Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Norwesterner · 06-08-2013 05:30AM

dar100 wrote: »

You don't hit a child to teach him not to hit others, why should this be different

Huh.
My parents and teachers did.
If I smacked a kid in the street, my parents would've smacked me.
Likewise in the playground.

osarusan · 06-08-2013 06:05AM

catallus wrote: »

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."

This isn't anything like a strawman argument. A strawman argument is to misrepresent somebody's position, and then attacking/dismantling that misrepresentation, rather than the original position. The misrepresented position is usually easier to attack, therefore it is made of only straw.

A: I don't think that all criminals should automatically be sent to prison.

B: So you're saying that murderers should be free to walk the streets?

That's a strawman argument.

namloc1980 · 06-08-2013 07:58AM

Norwesterner wrote: »

Huh.
My parents and teachers did.
If I smacked a kid in the street, my parents would've smacked me.
Likewise in the playground.

So your parents and teachers taught you that the use of violence against others is ok? Probably explains your lust for the death penalty.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 06-08-2013 11:18AM

catallus wrote: »

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

Doesn't really change anythgin: anyway, I aske Gatling, he declined to answer, so maybe you can try: hwta should be the punihsment for the State for takig the life of a man who turns out to be innocent?

catallus · 06-08-2013 11:30AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Doesn't really change anythgin: anyway, I aske Gatling, he declined to answer, so maybe you can try: hwta should be the punihsment for the State for takig the life of a man who turns out to be innocent?

The craven attitude that we shouldn't kill criminals because a few "innocents" will get caught in the net is really annoying. It is better for ten "innocent" men to die than for one guilty man to go free.

Tyranny exists in every country in the world; I would prefer to be under the tyranny of the State than the tyranny of the criminal.

I have yet to see or hear of a case where a person who was executed was "innocent".

Hoop66 · 06-08-2013 11:47AM

catallus wrote: »

The craven attitude that we shouldn't kill criminals because a few "innocents" will get caught in the net is really annoying. It is better for ten "innocent" men to die than for one guilty man to go free.

Tyranny exists in every country in the world; I would prefer to be under the tyranny of the State than the tyranny of the criminal.

I have yet to see or hear of a case where a person who was executed was "innocent".

This seems, to me, to be a strange point of view to take. Is it really so important that revenge be taken on those that have committed crimes that the deaths of innocent people doesn't matter?

Your point about tyranny is classic strawman, "if we don't kill every criminal they will oppress us all". Better to be entirely oppressed by a mudering state than have a single criminal escape justice, eh?

I can't help but wonder what your reason for putting innocent in quotes is. Do you really believe that everyone convicted of a crime is quilty? Or that they must be guilty of something?

Finally, if you have 'yet to see or hear of a case where a person who was executed was "innocent"', then you aren't looking very hard. Why, I wonder?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 06-08-2013 12:00PM

catallus wrote: »

The craven attitude that we shouldn't kill criminals because a few "innocents" will get caught in the net is really annoying. It is better for ten "innocent" men to die than for one guilty man to go free.

You're happy with a less than 10% accrate conviction rate? You'd have the State executing anyone even close to guilty just to appease the populace. How about you being one of the innocent men? Still okay with it?

Or am I falling for the troll-bait again? Sure looks like it.

Tyranny exists in every country in the world; I would prefer to be under the tyranny of the State than the tyranny of the criminal.

I have yet to see or hear of a case where a person who was executed was "innocent".

There's plenty. Somone linked to a whole page of them a few days ago.

catallus · 06-08-2013 12:00PM

Of course everyone convicted of a crime is guilty! And the rest are guilty of something else!

BeerWolf · 06-08-2013 12:14PM

For offenders with an unquestionable doubt of having committed the crime - yes.

I'd be all in favor for it for SERIAL rapists and murderers.

osarusan · 06-08-2013 12:15PM

catallus wrote: »

I have yet to see or hear of a case where a person who was executed was "innocent".

You must have deliberately avoided the posts earlier in this thread when some examples were given.

old hippy · 06-08-2013 12:16PM

catallus wrote: »

Of course everyone convicted of a crime is guilty! And the rest are guilty of something else!

I really hope you never have to do jury service. What a disgusting attitude.

catallus · 06-08-2013 12:19PM

osarusan wrote: »

You must have deliberately avoided the posts earlier in this thread when some examples were given.

Read this slowly:

Every single last one of them were as guilty as sin.

EDIT: Oldhippy, what's disgusting is your idea that only people who have the same ideas as you should be on juries.

old hippy · 06-08-2013 12:23PM

catallus wrote: »

Read this slowly:

Every single last one of them were as guilty as sin.

And even if they weren't, they were, right?

old hippy · 06-08-2013 12:28PM

catallus wrote: »

Read this slowly:

Every single last one of them were as guilty as sin.

EDIT: Oldhippy, what's disgusting is your idea that only people who have the same ideas as you should be on juries.

Your bias would thankfully have you dismissed from jury service, so no worries there.

Have you ever heard of wrongful arrest? I suppose they deserve punishment as well?

Hitchens · 06-08-2013 12:31PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Doesn't really change anythgin: anyway, I aske Gatling, he declined to answer, so maybe you can try: hwta should be the punihsment for the State for takig the life of a man who turns out to be innocent?

Would you take a convicted murderer/rapist in as a lodger if he told you he was innocent and homeless?

cdebru · 06-08-2013 12:34PM

BeerWolf wrote: »

For offenders with an unquestionable doubt of having committed the crime - yes.

I'd be all in favor for it for SERIAL rapists and murderers.

But often people who there was an "unquestionable" doubt about who go through the full processes of appeals end up being executed and then turn out to have been innocent.

cdebru · 06-08-2013 12:35PM

Hitchens wrote: »

Would you take a convicted murderer/rapist in as a lodger if he told you he was innocent and homeless?

What kind of rent is he paying ?

Gatling · 06-08-2013 12:35PM

I haven't declined to answer anything

cdebru · 06-08-2013 12:36PM

Norwesterner wrote: »

Huh.
My parents and teachers did.
If I smacked a kid in the street, my parents would've smacked me.
Likewise in the playground.

And it never did you any harm.... right ?

MonstaMash · 06-08-2013 12:36PM

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Simple answer is YES, but that's just my personal opinion...

Collateral damage is a given, no system is infallible!

old hippy · 06-08-2013 12:36PM

Hitchens wrote: »

Would you take a convicted murderer/rapist in as a lodger if he told you he was innocent and homeless?

Would you kindly execute him for the good of humanity?

BeerWolf · 06-08-2013 01:01PM

cdebru wrote: »

But often people who there was an "unquestionable" doubt about who go through the full processes of appeals end up being executed and then turn out to have been innocent.

Hence why I underlined and placed in bold, "Serial".

Amirani · 06-08-2013 02:05PM

catallus wrote: »

The craven attitude that we shouldn't kill criminals because a few "innocents" will get caught in the net is really annoying. It is better for ten "innocent" men to die than for one guilty man to go free.

That's a moronic point of view, borderline psychopathic.

jank · 06-08-2013 03:05PM

In short, YES. Criminal justice in Ireland is a joke thanks mainly to the sociological departments in many NUI colleges where middle class 'lecturers' pander their ideas to the public. It is those of the working class that suffer most from criminals and their violence yet the champagne socialists are never seen around the areas where their ideas are exacting a terrible consequence on the people who live there.

Some people don't deserve to live. Simple. If you don't believe that then mass muderers, perpetrators of genocide, dictators and serial child killers and rapists all deserve to live out the rest of their lives in a relevant comfort of a western jail cell paid for by the tax payer.

end of the road · 06-08-2013 05:46PM

catallus wrote: »

The craven attitude that we shouldn't kill criminals because a few "innocents" will get caught in the net is really annoying.

well you see many people don't condone or tolerate the killing of innocent people either by criminals or the state, so stating that its okay for multiple innocent people to be executed so we can get to execute one guilty person makes the laws in relation to murder invalid

catallus wrote: »

It is better for ten "innocent" men to die than for one guilty man to go free.

really? would the victims families be okay with that including the family of the first victim who now has to know that another innocent person was killed for killing their loved one even though they didn't do it while the guilty person walks free? doubt it

catallus wrote: »

Tyranny exists in every country in the world; I would prefer to be under the tyranny of the State than the tyranny of the criminal.

ah yeah shur thats grand so, i hear saudi arabia is a lovely place to live, emigrate there

catallus wrote: »

I have yet to see or hear of a case where a person who was executed was "innocent".

a number have been mentioned in this thread, but seeing as you want the death penalty at all costs i can't imagine you will read back the thread to find them.

end of the road · 06-08-2013 05:48PM

catallus wrote: »

Of course everyone convicted of a crime is guilty! And the rest are guilty of something else!

what is this "something else"

namloc1980 · 06-08-2013 06:02PM

jank wrote: »

In short, YES. Criminal justice in Ireland is a joke thanks mainly to the sociological departments in many NUI colleges where middle class 'lecturers' pander their ideas to the public. It is those of the working class that suffer most from criminals and their violence yet the champagne socialists are never seen around the areas where their ideas are exacting a terrible consequence on the people who live there.

Some people don't deserve to live. Simple. If you don't believe that then mass muderers, perpetrators of genocide, dictators and serial child killers and rapists all deserve to live out the rest of their lives in a relevant comfort of a western jail cell paid for by the tax payer.

Who are we to decide who does and does not deserve life. To paraphrase Gandalf: many who die deserve life, can you give it to them? In addition capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime. Let's take the EU and the USA. Both have large populations and similar standards of living and similar legal standards yet the murder rate is substantially higher in the USA. Guess which one allows state sponsored killing??

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-08-2013 12:26AM

Gatling wrote: »

I haven't declined to answer anything

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, what do you think should be the punishment for the State in the event of a miscarraige of justice?

Either you have declined or you're not able to.

Gatling · 07-08-2013 12:34AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Either you have declined or you're not able to.

Honestly didn't see that at all

These days so called miscarriage's of justice are few a and far between especially with new technology and better understanding of crimes ,

If someone was sentenced who was actually innocent and not just on some legal technically ,
Id hope they were compensated ,

One case caught my eye a few years ago a man in America was convicted of murder minus any evidence or witness's to his alleged crime ,
He was sentenced to life he served 50 years before being cleared by DNA evidence and released what did receive in return $50 compensation a dollar for every year

osarusan · 07-08-2013 12:35AM

Gatling wrote: »

Honestly didn't see that at all

These days so called miscarriage's of justice are few a and far between especially with new technology and better understanding of crimes ,

If someone was sentenced who was actually innocent and not just on some legal technically ,
Id hope they were compensated ,

One case caught my eye a few years ago a man in America was convicted of murder minus any evidence or witness's to his alleged crime ,
He was sentenced to life he served 50 years before being cleared by DNA evidence and released what did receive in return $50 compensation a dollar for every year

But the questions is how would you compensate somebody who's already been executed?

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Comments