should the death penalty be reintroduced

johnnyc

just wondering what peoples opinions on the re-introduction of the death penalty. I am pro death penalty as i believe it deters murders, political groups from carrying out murdering rampages, and also the shipment of mass amount of drugs by cartels(the one in cork comes to my mind) it seems a waste of public finances to lock up these people.

montydorito

all of them should be used as ginnie pigs (instead of an eye for an eye ) test for new cures which will benifit the world they took from

tolosenc

I'm pro-death penalty in extreme cases, but not in such a willy-nilly fashion as that of the united states. If nothing else, rights(voting, social welfare, etc.) of persistant offenders should be revoked, that or their citizenship.

dfx-

Pro-death penalty too used with common sense.

Mothers starving their child, 19 hour rapes...that kind of thing. As common sense is a precious and not often found thing, I appreciate that it will never see the light of day.

Manic Moran

Without overstating the deterrence effect (I think it has less deterrence than we would hope), there are circumstances when sometimes it really is justified. Taking it off the books for killing Gardai was probably a bad move.

And frankly, revenge isn't always a bad thing.

NTM

Kama

Find the death penalty morally abhorrent, and the deterrence argument, while it makes intuitive sense, tends not to be borne out by the figures. Am writing this from the US, where if you compare death-penalty and non death-penalty states, the ones with the death penalty have consitently higher crime rates.


Usually find it comes down to revenge fantasy stuff pretty quick...when you get right down to it, everyone loves a good lynching...especially one where you don't have to get your hands too dirty. Which puts the 'they deserve it because they are monsters who enjoy hurting people' argument in a difficult position, imho.

Dave!

OP do you have figures to back up your deterrance argument?

Because as was mentioned, in the US death-penalty states have higher murder rates than non-death-penalty states.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168#stateswithvwithout

I'm not saying that it doesn't have a deterrant effect, but to assume it does it ridiculous.

If that argument doesn't hold up, then you move onto a few other points......

1. economics -- is it cheaper to kill criminals than to keep them in jail indefinitely? I suspect so, although I've seen it mentioned that it is actually more expensive. Dunno though.

2. Not everyone can be rehabilitated -- is it better for society to just kill these people?

3. Is killing ever justifiable when not in defence? Religious people might say only god has the right to take away a life (although Biblically speaking that's not really true!)

4. Is revenge a good way to run society?

5. Innocent people have been on death row... Is it worth it if even 1 innocent person is killed?

etc

So alot of ground to cover OP! I'd like to see stats on the deterrance argument though.

For what it's worth I'm undecided really. I'm leaning towards No, but am open to persuasion.

mike65

No, I like the idea of stringing them up as much as the next guy, but the state jobs should be the protect the living not kill when there is a perfectly good alternative. And one mistake is one too many.

The issue is the way sentences are handed down and then enforced. Life should mean life, not 12-15 years.

Mike.

Fratton Fred

Lock em up, throw away the key but the state, or a jury, does not have the right to determine someone should die.

is_that_so

Much of the rage at criminals and the temptation to string 'em up is the perception that the criminal justice system is not serving us properly. A lot of this, is fuelled by the "mejia" and our own frustration with how criminals seem to be getting away with it. I don't see that the death penalty would necessarily do anything beyond satisfy a lust for revenge. In my own view I am more put out by the use of "mitigating" circumstances as a measure of the accused.

Even though there are unquestionably times where happens, judges appear to come down on the side of justice for the accused far more often than they take into account the victims of crimes. What would be far better is an overhaul of sentencing and how serious crimes are defined.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

First things first:

If you're prepared to OFFICIALLY rename the Dept of Justice the Depart of Vengeance, then yes (because that's pretty much what it will be!)

But if you're not, then no.

Also, with the tabloid press in this country the way it is, expect a hell of a lot of more legalised murders by the state.

RobAMerc

Ok - at the risk of coming across as a serious right winger which I am most definitely not... but I am aware that I might be going to get some serious flak for this but...

I believe we should have the death penalty for not only murderers but also for people who are serious and habitual criminals also we should have chemical castration for rapists and pedophiles ( not the first offense perhaps - but those proven to be serial offenders )

I am also in the belief that the organs of those people removed from society could be harvested to save the lives of hundreds of decent folk who are mis fortunate enough to be in need of them, but decent enough not to commit offenses against the rest of us.

i think also that telling the people who are close to being put down that next time they are for it - must surely have an effect - if not then they deserve to die.

Elmo

The last referendum on the Death Penalty occur during the first Nice Referendum. (Yeah! there was a referendum on the subject).

37% vote againist the change in the constitution
63% vote for the removial of the Death Penalty from the constitution

I'm pro-death penalty in extreme cases, but not in such a willy-nilly fashion as that of the united states. If nothing else, rights(voting, social welfare, etc.) of persistant offenders should be revoked, that or their citizenship.
__________________
Is fearr Gaeilge bhriste ná Béarla cliste.

YES to Lisbon II - TÁ ar Liospón a II

I will be happy to clear up any concerns you may have about the Lisbon Treaty. Just drop me a PM once the date for the new referendum is announced. Hopefully, we won't suffer too much by then, but maybe the consequences of a no vote actually materialising first would be a good thing.

Now those of you in favour of the death penalty could always argue that the low turn out in the referendum is cause to retake the referendum. (That was one of the main reasons for retaking Nice)

Somehow I cann't see that happening.

The death penalty was last used in Ireland in 1944.

http://www.rte.ie/news/features/referenda/death/tonyconnelly1.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/features/referenda/results/DeathOverall.html

PS Europe is againist the death penalty, AFAIK Poland was forced to removed the death penalty before joining the EU.

Our constition before the last referendum only allowed for the death penalty when a Garda, Minister or President was murdered. Changes had been made to the laws before the full removial of the death penalty from our consistution through the democratic process of the people in a referendum. I would be againist taken another referendum on the same subject with in 10 years of the last vote.

axer

Manic Moran wrote: »

Taking it off the books for killing Gardai was probably a bad move.

Either it should be in for killing anyone or not at all. Why is a garda's life more important than a regular punter?

I am pro-death penalty in some ways but I fear what happens in mis-carraiges of justice? Is it possible that an innocent person would end up on death row?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RobAMerc wrote: »

i think also that telling the people who are close to being put down that next time they are for it - must surely have an effect - if not then they deserve to die.

Now here's the problem: right-wingers tend to use logic and theory rather than actual experience.

In theory, yes, fear would work. In pracitce, though, people who are already well into a life of crime either know nothing else, think they're immortal, or don't really care whether they live or die. So such a theory wouldn't work.

RobAMerc

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Now here's the problem: right-wingers tend to use logic and theory rather than actual experience.

In theory, yes, fear would work. In pracitce, though, people who are already well into a life of crime either know nothing else, think they're immortal, or don't really care whether they live or die. So such a theory wouldn't work.

If it doesn't work fine - kill em take the good bits out of them and let decent folk live - there is little theory to what I was saying - the warning to those with half a brain would be a beneficial side effect NOT the point of the exercise.

The point is to rid the country of habitual criminals.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RobAMerc wrote: »

If it doesn't work fine - kill em take the good bits out of them and let decent folk live - there is little theory to what I was saying - the warning to those with half a brain would be a beneficial side effect NOT the point of the exercise.

The point is to rid the country of habitual criminals.

There's little intelligence to what you're saying, never mind theory.

It's NOT about having a brain/half a brain, it's about having no FEAR!! Some of these guys are quiet sharp - they just don't care: look at Martin Cahill. Would the death penalty have made him stop, think and get a nice 9-5 job in an office?

If the point is 'to rid the country of habitual crimals' and this won't work, why bother doing it? Why not - here's a novel idea - try something that MIGHT work BEFORE the criminals commit the crimes?

mike65

Habitual criminals are among the stupidest people in society. They never learn.

Mike.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

mike65 wrote: »

Habitual criminals are among the stupidest people in society. They never learn.

Mike.

More petty criminals, for whom most people wouldn't support killing anyway.

the_syco

johnnyc wrote: »

just wondering what peoples opinions on the re-introduction of the death penalty. I am pro death penalty as i believe it deters murders, political groups from carrying out murdering rampages, and also the shipment of mass amount of drugs by cartels(the one in cork comes to my mind) it seems a waste of public finances to lock up these people.

I'm also pro-death, but I'd prefer bigger prisons, and LIFE MEANING LIFE. And not 25 or so years.

Also, death would only suit life flight risks, who are a danger to non-lifers in the prison.

I don't see the death penalty as a warning, etc. I see it as getting rid of a problem. If a seriously dangerous person gets put away, only for them to inflict fear and pain on people inside the prisons, only death will stop them. Some see death as a good thing, so it's not always a deterrance.

Kimbot

Forget about the death penalty, the only way forward with criminals in this country is chain gangs. Get them to fix up our roads, clean our towns etc. It will save a fortune in taxes every year and it might just teach them the value of working hard for a living.

RobAMerc

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

There's little intelligence to what you're saying, never mind theory.

It's NOT about having a brain/half a brain, it's about having no FEAR!! Some of these guys are quiet sharp - they just don't care: look at Martin Cahill. Would the death penalty have made him stop, think and get a nice 9-5 job in an office?

If the point is 'to rid the country of habitual crimals' and this won't work, why bother doing it? Why not - here's a novel idea - try something that MIGHT work BEFORE the criminals commit the crimes?

Please re-read my post with your brain in.
Your not getting the point. Scaring these filth into stopping would only be a happy side effect of the plan if it happened. If not then they would re-offend, we would kill them, and we're done with them - either way the scum stops offending.

axer

jonny24ie wrote: »

Forget about the death penalty, the only way forward with criminals in this country is chain gangs. Get them to fix up our roads, clean our towns etc. It will save a fortune in taxes every year and it might just teach them the value of working hard for a living.

That I agree with. Those in prison should be forced to work for the better of the community and country. It should work on a system whereby you work (and do good work) then you get benefits. You don't work or act the bollox then you have only the basic needs e.g. no tv nor other luxuries etc. Might teach them that if they act well in the community when released then they will be rewarded and not end up in prison again.

Those with no chance of rehabilitation should be terminated imo.

sovtek

axer wrote: »

That I agree with. Those in prison should be forced to work for the better of the community and country. It should work on a system whereby you work (and do good work) then you get benefits. You don't work or act the bollox then you have only the basic needs e.g. no tv nor other luxuries etc. Might teach them that if they act well in the community when released then they will be rewarded and not end up in prison again.

Those with no chance of rehabilitation should be terminated imo.

It's been tried before. Ever heard of Angola, the prison...not the country? Oh and it doesn't work.

sovtek

jonny24ie wrote: »

Forget about the death penalty, the only way forward with criminals in this country is chain gangs. Get them to fix up our roads, clean our towns etc. It will save a fortune in taxes every year and it might just teach them the value of working hard for a living.

You mean the value of working your ass off for nothing. That would make me want to get out and seek revenge on the assholes that made me a slave.
That the term "chain gang" exists tells ya that its been tried before.

axer

sovtek wrote: »

It's been tried before. Ever heard of Angola, the prison...not the country? Oh and it doesn't work.

How come?

Manic Moran

axer wrote: »

Either it should be in for killing anyone or not at all. Why is a garda's life more important than a regular punter?

In terms of value of life, it isn't. In terms of the symbolism, however, it is. By killing a known Garda, you are attacking not just the person, but the State personified. (Not to stroke the egos of Gardai, mind, but in effect, that's what it is.) They've devoted themselves to our safety, when we are too weak (or scared or lazy) to do it for ourselves. I think that deserves a slight elevation.

NTM

axer

Manic Moran wrote: »

In terms of value of life, it isn't. In terms of the symbolism, however, it is. By killing a known Garda, you are attacking not just the person, but the State personified. (Not to stroke the egos of Gardai, mind, but in effect, that's what it is.) They've devoted themselves to our safety, when we are too weak (or scared or lazy) to do it for ourselves. I think that deserves a slight elevation.

NTM

I don't agree. It is a job like any other jobs. There are many other jobs out there that keep us safe and save our lives. Why should someone be less punished for killing someone else?

uptherebels

axer wrote: »

I don't agree. It is a job like any other jobs. There are many other jobs out there that keep us safe and save our lives. Why should someone be less punished for killing someone else?

but its not a job like any other,they have to deal with the scum of society.
How often do you have deal with drug dealers and armed gangs in the course of your job?

axer

uptherebels wrote: »

but its not a job like any other,they have to deal with the scum of society.

What about doctors, social workers, security personnel, soldiers etc ? Many people have to deal with the scum of our society.

berliner

it's ironic most people here are against the death penalty and in support of muslims opening mosques wherever they want.Ironic because muslim countries kill and mutilate (chop off hands) of their citizens as a punishment.