Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

catallus wrote: »

I do love the smell of stunning exaggeration in the morning!

Look, the re-introduction of capital punishment for serious criminals is a pipe-dream for those of us who see the system as having swung massively in favour of perpetrators. It is a comforting dream, a knee-jerk reaction against what many view as the stagnation and corruption of a system which should be in favour of those who are wronged rather than those who do wrong.

If justice isn't seen to be done (and that it is seen to be done is a massive touchstone in our legal system) then the opinions of many will swing in a more authoritarian direction. I'm not saying it's right, it's just that sometimes the will and imaginations of many will swing to the extreme of the death penalty.

There is blood-lust in every one of us, there can be no denying it, and it is a measure of the better nature of our consciences that many of us subsume it through mercy and empathy. But there is a point up to which our better natures will be bent to the point of breaking, and we have seen it happen in history before, and it isn't pretty.

Too much suffering makes a stone of the heart, to quote a recently passed poet.

The probem there is, as is the problem with all knee-jerk reactinos, that the potential is there for it to create far more problems than it resolves. I've pointed this out, but no-one actually wants to deal with them.

Justice not being seen to be done is a problem, granted, but that does not mean that the death penatly is autoamtically the answer, and I have yet to hear one consise argument that it is.

Justice is based on hard, cold fact. Not imagination, not blood-lust and not emotion. Yes, there is a point where people will get emotive and want blood-lust, but not to the point that we base systems of justice on it. These emotions need to be transcended for a better more clearer vision, not subsumed.

Mr Williams

This character would be an ideal candidate for the death penalty. I'd like to see the human rights brigade try and defend this animal.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/paedophile-lostprophets-leader-ian-watkins-jailed-for-35-years-29850078.html

Billy86

Mr Williams wrote: »

This character would be an ideal candidate for the death penalty. I'd like to see the human rights brigade try and defend this animal.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/paedophile-lostprophets-leader-ian-watkins-jailed-for-35-years-29850078.html

It's quite simple - as such a known figure with such horrific crimes, what he's got coming for that time is arguably worse than death. They typically don't take well at all to paedophiles in jails, never mind baby rapists.

Also if you do kill him, it's a lot harder to find out further information about the long, long list of other victims he had across Europe and/or the world. Call me crazy, but I'd call that pretty important to get to the bottom of as the police are pretty certain that what he has been put away for is tip of the iceberg stuff, sadly.

jank

Billy86 wrote: »

It's quite simple - as such a known figure with such horrific crimes, what he's got coming for that time is arguably worse than death. They typically don't take well at all to paedophiles in jails, never mind baby rapists.

.

This is strange logic. Death penalty is perceived as 'bad' because it is deemed 'barbaric' and 'cruel' yet no problem at all locking someone up with the hope they will be assaulted or raped. Great logic.

Mr Williams

This beast will be back on the streets after 30 years he should never ever be released.

end of the road

jank wrote: »

This is strange logic. Death penalty is perceived as 'bad' because it is deemed 'barbaric' and 'cruel' yet no problem at all locking someone up with the hope they will be assaulted or raped. Great logic.

and the fact that if you wrongly kill somebody you can't bring them back, if someone is sent to prison they can be released, not that thats any consolation to those who have been wrongly imprisoned

Rabelais

The death penalty is a disgusting concept. No rational society would even countenance such a thing. Thankfully we live in one.

NIMAN

I wonder if those advocating bringing it back would pull the lever to hang someone when it came to the crunch?

J_E

NIMAN wrote: »

I wonder if those advocating bringing it back would pull the lever to hang someone when it came to the crunch?

For sure. A lot of comfy armchair executioners/torturers here. It's all a lot easier when you've got a nice hot mug of cocoa and you're settling into a warm bed dictating who lives, dies, and gets tortured. Thought as humans we were beyond that crap.

jank

end of the road wrote: »

and the fact that if you wrongly kill somebody you can't bring them back, if someone is sent to prison they can be released, not that thats any consolation to those who have been wrongly imprisoned

Yet even in cases of absolute proof people would still argue against it? As I said, people here would have let perpetrators of genocide stay alive in jail rather then put them to death.

Was it wrong for the iraqi people to put Saddam to death. Simple yes or no.

B.A._Baracus

I do believe there is an "out of sight, out of mind" thing going on here.

Like, on the anti-death penalty side of discussion, someone still has to prison evil men. Guards and other workers at prisons will have their safety at risk housing said evil individuals. But I guess feck them, right? it's their job? :rolleyes:

I mean imagine some evil fucking murdering-rapist. Aint no changing him. If let out he'll rape and kill again. But yet we are meant to hold the value of his life while he doesnt hold the value of others? .... fuck that. Kill him.

Ahhhhh its grand

No, never. I don't remember the figures, but I read that over 30 people in the in the US have been executed only for them to later proven innocent, or at least some serious doubts cast over their convictions. As well as that, over 15 people have been proven innocent while on death row in the US. One person been wrongly executed is one too many in my opinion. The fact is, the death penalty murder, premeditated at that. Just doesn't sit right with me at all.

While I don't agree the death penalty, I think the US (depending on the state) has the right idea as regards to 'life without the possibility of parole'. This, in my opinion, should be mandatory in every country for the most serious of crimes. I know people complain about the cost to the taxpayer for such a punishment, but I'd gladly donate money to the prison system in order to keep such criminals off the street. Plus, there's also the argument that the death penalty actually costs more, with some inmates requesting over 15 appeals (and rightly so).

*I'm on my phone so the figures above are from memory, and probably not exact, but you get the point.

Too Tough To Die

You know, i think i would.

end of the road

jank wrote: »

Was it wrong for the iraqi people to put Saddam to death.

yes

J_E

Ahhhhh its grand wrote: »

While I don't agree the death penalty, I think the US (depending on the state) has the right idea as regards to 'life without the possibility of parole'. This, in my opinion, should be mandatory in every country for the most serious of crimes. I know people complain about the cost to the taxpayer for such a punishment, but I'd gladly donate money to the prison system in order to keep such criminals off the street. Plus, there's also the argument that the death penalty actually costs more, with some inmates requesting over 15 appeals (and rightly so). .

I dunno if using the US as a model for the prison system is a good idea even if some of the concepts are sound. With the privatisation of prisons and the jailing rate it's basically hell over there. An inordinate amount of people getting arrested for petty reasons because in part, it's highly profitable. That's the opposite extreme really.

Billy86

jank wrote: »

This is strange logic. Death penalty is perceived as 'bad' because it is deemed 'barbaric' and 'cruel' yet no problem at all locking someone up with the hope they will be assaulted or raped. Great logic.

I'm talking purely from the logic of people who want the death penalty - supposedly because they want to see someone suffer or killed for what they have done. The next 30 years of his life is going to be worse than death quite likely, so I don't see their complaint?

The main reason for not imposing the death penalty I see is that a) it's a dangerous precedent, and b) as mentioned he is of more 'use' in terms of finding out what else he has done while alive than dead.

Billy86

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I mean imagine some evil fucking murdering-rapist. Aint no changing him. If let out he'll rape and kill again. But yet we are meant to hold the value of his life while he doesnt hold the value of others? .... fuck that. Kill him.

While I think life without parole would be the appropriate sentence here, the text in bold is to be left to people far, far more qualified than I and (I would assume) you in this matter.

Daqster

Few lines from a song by Steve Earle that always come to mind whenever people are discussing the death penalty.

Now my waitin's over and the final hour drags by.
I ain't about to tell you that I don't deserve to die.

There's twenty-seven men here, mostly black, brown and poor.
Most of us are guilty, but who are you to say for sure.

So when the preacher comes to get me and they shave off all my hair.
Could you take that long walk with me, knowing hell is waitin' there.

Could you pull that switch yourself sir, with a sure and steady hand.
Could you then still tell yourself sir, that you're better than I am.

B.A._Baracus

Billy86 wrote: »

While I think life without parole would be the appropriate sentence here, the text in bold is to be left to people far, far more qualified than I and (I would assume) you in this matter.

What was that story during the year about the Irish woman who got raped and killed in Australia.... The murderer was convicted a few times of rape previous.

Plead your opinion to her family. Please. Please do. Because I guess we should let him do his time and get out and 'lets hope for the best huh' ... oh but, i cant help but feel that as long as this person doesnt do anything to those you care about in the future, all is well, right?

Malcolm.

Ordinary Gardai will tell you they find it almost impossible to bring a case to court, never mind get a conviction.
Irish 'prisons', sentences, and courts no longer offer any deterrent what so ever to crime.
The Irish justice system has broken down.

Billy86

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

What was that story during the year about the Irish woman who got raped and killed in Australia.... The murderer was covicted a few times of rape previous.

Plead your opinion to her family. Please. Please do.

Ah yes, I forgot the golden rule of painting everyone with the same brush.

Recidivism is far, far higher amongst other crimes like burglary/theft and dealing in illegal goods like guns or drugs. So by your logic, we should just keep pretty much anyone who gets arrested in jail for life without parole? Or one up it and give them all the death sentence to save on the cost?

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sex-offenders-least-likely-to-commit-further-crimes-1.1623468

Those convicted of sex offences or homicide offences - which relate to any crime involving loss of life - were the least likely to re-offend, debunking the myth that sex offenders are the worst recidivists.

Just 14.3 per cent of those convicted of a homicide offence and 14.7 convicted of a sexual offence in 2008 re-offended in the following three years. This compared to rates of 30-40 per cent in most other crime categories.

And while I still think particularly horrific cases like Ian Watkins deserve life without possibility of parole, this also should be mentioned as he will be 71 years old in 2048:

Those under the age of 18 years were by far the most likely to re-offend, with 58 per cent breaking the law again within three years. Recidivism rates fell for higher age groups and were lowest, at just five per cent, in that group of offenders aged 65 years and older.

B.A._Baracus

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh... so you got some stats from Google/Irish Times. Is this the point where I post contradictory so called "percentages" too. You know, one saying one thing, another saying completely the opposite Go on, give me the go ahead Love pulling random crap from google to support my argument

Actually, the last bit is a lie. Dont like pulling crap from polls / stats / etc because it generally is all crap. But hey, I will if you want me too (please tell me too, lol) Because I too can quote articles about how Coca Cola gives you a hard on & also gives you cancer.

Reality is I must ask one question .... a simple question .... would you want such an evil person as a neighbour? A person convicted of such a serious crime. Now, i'm sure you know where I am going with this. But please induge me.

Amirani

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh... so you got some stats from Google/Irish Times. Is this the point where I post contradictory so called "percentages" too. You know, one saying one thing, another saying completely the opposite Go on, give me the go ahead Love pulling random crap from google to support my argument

Actually, the last bit is a lie. Dont like pulling crap from polls / stats / etc because it generally is all crap. But hey, I will if you want me too (please tell me too, lol)

You think statistics compiled by a the US Department of Justice are "crap"? You've made yourself look a bit foolish there. By all means argue with the importance of said statistics, but disregarding their accuracy is moronic. They clearly have a lot more information about criminal recidivism than you do.

B.A._Baracus

NiallSparky wrote: »

You think statistics compiled by a the US Department of Justice are "crap"? You've made yourself look a bit foolish there. By all means argue with the importance of said statistics, but disregarding their accuracy is moronic. They clearly have a lot more information about criminal recidivism than you do.

Ok. To continue on with my post which was quoted originally ....
Would you want an convicted multiple murdering serial rapist living in your neighboorhood?

The question is simple. The answer is even more simple. Yes or no.

Billy86

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh... so you got some stats from Google/Irish Times. Is this the point where I post contradictory so called "percentages" too. You know, one saying one thing, another saying completely the opposite Go on, give me the go ahead Love pulling random crap from google to support my argument

Actually, the last bit is a lie. Dont like pulling crap from polls / stats / etc because it generally is all crap. But hey, I will if you want me too (please tell me too, lol)

Facts really are a pain in the ass at times, eh?

As for your "Google/Irish Times" remark...

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/crimejustice/2008/prisonrecidivism2008.pdf
- This is the official Irish Central Statistics Office report, published just three days ago... go to page two and look for yourself.

Recidivism rates differed by initial imprisonment offence. The lowest rates were recorded for Group 02 Sexual Offences(14.9%), and Group 09 Fraud, Deception and Related Offences (30.7%).

The highest rates were recorded for Group 15 Offences against Government, Justice Procedures and Organisation of Crime (68.5%) and Group 13 Public Order and other Social Code Offences(65.4%). See table 1 and figure 2.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17
- This is the official American Bureau of Justice report, which I quoted in the post above.

So yes, please, find me some some equally credible and up to date sources that showing otherwise.

Billy86

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Ok. To continue on with my post which was quoted originally ....
Would you want an convicted multiple murdering serial rapist living in your neighboorhood?

The question is simple. The answer is even more simple. Yes or no.

Would you want a convicted multiple car thief or multiple home burglar living in your neighbourhood?

Yes or no.

B.A._Baracus

**edit billy got back before I posted this so am gonna edit it**

Billy86,
I asked the question first.... Would you want an convicted multiple murdering serial rapist as your neighbour? The question is simple. The answer is even more simple. Yes or no.


I am not being ignorant to your replies. I am simply asking a genuine element to the case at point. Any points you make I have to reply to. But the question I pose is a very 'deep question' - for obvious reasons regarding this thread.

efb

How old would this multiplemurdering seriel rapist be 70???

Billy86

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Billy86,
I ask the same question.... Would you want an convicted multiple murdering serial rapist as your neighbour? The question is simple. The answer is even more simple. Yes or no.


I am not being ignorant to your replies. I am simply asking a genuine element to the case at point. Any points you make I have to reply to. But the question I pose is a very 'deep question' - for obvious reasons regarding this thread.

Your initial point was 'once a murder/rapist, always a murderer/rapist' - statistical show this to not be the case.

As for your question... No more or less than someone who had been convicted of multiple home/car burglaries. It's 'no' to both, but that doesn't mean I think people should be locked up with the key thrown away by default for those offences. Also, the odds on the car/home burglar being a repeat offender are around four times higher than they are with the sex offender (who would also be far easier to identify). Repeat offenders for sex offences are the minority, not the majority, and a long, long way from your claim of being automatic repeat offenders.

So again, I'll ask if you would want a convicted multiple car thief or multiple home burglar living in your neighbourhood?

Billy86

efb wrote: »

How old would this multiplemurdering seriel rapist be 70???

I think the goalposts took a dramatic shift somewhere along the lines.

B.A._Baracus

Billy86 wrote: »

Your initial point was 'once a murder/rapist, always a murderer/rapist' - statistical show this to not be the case.

As for your question... No more or less than someone who had been convicted of multiple home/car burglaries. It's 'no' to both, but that doesn't mean I think people should be locked up with the key thrown away by default for those offences. Also, the odds on the car/home burglar being a repeat offender are around four times higher than they are with the sex offender (who would also be far easier to identify). Repeat offenders for sex offences are the minority, not the majority, and a long, long way from your claim of being automatic repeat offenders.

So again, I'll ask if you would want a convicted multiple car thief or multiple home burglar living in your neighbourhood?

Ohhhh.... so you dont want such a person living beside you... reformed, served their time, done the sentence living beside you - it dont matter, right? Let someone else deal with them huh

But I got to **** off to the way you introduced an opinion of a burglar (a lesser crime / a lesser emotional response) Nice try Billy

You see, what you tried to do was 'work' me and everyone else reading your posts (ps, Work simply means to manipulate) there was one tiny, little problem tho ... just a smidge in your plan .... you fucking suck at 'working' people :pac:

See, you only introduced the other element in response to my question (very poor) ... you should have made the connection in your own words (Ie, from Serial Rapist to burgular) to blast my opinion out of it.


Live and learn ol' billy, huh? ... Next time you want to 'work' peoples emotions onto you side put a bit of effort.
But this the point where you come back and say how I totally got it wrong, etc

Billy86

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Ohhhh.... so you dont want such a person living beside you... reformed, served their time, done the sentence living beside you - it dont matter, right? Let someone else deal with them huh

No, I would just rather not living next to a criminal of any sort. But my world won't fall in on itself if I am living close to an ex-convict and I don't see that as justification for locking them all up for life by default. It's quite simple, really.

So again... would want a convicted multiple car thief or multiple home burglar living in your neighbourhood? Yes or no. It's a simple question, don't be a hypocrite now.

But I got to **** off to the way you introduced an opinion of a burglar (a lesser crime / a lesser emotional response) Nice try Billy

Oh yeah, sure something like having your home broken into and being beaten with hammers in a "bloodbath" so violent that the screams woke the neighbours has less emotional impact. Or the family who were tied up by a gang of seven with guns and a machete a few weeks back... sure their 8, 6 and 3 year old daughters will have forgotten about that by New Years.

Do you want those people as your neighbours? I mean they're only a mere four times more likely to repeat the crime than a sex offender.

You see, what you tried to do was 'work' me and everyone else reading your posts (ps, Work simply means to manipulate) there was one tiny, little problem tho ... just a smidge in your plan .... you fucking suck at 'working' people :pac:

No, it's a simple question. The same 'simple question' you asked. Unless you were referring to the official CSO/Justice Bureau statistics that you tried to laugh off as lacking credibility?

See, you only introduced the other element in response to my question (very poor) ... you should have made the connection in your own words (Ie, from Serial Rapist to burgular) to blast my opinion out of it.

Live and learn ol' billy, huh? ... Next time you want to 'work' peoples emotions onto you side put a bit of effort.

It's quite sad that you're unable to see an argument beyond emotive dribble and 'working' people (yawn, by the way). I've been simply looking at the facts here - parole boards are far more qualified than you to ascertain who is more likely or less likely to re-offend, and sex offenders are less likely to re-offend than other crimes (far less likely than several crimes).

That you're unable to contribute anything other than pointed questions and attempts to laugh at statistics provided by official government bodies... it's kind of the sign of a staggeringly weak argument on your part.

But this the point where you come back and say how I totally got it wrong, etc

Your complete ignorance of the facts actually do that for me, thanks.

Again though, I'm still waiting on these 'contradictory' and credible statistics of yours about recidivism, or your answer to that same simple question. Unless you're just spouting baseless, emotive nonsense of course.




And once more, would want a convicted multiple car thief or multiple home burglar living in your neighbourhood? Yes or no.

Ahhhhh its grand

Cydoniac wrote: »

I dunno if using the US as a model for the prison system is a good idea even if some of the concepts are sound. With the privatisation of prisons and the jailing rate it's basically hell over there. An inordinate amount of people getting arrested for petty reasons because in part, it's highly profitable. That's the opposite extreme really.

I agree, the US prison system (and by extension, the justice system) is verging on lunacy. I was specifically referring to their interpretation of a life sentence, where (depending on the crime e.g murder) life actually means life. It's this concept, not the prison system as a whole, that I agree with.

osarusan

The whole 'would you want one living beside you?' Is the most idiotic argument ever.

There is a middle ground between them living in the community and executing them. It's called prison. They're a danger to the community? Keep them in prison.

The solution to short prison sentences is longer prison sentences, not the death penalty.

Billy86

Ahhhhh its grand wrote: »

I agree, the US prison system (and by extension, the justice system) is verging on lunacy. I was specifically referring to their interpretation of a life sentence, where (depending on the crime e.g murder) life actually means life. It's this concept, not the prison system as a whole, that I agree with.

Google 'Sheriff Joe' if you're not familiar with him already. He's about as big an advertisement against what he promotes as you could hope to find. A pretty fascinating character at times, albeit for all the wrong reasons...

Ahhhhh its grand

Billy86 wrote: »

Google 'Sheriff Joe' if you're not familiar with him already. He's about as big an advertisement against what he promotes as you could hope to find. A pretty fascinating character at times, albeit for all the wrong reasons...

Certainly a fascinating character, or a full on nutcase, guess it depends what way you look at it :pac:

Regarding his practices when it comes to jails, I guess some people would actually support his 'hard' approach. Personally, it sounds to me like he thinks he's living in the 1800's.

SeantheMan

I always liked Ricky Gervais' stance on it
(I agree with him and am against the death penalty......though I feel some people deserve death)

"I don't agree with execution, State execution...of someone ...whatever they've done...for many reasons.
But the main one is, I don't think you can have a State, that shows that sort of violence against an individual whatever they've done and expect people to accept the very code and morality of treating people equally and not showing violence towards them

Billy86

Ahhhhh its grand wrote: »

Certainly a fascinating character, or a full on nutcase, guess it depends what way you look at it :pac:

Regarding his practices when it comes to jails, I guess some people would actually support his 'hard' approach. Personally, it sounds to me like he thinks he's living in the 1800's.

Sadly, that last part is very true. It's a matter of not really seeing the forest for the trees in my opinion - the harder you come down on people, the stronger they react in defiance. Given our national history you would think that much would be reasonably obvious, but unfortunately that's not the case.

A "lock 'em up and throw away the key!" mentality can be the same as well, because if someone's got nothing to aspire to (regaining their freedom) then why bother subscribing to any rules? It's the mentality you see in a lot of American prisons where inmates create their own cultures which often have awful issues (e.g. in America, those cultures are drawn down strict racial lines). While I do think in some circumstances it likely is the best/only option, it really is something that should be avoided as much as humanely possible. Humans typically react positively to incentives - take those away and those same people lose all sense of order.

Then again I think prisons should be changed to be not so much centres for punishment as for rehabilitation (and thankfully it does seem to be slowly moving that way in some parts of the world in recent decades) which I know many will disagree with, but I reckon it would be very beneficial in the long run compared to the current set up. Not to say they should become 'easy' to live in, but basically that they should be moved in a very, very different direction to what the like of 'Sheriff Joe' is promoting. One example being those that get work for minimal pay (and there should be a minimum wage in such instances - say 1/2 or 1/4 the standard min wage) for skilled work or menial labour should have a sizeable portion of that withheld until their release. It not only improves their incentive but avoids issues of throwing someone back into the streets with no job, possibly no home and the incredible struggle that must be trying to find a job upon release. I reckon that's got to be a huge contributor to repeat offences.

This is usually a fun one to throw at people who think the death penalty serves as much of a deterrent by the way, for murder at least - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state (scroll down to the third table).

Ahhhhh its grand

Billy86 wrote: »

Then again I think prisons should be changed to be not so much centres for punishment as for rehabilitation (and thankfully it does seem to be slowly moving that way in some parts of the world in recent decades) which I know many will disagree with, but I reckon it would be very beneficial in the long run compared to the current set up.

Yeah I would agree. I think the argument against this sort of routine is that many people feel that certain criminals simply cannot (or do not want) to be rehabilitated, which I suppose in some cases is true. You can make someone work in prison, you can make them follows orders...but unfortunately you can't force-ably change somebodies mindset. In saying that, I'm sure a large percentage of prisoners would (and have) benefit from a rehabilitation type approach. I think such an approach be tailored to each prisoner.

[/QUOTE]
This is usually a fun one to throw at people who think the death penalty serves as much of a deterrent by the way, for murder at least - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state (scroll down to the third table).[/QUOTE]

I remember seeing this first and began to wrack my brain as to why it is not a deterrent. Alas, the best I could come up with is that the people who commit these crimes simply don't care about the consequences. As vague as it sounds, I've failed to come up with a better answer

jank

end of the road wrote: »

yes

I wonder would you feel the same as the average Iraqi if he gassed your neighbours and killed your friends. Very easy to be glib on the net.

jank

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm talking purely from the logic of people who want the death penalty - supposedly because they want to see someone suffer or killed for what they have done. The next 30 years of his life is going to be worse than death quite likely, so I don't see their complaint?

The main reason for not imposing the death penalty I see is that a) it's a dangerous precedent, and b) as mentioned he is of more 'use' in terms of finding out what else he has done while alive than dead.

Why not give the person a choice so. Do you want death (instant) or life (x years in prison). If people choose the death penalty would you be agaisnt it?

Billy86

jank wrote: »

Why not give the person a choice so. Do you want death (instant) or life (x years in prison). If people choose the death penalty would you be agaisnt it?

That's an interesting point actually, never even really considered it. Off the top of my head if they want to die there's a really, really high risk of them committing suicide not long after being put away, the consequences of which would likely be a good deal worse so it might be best to allow them the death penalty. Tough call though, that's going to be in the back of my head all day now!!

Billy86

jank wrote: »

I wonder would you feel the same as the average Iraqi if he gassed your neighbours and killed your friends. Very easy to be glib on the net.

To be fair you asked him a yes/no question on whether he thought Saddam should have been spared the death penalty, not what he would think if he were an Iraqi, and specifically requested an answer of that and that alone - 'yes' or 'no'. Bringing the perspective of an Iraqi as something that he should have brought up in his answer now is a pretty big shifting of the goalposts.

osarusan

Billy86 wrote: »

Bringing the perspective of an Iraqi as something that he should have brought up in his answer now is a pretty big shifting of the goalposts.

And a silly one.

Should it be left to the relatives of victims of a crime to decide what appropriate punishment is?

Sunnyisland

osarusan wrote: »

And a silly one.

Should it be left to the relatives of victims of a crime to decide what appropriate punishment is?

Bit of topic,
Osarusan you live in japan where the death penalty is carried out,Does Japan have a high crime rate ?
And do you think because of the death penalty being available that it would deter serious crime ?

Thanks.

osarusan

realies wrote: »

Bit of topic,
Osarusan you live in japan where the death penalty is carried out,Does Japan have a high crime rate ?
And do you think because of the death penalty being available that it would deter serious crime ?

Thanks.

Yes, it has the death penalty. It has a very very low crime rate.

I can't make a really informed comment on the reasons why the crime rate is so low. It's too complicated to say that one factor is in indeed the only factor in an increase or decrease in rates of serious crime.

It is also important to point out that many many crimes have low rates in Japan, not only those potentially punished by the death penalty.

Nope. People can change.

WHIP IT!

I would have the Death Penalty back tomorrow for convicted Paedophiles, rapists and murderers, in a heartbeat.

Billy86

WHIP IT! wrote: »

I would have the Death Penalty back tomorrow for convicted Paedophiles, rapists and murderers, in a heartbeat.

I suppose your well thought-out and fully articulated argument is kind of hard to disagree with...

Mr Williams

Dónal wrote: »

Nope. People can change.

Peados will never change there will always be that way.