Reintroduce the Death Penalty in Ireland

namloc1980 · 18-09-2012 11:05pm

No. The death penalty has no place in this country, besides the absolute ban on the death penalty is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. It's gone for good, thankfully.

kowloon · 18-09-2012 11:17pm

Let's just keep people locked up until we think of something that's actually better.

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 18-09-2012 11:20pm

kowloon wrote: »

Let's just keep people locked up until we think of something that's actually better.

A prison colony on the moon?

CruelCoin · 18-09-2012 11:59pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Only if the method of execution is snoo-snoo

Or Unga-Bunga

ResearchWill · 19-09-2012 12:20am

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

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.

Just so we have some facts, in 2006 the murder rate per one million population

Ireland 5.464 we came in 30th best out of 37 (no death penalty)
Singapore 3.87 came in 32nd best out of 37 (Death penalty)
Spain .781 came in 37th or the best (no death penalty)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

So there is no evidence linking murder rates to punishment.

kowloon · 19-09-2012 3:16pm

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

A prison colony on the moon?

I'd kill just for the chance to go to the moon :pac:.

sixtynine2 · 27-09-2012 10:11pm

bluewolf wrote: »

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

These numbers are meaningless without some sort of proper context. Louisiana has twice the population of new mexico, of course the murder rate is going to be higher. FWIW, I think the death penalty is acceptable for people who commit Murder. Cheaper and more sensible in the long run. State sanctioned Murder, oh noes is a poor argument. A police officer can shoot you dead if you pull a gun. Yet that isn't a form of state sanctioned Murder? What is it will the wooly liberals and their logical inconsistencies?

Your argument is a tautology. A statement which is always true. Pointless point.

end of the road · 27-09-2012 10:38pm

sixtynine2 wrote: »

the death penalty is acceptable for people who commit Murder.
no it isn't, its as uncivilised and ferrile as them.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

Cheaper and more sensible in the long run.

no it isn't, it costs way to much, keeping them in a prison with just a cell is way cheeper. and as for sensible, meh. if theirs new evidence to clear them they can be released, and DNA evidence isn't good enough as an excuse to bring back the death penalty, its not fool proof.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

the wooly liberals and their logical inconsistencies?

better to be a wooly liberal and have standards rather then acting as uncivilised as those who we deem as such.

sixtynine2 · 27-09-2012 10:48pm

end of the road wrote: »

sixtynine2 wrote: »

the death penalty is acceptable for people who commit Murder.
no it isn't, its as uncivilised and ferrile as them.

no it isn't, it costs way to much, keeping them in a prison with just a cell is way cheeper. and as for sensible, meh. if theirs new evidence to clear them they can be released, and DNA evidence isn't good enough as an excuse to bring back the death penalty, its not fool proof.

better to be a wooly liberal and have standards rather then acting as uncivilised as those who we deem as such.

I have a suspicion you are trolling, but either way, I highly doubt it's cheaper to house a criminal for say 30 years, versus a small fee for a noose and pole or even a bullet. I agree DNA evidence can be fabricated and forensics is nowhere near as advanced as people are led to believe. What is wrong with killing people who have proven they aren't capable of respecting the most fundamental rule of society? You can only invoke the death penalty if there is clear and convincing evidence, otherwise it's too risky. Innocent people dying isn't an argument against the death penalty. It's bound to happen. Like accidental death. We need dead people and their organs for harvesting all the time I am afraid. Sad fact of life, yet I don't see it being outlawed soon.

end of the road · 27-09-2012 11:11pm

sixtynine2 wrote: »

I have a suspicion you are trolling

no, i don't troll, i just give my opinions, thats what this forum is for last time i checked..

sixtynine2 wrote: »

I highly doubt it's cheaper to house a criminal for say 30 years, versus a small fee for a noose and pole or even a bullet.

well neither of those ways would most lightly be used, lethal injection would be the most lightly method.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

I agree DNA evidence can be fabricated and forensics is nowhere near as advanced as people are led to believe.

absolutely

sixtynine2 wrote: »

What is wrong with killing people who have proven they aren't capable of respecting the most fundamental rule of society?

what is right with it, its backward and outdated,

sixtynine2 wrote: »

You can only invoke the death penalty if there is clear and convincing evidence

clear and convincing evidence is not good enough for the death penalty.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

it's too risky.

hit the knail on the head.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

Innocent people dying isn't an argument against the death penalty.

it very much is

sixtynine2 wrote: »

It's bound to happen. Like accidental death.

not good enough

sixtynine2 wrote: »

We need dead people and their organs for harvesting all the time I am afraid. Sad fact of life, yet I don't see it being outlawed soon.

i agree, why would it be outlawed? people give consent for their organs to be donated, okay we have had cases where organs were just removed but the law says it can't be done without the donators consent.

Reindeer · 28-09-2012 12:03am

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

Perhaps you'd also like to bring attention to the amount of condemned persons whom have been found to be innocent, improperly tried, railroaded, or pardoned:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

Capt'n Midnight · 28-09-2012 12:46am

sixtynine2 wrote: »

These numbers are meaningless without some sort of proper context. Louisiana has twice the population of new mexico, of course the murder rate is going to be higher. FWIW, I think the death penalty is acceptable for people who commit Murder. Cheaper and more sensible in the long run.

those numbers were per capita

also in the US it costs more to execute someone than keep them in prison for life by the time you've gone through all the appeals and processes

MJ23 · 28-09-2012 12:51am

Id vote in favour of it anyway. Along with Castration or Penectomy for sex offenders.

yizorselves · 28-09-2012 1:13am

Its ok only when there is no doubt. Unforunately mistakes can be made and its not worth the death of one innocent person.

Pride Fighter · 28-09-2012 1:42am

I'm against the death penalty.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind- Ghandi

He put it better than I ever could.

sixtynine2 · 28-09-2012 12:31pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

those numbers were per capita

also in the US it costs more to execute someone than keep them in prison for life by the time you've gone through all the appeals and processes

Which is a fraudulent measure really. It tells me nothing about the group dynamics of a population for a given area. Measuring anything "by capita" amounts to quackery. Hard Science research avoids "by capita" for this very reason. It's the arts students and social "scientists" that live by "per capita". Show me a single Physicist who uses that term, and I will show you a pig who can fly. Deal? The second point is debatable. The long drop hang method is pretty effective. Breaks the neck instantly. If you get the rope length/weight distribution incorrect though, somebody is going to die painfully.

sixtynine2 · 28-09-2012 12:41pm

end of the road wrote: »

no, i don't troll, i just give my opinions, thats what this forum is for last time i checked..

My apologies so. I tend to react too quickly sometimes.

end of the road wrote: »

well neither of those ways would most lightly be used, lethal injection would be the most lightly method.

I disagree. Long drop for example is a better method. It's been around far longer. Lethal Injection isn't as humane as people are led to believe. Quite painfull actually.

end of the road wrote: »

what is right with it, its backward and outdated,

In some instances, it's the most logical choice. Once you remove every shred of emotion bar retribution from the equation, it makes sense. Singapore has one of the lowest murder rates in the world. You can be put to death there for drug offences, much less murder. They don't fcuk around, which is to be respected really.

end of the road wrote: »

clear and convincing evidence is not good enough for the death penalty.

Nor for any criminal cases. This is implied by my statement. It's well known the balance of probabilities only applies to civil law.

end of the road wrote: »

i agree, why would it be outlawed? people give consent for their organs to be donated, okay we have had cases where organs were just removed but the law says it can't be done without the donators consent.

People also give an implied form of consent to have their lives terminated in a country with the death penalty. Just because you don't sign something, does not mean you don't agree to the terms of the death penalty in say, Singapore. Play in their back garden, respect their rules. Simples.

end of the road · 28-09-2012 1:44pm

sixtynine2 wrote: »

My apologies so. I tend to react too quickly sometimes.

fair enough

sixtynine2 wrote: »

I disagree. Long drop for example is a better method. It's been around far longer.

it may be quick, but in a western country the lightlyhood of it being used as a method are slim.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

Lethal Injection isn't as humane as people are led to believe. Quite painfull actually.

i would agree with that.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

In some instances, it's the most logical choice. Once you remove every shred of emotion bar retribution from the equation, it makes sense.

no its not, no it doesn't, its backward outdated and doesn't work, it never has worked.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

Singapore has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

theirs no evidence to say thats to do with having the death penalty, if we follow that logic the states in america which have it should have extremely low murder rates, they don't.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

You can be put to death there for drug offences, much less murder.

still no evidence the death penalty is the reason. and as for being executed for drugs offenses, i bet you that doesn't work either. murder and drugs are probably not in the nature of the people of Singapore anyway.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

People also give an implied form of consent to have their lives terminated in a country with the death penalty. Just because you don't sign something, does not mean you don't agree to the terms of the death penalty in say, Singapore. Play in their back garden, respect their rules. Simples.

no, it isn't (simples) and i wouldn't respect the rules of a nutcase country like Singapore which because something works there doesn't mean it will here. they don't sign anything saying (i give my consent to have my life terminated) so death penalty or not, if they don't give their consent its murder. an implied form of consent isn't good enough in this case. a civilised nation like ireland doesn't need the death penalty, it would be a waste of time.

Pumpkinseeds · 28-09-2012 2:00pm

I'm against the death penalty. I would like to see a life sentence mean a life sentence and not x amount of years in jail. Anybody sentenced to life in prison shouldn't be released from jail until they are being buried.

Capt'n Midnight · 28-09-2012 2:25pm

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm against the death penalty. I would like to see a life sentence mean a life sentence and not x amount of years in jail. Anybody sentenced to life in prison shouldn't be released from jail until they are being buried.

Does the three strikes rule work ?

Why is crack cocaine so much worse than cocaine ?

And cannabis ? The first three times you can get probation so no jail. And then on the next bust you are in jail for life.

Also with cannabis you get a bonus sentence if within 305m of a school (try getting more than this distance away in a city)

It's far too easy to get a life sentence in the states.

not to mention that judge who got backhanders from a private juvenile prison how many lives were ruined ??
because if it happened once, it's probably happening elsewhere

1ZRed · 28-09-2012 3:13pm

An eye for an eye doesn't work. I think death should be reinforced as wrong in all circumstances and there shouldn't be any clauses about it which would make it acceptable in certain situations.

Throw them into prison for extended periods of time and tackle the social problems that give rise to many of these sort of people. Try to rehabilitate them as best you can and give them their punishment.
I know it's easy to say if they've done terrible things like rape/murder people or children to say kill them, but that's not exactly a great message to be sending people either. At lest not in my view because we're more civilised than that.

There'll always be people for an against this for good reason, prisons are full and the funding is scarce to contain them for their crimes, but morals should come into play and make sure we stay above them and not stoop to their level.

The fact that innocent people have been killed because they were falsely accused should be enough of a factor to stop this from being reintroduced because there will always be a chance that could happen in future as well.

Pumpkinseeds · 28-09-2012 3:25pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Does the three strikes rule work ?

Why is crack cocaine so much worse than cocaine ?

And cannabis ? The first three times you can get probation so no jail. And then on the next bust you are in jail for life.

Also with cannabis you get a bonus sentence if within 305m of a school (try getting more than this distance away in a city)

It's far too easy to get a life sentence in the states.

not to mention that judge who got backhanders from a private juvenile prison how many lives were ruined ??
because if it happened once, it's probably happening elsewhere

I'm not referring to the American judicial system. I'm referring to the Irish system.

af_thefragile · 28-09-2012 3:30pm

Kill all who disagree with me!!!

FairytaleGirl · 28-09-2012 3:31pm

I dont think the death penalty is the answer for various reasons laid out in this thread.

What I do think should happen however, is that prisons are made more like, well prisons. All this crap about Prisoners and their Human Rights is ridiculpus, one.you stop acting like a human being and murder someone you shouldnt be afforded human rights. Some ppl in prisons live better than those outside- 3 meals a day, free dental and doctor visits (wihin 24hrs i may add) xbox's, TVs, Gyms, free education, and )in the north anyway) a weekly allowance from the state.

Bring back food with the lowest possible nutritional value, 23hours a day in a cell and a holy book as the only reading material.
That and real sentences for real crimes, none of this suspended.****e or people going to jail for not paying their tv licence when druggie,robbing scummers walk the streets.

af_thefragile · 28-09-2012 3:36pm

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I'm against the death penalty.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind- Ghandi

He put it better than I ever could.

On a more serious note, if you go soft on criminals, the fear of committing a crime will go away. What's the worse that could happen? Few years in prison where you can hang out with your mates and get free breakfast, lunch and dinner...

Soft sentences may work in countries like Norway where crime in low because of the wealth of the nation and good social support.

In countries that are broke, such as here, its much easier for many people living in poor social standards to pull out a knife and rob some passer by or join a gang and start dealing drugs than it is to work hard in school, then work hard in college for a degree that still won't assure you a job and a stable source of income.

Also some criminals just don't deserve to live. Its like the quote from watchmen "humans are punished, dogs are put down".

end of the road · 28-09-2012 4:06pm

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

What I do think should happen however, is that prisons are made more like, well prisons.

they all ready are, sure they could lose the tvs and x boxes (if they really have x boxes)

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

All this crap about Prisoners and their Human Rights is ridiculpus

no it isn't, in a civilised society you have to have standards, even for criminals, they don't have to be anything special but the basics.

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

you stop acting like a human being and murder someone you shouldnt be afforded human rights.

doesn't work like that i'm afraid. human rights are for everyone, for criminals they can be just the basics.

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

ppl

you mean people? (sorry couldn't resist) (i'l get me coat)

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

Some people in prisons live better than those outside- 3 meals a day, free dental and doctor visits

thats the fault of the system in this country all though doctor and dental visits i don't have a problem with.

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

xbox's, TVs, Gyms, free education

i wouldn't believe everything you read in the papers in relation to prisons in this country you know, they do have tvs but xbox's? i would question whether thats true or not to be honest. as for free education, well if it helps some people come out better well its worth it, to be honest education in prison should be mandatary.

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

Bring back food with the lowest possible nutritional value

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

23hours a day in a cell

for serious criminals yes, maybe.

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

a holy book as the only reading material.

yeah a most lightly hypocritical holy book which in one sentence says thou shal not kill but then says an eye for an eye. fantastic reading material.

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

real sentences for real crimes, none of this suspended.****e or people going to jail for not paying their tv licence

i agree, if your given a sentence to serve you should serve it.

end of the road · 28-09-2012 4:15pm

af_thefragile wrote: »

if you go soft on criminals, the fear of committing a crime will go away.

and it won't with the death penalty? yeah right. if someone is going to commit a crime their going to commit a crime, after all they don't think they will be caught.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Soft sentences may work in countries like Norway where crime in low because of the wealth of the nation and good social support.

nobody said soft sentences work, soft for not so serious crime and life for serious crimes such as murder, rape, and child abuse.

af_thefragile wrote: »

In countries that are broke, such as here, its much easier for many people living in poor social standards to pull out a knife and rob some passer by or join a gang and start dealing drugs than it is to work hard in school, then work hard in college for a degree that still won't assure you a job and a stable source of income.

true, but the death penalty isn't going to make that go away

af_thefragile wrote: »

Also some criminals just don't deserve to live.

but it isn't up to anyone to make that call.

Crooked Jack · 28-09-2012 4:30pm

af_thefragile wrote: »

On a more serious note, if you go soft on criminals, the fear of committing a crime will go away. What's the worse that could happen? Few years in prison where you can hang out with your mates and get free breakfast, lunch and dinner...

Soft sentences may work in countries like Norway where crime in low because of the wealth of the nation and good social support.

In countries that are broke, such as here, its much easier for many people living in poor social standards to pull out a knife and rob some passer by or join a gang and start dealing drugs than it is to work hard in school, then work hard in college for a degree that still won't assure you a job and a stable source of income.

Also some criminals just don't deserve to live. Its like the quote from watchmen "humans are punished, dogs are put down".

I absolutely love the film (and graphic novel) Watchmen. But God save us from the day we base our judicial system on it.

sixtynine2 · 28-09-2012 4:30pm

af_thefragile wrote: »

On a more serious note, if you go soft on criminals, the fear of committing a crime will go away. What's the worse that could happen? Few years in prison where you can hang out with your mates and get free breakfast, lunch and dinner...

Soft sentences may work in countries like Norway where crime in low because of the wealth of the nation and good social support.

In countries that are broke, such as here, its much easier for many people living in poor social standards to pull out a knife and rob some passer by or join a gang and start dealing drugs than it is to work hard in school, then work hard in college for a degree that still won't assure you a job and a stable source of income.

Also some criminals just don't deserve to live. Its like the quote from watchmen "humans are punished, dogs are put down".

I agree. The death penalty used in the correct context is a matter of judicial optimisation. Keeping people locked behind bars until their natural death is somehow less humane than simply breaking their neck with the application of force until death? Most of the arguments against amount to "it's inhumane, think of their rights etc etc" without regard to the crime. You have to look beyond human rights in proven cases, they forfeited their human rights by breaking the law. The Human Rights Charter should not come into it. As I said earlier, play in their yard, expect to play by their rules. It's not like you have the right to tell say, Singapore, a Sovereign nation, how they should run their country.

FWIW - I always research a country and it's laws generally before leaving. You should do the same. Singapore may have ultra draconian laws, but they work. That has to be respected imo. That place was under British rule too. Unlike Ireland though, the inhabitants have serious balls. They don't put up with law breakers, unlike here. We could learn a few things from that country imo.

sixtynine2 · 28-09-2012 4:37pm

end of the road wrote: »

but it isn't up to anyone to make that call.

If someone broke into your house wielding a gun or knife at somebody you personally knew, I am sure you would not be long changing your opinion:p

charlemont · 28-09-2012 4:39pm

Wouldn't be half the crime in Ireland if some the laws weren't so backward and if the legal system wasn't only interested in money.

seamus · 28-09-2012 4:50pm

af_thefragile wrote: »

On a more serious note, if you go soft on criminals, the fear of committing a crime will go away.

There is a point beyond which increasing the severity of the penalty will not have any effect on the numbers of people committing a crime.

For low-level crime, there's a risk:reward ratio which the criminal subconsciously evaluates before committing the crime.

The risk is a combination of the odds of being caught and the penalty for being caught, and the reward is whatever the criminal gets out of it - usually monetary in the case of low-level crime.
High risk with low reward, and the majority of criminals will simply not go near it. Low risk with relatively high reward, they swarm all over it. Increase the risk, they back off. This is why it works in Singapore - crime of relatively low reward (like littering or mugging) carries a very high risk, which most sane people consider too high for the reward.

But in terms of increasing the risk for the criminal, there is a tipping point where the 99.9% will not take the high risk for any reward, but the 0.1% will go for the reward regardless of the risk.

In other words, the kind of criminals who engage in headline crimes such as murder, do so in the belief that they will not be caught. They're not thinking, "If I'm caught I'll only do ten years", the concept of being caught simply doesn't register with them.

This is why increasing the penalty for murder (for example) from 20 years to execution, has no actual effect on the crime rate.

The risk:reward basis is also why crime is higher in poorer populations and lower in more affluent ones.

GalwayGuy2 · 28-09-2012 4:54pm

What about for people who, for some reasons, just won't stop killing. I personally wouldn't apply it to terrorists (you'd only martyr them), but what about serial rapists, or serial murderers, or serial child molesters, so on so forth?

TheCoolWay · 28-09-2012 4:56pm

Stupid debate, not going to happen especially in Ireland.

seamus · 28-09-2012 5:00pm

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

What about for people who, for some reasons, just won't stop killing. I personally wouldn't apply it to terrorists (you'd only martyr them), but what about serial rapists, or serial murderers, or serial child molesters, so on so forth?

If you lock them up for life, then they don't get the opportunity to be "serial" anything.

Anyone who acts with complete disregard and emotional disconnection from their victim, such as violent rape, murder, etc, is mentally ill. It's a mental illness for which there is no known cure, and they should be locked up for the rest of their natural lives.

Not to punish them, but to protect the rest of us.

end of the road · 28-09-2012 5:07pm

sixtynine2 wrote: »

You have to look beyond human rights in proven cases,

no you don't. they can be the bare basic ones.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

they forfeited their human rights by breaking the law. The

their right to freedom yes, any of the basics no.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

The Human Rights Charter should not come into it.

absolutely it should, either you emplement it or don't.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

Singapore may have ultra draconian laws, but they work.

i would say the culture has a lot to play more then the actual laws, and if they have to be ultra draconian laws i would suggest that actually they have a lot of problems over there that they need such laws to sort.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

Unlike Ireland though, the inhabitants have serious balls.
yeah, because
ultra draconian laws and executing people means you have balls. uncivilised and ferrile is more like it i say.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

They don't put up with law breakers, unlike here.

we can't afford to deal with every single law breaker. change the justice system and bring in longer sentences for serious crimes and life for the likes of murder and we will then be dealing with them properly.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

We could learn a few things from that country imo.

not from that country we couldn't, were not that desperate, rather we do our own things our way then look to the likes of singapore for answers.

sixtynine2 · 28-09-2012 5:12pm

seamus wrote: »

This is why it works in Singapore - crime of relatively low reward (like littering or mugging) carries a very high risk, which most sane people consider too high for the reward.

But in terms of increasing the risk for the criminal, there is a tipping point where the 99.9% will not take the high risk for any reward, but the 0.1% will go for the reward regardless of the risk.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that supreme high risk indictable offences are less likely to be prosecuted, that they won't be investigated to the fullest extent of the law? All indictable offences have no statute of limitations, whereas your "high risk" offences as you state do. What are you talking about? Do you have any evidence to back up your arguments?

end of the road · 28-09-2012 5:13pm

sixtynine2 wrote: »

If someone broke into your house wielding a gun or knife at somebody you personally knew, I am sure you would not be long changing your opinion

nice try, but no.

sixtynine2 · 28-09-2012 5:17pm

end of the road wrote: »

nice try, but no.

Would you sit it out and ring the police instead? I reckon that would be the "polite" response, especially if there is no immediate threat, but you could be dead before you even dial the number if the criminal is carrying say, and automatic weapon. In those situations, the difference between life and death can be a matter of seconds.

sixtynine2 · 28-09-2012 5:21pm

seamus wrote: »

Anyone who acts with complete disregard and emotional disconnection from their victim, such as violent rape, murder, etc, is mentally ill.

Proof? There are no currently proven biomarkers for any claimed biological "mental illness". Not to say important medical problems like Depression aren't serious, but they haven't been proven to be of a purely pathological disease process, at least not yet. There is no evidence to support this claim I am afraid. Your theory hasn't been proven in the natural world I am afraid.

seamus · 28-09-2012 5:26pm

sixtynine2 wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to suggest that supreme high risk indictable offences are less likely to be prosecuted,

No. Read my post again, you've drawn a conclusion which doesn't match up to anything whatsoever in my post.

sixtynine2 wrote: »

Proof? There are no currently proven biomarkers for any claimed biological "mental illness". Not to say important medical problems like Depression aren't serious, but they haven't been proven to be of a purely pathological disease process, at least not yet. There is no evidence to support this claim I am afraid. Your theory hasn't been proven in the natural world I am afraid.

I never theorised that mental illness had any pathological factor. It's implicit in the name, it's an illness in cognitive behaviour, not biology.

GalwayGuy2 · 28-09-2012 5:34pm

But in terms of increasing the risk for the criminal, there is a tipping point where the 99.9% will not take the high risk for any reward, but the 0.1% will go for the reward regardless of the risk.

I'm going to compare that situation to the Night Watch:P If they're dead anyway, what's to stop them from committing worse crimes, or even band together to the big criminal gangs.

Not to punish them, but to protect the rest of us.

But wouldn't it be better to just kill them? In all honesty it would be a kindness, and if you lock anybody up for life it would just excasberate their symptoms. And in all honesty, what wouldn't someone do to get out of life imprisonment (especially in the hell holes that are our prisons. )

GalwayGuy2 · 28-09-2012 5:37pm

Proof? There are no currently proven biomarkers for any claimed biological "mental illness". Not to say important medical problems like Depression aren't serious, but they haven't been proven to be of a purely pathological disease process

There is actually a gene that is associated with psychopaths, I think. Although, there's a debate whether environmental or biological matter more

old hippy · 28-09-2012 5:37pm

Nobody has the right to murder anyone else. Crims or the state.

However, if the convicted criminal seeks euthanasia, I might be more favourable. Maybe.

sixtynine2 · 28-09-2012 5:38pm

seamus wrote: »

No. Read my post again, you've drawn a conclusion which doesn't match up to anything whatsoever in my post.
I never theorised that mental illness had any pathological factor. It's implicit in the name, it's an illness in cognitive behaviour, not biology.

No idea what your point is. Sorry, you will have to explain it to me like i'm 10. Illness isn't used in reference to behaviour in any medical or authority dictionary as far as I know. Therefore, it isn't correct to state a behaviour represents any form of illness. It does not. Behaviour without relevant pathological changes is a behaviour, not an illness. Just want to clear that up.

sixtynine2 · 28-09-2012 5:39pm

old hippy wrote: »

Nobody has the right to murder anyone else. Crims or the state.

However, if the convicted criminal seeks euthanasia, I might be more favourable. Maybe.

These two statments contradict each other.

AnnyHallsal · 28-09-2012 5:41pm

Over my dead body :pac:

sixtynine2 · 28-09-2012 5:43pm

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

There is actually a gene that is associated with psychopaths, I think. Although, there's a debate whether environmental or biological matter more

A mere Association does not prove Causation. There is no debate, because it hasn't been shown scientifically yet that "psychopathy" is the result of any genetic disease, it's simply a choice somebody makes. The OMIM database lists nothing on "psychopathy". I call BS.

old hippy · 28-09-2012 5:44pm

sixtynine2 wrote: »

These two statments contradict each other.

How so? If a person choses to end their own life, that's a different thing altogether. Not murder, in my book.

I'm all in favour of euthanasia when a person is too ill to go on - I'm kinda in favour if the person is a convicted criminal with no chance of rehabilitation. But if they wanted it - it's still their choice. Anything else if murder.

sixtynine2 · 28-09-2012 5:56pm

old hippy wrote: »

How so? If a person choses to end their own life, that's a different thing altogether. Not murder, in my book.

I'm all in favour of euthanasia when a person is too ill to go on - I'm kinda in favour if the person is a convicted criminal with no chance of rehabilitation. But if they wanted it - it's still their choice. Anything else if murder.

No you are right. I didn't read your question properly. You are correct.

Reintroduce the Death Penalty in Ireland

Comments