Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

I had to repost it because it logged me out and I copied and pasted it so it didn't bold it I guess, whatever you can still see the points I was trying to focus on. If that essay does not change any of your minds then nothing will. Cheers.

osarusan wrote: »

It didn't I'm afraid, because it counter even one thing I said in my post.

You're still incabable of understanding that people who oppose the death penalty can do so, not because of their concerns for the criminal, but because of their concerns for society.

It's been explained to you, but you either cannot or will not understand.

So I'm the one that did.not address the post. Huh? Okay.

This is pathetic. I destroy an argument and the person rebuts by telling me I just don't understand.

Sound logic mate. You could have also used sarcasm which is far more prevalent I have noticed. Nobody rebuts my posts, debate is boring when this is the case.

Good bye and maybe some day something will happen that changes your perception..

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Except that's not netirel correct, is it? Lots of people are perverts and enjoy sexually manipulating people smaller and weaker, but they don't actually do it.

For example:
Are people born pedophiles, or is it something they become via their experiences of life?
If the former, what can be done to prevent them from acting? Can it be eradicated while they are still in childhood?
If the later, what are the experiences that triggered these 'needs'?

You seriously telling me that the answers to those questions are of no use to society whatsoever?




After last night, you're not really in a position to claim you destoryed anything. Did you ever read any of the serval replies to our question you pretended to ignore?

Thats what she said.

Are you confusing fantasy with reality princess? Your arguments do your intelligence a disservice or perhaps...

Last night, I killed it. I have logic and intelligence on my side.

Lastly, I ignored your reply because you said that Hitler was different than a murderer. At that point my mind immediately deemed you as not reasonable or not intelligent. Maybe both.

Buenas noches Princess.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

A simple "no - I didn't read them" would have sufficed. Taking a (wrong) guess doesn't actually make it look like you did.

I read them and laughed at the stupidity.

Oh so now he is a murderer? Well then, did he deserve the death penalty? Answer this Princess.

epluribusunum wrote: »

Answer this Princess.

It's polite to address someone by their full name until properly introduced:)

C.K Dexter Haven wrote: »

It's polite to address someone by their full name until properly introduced:)

Well she is already referring to last night...

She thinks we have established chemistry at this point. I just hope she is a female, never can trust the internet.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

For the second time, I already have !! You claimed you read it.



Wise.

Lets refresh our memories that were never established in the first place then.

Please answer Princess.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

They happened. Two or three people answered them. You just ignored them and started spouting **** about winning something and shutting someone up, so exactly why should I beleive you won't do the same tonight?

So, you can refresh your own memory be reading what was written last night - it's still there.

See I think that is the underlying problem here. You are not thinking for yourself. Do not worry about others.

1
Was Hitler a murderer?

2
Did Hitler deserve the death penalty?

Simple yes or a no.

Otherwise, you look like someone who cannot think for yourself. Just answer Princess. I have confidence in you, you can do it.

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?

I'm sure most of this has been addressed but it's a long thread I'll give it my best shot to make this worth reading, whether you agree with the sentiment or not.

So, "some crimes" you say:

1. Premeditated Murder. Why? Murder is murder. Sure, it can be broken down to various sub-sets and circumstances but it remains murder, irrespective of state of mind.

Anyway, In recent years, the courts have really re-defined the classic notion of pre-meditation. We tend to view premeditation as scheming and hatching the plan over days or weeks and commit the crime.

Yet legally, premeditation can mean within seconds of the murder occurring.

So you could find yourself in a situation where you head off to the cinema with your partner and somewhere between leaving home and getting home, a sequence of events occur and you kill someone. You didn't leave the house planning it but legally that act could be determined to be premeditated.

So you feel that too deserves death? Or do you want to stick to the old fashioned black and white, clear cut, movie style premeditation?

2. Serial Rape? How many? 2? 3? 4? 5? And if you want death for someone who rapes 3 people, why not twice? And how about if you rape the same person 3-times?

More to the point, if it's death for serial rapists, where is the deterrent to stop them raping in the first place? "ah sure it's grand i'm not even on my first strike, i'll rape her and her, i'll only get 6-12 years sure tops, but 3rd time i'll be careful with it".

3. Child Abuse. Vile. But again where's the line here? Death for all child abusers? So death for someone who physically abuses a child with slapping, punching, hair pulling and death for someone who rapes a child? And even within that there are varying degrees of severity.

The point is this -if you're going down an arbitrary road like this with catch-all sentences (i.e. death) for crimes which intrinsically have a whole spectrum of severity, on a moral level alone that's a minefield.


Funnily enough, i actually loosely know 2 people sentenced to death in Ireland. Commuted to life in the end. They were young when they committed their crime (murder). There is no defence to murder, certainly not age. And whether life imprisonment should mean life is another matter again. This might be hard for some to read but, to my mind, they are good people. I wasn't born when they did what they did and i can only judge a person or people by my interactions with them. But they are intrinsically good people.

The death penalty effectively means 1 mistake could cost you your life. None of us when we are born come into this world consciously intent on committing murder, rape or any other serious crimes. If and when they happen they deserve to be punished.

If we seek to punish by taking a life then we're acknowledging as a people that redemption is not possible. That it's not possible to repent and to change. We all make mistakes in this life and unfortunately some peoples mistakes end up ruining their own lives and often those of others. Victims of murder will never have the opportunity to live on and to change. But those left behind can.

I'm always fascinated watching this video. Jo Berry,whose father died in an IRA bomb, discussing meeting the man who killed her father. Like anyone else, if someone killed my father my initial reaction would be wanting them dead. The likes of this woman remind us that humanity can rise above it.

wonderfullife wrote: »

I'm sure most of this has been addressed but it's a long thread I'll give it my best shot to make this worth reading, whether you agree with the sentiment or not.

So, "some crimes" you say:

1. Premeditated Murder. Why? Murder is murder. Sure, it can be broken down to various sub-sets and circumstances but it remains murder, irrespective of state of mind.

Anyway, In recent years, the courts have really re-defined the classic notion of pre-meditation. We tend to view premeditation as scheming and hatching the plan over days or weeks and commit the crime.

Yet legally, premeditation can mean within seconds of the murder occurring.

So you could find yourself in a situation where you head off to the cinema with your partner and somewhere between leaving home and getting home, a sequence of events occur and you kill someone. You didn't leave the house planning it but legally that act could be determined to be premeditated.

So you feel that too deserves death? Or do you want to stick to the old fashioned black and white, clear cut, movie style premeditation?

2. Serial Rape? How many? 2? 3? 4? 5? And if you want death for someone who rapes 3 people, why not twice? And how about if you rape the same person 3-times?

More to the point, if it's death for serial rapists, where is the deterrent to stop them raping in the first place? "ah sure it's grand i'm not even on my first strike, i'll rape her and her, i'll only get 6-12 years sure tops, but 3rd time i'll be careful with it".

3. Child Abuse. Vile. But again where's the line here? Death for all child abusers? So death for someone who physically abuses a child with slapping, punching, hair pulling and death for someone who rapes a child? And even within that there are varying degrees of severity.

The point is this -if you're going down an arbitrary road like this with catch-all sentences (i.e. death) for crimes which intrinsically have a whole spectrum of severity, on a moral level alone that's a minefield.


Funnily enough, i actually loosely know 2 people sentenced to death in Ireland. Commuted to life in the end. They were young when they committed their crime (murder). There is no defence to murder, certainly not age. And whether life imprisonment should mean life is another matter again. This might be hard for some to read but, to my mind, they are good people. I wasn't born when they did what they did and i can only judge a person or people by my interactions with them. But they are intrinsically good people.

The death penalty effectively means 1 mistake could cost you your life. None of us when we are born come into this world consciously intent on committing murder, rape or any other serious crimes. If and when they happen they deserve to be punished.

If we seek to punish by taking a life then we're acknowledging as a people that redemption is not possible. That it's not possible to repent and to change. We all make mistakes in this life and unfortunately some peoples mistakes end up ruining their own lives and often those of others. Victims of murder will never have the opportunity to live on and to change. But those left behind can.

I'm always fascinated watching this video. Jo Berry,whose father died in an IRA bomb, discussing meeting the man who killed her father. Like anyone else, if someone killed my father my initial reaction would be wanting them dead. The likes of this woman remind us that humanity can rise above it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coljnvVH18o

Well articulated.