Reintroduce the Death Penalty in Ireland

michelleling · 17-09-2012 1:07am

questionmark? wrote: »

Only if they have to serve twenty years in prison first and only for the sickest of crimes i.e. raping and killing a child, serial Killer etc...

On another note I also think that breaking into someones house should carry a minimum sentence of 10 years.

I agree with you but not all. Killing someone regardless of their age is totally unacceptable! I wouldn't want anybody to Kill my Granny, nor my child, nor me. Any murder should carry a minimum of 70 years to never getting released.

Human life means so much!, so much that nobody should be deprived of that, and yet the perpetrator gets a low sentence?

I am against Death Penalty simply because, Human Life again means so much!

Everybody deserves to live. Around here people see child's murder as the sickest of crime, like you, but I see any murder as the sickest of crime!

Mickeroo · 17-09-2012 1:53am

BattleCorp wrote: »

And your point about saying it doesn't prevent crime. The guy put to death won't be reoffending any time soon eh?

I think what they meant was it doesn't deter other people from offending.

Wee Willy Harris · 17-09-2012 3:01am

Much as I'd like to, this country values life..

even that of a lowlife. I'd argue, in Ireland life should mean life if we value it so

Richard Dower · 17-09-2012 3:43am

Yup....lets start with the scumbags!

mackg · 17-09-2012 3:44am

bluewolf wrote: »

The state should absolutely not have that kind of power over people particularly given its incompetence in other areas. Aside from it being wrong on sheer principle, one innocent person dying as a result is one too many.

The thing is it's not even other areas. The amount of threads on here giving out about the justice system itself is huge. Between soft sentences for sex crimes, unlimited get out of jail free cards for repeat offenders and judges in the news for derogatory comments would you really trust them with the ultimate power?

Just to say also that as above I disagree with the whole thing on principal anyway.

Galwayguy35 · 17-09-2012 4:09am

Maybe instead of the death penalty have prison sentences that fit the crime like in the States.

Murder- 25 to life

Rape- 25 to life

Child rapists/molesters- concrete block, rope and a deep lake.

michelleling · 17-09-2012 10:06am

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Maybe instead of the death penalty have prison sentences that fit the crime like in the States.

Murder- 25 to life

Rape- 25 to life

Child rapists/molesters- concrete block, rope and a deep lake.

Again any rape is rape regardless if its a child, an adult or a granny!.. Everybody deserves not to be raped, and should face equal consequences as of a childs'

michelleling · 17-09-2012 10:11am

Maybe my mind is different or is it?

I'd rather want the opposite of what millions of people wants here.

1. Commit murder regardless if it is a child or not and end up to Life without the possibility if Parole.

2. Commit rape and get 15 years to Life

Why is that my verdict: Well Life is simply the greatest gift we all have and should never be taking away from us regardless your age!

WhatNowForUs? · 17-09-2012 10:17am

Tigerbaby wrote: »

liberals....

conservatives who just havent been mugged or attacked yet...

Lovely Sound Bite.
I was mugged twice, ended up in hospital one of those times and had a friend killed by a joy rider. I'm still a liberal.

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 17-09-2012 10:53am

I never expect that the number of those agreeing with the death penalty would be anywhere near 38%. Way to go AH!! Let's hope that that percentage is over 40% this time next year!

mackg · 17-09-2012 10:58am

In my opinion, the punishment of a crime ought to be proportional to the crime itself. I believe that this should be a firm and unwavering legal principle. Therefore, in the case of clear intentional murder, I think that the death penalty ought to be established.

No one has pointed it out yet but it is possible to have sentences proportional to crimes without them being the same.

jaja321 · 17-09-2012 11:00am

There is no justice in the death penalty, only revenge. I would never support to have it re-introduced, no matter what the crime. It has no place in modern society.

BTW, 12 Angry Men from 1957 is a terrific film that makes a great argument against the death penalty. Worth watching.

Crooked Jack · 17-09-2012 11:04am

Death penalty should never be reintroduced, there are cases however where life should mean life.

aidan24326 · 17-09-2012 11:36am

jaja321 wrote: »

There is no justice in the death penalty, only revenge. I would never support to have it re-introduced, no matter what the crime. It has no place in modern society.

Agree 100%.

Nobody has the right to take someone else's life and with execution that's exactly what you're doing. It's state-sponsored murder.

If a person commits a heinous crime then they pay for it with the loss of their freedom and independence, and that in itself is a heavy price to pay, especially if you're facing being locked up for a very long time.

IvySlayer · 17-09-2012 11:41am

An eye for an eye will only make the whole world go blind.

later12 · 17-09-2012 11:59am

I have to say I do perceive some compelling arguments in favour of the death penalty. People have accused any vague sympathy for the introduction of the death penalty as being motivated only by a desire for revenge, and suggest that some people should simply spend the rest of their lives behind bars. I find that a little ironic. On a purely practical point of view, what's the point of having a man languishing behind bars for the rest of his days, if not revenge?

In that sense, the death penalty is in itself, merely a practical manoeuvre.

On balance, however, I am opposed to the death penalty because of the risk of making an error in arriving at such an irreversible, final solution. I couldn't conscientiously support it. There's also no evidence to suggest it works to reduce crime.

To sum up, there is a compelling argument for the death penalty as a matter of practicality, but this is necessarily outweighed by the adverse risks and dubious societal benefits that accrue from its implementation.

shampoosuicide · 17-09-2012 12:05pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

I never expect that the number of those agreeing with the death penalty would be anywhere near 38%. Way to go AH!! Let's hope that that percentage is over 40% this time next year!

Wouldn't be concerned, keyboard warriors are a notoriously unreliable cross-sample.

Galwayguy35 · 17-09-2012 12:14pm

michelleling wrote: »

Again any rape is rape regardless if its a child, an adult or a granny!.. Everybody deserves not to be raped, and should face equal consequences as of a childs'

Of course rape is terrible no matter who it happens to but some who rapes/kills an innocent kid deserves special treatment IMO.

GalwayGirl00 · 17-09-2012 12:14pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Yes, this should be considered. But I don't think the death penalty should be administered directly after the trial. Perhaps a 10-15 years waiting period in prison to allow for any appeals or new evidence to emerge if any.

So we should pay for these criminals and give them free legal aid for 10-15 years,before applying the death penalty?? No thank you, 2 years tops and invest the money in preparing our forensic teams and other areas involved to ensure they are better equipped and lessen the likelihood of errors. no way should these type of criminals live that long at our expense. :mad:

17-09-2012 12:16pm

later12 wrote: »

On a purely practical point of view, what's the point of having a man languishing behind bars for the rest of his days, if not revenge?

Prevention from re-offending

In that sense, the death penalty is in itself, merely a practical manoeuvre.

I'm sure "killing people I don't like" sounds practical, but it's fairly monstrous.

GalwayGirl00 · 17-09-2012 12:18pm

I think if crimainals knew they could be given the death penalty it would reduce crime. t is ridiculous at the moment where people get short sentences as a slap on the wrist for crimes. It might make them think it through before they go around killing and harming other people.

jaja321 · 17-09-2012 12:22pm

GalwayGirl00 wrote: »

I think if crimainals knew they could be given the death penalty it would reduce crime. t is ridiculous at the moment where people get short sentences as a slap on the wrist for crimes. It might make them think it through before they go around killing and harming other people.

Show me the stats for places that have the death penalty and where crime has subsequently been reduced as a result of having the death penalty in place.

later12 · 17-09-2012 12:25pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Prevention from re-offending

But the death penalty would do that as well.

I'm sure "killing people I don't like" sounds practical, but it's fairly monstrous.

I would never suggest "killing someone I don't like" is a practical or acceptable approach.

I'm just suggesting we examine what it is we find so mentally revolting about the death penalty. To me, it's the risk of error alone, which is galvanized by the knowledge that the death penalty doesn't appear to improve crime rates relative to imprisonment.

But other than that, whether you are locking up a man for the rest of his days, or whether you are injecting him with a lethal dosage of anaesthetic, you are extinguishing his liberty. In fact, if you are not extinguishing his liberty then you are not adhering to the principle of punitive redress to which this jurisdiction, and most others, subscribe.

To emphasize, I am opposed to the DP on balance, but I wouldn't be too hasty in dismissing its practical argument.

My name is URL · 17-09-2012 12:28pm

Something quite amusing about a self-proclaimed libertarian endorsing the extreme and irreversible powers of the state.

17-09-2012 12:32pm

GalwayGirl00 wrote: »

I think if crimainals knew they could be given the death penalty it would reduce crime. .

No, it very clearly does not reduce crime. In fact, crime is increased in states in the USA where the death penalty is present.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

17-09-2012 12:36pm

later12 wrote: »

But the death penalty would do that as well.

With the added bonus of revenge and "fcuk you, criminals"

I'm just suggesting we examine what it is we find so mentally revolting about the death penalty. To me, it's the risk of error alone, which is galvanized by the knowledge that the death penalty doesn't appear to improve crime rates relative to imprisonment.

Why do people want it? Because murder is wrong. Why is murder wrong? Because taking someone's life is generally agreed to be wrong. That's it, lights out, no going back, not ever.

Why is the death penalty wrong? Because we all agree that murder is wrong, taking someone's life is wrong - that's why the issue of justice and revenge leading to any sort of discussion of the death penalty in the first place, comes up. And you do not kill people to demonstrate that killing people is wrong.
You don't kill them just because you think they have an equivalent monetary value that you think is a tad expensive - just as killing someone for money would be wrong.

Then finally deciding that killing them is wrong but you don't want that yourself - that would be a bit too troubling, so you hand the reins over to a corrupt and incompetent state to do the dirty work for you, so we can be rid of this pesky problem and maybe save ourselves a few euro in the process. Fingers crossed we even have the right person! And if we don't? Well, maybe killing people isn't so wrong after all.

The whole thing is revolting.

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 17-09-2012 12:48pm

GalwayGirl00 wrote: »

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Yes, this should be considered. But I don't think the death penalty should be administered directly after the trial. Perhaps a 10-15 years waiting period in prison to allow for any appeals or new evidence to emerge if any.

So we should pay for these criminals and give them free legal aid for 10-15 years,before applying the death penalty?? No thank you, 2 years tops and invest the money in preparing our forensic teams and other areas involved to ensure they are better equipped and lessen the likelihood of errors. no way should these type of criminals live that long at our expense. :mad:

I like your style.

Galwayguy35 · 17-09-2012 12:52pm

I think something most people might agree on is that prisons are too cushy here in Ireland.

A bed, toilet and sink is enough for murderers and rapists, 23 hour lockdown as well.

No TV, internet or radios that seem to be the norm in Irish prisons.

later12 · 17-09-2012 12:52pm

bluewolf wrote: »

With the added bonus of revenge and "fcuk you, criminals"

No you can't presume to speak for everyone with that statement.

I'm not interested in indignation toward criminal behaviour, I have nothing but sympathy for people who find themselves in the prisons, often partially due to a misfortune of their birth. I have a strong dislike for the prison system as currently exists and would rather see a man put out of his misery than left in a cell like a trapped animal. In the extreme example of an individual being forced to spend the rest of their days in prison, and having to decide between death or imprisonment with no complicating factors, I see the imprisonment argument as being more inherently vengeful.

Why is the death penalty wrong? Because we all agree that murder is wrong, taking someone's life is wrong

But we evidently don't all agree on that latter point. So where does that leave the above statement?

I'd like to examine what precisely is objectionable about taking the life of a prisoner destined to spend the rest with his liberty extinguished - apart from the risk of error, which is my big objection to the DP.

Then finally deciding that killing them is wrong but you don't want that yourself - that would be a bit too troubling, so you hand the reins over to a corrupt and incompetent state to do the dirty work for you, so we can be rid of this pesky problem and maybe save ourselves a few euro in the process.

I think you're misrepresenting the case here quite explicitly.
Don't think about corrupt and incompetent states for a minute, that is a matter of fleeting pragmatic or political reality.

I think it's important that the underlying logical principles which form the basis for your opposition to the DP should be established here.

seamus · 17-09-2012 1:07pm

later12 wrote: »

I'd like to examine what precisely is objectionable about taking the life of a prisoner destined to spend the rest with his liberty extinguished

Surely you can see the rather large hypocrisy in punishing someone for murder....by murdering them?

The death penalty actually legitimises murder where it is enacted as a form of retribution.

I would have no problem with a "life is life" situation. I personally would rather live out my life behind bars with access to talk to other people, read and research, than to have my life extinguished. I don't see how taking someone's liberty and taking their life are in any way equivalent.

However I can see how others would see life behind bars as more barbaric than death, so with that in mind I would have no problem with allowing such people to choose to die voluntarily rather than spend life in prison.
Obviously you'd need a bedding-in period (people would be more suicidal immiediately after sentencing) and an amount of counselling, but it's a workable solution.
Some innocent people would choose death, but that's not as morally horrific if they've been given the choice and come to terms with it.

Corkfeen · 17-09-2012 1:08pm

GalwayGirl00 wrote: »

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Yes, this should be considered. But I don't think the death penalty should be administered directly after the trial. Perhaps a 10-15 years waiting period in prison to allow for any appeals or new evidence to emerge if any.

So we should pay for these criminals and give them free legal aid for 10-15 years,before applying the death penalty?? No thank you, 2 years tops and invest the money in preparing our forensic teams and other areas involved to ensure they are better equipped and lessen the likelihood of errors. no way should these type of criminals live that long at our expense. :mad:

The death penalty in America tends to only be given to those who can't afford a good enough defence so in itself the system is unfair. To limit the appeals process would be idiotic, serious errors are made in cases and may remain undiscovered for decades. Plenty more innocent people would die if you could have only 2 years for appeals plus these appeals tend to be on waiting lists longer than 2 years.

opti0nal · 17-09-2012 1:15pm

GalwayGirl00 wrote: »

I think if crimainals knew they could be given the death penalty it would reduce crime.

Would that prevent mentally ill mothers from killing their children?

It's also plausible that some killers might have a death wish not just for those they kill but also for themselves & being executed is part of their plan.

There's also the issue of 'martyrdom' when it comes to politically motivated murders. The execution of the 1916 leaders led to a change in public opinion.

Criminal behaviour often arises because of cognitive distortions in the perpetrator, thus justifying the action in their own mind. In such a state, they probably reckon that then won't get caught or that their explanation will get them off. For example, if you look at breaking the speed limit, something most people do: the perpetrators have convinced themselves that it's not unsafe, the laws are unfair and it's just a revenue-generating exercise. They download lists of speed traps and carry on law-breaking.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. It's either revenge or a way of saving on jailing cost.

later12 · 17-09-2012 1:22pm

seamus wrote: »

Surely you can see the rather large hypocrisy in punishing someone for murder....by murdering them?

That assumes that the death penalty is murder. I haven't decided whether I think it's directly comparable with murder, after all I am opposed to the death penalty.

Let me ask you this question, because it's central to the whole debate on the death penalty. What is wrong about murder?

I'm not being facetious, that's a genuine question. I think we need to establish the reason why murder is wrong as a first principle. Simple question needs a straightforward answer.

seamus · 17-09-2012 1:35pm

later12 wrote: »

That assumes that the death penalty is murder. I haven't decided whether I think it's directly comparable with murder, after all I am opposed to the death penalty.

That's actually a fair statement, since the very definition of murder is a legal one and "murder" covers unlawful killings, which the death penalty would not be. It's halfway there, in that it's premeditated. In essence there is no difference between murder and the death penalty except that one is legal and the other is not.

Let me ask you this question, because it's central to the whole debate on the death penalty. What is wrong about murder?

As with all life, we are driven biologically to value two things above everything else - our own life and our offsprings' lives.

Then, since life is basically considered the highest-valued thing in existence, depriving someone of life without very good cause is generally considered to be the most heinous of crimes because there is no way that it can be undone and there is no way to make any kind of amends for it (as there can be in other crimes which can't be undone, like rape)

"Good cause" is almost universally considered to be an act which is designed to save one or more other lives (and in many cases property or health). That is, killing a person in order to save others.

One of the founding principles of most modern justice systems is the principle that all people are equal. Without that, the basis of our laws crumble and become pointless. The death penalty undermines this principle by proposing that one person (or indeed all of society) has the right to lawfully deprive an individual of their life without good cause. There is no benefit, aside from monetary benefit, to be gained from ending someone's life in retribution for their act(s).

later12 · 17-09-2012 1:55pm

seamus wrote: »

As with all life, we are driven biologically to value two things above everything else - our own life and our offsprings' lives.

Then, since life is basically considered the highest-valued thing in existence, depriving someone of life without very good cause is generally considered to be the most heinous of crimes because there is no way that it can be undone and there is no way to make any kind of amends for it (as there can be in other crimes which can't be undone, like rape)

No, I understand that life might be considered the highest valued thing in existence. Not by everyone but it might be.

What I am asking you is why. We can't blame biology - certainly biology causes these emotions to arise, but we as a a species are quite entitled to make use of our critical faculties and trump our instincts.

It's important to know why murder is bad. As a time saving exercise I'm going to propose my understanding of why murder is bad and you can tell me whether you agree or not. I think it's bad because it is the act of elimination of human liberty without, as you say, good cause.

Now, to my mind, locking a man in a square cell and jailing him until death is not just a constraint on his liberty, it amounts to an elimination of his liberty (with good cause).

The key point is that we can't just say "well then we'll give him resources to exercise liberty" because it is dubious to what degree that can be achieved without contradicting the legal basis of imprisonment. It's likely that if you do apportion him any real liberty, you are diminishing the state's capacity for punitive redress. That's a whole another topic.

So the removal of such a man's liberty is a necessity either way. All I am saying is that (ignoring any complicating factors like risk of error), that individual ought to have his liberty extinguished more humanely, not dangled above society light a caught mouse.

I do oppose the Death Penalty-on grounds of risk that the judgement of an individual's guilt is erroneous or misguided. But I happen to think it's quite sad that we have to find more cruel ways of abolishing an individual's liberty, and sadly we here in Ireland do it particularly maliciously, as the Inspector of Prison's reports have attested.

seamus · 17-09-2012 2:03pm

Good post, but I fundamentally disagree with this;

later12 wrote: »

I think it's bad because it is the act of elimination of human liberty without, as you say, good cause.

Liberty and life are not the same thing.
Liberty can be granted and removed at will. Life can only be removed, it cannot be granted.
I don't equate removal of liberty with removal of life, as I mention in a previous post. They are two entirely different scenarios.

later12 · 17-09-2012 2:15pm

No but I would consider liberty to be the prime substance of life.

It would be silly of me to say that liberty=life. The removal of liberty is not a fatal act.

But the removal of life is fundamentally the removal of its prime substance, upon which everything else is built, and that (I would suggest) is liberty.

Perhaps you don't subscribe to this belief.

That's perfectly acceptable, but now we're in the realm of personal beliefs and personal principles; not things that can be proven or disproven. But at least we understand where the other is coming from, which is something.

30txsbzmcu2k9w · 17-09-2012 2:22pm

Originally Posted by Sir Pompous Righteousness
It is my personal belief

Culleeo wrote: »

I stopped reading here.

What are you even doing on this site if you don't want to read people's opinions? Good to see independent thought is thriving in Ireland :rolleyes:

aidan24326 · 17-09-2012 3:28pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I think something most people might agree on is that prisons are too cushy here in Ireland.

This is something that gets trotted out all the time but I'm not sure how much truth there is in it. The former Governor of Mountjoy has publicly stated that that prison is a mess - drastically overcrowded, dangerous, dirty and just a shambles in general. Maybe people would need to spend a few nights in there before being so quick as to declare that our prisons are 'cushy'.

They might be cushy compared to hell-hole prisons in parts of Asia and South America but we shouldn't really be comparing ourselves to that standard, and while we'd all agree that jail shouldn't be cushy it should still conform to certain standards if we want to think of ourselves as a civilized nation.

end of the road · 17-09-2012 4:16pm

jaja321 wrote: »

Show me the stats for places that have the death penalty and where crime has subsequently been reduced as a result of having the death penalty in place.

she won't be able to, because its just bull. the people who think the death penalty would reduce/be a deterrent to crimes live in la la land and don't realise that the same crime/crimes for which the death penalty are imposed keep happening, if it did work as a deterrent then their would be very few murders/other crimes for which it is imposed. but i think were banging our heads against the wall trying to explain that to them. can't ever see the government giving the people a vote to re-introduce it after all we had a vote to abolish it did we not? the people would have had a chance to keep it and didn't so tuff.

jaja321 · 17-09-2012 4:18pm

end of the road wrote: »

she won't be able to, because its just bull. the people who think the death penalty would reduce/be a deterrent to crimes live in la la land and don't realise that the same crime/crimes for which the death penalty are imposed keep happening, if it did work as a deterrent then their would be very few murders/other crimes for which it is imposed. but i think were banging our heads against the wall trying to explain that to them. can't ever see the government giving the people a vote to re-introduce it after all we had a vote to abolish it did we not? the people would have had a chance to keep it and didn't so tuff.

I know, that's why I asked. I agree it will never be an option to re-introduce it - thankfully!

Rezident · 17-09-2012 9:53pm

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Sounds great until somebody judged guilty is found innocent a couple of years after they've been killed by the state.

But what if it was only for incontrovertibly guilty people, like people who are captured on video rampaging in public and murdering people, like Islamic protestors for example.

FionnK86 · 17-09-2012 10:04pm

Interesting question...

Another point to be made is that you can only kill someone once, so if for example a man who accidentally kills someone(maybe two) while drunk driving is given a death penalty, he would be in the same boat as a murdering tyrant like Hussein who got the death penalty. That's not fair, sure murder is murder but if the death penalty it is dished out to all highly wanted criminals it begins to lose its threatening nature. If a murderer knows he's in for the death penalty he/she is more likely to try and kill another person if they stand in their way(for instance, a member of the gardaì) but if they know they'll be out in 25 years they are more likely to hand themselves in or take a less violent approach.

WhatNowForUs? · 17-09-2012 10:06pm

Rezident wrote: »

But what if it was only for incontrovertibly guilty people, like people who are captured on video rampaging in public and murdering people, like Islamic protestors for example.

Hi,
1/ Could the video be doctored
2/ Could the person on video be there under duress
3/ Could the person on video in fact not be that particular person - mistaken identity.

I'm sure there are other things that would need to be looked at

Jellicoe · 17-09-2012 10:45pm

Bring it back by all means, but make it for the likes of Bertie, Seanie, Quinnie, Fitzie, Dunner, Paddy De Plasterer and pals

AnalogueKid · 17-09-2012 11:08pm

It should never be reintroduced here, and the government should call for its abolition worldwide. It's sadistic and medieval, whether carried out in a theocracy like Iran, a one party state like China or the good 'ol USofA.

All people are fallible, as are all governments and judiciaries (whether it's a democracy or not).

Galwayguy35 · 18-09-2012 3:50am

aidan24326 wrote: »

This is something that gets trotted out all the time but I'm not sure how much truth there is in it. The former Governor of Mountjoy has publicly stated that that prison is a mess - drastically overcrowded, dangerous, dirty and just a shambles in general. Maybe people would need to spend a few nights in there before being so quick as to declare that our prisons are 'cushy'.

They might be cushy compared to hell-hole prisons in parts of Asia and South America but we shouldn't really be comparing ourselves to that standard, and while we'd all agree that jail shouldn't be cushy it should still conform to certain standards if we want to think of ourselves as a civilized nation.

Well I know someone who did time in Portlaoise and he admitted himself that he had ane easy time of it, and had a TV, and playstation in the cell.

Having said that I'm sure there is overcrowding issues that need to be dealt with.

Neewbie_noob · 18-09-2012 9:22pm

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Sounds great until somebody judged guilty is found innocent a couple of years after they've been killed by the state.

Generally, people are exonerated within a year of being sentenced, most people are on death row for over a year, so that shouldn't be an issue.
To stop miscarriages of justice like this we should also introduce death penalty for perjury which results in death of an innocent person, similar to the law in Singapore.
When it comes to pregnant women though, I do not believe that they should be spared the death penalty, they should be given a stay of execution until they give birth to their child, then executed. I know what I am saying sounds somewhat draconian, but a woman (or man) who commits such a cold-blooded crime, doesn't deserve to be a parent.
Most of the cases of wrongful executions that happen anyway were carried out many years ago when DNA and forensic technology were highfalutin things of the future.
When it comes to a person who is mentally-impaired or disabled (which may be a very grey area in some circumstances), judges discretion should come into play, although in other circumstances, it should be mandatory, to curb sexism / racism and other discriminatory factors in sentencing.
The following is a list of crimes which I believe should merit the death penalty

Murder of any kind (but not manslaughter)
Perjury which results in execution of an innocent person
Serial drug trafficking
Membership of a drug-dealing or terrorist gang such as IRA or UVF

I know I am sounding like a hot-headed fascist, but I am a firm believer that stern deterrents DO work, if you look at Ireland and some other parts of Europe, crime rates are soaring but look at Singapore or other zero-tolerance countries and crime rates are extremely low.

end of the road · 18-09-2012 10:46pm

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

DNA and forensic technology

their not fool proof.

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

stern deterrents DO work,

no they don't, unless you live in a dictatorship where your executed for nothing and the people are afraid to do anything.

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

if you look at Ireland and some other parts of Europe, crime rates are soaring

ireland has a rubbish justice system in the first place so of course it doesn't work, probably these other european countries are the same.

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

but look at Singapore or other zero-tolerance countries and crime rates are extremely low.

different cultures come into play, putting Singapore asside, most of these cuntries your talking about are probably dictatorships. just because things work for Singapore doesn't mean it will work here in ireland. we've no need for the death penalty, end of.

gronemeyer · 18-09-2012 10:48pm

I wouldn't agree with the reintroduction but life should mean life not 15-25 years if the murder was proven to be pre-meditated.

Reintroduce the Death Penalty in Ireland

Comments