Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Crime and Punishment, what's your views?
Options
Comments
-
-
Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »
I believe there was a case in the 80's where there was someone found guilty of killing a member of An Garda Siochana. The Judge obviously decided against the Death Penalty and went for the mandatory life sentence.0 -
I don't think it should be an eye for an eye but in circumstances such as repetitive child molestation/murder, I definitely think the death penalty should be used.
Also, remember, we have the death penalty in Ireland. The murder of a garda can result in the death penalty but they are always pardoned by the president.
I came across a statement in a movie once that has stuck with me. Just after the good guy catches the bad guy, the bad guy is like:
"Take me to prison, I'll be out in 10 years".
"Men go to prison, dogs get put down."
And subsequently kills him. When someone preys on the most vunerable, our children, repetitively, then I believe the death penalty comes into force. I feel there is a stage where humanity ends and they're are no more than an animal. You'd put down a dog that is attacking people, so why is this beast any different?
Punishment is also about deterring crime through fear of said punishment. There is evidence to show that the death penalty is a worse deterrent than life sentences. Simply put, people see death as easier than years of institutionalisation.0 -
Blah, too many posts to read - I'll do that later.
My view?
My cousin works as a prison officer, I've heard of proper criminals and the like going to prison for time off, or holidays from their busy life of crime! There's a lot of people in the country worse off tbh, it's not even funny. Some of what you hear makes you wonder WTF is wrong with this country.
I was in the garda station getting a passport sorted out, few proper criminals were around chatting about where they're just out of, where they're going next etc etc, and it was so blasé, it's laughable to them...
Prison is meant to induce rehab, and in the US, it does. It's properly enforced, they get sweet FA luxuries unless they're the best little kids in the playpen, and every time they step out of line they pay for it 10x. Over here, there's no incentive for them to get better, because the punishment is a fúcking joke. If anything, it's like saying to them "well, you can do what you want and the worst that will ever happen to you is LUXURY, all paid for by the taxpayer of course".
But of course, that's only the prison side of the system, and the tip of the ridiculous icebergjoke that is the Irish law system
The way it is at the moment, I could rape and kill a family, and I'd be out in about 2 years with all these bullshít "suspended" sentences.
I'd be very in favour of the death penalty, and there's a lot of people who I'd love to see get it too. So much so I'd bring popcorn to the execution. There's far too much scum in the gene pool, and sending them all to scum congregation places isn't exactly making things any better.
If they're not going to be any contribution to society, or get better, I don't see why they're allowed live at a continued cost to the rest of society. Get rid of 'em and make room for more deserving people.
edit: conorstuff: maybe in somewhere like the US, however, over here where the years of luxury they get awarded... if you start offing them they'll soon start behaving. I'd bet on it.0 -
EuropeanSon wrote: »Personally I don't see why people are so opposed to the death penalty. At the end of the day, you are getting rid of people who make nothing but negative contributions to society, ergo, you are making society better.If they were to get life imprisonment instead, they do nothing but place a heavy financial burden on society for the remainder of their existence, and provide no benefit to society whatsoever. So what's the point in keeping them alive?And please, don't spew BS excuses like "they might not be guilty". The chances are absolutely minute play absolutely no part in any rational discussion, especially if execution were to be done only on condition of a unanimous jury vote.On the point that it is more expensive than life imprisonment (based on figures from that haven of overpriced lawsuits and million dollar appeals, the good ol' US of A) I would say that there is no need for it to be this way, and that such costs are not inherent in the process and can therefore be decreased with prudence, as opposed to the fixed cost of paying to feed someone and guard them for several decades, which is the case with life imprisonment.
I suppose Japan would be a possible exception; I'm not sure how much the death penalty costs the state over there. Either way though, I don't think "it's cheaper" is a good enough reason to advocate the death penalty. Putting a price on human life is wading into very dodgy territory.On the issue that killing someone is somehow inherently wrong, I'd ask for a reason as to why this is, beyond "god says so" or some crap about an inherent sanctity of life, which is refuted wonderfully in this article, specifically by his first objection.
I'm always amazed when people are pro-life and pro-death penalty. So it's ok to stamp on women's rights by claiming it's inherently wrong to terminate an unwanted foetus that's not yet a fully developed human, yet it's perfectly acceptable for the state to execute an ACTUAL living breathing human?
Foetuses are cuter than murderers, I guess....0 -
Advertisement
-
.
Edit: I was going to leave the super witty subtle change to your post as is, but figured I might as well actually respond to it.
Let's assume that you're right, that the chances are tiny (and really I've read a lot to convince me otherwise, though I can't say I've really looked into it), at what point does "absolutely minute" suddenly become moral.
Is executing 1 innocent man for every 100 guilty men justifiable because overall society is a better place?
Who takes the blame when the inevitable does eventually happen?
Do we consider those who ordered the man's death to be guilty of a crime or do we just let them off because "It really seemed like he deserved it at the time"?
The legal system, of course, takes the blame. However, it is also due credit for the benefits of its successes, and overall I think that would leave it in positive karma, so to speak.Well why bother even locking up murderers then? Who is anyone to say that what they did was wrong?
I did not say murder, or many other kinds of killing, weren't wrong. I said killing in and of itself wasn't inherently wrong in all circumstances. There is a substantial difference.0 -
KnifeWRENCH wrote: »Not the case in some countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran, where the death penalty can be issued for homosexuality, witchcraft and adultery, among other things. I'm not suggesting that you advocate the death penalty for gay people (or witches) but it goes to show how the system can be so grossly abused in the wrong hands. It's not just criminals that get sent down.Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both are horribly costly, so why choose state advocated murder and a quick get out of jail card for the perpetrator as opposed to punishing someone to life in prison, whereby they deal with the consequences of their actions and the rest of us continue to live in a country where the state doesn't have the right to end people's lives.:rolleyes: Love how you call it a BS excuse simply because it's a (valid) point that goes against your argument. But Pygmalion has already addressed this and I'd just be repeating what he said.If there was no need for it to be this way, do you not think the US would have somehow realised this by now and fixed that system? Sure, the death penalty is probably cheaper in other countries than in the US, but compare the other countries that actually have the death penalty to the US: in said countries it is likely that the prison system also costs less. And the costly legal mumbo jumbo is avoided by the fact that the accused is less likely to be given a fair trial.
I suppose Japan would be a possible exception; I'm not sure how much the death penalty costs the state over there. Either way though, I don't think "it's cheaper" is a good enough reason to advocate the death penalty. Putting a price on human life is wading into very dodgy territory.I'm always amazed when people are pro-life and pro-death penalty. So it's ok to stamp on women's rights by claiming it's inherently wrong to terminate an unwanted foetus that's not yet a fully developed human, yet it's perfectly acceptable for the state to execute an ACTUAL living breathing human?
Foetuses are cuter than murderers, I guess....0 -
.
Edit: I was going to leave the super witty subtle change to your post as is, but figured I might as well actually respond to it.
Let's assume that you're right, that the chances are tiny (and really I've read a lot to convince me otherwise, though I can't say I've really looked into it), at what point does "absolutely minute" suddenly become moral.
Is executing 1 innocent man for every 100 guilty men justifiable because overall society is a better place?
Who takes the blame when the inevitable does eventually happen?
Do we consider those who ordered the man's death to be guilty of a crime or do we just let them off because "It really seemed like he deserved it at the time"?
If you want to get into technicalities... How many road deaths are there per year? Since records began in 1959, 22,682 people have been killed on Irish roads(2009). However, there are always going to be accidents and road deaths, it's just a consequence of driving, and is accepted as such. The alternative is that nobody drives ever, which is insane. What makes that any more or less moral than introducing the death penalty, and having a minute error percentage there?
Keep looking into it and eventually you'll find the moral thing would probably be if nobody ever did anything ever.
It's really no different. No system is perfect, errors will always happen. You just have to accept it.0 -
challengemaster wrote: »What makes that any more or less moral than introducing the death penalty, and having a minute error percentage there?
Well for one the point of introducing cars isn't to actively try and take people's lives?
Perhaps that's not enough of a difference though.EuropeanSon wrote: »I would say that yes, it is. And I think the rate would be vastly, vastly lower than 1 in 100.
The legal system, of course, takes the blame. However, it is also due credit for the benefits of its successes, and overall I think that would leave it in positive karma, so to speak.
Oh, ok, as long as you believe that the odd innocent person getting killed is ok then I guess it's ok.
I strongly urge you to run for election with that strategy.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Punishment is also about deterring crime through fear of said punishment. There is evidence to show that the death penalty is a worse deterrent than life sentences. Simply put, people see death as easier than years of institutionalisation.challengemaster wrote: »Prison is meant to induce rehab, and in the US, it does. It's properly enforced, they get sweet FA luxuries unless they're the best little kids in the playpen, and every time they step out of line they pay for it 10x. Over here, there's no incentive for them to get better, because the punishment is a fúcking joke. If anything, it's like saying to them "well, you can do what you want and the worst that will ever happen to you is LUXURY, all paid for by the taxpayer of course".But of course, that's only the prison side of the system, and the tip of the ridiculous icebergjoke that is the Irish law systemThe way it is at the moment, I could rape and kill a family, and I'd be out in about 2 years with all these bullshít "suspended" sentences.I'd be very in favour of the death penalty, and there's a lot of people who I'd love to see get it too. So much so I'd bring popcorn to the execution. There's far too much scum in the gene pool, and sending them all to scum congregation places isn't exactly making things any better.If they're not going to be any contribution to society, or get better, I don't see why they're allowed live at a continued cost to the rest of society. Get rid of 'em and make room for more deserving people.edit: conorstuff: maybe in somewhere like the US, however, over here where the years of luxury they get awarded... if you start offing them they'll soon start behaving. I'd bet on it.KnifeWRENCH wrote: »I'm always amazed when people are pro-life and pro-death penalty. So it's ok to stamp on women's rights by claiming it's inherently wrong to terminate an unwanted foetus that's not yet a fully developed human, yet it's perfectly acceptable for the state to execute an ACTUAL living breathing human?
Foetuses are cuter than murderers, I guess....EuropeanSon wrote: »I would say that yes, it is. And I think the rate would be vastly, vastly lower than 1 in 100.0 -
Advertisement
-
challengemaster wrote: »If you want to get into technicalities... How many road deaths are there per year? Since records began in 1959, 22,682 people have been killed on Irish roads(2009). However, there are always going to be accidents and road deaths, it's just a consequence of driving, and is accepted as such. The alternative is that nobody drives ever, which is insane. What makes that any more or less moral than introducing the death penalty, and having a minute error percentage there?
Keep looking into it and eventually you'll find the moral thing would probably be if nobody ever did anything ever.
It's really no different. No system is perfect, errors will always happen. You just have to accept it.
That's the exact same!0 -
-
Yeah, also I tripped up going upstairs a while back, could have killed me.
Strairs are exactly as bad the death penalty and there's nothing anyone can say that will change it.
And don't get me started on tall buildings or prescription medication.
Did I ever tell you of the time I almost choked to death on some chicken skin? Frankly, had I suffered any injury as a result, I should've sued the State for allowing me to eat!0 -
I believe there was a case in the 80's where there was someone found guilty of killing a member of An Garda Siochana. The Judge obviously decided against the Death Penalty and went for the mandatory life sentence.
That was at Ballaghaderreen a town near my home village. At the time a lot of people were calling for the death sentence for those accused.0 -
EuropeanSon wrote: »We are not in those countries. Do people who advocate imprisonment for murder or other heinous crimes here automatically support it for premarital sex, because they do that somewhere else? This point is really quite ridiculous.The purpose of prisons in the case of violent crimes, as I see it, is (a) as a deterrent, in which case I suspect execution might work better, and (b) as a means of keeping people safe, which is achieved equally well (better when you consider the potential to escape in the case of imprisonment) by execution.
Point (b) - ok, can kind of see where you're coming from here. But the chance of a dangerous mass-murderer escaping a high-security prison would be comporably minimal to the chance of an innocent person being convicted of murder. Both are rather unlikely scenarios.Also, "state advocated murder" is a stupid, emotive term, the use of which is childish. "Murder", you'll find, has a separate definition. "Killing" is more accurate.I've already addressed this re: Pygmalion's post.You refute your own point with the Japanese example,and also, "it's cheaper" alone certainly isn't good enough, but is another minor advantage to add to the multiple other advantages.A foetus isn't a menace to society, and hasn't murdered anyone.
*tongue firmly in cheek - not actually debating that point. And simultaneously, I get to invoke Godwin's Law. I never get to do that....amacachi wrote:Can we not go down the abortion road please?challengemaster wrote:But of course, that's only the prison side of the system, and the tip of the ridiculous icebergjoke that is the Irish law system
The way it is at the moment, I could rape and kill a family, and I'd be out in about 2 years with all these bullshít "suspended" sentences.0 -
-
challengemaster wrote: »It'd be nice to see an actual arguement instead of one liners and such 'superb' wit :rolleyes:
Hold on, you actually want me to argue that state-mandated killing is different to car accidents? Seriously?0 -
-
challengemaster wrote: »LOL IDK TEL U WUT. DNT BDR. LOL
You win, if he doesn't go into the details of why a car accident is not a state-mandated execution then clearly it's because there is no difference.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Well if you're going to reply with shíte like "LOL" instead of actually argueing a point, why should anyone else bother?0
-
challengemaster wrote: »Well if you're going to reply with shíte like "LOL" instead of actually argueing a point, why should anyone else bother?
I used "LOL" twice, once followed by an explanation for the LOL because I can't believe that someone actually thinks that the US system has a good record for rehabilitation and the second LOL didn't require any explanation, as any reading of any study into the matter will show, as I would hope someone had done before trying to argue a point.
But hey, maybe I'm expecting too much.0 -
3 strikes doesn't work either. You're a maths head, fancy plotting a graph of general severity of sentence against crime levels? Generally it's almost an inverse relationship from what I can see.
Oh, I wasn't arguing that the specific punishments we have in Ireland are any better. I believe in real life sentences. "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" style punishments.
If I were to try to model it, my initial guess would be that it's logarithmic - the more severe the fine gets, the less years they add on to the existing punishment.
The parameters need tuning. This is 10 ln( ln( x+e )), with the Y-axis being years of punishment, and the X-axis being severity of crime.
*Not actual figures, or even serious maths. Just note the idea. :P
I also don't believe in getting out on good behaviour. Good behaviour is what should keep people out of jail in the first place, it's not an afterthought. (To embellish your point, in case it seemed I was arguing against it).0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Oh, I wasn't arguing that the specific punishments we have in Ireland are any better. I believe in real life sentences. "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" style punishments.The parameters need tuning. This is 10 ln( ln( x+e )), with the Y-axis being years of punishment, and the X-axis being severity of crime.
*Not actual figures, or even serious maths. Just note the idea. :PI also don't believe in getting out on good behaviour. Good behaviour is what should keep people out of jail in the first place, it's not an afterthought. (To embellish your point, in case it seemed I was arguing against it).
One caveat though, even though spending on things other than prison is more effective than locking everyone up, on principle I couldn't follow the softly-softly approach on sentencing. Even if would work better I still think punishment is too important.0 -
KnifeWRENCH wrote: »The point is not ridiculous (although feel free to dismiss it as such if it makes life easier for you.) Just an example to show that the death penalty is not always just some special punishment reserved for heinous criminals. I'm well aware we don't live in such countries but there's no point in pretending that it doesn;t happen elsewhere.For point (a), it's been fairly well documented that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Certainly no more so than the threat of life imprisonment anyway.
Point (b) - ok, can kind of see where you're coming from here. But the chance of a dangerous mass-murderer escaping a high-security prison would be comporably minimal to the chance of an innocent person being convicted of murder. Both are rather unlikely scenarios.
(b) I know that, however, as you insist on persisting with the one innocent person example as a counterargument (as you do so below, "you basically say..." etc, that paragraph), you should have no issue with me using an equally statistically irrelevant point.Ok, fine. Killing is more accurate, you're correct. A poor choice of words on my part, however it was not intentionally emotive or sensationalsit. Labelling me "childish" just because I used slightly incorrect terminology does your position no favours here.Yup, read that. You basically say it's worth one innocent person dying for 100 guilty to be convicted. I realise those numbers wouldn't be an accurate reflection, and it would more likely be 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 or something. Still, you feel that one innocent person dying is worth it. I can't agree with that.Eh, no I didn't. :rolleyes: Try reading my post properly. I fully admitted that I didn't know how much it cost in Japan. I'd imagine it's certainly cheaper there than in the US, but would that not mainly be because Japan doesn't execute as many people as the US does? It's something I have to read up on more, but even if Japan had managed to make execution super cost efficient it wouldn't make me feel any differently.Those multiple advantages you speak of just do not resonate with me. It's sort of like the abortion debate; very unlikely anyone's seriously going to be convinced and change sides here. It's an interesting topic though...
It could grow up to be one, though. Could even grow up to be the next Hitler!* :pac:
*tongue firmly in cheek - not actually debating that point. And simultaneously, I get to invoke Godwin's Law. I never get to do that....
There is no argument or points of relevence here, so I'll leave this as is. I'll agree that it is a very interesting topic.0 -
EuropeanSon wrote: »A search for "cost of executions in japan" and a brief scan of the first results page returned no relevant results, and I don't have time or energy to devote to more extensive research, but if you do happen upon something, please enlighten me.There is no argument or points of relevence hereso I'll leave this as is.0
Advertisement