Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Jumboman · 30-03-2014 08:46PM

Piliger wrote: »

The great majority don't believe in the death penalty for any crime. It's called civilisation.

Your wrong there is a lot of support in athlone for the dealth penalty.

Most people in Ireland would agree that the child rapist in athlone should be put down.

silverbolt · 30-03-2014 08:49PM

Jumboman wrote: »

Mr Nally was cleared of any wrong doing so I think he would have a case to sue the gardas.

Its political correctness gone mad gone mad when you can be arrested simply for defending your self.

he was acquitted - he committed a crime, he killed a man - there is no disputing that. So there was no wrongful arrest. Whether the case was clear cut (which Nallys was not) if i killed an intruder in my home I would still be arrested. Arrest =/= guilt and jail.

oh please there is a huge difference between defending yourself and blowing a hole in someone when they are running away.

The law in regards to defending property and persons in a property is you can use reasonable force. Reasonable force is a lucid term as it varies from the situation itself. This can go from shouting a man down to killing him. You are allowed to kill (but you will still get arrested for it) but ONLY if the situation calls for it. Killing an intruder who threatens you or your family with a weapon is very different to you chasing after a guy down the street who had pinched a dvd player and pummeling him into the ground with a hurley stick. Now if your a bit more heavy handed than is needed then the guards are going to turn a blind eye providing you didnt land the intruder into a coma. But they simply CANNOT ignore when you kill someone no matter the situation.

What nally did (and Tony Martin in the UK) was shoot dead a man who was trying to get away.

Amirani · 30-03-2014 08:49PM

Jumboman wrote: »

Your wrong there is a lot of support in athlone for the dealth penalty.

Most people in Ireland would agree that the child rapist in athlone should be put down.

:pac:

Congratulations Jumboman, you just won the thread. That image sure does reflect the views of "most people in Ireland."

I'm actually in stitches laughing.

Jumboman · 30-03-2014 09:02PM

silverbolt wrote: »

he was acquitted - he committed a crime, he killed a man - there is no disputing that. So there was no wrongful arrest. Whether the case was clear cut (which Nallys was not) if i killed an intruder in my home I would still be arrested. Arrest =/= guilt and jail.

oh please there is a huge difference between defending yourself and blowing a hole in someone when they are running away.

The law in regards to defending property and persons in a property is you can use reasonable force. Reasonable force is a lucid term as it varies from the situation itself. This can go from shouting a man down to killing him. You are allowed to kill (but you will still get arrested for it) but ONLY if the situation calls for it. Killing an intruder who threatens you or your family with a weapon is very different to you chasing after a guy down the street who had pinched a dvd player and pummeling him into the ground with a hurley stick. Now if your a bit more heavy handed than is needed then the guards are going to turn a blind eye providing you didnt land the intruder into a coma. But they simply CANNOT ignore when you kill someone no matter the situation.

What nally did (and Tony Martin in the UK) was shoot dead a man who was trying to get away.

Mr Nally did not commit any crime he was cleared.

If you kill someone breaking into house the police should question you not arrest you. The benefit of doubt should always be given to the house owner.

The scumbag who attacked Mr Nally was going for back up. If Mr Nally had not of shot him he could be dead now. He was right to eliminate the threat.

Its crazy that we have people on here defending burglars .

Amirani · 30-03-2014 09:02PM

catallus wrote: »

No it's called moral blindness to the pain inflicted by murderers rapists and thieves.

Death penalty or no?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590042/Married-teacher-affair-16-year-old-pupil-struck-off.html

catallus · 30-03-2014 09:10PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

Death penalty or no?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590042/Married-teacher-affair-16-year-old-pupil-struck-off.html

No. I can see you're trying to derail the thread again by discussing what constitutes rape. Try Harder, as a much missed contributor would have said.

Amirani · 30-03-2014 09:14PM

catallus wrote: »

No. I can see you're trying to derail the thread again by discussing what constitutes rape. Try Harder, as a much missed contributor would have said.

I have no intention to discuss what constitutes rape or sexual assault, that's already well established in law. I just want to ascertain how extreme the sexual assault has to be for the death penalty to be used.

You also support the death penalty for thieves, what value do the items have to have for the death penalty to be used?

catallus · 30-03-2014 09:17PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

I have no intent[..] to be used.

You also support the death penalty for thieves, what value do the items have to have for the death penalty to be used?

It has to be repeated theft, let's say 10 convictions.

Amirani · 30-03-2014 09:19PM

catallus wrote: »

It has to be repeated theft, let's say 10 convictions.

A homeless person who steals food on 10 occasions? A child who steals sweets on 10 occasions? Both should be executed I assume?

How about sexual assault? How many of them do you have to do to be executed?

Artful_Badger · 30-03-2014 09:27PM

catallus wrote: »

It has to be repeated theft, let's say 10 convictions.

So you dont think rapists and thieves should all be executed then ? Thing I find with these arguments for execution is they are never really that thought out. It just seems like a good way to deal with some criminals to some people.

But when you break it down its never a good solution. Both in terms of being a good way to remove individuals from society, prevent future similar crimes or to punish people for crimes they have committed. As in order to dish out this punishment that's neither cost effective or an aid in crime prevention you're undermining the very thing used to make it possible to prosecute these people in the first place by resorting to revenge killings.

Once the law becomes more about revenge than protection of society you're essentially doing what the criminals do. Whatever you feel will personally satisfy individuals who feel as though they have a right to treat others any which way they please.

catallus · 30-03-2014 09:42PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

A homeless person who steals food on 10 occasions? A child who steals sweets on 10 occasions? Both should be executed I assume?

How about sexual assault? How many of them do you have to do to be executed?

If a homeless person stole food 10 times; let's say, just to make it less offensive, that he stole it once from 10 different persons, and therefore only robbed and victimised and put in fear 10 individuals, rather than to victimise one person barbarously by repeatedly taking their property, then would you not say that this person, who can actually not give anything to society, but only take from other people, should not be taken out of it? I know you'll come up now with the nonsense trotted out that this criminal had no choice but to otherwise starve, but that is nonsense on the face of it.

A child who steals ten times is even more deserving of being euthanised; for what worthiness can such a child bring to society?

Your repeated attempts to normalise such theft by trying to equate it with teachers getting it on with teenagers is weird.

Artful_Badger · 30-03-2014 09:59PM

catallus wrote: »

A child who steals ten times is even more deserving of being euthanised; for what worthiness can such a child bring to society?.

Ya see this is where plans take ya when you make them up as you go along. Starts off addressing the hurt inflicted on victims of serious crimes, ends up executing children for stealing sweets.

catallus · 30-03-2014 10:22PM

No, "when you make up plans as you go along", as you so patly put it, you end up with a revolving door system where killers and thieves are converted into currency for the legal system which feeds on all of the misery their clients inflict again and again and again on their victims.

Why not kill your enemy, when the law will not punish you?

Why not take from those weaker than you, when the state only replies with weasel words and suspended sentences?

Why not sate your perverted carnal desires on the innocent, when you will be treated exactly, if not better than, your own victims?

To call this "civilised" is a mockery.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 30-03-2014 10:47PM

Jumboman wrote: »

Under the stand your ground law in america you have a right to use lethal force against a burglar.

George Zimmerman was only arrested after the PC crowd in amercia kicked up a fuss.

Mr Zimmerman was also cleared of any wrong doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Which is why I specifically added "threat to life" - Zimmerman genuinly thought he was being attacked with intent to kill. Or so he claimed. But had he not had that defence, he would have been convicted.

Again - no jurisdiction will give you carte blanche to murder who you want as an act of revenge.

Jumboman · 30-03-2014 11:11PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Which is why I specifically added "threat to life" - Zimmerman genuinly thought he was being attacked with intent to kill. Or so he claimed. But had he not had that defence, he would have been convicted.

Again - no jurisdiction will give you carte blanche to murder who you want as an act of revenge.

Atleast texas allows parents to fight back against peados.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408953/Texas-father-beat-Jesus-Flores-death-raping-5-year-old-daughter-NOT-face-murder-charges.html

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 30-03-2014 11:35PM

Jumboman wrote: »

Atleast texas allows parents to fight back against peados.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408953/Texas-father-beat-Jesus-Flores-death-raping-5-year-old-daughter-NOT-face-murder-charges.html

Under the law in the state of Texas deadly force is authorized and justified in order to stop an aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault

Again - not a revenge killing. Not life under threat, either, granted - but not even close to the same scenario you want where it's legal to kill someone as an act of eve revenge after the threat has passed.

silverbolt · 30-03-2014 11:39PM

Jumboman wrote: »

Mr Nally did not commit any crime he was cleared.

If you kill someone breaking into house the police should question you not arrest you. The benefit of doubt should always be given to the house owner.

The scumbag who attacked Mr Nally was going for back up. If Mr Nally had not of shot him he could be dead now. He was right to eliminate the threat.

Its crazy that we have people on here defending burglars .

A court accquited him, if he had committed no crime he wouldnt have gone to trial in the first place.

You cannot possibly know he was going for backup. I highly doubt a man who has been beaten with a stick and shot is thinking "ill go get the boys" You kill someone you get arrested. And you do get the benefit of the doubt - but you still get arrested - on suspicion. You do NOT get carte blanche to do whatever you feel like if someone breaks into your house.

Im not defending a burglars actions and Im no bleeding heart lefty, some one came into my house - im getting the guy out hard. If it is such a violent altercation that the guy dies so be it. But there is a difference between someone dying during the struggle and gunning someone down as they try to run away.

And think on this Oh John Rambo - lets just say the guardai do start completely ignoring the fact that the burglars are getting killed - where do you think thats going to lead? Burglars wont just be content to run if disturbed. They put knives and guns to the throats of children. They come in greater numbers and shoot first and asking questions later. Burglaries become blood baths.

end of the road · 31-03-2014 01:31AM

Jumboman wrote: »

If you kill someone breaking into house the police should question you not arrest you.

they have to arrest you, no other option, you could be telling a lie for all they know.

Jumboman wrote: »

The benefit of doubt should always be given to the house owner.

no it shouldn't, its up to the house owner to prove their case in a court of law.

Jumboman wrote: »

The scumbag who attacked Mr Nally was going for back up.

no he wasn't

Jumboman wrote: »

If Mr Nally had not of shot him he could be dead now.

he wouldn't, if ward wanted to kill him he would have

Jumboman wrote: »

He was right to eliminate the threat.

the threat wasn't a threat once it left the property, so he was wrong.

Billy86 · 31-03-2014 02:19AM

Jumboman wrote: »

Under the stand your ground law in america you have a right to use lethal force against a burglar.

George Zimmerman was only arrested after the PC crowd in amercia kicked up a fuss.

Mr Zimmerman was also cleared of any wrong doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

So what you are saying is we should be allowed to shoot 14 year olds in their own neighbourhoods for wearing a hoodie and eating Skittles, got it. ****ing darkies.

A history of Zimmerman ere... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/18/list-george-zimmerman-past-run-ins-with-law/

— September 2013, Zimmerman's estranged wife, Shellie, dials 911 and tells a police dispatcher that her punched her father and threatened her with a gun. She later decides against pressing charges and authorities announce in November they are dropping the case.

— November 2013, Zimmerman is arrested by Seminole County authorities after a disturbance at a home in Apopka.

By your standards, Zimmerman deserves to be killed.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 31-03-2014 11:51AM

Jumboman wrote: »

Your wrong there is a lot of support in athlone for the dealth penalty.

Most people in Ireland would agree that the child rapist in athlone should be put down.

If you can prove the population of Ireland is 7, we'll concede the majority want the death penalty.

on the river · 31-03-2014 11:55AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you can prove the population of Ireland is 7, we'll concede the majority want the death penalty.

The death penalty should be brought in as a final punishment for reoffenders of rape and murder.

wp_rathead · 31-03-2014 02:29PM

catallus wrote: »

If a homeless person stole food 10 times; let's say, just to make it less offensive, that he stole it once from 10 different persons, and therefore only robbed and victimised and put in fear 10 individuals, rather than to victimise one person barbarously by repeatedly taking their property, then would you not say that this person, who can actually not give anything to society, but only take from other people, should not be taken out of it? I know you'll come up now with the nonsense trotted out that this criminal had no choice but to otherwise starve, but that is nonsense on the face of it.

A child who steals ten times is even more deserving of being euthanised; for what worthiness can such a child bring to society?

Your repeated attempts to normalise such theft by trying to equate it with teachers getting it on with teenagers is weird.

So if you don't contribute to society you should be put to death by the state?
That is a scary view to hold mate

OldNotWIse · 31-03-2014 05:05PM

Jumboman wrote: »

Your wrong there is a lot of support in athlone for the dealth penalty.

Most people in Ireland would agree that the child rapist in athlone should be put down.

Is this real? I just assumed it was a parody

lmao

OldNotWIse · 31-03-2014 05:07PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you can prove the population of Ireland is 7, we'll concede the majority want the death penalty.

wprathead wrote: »

So if you don't contribute to society you should be put to death by the state?
That is a scary view to hold mate

It probably will be if they take out everyone who doesn't contribute to society

on the river · 31-03-2014 06:05PM

end of the road;89707940]they have to arrest you, no other option, you could be telling a lie for all they know.

no it shouldn't, its up to the house owner to prove their case in a court of law.

It their right to defend themselves by any means nesserary.

no he wasn't

HOW could you ? Yes he was

he wouldn't, if ward wanted to kill him he would have

:eek::eek:
Now you are endorsing violence

the threat wasn't a threat once it left the property, so he was wrong.[/

Wrong again. once assult occurs it gets personal
QUOTE]

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 31-03-2014 06:11PM

on the river wrote: »

It their right to defend themselves by any means nesserary.

HOW could you ? Yes he was

:eek::eek:
Now you are endorsing violence
Wrong again. once assult occurs it gets personal
QUOTE]

You do know specualtion isn't accepted as hard evidence by the courts, right?

on the river · 31-03-2014 06:12PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You do know specualtion isn't accepted as hard evidence by the courts, right?

specualtion is something that you just love right ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 31-03-2014 09:32PM

on the river wrote: »

specualtion is something that you just love right ?

Not as much as some of you on this thread, it would appear....

Chris_Heilong · 31-03-2014 09:36PM

When someone becomes a criminal they are no longer human and should be treated as harshly as possible, none of this kindness towards all mankind BS.

Piliger · 01-04-2014 03:02AM

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

When someone becomes a criminal they are no longer human and should be treated as harshly as possible, none of this kindness towards all mankind BS.

Wow ... I think that that post may win some kind of shocking award, out of all of the posts made on it since it's inception.

I'm not going to say what award ... I think I'll leave it to others to do that.

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Comments