Reintroduce the Death Penalty in Ireland

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 16-09-2012 8:49pm #1

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.

squod · 16-09-2012 8:50pm

Short version please.

GLaDOS · 16-09-2012 8:51pm

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

Culleeo · 16-09-2012 8:52pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

It is my personal belief

I stopped reading here.

questionmark? · 16-09-2012 8:53pm

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.

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 16-09-2012 8:53pm

ScienceNerd wrote: »

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.

donvito99 · 16-09-2012 8:56pm

Only if the method of execution is snoo-snoo

djflawless · 16-09-2012 8:56pm

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

laoch na mona · 16-09-2012 8:58pm

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

BattleCorp · 16-09-2012 8:58pm

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.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 16-09-2012 8:59pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

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.

brummytom · 16-09-2012 8:59pm

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.

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.

Toby Take a Bow · 16-09-2012 9:00pm

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?

3ndahalfof6 · 16-09-2012 9:00pm

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

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 16-09-2012 9:00pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

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.

BattleCorp · 16-09-2012 9:00pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

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?

Jellicoe · 16-09-2012 9:00pm

They could never run it right here.

The real scumbags and politicians would always get off.

GLaDOS · 16-09-2012 9:02pm

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.

Mickey H · 16-09-2012 9:02pm

squod wrote: »

Short version please.

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

Bobeagleburger · 16-09-2012 9:02pm

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.

What if new evidence comes after 20 years?

Toby Take a Bow · 16-09-2012 9:03pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

The death penalty will free up overcrowded prisons

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Perhaps a 10-15 years waiting period in prison to allow for any appeals or new evidence to emerge if any.

Hmm.

mattjack · 16-09-2012 9:03pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

In my opinion .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

False Prophet · 16-09-2012 9:03pm

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.

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.

ResearchWill · 16-09-2012 9:04pm

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.

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.

Where To · 16-09-2012 9:04pm

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.

saiint · 16-09-2012 9:05pm

thread has been discussed to bits before

mikemac1 · 16-09-2012 9:06pm

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

3ndahalfof6 · 16-09-2012 9:07pm

saiint wrote: »

thread has been discussed to bits before

but never to crumbs, the time is now.

andrew · 16-09-2012 9:08pm

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?

Bobeagleburger · 16-09-2012 9:09pm

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

mikemac1 · 16-09-2012 9:09pm

Can we send our troublemakers to Australia?

Bobeagleburger · 16-09-2012 9:12pm

mikemac1 wrote: »

Can we send our troublemakers to Australia?

Ongoing..

opti0nal · 16-09-2012 9:14pm

Mickey H wrote: »

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

Say, hypothetically a mother kills her young son or daughter - what's the penalty? And do you think such an act would be deterred by the death penalty?

tvnutz · 16-09-2012 9:16pm

Thing is, its not actually a deterrant, and it costs a lot of money to execute a person,based on how long they spend on death row.

It might seem that the prospect of receiving a death sentence would deter would-be murderers from committing such offenses. However, many studies on deterrence and the death penalty do not support this idea, nor does the rate of murders in states with the death penalty. The murder rate in states that do not have the death penalty is consistently lower than in states with the death penalty. The South, which carries out over 80% of the executions in the U. S., has the highest murder rate of the four regions.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 16-09-2012 9:18pm

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Hmm.

In the long run it will. Plus, it'd may make people think twice before they execute their murderous intentions.

ncdadam · 16-09-2012 9:19pm

We'd be better off if sentences were completed, eg 10 years means 10 years and life means life.
We could also do without the bleeding hearts/do gooders crying every time about 'what a hard upbringing he/she had' and that type of ****e.
In saying that I think pedophiles and rapists and scum who attack old people, securely convicted 100%, could do with a bit of lead behind the ear.

3ndahalfof6 · 16-09-2012 9:19pm

andrew wrote: »

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?

The cost of it all, at least if they were made give something back to society, by the way of work, menial task,

chain gangs is something I would prefer to see rather than the death penalty, while it would not be chains, the technology is there to contain them within a certain area.

Toby Take a Bow · 16-09-2012 9:20pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

In the long run it will. Plus, it'd may make people think twice because they execute their murderous intentions.

How so? Most murder sentences would be around the 10-15 year mark, right? Or are you talking about eliminating recidivists?

Chuck Stone · 16-09-2012 9:21pm

Killing people to show people that killing people is wrong is it?

Stupid.

token101 · 16-09-2012 9:21pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

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 to humanely execute someone in such a case, as you didn’t afford your victim such a privilege....I do not think that the value of 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

Bit of a logic fail there

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Don’t get me wrong, I am quite liberal myself

:pac:

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 16-09-2012 9:22pm

tvnutz wrote: »

Thing is, its not actually a deterrant, and it costs a lot of money to execute a person,based on how long they spend on death row.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

Nitrogen gas doesn't cost too much, neither does carbon monoxide. Hell, bullets are also cheap nowadays.

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 16-09-2012 9:22pm

token101 wrote: »

Bit of a logic fail there

:pac:

Yeah, maybe you should have read on.

token101 · 16-09-2012 9:23pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Yeah, maybe you should have read on.

I didn't need to. Really I didn't.

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 16-09-2012 9:24pm

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

How so? Most murder sentences would be around the 10-15 year mark, right? Or are you talking about eliminating recidivists?

Just because most murder sentences are 10-15 years long doesn't mean that 10-15 years is all they deserve.

McCrack · 16-09-2012 9:27pm

This thread is pointless, the death penalty cannot be reintroduced into Ireland.

Our constitution prevents it and Ireland is a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) which prevents the death penalty.

It will never be reintroduced.

Personally I am not in favour of it for many reasons but mostly because a Court can get it wrong and send an innocent person to death.

Google Harry Gleeson for a good example from this country.

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 16-09-2012 9:29pm

McCrack wrote: »

...European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)...

Quit your jibba-jabba, that's liberal-speak.

3ndahalfof6 · 16-09-2012 9:30pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Quit your jibba-jabba, that's liberal-speak.

Only if your holding a snickers.

twinytwo · 16-09-2012 9:33pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

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 to humanely execute someone in such a case, as you didn’t afford your victim such a privilege.

I do not think that the value of 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 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. Cereal/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 criminals that need 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 be pushing 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 of the Gardaí investigating 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 have 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 Garda 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 (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 invocation of Godwin's Law.

why bother with the death peno???.... if the prisons wernt such a holiday in this country id be happy for them to rot away in prison.

DazMarz · 16-09-2012 9:39pm

It is wrong to take a life, regardless of what they have done. Nobody should take a life.

Eye for an eye and all that is ancient and barbaric. Fair enough, a murderer has taken a life. But killing them will not bring their victim back, it will accomplish absolutely nothing. It will not deter future murderers. If the death penalty deterred murder, there would not have been a murder in the United States for at least 20 years (at least in the states where the death penalty is applied).

The only argument I heard of that I almost agreed with was that while the death penalty is not an effective method of deterring capital crime, it will (very obviously) stop the perpetrator from committing further crimes. Particularly in the case of sadistic child murderers and others who would repeat their offences if they ever got released (as we know, in this country a life sentence usually is 20 years; people who get life almost invariably get back out before they die). It simply stops potential habitual perpetrators by eliminating them.

But even that argument did not persuade me that the death penalty is justified, regardless of the crime. If someone is sentenced to life, the only way they should ever leave prison is in a hearse. But they should not be killed by the state.

The death penalty is wrong. It is revenge and it is rooted in ancient history.

There is also the risk of a completely innocent person getting executed. Not only is this a tragedy, but it has another unacceptable consequence; the true perpetrator goes free. While everyone believes justice has been done, case closed and no further investigations into the crime... the real perp is walking around. He is either grinning like a mad thing and loving it, or he packs up and legs it just to be safe. And there is potential that he will do it again. And again. And again.

Thankfully, it will never be introduced in any EU country again. We should be thankful for that.

Toby Take a Bow · 16-09-2012 9:42pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Just because most murder sentences are 10-15 years long doesn't mean that 10-15 years is all they deserve.

So, the 10-15 years you're allowing prisoners in case new evidence arises would be longer than now?

3ndahalfof6 · 16-09-2012 9:45pm

DazMarz wrote: »

It is wrong to take a life, regardless of what they have done. Nobody should take a life.

Eye for an eye and all that is ancient and barbaric. Fair enough, a murderer has taken a life. But killing them will not bring their victim back, it will accomplish absolutely nothing. It will not deter future murderers. If the death penalty deterred murder, there would not have been a murder in the United States for at least 20 years (at least in the states where the death penalty is applied).

The only argument I heard of that I almost agreed with was that while the death penalty is not an effective method of deterring capital crime, it will (very obviously) stop the perpetrator from committing further crimes. Particularly in the case of sadistic child murderers and others who would repeat their offences if they ever got released (as we know, in this country a life sentence usually is 20 years; people who get life almost invariably get back out before they die). It simply stops potential habitual perpetrators by eliminating them.

But even that argument did not persuade me that the death penalty is justified, regardless of the crime. If someone is sentenced to life, the only way they should ever leave prison is in a hearse. But they should not be killed by the state.

The death penalty is wrong. It is revenge and it is rooted in ancient history.

There is also the risk of a completely innocent person getting executed. Not only is this a tragedy, but it has another unacceptable consequence; the true perpetrator goes free. While everyone believes justice has been done, case closed and no further investigations into the crime... the real perp is walking around. He is either grinning like a mad thing and loving it, or he packs up and legs it just to be safe. And there is potential that he will do it again. And again. And again.

Thankfully, it will never be introduced in any EU country again. We should be thankful for that.

I think there are plenty of situations where the taking of a life merits the taking of that humans life,

just not in public.

Reintroduce the Death Penalty in Ireland

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

Comments