Time to bring back the death penalty

deleriumtremens

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I hope you never wind up on a jury!

Me neither. I'l have to tape Jeremy Kyle

Photi

TX123 wrote: »

they got 5 years in a prison where they are given luxuries.

Source?

God, this line gets trodden out so many times.

Go on, tell us all about the Disneyland-esque Irish prison system with the PS3s and the chocolate fountains.


Jail is a horrific, horrible, hardly humane place.

'luxuries', right.

TX123

its not based on justice period. a murderer seems to get less time than a junkie. whats that about. Anyway your a very cold hearted person if you didnt care that someone who harmed ur family only got 5 years with luxuries. seems like you support the scum out there.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TX123 wrote: »

its not based on justice period. a murderer seems to get less time than a junkie. whats that about. Anyway your a very cold hearted person if you didnt care that someone who harmed ur family only got 5 years with luxuries. seems like you support the scum out there.

Go back, re-read post. And don't just type 'ok' - reply to it when you've understood.

well then you should give a valid reason why you disagree and well see who the do gooder is

Why? You've openly made up your mind to genarlise?

TX123

ok

TX123

read it very insightful i still have same opinion they should bring back execution

CiaranC

CDfm wrote: »

for some translations of the bibles it is thou shalt not murder.

There are christian and catholic justifictions at a theological level for t6he death penalty in the common good.

You ever wonder why people dont take Christians seriously any more? God says 'Thou shalt not kill', in his own words, to Moses, and Christians say 'Ah sure, he didnt mean that at all'. Christianity = epic fail.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TX123 wrote: »

read it very insightful i still have same opinion they should bring back execution

Jesus, do you read what's written? What I said was "it wouldn;t mattert what I thought" not "I'd be happy with the sentence."

Anyway, the porblem here isn;t about execution or torture, it's the fact that you think emotions shoould be taken into account to settle legal issues rather than facts and the law.

TX123

please dont bring religion into it something like that is irrelevant to the the physical world

TX123

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Jesus, do you read what's written? What I said was "it wouldn;t mattert what I thought" not "I'd be happy with the sentence."

Anyway, the porblem here isn;t about execution or torture, it's the fact that you think emotions shoould be taken into account to settle legal issues rather than facts and the law.

relax guy. ok i accept that but sentences need to be harder either life in a 3 by 3 foot cell or death. simple as. no more crime on streets no more overcrowded prisons no more fear to walk down the street at night. utopia

javaboy

Stekelly wrote: »

They are mature enough to murder though.

**** them.

A 4 year old can be mature enough to murder.

Stekelly wrote: »

A 4 year old is not a 13 year old. 13 year olds are well on the way to the maturity they will have at 18 and are well able to decide right and wrong especially in circumstances like what happened last night.

So what exact age do you set the bar at? 11? 12? 13?

There would have to be an exact age where you say they are responsible enough to know right from wrong and to be receive the ultimate punishment. What age would you pick? How young would you execute?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TX123 wrote: »

relax guy. ok i accept that but sentences need to be harder either life in a 3 by 3 foot cell or death. simple as. no more crime on streets no more overcrowded prisons no more fear to walk down the street at night. utopia

No worries - one of my pet hates is people telling that I meant something completely different to what I actually wrote.

Anyway, I wouldn't argue that sentences could be stronger at times, but still not based on emotion.

TX123

so would you vote to bring back death penalty for serious crimes i.e murder rape abuse etc for over 18's . i know i would hang a 13yr old but im negotiating with ya

cson

Argument irrelevant.

Even if the proposal was brought to referendum the Irish electorate would never vote for it.

Sure that bastion of peace of tranquilty the USA are getting great results in reducing crime through their continued use of capital punishment. :pac:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TX123 wrote: »

so would you vote to bring back death penalty for serious crimes i.e murder rape abuse etc for over 18's . i know i would hang a 13yr old but im negotiating with ya

Nope. State-sanctioned murder is still murder. It's neither a deterrant nor, when you think about it, a punishment. I started a thread ages ago abotu Ian Huntley, not long after one of his suicide attempts. If you kill him, are you then not giving him exactly what he wants?

TX123

cson wrote: »

Argument irrelevant.

Even if the proposal was brought to referendum the Irish electorate would never vote for it.

Sure that bastion of peace of tranquilty the USA are getting great results in reducing crime through their continued use of capital punishment. :pac:

Their methods are all wrong and procedures. There is no fear in the death penalty over there because it can be appealed and ur 20 or more years on death row. If you had 2 sorts of crime, mild and severe. mild crimes with a trial get life and severe get death within a week. you put the fear of death into criminals and you will never have a crime again

cson

TX123 wrote: »

Their methods are all wrong and procedures. There is no fear in the death penalty over there because it can be appealed and ur 20 or more years on death row. If you had 2 sorts of crime, mild and severe. mild crimes with a trial get life and severe get death within a week. you put the fear of death into criminals and you will never have a crime again

Ahhhhh now I see where you're coming from.

A wehrmacht style Judiciary.

Praise Allah, all our problems are solved!

TX123

well name another method to remove crime. its drachonian by the way. im just looking out for innocent people. why should they suffer at the hands of scum. do you not agree that a society free from crime is good.

javaboy

cson wrote: »

Ahhhhh now I see where you're coming from.

A wehrmacht style Judiciary.

Praise Allah, all our problems are solved!

Ok a week sounds a bit loopy and there would be far more chance of a mistake but he has a point. Whenever the death penalty topic comes up the argument is always made that it costs more than life imprisonment, that it takes ages, that there is no fear of the death penalty because people know that the can appeal for years and if they're convicted after a certain age, they're more likely to die naturally waiting around than by lethal injection.

But that's not the only way to implement a death penalty. Just because the USA's system is horribly inefficient and slow, it doesn't mean ours would have to be.

I'm not pro-death penalty but the failure of it as a deterrent in the US is probably more due to the implementation of the DP there than the DP itself.

TX123

javaboy wrote: »

Ok a week sounds a bit loopy and there would be far more chance of a mistake but he has a point. Whenever the death penalty topic comes up the argument is always made that it costs more than life imprisonment, that it takes ages, that there is no fear of the death penalty because people know that the can appeal for years and if they're convicted after a certain age, they're more likely to die naturally waiting around than by lethal injection.

But that's not the only way to implement a death penalty. Just because the USA's system is horribly inefficient and slow, it doesn't mean ours would have to be.

I'm not pro-death penalty but the failure of it as a deterrent in the US is probably more due to the implementation of the DP there than the DP itself.

Thank you but sorry about the week ten minutes sound better. Time shouldnt matter if its sentnced then the sooner the better. one less to deal with.

javaboy

TX123 wrote: »

Thank you but sorry about the week ten minutes sound better. Time shouldnt matter if its sentnced then the sooner the better. one less to deal with.

Too many innocent people wrongly convicted in the past for a week (or 10 minutes ) timeframe. I can ream off a list of people wrongly convicted of offences that would probably be capital (B'ham 6 and the Guildford 4 for a start) who were found innocent in the end.

So either you'd have to accept that possibility or else you'd have to have much stricter rules for determining guilt in trials. What happens then is that the prosecutors will opt to go for a lower offence where they have a better chance of securing a conviction. You'd probably end up back at square one.

TX123

if your convicted with substantial evidence then you get the penalty. excuse the cliche but no smoke without fire. Do you not agree this would make a safer society????

cson

TX123 wrote: »

well name another method to remove crime. its drachonian by the way. im just looking out for innocent people. why should they suffer at the hands of scum. do you not agree that a society free from crime is good.

Its a knee jerk reaction of a lot of people to jump on the pro capital punishment bandwagon after a particularly inflammatory murder, such as happened last night. First of all, its wishful thinking that a State could ever be crime free, for various socio-demographic issues it'll never happen. I'd agre it'd be all rosy in the garden if this were to be the case, but it isn't.

javaboy wrote: »

Ok a week sounds a bit loopy and there would be far more chance of a mistake but he has a point. Whenever the death penalty topic comes up the argument is always made that it costs more than life imprisonment, that it takes ages, that there is no fear of the death penalty because people know that the can appeal for years and if they're convicted after a certain age, they're more likely to die naturally waiting around than by lethal injection.

But that's not the only way to implement a death penalty. Just because the USA's system is horribly inefficient and slow, it doesn't mean ours would have to be.

I'm not pro-death penalty but the failure of it as a deterrent in the US is probably more due to the implementation of the DP there than the DP itself.

Sure why don't we just line them against a wall and shoot them then? Because that seems to me to be the basis of your argument. The US don't kill them quick enough.

Again I'll reiterate that the argument is irrelevent due to a number of issues. For Capital Punishment to be returned to Irish Law, the Constitution would have to be amended by referendum (which as I've previously stated, the Irish electorate would never vote for it), the State would more than likely have to relinquish its membership of the UN and it would bring a whole range of issues at EU level.

Highly irrelevent thread tbh.

javaboy

TX123 wrote: »

if your convicted with substantial evidence then you get the penalty. excuse the cliche but no smoke without fire. Do you not agree this would make a safer society????

No smoke without fire? So nobody's ever been wrongfully convicted of a crime? :rolleyes: This might make for a safer society but at what cost?

TX123

javaboy wrote: »

No smoke without fire? So nobody's ever been wrongfully convicted of a crime? :rolleyes: This might make for a safer society but at what cost?

im confused now if they were then proven innocent, why can you not say that this verdict was wrong , nowadays with the evidence they have a proper case and full evidence is preseneted. the jury has the final say and let it be that way. Keep our faith in the irish people to come up with a verdict

javaboy

cson wrote: »

javaboy wrote:

Ok a week sounds a bit loopy and there would be far more chance of a mistake but he has a point. Whenever the death penalty topic comes up the argument is always made that it costs more than life imprisonment, that it takes ages, that there is no fear of the death penalty because people know that the can appeal for years and if they're convicted after a certain age, they're more likely to die naturally waiting around than by lethal injection.

But that's not the only way to implement a death penalty. Just because the USA's system is horribly inefficient and slow, it doesn't mean ours would have to be.

I'm not pro-death penalty but the failure of it as a deterrent in the US is probably more due to the implementation of the DP there than the DP itself.

Sure why don't we just line them against a wall and shoot them then? Because that seems to me to be the basis of your argument. The US don't kill them quick enough.

Again I'll reiterate that the argument is irrelevent due to a number of issues. For Capital Punishment to be returned to Irish Law, the Constitution would have to be amended by referendum (which as I've previously stated, the Irish electorate would never vote for it), the State would more than likely have to relinquish its membership of the UN and it would bring a whole range of issues at EU level.

Highly irrelevent thread tbh.

Did you get halfway down through my post and just stop reading? I've helpfully highlighted the bit in bold where I say I'm not in favour of the death penalty.

I'm not saying we line them up against a wall and shoot them. What I am saying is that the US system of capital punishment is clearly a long, complicated, expensive and ineffective system. It is a long way from being the deterrent it is supposed to be.

There are clearly huge flaws with the US version of capital punishment. But I would argue that it should not be ruled out on that basis. If a country wanted to bring in the DP, I'm sure it could be streamlined and made far more efficient than the US system. So I don't see the various flaws of the US' particular implementation as grounds for ruling out the DP here.

I am against the DP and would argue that it should be opposed on grounds of morality and principles, rather than the flaws of one particular implementation. After all those flaws can all be overcome.

javaboy

TX123 wrote: »

im confused now if they were then proven innocent, why can you not say that this verdict was wrong , nowadays with the evidence they have a proper case and full evidence is preseneted. the jury has the final say and let it be that way. Keep our faith in the irish people to come up with a verdict

I don't actually understand your post.

Anyway here's the story: Had your ten minute or one week rule been in place in the not too distant past, several innocent people would have been executed. The legal system is not infallible despite DNA and all the other wonderful advancements in forensic science. At the end of the day it comes down to 12 people who are free to make up their minds on the guilt of the defendant based on his hairstyle if they want.

cson

javaboy wrote: »

If a country wanted to bring in the DP, I'm sure it could be streamlined and made far more efficient than the US system. So I don't see the various flaws of the US' particular implementation as grounds for ruling out the DP here.

I am against the DP and would argue that it should be opposed on grounds of morality and principles, rather than the flaws of one particular implementation. After all those flaws can all be overcome.

Get off the fence, you're one side or the other.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record; its a pointless argument in its entirety.

javaboy

cson wrote: »

Get off the fence, you're one side or the other.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record; its a pointless argument in its entirety.

Eh get off the fence? I didn't exactly mince my words in fairness:

javaboy wrote:

I'm not pro-death penalty

javaboy wrote:

I am against the DP

My point is that using the technical and practical flaws of the USA's version is pointless because a better version could be implemented. Same goes for your arguments about UN memberships and EU issues. They are all just technical obstacles that theoretically could be overcome.

Arguing against the death penalty based on those kind of reasons is not the way to go imo. Better to argue the moral issue. That was my point. If you re-read my posts you'll see I'm not on the fence at all. I just don't think the flaws of the US system should be a basis to debate from.


And as for this thread being pointless, so are hundreds of other threads. If you could bring in one law what would it be? If you could have a superpower what would it be? If you won the lotto et cetera. Obviously the death penalty isn't going to be brought in on the back of this thread but that shouldn't be a reason to stop people having a bit of a debate about it.

cson

Ok I'm a little confused here; You maintain you're against capital punishment but as far as I can see, all you've done in this thread is outline reasons why it could be implemented. I fail to see the rationale in that if you are, as you say yourself, against capital punishment.

Name me one country where capital punishment works?

For the most part the type of person that commits a crime eligible for capital punishment does so irrespective of the overhanging threat of it.