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

end of the road

jwkbyrne wrote: »

oh who knows they're politics? And who is thinking of themselves? I wldnt even say this is an Irish issue, is say bring it back worldwide, I Cldnt grantee a Hugh drop in rapes,,molestation, murder etc if it was back, think bout that before u get all PC, if sumthing happened too ur famiy wld u not want revenge? Is say ur a kid with his head up his r her ass without one.

bringing something mythical like PC into the debate shows you have no argument, and the evidence proves that rapes murders and so on won't drop with the death penalty, so wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong

[Deleted User]

jwkbyrne wrote: »

Its people like you who don't make any sense,what makes you think I read trash mags? I would be pretty sure I have at least twenty times your so called intellect, do you actually have an opinion on the subject?

OMG! ur soo smrt! Im totes convinced!

Gordon Gecko

No, I think the death penalty is fundamentally wrong. Even though I find myself agreeing with it whenever I read of a particularly heinous crime, on a basic moral level I cannot justify taking a life. That said I think criminal justice in this country is in dire need of reform given that all prisoners are allowed to apply for parole after serving 7 years, whereas in the UK a judge can set a minimum term before the prisoner is even entitled to make an application for remission (such as the 30 year minimums handed out to the parents who starved their child to death recently).

Norwesterner

Deleted User wrote: »

No.

Some mentioned the U.S and showed that states without capital punishment had a lower murder rate, than states with capital punishment.

It wasn't a difficult post to comprehend.

Oh, but i did understand.
Unfortunately that argument swings both ways.

end of the road

jwkbyrne wrote: »

do you actually have an opinion on the subject?

yes, i've given it all through the thread, read it from start to finish

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

[QUOTE=jwkbyrne;85840925]Its people like you who don't make any sense,what makes you think I read trash mags? I would be pretty sure I have at least twenty times your so called intellect, do you actually have an opinion on the subject?[/QUOTE]

Probably the txtspk again. Or the blood thirsty desire for vengance. They're dead giveaways.

Anyway - you said you couldn't guarantee that it would reduce crime, so what would be the point in having it then? Justice and revenge are not the same thing.

illuminated

No,killing a murderer is just being hypocritical.I think life should Mean life thou

Norwesterner

tolaneil wrote: »

No,killing a murderer is just being hypocritical.I think life should Mean life thou

Do you object to War also?

Gatling

tolaneil wrote: »

No,killing a murderer is just being hypocritical.I think life should Mean life thou

So the punishment should be life take into account remission = 1/3 reduction before even making it to the prison ,feeding 3/4 times a day ,clothed,and never having to worry about having to lift a finger ever ,
Sounds pretty cushy actually,

If your willing to take a life you should be willing to to accept your life been taken as punishment

Norwesterner

Gatling wrote: »

So the punishment should be life take into account remission = 1/3 reduction before even making it to the prison ,feeding 3/4 times a day ,clothed,and never having to worry about having to lift a finger ever ,
Sounds pretty cushy actually,

If your willing to take a life you should be willing to to accept your life been taken as punishment

I agree but with the caveat that not all killings deserve the death penalty.
Some are in the heat of the moment and are unplanned. Others like killing an intruder etc.
I'm talking about the serial killers, the abductors, the sex- cases etc.

Gatling

Norwesterner wrote: »

I agree but with the caveat that not all killings deserve the death penalty.
Some are in the heat of the moment and are unplanned. Others like killing an intruder etc.
I'm talking about the serial killers, the abductors, the sex- cases etc.

For me deliberate and planned killings deserve the ultimate penalty of death ,

Manslaughter through accidental death give 20 years

Manslaughter when an innocent person is attacked kicked and punched to death life sentence

Child rape/ abuse full castration and life sentence

Rape minimum term 20 years

Repeat non violent crimes minimum term of hard labor no remission

As I pointed out in an earlier post the whole legal and prison system needs to be majorally over halled before we even get to the death penalty

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jwkbyrne wrote: »

This thread is a joke, along with what seems like seventy percent of the people on it, more interested in moaning about peoples spelling mistakes than the actual topic, this is the future, a load of stuck up little ****s who live in a world wrapped up in cotton wool thinking everything is fine?

Firstly, there is a massive difference between making spelling mistakes and intentionally using txtspeak.

Secondly, just because people oppose your view does not give you the right to throw your toys out of the pram and verbally abuse people.

Thirdly, I asked you a question related specfically to the topic and you didn't answer it.

You said you couldn't guarantee that it would reduce crime, so what would be the point in having it then? Justice and revenge are not the same thing.

How are we supposed to take your views seriously?

Artful_Badger

tolaneil wrote: »

No,killing a murderer is just being hypocritical.I think life should Mean life thou

What about imprisoning a kidnapper ?

[Deleted User]

Is there a specific reason this topic was ignited, or was it simply a poster's curiosity?

Just wondering if I've missed something.

Artful_Badger

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Probably the txtspk again. Or the blood thirsty desire for vengance. They're dead giveaways.

Anyway - you said you couldn't guarantee that it would reduce crime, so what would be the point in having it then? Justice and revenge are not the same thing.

Removing people who have no place in society from society completely, not just hiding them away at the expense of everyone else.

Rubeter

Anyone who want's to see the re-introduction of the death penalty should read this book The Better Angels of Our Nature by Stephen Pinker.
You would see then how you have more in common with a crowd cheering on someone getting castrated and disembowelled in public by people who's idea of fun includes burning cats alive, laughing at dogs being killed by bulls, who see nothing wrong with owning, raping and beating slaves or abusing women and children than those of us who have evolved beyond such barbarity (which is the vast majority of humanity today).
Come on in to the 21st century, it's not a bad place.

mikemac1

BBC had a drama series called Garrow's Law. Famous lawyer back around 1810 or so.

You could be hanged for stealing a watch! The upper class terrified out of their minds of lowly guerriers.

Solved nothing at all. Scotland had different laws then England and Wales and their murder rate was much lower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Code

namloc1980

It's no coincidence that the only country in Europe that still practices barbarity in the form of capital punishment is essentially a dictatorship. Do we really want to lump our lot in with Belarus? For all you bloodthirsty people seeking vengeance I'm sure Belarus would welcome you with open arms. Meanwhile the rest of us will move on into the 21st century.

old hippy

epluribusunum wrote: »

1) An adult is also a "clump of cells."
2) Lethal injection is also a medical procedure.
3) Completely subjective, not really any logic used.

Calling people "monsters" is subjective and illogical.

old hippy

jwkbyrne wrote: »

this is the future, a load of stuck up little ****s who live in a world wrapped up in cotton wool thinking everything is fine?

For the most part, everything is fine. Malicious acts should not define life and how we live it. Scaremongering and calling for blood is the extreme end of the spectrum but thankfully, that is in the minority.

old hippy

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Removing people who have no place in society from society completely, not just hiding them away at the expense of everyone else.

Who are you to judge what people should be "removed" from society? And by what criteria?

Artful_Badger

old hippy wrote: »

Who are you to judge what people should be "removed" from society? And by what criteria?

Did I claim I was going to be judge jury and executioner ? And same criteria that can deprive a person of their right to be free. You think its ok to imprison someone against their will and regiment their lives until they die but its a step too far to end that life that's already been taken away from the person ?

old hippy

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Did I claim I was going to be judge jury and executioner ? And same criteria that can deprive a person of their right to be free. You think its ok to imprison someone against their will and regiment their lives until they die but its a step too far to end that life that's already been taken away from the person ?

If that person wishes euthanasia, sure, grant them their wish. But to force death on someone - victim or perp - is wrong. It's murder.

Artful_Badger

old hippy wrote: »

If that person wishes euthanasia, sure, grant them their wish. But to force death on someone - victim or perp - is wrong. It's murder.

You agree then that homicide is not inherently wrong, so why do the wants of the criminal make it wrong when them not wanting to be imprisoned for the rest of their lives is irrelevant when it comes to a life sentence ? When it comes to an individual who has displayed nothing but intent to cause harm and suffering to others removing them from society is the only rational thing to do. I'm sure you'll agree.

The question after that fact is whether or not its necessary to keep this person alive given their life is already forfeit and the fact that whatever happens to them is done in the interests of protecting society. Keeping them caged like animals isnt the 21st century civilized act people think it is either btw. Rehabilitation is the civilized option, but until we can figure out how to do that we have to make do with less civilized things.

323

Gatling wrote: »

For me deliberate and planned killings deserve the ultimate penalty of death ,

Manslaughter through accidental death give 20 years

Manslaughter when an innocent person is attacked kicked and punched to death life sentence

Child rape/ abuse full castration and life sentence

Rape minimum term 20 years

Repeat non violent crimes minimum term of hard labor no remission

As I pointed out in an earlier post the whole legal and prison system needs to be majorally over halled before we even get to the death penalty

Sounds about right.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

What about imprisoning a kidnapper ?

Minimum 20 years to life.

Herb Powell

Gatling wrote: »

So the punishment should be life take into account remission = 1/3 reduction before even making it to the prison ,feeding 3/4 times a day ,clothed,and never having to worry about having to lift a finger ever ,
Sounds pretty cushy actually,

If your willing to take a life you should be willing to to accept your life been taken as punishment

Yes, I'm sure prison is absolutely wonderful, in fact I'll go there now, you have me convinced.

Gatling

Herb Powell wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure prison is absolutely wonderful, in fact I'll go there now, you have me convinced.

Don't forget your flat screen and Xbox

Leftist

the death penalty is pointless and serves as no deterrent to crime.
It can also cost more than housing a prisoner for life because of appeals.

Quite frankly if I was given a choice of death sentence or prison for rest of my life, I'd choose death.

23hrs lockdown a day, with no access to literature or television for the rest of your days? come on. Give me the chair.

Artful_Badger

Leftist wrote: »

the death penalty is pointless and serves as no deterrent to crime.
It can also cost more than housing a prisoner for life because of appeals.

Quite frankly if I was given a choice of death sentence or prison for rest of my life, I'd choose death.

23hrs lockdown a day, with no access to literature or television for the rest of your days? come on. Give me the chair.

The cost is relative to appeals where the death penalty is sought for a particular crime. If it was only an option for repeat offenders the appeals process could be changed. Like the boards way, so many infractions and bans that the one that breaks the camels back doesn't even matter considering the record. So they wouldnt be sentenced to death based on one conviction.

Its also not about using the death penalty as a deterrent in my eyes. Punishment itself is only useful to correct behavior. Someone messes up and they spend a few years inside, they wont be as keen to mess up again. I dont see value in punishing people as revenge or to warn others. An attempt should be made to rehabilitate those who offend and whatever warning that serves it serves but it shouldnt be part of the reason for punishing someone.

But if you get to the stage where someone wont be let out considering their history then what use in punishing them ? And as you say life in prison is no kind of life. Death isnt a punishment in this case its a solution to the problem of having someone who is not only unfit to live in society but also unfit to be housed with people that society is trying to rehabilitate as best as possible and punishing them further will serve no purpose.

But as I said to me it isnt about revenge or punishment. Its about removing someone from society that cant exist there without causing pain and suffering to others. Maybe the death penalty isnt a viable option in the current judicial system. But I think we all know it needs major reform and I dont think execution should be off the table whenever it comes time to rethink the entire thing.

old hippy

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The question after that fact is whether or not its necessary to keep this person alive given their life is already forfeit ... Rehabilitation is the civilized option, but until we can figure out how to do that we have to make do with less civilized things.

Why is their life already forfeit? Do we stoop to barbarism in order to prevent barbarism?