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

con___manx1

I think if the death penalty was brought in the execution should take place 1 year after the conviction is handed down. In China and Taiwan and such places the death penalty is carried out pretty quick. No waiting 20 years like in the USA .no lethal injection either. I think it should be done by firing squad i with hanging in a close second. Child rape should be automatic death sentence. 1 year later fill d bastard full of bullets.

end of the road

on the river wrote: »

what about the other prisoners.

Most are these criminals do get out on bail or serving short sentences.

full life sentences would solv that problem

Holsten

con___manx1 wrote: »

Child rape should be automatic death sentence.

Do you think before you post?

Think about it LOGICALLY for one second. Child rapist has just raped a child, he/she will now be put to death IF CAUGHT.

What's a really good way to lower the chances they'll get caught? Kill the only witness - the child.

By bringing in a law like this you would lower the rate of child rapists caught and up the rate of child murders.

on the river

Holsten wrote: »

Do you think before you post?

Think about it LOGICALLY for one second. Child rapist has just raped a child, he will now be put to death IF CAUGHT.

What's a really good way to lower the chances he'll get caught? Kill the only witness - the child.

By bringing in a law like this you would lower the rate of child rapists caught and up the rate of child murders.

Its called a zero tolerance approuch.

These crimes =death penalty .

How could you defend these criminals ?

end of the road

con___manx1 wrote: »

I think if the death penalty was brought in the execution should take place 1 year after the conviction is handed down. In China and Taiwan and such places the death penalty is carried out pretty quick. No waiting 20 years like in the USA .no lethal injection either. I think it should be done by firing squad i with hanging in a close second. Child rape should be automatic death sentence. 1 year later fill d bastard full of bullets.

and these countries are still completely rife with crime, most of those countries you mention have the death penalty for religious reasons, thankfully though tabloid types like yourself will have no say in the running of a country

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

on the river wrote: »

Its called a zero tolerance approuch.

These crimes =death penalty .

How could you defend these criminals ?

Seeing as no one is actually defending them, the only other possible interpretaino of your post is that you're okay with the idea of the criminal killing the child if it means bringing in the death penalty.

end of the road

Holsten wrote: »

Do you think before you post?

Think about it LOGICALLY for one second. Child rapist has just raped a child, he/she will now be put to death IF CAUGHT.

What's a really good way to lower the chances they'll get caught? Kill the only witness - the child.

By bringing in a law like this you would lower the rate of child rapists caught and up the rate of child murders.

these people don't know how to think outside the ferrel tabloid trash nonsense that they are spoon fed

Holsten

It really is like talking to a brick wall.

end of the road

on the river wrote: »

Its called a zero tolerance approuch.

which doesn't work, yet you will bring it in even though it could lead to more murders to lessen the chance of being caught, great logic

on the river wrote: »

These crimes =death penalty .

life in prison

on the river wrote: »

How could you defend these criminals ?

stop reading the tabloids, pointing out the death penalty has failed doesn't mean defending criminals

[Deleted User]

Holsten wrote: »

Do you think before you post?

Think about it LOGICALLY for one second. Child rapist has just raped a child, he/she will now be put to death IF CAUGHT.

What's a really good way to lower the chances they'll get caught? Kill the only witness - the child.

By bringing in a law like this you would lower the rate of child rapists caught and up the rate of child murders.

had to laugh at this one.... So when this dead child is found do you not think their would be an investigation and DNA evidence of the sexual crime

Death penalty is a difficult one.. but their are alot of people who really do not deserve to live...

It may well act as a deterrant to serious crime.

Amirani

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

had to laugh at this one.... So when this dead child is found do you not think their would be an investigation and DNA evidence of the sexual crime

But then the child would be dead. How this that a better result?

It's fairly obvious also that it's more difficult to find a dead rape victim than a living rape victim.

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

It may well act as a deterrant to serious crime.

History has shown that not to be the case.

Holsten

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

had to laugh at this one.... So when this dead child is found do you not think their would be an investigation and DNA evidence of the sexual crime

Death penalty is a difficult one.. but their are alot of people who really do not deserve to live...

It may well act as a deterrant to serious crime.

But the child is now DEAD! Would you rather be raped or killed?

The chances of finding out who done it are down the drain if this happens. So what if there is DNA evidence? Most people who commit these crimes have NEVER committed any crime before, they are first time offenders so the Gardaí would not have their DNA.

You didn't really think and if you did it was not logically.

The death penalty is not a deterrent at all. This is clear as day since countries that have still have crime, some have rampant crime rates ala USA.

on the river

Holsten wrote: »

But the child is now DEAD! Would you rather be raped or killed?

The chances of finding out who done it are down the drain if this happens. So what if there is DNA evidence? Most people who commit these crimes have NEVER committed any crime before, they are first time offenders so the Gardaí would not have their DNA.

You didn't really think and if you did it was not logically.

The death penalty is not a deterrent at all. This is clear as day since countries that have still have crime, some have rampant crime rates ala USA.

Neither.

The death penalty shows exactly valid and a proper way to deal with these monsters

Oranage2

Holsten wrote: »

But the child is now DEAD! Would you rather be raped or killed?

The chances of finding out who done it are down the drain if this happens. So what if there is DNA evidence? Most people who commit these crimes have NEVER committed any crime before, they are first time offenders so the Gardaí would not have their DNA.

You didn't really think and if you did it was not logically.

The death penalty is not a deterrent at all. This is clear as day since countries that have still have crime, some have rampant crime rates ala USA.

So as it stands child rapists let the victim live because there isn't a death penalty for the crime?

I'm calling nonsense on that!

[Deleted User]

NiallSparky wrote: »

But then the child would be dead. How this that a better result?

It's fairly obvious also that it's more difficult to find a dead rape victim than a living rape victim.

History has shown that not to be the case.

I never said it was a better result, i just said that they can still find the rapist..

Show me where history has proved this?

Anyway Im not really into these stupid discussions on boards.. i just read them for a laugh.. felt I had to comment cause the other guy was so self righteous... basically his opinion was right and thats it... alot of this here..

end of the road

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

their are alot of people who really do not deserve to live...

doesn't matter, we don't get to decide who lives and who doesn't and rightly so.

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

It may well act as a deterrant to serious crime.

oh dear, not another one, the evidence world wide shows that this isn't the case, that it has no effect on crime numbers

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

doesn't matter, we don't get to decide who lives and who doesn't and rightly so.

And the criminal does? Im only putting it out there, im not saying either way for or against death penalty...

oh dear, not another one, the evidence world wide shows that this isn't the case, that it has no effect on crime numbers

everybody says this but where's the evidence? Im not saying their is no evidence Im just not aware of any... what studies have been done into this? Please share?

Amirani

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

everybody says this but where's the evidence? Im not saying their is no evidence Im just not aware of any... what studies have been done into this? Please share?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf

It is generally agreed that the data which now exist show no correlation between the existence of capital punishment and lower rates of
capital crime. Those who defend the deterrent value of the death penalty offer little systematic research to support their view. Instead, they rely on an intuitive feeling that capital punishment should be uniquely effective. When the available evidence doesn't support that conclusion, they argue that the evidence is imperfect. It is. But if there were any substantial net deterrent effect from capital punishment under modern U.S. conditions, the studies we have surveyed should clearly reveal it. They do not.

There's been numerous studies. There are essentially none that support the view that capital punishment provides a deterrent to capital crime.

Jumboman

The parents of people who have been abused or the victims themselves should have the right to take the law into their own hands.

Jumboman

Cydoniac wrote: »

ugh, can't you stop with the tabloid word vomit and at least use real life terms?

Are you some sort of an apologist for these scumbags ?

loveisdivine

^^Yeah cos thats the kind of world we want to live in.

Some peoples revenge fantasies are seriously worrying.

Mal-Adjusted

Jumboman wrote: »

The parents of people who have been abused or the victims themselves should have the right to take the law into their own hands.

No, they really shouldn't and never will

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

Are you some sort of an apologist for these scumbags ?

I think that's a bit harsh? I mean it's annoying, yes, and massively uneducated, but the call tabloid readers "scumbags"...?

Jumboman

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

No, they really shouldn't and never will

Why not ? if a parent kills their childs abuser in angry, why should they become the criminal for defending their family ? its crazy.

Artful_Badger

Jumboman wrote: »

The parents of people who have been abused or the victims themselves should have the right to take the law into their own hands.

There is no law if everyone can take it into their own hands.

Jumboman

Artful_Badger wrote: »

There is no law if everyone can take it into their own hands.

All I'm saying is that the victims and their families should have a right to fight back.

wp_rathead

Jumboman wrote: »

All I'm saying is that the victims and their families should have a right to fight back.

They would love you in Hollywood

OneWayAround

I'm all for the death penalty, killing criminals has it's merits. Also I think the punishment should fit the crime, so a serial killer's final meal on death row should be cereal.

Cheerios.

end of the road

Jumboman wrote: »

Why not ? if a parent kills their childs abuser in angry, why should they become the criminal for defending their family ? its crazy.

because they might kill again

Holsten

Jumboman wrote: »

Why not ? if a parent kills their childs abuser in angry, why should they become the criminal for defending their family ? its crazy.

They've just committed murder.

Capital murder, so in your twisted world they'd be up on Death Row themselves.