Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

old hippy

Rabelais wrote: »

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

All we have is the disgusting apologists for the death penalty. Sadly, the baying mob will always be with us.

looking_around

Nevermind.... didn't notice it was necro thread XD

Penny Lane

Yes, absolutely. Extreme crimes deserve extreme punishment.

old hippy

Penny Lane wrote: »

Yes, absolutely. Extreme crimes deserve extreme punishment.

Dodgy bankers? Corrupt politicians?

thefasteriwalk

Reading some last statements would really make you think: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/dr_executed_offenders.html

Arrow.

thefasteriwalk wrote: »

Reading some last statements would really make you think: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/dr_executed_offenders.html

It's no surprise they're mostly philosophical and repent at the hour of their death. Who wouldn't be?

I would say the experience of being about to die may have changed them and had they been able to get back up I would say they may have changed, but it's something you can't enforce.

The prospect of death appears to be the driving force behind their supposed transformation.

They all find God, amazingly. Out of fear more so than remorse.

Also, try reading the offender information too:

On 08/02/91 in Dallas, Texas the subject fatally shot the victim, a 30-year old white female. Chamberlain was a resident of the same apartment complex and had gone to the victim's apartment under the pretense of borrowing sugar. Chamberlain left the apartment and return minutes later with duct tape and a rifle. Chamberlain entered the apartment, displayed the weapon to the victim, and forced the victim into a bedroom. Chamberlain taped her hands and feet, and sexually assaulted her. Chamberlain took the victim into the bathroom and shot her one time in the head with a .30 caliber rifle, causing her death. Chamberlain left the apartment and returned to his own apartment.

Here's someone's last statement:

Last Statement:

Yes, Love you mom, love you pop, love you Sara, and Amanda. Um, Cathy you know I never meant to hurt you. I gave you everything and that's what made me so angry. But I didn't mean to hurt you. I am sorry. That's it.

Here's what he did:

On 09/13/98, in Georgetown, Granados went to his girlfriend's residence and an argument ensued. Grenados used a long kitchen knife and stabbed his girlfriend, requiring hospitalization. Grenados killed the girlfriend's 3-year old child with a large kitchen knife.

I wouldn't always be in favour the death penalty, there are too many variables to consider per case, but murdering a 3 year old? Die.

Amirani

WHIP IT! wrote: »

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

Breaking News: Ireland's murder rate soars as paedophiles and rapists start killing their victims as sure, they're going to get the death penalty anyway so what difference does it make. In other news, the figures for reported rapes and paedophilia have dropped over the past year as all the victims are dead.

Ah, problem solved!

glass_onion

The death penalty has served no deterrent against crime.Innocent people have been been put to death. There was research done on the cost of death penalty vs life without parole,it came up it was cheaper to give life without parole as there is a less chance of the lengthy expensive appeals that usually spurn from death penalty.

On the other side,it has been used as a bargaining tool to plead guilty in exchange for life without parole.

Research findings costs- http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

end of the road

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.

no, if he gassed my neighbours and killed my friends, for me to turn around and say he should then be killed when i'm angry at him for doing the same thing, would make me a hypicrit

end of the road

Billy86 wrote: »

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.

exactly, its a failed tactic used by the pro death penalty people, it won't change my mind

end of the road

WHIP IT! wrote: »

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

but what gives you the right to take their lives? surely the risk of getting it wrong would be enough to not bring back a practice from the dark ages? doesn't matter how good technology or DNA testing gets it will never be good enough to satisfy me for the death penalty to be used.

end of the road

glass_onion wrote: »

it has been used as a bargaining tool to plead guilty in exchange for life without parole.

very true, and its a practice that bothers me very much, all though i put it down to a desperate rubbish incompitent joke of a prosecuter who actually has no chance of winning the case and knows it so wants to take the person on trial down with them and to guarintee it they put this deal to the person on trial, as the person on trial believes they aren't going to win and are going to be executed, they plead guilty rather then be put to death

Eutow

I wouldn't agree with the reintroduction because of the probability of some innocent person wrongly convicted for a crime being put to death.

Also, if given a choice, death is an easier sentence than life in prison on bread and water. (Life would mean life in prison until the day you die).

Mr Williams

old hippy wrote: »

Dodgy bankers? Corrupt politicians?

Yes I'd support that. These people have caused the deaths of many people through suicide and cuts to the health service.

They should all get the death penalty for high treason.

HarpFR

No, It is moving backward.

We as humans need to be moving forward. We should also look at who commits extreme crimes and how to prevent it from happening in the future.

e.g: in China they use torture punishment. This is extremely out dated and is what they did hundreds of years ago.
e.g: Norway does not carry a death penalty. They rehabilitate the criminals. Norway is also one of the safest countries on earth.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Did anyone ever watch Fourteen days in May? It's a BBC documentary from 1987 covering the last 14 days of convicted killer Edward Earl Johnson life. It's very interesting, you learn a lot about the case and the various appeals his lawyer tries to work in the final 2 weeks, Johnson co operated with the making of it, we see such events as his last meal and the final few minutes he spends in a room next to the chamber with his lawyer the chaplain and the Warden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhHutCNkjEc

WHIP IT!

Billy86 wrote: »

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

Funny, you didn't say the same about the person who said simply "Nope, people can change" above me...

People can change, maybe - but some don't deserve the chance...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

We're back again, are we?

OK, so there is no such thing as a Human Rights Brigade, (what is a Human Right in any case if it can be rescinded?), you're not looking for "justice" to be served, you're looking for your "vengeful blood-lust" to be served, there's no evidence to suggest that pedophilia is an unchangeable or untreatable condition, no - it;s not worth 5 or 10 innocent dead people for one guilty dead one* (not to mention, how do you deal with a judge or jury who send an ultimately innocent mand to the grave? Rhetorical question as it's never going to get a sensible responce) and I'm just as unlikley to wind up living beside a convicted mass-murderer if he's jail or if he's dead.

I believe that covers all the arguments in favour of the death penalty in the last few days.

*yeah, I know that one wasn't made recently, but it wsa made and no one ever backed it up.

Lux23

No. Even though I think some scum deserve it.

Billy86

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Funny, you didn't say the same about the person who said simply "Nope, people can change" above me...

People can change, maybe - but some don't deserve the chance...

Funny, they (sex offenders) have the lowest recidivism rates of all crimes committed... so it's more or less proven they can.

And who are you or I to decide who 'deserves' to live or not? And for what reasons? Where does the line get drawn?

masti123

When a dog attacks a child and scars them for life, the dog is put to sleep, shouldn't we do the same for pedophiles?

dd972

Capital punishment belongs to the middle ages, state has no right to end people's lives and you can't bring the person back if there's a screw up.

end of the road

masti123 wrote: »

When a dog attacks a child and scars them for life, the dog is put to sleep, shouldn't we do the same for pedophiles?

no, ideally dogs would be able to be re-homed away from children instead of being put to sleep but the likelyhood of that happening is 0 sadly

Mr Williams

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

We're back again, are we?

OK, so there is no such thing as a Human Rights Brigade, (what is a Human Right in any case if it can be rescinded?), you're not looking for "justice" to be served, you're looking for your "vengeful blood-lust" to be served, there's no evidence to suggest that pedophilia is an unchangeable or untreatable condition, no - it;s not worth 5 or 10 innocent dead people for one guilty dead one* (not to mention, how do you deal with a judge or jury who send an ultimately innocent mand to the grave? Rhetorical question as it's never going to get a sensible responce) and I'm just as unlikley to wind up living beside a convicted mass-murderer if he's jail or if he's dead.

I believe that covers all the arguments in favour of the death penalty in the last few days.

*yeah, I know that one wasn't made recently, but it wsa made and no one ever backed it up.

What are you talking about ? The majority of paedophiles go on to reoffend.

Your statement is akin to saying there is no evidence of child abuse in the catholic church.

zcorpian88

No, that would be too easy, just build more prisons and give longer sentences, our justice system is a joke. Life sentences should mean life.

They are in and out in no time at all.

Billy86

dd972 wrote: »

Capital punishment belongs to the middle ages, state has no right to end people's lives and you can't bring the person back if there's a screw up.

When a dog becomes old and frail it is often put down too, despite us not being able to ask them if they would rather live. Shouldn't we do the same with the elderly?

Billy86

Mr Williams wrote: »

What are you talking about ? The majority of paedophiles go on to reoffend.

Your statement is akin to saying there is no evidence of child abuse in the catholic church.

Be honest, you haven't read this thread much have you?

zcorpian88

Billy86 wrote: »

When a dog becomes old and frail it is often put down too, despite us not being able to ask them if they would rather live. Shouldn't we do the same with the elderly?

It should be allowed once the person is extremely ill and wants to die. Marie Fleming was a hero in going to court to fight for it, once the quality of life is non existent, what is the point in suffering through to the end?

Billy86

zcorpian88 wrote: »

It should be allowed once the person is extremely ill and wants to die. Marie Fleming was a hero in going to court to fight for it, once the quality of life is non existent, what is the point in suffering through to the end?

Don't get me wrong, I do actually agree with euthanasia (it's why I threw the 'dog can't ask to die' caveat in ).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mr Williams wrote: »

What are you talking about ? The majority of paedophiles go on to reoffend.

Your statement is akin to saying there is no evidence of child abuse in the catholic church.

I said that "there's no evidence to suggest that pedophilia is an unchangeable or untreatable condition". If you disagree, the next step is to prove me wrong by providing said evidence (that you have read and with relevant comments - not just the first link from a google search, as others have done) that proves my statement incorrect, not posting incorrect analogies.

Paramite Pie

As uncomfortable as I am with the thought, I think the death penalty has some merits.

When Saddam Hussein was on trial, many human rights activists were saying the death penalty is wrong and he should serve his sentence for life. At the time I agreed. Death Penalty was always wrong.

The Iraqi Court didn't agree and he was sentenced to death. The world didn't end and justice was served. That's the moment I began to consider the death penalty.

If there's clear evidence proving someones guilt (CCTV, DNA etc...) then I think some extreme cases warrant it (Ian Watkins *cough*) but never in the case of circumstantial evidence.

Many of us forget that the Death Penalty was abolished at a time when there was less scientific/forensic certainty. We all know that innocent people were wrongly executed, often with only circumstantial evidence and/or racial prejudice. All I can say to that is;

Well the times they are a changing.

Bepolite

DNA is frequently trotted out as a conclusive catch all - it simply isn't. To be fair I've seen certain people make the argument who should know better so it can be forgiven here. CSI is to forensic science what Star Trek is to space exploration, yes it has some loose basis in fact but most of what you see is pure nonsense.

It's very rare that a full DNA profile is used. It's normally only the male part of the DNA that's tested (Y-STR) and this is not unique. In rape cases it is usually impossible to get a full DNA profile of the rapist because the female DNA contaminates the sample. Furthermore different DNA profiles can't be compared, mistakes happen, junk science happens and sometimes people even make things up.

If you require 100% proof positive for a crime DNA simply isn't the answer in the majority of cases.

Savage Tyrant

I personally would be in support of the death penalty in certain cases. I personally don't think that child abusers, rapists and various other "grades" of sex offenders aren't worth the time or effort to rehabilitate or to house for years on end at the expense of others.
I don't say that in a rabble rousing "burn all pedos" mentality. I just think it would be a better option to have rid of them.

end of the road

Paramite Pie wrote: »

As uncomfortable as I am with the thought, I think the death penalty has some merits.

When Saddam Hussein was on trial, many human rights activists were saying the death penalty is wrong and he should serve his sentence for life. At the time I agreed. Death Penalty was always wrong.

The Iraqi Court didn't agree and he was sentenced to death. The world didn't end and justice was served. That's the moment I began to consider the death penalty.

If there's clear evidence proving someones guilt (CCTV, DNA etc...) then I think some extreme cases warrant it (Ian Watkins *cough*) but never in the case of circumstantial evidence.

Many of us forget that the Death Penalty was abolished at a time when there was less scientific/forensic certainty. We all know that innocent people were wrongly executed, often with only circumstantial evidence and/or racial prejudice. All I can say to that is;

Well the times they are a changing.

not good enough, no DNA evidence or any technology will be good enough to allow somebody to be executed, any case where the death penalty is handed down isn't "justice served" but ferrel savagery and hypacricey

Bepolite

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

I personally would be in support of the death penalty in certain cases. I personally don't think that child abusers, rapists and various other "grades" of sex offenders aren't worth the time or effort to rehabilitate or to house for years on end at the expense of others.
I don't say that in a rabble rousing "burn all pedos" mentality. I just think it would be a better option to have rid of them.

Most sex offenders are damaged individuals, often victims of sexual abuse themselves. If we had better mental health facilities, invested more in treating people who themselves have been abused, we'd have less sex offenders. I simply can't agree with a position where we simply say, sorry mate you're not worth the effort we're gonna kill you.

Holsten

Mr Williams wrote: »

What are you talking about ? The majority of paedophiles go on to reoffend.

This is a myth.

I mean I don't know the actual statistics on pedophiles but I read in the Irish Times recently that sex offenders have the lowest re-offending rate of all criminals.

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

Billy86

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I said that "there's no evidence to suggest that pedophilia is an unchangeable or untreatable condition". If you disagree, the next step is to prove me wrong by providing said evidence (that you have read and with relevant comments - not just the first link from a google search, as others have done) that proves my statement incorrect, not posting incorrect analogies.

Well, you see, his main problem is that sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rates of all convicted criminals, with under 15% as of the latest report published less than a week ago. It really hurts his argument, and really shows that he gets his information from the Jeremy Kyle or some such nonsense.

Much like 'B.A. Baracus' who tried to laugh off official gov't reporting as trivial but couldn't give the statistics of equal credibility he claimed to have and then just ran away when his own 'simple question' was asked back to him, but that's another matter.

As for reformation of paedophiles, I think their attraction is a lot less likely to subside than their likelihood to act on it. Because, horrible as it is to say in circumstances like this... what gets you hard, gets you hard. But you can't kill someone for what at the end of the day is a chemical reaction (I've always had a strange admiration of sorts for people with this attraction who managed to put it away for their entire lives because they know how wrong it is - I find it bizarre and creepy, but to deny your sexual urges for your whole life must be difficult, and they are definitely out there). I reckon for a good number of paedophiles, 'standard' porn or even 18-21 years olds or whatnot can do the trick, and many others can be brought around to see why they should never in any way act on it, and have and do do so as statistics will back up. I also think the recidivism rates are lower because as a sex offender if would likely be much harder to gain release back to the public from a qualified jury than it would as a car thief or home invader, but let's not let facts and logic get in the way of things for the Daily Mail brigade, eh?

Billy86

Holsten wrote: »

This is a myth.

I mean I don't know the actual statistics on pedophiles but I read in the Irish Times recently that sex offenders have the lowest re-offending rate of all criminals.

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

I quoted that exact article a few days ago on this thread and a death penalty apologist tried to label it as made up 'Google' facts. I directed them to the official CSO article... and they disappeared from the thread after a nonsensical rant about 'working' people in an argument. Shows the level of genius that you will typically be arguing with here.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Can you change a person's sexual deviancy, isn't it an ingrained part of them? I don't think you develop Paedophilic tendencies over time.

Take a person with psychopathic tendencies who acts out violently to achieve gratification, while taking onboard that other people who could be classed as psychopaths live their whole lives without ever acting out in a violent manner, Sociopath is a word which is used.

It's obviously those of the violent nature who come to laws attention but how can you ever change their manner, listen to the late Jeffery Dahmer speak, he knows what he did was very wrong but he admitted that he still had those sick desires.

Better still Robert Kuklinski 'The Ice Man' He in a television interview stated that he needed to be locked up for the rest of his life. This was a guy who committed his first murder at 14. The human mind is complex, it's not a simple fix when there's a fault detected.

catallus

While it is very understandable that this debate has degenerated into a "who can punish sex-offenders most savagely" fiasco, the point of the thread is being lost.

Everyone gets riled up when sex-offences get mentioned; probably some primal reaction to perceived injustice mixed with sexual envy, and the innate hunger for revenge, etc. etc. but to confine the issue to the punishment of sex-offenders is to allow the thread to be derailed.

It has been a while since any post has addressed the proper place of capital punishment in the array of sanctions offered in the pantheon of justice. Is it because people have lost sight of the true inescapable nature of justice itself? The fact that punishment and revenge and justice are all part of the same thing?

Like I said, jumping straight to the sex-offenders thing is a logical short-circuit, unbecoming of a proper debate.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

catallus wrote: »

While it is very understandable that this debate has degenerated into a "who can punish sex-offenders most savagely" fiasco, the point of the thread is being lost.

Everyone gets riled up when sex-offences get mentioned; probably some primal reaction to perceived injustice mixed with sexual envy, and the innate hunger for revenge, etc. etc. but to confine the issue to the punishment of sex-offenders is to allow the thread to be derailed.

It has been a while since any post has addressed the proper place of capital punishment in the array of sanctions offered in the pantheon of justice. Is it because people have lost sight of the true inescapable nature of justice itself? The fact that punishment and revenge and justice are all part of the same thing?

Like I said, jumping straight to the sex-offenders thing is a logical short-circuit, unbecoming of a proper debate.

While true, when someone comes on and suggests that such-and-such an offense deserves death because they will never change, the chances of rehabilitation are going to effect the way people will view certain irreversable punihsments.

Mr Williams

Bepolite wrote: »

Most sex offenders are damaged individuals, often victims of sexual abuse themselves. If we had better mental health facilities, invested more in treating people who themselves have been abused, we'd have less sex offenders. I simply can't agree with a position where we simply say, sorry mate you're not worth the effort we're gonna kill you.

They always use that line in the their defence its the same as the average scumbag who claim they had a hard upbringing and its not their fault that they have committed so many crimes.

If I was a Judge and I heard a sex offender claiming they had been abused themselves I'g give them double whatever sentence I was going to give them.

Somebody whos been abused themselves should be the last person to abuse a child.

Mr Williams

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I said that "there's no evidence to suggest that pedophilia is an unchangeable or untreatable condition". If you disagree, the next step is to prove me wrong by providing said evidence (that you have read and with relevant comments - not just the first link from a google search, as others have done) that proves my statement incorrect, not posting incorrect analogies.

So how can you "treat" a pedophilie ? the only "treatment" I could think of that would work would be castration.

If you want evidence just pick up any newspaper and see storys of sex offenders with multiple convictions for sexual related crimes.

I wonder would you like a larry murphy type character to move into your area ? if we follow your logic hes now reformed and is a harmless individual.

Billy86

Mr Williams wrote: »

So how can you "treat" a pedophilie ? the only "treatment" I could think of that would work would be castration.

If you want evidence just pick up any newspaper and see storys of sex offenders with multiple convictions for sexual related crimes.

I wonder would you like a larry murphy type character to move into your area ? if we follow your logic hes now reformed and is a harmless individual.

It is quite fascinating how your own personal opinion so consistently finds itself at odds with statistical evidence and reality on this matter.

Your last paragraph has also been covered in full literally in the last few pages of this very thread.

end of the road

Mr Williams wrote: »

If I was a Judge and I heard a sex offender claiming they had been abused themselves I'g give them double whatever sentence I was going to give them.

right, so you would give them double the sentence not for the crime commited but because they told the court that they were abused themselves and in their heads were made to think that it was normal?

Mr Williams wrote: »

Somebody whos been abused themselves should be the last person to abuse a child.

ideally yes, but in the real world it doesn't work like that for some

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mr Williams wrote: »

So how can you "treat" a pedophilie ? the only "treatment" I could think of that would work would be castration.

If you want evidence just pick up any newspaper and see storys of sex offenders with multiple convictions for sexual related crimes.

I wonder would you like a larry murphy type character to move into your area ? if we follow your logic hes now reformed and is a harmless individual.

You're still missing my point: I questioned your stance that pedophiles can not change. THAT is the satetment under discussion. THAT is the statement that needs backing up. And I'm talking about evidence from studies and scientists, not tabloid newspapers. Proving that one pedophiel did not chagne does nothign to prove your statement.

You also need to stop making assumptions about points I never made in order to sidestep the request.

Mr Williams

end of the road wrote: »

right, so you would give them double the sentence not for the crime commited but because they told the court that they were abused themselves and in their heads were made to think that it was normal?

ideally yes, but in the real world it doesn't work like that for some

I dont believe it when they say they were abused. Any criminal who is charged with a crime will come up with some sob story to try and justify what they did. We are dealing with people who are pure evil so you have to take whatever they say with a large pinch of salt.

Mr Williams

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You're still missing my point: I questioned your stance that pedophiles can not change. THAT is the satetment under discussion. THAT is the statement that needs backing up. And I'm talking about evidence from studies and scientists, not tabloid newspapers. Proving that one pedophiel did not chagne does nothign to prove your statement.

You also need to stop making assumptions about points I never made in order to sidestep the request.

Can you show me any cases were a person was able to change their sexualty through treatment ?

Also are you saying you would have no problem if a sex offender moved into your area ?

Billy86

Mr Williams wrote: »

Can you show me any cases were a person was able to change their sexualty through treatment ?

Also are you saying you would have no problem if a sex offender moved into your area ?

1. Under 15% of sex offenders re-offended as of the latest data from the CSO published less than a week ago. It is the lowest recidivism rate of any grouping of criminal offences that there is. End of discussion.

2. This question has been covered in depth literally in the last few pages. Would you want someone who broke into peoples houses living in your area? Because the last guy asking your question couldn't answer this. They are more than four times more likely to re-offend than a sex offender.

Mr Williams

Billy86 wrote: »

1. Under 15% of sex offenders re-offended as of the latest data from the CSO published less than a week ago. It is the lowest recidivism rate of any grouping of criminal offences that there is. End of discussion.

2. This question has been covered in depth literally in the last few pages. Would you want someone who broke into peoples houses living in your area? Because the last guy asking your question couldn't answer this. They are more than four times more likely to re-offend than a sex offender.

Those statistics dont really prove anything since most rapes are not reported.

Its likely that child abusers just get more clever to avoid getting caught.

Breaking into someones house is not on the same level as raping a child.

The fact that 15%(by your statistics) of them reoffend should be reason enough to never let them out, because if you let them out other children will get abused.