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

Gatling

Oh I forgot everybody in prison are innocent

Set up by the "Man"

Maximus Alexander

Sooner or later (probably sooner, and regularly) someone will be put to death who is innocent, and even one is too many.

No.

Amirani

KwackerJack wrote: »

From a nation who defeated an empire

:pac:

efb

No.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

KwackerJack wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Its in the water!

From a nation who defeated an empire to a bunch of couch warriors afraid to punish a criminal incase were seen as being mean to them!

If you commit a crime you must face the consequences. Its ridiculous to defend and make up excuses for criminals!

Let them kill a family member then see if you feel remorse for the poor chap!

God sure he killed a man but he's great at Gaa and has never been in trouble :rolleyes:

I see.... so someone is either pro death penalty or afraid to punish coffenders and defneding crimnnals...? Well, at least there's no pc/liberal/brigade crap with you.

Francesco

Gatling

Yes

TeddyTedson

I think governments have enough power without letting them put people to death!

TeddyTedson

Francesco wrote: »

No

Gatling wrote: »

Yes

maybe

Gatling

TeddyTedson wrote: »

maybe

No

Yes

Who cares like its ever going to happen with our system

Amirani

Gatling wrote: »

No

Yes

Who cares like its ever going to happen with our system

Democracy's a bitch alright.

Gatling

NiallSparky wrote: »

Democracy's a bitch alright.

No its a cop out

There's no such thing

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TeddyTedson wrote: »

maybe

I don't know - could you repeat the question?
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
And is that Bryan Cranston in your avatar?

Gatling

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I don't know - could you repeat the question?
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
And is that Bryan Cranston in your avatar?

Can I have a Q please bob

Maximus Alexander

Gatling wrote: »

No its a cop out

There's no such thing

Please tell me you have spent a significant portion of your life living in an actual oligarchy, because this comes across as a bit petulant and naive.

Democracy might not always work as well as we can all hope and dream, but it's pretty significantly better than the alternatives as far as the health, wealth and standard of living for the common man is concerned.

Unless all the history books are lying, which is of course a possibility.

Gatling

What choices have you in a democracy ,

You think you have choice every couple of years you tick a box 1-4

What do you get in return

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gatling wrote: »

What choices have you in a democracy ,

You think you have choice every couple of years you tick a box 1-4

What do you get in return

Couldn't agree more, but it's not going to chane the status of the death penalty, unless you bring in a dicatorsip of some kind. And even then, you'd need a pretty ****ed-up dictator to install.

Probably not worht the effort.

Gatling

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Couldn't agree more, but it's not going to chane the status of the death penalty, unless you bring in a dicatorsip of some kind. And even then, you'd need a pretty ****ed-up dictator to install.

Probably not worht the effort.

I think your actually right

I don't want to be a dictator anymore

Stereomaniac

From my armchair, I would rule the world. I think I could take the job seriously. I wouldn't kill anyone except people who looked at my girlfriend the wrong way and who said WWF is fake.

downwithpeace

The death penalty doesn't solve the issues of the crimes or prevent them so no.

An Riabhach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No.

Death is too kind for some crimes.

Agreed.

Death is not a punishment-they're not gonna suffer when they are dead.
For the worst criminals,life should mean life-and it should be a life of hardship behind bars,never to see daylight or taste freedom again.

And for the likes of Ian Brady,that Polish couple who killed their child through neglect,that man who killed his sons in Carlow,mass murderers,paedophiles and anybody who commits such evil,I would make sure they suffer through torture.

AlanS181824

Never.
The death penalty should never be re-introduced regardless of the circumstances.

Stereomaniac

I would agree with you there. I don't think the death penalty is an adequate punishment for taking the life of someone else, or whatever the offence was. Most criminals walk to it easily?

Gatling

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Never.
The death penalty should never be re-introduced regardless of the circumstances.

Why not

Stereomaniac

I think that question has already answered itself in the thread. The death penalty is too easy.

catallus

downwithpeace wrote: »

The death penalty doesn't solve the issues of the crimes or prevent them so no.

This statement is almost axiomatically incorrect.

Killing criminals certainly does solve the "issues of the crimes or prevent them".

The strawman argument of "Oh, capital punishment is proven not to be a deterrant" is tiresome. What of it, if it doesn't deter? The issue is the punishment of the crime already committed.

cdebru

catallus wrote: »

This statement is almost axiomatically incorrect.

Killing criminals certainly does solve the "issues of the crimes or prevent them".

The strawman argument of "Oh, capital punishment is proven not to be a deterrant" is tiresome. What of it, if it doesn't deter? The issue is the punishment of the crime already committed.

And what if you discover afterwards, that the wrong person was convicted?

At least with prison you can release them and make some effort to correct the wrong that was done if you have killed them then there is no going back.

catallus

cdebru wrote: »

And what if you discover afterwards, that the wrong person was convicted?

At least with prison you can release them and make some effort to correct the wrong that was done if you have killed them then there is no going back.

This is the argument of an academic. The practical working of the courts is the salient consideration.

downwithpeace

catallus wrote: »

This statement is almost axiomatically incorrect.

Killing criminals certainly does solve the "issues of the crimes or prevent them".

The strawman argument of "Oh, capital punishment is proven not to be a deterrant" is tiresome. What of it, if it doesn't deter? The issue is the punishment of the crime already committed.

It's not a strawman argument, executing someone for a crime hasn't changed the actions of others nor solved the issues of the crime. Killing someone for a crime already committed might bring satisfaction but it won't undo the crime. It's an argument that will go on until another solution is found, same with jailing a person for a crime.

catallus

downwithpeace wrote: »

It's not a strawman argument, executing someone for a crime hasn't changed the actions of others nor solved the issues of the crime. Killing someone for a crime already committed might bring satisfaction but it won't undo the crime. It's an argument that will go on until another solution is found, same with jailing a person for a crime.

What does this mean?

And yes it is the very definition of a strawman argument, saying "x doesn't stop y, so x is pointless."