should the death penalty be brought back?

BuffyBot

i think some people are getting pissed off with the way serious criminals are being treated in this country.

You think, you think. I wonder what people are thinking sometimes. Thinking something isn't good enough. Your gut feeling isn't good enough. When it comes to the matter of life and death you need more than what you think to support your position.

There are so many cases of wrongful execution along those which would have been terrible mistakes had the death penalty been an option to even consider it. It's very easily to rationalise off these mistakes for "the greater good".

bonkey

BuffyBot wrote:

It's very easily to rationalise off these mistakes for "the greater good".

And thats what a lot of it boils down to, isn't it...

I'm reading with a degree of amusement the posts commenting that rehabilitation/deterrance/punishment doesn't work, so lets just shoot the fsckers.

Why? Because it will be a cheaper way of dealing with society's failures in not preventing these crimes and in not finding a way (do we even try any more) to actually work on concepts like rehabilitation.

Killing the convicted is an easy way out. It avoids having to ask many difficult questions, and face many difficult truths.

Its particularly convenient for re-inforcing the belief (for those seem to hold it) that anyone who makes a claim about their social background / mental condition / whatever being at least a contributing factor must be just abusing the system to get off easily, because then we don't need to deal with the questions that would otherwise be raised....

We just have to deal with the criminals - who often are the symptoms of the problem - rather than the conditions that gave rise (or helped give rise) to the problem in the first place.

And lets not forget miscarriages of justice. I'm sure every advocate of the death penalty will say that sometimes you just have to accept these things as the unfortunate consequences of an imprefect world....but doesn't that sound like one of those cop-out pleas that the same people are typically complaining about? Not only that, but what if it was you who was wrongly accused? Or your loved one(s)? Would you be happy to see them tried, sentenced, and shot without you having further time to try and prove that there was a miscarriage. Would you accept a "Gee, sorry about that, but it is all for the greater good" apology if you lost a family member to such a miscarriage of justice?

jc

whosurpaddy

ionapaul wrote:

Yes yes yes. Why don't we have hard labour any more?

I think we need to stop looking at prison/the justice system as a means of delivering rehabilitation. Maybe it is society's fault (though that must infuriate the vast majority of socially-marginalised people who never commit serious crimes and work hard throughout their lives!) but some people (IMO) cannot be rehabilitated and will simply keep on breaking the law until they die. Look at the ringleader of the gang that gang raped the woman in Clare and seriously assaulted her partner. He had been convicted over 30 times, still in his teens, and is now in jail for a few years. Can anyone argue that keeping him alive is in any way good for the wider society? In the knowledge that once he is out, he will certainly continue to reoffend?
Prison/the justice system is a means of delivering punishment, and increasingly in Ireland the punishment does not fit the crime. Life does not mean life. Stab someone a few times, let your lawyer say you come from a broken home/stressful marriage/whatever, but are 'looking for work' and trying to control your drinking, and you get off with a two year suspended sentence! Maybe judges nationwide are not as lenient as those I recall from the local Galway papers.
Should serial rapists or child molesters be allowed back into society after their 3rd, 4th, 5th offence? I really don't think so.

i was just thinking about that case when reading this thread(wasnt it limerick though?). can anyone say in all honesty, that those 3(possibly 4) guys dont deserve the death penalty for what they did, they destroyed that couples lives. they are sub-human to have dont what they did.

I would definitely believe in life imprisonment meaning just that. with a strong leaning toward the death penalty. Id also subscribe to the "prisoners should be doing something beneficial to society while serving their sentence" sentiment.

deadduck

ionapaul wrote:

Prison/the justice system is a means of delivering punishment, and increasingly in Ireland the punishment does not fit the crime. Life does not mean life. Stab someone a few times, let your lawyer say you come from a broken home/stressful marriage/whatever, but are 'looking for work' and trying to control your drinking, and you get off with a two year suspended sentence! Maybe judges nationwide are not as lenient as those I recall from the local Galway papers.
Should serial rapists or child molesters be allowed back into society after their 3rd, 4th, 5th offence? I really don't think so.

exactly what i mean, this countrys become too bloody lenient. As stated above, the punishment no longer fits the crime. crime is gonna keep going up and up til serious measures are taken, mark my words.

as for that crowd of rapist scum in clare, you can all guess my opinion there. how the do-gooders of the country can say they don't deserve to die is mind boggling.

Nuttzz

Why? Because it will be a cheaper way of dealing with society's failures in not preventing these crimes and in not finding a way (do we even try any more) to actually work on concepts like rehabilitation.

Personally i dont see how gang rapists or kiddie fiddlers can be rehabilitated, or why my tax euros should be wasted on trying to either.

ionapaul

The 'it is society's fault' argument - though somewhat valid - is also a kick in the teeth to the vast majority of people born in the run-down areas of Limerick, Dublin, Galway, wherever who never decide to go down the route of violence and crime.
Is it also society's fault when a white-collar banking executive steals his employer's money to go from being merely rich to super-rich? After all, in this horribly inequitable world, who can fully describe the hurt and pain the rich must feel when they see others EVEN richer! If I had a '04 BMW and saw some bastard in a '04 Bentley swan around town, I'd definitely feel justified in doing whatever I could to resolve the inequitable situation and return things to a more even footing.
Sorry for inserting an element of the ridiculous into the debate, but you see my point.

A little off-topic, that American schoolteacher who mothered two children by her teenage lover just was released from prison today, after 7 1/2 years for her second child rape (though consensual, so no violence) offence - does anyone doubt that the Limerick lads will be all out in a year or two? Why is our system so lenient? Again, does anyone know offhand why we got rid of hard labour in this country? Was it abused or was it reaction by the Home Rule government to an instrument overused by the British?

Lemming

:rolleyes:


Here's a suggestion for all the blood-thirsty "reality-tv" addicts out there ....

Why don't we just nuke the planet. Scour it clean of the human race. Then there'll be 100% likelihood of no further crime. And it wont cost anything to maintain either .....

Addict: "But what about all the innocents that'll die".

Me: "What about them? They're probably all criminals anyway"

:rolleyes:

Oh, and you've all missed the point about serial rapists and "neutering" them thinking it'll do any good. And no, killing them isn't an answer either.

whosurpaddy

Lemming wrote:

:rolleyes:


Here's a suggestion for all the blood-thirsty "reality-tv" addicts out there ....

Why don't we just nuke the planet. Scour it clean of the human race. Then there'll be 100% likelihood of no further crime. And it wont cost anything to maintain either .....

Addict: "But what about all the innocents that'll die".

Me: "What about them? They're probably all criminals anyway"

:rolleyes:

Oh, and you've all missed the point about serial rapists and "neutering" them thinking it'll do any good. And no, killing them isn't an answer either.

wow. what a great arguement, youve convinced me. cheers for the "blood-thirsty reality-tv addicts" generalisation and the :rolleyes: btw


oh and whats the problem with chemically castrating the rapists?

deadduck

Lemming wrote:

:rolleyes:


Here's a suggestion for all the blood-thirsty "reality-tv" addicts out there ....

Why don't we just nuke the planet. Scour it clean of the human race. Then there'll be 100% likelihood of no further crime. And it wont cost anything to maintain either .....

Addict: "But what about all the innocents that'll die".

Me: "What about them? They're probably all criminals anyway"

:rolleyes:

Oh, and you've all missed the point about serial rapists and "neutering" them thinking it'll do any good. And no, killing them isn't an answer either.

thats a load of balls and you know it

Flukey

Of course the death penalty should not be returned. It is completely contradictory. Basically you are saying: "Murder is completely wrong and because you murdered we are going to murder you." If a person is later found innocent, you can't exactly go down to the graveyard, dig them up and send them on their way. Lock them up permanently, unless they are found innocent later. What then happens to the judge, jury and executioner that sent them to their death? They have now been proven to have killed an innocent person with absolutely no doubt. Shouldn't they be then hanged, by the standards of their own justice?

Anyway, even if you do support the death penalty, by your own logic you would never use it. "What?" I hear you say! Well, think about it. If you support the death penalty you therefore think it is OK to kill people. So if someone is found guilty of murder, you won't see that they have done anything wrong, so would have no reason to sentence them to death, would you? You can't have it both ways. Either killing people is wrong or it isn't. It is wrong, so you can't justify the death penalty without contradicting yourself. Lock them up, permanently!

Morpheus

death penalty is a good deterrant.

you honestly think that theres not at least one criminal out there who would reconsider commiting a serious offence if they knew they could end up in an electric chair for it?

personally i voted to keep it in the constitution, i think it was a mistake to remove it, even at least for killing on duty gardai or defence forces personel, i mean the gardai are usually unarmed. I think it would serve as a deterrent to armed criminals to shoot one of them.

ionapaul

Lemming wrote:

Here's a suggestion for all the blood-thirsty "reality-tv" addicts out there ....

Why don't we just nuke the planet. Scour it clean of the human race. Then there'll be 100% likelihood of no further crime. And it wont cost anything to maintain either .....

To be fair, I think what people are discussing here are solely murderers, rapists, and other such henious violent criminals. No-one is suggesting the death penalty for graffiti artists or TV license evaders! Or even NIB management
In my mind there is a world of difference between a violent and non-violent crime. Perhaps that is just cultural/economic class prejudice coming out! But I think someone using a hammer on a little old lady for €10 is a worse criminal than an executive pilferring €10,000 from his employer's accounts. Doubt the employer sees it that way though!

deadduck

Flukey wrote:

Of course the death penalty should not be returned. It is completely contradictory. Basically you are saying: "Murder is completely wrong and because you murdered we are going to murder you." If a person is later found innocent, you can't exactly go down to the graveyard, dig them up and send them on their way. Lock them up permanently, unless they are found innocent later. What then happens to the judge, jury and executioner that sent them to their death? They have now been proven to have killed an innocent person with absolutely no doubt. Shouldn't they be then hanged, by the standards of their own justice?

Anyway, even if you do support the death penalty, by your own logic you would never use it. "What?" I hear you say! Well, think about it. If you support the death penalty you therefore think it is OK to kill people. So if someone is found guilty of murder, you won't see that they have done anything wrong, so would have no reason to sentence them to death, would you? You can't have it both ways. Either killing people is wrong or it isn't. It is wrong, so you can't justify the death penalty without contradicting yourself. Lock them up, permanently!

i think you'll find it'd be a case of lawful vs. unlawful, not right vs. wrong

oscarBravo

Morph&#233 wrote: »

death penalty is a good deterrant.

you honestly think that theres not at least one criminal out there who would reconsider commiting a serious offence if they knew they could end up in an electric chair for it?

That explains the low murder rate in the US, then.

deadduck wrote:

thats a load of balls and you know it

How about answering some of the other points that have been made? Like bonkey's, for example?

Why execute them when you can lock 'em up for the rest of their lives and get them to do something useful like.. break rocks, or... sort rubbish into piles that can and can't be recycled. There's a hundred and one ways cheap/free labour could be helpful to society

And the same people, that protest the introduction of the death sentence, would protest saying that its against the rights of the convict. Lets face it. If these groups have managed to convince the government to supply tv & internet access to convicts, they're going to be able to block any move to make convicts pay for their crimes.

Of course the death penalty should not be returned. It is completely contradictory. Basically you are saying: "Murder is completely wrong and because you murdered we are going to murder you." If a person is later found innocent, you can't exactly go down to the graveyard, dig them up and send them on their way. Lock them up permanently, unless they are found innocent later.

Ahh thats the rub. Imprisonment in its current form isn't a punishment. These people broke the laws of Society. They chose to live outside of societies guidelines/lifestyle. The idea of prison is to rehabilitate or punish individuals for crimes that have committed. Perhaps you could provide another option, instead of the death penalty, since Prison obviously doesn't work?

Lock them up, permanently!

Which is not going to happen. At least not in Ireland. We live in a nanny state where "prisoner right" groups have too much influence. A "life" sentence will still mean at most 20 years (for lesser "life" crimes). Repeat crimes will cointinue to be given 5-10 years with them serving 4. Wooptie Do! Wonderful.

Personal Opinion: Allow life sentences to be a maximum of 40 years, with those convicted beyond that stage, being hit with the death penalty. That way only those with excessive crimes would be killed, and the remainder would serve in the traditional ineffective manner.

ionapaul

Morph&#233 wrote: »

death penalty is a good deterrant.

you honestly think that theres not at least one criminal out there who would reconsider commiting a serious offence if they knew they could end up in an electric chair for it?

personally i voted to keep it in the constitution, i think it was a mistake to remove it, even at least for killing on duty gardai or defence forces personel, i mean the gardai are usually unarmed. I think it would serve as a deterrent to armed criminals to shoot one of them.

Although I would favour a restricted re-introduction of the death penalty (definitely in the circumstances you outline), I don't think it is a deterrant at the end of the day. None of the criminals thinks they will be caught - otherwise why do it? Like none of us think we will die young - it is just something you block out. I am in favour of the death penalty as a punishment for henious crime. Even if a government promised to execute the entire family/circle of friends/home village of a murderer, people would still murder I am afraid Likewise with rapists/sexual predators, their motivations are not financial or resulting from the inequity of society - what deterrent will stop them if their actions stem from a (twisted and inhuman) psychological need?

If life really meant life - without a large drain on the state's resources - I might be happy. Though nothing could convince me that keeping serial rapists alive is a benefit to society - surely they have relinquished their claim to humanity and life through their actions?

deadduck

bonkey wrote:

And thats what a lot of it boils down to, isn't it...

I'm reading with a degree of amusement the posts commenting that rehabilitation/deterrance/punishment doesn't work, so lets just shoot the fsckers.

Why? Because it will be a cheaper way of dealing with society's failures in not preventing these crimes and in not finding a way (do we even try any more) to actually work on concepts like rehabilitation.

Killing the convicted is an easy way out. It avoids having to ask many difficult questions, and face many difficult truths.

Its particularly convenient for re-inforcing the belief (for those seem to hold it) that anyone who makes a claim about their social background / mental condition / whatever being at least a contributing factor must be just abusing the system to get off easily, because then we don't need to deal with the questions that would otherwise be raised....

We just have to deal with the criminals - who often are the symptoms of the problem - rather than the conditions that gave rise (or helped give rise) to the problem in the first place.

And lets not forget miscarriages of justice. I'm sure every advocate of the death penalty will say that sometimes you just have to accept these things as the unfortunate consequences of an imprefect world....but doesn't that sound like one of those cop-out pleas that the same people are typically complaining about? Not only that, but what if it was you who was wrongly accused? Or your loved one(s)? Would you be happy to see them tried, sentenced, and shot without you having further time to try and prove that there was a miscarriage. Would you accept a "Gee, sorry about that, but it is all for the greater good" apology if you lost a family member to such a miscarriage of justice?

jc

don't mean to pick on bonkey, but since i was asked to address your points, here goes.

cheaper = better: more money for services the rest of us deserve

so what if it is an easy way to deal with the problem. as stated already, using social background/area as an excuse is a kick in the teeth to everyone else in similar situations who don't go out and commit unspeakable crimes

and are all the do-gooders of the belief that no-one has ever been imprisoned with 100% certainty

fiacha

i really don't think that it will be an affective deterrent. look at america or thailand. hundreds of drug dealers are sentenced to death in thailand each year. the financial rewards for these people far outway the risks, so people keep offending.

how would you like to be sentenced to death for a rape / murder you didn't commit ? how many false rape cases have ended in a conviction? last year, a neighbour of mine was all over the papers and was sentenced for a sexual assault. six months later, the "victim" admits that the claims were false. his life has been ruined by the event. if the other party had not come clean, and rape/ serious sexual assault etc carried a mandatory death penalty an innocent person would have been killed. have not heard what happened to the other person, but I hope he gets a long sentence.

i know that example is a bit extreme and that 99.99% of people convicted are guilty, but in my opinion 1 person wrongly convicted is too much.

I believe that a life sentence should mean life. the 3 strike rule that they use in parts of the states is a good idea. three convictions for a serious crime and you get a mandatory life sentence.

i do agree that in general sentences are not severe enough, but I don't think that culling the serious offenders would make much of a difference.

Gurgle

whosurpaddy wrote:

oh and whats the problem with chemically castrating the rapists?

Chemical castration ?
I had something more along the lines of a pliers in mind - and maybe a 3 strikes & your an opera singer system to protect against false accusations.

AFAIK the max sentence for rape is 12 legal years, roughly equating to 4 calendar years.

how would you like to be sentenced to death for a rape / murder you didn't commit ?

not very. But I'd hope my defense would prove my innocence. But is the problem people have with the death sentence to do with, the justice system and its effectiveness, or rather the punishments it can dish out?

i really don't think that it will be an affective deterrent. look at america or thailand. hundreds of drug dealers are sentenced to death in thailand each year. the financial rewards for these people far outway the risks, so people keep offending.

Ahh but look at the crimes within Ireland that would constitue a death sentence. And then look at the financial rewards for the people that will perform them. In Ireland, there are no poppy fields or massive rewards for kidnapping. The Death sentence would be applied to Violent offenders. In fact does anyone know that the death penalty would be applied to sex offenders?

i know that example is a bit extreme and that 99.99% of people convicted are guilty, but in my opinion 1 person wrongly convicted is too much.

And the people that are released from prison, without serving their full sentences, and continue to commit crimes, are ok? I'd ratehr 1 person being killed wrongly, than 40 people dying because our punishment system is too lenient.

deadduck

fiacha wrote:

the 3 strike rule that they use in parts of the states is a good idea. three convictions for a serious crime and you get a mandatory life sentence.

i like that idea, but why not give them the bullet after strike 3. but failing that, it seems like a good idea. (except for the cost)

Lemming

whosurpaddy wrote:

wow. what a great arguement, youve convinced me. cheers for the "blood-thirsty reality-tv addicts" generalisation and the :rolleyes: btw

I take it that sarcasm is lost on you then .......

oh and whats the problem with chemically castrating the rapists?

Because most* rapists aren't so concerned with the sexual act as with the notion of holding power over their victim(s).



* Most: ie. not 100%, not all.

whosurpaddy

Lemming wrote:

Because most* rapists aren't so concerned with the sexual act as with the notion of holding power over their victim(s).

* Most: ie. not 100%, not all.

gonna have to take your word there, but is this fact or opinion?

seamus

i think you'll find it'd be a case of lawful vs. unlawful, not right vs. wrong

So because the execution would be legal, then it must be ok? Ergo, only illegal things are wrong? So if a shop owner spends all his money on himself, forcing employees to work horrible hours for minimum wage and with nothing but the bare legal minimum of breaks and bonuses, that's ok because it's legal yeah? Because lawmakers are the be-all and end-all of moral judgement, so if they say it's legal, then it must be right. :rolleyes:

How about if tomorrow it was decided that rape is legal? Does that suddenly make it ok? How about all those countries that allow child prostitution, or don't allow women to vote? Sure, that's ok, because it's legal!

deadduck wrote:

so what if it is an easy way to deal with the problem. as stated already, using social background/area as an excuse is a kick in the teeth to everyone else in similar situations who don't go out and commit unspeakable crimes

No-one uses it as an excuse. Nobody is excused from committing a crime. What people are saying is that too many people go to the other side of the coin and say "It's never society's fault that people commit crime! Look at the all the other unfortunates who don't do it!". Taking that gang rape case, by the very virtue of the age of the offenders, it's perfectly obvious that somewhere along the line, there was a failure in someone's duty of care. Children aren't born evil. When a 14-year-old goes out and commits rape, why is it suddenly just a case of him obviously being a complete monster, when other 14 year olds would run if a woman said boo to them?
In cases such as this, society needs to look at how it can improve itself to prevent so a failure in duty of care from occuring again. Simply locking up everyone whos turns out like this isn't going to solve any problems.

and are all the do-gooders of the belief that no-one has ever been imprisoned with 100% certainty

No, I think you'll find they're of the belief that since no-one can be imprisoned with 100% certainty, then the risk of murdering an innocent person exists, and is another reason why the dearg penalty should not exist. Apparently the "accepted figure" (Google it) is that 1 in 7 people on death row are innocent. Is it worth executing 1 innocent person to get rid of 6 more? Would you be happy to die knowing that 6 more "evil" people would die too? Would you be overjoyed to hand over a member of your family to die, so that 6 horrible criminals can die too?

deadduck

no-one can be imprisoned with 100% certainty

where in hell did you pull that gem of knowledge from?

also, society will never improve to the point where rape and other such crimes will stop, so don't hold your breath on that one

ionapaul

seamus wrote:

No-one uses it as an excuse. Nobody is excused from committing a crime. What people are saying is that too many people go to the other side of the coin and say "It's never society's fault that people commit crime! Look at the all the other unfortunates who don't do it!". Taking that gang rape case, by the very virtue of the age of the offenders, it's perfectly obvious that somewhere along the line, there was a failure in someone's duty of care. Children aren't born evil. When a 14-year-old goes out and commits rape, why is it suddenly just a case of him obviously being a complete monster, when other 14 year olds would run if a woman said boo to them?
In cases such as this, society needs to look at how it can improve itself to prevent so a failure in duty of care from occuring again. Simply locking up everyone whos turns out like this isn't going to solve any problems.

Do you mean it shouldn't be used as an excuse? 'Cause you and I and everyone else here knows it is used as an excuse, everyday in every court. In reality, a lawyer would be doing his client a huge disservice if he were not to bring up this 'fact' (the horrible inequities of our society) during trial, knowing that it might get him/her off, or at least often be seen as a mitigating factor! If anything might be seen as an actual encouragement to certain criminals, it must be the fact that their social/economic background will be taken into consideration if caught for their crime!
As regards why a certain 14 year old is a monster while 99.99% others are not, this brings up a whole other argument that is probably not suitable for discussion in this thread - the old 'nature vs nurture' humdinger! I used to be a firm 'nurture' believer while in college, but having since become very interested in evolutionary theory, am swinging more towards 'nature' these days (though of course nurture is still important to any individual). I suppose those of us who believe certain people can be 'hard-wired' by nature to be more destructive and unsocial, find it easier to accept the death penalty.

Lemming

whosurpaddy wrote:

gonna have to take your word there, but is this fact or opinion?

Eh, lets just say I have it on verrrrry good authority by several members of the Dept. of Justice whom deal with prisoners and the prisons authorities in other countries. Said persons also tend to read up on stuff like this for their job & deal with criminal psychologists ....

seamus

where in hell did you pull that gem of knowledge from?

Ugh, that's the problem with scribbling down posts while you work. It's extremely difficult to prove a crime with 100% certainty. Unless one has video evidence of the crime being committed, then there is never such a thing as "100% sure".

also, society will never improve to the point where rape and other such crimes will stop, so don't hold your breath on that one

So because it'll never be perfect, we should just not bother our asses trying to improve the situation? :rolleyes:

ionapaul wrote:

Do you mean it shouldn't be used as an excuse?

Sorry, yeah, should read "No-one should use it as an excuse".

As regards why a certain 14 year old is a monster while 99.99% others are not, this brings up a whole other argument that is probably not suitable for discussion in this thread - the old 'nature vs nurture' humdinger! I used to be a firm 'nurture' believer while in college, but having since become very interested in evolutionary theory, am swinging more towards 'nature' these days (though of course nurture is still important to any individual). I suppose those of us who believe certain people can be 'hard-wired' by nature to be more destructive and unsocial, find it easier to accept the death penalty.

As we say, for another thread

Victor

Tell me what does execution do for a murder victim?

Nuttzz wrote:

Personally i dont see how gang rapists or kiddie fiddlers can be rehabilitated

Hey, when you were 14 you fancied 14 year old girls didn't you. It's fair to presume you no longer do. Cured.

bonkey

deadduck wrote:

cheaper = better: more money for services the rest of us deserve[/b]

I see.

I'm guessing its a wasted effort pointing out that what you are basically advocating is a refutation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so that you - and others - can have a cushier life.

( After all, your entire stance seems to be that you don't believe in the concept of Universal Human Rights...because you want some of them to be selectively applied. )

Tell me...which of your Human Rights will you accept others taking away from you because it means the state will have to spend less on you? Remember - cheaper is better.

so what if it is an easy way to deal with the problem.

You missed what I was saying. I said its an easy way of dealing with the symptoms instead of dealing with the actual problems which are the main contributors to this. Its an easy way of avoiding to having even face up to the problem.

as stated already, using social background/area as an excuse is a kick in the teeth to everyone else in similar situations who don't go out and commit unspeakable crimes

Using only societal issues as an excuse is a kick in the teeth, but then again its also patently false as it would imply that all people who are from disadvantaged areas would be criminals. Anyone suggesting any such an exclusive connection/causality would - to put it bluntly - need their head seriously examined.

However, ignoring that societal issues are a major contribution (which appears to be what you're trying to do, to be blunt) ensures that the best you can do is look for a way of dealing with the symptoms, not the underlying problems. Its an equally blinkered view which - like trying to blame only societal issues - will never result in a solution.....only in a constant ongoing struggle for containment.

and are all the do-gooders of the belief that no-one has ever been imprisoned with 100% certainty

Well, now, see...thats completely failing to address the point I raised at the end of my post. I was referencing the fact that not everyone is convicted correctly...not claiming that no-one is.

And yes, I know others may have been gulled into raising that point, but you did say you were addressing my post, so I think its my argument that you should be answering here.

By your standards, the Guildford 4 should have been executed for their crimes. In fact, there's no shortage of cases throughout our - and other nations' - history where gross miscarriages of justice have not only been carried out, but have been perpetuated for years. By your standards, the innocent-but-convicted in many of these should have been executed post-conviction because its a cheaper/better solution.

Re-introducing the death sentence will almost inevitably result in the state-sanctioned killing of innocent people.

You may be blasé and rationalise it away on the benefit for the greater good (like your "kill them, its cheaper" argument does), which is why I asked whether or not you are willing to die, or see your loved ones die in such a miscarriage of justice for the greater good as you see it. If not, then don't be so dismissive of the lives of the innocents you don't know personally who would die in their stead.

As for the "clear cut" cases that people are trotting out...sorry, but you're wasting your breath / typing. The problem is not with the clear-cut cases (assuming one agrees in principle to the death sentence at all), but rather with the fringe ones.

If you could offer me a system which could guarantee that no innocent would ever be killed by it (not "very few, reasonably seldom"), there are situations where I might not oppose the death sentence.

But I'm pretty sure you can't offer that system. Why? Because there's an impossible question to answer : where do you draw the line? When is "certain enough to convict" not good enough to be "certain enough to convict and kill" ???

If the answer is "never", then see the unanswered issues about miscarriages of justice occurring today. And lets face it...our justice system seems to be getting less reliable, not moreso. Are these the people we want to trust with life/death decisions?

If the answer is anything other than "never", then ask yourself how you can have a conviction "beyond all reasonable doubt" which still leaves enough doubt to decide not to kill someone.

So, to sum up....I don't think you've actually answered any of the points I raised satisfactorily. The closest you got was saying that "cheaper = better", and to be quite honest....I'd suggest long and hard at the implication that has on the value of human life in general. Once you start choosing cases where you can decide that monetary value is more important than life....when and where do you stop...and how do you take the moral high-ground over others who make the same value-judgement for a different basis (i.e. many of the murderers themselves).

jc