Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Billy86

Mr Williams wrote: »

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.

So if 15% reoffending means none should get out, and the rates are higher for all other types of crime, then by your logic, no criminals of any sort should ever be released.

Steal a car, life inside! Break and enter, life inside! Drugs offences, life inside! Insurance fraud, life inside! Sure they're just going to reoffend anyway.

And what about the Asian guy who was tied up in what was described as a 'bloodbath' as he was beaten so bad with hammers that his screams woke the neighbours after he stood up to people who broke into his house? Or the family in Tipperary with 8, 6 and 3 year old daughters who had their front window absolutely pummelled through, and were tied up by a gang threatening them with machetes and guns. You reckon this is 'not so bad'? Do you want these people living in your area?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

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 ?

That's not how this works: you made the statement. It's up to you to prove it or come clean and state that you don't know whether the statement you made is true or not.

I don't have to prove anything because I haven't made that statement. The point I'm making is that it is pure fallacy to say that you support the death penalty for pedophiles (or any other offense/offender) based on a point that is ultimately wrong. It's even dangerous to support the idea that people should put other people's lives on the line over such a stateemnt.

Can you also ask you what made you ask the second question?

Mr Williams

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's not how this works: you made the statement. It's up to you to prove it or come clean and state that you don't know whether the statement you made is true or not.

I don't have to prove anything because I haven't made that statement. The point I'm making is that it is pure fallacy to say that you support the death penalty for pedophiles (or any other offense/offender) based on a point that is ultimately wrong. It's even dangerous to support the idea that people should put other people's lives on the line over such a stateemnt.

Your not able to back up your claim that pedophiles can change. When all the evidence shows that they cant. Just look at this scumbag whos still trying to abuse children.

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/children-welcome-at-paedos-apartment

Can you also ask you what made you ask the second question?

Becuase if you really believe sex offenders can charge you should have no problem with one of them moving into your area.

catallus

The problem with the argument of the last few pages is that it is constraining itself within the provably ineffective parameters of using statistics and levels of "relative harm" to critically assess the merits of punishment, be it capital or otherwise, i.e the whole debate going on here is contextualising itself within the pre-existing rules of "Risk Avoidance" which have permeated nearly every part of the social fabric which is touched by any part of the state, in this case the judiciary.

It is this fanatical adherence to the principles of avoiding risk which have led us to the sorry state of sentencing which has grown over the past 40 or so years. The fact that the whole structure of sentencing has completely sided with the rights and needs of the perpetrators, and totally ignores those of the victims of crime, can be identified as the ultimate consequence of this aversion to risk: the total capitulation to the rights of the wrongdoer if there is an ounce of an iota of "innocence".

All this talk of re-offending and deterrence is just so much beating about the bush. The fact is is that the justice system is way too lenient when dealing with heinous crime such as theft or assault or burglarising homes.

osarusan

Mr Williams wrote: »

Your not able to back up your claim that pedophiles can change. When all the evidence shows that they cant.

That's twice you've simply ignored statistical evidence which counters your argument.

Why should anybody take you seriously and engage in debate with you?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mr Williams wrote: »

Your not able to back up your claim that pedophiles can change.

Never made the claim.

When all the evidence shows that they cant. Just look at this scumbag whos still trying to abuse children.

There is no evidence to show this.

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/children-welcome-at-paedos-apartment

Sunday World? You're trolling me now, right?

Becuase if you really believe sex offenders can charge you should have no problem with one of them moving into your area.

Again - never made the claim.

end of the road

Mr Williams wrote: »

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.

and you also have to take it as being true unless evidence confirms either point of view

end of the road

Mr Williams wrote: »

Your not able to back up your claim that pedophiles can change. When all the evidence shows that they cant.

well obviously all the evidence doesn't show that they can't change as only 15 % re-offend, that leaves 85 % either changing or unknown, whatever way you try it your still wrong as only 15 % definitely re-offend

catallus

Given the under-reporting of such crime, and the rigmarole which is the taking of any such crime before a court, any person who uses the 15% stat to bolster the argument that any treatment is a success is either being deliberately dumb or deliberately defending such awful crime.

Billy86

catallus wrote: »

The problem with the argument of the last few pages is that it is constraining itself within the provably ineffective parameters of using statistics and levels of "relative harm" to critically assess the merits of punishment, be it capital or otherwise, i.e the whole debate going on here is contextualising itself within the pre-existing rules of "Risk Avoidance" which have permeated nearly every part of the social fabric which is touched by any part of the state, in this case the judiciary.

It is this fanatical adherence to the principles of avoiding risk which have led us to the sorry state of sentencing which has grown over the past 40 or so years. The fact that the whole structure of sentencing has completely sided with the rights and needs of the perpetrators, and totally ignores those of the victims of crime, can be identified as the ultimate consequence of this aversion to risk: the total capitulation to the rights of the wrongdoer if there is an ounce of an iota of "innocence".

All this talk of re-offending and deterrence is just so much beating about the bush. The fact is is that the justice system is way too lenient when dealing with heinous crime such as theft or assault or burglarising homes.

Well I'll commend you for bringing some genuine points to the argument there, but I have to point out that the recidivism statistics were brought up in direct response to the wild claims that 'every sex offender will re-offend the moment you let them out' type nonsense coming from the other side. It wasn't brought up without independently by those against the death sentence or default 'life without parole' approaches.

Billy86

catallus wrote: »

Given the under-reporting of such crime, and the rigmarole which is the taking of any such crime before a court, any person who uses the 15% stat to bolster the argument that any treatment is a success is either being deliberately dumb or deliberately defending such awful crime.

That can be used of a vast array of crimes though - from theft, to drugs abuses, to tax/financial fraud, and on and on. Sex offenders though, I would reckon are typically tracked a lot closer than offenders of these other crimes and thus would find it harder to get away with re-offending than a coke dealer, car thief, etc.

catallus

Billy86 wrote: »

That can be used of a vast array of crimes though - from theft, to drugs abuses, to tax/financial fraud, and on and on. Sex offenders though, I would reckon are typically tracked a lot closer than offenders of these other crimes and thus would find it harder to get away with re-offending than a coke dealer, car thief, etc.

How can you say this? In all honesty how on earth are they tracked a lot closer? This doesn't make sense to me.

I know it is an emotional subject, but if one looks at the way sex offences are treated how can anyone say they are treated any harsher?

Anyway afaic, the subject of such offences are a small subset of the problem of any crime not being properly sanctioned.

Billy86

catallus wrote: »

How can you say this? In all honesty how on earth are they tracked a lot closer? This doesn't make sense to me.

I know it is an emotional subject, but if one looks at the way sex offences are treated how can anyone say they are treated any harsher?

Anyway afaic, the subject of such offences are a small subset of the problem of any crime not being properly sanctioned.

For a start, I'm not aware of a car theft or general burglars register.

Though for me, the whole prison system is a little dated. Not incarceration of course, but how parts of it are implemented - and that's a whole different conversation.

catallus

Billy86 wrote: »

For a start, I'm not aware of a car theft or general burglars register.

Though for me, the whole prison system is a little dated. Not incarceration of course, but how parts of it are implemented - and that's a whole different conversation.

You mean that anybody in the country who has ever burgled a house or stole a car is not recorded as having done so?

osarusan

catallus wrote: »

You mean that anybody in the country who has ever burgled a house or stole a car is not recorded as having done so?

Who's being deliberately dumb now?

Billy86

catallus wrote: »

You mean that anybody in the country who has ever burgled a house or stole a car is not recorded as having done so?

Gardai must tell neighbours about sex offenders.

Does this exist for other crimes? I could be wrong here, but I don't think it even does for murder.

catallus

osarusan wrote: »

Who's being deliberately dumb now?

Well it is actually a serious question.

catallus

Billy86 wrote: »

Gardai must tell neighbours about sex offenders.

Does this exist for other crimes? I could be wrong here, but I don't think it even does for murder.

That is all very nice and all but it is just an article saying that it might happen someday.......

osarusan

catallus wrote: »

Well it is actually a serious question.

No, its a weak strawman.

catallus

osarusan wrote: »

No, its a weak strawman.

I can't understand how you could consider any statement I made or question I asked to be such a thing.

OldRio

Goodness me.
I'm guessing a lot of posters have not heard of the Guilford 4 or Birmingham 6.
Irish people who were found guilty of terrorism offences in the UK.
If the death penalty was available in the UK they would have been killed.
All were later acquitted.
Wrong verdicts.

Forensic evidence and other evidence was proved to be wrong years later.

Sad times indeed when we decide to murder people.
But I suppose the uneducated masses like to hate without self guilt.

osarusan

catallus wrote: »

I can't understand how you could consider any statement I made or question I asked to be such a thing.

Billy86: there is a register for sex offenders, unlike other offenders.

Catallus: so you mean that there is no record of offences committed by other criminals?

That is the definition of a strawman - deliberately misrepresent a point in order to weaken an argument.

catallus

osarusan wrote: »

Billy86: there is a register for sex offenders, unlike other offenders.

Catallus: so you mean that there is no record of offences committed by other criminals?

That is the definition of a strawman - deliberately misrepresent a point in order to weaken an argument.

Excuse me, I didn't misrepresent his point, I accepted it.

I pointed out that there are obviously other registers in existence, perhaps not all of them are publicly available, but that doesn't negate the fact of their existence.

Billy86

catallus wrote: »

That is all very nice and all but it is just an article saying that it might happen someday.......

Which is also done in other countries already, like in the US where your name, photo and address are published. Now remember that paediatricians have been attacked here in recent years, and that just over in the UK a sex offender was burned alive while a guy with learning difficulties was beaten to death and burned outside his home over false and unfounded allegations of his being a paedophile... and you can see why it could be a terrible idea. But it's still getting talked about by the people that make the laws.

As things stand, sex offenders do have to register their whereabouts, address and other information with the Gardai at all times. If they were imprisoned for more than two years they have to do so indefinitely, essentially for the rest of their lives. As best I know, a car thief, burglar, drug dealer or even murderer does not.

Billy86

catallus wrote: »

Excuse me, I didn't misrepresent his point, I accepted it.

I pointed out that there are obviously other registers in existence, perhaps not all of them are publicly available, but that doesn't negate the fact of their existence.

So you do accept that sex offenders are tracked more closely than other forms of criminals and ex-convicts?

Mint Aero

For these wankstains of society with 100+ convictions, yeah not a bother boss. Broadcast it on tv too for the L O L 'ssssssssss

catallus

Billy86 wrote: »

So you do accept that sex offenders are tracked more closely than other forms of criminals and ex-convicts?

No, I accept that there is a much publicised "SEX OFFENDERS REGISTER" that makes everyone feel safe about things, but in reality it is of no more or less substance than any other "register" that the law has at its disposal.

Mint Aero wrote: »

For these wankstains of society with 100+ convictions, yeah not a bother boss. Broadcast it on tv too for the L O L 'ssssssssss

A very cogent point, sir, I salute your erudition once again!

Billy86

catallus wrote: »

No, I accept that there is a much publicised "SEX OFFENDERS REGISTER" that makes everyone feel safe about things, but in reality it is of no more or less substance than any other "register" that the law has at its disposal.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/law_enforcement/monitoring_sex_offenders_in_ireland.html

Post-release supervision
When a court convicts someone of a qualifying sexual offence it is obliged when sentencing the offender to consider whether or not to impose a sentence involving post-release supervision. In doing so the court must take the following into account:

- The need for a period of post-release supervision of the offender
- The need to protect the public from serious harm from the offender
- The need to prevent the commission of further sexual offences by the offender
- The need to rehabilitate or further rehabilitate the offender
- In deciding whether or not to impose a sentence involving post-release supervision the court may hear evidence or submissions from any concerned person. Any period of post-release supervision imposed on the sex offender by the court will be supervised by the Probation Service which liaises with the Gardaí in order to ensure the sex offender complies with the supervision order.

Examples of conditions which the court may include in the order of supervision are:
- Prohibiting the sex offender from attending certain places, such as schools, sports-clubs and play-grounds
- Requiring the sex offender to receive psychological counselling or other appropriate treatment during the period of supervision
- If a sex offender fails or refuses to comply, without reasonable excuse, with the requirements relating to supervision, the offender is committing an offence and is liable, if convicted, to a fine not exceeding €1,900 or to imprisonment for a maximum of 12 months or both.

...

Employment
The Sex Offenders Act, 2001 also places requires sex offenders to inform prospective employers of the nature of their conviction when applying to do work that consists mainly of the offender having unsupervised access to or contact with a child or children or a mentally impaired person. If someone fails to notify an employer the offender could be fined up to €12,697 or sentenced up to 5 years in prison or both.

Now as best I know, this does not apply to other crimes. Employers may request from the individual, but there is only an onus to advise them of such if the conviction is relevant to the job (e.g. motoring offences for jobs that involve driving). Hence, sex offenders are indeed monitored more closely than other ex-convicts.

catallus

Billy86 wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/law_enforcement/monitoring_sex_offenders_in_ireland.html

Now as best I know, this does not apply to other crimes. Employers may request from the individual, but there is only an onus to advise them of such if the conviction is relevant to the job (e.g. motoring offences for jobs that involve driving). Hence, sex offenders are indeed monitored more closely than other ex-convicts.

All of the making them avoid playgrounds and schools and stuff is all very well, but it doesn't mean they have a 24hour surveillance team covering them, so I don't get your point.

Anyone considering working with vulnerable people (children, elderly, etc.) is required to undergo such checks, you know?

Billy86

My point has been stated numerous times: sex offender are more closely monitored than those who were convicted of other types of crimes. Your comment about a 24hr surveillance team is very much a straw man.

catallus

Billy86 wrote: »

My point has been stated numerous times: sex offender are more closely monitored than those who were convicted of other types of crimes. Your comment about a 24hr surveillance team is very much a straw man.

Yes, you have stated it, with no evidence, and indeed without any coherent reason why you should believe so! Is it cos the papers and internet say it then it must be true?

catallus

Little Italy wrote: »

I haven't read this thread, frankly I've no interest in doing so. However, I do not support the idea of the death penalty. I think people who do are just blood thirsty keyboard warriors. The best punishment is life in prison.

Well I'd prefer "bloodthirst" any day of the week to the insidious malicious and evil idea of holing a person up in a cell until the day they die. That is a torturers wet-dream.

Billy86

catallus wrote: »

Yes, you have stated it, with no evidence, and indeed without any coherent reason why you should believe so! Is it cos the papers and internet say it then it must be true?

No, I've been quoting the official Garda and Citizens Information Board websites with detailed examples of how sex offenders are subjected to closer monitoring than those convicted of other crimes. You have yet to show how these same measures are taken for other types of criminal and instead have been shifting the goalposts and creating straw men throughout.

catallus

Billy86 wrote: »

No, I've been quoting the official Garda and Citizens Information Board websites with detailed examples of how sex offenders are subjected to closer monitoring than those convicted of other crimes. You have yet to show how these same measures are taken for other types of criminal and instead have been shifting the goalposts and creating straw men throughout.

Don't stop believin', Billy

For people who would like to see farther than the state and elites would like them to see, the reality is clear, with a little humility, perception and a tiny smidge of independent thought.

Billy86

catallus wrote: »

Don't stop believin', Billy

For people who would like to see farther than the state and elites would like them to see, the reality is clear, with a little humility, perception and a tiny smidge of independent thought.

Ah yes, so now you've switched from "papers and the internet are not credible" to "official sources can't be trusted".

Those goalposts, they just keep on moving, eh? :pac:

djflawless

Was too young to vote at the time but wasn't it voted in 2000-02 to abolish and never re introduce the death penalty in Ireland???

catallus

Billy86 wrote: »

Ah yes, so now you've switched from "papers and the internet are not credible" to "official sources can't be trusted".

Those goalposts, they just keep on moving, eh? :pac:

I've posted 13 times, excluding this post, tonight.

I have shifted no goalposts.

It is just strange to me that you so willingly swallow the idea that one particular group of offenders (for a particular set of offences, in this case sexual offences) are more closely, in reality, focussed upon by the state, than those who commit armed robbery, or burglary or whateveryou'rehaving yourself.

The sad reality is that once they are released they are as free as me and you, notwithstanding some pesky paperwork, and just as free in the world as any thief or killer.

Billy86

djflawless wrote: »

Was too young to vote at the time but wasn't it voted in 2000-02 to abolish and never re introduce the death penalty in Ireland???

Good spot - didn't remember that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Ireland

The last execution was in 1954, some were still sentenced in between but all had them commuted to lesser sentences (at least one of whom had his conviction later overturned - Peter Pringle in 1995, having been arrested in 1980). It was done away with in 1990 and in 2002 was voted to be specifically prohibited by the Constitution. So it took half a century of easing out, as each generation seemingly began to see it as less and less necessary than the previous one.

Billy86

catallus wrote: »

I've posted 13 times, excluding this post, tonight.

I have shifted no goalposts.

It is just strange to me that you so willingly swallow the idea that one particular group of offenders (for a particular set of offences, in this case sexual offences) are more closely, in reality, focussed upon by the state, than those who commit armed robbery, or burglary or whateveryou'rehaving yourself.

The sad reality is that once they are released they are as free as me and you, notwithstanding some pesky paperwork, and just as free in the world as any thief or killer.

And they are more closely monitored, including having to notify the authorities any time they change address, or if they go on holidays abroad for more than a week. There is a sex offenders act which deals specifically with them in full - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0018/ - and yet you continually choose to ignore this. The fact is they are more closely monitored than other criminals, and you have not shown anything to prove otherwise.

catallus

Billy86 wrote: »

And they are more closely monitored, including having to notify the authorities any time they change address, or if they go on holidays abroad for more than a week. There is a sex offenders act which deals specifically with them in full - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0018/ - and yet you continually choose to ignore this. The fact is they are more closely monitored than other criminals, and you have not shown anything to prove otherwise.

If you see any of this as being actually "more closely monitored" than any other serious criminal then that's your problem.

Billy86

catallus wrote: »

If you see any of this as being actually "more closely monitored" than any other serious criminal then that's your problem.

What other types of criminals have to notify Gardai within 7 days of changing address or any time they go on holiday, for the rest of their life (if they served more than 2 years in prison)?

You're basically trying to claim that black-and-white legislature does not exist.

catallus

Billy86 wrote: »

What other types of criminals have to notify Gardai within 7 days of changing address or any time they go on holiday, for the rest of their life (if they served more than 2 years in prison)?

You're basically trying to claim that black-and-white legislature does not exist.

No, I'm saying that black-and-white legislature is there as a comfort blanket for those who trust in such obviously facile and inoperable restrictions.

This has got really off-topic.

Mr Williams

catallus wrote: »

If you see any of this as being actually "more closely monitored" than any other serious criminal then that's your problem.

The fact of the matter is that gardas dont have the resources to monitor these people. Having a public register of sex offenders would be a much better idea.

Holsten

Having any type of register is a bad idea.

Having something like that public? Sheer stupidity. Read up on American laws to see just how messed up it can get when laws are passed with zero logical thought. Hell those kneejerk laws are even named after victims. Insane.

Anyway this thread is about the death penalty, no?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mr Williams wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that gardas dont have the resources to monitor these people. Having a public register of sex offenders would be a much better idea.

The Probabtion Service does the monitoring, not the Guards. Now back on topic...

Mr Williams

Holsten wrote: »

Having any type of register is a bad idea.

Having something like that public? Sheer stupidity. Read up on American laws to see just how messed up it can get when laws are passed with zero logical thought. Hell those kneejerk laws are even named after victims. Insane.

Anyway this thread is about the death penalty, no?

The american law may not be perfect but its better than letting sex offenders run wild in the community.

People have a right to know if somebody like larry murphy is living beside them.

Holsten

Mr Williams wrote: »

The american law may not be perfect but its better than letting sex offenders run wild in the community.

People have a right to know if somebody like larry murphy is living beside them.

It is FAR from perfect. It's cruel and unusual punishment.

No, sorry, people don't have any right to know. The chances of a Larry Murphy type doing anything again are incredibly low.

Has Larry Murphy reoffended? Nope.

OldNotWIse

No.

donutheadhomer

SV wrote: »

Yes but only in extreme cases.

death is always an extreme case

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mr Williams wrote: »

The american law may not be perfect but its better than letting sex offenders run wild in the community.

People have a right to know if somebody like larry murphy is living beside them.

You are developing a flair for the exaggeration and passing off of vague opinion as concrete fact. You've been caught out enough times by now to know this.

We had this discssion: the people were generally beleived to be iresponsible in the face of availability of said information. They know nothign about said offenders and, worse, don't want to know anything. Blind ignorance is the root of the problem reguarding ideas of publication of the sex offenders reigster and implementation of the death penalty, and nothing will change until people actually do something to learn about the problems rather than just reading tabloids and getting angry.

People don;t actually have a right to know who is living beside them.