Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Reintroduce the Death Penalty in Ireland

  • 16-09-2012 8:49pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭


    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.

    If you extinguished another human life intentionally, you should pay with your life. If you killed someone and caused them severe pain, distress and torture in the process, the way in which your death sentence is administered should reflect that. For instance, if you tortured, raped and murder someone in the most sadistic way possible, then the way you’re put to death after receiving the death penalty should be slow, tortuous and reflect the inhumanity with which you treated your victim. In my view, it would be morally wrong for you to be humanely executed in such a case, as you didn’t afford your victim such a privilege.

    I do not think that the life of a murdering sadist ought to be treated with the same respect in the eyes of the law as the life of a decent citizen whose greatest run in with the law was a parking ticket. In fact, I'd take such a view to be an insult to the vast majority of the population. I believe that we need to strike fear into the hearts of the criminal classes and cut the liberal attitude towards punishment and how criminals are treated.

    I simply think that our criminal justice system is a farce, so if you’d like to be spared a dubious unoriginal Liveline-esque rant then I suggest you stop reading now. Serial/career criminals get off scot-free with legal loopholes and are released shortly afterward into society to continue again where they left off. In hindsight, there is always money to be made off these legal cases:
    More crime = More criminal cases that need legal representation = More money for judges and lawyer specialising in criminal law.

    Therefore, I don’t expect many in the legal profession (especially those whose specialty is criminal law) to push for a reform of the criminal justice system any time soon. However, I'm not going to totally condemn solicitors/barristers/judges though, there is good people in the legal profession.

    The workload of the already understaffed and underfunded Gardaí is increasing all the time because of our twisted legal system. If I got robbed and/or bet up in Dublin City Centre tomorrow afternoon, the chances that the Gardaí would investigate the incident would be slim to none because they have to prioritise their resources on more serious investigations.

    I have a lot of respect for the Gardaí and I think they have to put up with a lot of bullshit as it is. Some Gardaí might even avoid dealing with some cases where they may be putting their life or the lives of their families at risk. If two unarmed Gardaí were to walk down Abbey St. in Dublin on a Friday night and confront a gang who were a visible threat, they might get stabbed or worse and they mightn’t have the time to call for back-up, plus they have no real way of defending themselves then and there. Isn’t it only obvious why GardaI would try to avoid these areas if they could? Would you blame them? After all, they have family and loved ones like everyone else.

    The death penalty will free up overcrowded prisons and make a scumbags think twice about sliding a knife into someone for the sake of a €50 note. Criminals are only profiting from the liberal attitudes that have seeped into the law.

    Don’t get me wrong, I am quite liberal myself in relation to other things like equal rights in front of the law (e.g., marriage equality, abortion, secularisation of the state, etc...). I even agree with the legalisation of most drugs in an effort to get their distribution out of the hands of gangland criminals. In relation to crime and punishment though, I take a different view on things all together.

    /RANT

    By the way, in before “Go live in America”, “How long has it been since we’ve had one of these threads?” or any invoking of Godwin's Law.

    Would you agree to the Reintroduction of the Death Penalty? 519 votes

    Yes
    0% 0 votes
    No
    39% 206 votes
    Undecided
    60% 313 votes


«134567

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Short version please.


  • Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,196 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


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

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 268 ✭✭Culleeo


    It is my personal belief

    I stopped reading here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,071 ✭✭✭questionmark?


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


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

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Only if the method of execution is snoo-snoo


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,868 ✭✭✭djflawless


    Bring it on!lets see some zappin!!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭laoch na mona


    the death penalty is just appealing to basic desire for revenge it doesn't prevent crime it just means someone else loses a family member


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Pointless discussion because we can't reintroduce the death penalty even if we want to as it's not permitted under EU law.

    That said, I'd have no problem with child rapists and other fcuks being fried.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,944 ✭✭✭✭4zn76tysfajdxp


    If you extinguished another human life intentionally, you should pay with your life.

    It's going to be difficult to find a willing executioner then.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,572 ✭✭✭✭brummytom


    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.
    Isn't that the way it is in America anyway? And innocent people are still killed.

    You can't judge someone for committing a terrible act if you're going to sink to their level for pure retribution.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    If the punishment should fit the crime, would this apply to other crimes? So if someone is convicted for rape, should they be punished by rape? And people who steal money, should they only be subjected to fines?

    Also, how do you deal with miscarriages of justice?

    And is there verifiable proof that the death penalty is a successful deterrent for murders?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Sir Pompous Righteousness


    the death penalty is just appealing to basic desire for revenge it doesn't prevent crime it just means someone else loses a family member

    So? The murderer didn't afford such a privilege to the family of his/her victim.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭3ndahalfof6


    It did not work then I very much doubt it would work now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    the death penalty is just appealing to basic desire for revenge it doesn't prevent crime it just means someone else loses a family member


    And the rest of society loses a criminal. Fair swop I say.

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Jellicoe


    They could never run it right here.

    The real scumbags and politicians would always get off.


  • Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,196 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    brummytom wrote: »
    Isn't that the way it is in America anyway? And innocent people are still killed.
    Pretty sure it costs a lot as well (possibly more than prison for life, could be wrong though and don't have the time to be looking up sources) so would counter act that argument.

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Mickey H


    squod wrote: »
    Short version please.

    You kill someone, you get killed yourself. End of.


  • Registered Users Posts: 45,244 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    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.

    What if new evidence comes after 20 years?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    The death penalty will free up overcrowded prisons
    Perhaps a 10-15 years waiting period in prison to allow for any appeals or new evidence to emerge if any.

    Hmm.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,389 ✭✭✭mattjack




  • Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭False Prophet


    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.
    Would never work as there would be endless appeals which tax payers would have to pay for.
    You would also have endless reports of people being innocent even when they are not.
    Better to spend the money in the prevention of crime.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    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.

    But in your OP you said "The death penalty will free up overcrowded prisons and make a scumbags think twice about sliding a knife into someone for the sake of a €50 note."

    Also I can never agree that it is right or just for a society to show murder is wrong by the use of murder.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭Where To


    Punishment should be determined by a wheel of fortune type contraption.

    It should have a scary sounding name, like 'The Harbinger Of Justice'

    Punishments should range from being tickled to death with a feather duster to spending a weekend with Jedward.

    Gay Byrne dressed as the grim reaper should spin it.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭saiint


    thread has been discussed to bits before


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    AH poll to decide the sentence, it's the fairest way


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭3ndahalfof6


    saiint wrote: »
    thread has been discussed to bits before

    but never to crumbs, the time is now.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    1. You're probably gonna end up executing an innocent person, eventually. It's not like it hasn't happened before. You can't compensate someone when they're dead.

    2. Life imprisonment is worse IMO anyway; everyone dies anyway, a dead person isn't being actively punished because they're dead. Better to lock them up and remove their freedom, and let them experience the crushing monotony of prison and then die.

    3. If someone is no longer a threat, then what justifies killing them over locking them up? On principal, how can you say that the state should both condemn the murder of a defenseless person, yet engage in that same act?


  • Registered Users Posts: 45,244 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Sure the Death Penalty works in America......


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Can we send our troublemakers to Australia?


Advertisement