm not a great believer in the death penalty as there's no such thing as a flawless justice system. European countries in general have solid justice systems in place but just like everything else in life it's not infallable and to be able to take someone's life as a matter of procedure as a civilised country you can not afford to make any mistakes which is a big difference with on the spot life or death decisions.

StinkyMunkey

meathstevie wrote: »

I think you're wrong; below is a verbatim quote of the European Convention;

"Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to life The article contains a limited exception for the cases of lawful executions and sets out strictly controlled circumstances in which the deprivation of life may be justified. The exemption for the case of lawful executions has been subsequently further restricted by Protocols 6 (restriction of the death penalty to war time) and 13 (abolition of the death penalty), for those parties who are also parties to those protocols. The European Court of Human Rights has commented that "Article 2 ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention"[1] The obligations on a State under Article 2 consist of three principal aspects: the duty to refrain from unlawful deprivation of life, the duty to investigate suspicious deaths; and in certain circumstances, a positive obligation to take steps to prevent avoidable losses of life.

“Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained.

c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. "

It's just a simple fact of life that Western European countries have taken a step further and have given up on the death penalty as a fit for purpose means of punishment for crime in their own legislation but have kept adequate provisions in place for a state to be able to take someone's life as an outcome of policing/military activity with the goal of protecting their populations from extremely violent crime.

Simple example would be a Garda shooting at an armed robber if the Garda was certain at the time and based on what he/she knew at the time that not to fire would result in potential loss of life other than that of the armed robber.

So if I'm sent to court for none payment of my property tax and try escape after been given a custodial sentence I can be shot?

But if I go out and shoot up a school and decide to come peacefully when the Guards arrive, I can look forward to 3 meals a day, TV, free health care, being free from expenses, my human rights being put before my victims and protection custody?

Hmmmmm............ Am I missing something?

I really can't get my head around the "we are a civilised society, we would be no better than them brigade", guess they must be living with thier heads buried in the ground. I'd call our society a lot of things, civilised is not one of them.

I say yes, bring back the death penalty.

Cedrus

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.

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.

?????????????????????????????????????????

Tarkus

Take 1 innocent life out of error & the whole idea of the death penalty is worthless.

Going down to their level is more about revenge & outrage than some fallacy about being a deterrent. In some arguments the cost of keeping them alive is cited as tho it's more about cutting the overhead of taxpayers.

It's the dark side of life, so get used to it...

periodictable

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?

No. Politicians would soon add other crimes to the list. Not to mention killing the wrong person.

CuriousG

Yes.

CuriousG

Mr. G wrote: »

There were issues with the new abortion legislation here, so I don't think this will be allowed.

But surely there is a huge difference between unborn babies and born criminals? Criminals give up their 'rights' as soon as they take away someone elses.

meathstevie

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

So if I'm sent to court for none payment of my property tax and try escape after been given a custodial sentence I can be shot?

But if I go out and shoot up a school and decide to come peacefully when the Guards arrive, I can look forward to 3 meals a day, TV, free health care, being free from expenses, my human rights being put before my victims and protection custody?

Hmmmmm............ Am I missing something?

I really can't get my head around the "we are a civilised society, we would be no better than them brigade", guess they must be living with thier heads buried in the ground. I'd call our society a lot of things, civilised is not one of them.

I say yes, bring back the death penalty.

I think you've lost your sense of proportionality a little bit, for starters you wouldn't be detained if you're attending court for tax matter unless you were there on a bench warrant.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Pierrepoint apparently never recovered after the Timothy Evans case came to light. An innocent man hung.

Albert ran his own system, he'd spy on the condemned individual and apparently could judge their height and weight appropriate for hanging.

When the body was cut down from the rope after 2-3 hours he became very protective. Famously he beat the sh1t out of an intern who he caught messing around with a hanged corpse. He said 'he's even with the house now, he paid for what he did.'

This Line was quoted in 'The Green Mile' Film.

Jumboman

Better to kill someone off if their a total scumbag like a child killer or serial rapist etc, other wise you will have the human rights brigade calling for them to be released at some point in the future.

http://news.sky.com/story/1113395/whole-life-inmates-win-human-rights-victory

Whole-Life Inmates Win Human Rights Victory

Locking up some of Britain's most notorious killers for life without any prospect of release is a breach of their human rights, European judges have ruled.
Murderer Jeremy Bamber is among those facing a review of their whole-life tariffs after winning an appeal that the sentences were "inhuman and degrading".
The judges found that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review.
It means the Government must amend the law to ensure it complies with human rights legislation, and opens the door to demands for early release from prisoners who were told they could never walk free.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

Better to kill someone off if their a total scumbag like a child killer or serial rapist etc, other wise you will have the human rights brigade calling for them to be released at some point in the future.

I've had no luck with various others (trolling, ignorance, etc.), but what exactly do you mwan by "human rights brigade"? What do you mean by "human rights" for a start?

Hitchens

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I've had no luck with various others (trolling, ignorance, etc.), but what exactly do you mwan by "human rights brigade"? What do you mean by "human rights" for a start?

ah now, people are allowed to differ in their opinions............and it's nice to be nice as well

Jumboman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I've had no luck with various others (trolling, ignorance, etc.), but what exactly do you mwan by "human rights brigade"? What do you mean by "human rights" for a start?

I mean you will have do gooders calling for total scumbags such as child killers to be released in the name of "human rights".

We have already had a ruling from the european court of human rights which says locking someone up for life is in breach of their human rights.

end of the road

Jumboman wrote: »

you will have do gooders calling for total scumbags such
as child killers to be released in the name of "human rights".

yeah right

Jumboman wrote: »

We have already had a ruling from the european court of human rights which says locking someone up for life is in breach of their human rights.

yeah, without having a review after so many years to see if their able to be released, theirs no guarintee they will be released.

end of the road

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I've had no luck with various others (trolling, ignorance, etc.), but what exactly do you mwan by "human rights brigade"? What do you mean by "human rights" for a start?

doubt he knows, calling people do gooders is a pointer not to take him seriously, we knew todays judgement would be brought up though as a desperate attempt to argue for bringing back in the death penalty, it won't change my mind, i take it it won't change your mind either

Aquagakka

No.

bnt

Cedrus wrote: »

?????????????????????????????????????????

I see that this debate is up to the usual AH standards. What part of my post did you not understand? If you're questioning the stats, they're all on the public record, or start with Wikipedia for a summary.

Me_Grapes

While the European Union, and our membership of it, has been on the whole hugely beneficial to us, it is not a perfect doctrine. There are some facets of the European Union that I simply do not agree with, that is not to say I don't recognize it or don't respect it.

Their stance on how murderers are to be treated is one of those things I strongly disagree with. .

Cedrus

bnt wrote: »

I see that this debate is up to the usual AH standards. What part of my post did you not understand? If you're questioning the stats, they're all on the public record, or start with Wikipedia for a summary.

I don't believe there was any part of your post that I did not understand, I merely queried, (by highlighting) that you

bnt wrote:

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.

and then YOU cited the USA

bnt wrote:

In 2012, 43 people were executed out of 3,146 on "death row", and each of those costs $millions.

God forbid that I would question the accuracy or awesomeness of Wikipedia the Redtop Tabloid of the Encyclopedia world. but that is an aside.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

I mean you will have do gooders calling for total scumbags such as child killers to be released in the name of "human rights".

We have already had a ruling from the european court of human rights which says locking someone up for life is in breach of their human rights.

Doesn't really answer my question. I mean: what's a do-gooder? The EU courts? The Geneva Convention who drew up the idea of Human Rights? Individual groups who like to see these standards upheld (in whoch case, can you link to a non-governmetal group who's actions and stances you are familiar with)?

And what is a human right for a start? Does the phrase "Human Right" have any value whatsoever if we can just take them away at will?