Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

old hippy

Jumboman wrote: »

I would of voted no to execute saddam because I dont know enough about him and I dont trust what they say on the news.

With that logic in mind, do you trust all your hear about child molesters? Do you know enough about each perp to decide they need the death penalty?

Jumboman

end of the road wrote: »

yes, the death penalty is never justified under any circumstances

I take it your not a parent ?

old hippy

Jumboman wrote: »

I take it your not a parent ?

I take it you've never seen an anti death penalty march or vigil?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

I would of voted no to execute saddam because I dont know enough about him and I dont trust what they say on the news.

How can you say you support the detah penalty for anyone, then?

Jumboman

old hippy wrote: »

With that logic in mind, do you trust all your hear about child molesters? Do you know enough about each perp to decide they need the death penalty?

Thats completely different people like saddam and gaddafi etc were demonized to justify wars. I dont know of any cases of the wrost kind of child molesters being set up. What are the odds that jon venables is innocent I'd say close to zero.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

Thats completely different people like saddam and gaddafi etc were demonized to justify wars. I dont know of any cases of the wrost kind of child molesters being set up. What are the odds that jon venables is innocent I'd say close to zero.

How do you this to be true?

Amirani

Jumboman wrote: »

Thats completely different people like saddam and gaddafi etc were demonized to justify wars. I dont know of any cases of the wrost kind of child molesters being set up. What are the odds that jon venables is innocent I'd say close to zero.

Saddam is demonised? Must be a tough job demonising someone who oversaw the use of chemical weapons on ethnic groups in his own country.

old hippy

Jumboman wrote: »

Thats completely different people like saddam and gaddafi etc were demonized to justify wars. I dont know of any cases of the wrost kind of child molesters being set up. What are the odds that jon venables is innocent I'd say close to zero.

Saddam and Gadaffi were set up & demonised? Shurely you jest? I didn't support the war in Iraq - I marched against it - but it would have been foolish of me to see Saddam as an innocent. He most certainly was not.

Jumboman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How can you say you support the detah penalty for anyone, then?

Because their is no political motive to frame the average child molester.

old hippy

Jumboman wrote: »

Because their is no political motive to frame the average child molester.

Are you saying Saddam and/or Gadaffi were framed? Seriously?

And if you are, I thought you said (in the case of Saddam) you didn't know enough about him?

Jumboman

old hippy wrote: »

Saddam and Gadaffi were set up & demonised? Shurely you jest? I didn't support the war in Iraq - I marched against it - but it would have been foolish of me to see Saddam as an innocent. He most certainly was not.

I'm not saying hes innocent but you have to take what was said about him with a pinch of salt. It was claimed that Saddams soldiers were murdering babies around the time of the first Iraq war that turned out to be total lie.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

Because their is no political motive to frame the average child molester.

I'd argue the other side: child molesters are more dangerous to the local society, whereas neither Gadaffi nor Hussein posed a threat to Ireland. Allegedly, of course - I don't trust what I read in the media regarding war criminals or child abusers.

I've always wondered, too, why people always bring up "pedophiles" in cases like this: why ar the worse than, say, thieves or corrupt politicians? Meida portrayal, perhaps?

You are jsut as susceptable as everyone else where media manipulation is concerned.

Jumboman

old hippy wrote: »

Are you saying Saddam and/or Gadaffi were framed? Seriously?

And if you are, I thought you said (in the case of Saddam) you didn't know enough about him?

Gadaffi seems to have been well liked amongst his own people. I dont know enough about him either but I wouldnt convict him based on what the media says.

People like George Bush and Tony Blair have done far worse than anything Gadaffi or Saddam have allegedly done.

Bashar al-Assad is now the medias new boogeyman we are been flooded with propaganda about him also.

Jumboman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I've always wondered, too, why people always bring up "pedophiles" in cases like this: why ar the worse than, say, thieves or corrupt politicians? Meida portrayal, perhaps?

.

Because they destroy a childs life its worse than murder in my opinion.

If one drug dealer kils another drug dealer I'm not really bothered but when someone abuses a child I find that the sickest crime anyone could commit.

Piliger

Anyone who considers it worse than murder really has no clue. Murder ends a life. Assault and abuse damages it but does not end it, no matter how you look at it.

Jumboman

Piliger wrote: »

Anyone who considers it worse than murder really has no clue. Murder ends a life. Assault and abuse damages it but does not end it, no matter how you look at it.

You can reform a murderer but you can never reform a Paedophile.

Also people who are abused can never fully recover.

Ray Palmer

Jumboman wrote: »

I would of voted no to execute saddam because I dont know enough about him and I dont trust what they say on the news.

That doesn't mean the audience thought about it like you. When asked they said the were against the death penalty. The point stands as originally stated.

Btw child molesters that don't kill aren't given death penalties in most countries. This makes your example pretty pointless.

Jumboman

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That doesn't mean the audience thought about it like you. When asked they said the were against the death penalty. The point stands as originally stated.

Btw child molesters that don't kill aren't given death penalties in most countries. This makes your example pretty pointless.

Are you saying the late late audience represents the whole country ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

You can reform a murderer but you can never reform a Paedophile.

Also people who are abused can never fully recover.

Drink drivers have also destroye the lives of children. As have corrupt politicians and yet not the same sense of revulsion.

What is your evidence to say who can and who can not be reformed? If not the news, then where do you get your information? (Not saying your wrong - just wondering where you get it...)

Jumboman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Drink drivers have also destroye the lives of children. As have corrupt politicians and yet not the same sense of revulsion.

What is your evidence to say who can and who can not be reformed? If not the news, then where do you get your information? (Not saying your wrong - just wondering where you get it...)

Common sense would tell you they cant be reformed. If somebody is a Paedophile they will always be sexual attracted to children just like a heterosexual is attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

Drink drivers are scumbags but they are not on the same level as child molesters.

Amirani

Jumboman wrote: »

Also people who are abused can never fully recover.

Have you been abused? I don't know how you can talk in such definite terms if you weren't.

Someone quite close to me was abused as a child, and yet they're pretty happy to be alive today and enjoying their life. How is that a worse situation than them being dead? Murder is far worse, I don't know how some people think it's not.

Vote 4 Pedro

Yes i would for the most serious of crimes where there was 100% certainty of guilt.

Amirani

Vote 4 Pedro wrote: »

Yes i would for the most serious of crimes where there was 100% certainty of guilt.

It's quite rare that there is 100% certainty of guilt.

Jumboman

NiallSparky wrote: »

Have you been abused? I don't know how you can talk in such definite terms if you weren't.

Someone quite close to me was abused as a child, and yet they're pretty happy to be alive today and enjoying their life. How is that a worse situation than them being dead? Murder is far worse, I don't know how some people think it's not.

Yes I know someone who it happend to and it has made him a very withdrawn person because of the abuse he will never reach his full potential. The abuser has ineffect given him a life sentence.
It left such a mark on him he once asked me would I help him beat up his abuser when he was back in Ireland.


You dont know whats going on in side your freinds head. Maybe hes 90% over it but that is something he always remember. I still remember things that happend to me in my childhood that were nothing compared to sexual abuse.

Amirani

Jumboman wrote: »

Yes I know someone who it happend to and it has made him a very withdrawn person because of the abuse he will never reach his full potential. The abuser has ineffect given him a life sentence.
It left such a mark on him he once asked me would I help him beat up his abuser when he was back in Ireland.


You dont know whats going on in side your freinds head. Maybe hes 90% over it but that is something he always remember. I still remember things that happend to me in my childhood that were nothing compared to sexual abuse.

That's all well and good, and I agree, but I'm sure both you and me are happy that our friends are still alive. I'd say on balance, they are too.

No Pants

Can we also have the death penalty for people who are useless?

locum-motion

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Absolutely. Should never have been abolished for what were then called 'Capital' murders, eg murder of a Garda.

end of the road

Jumboman wrote: »

The taking of innocent life is wrong but there is a huge difference between the state deciding to kill a scumbag and someone who goes out and kills a 90 year old woman or kills a child etc.

no their isn't, the state says its wrong to kill so therefore to then turn round and say they can kill someone who has killed when they have said killing is wrong just makes their stance invalid.

end of the road

locum-motion wrote: »

Absolutely. Should never have been abolished for what were then called 'Capital' murders, eg murder of a Garda.

why not? why should so called "Capital' murders" have the death penalty but not all murders? its saying the life of for example a guarda is more important then the rest of us which it isn't, murder is murder, the idea that their are 2 levels of murder is ridiculous

wazky

locum-motion wrote: »

Absolutely. Should never have been abolished for what were then called 'Capital' murders, eg murder of a Garda.

Is a Garda's life worth more than anyone else's?

Love2u

Jumboman wrote: »

I take it your not a parent ?

I am a "parent" and yet this has nothing to do with it! Why even bring it into the conversation. We are against the death penalty regardless. Please read our posts.

Love2u

Jumboman wrote: »

Yes I know someone who it happend to and it has made him a very withdrawn person because of the abuse he will never reach his full potential. The abuser has ineffect given him a life sentence.
It left such a mark on him he once asked me would I help him beat up his abuser when he was back in Ireland.


You dont know whats going on in side your freinds head. Maybe hes 90% over it but that is something he always remember. I still remember things that happend to me in my childhood that were nothing compared to sexual abuse.

Did your friend get the right help and counselling? It sounds like he hasn't if he's asking you to help him beat up his abuser. Getting violent or wanting the death penalty is not going to solve anything. Your friend needs to find the right help towards healing himself, it can be done but he's got to want to do it. It's not healthy going the violent route. However I do wish him well and I hope he can find a way to heal from the ordeal.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

Common sense would tell you they cant be reformed. If somebody is a Paedophile they will always be sexual attracted to children just like a heterosexual is attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

Drink drivers are scumbags but they are not on the same level as child molesters.

Fallacy. Homosexuality is an orienation, where as pedophilia is a fetish.

jank

old hippy wrote: »

The cost of taking lives is even greater.

Can you please prove this?

old hippy

Jumboman wrote: »

Gadaffi seems to have been well liked amongst his own people. I dont know enough about him either but I wouldnt convict him based on what the media says.

People like George Bush and Tony Blair have done far worse than anything Gadaffi or Saddam have allegedly done.

Ok, this is really off topic but much as I loathe Blair and Bush, they haven't massacred their own people. They didn't blow up a plane over Lockerbie or supply arms to the IRA.

old hippy

jank wrote: »

Can you please prove this?

I'm not talking about financial costs here. Murder is murder and I stand firmly against it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.aclunc.org/issues/criminal_justice/death_penalty/frequently_asked_questions_about_the_costs_of_california's_death_penalty.shtml#Why does it cost more?

In total, the death penalty system cost California taxpayers $137 million each year, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice found, whereas permanent imprisonment for all those currently on death row would cost just $11 million.

Apparently, they have two trials: one to determine guilt and a second to determin sentence. Both can be appealed.

If it were to be brought in here, you can also add appealing to the Supreme court as well. On top of that, he cost of keeping the prisoner in jail while said appeals, which will run to a million euro every four years acording to lnks provided by Allibastor.

9959

In answer to the question posed in the thread title, I'll echo the words of Al Sherman, Al Lewis and Abner Silver:

No! No! A thousand times no, I'd rather die than say yes.

Jumboman

old hippy wrote: »

Ok, this is really off topic but much as I loathe Blair and Bush, they haven't massacred their own people. They didn't blow up a plane over Lockerbie or supply arms to the IRA.

lol if you believe libya was responsible for Lockerbie you will believe anything.


Gaddafi probably did give weapons to the IRA but the brits and americans have also armed the terrorist "rebels" in libya which killed tens of thousands of people.

As for Saddam "killing his own people" you are repeating american propaganda that line has been throttled out a million times.

You believe Saddam and Gaddafi are bad people because the media told you so.

Jumboman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fallacy. Homosexuality is an orienation, where as pedophilia is a fetish.

So would you trust a "reformed" Paedophile around children ?

Jumboman

Love2u wrote: »

Did your friend get the right help and counselling? It sounds like he hasn't if he's asking you to help him beat up his abuser. Getting violent or wanting the death penalty is not going to solve anything. Your friend needs to find the right help towards healing himself, it can be done but he's got to want to do it. It's not healthy going the violent route. However I do wish him well and I hope he can find a way to heal from the ordeal.

He had counselling but it didnt help him I think the only "counselling" he needs is to be able to beat the **** of the abuser. His abuser is still walking around without a care in the world.

Jumboman

NiallSparky wrote: »

That's all well and good, and I agree, but I'm sure both you and me are happy that our friends are still alive. I'd say on balance, they are too.

His abuser is still walking around and free to do the same thing again.


The world would be a better place if his abuser was dead.

MRnotlob606

who are we to judge who is to die?

Jumboman

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

who are we to judge who is to die?

We should listen to what abuse victims want done.

K.Flyer

Jumboman wrote: »

You believe Saddam and Gaddafi are bad people because the media told you so.

I believe Gaddafi was a bad person based on what was told to me by people from Libya, people who can start to speak freely now without fear of "going missing".

Jumboman

K.Flyer wrote: »

I believe Gaddafi was a bad person based on what was told to me by people from Libya, people who can start to speak freely now without fear of "going missing".

Those guys were most likely Libyan traitors or political opponents who supported the NATO invasion of their country.

Also if you read Gaddafis green book he supports freedom of speech for the individual.

K.Flyer

Jumboman wrote: »

Those guys were most likely Libyan traitors or political opponents who supported the NATO invasion of their country.

Also if you read Gaddafis green book he supports freedom of speech for the individual.

No, they loved their country, just not how it was run, managed to get asylum in Ireland.
So you are saying it was safe to speak out publicly in Libya against Gaddafi without fear of reprisal?

bumper234

9959 wrote: »

In answer to the question posed in the thread title, I'll echo the words of Al Sherman, Al Lewis and Abner Silver:

No! No! A thousand times no, I'd rather die than say yes.

And in answer to the question posed in the thread title, I'll echo the words of my girlfriend

Yes Yes oh good god Yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Jumboman

K.Flyer wrote: »

No, they loved their country, just not how it was run, managed to get asylum in Ireland.
So you are saying it was safe to speak out publicly in Libya against Gaddafi without fear of reprisal?

They were traitors by any definition they aided and abetted the NATO bombing of their country which has lead to the death of tens of thousands of people.

I dont know if they were free to speak out publicly but the offical policy allowed free speech for "the individual".

You are only getting one side of the story if these guys were working for foreign governments and trying to stir up trouble in order to install a western puppet government then I do not have much sympathy for them.

Libya like Iraq was a much better place before they were invaded.

Piliger

K.Flyer wrote: »

No, they loved their country, just not how it was run, managed to get asylum in Ireland.
So you are saying it was safe to speak out publicly in Libya against Gaddafi without fear of reprisal?

They were heros. I and my son knew two lads in uni in Dublin, who went back to fight Gaddafi and win freedom for the country. Had never held a gun before but they went and fought on the ground. They came back briefly last year and there was a huge party. They are now back in Libya working to make it an even better place. Amazing heroic guys.