should the death penalty be brought back?

seamus

Deleted User wrote:

Oh come on. The reason we obey the law is that most normal citizens don't want to go to court. To receive a crinimal record. To serve a period in prison etc.

No, most normal people obey serious laws because they don't feel the need to commit the crimes. Believe it or not, most people have a moral hatred of such things as theft, assault, and murder. Laws, though do define the boundaries. If such boundaries did not exist, then certainly a few people would begin committing crimes, and after a few generations, society itself would break down, as there are no defined boundaries for each successive generation. The reason I don't go out on a Saturday night, assaulting people, or take my lunch break in town to pickpocket people in Stephen's Green is because I don't want to, not because I fear what would happen if I did.

Understandable. I on the other hand, don't kill because I don't want to go to prison.

So, seeing as you're as amoral and have the same disregard for human life as these repeat murderers, how is it that you fear the current law, and they don't? What makes you think that the death penalty will be any more effective? What guarantee is there that all of these people will suddenly put their hands up and go, "Whoah, I might die. I better not kill anyone else.".

No. My attitude is that I believe that the death sentence should be applied as an option for Capital Offenses, alongside with life imprisonment. I'm not saying execute every crinimal out there. Should the person be innocent let them prove it.

You on the other hand seem to be afraid to pass sentence on anyone for fear that they might be innocent.

You see, this is where it becomes so easy to abuse what you have. The justice system is powerful. It has the power to destroy or rebuild one's life. If, at each sentencing, the judge doesn't have the fear that the person may be innocent, or that there may be more to it, then he is essentially believing that the system is infallible. The system is not infallible. It always has to be considered that the system might be wrong, and leave the door open for that possibility, otherwise we might as well throw our hands up and forget about society. Once convicted, the burden of proving that one is innocent is indeed in the hands of the convict, but the system has an obligation to allow that convict redeem himself or prove his innocence, in case the system was wrong. If you kill him, he can't do that.

If the court declares that they've found the person guilty of commiting a crime, they've commited that crime in the eyes of the law. They're not innocent until proven innocent.

Agreed, but as above, the system must accept that it is possible that he did not commit a crime, even though in its eyes he did.

I could be wrong in this, but is the law not there to protect the innocents from the guilty? Protect Society from those who would break the laws of that society?

The law is designed to protect society (who are all assumed to be innocent) from those who would break that law. A person who did not break that law, but is found guilty by the system, is legally guilty, but morally innocent. He is guilty in the eyes of the law, but no matter which way you look at it, if he is executed, then the system has executed an innocent man. If, after his death, it is revealed he was innocent, then in the eyes of the law, he was never guilty, i.e. he was always innocent, even when executed.

And if you believe that the justice system has failed because a number of innocents have been executed, shouldn't you be calling for more investigations into those found guilty for crimes?

No. I accept the system as being in control, but also accept it as fallible. Again, in principle, all those who are guilty, are guilty, but they have the right to attempt to overturn that.

DaSilva

Until courts can be 100% correct about a conviction 100% of the time, the Death Penalty is absurd.

Sure being falsly improsend is a terrible thing, but atleast you can come back from it should you be found to be innocent.

But really its just as simple as this, can you be 100% sure 100% of the time someone is guilty just because the court found them guilty? If your answer is no (which it should be unless your naive) then what rate of 'colateral damage' is acceptable?

How many innocents are sacrificable?

Answer: None.

ionapaul

DaSilva wrote:

Until courts can be 100% correct about a conviction 100% of the time, the Death Penalty is absurd.

Sure being falsly improsend is a terrible thing, but atleast you can come back from it should you be found to be innocent.

But really its just as simple as this, can you be 100% sure 100% of the time someone is guilty just because the court found them guilty? If your answer is no (which it should be unless your naive) then what rate of 'colateral damage' is acceptable?

How many innocents are sacrificable?

Answer: None.

But can it not be argued that as a result of the above, that supporting the current system, where occasionally innocents are robbed of years of their lives is equally wrong? You can't give them the years back.

I understand opposing the death penalty because you flatly believe that the state taking a life is wrong, whether the person is guilty or innocent, but if you oppose it because the system will make mistakes and thus is unacceptable, surely it is a logical follow-on that because our current criminal justice system makes mistakes (and robs years from innocent's lives) it is equally unacceptable? The outcome of the mistake (death or imprisionment or fine or whatever) is not related to this particular argument, as I understand it.

Seamus

Seamus wrote:

No, most normal people obey serious laws because they don't feel the need to commit the crimes. Believe it or not, most people have a moral hatred of such things as theft, assault, and murder. Laws, though do define the boundaries. If such boundaries did not exist, then certainly a few people would begin committing crimes, and after a few generations, society itself would break down, as there are no defined boundaries for each successive generation.

Funny. I always thought people thought similiar to myself. Perhaps I was completely incorrect. Perhaps you are. I don't actually know what most people think.

The law is there, at least in my opinion, to lend some power to society's morals. Murder, theft, assault are all against the law, and at the same time, are morally offensive to most people I know. The law is there to give the morals our society has some power to exist.

The reason I don't go out on a Saturday night, assaulting people, or take my lunch break in town to pickpocket people in Stephen's Green is because I don't want to, not because I fear what would happen if I did.

Fair enough. I agree. The same stands for me, however, there is the added thought about the consequences of the action and how those consequences would affect my life i.e. Criminal Record = loss of job etc.

So, seeing as you're as amoral and have the same disregard for human life as these repeat murderers, how is it that you fear the current law, and they don't?

Hold on a sec. Be careful how you describe me. Just because I don't follow your morals doesn't mean I'm amoral. Its just that I have my own. All part of being an individual.

I don't have a disregard for life. In fact, I'd consider my respect for life to be on par with yours. Its just that I'd prefer to see those who take a life, to be treated differently. Either life imprisonment that actually means Life. Or the death sentence.

As for why these people don't think abt the death sentence prior to murder? I don't actually know. I've never killed anyone.

What makes you think that the death penalty will be any more effective? What guarantee is there that all of these people will suddenly put their hands up and go, "Whoah, I might die. I better not kill anyone else.".

What makes you think that it won't? And don't make an example of the US, since their culture is far removed from ours.

Guarantee? None. Can you guarantee that nobody in any country that has the death sentence, has never, thought "Hold on sec, if I kill this person, I'll be executed if caught." and doesn't do it? I doubt you can.

You see, this is where it becomes so easy to abuse what you have. The justice system is powerful. It has the power to destroy or rebuild one's life. If, at each sentencing, the judge doesn't have the fear that the person may be innocent, or that there may be more to it, then he is essentially believing that the system is infallible. The system is not infallible. It always has to be considered that the system might be wrong, and leave the door open for that possibility, otherwise we might as well throw our hands up and forget about society. Once convicted, the burden of proving that one is innocent is indeed in the hands of the convict, but the system has an obligation to allow that convict redeem himself or prove his innocence, in case the system was wrong. If you kill him, he can't do that.

Aye, such a method should be there. Wow, I agree. However, it doesn't change my opinion that the Death sentence should be re-applied, per the conditions in my other posts.

He is guilty in the eyes of the law, but no matter which way you look at it, if he is executed, then the system has executed an innocent man. If, after his death, it is revealed he was innocent, then in the eyes of the law, he was never guilty, i.e. he was always innocent, even when executed.

Ok.... I've admitted that I think mistakes will happen. Again, I'll say that it will happen. Just as people will be sent to prison, despite their innocence, or that Guilty people will be released due to a great defense solicitor.

I've never said that Innocent people won't be executed by mistake. I've said that that number is slim in comparison to the number of killers that would be executed.

But again its a difference in morality. Its like the question of whether to kill one child to prevent the killing of millions, I'd probably kill the child. You'd probably wouldn't. I view the lives of the majority as being of more worth. <Shrugs> Different morals.

No. I accept the system as being in control, but also accept it as fallible. Again, in principle, all those who are guilty, are guilty, but they have the right to attempt to overturn that.

And nobody is taking away that right. They still have the right to prove their innocence, prior to the actual execution.

DaSilva wrote:

Until courts can be 100% correct about a conviction 100% of the time, the Death Penalty is absurd.

Then you might as well get rid of the whole justice system, since no ruling is 100% correct all the time. Its an impossible requirement.

Sure being falsly improsend is a terrible thing, but atleast you can come back from it should you be found to be innocent.

can you? I'm not so sure. How long before that person is too long in prison to readjust? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?

Can you guarantee, that in prison, he/she is not abused, or molested? Doesn't become a drug addict? etc.

I'm not going to say that Death sentence is the answer to everything, neither is Life Imprisonment. Especially if you take the stance that its not acceptable if one person is found innocent later.

But really its just as simple as this, can you be 100% sure 100% of the time someone is guilty just because the court found them guilty? If your answer is no (which it should be unless your naive) then what rate of 'colateral damage' is acceptable?

Answer: No. But let me ask you this, what % of convictions over the last 5 years in Ireland for Capital crimes, has the subject been found innocent? I don't actually know myself. I'm curious to know how many innocents have been harmed by Irelands approach to capital crimes.

How many innocents are sacrificable?

I have no idea. Tell me how many are saved as a result of those sacrificed and I'll give you an answer.

seamus

Deleted User wrote:

Hold on a sec. Be careful how you describe me. Just because I don't follow your morals doesn't mean I'm amoral. Its just that I have my own. All part of being an individual.

I was just going on what you said

I on the other hand, don't kill because I don't want to go to prison.

Sounds pretty clear to me.

What makes you think that it won't? And don't make an example of the US, since their culture is far removed from ours.

Well, obviously we're going to have to use examples. And the US, having a different culture to ours, granted, is a damn sight more like us than any other country using the death penalty. My opinion on it is - if the death penalty is being used in other countries, then obviously it's not working as a deterrent. If it worked, it wouldn't have to be used. That's why I think it wouldn't work.

None. Can you guarantee that nobody in any country that has the death sentence, has never, thought "Hold on sec, if I kill this person, I'll be executed if caught." and doesn't do it? I doubt you can.

In fact, I'd be perfectly happy to admit that it has worked as a deterrent in a few cases. Obviously it can't be proven.

And nobody is taking away that right. They still have the right to prove their innocence, prior to the actual execution.

What if that's not enough time? What if they are alone, and no-one else bothers to help them, but years after their execution, some random filing clerk, or group of legal students doing a project, discover something that deems them innocent? Not unheard of.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the morality of killing one innocent to secure the safety of others.

My opinion on it is - if the death penalty is being used in other countries, then obviously it's not working as a deterrent. If it worked, it wouldn't have to be used. That's why I think it wouldn't work.

If it worked, it wouldn't have to be used? To be completely honest, I don't really understand the logic in that. If it was working as a deterrent, there would still need to be examples of its use, to deter individuals.
But I admit I don't know if it will work as a deterrent in Ireland. But then again I don't know it wouldn't work. Sure, it hasn't worked in other countries, but thats no reason not to "try" it here.

What if that's not enough time? What if they are alone, and no-one else bothers to help them, but years after their execution, some random filing clerk, or group of legal students doing a project, discover something that deems them innocent? Not unheard of.

I understand. But I don't think that you can operate with a justice system if you have to aware that all convictions *might* be in fact wrong. That all your decisions as a judge, could in fact be wrong, and that no matter how sure you are of the evidence, the person may still avoid the sentence given.
I'd understand if you were saying give someone on death row, 3 months or 6 months to prove their innocence, but, you're suggesting that more time is needed. How much time would you say? I assume so much to make such a judgement redundent.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the morality of killing one innocent to secure the safety of others

Okies. I'm perfectly acceptable to that

bonkey

whosurpaddy wrote:

this emotive "what if it was one of your own" arguement keeps popping up, but no one seems to consider it the other way around. would you be equally happy if it was a parent? A partner? A child of yours? who was murdered only for the killer to be freed 10 years later and kill again.

I haven't once suggested, hinted at, or given any other indication that I'm aware of that I approve of the current system - which also should serve as an answer to pretty much all of Klaz's retort to the same post you were responding to.

What I have said is that I do not support replacing it with a system that contains an equally appalling (to me) flaw, and that there would appear to be an alternative which should satisfy all but those who believe that cost is possibly a more important factor. I've asked for the flaw in such a system that makes it not preferable to the death penalty while achieving the same results (with the exception of prison-breaks) in terms of the protection of society.

btw if lemming pops up with another "lets nuke the planet" post again without making any contribution to the thread im gonna scream, is he above a rap on the knuckles from the mods as he's a mod himself?

No, he's not. I hadn't actually noticed more than one, truth be told.

jc

dark_knight_ire

A person should be put to death for capital murder. And also the prison system need to be looked at. Because of all these do gooders prisoners who get 14 years for murder live in comfortable jails at your expensice and can expect to serve 5 or 6 yrs.

The only prob with americas death row is it takes to long if convicted a prisoner should be lead away and shot hung or whatever the best method availible on the same night.

LIFE SHOULD MEAN LIFE.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

Then you might as well get rid of the whole justice system, since no ruling is 100% correct all the time. Its an impossible requirement.

Yes indeed, and what the different sides seem to be saying is that we shoudl try and get as close to the ideal as possible - to minimise the damage, if you will.

Thus, you wish killers to be executed. The benefit : fewer deaths overall ( from repeat offenders and/or a deterrant effect). The cost : an almost certainty that some small number of people will be executed who were found guilty in error.

This cost will be significantly (massively, perhaps) smaller in size than the number of lives saved, and thus it seems to you to be a reasonable cost to pay - a good "minimisation of damage" (innocent lives lost) if you will.

How long before that person is too long in prison to readjust? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?

Can you guarantee, that in prison, he/she is not abused, or molested? Doesn't become a drug addict? etc.

No idea to the first, but juse as you're accepting some innocents will be found guilty and that thay will die, I would accept that some innocents will be irrevocably harmed one way or another in prison (although, while we're calling for reform to the system.... ). However, I would also say that we would have to accept that not all of this "falsely adjudged as guilty" group will be so harmed.

And so, it would appear to be a marginally better "minimisation of damage", would it not?

I'm not going to say that Death sentence is the answer to everything, neither is Life Imprisonment. Especially if you take the stance that its not acceptable if one person is found innocent later.

I don't think anyone has suggested that their proposed system is perfect - just preferable to them, and better in their eyes.

Answer: No. But let me ask you this, what % of convictions over the last 5 years in Ireland for Capital crimes, has the subject been found innocent? I don't actually know myself. I'm curious to know how many innocents have been harmed by Irelands approach to capital crimes.

In fairness, the number convicted and subsequently found innocent is not directly linked to the number who were falsely convicted.

For example, it doesn't take into account :
- those not yet (or who never will be) found innocent
- those who were guilty, but who were subsequently falsely found innocent

Regardless. We've both accepted (I think) that a miscarriage of justice in any system is effectively inevitable, so lets say - for simplicity - that we're talking about a pair of lives in the difference over the course of a lifetime. Your system would execute two people who were incorrectly found guilty. The Life system would at least give them a better chance.

Consider - if the British had your system in place when the Guildford 4 were found guilty (and assuming their subsequent innocence is genuine), surely the atrocity they were adjudged to be guilty of would have merited the death sentence?

Tell me how many are saved as a result of those sacrificed and I'll give you an answer.

Why does it matter? Put death sentence up against Life is Life and the numbers saved should be equal (if not better on Life is Life, but lets say equal), no?

Bonkey for the most part, you've summarised my situation perfectly. Cheers

In answer to your questions:

Consider - if the British had your system in place when the Guildford 4 were found guilty (and assuming their subsequent innocence is genuine), surely the atrocity they were adjudged to be guilty of would have merited the death sentence?

Yes, they would have. As we've all acknowledged, there would be innocents executed.

Why does it matter? Put death sentence up against Life is Life and the numbers saved should be equal (if not better on Life is Life, but lets say equal), no?

For me it does. <shrugs> One of the main argument I've heard here is that innocents would be executed if the death sentence would be applied. You know my stance on that. It matters to me, that if more people can be saved
as a result of one person dying, it makes sense to me. Dunno completely why. But it just seems logical.