should the death penalty be brought back?

ferdi

you sicken me

whosurpaddy

Flukey wrote:

All of you have these little inconsistencies in your argument.

tell you what, answer my post above then call us for our inconsistancies

ionapaul

Flukey wrote:

I still see none of our pro-death penalty people saying what should happen to the judge, jury and executioner of a totally innocent individual? All of you have these little inconsistencies in your argument.

Hopefully if the death penalty is reserved for those convicted numerous times of numerous henious crimes, the chance of executing innocent people is removed. Miscarriages of justice will take place no matter what, all you can do is reduce the chances of it - people are still imprisioned for life or lengthy sentences despite the Guildford Four being innocent, hopefully the British justice system took something away from their mistakes in that instance.

In any case, I would not find the judge, jury or executioners of an innocent individual guilty of anything - they followed the procedures set down in the justice code and made a mistake that resulted in the death of an innocent person, a horrible thing. They did not murder them IMO.

*edit - Ferdi, we have been discussing the re-introduction of a restricted death-penalty for serious (and repeated) crimes against society. Thank you for your contribution. Also almost everyone mentioned they supported the use of a painless method, no swords, guns, ropes, whatever.

Murder stats

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur&id=OECD

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/streiber/273/inf_stats.htm

Death penalty stats

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

Info on prison rehab - effectiveness

http://www.aislingmagazine.com/aislingmagazine/articles/TAM22/Rehabilitating%20criminals.html - against

http://www.rehab.ie/whatsnew/050701.htm - showing effectiveness

Ferdi, do you want me to post images of murder victims?

Lemming

May I once again repeat my call for the "Nuclear" solution*, thus eliminating the possibility that any innocent person will ever be executed or anybody convicted of a crime ever carrying out a repeat offense. Society will be relieved of the burden of having to decide where to draw the line on what people should be executed for, and for the more monetary minded amongst us no further cost. Society will also be relieved of having to worry about deterrance or corrupt officials perverting the course of justice to suit their ends.

On a positive note we will no longer have the mob 'baying for blood' at the merest dropping of litter on the street.

Yes. I wholeheartedly endorse the "Nuclear" solution and would like to petition governments the world over to emrbace it. All it will cost is approximately .01 milliseconds to 1 min. of searring, firey agonising death followed by a calm, serene society.



* For those devoid of any sort of intelligence beyond frothing at the mouth screaming "kill them all" I would like to ram the fact that this is HEAVILY sarcastic down your foam-encrusted throats

Flukey

this arguement just doesnt hold water Flukey. what about anyone who has killed while in the army? by your rationale they are obviously murderers and should be tried as such. armed police in the states who kill someone who is about to kill them while in the line of duty? murderers?

Conflict situations are different. As for policemen that is similar though with proper training they should be able to take someone out, without killing them. We have the John Carthy incident in Ireland a few years ago. While he did come out with a gun, a shot in the arm or the leg could have been used to stop him. What we are talking about is people brought to trial for murder. For most cases, we are talking about cold-blooded, intentional, pre-mediated murder. In this country we have manslaughter where there is intent but not intent to kill. Some countries do not have that. There are other classifications, like self-defence or where someone is not of a sound mind at the time. Even if someone is found guilty of the crime these situations, the death penalty would not apply.

Hopefully if the death penalty is reserved for those convicted numerous times of numerous henious crimes, the chance of executing innocent people is removed. Miscarriages of justice will take place no matter what, all you can do is reduce the chances of it - people are still imprisioned for life or lengthy sentences despite the Guildford Four being innocent, hopefully the British justice system took something away from their mistakes in that instance.

In any case, I would not find the judge, jury or executioners of an innocent individual guilty of anything - they followed the procedures set down in the justice code and made a mistake that resulted in the death of an innocent person, a horrible thing. They did not murder them IMO.

Hopefully it is, but the fact is that it often isn't. It is not good enough to say that mistakes will be made, but sure that is the way things are. This is the justice system we are talking about and it is of utmost importance that things are done properly and if mistakes are made, which naturally they will, that something can be done about it. We can't dig them up and send them on their way, while we can unlock the door and let them out of prison. If they are executed the case to prove their innocence may never get off the ground.

Of course the judges should not be found guilty, though that is the logic of those that support the death penalty. You are right that they are following procedures, but the point is that those procedures should not be there in the first place, if there is any chance that an innocent person can be sentenced to death. They cannot truly call it a justice system if that can happen. It is not acceptable to say that it is OK, if it only happens once in a every X amount of cases. That is one too many. At least an imprisoned person can be released if they are wrongly convicted and have their name cleared and be compensated or whatever. It also gives them time to mount an appeal and build a case for their case to be looked at. It took many years to do it in the case of the Guilford 4 and Birmingham 6 and much of that time there pleas of innocence were treated as "they would say that wouldn't they?" I am all for people being punished for heinous crimes, but we have to maintain the teh integrity of the justice system above everything else. So lock them up, permanently until they die or, in admittedly a very rare instance, their innocence is proved. None of the pro-death penalty people want to sent an innocent person to death, but despite what you might think of certain criminals, they only way to ensure that 100%, and that is what the justice system has to be able to do, is to keep the death penalty off the agenda. I am not against the death penalty because of any sympathy for the scum we are talking about, but the integrity of our justice system has to be paramount or we don't have a justice system!

whosurpaddy

Flukey wrote:

Conflict situations are different.

why are conflict situations differant? you have implied before that its black and white, you either believe in the death penalty or not, either killing people is right or wrong in your own words. if we cant have it both ways then neither can you. everyone who has ever killed anyone, by your rationale, should be tried as a murderer, irregardless of circumstance. and the pro death penalty arguement has inconsistancies?

Flukey wrote:

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!

Flukey wrote:

Of course the judges should not be found guilty, though that is the logic of those that support the death penalty.

i dont think even you believe that. what you have said is not the logic of the death penalty, that is the way you are twisting its logic to suit your point of view. a judge who sentences someone to death has not gone out and randomly killed someone, they have sentenced someone for a crime commited. no differant to sentencing any other criminal.

ionapaul

Great post Flukey. Though I still don't agree with you

DadaKopf

I was thinking about this discussion on the bus home last night. I was trying to think my way through all the mostly non-specific comments being made, I was having trouble myself organizing my thoughts so I tried to think of a concrete example to put a shape on what I think. So I imagined myself as a Texan.

Texas has the highest execution rate in the USA. Most of those executed are black and those who aren't black are dirt poor. It's not unreasonable to say that since there's such a disproportionate amount of black people executed (often/usually for crimes that most of us wouldn't consider execution justifiable) that this reveals Texans' racist character. The socio-economic landscape of Texas is one of stark inequality, even segregation - inequality of income, assets and power. Power in Texas is held mainly by better-off and rich whites, but those who are poor and white get an easier life than those who are black. While the white population are happy with their position in Texan society, the marginalized black communities surely aren't; this dynamic generates a culture of fear among the white Texans, a culture of fear due to generalized racism, a fear that the blacks are therefore because they're marginalized.

If I were a middle-class white Texan, I might think something like: But the reason they're marginalized isn't because the power structures in Texan society conspires against them, it's because the black Texans lack the attributes necessary to pull themselves up the chain of command, some succeed, most fail and so the market keeps them in the place where they belong. Blacks cause crimes because they're crazy, because poor people are crazy, especially black poor people.

If I was a white Texan, I might support the death penalty. I wouldn't want to lose my position of priviledge in society, I wouldn't want to ask questions or do anything that would challenge the way I live my life. And I wouldn't want those strange blacks on the corner taking my or my friend's or children's jobs. I don't want to have to pay my janitor more money than I am already. To be honest, they scare me and it would make me feel better to show them who calls the shots. You threaten the decency of American society and you die - no excuses, you gotta do what I say, boy.

My thoughts went something like that.

The bottom line is moral codes are invented because powerful people want to secure their personal or sectoral interests. Most people seem to think it's the other way around. The reason the death penalty exists to the extent that it does in Texas is because powerful sectoral interest groups wish to maintain the violent social structure in Texan society - they morally and rationally justify the death penalty because to advocate other forms of justice would undermine their own power base. Furthermore, while those in positions of power get to articulate and therefore normalise such racist fears through a legal structure, people further down the chain of command regenerate these structures on an everyday basis because they also resonate with their own interests and fears.

The death penalty isn't 'justice', and it certainly isn't punishment, except to those of the executed's family and friends, who weren't even involved in the 'crime'. The death penalty is the ultimate expression of the (increasingly concealed) social violence inherent in our so-called 'legal-rational' society. The genius of its advocates has been to transform murder into a social good. But there's no justification for this because it's effectively founded on emotional grounds.

ionapaul

Using Texas as an example when what most of us are talking about is an extremely restricted use of the death penalty is a little off-putting. It's like a general discussion on whether or not football fans get too excited when supporting their favourite team, and choosing Millwall as an example! How about an American state that is far more reserved in using the death penalty?

It may be that those of us who favour a reintroduction of the death penalty are also 'powerful people' trying to secure our 'personal or sectoral' interests, who knows. In my 'personal interest' I would like serial rapists and murderers executed by the state. I also believe such an action would be for the good of society, and I am not sure which section you would have me allied with (perhaps middle class).

Maybe the core difference between the two sides of this debate is that I do not see anything morally wrong with executing those society may judge to have relinguished a right to exist*, nor do I think the death penalty as used as has been described in previous posts is murder. Those of you vehemently opposed obviously consider the death penalty murder in all cases.

*whether or not society has the right to decide this is another question we can argue about

Flukey

Texas has the highest execution rate in the USA

This is something that i don't quite understand. Why are posters constantly using the US as an example? I'd understand if they used a country within Europe with a similiar culture, and population, but the US is hardly a good comparison to make.

ireland and the US operate with very different attitudes, history, culture etc. The reasons why the death penalty not working in the US don't really apply that much to Ireland. Now if you could compare another European country that already has the Death penalty, then I could understand your points against it.

DadaKopf, this is not just abt your post, but alot of anti-death penalty posters have made references to the US time and time again.

In regards to Texas, and the use of the Death penalty, I can't really comment. I don't know enough abt the culture, nor the usage of the penalty.

The death penalty isn't 'justice', and it certainly isn't punishment, except to those of the executed's family and friends, who weren't even involved in the 'crime'.

And life imprisonment is any better? At least the US when it says life generally means life. Personally, I'd view actual (and realistic) life imprisonment as being worse than being executed, but then thats probably just me. As for it not being punishment, why not? It stops that individual from ever repeating those crimes. Sure, it affects their family/friends, but imprisonment does aswell. Along with the publicity involved when the person is caught from their crimes.

The death penalty is the ultimate expression of the (increasingly concealed) social violence inherent in our so-called 'legal-rational' society. The genius of its advocates has been to transform murder into a social good. But there's no justification for this because it's effectively founded on emotional grounds.

Effectively founded on emotional grounds? Funny, thats what i think whenever one of the posters here mentioned morals in relation to the death Penalty.

Apparently all life is sacred. Which is why the death penalty exists. To take away from the person who commits a capital crime, the one very thing that they're likely to cherish, or at least wish to continue. And it is revenge. But its also reducing the chance that society will suffer because that individual is released to cause mayheam again.

Flukey wrote:

Of course the judges should not be found guilty, though that is the logic of those that support the death penalty. You are right that they are following procedures, but the point is that those procedures should not be there in the first place, if there is any chance that an innocent person can be sentenced to death.

Humans are fallible. We make mistakes. Since the judicial system was designed and is implemented by humans, its natural that mistakes happen. Its a nice thought that mistakes won't happen, but thats not being realistic. Guilty people get released, and innocent people get punished. Mistakes happen.

For Judges/Juries to be held responsible for convicting an "innocent" person, isn't realistic. If the idea that nothing would be done if an innocent person might be judged wrongly held sway, there would be no justice system. Law could not operate. It just wouldn't work.

Dar

Too many seem to be hung up on imprisonment/execution as a punishment for the crimes people commit. It's about protecting society from people who decide to live outside the laws we have put in place for the well being of the society as a whole.

I do not like the idea of throwing someone in prison, leaving them there for 5 years, and then throwing them back onto the street. Some degree of rehabilitation should be attempted (not just shrinks, but also drug therapy, isolation, education - whatever will work. Hell - show me that corporal punishment has good results and I'll support it). BUT - when rehabilitation is not possible, the death penalty should be used.

It's not about punishment, it's about protecting society. In most cases criminals can be reintegrated into society, but in some it's just not a possibility. So which is worse, leaving them in a cell for 50 years, or just ending it as soon as possible?

arcadegame2004

BUT - when rehabilitation is not possible, the death penalty should be used.

I disagree. In those cases they should be either kept locked up or released with electronic-tagging to track their movements.

Dar

What about a serious phsycotic (sp?) who cannot be treated with drugs. If it's almost certain he will kill again when he's released, would you support caging him for the rest of his life? What quality of life will he have? How about the amount of money it will cost to feed and house him? What if he gets loose?

Children are not good or evil. For them to become "evil" society must fail them at some point. We cannot roll back the clock, we can only correct the mistake. On the bright side, most people can be treated in some way - however in worse cases death is the only way of ensuring they will not offend again. It sickens me to watch the crowds outside american prisons celebrating after an execution. The only thing we as a society should feel after killing one of our own is shame - shame for failing that person. But in the end, sometimes its the only way.

simu

Deleted User wrote:

This is something that i don't quite understand. Why are posters constantly using the US as an example? I'd understand if they used a country within Europe with a similiar culture, and population, but the US is hardly a good comparison to make.

Well, the death penalty has been abolished in the 45 countries that are members of the Council of Europe and even in European countries that still have it, it's beginning to be discarded - Russia has stopped applying it, for example.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

This is something that i don't quite understand. Why are posters constantly using the US as an example?

I'd imagine its for a similar reason that so many of the pro-death-sentence posters are only addressing absolute clear-cut cases where there is no uncertainty etc. rather than dealing with the fringe cases which will inevitably exist no matter where you draw the line.

In short - its because its easier to argue for your side / against the other side using an extreme case rather than a fringe one. Posters from both sides of the discussion are engaged in the practice....so lets not limit the questioning of validity to just one of them, neh?

jc

ionapaul

Dar wrote:

For them to become "evil" society must fail them at some point...The only thing we as a society should feel after killing one of our own is shame - shame for failing that person. But in the end, sometimes its the only way.

I disagree with you here. It is not always society's fault, IMO. I don't believe humans are all born with a 'blank slate' that is not predisposed one way or another. Some are more likely than others to resort to violence in a given situation. It is terribly unPC (though not unscientific) to suggest that everyone is not born equal with regard to their mind, tendancies, and abilities, and very little scientific research will or should be done in this regard as discovering or proving differences between ethnicities, genders, or genetic heritages is certainly not beneficial to society.
If a someone with a life-time obsession with and participation in rape or murder would be executed by the government, I certainly wouldn't feel shame (or joy or satisfaction either).

Cabaal

As for the death penalty, NO WAY IN HELL!

As for life means LIFE, yes, 25 years is not life
you either give them 25years or you give them life or whatever, basically say whata mean!

Flukey

Errors in the judicial system will be made, and that is fine. The only problem is that if someone has been executed that error cannot be rectified. We may be certain someone is guilty, we may find them guilty, but they still could be innocent. For a judicial system to hold its integrity, there has to be a way of putting those errors right. Lock them up permanently. In some ways killing them is the easy way out. It shortens their suffering. "Killing them is to good for them" a lot of people will say.

Flukey

Flukey wrote:

In some ways killing them is the easy way out. It shortens their suffering. "Killing them is to good for them" a lot of people will say

Oh I agree. I do think that the Death Penalty is an easier way out, if life imprisonment actually meant life. But it doesn't. Every sentencing that i have heard about in the last 10 years has resulted in teh person being released after maybe 5 or 10 years. Life sentencing does not really exist in the Irish Justice system.

In short - its because its easier to argue for your side / against the other side using an extreme case rather than a fringe one. Posters from both sides of the discussion are engaged in the practice....so lets not limit the questioning of validity to just one of them, neh?

Fair enough. But can we limit examples in regards to the death penalty to a country thats comparable with Ireland? And if you find me using extreme examples to support my opinion, mention them to me, pls. Its just that the application of the death penalty in the US has no real relation to Ireland in its current form.

BUT - when rehabilitation is not possible, the death penalty should be used.

And thats the thing. Our prisons are overcrowded. The rehabilitation system has received very mixed results over the last decade. In fact it fluctuates from being quite good to outright dismal results. Can we really rely on a system that fails to rehabilitate crinimals back into society, and accept it? I can't. The death penalty provides an extra option for the system to apply to those it thinks as being too messed up for rehabilitation....

Considering theres many crinimals in Ireland that have held at least 15-20 court sentencing, have spent most of their adult lives in Jail, and yet, continue to break the law. What is the answer for them? Better rehabilitation, yes. Life terms, yes. Death Penalty? For extreme cases.

I'd like for the option to be available to courts. I don't want to see it widespread, but I dislike the fact that its not available, should be find ourselves an Irish Serial Killer....

sliabh

Deleted User wrote:

Fair enough. But can we limit examples in regards to the death penalty to a country thats comparable with Ireland? And if you find me using extreme examples to support my opinion, mention them to me, pls. Its just that the application of the death penalty in the US has no real relation to Ireland in its current form.

Well there's the thing. There is none. As the only country in the western world that still executes people is the US. And the only other country in the first world is Japan (1-2 a year I believe).

All other first world states have decided it's a barbaric practice and have banned it.

Flukey

Well one of the reasons for early release on good behaviour is as an encouragement for prisoners to behave while they are in prison. Obviously that is different for murder cases, but then each murder case is different. It can usually be judged as to whether the preson is likely to re-offend, which can be taken into consideration. There are of course some long-term prisoners, like Malcolm McArthur, though he could even be released one day.

arcadegame2004

Russia has stopped applying it, for example.

Except for their execution-squads in Chechnya of course.

Except for their execution-squads in Chechnya of course

Which is military "justice" not civil.

You might find that alot of countries in Europe retain the right to execute traitors. (Not that I'm calling Chechnya traitors)

arcadegame2004

You might find that alot of countries in Europe retain the right to execute traitors.

But not without a trial. Putin is a bloodthirsty vulture.

PBC_1966

sliabh wrote:

Better make 3 aggrevated rapes a death sentance as well

Why as many as three? A death penalty was handed out for rape in some cases in the U.S. until the 1960s, especially in the South.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Flukey

Well Iraq has returned the death penalty, not long after they had aboslished it for fears it would be abused like it was under Saddam. As well as murder it is there for crimes like kidnapping! Is that what we want here?

AngelofFire

It is a blinkered and small minded solution to problems like violence murder and rape. It doesn`t even serve as a detterent, america has so many murders per day that is impossible to document them all in the national newspapers.

I agree that criminals must be punished, but the death sentence is an eye for an eye taken to extremity It is driven by the irrational and fraudulent belief that we can alleviate ones suffering for loosing a close friend or family member by killing the person who caused their death in the first place.

dermot_sheehan

To argue that life imprisonment equals or is a worse fate then capital punishment, and then to argue that the risk of wrongful executions is a reason to oppose it are self contradictory. Surely if life imprisonment is so bad, isn't it as equally wrong to send an innocent to a cell for the rest of their days, as it is to hang them?

You might argue that someone serving life at least has the possibility of exculpalpating evidence being found during their term of imprisonment, though the chance of this is slim, as generally when the appeals are exhausted, the person's file is marked closed and is not looked at again. With the death penalty, although there is no chance of review after execution, at least the evidence and conviction are all examined again before execution of setence.

Opponents of the death penalty have said, innocent people must have been executed. There is no proved case of an innocent person being executed in the U.S. since the restoration of capital punishment. Though people on death row have been found to be innocent. If they had not faced the prospect of execution, would there case have been reexamined? I further ask you how many innocents are serving life imprisonment in prisons with no chance of their case being reopened, because quite simply, they are forgotten about.

A further reason to oppose capital punishment, has been the general view of the sancity of life. Surely, aren't we reaffirming in sacredness in taking it from those who murder. Some have said execution is murder. That is wrong. Murder is the illegal taking of the life of another. An executioner who carries out a court order is no more guilty of a murder, then a person who kills in self defence, or a soldier shooting the enemy on the battlefield. To argue that the state should be treated the same as a normal citizen, is a false argument. The
state as soverign has the power to take life to ensure justice.