Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

cometogether

Mr Williams wrote: »

Its only when you let the PC brigade defend these animals that it costs more money.

That scumbag in athlone should be put into the general prison population. He would be dead within a week and it wouldn't cost the tax payer a penny, problem solved.

Yeah, so we sanction brutal torture and murder now do we? What a nice society you wish to build

Mr Williams

cometogether wrote: »

Yeah, so we sanction brutal torture and murder now do we? What a nice society you wish to build

I wouldn't call it murder I'd call it Justice. You seem to care more about the sex beast than the 2 little girls he raped.

Mr Williams

end of the road wrote: »

doesn't exist, its only a mythical organization people believe exists so they can rant at something because they can't get their way or because they can't spout bull**** unchallenged, now seriously, give up and go away, the death penalty isn't coming back, end of.

Of couse they exist. We have people who make a living trying to defend the "rights" of scumbag criminals who will never change their ways.

Mark my words there will be a lawyer out there will try and appeal the sentence of that sex beast in athlone.

I think any of the human rights brigade who try and the defend the actions of these animals should be made to share a cell with them.

looking_around

Mr Williams wrote: »

I wouldn't call it murder I'd call it Justice. You seem to care more about the sex beast than the 2 little girls he raped.

Him being killed, won't help the girls.

__
And on your quote of me, please don't ignore the rest of my post.

cometogether

Mr Williams wrote: »

I wouldn't call it murder I'd call it Justice. You seem to care more about the sex beast than the 2 little girls he raped.

That's an inflammatory lie, and a sure sign that your argument is getting less and less rational. Obviously what happened to the girls is terrible, but believe it or not it still doesn't give anyway to take the rapist's life. That solves nothing. And you said "justice", even going by your eye for an eye argument that isn't correct, the girls are alive.

Amirani

Mr Williams wrote: »

I think people like your self are far too soft on these animals. In my opinion once someone rapes a child they should get the death penalty end of story.

The problem is that the sex beast in athlone will probably not serve anymore than 15 years in prison. Then he will be free to do the same thing all over again. If we had the death penalty it would stop these beasts from ever harming another child.

If we had the death penalty for rape, these kids would be dead right now. No child molester is going to leave witnesses alive if they're already liable for the death penalty, might as well kill them and reduce your chance of being caught, the punishment is not going to be any worse.

Why are you supporting something that is going to cause the unnecessary deaths of children? Seems you're the one who cares more about what happens to the "sex beast" than the children.

cometogether

Mr Williams wrote: »

Of couse they exist. We have people who make a living trying to defend the "rights" of scumbag criminals who will never change their ways.

Mark my words there will be a lawyer out there will try and appeal the sentence of that sex beast in athlone.

I think any of the human rights brigade who try and the defend the actions of these animals should be made to share a cell with them.

Everyone is entitled to legal counsel, that right is not removed on your say-so. Amazing how quick people seem to be to relinquish their human rights. So presumably the cell comment means that anyone who disagrees with you should be put in a position of rape themselves? But was rape not the whole issue in the first place? I'm genuinely not sure going on your comments whether you are for or against it. Or maybe people can be raped if they disagree with you? Wonderful logic.

Mr Williams

cometogether wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to legal counsel, that right is not removed on your say-so. Amazing how quick people seem to be to relinquish their human rights. So presumably the cell comment means that anyone who disagrees with you should be put in a position of rape themselves? But was rape not the whole issue in the first place? I'm genuinely not sure going on your comments whether you are for or against it. Or maybe people can be raped if they disagree with you? Wonderful logic.

My point is that if the human rights brigade think these animals are such great people then they shouldn't have any problem sharing a cell with them or living beside them.

Mr Williams

NiallSparky wrote: »

If we had the death penalty for rape, these kids would be dead right now. No child molester is going to leave witnesses alive if they're already liable for the death penalty, might as well kill them and reduce your chance of being caught, the punishment is not going to be any worse.

Why are you supporting something that is going to cause the unnecessary deaths of children? Seems you're the one who cares more about what happens to the "sex beast" than the children.

Thats bull**** these beasts know that if they are caught in most cases they will only get a slap on the wrist. Even his own girlfriend said he should be killed. The problem is that this scumbag will be back on the streets within 20 years, its better to put him down now than have him rape someone else when he gets out.

end of the road

Mr Williams wrote: »

Of couse they exist. We have people who make a living trying to defend the "rights" of scumbag criminals who will never change their ways.

Mark my words there will be a lawyer out there will try and appeal the sentence of that sex beast in athlone.

I think any of the human rights brigade who try and the defend the actions of these animals should be made to share a cell with them.

no such thing as the "human rights brigade" their called lawyers, and their doing the job their payed for, if that means defending a sex offender so be it, as for the rest of your claptrap, well i won't bother

Holsten

A life sentence is a slap on the wrist?

Like the previous poster said, all you're interested in is punishment for the man.

cometogether

Mr Williams wrote: »

My point is that if the human rights brigade think these animals are such great people then they shouldn't have any problem sharing a cell with them or living beside them.

Who said he was great?

Mr Williams

Holsten wrote: »

A life sentence is a slap on the wrist?

Like the previous poster said, all you're interested in is punishment for the man.

I said in most cases. If that scumbag had money he probably would of got 5 years with 4 years suspended. Anyway I very much doubt he will do more than 15 years.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mr Williams wrote: »

Its only when you let the PC brigade defend these animals that it costs more money.

Mr Williams wrote: »

Of couse they exist. We have people who make a living trying to defend the "rights" of scumbag criminals who will never change their ways.

These PC/human rights brigade argumens seem to be causing confusion. Can you please link to some of their arguments that you are refering to so that we can debate them? Specific arguments, now - no strawman, no guesses and nothing containing the words "probably think" - an actual comment or argument created by them so that we can have both sides ofthe argument.

Mr Williams wrote: »

I said in most cases. If that scumbag had money he probably would of got 5 years with 4 years suspended. Anyway I very much doubt he will do more than 15 years.

I doubt it, but here I see your point. I'd like judges to be able to set a minimum term to be served - as in the case of Ian Huntley who was given life with a minimum of 40 years.

Mr Williams

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

These PC/human rights brigade argumens seem to be causing confusion. Can you please link to some of their arguments that you are refering to so that we can debate them? Specific arguments, now - no strawman, no guesses and nothing containing the words "probably think" - an actual comment or argument created by them so that we can have both sides ofthe argument.



I doubt it, but here I see your point. I'd like judges to be able to set a minimum term to be served - as in the case of Ian Huntley who was given life with a minimum of 40 years.

The EU says that life sentences breach "human rights".

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jul/09/whole-life-jail-sentences-without-review-breach-human-rights

Whole-life jail sentences without any prospect of release amount to inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, the European court of human rights has ruled.

Courtesy Flush

What happens if new evidence came to light and there was a retrial after the wrong person had been executed.?
At least if they were in prison they could be freed

Mr Williams

end of the road wrote: »

no such thing as the "human rights brigade" their called lawyers, and their doing the job their payed for, if that means defending a sex offender so be it, as for the rest of your claptrap, well i won't bother

And what sort of "job" is it to "defend" a child rapist ? These people are the lowest of the low.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mr Williams wrote: »

The EU says that life sentences breach "human rights".

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jul/09/whole-life-jail-sentences-without-review-breach-human-rights

Ah, so when you say "human rights brigade" or "PC brigade", you are specicially referign to the EU? Grand - that's that cleared up, so. Although seeing as no one here falls into that category, there's not much point in arguing it here. Personally, though, I'm with you here - life without a possiblily of release should defintiely be an option.

AS to whether the EU are right or wrong to defend the issue revolves around one question I've asked many times: what, exactly, is a "Human Right"?

Mr Williams

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ah, so when you say "human rights brigade" or "PC brigade", you are specicially referign to the EU? Grand - that's that cleared up, so. Although seeing as no one here falls into that category, there's not much point in arguing it here. Personally, though, I'm with you here - life without a possiblily of release should defintiely be an option.

AS to whether the EU are right or wrong to defend the issue revolves around one question I've asked many times: what, exactly, is a "Human Right"?

You asked for a human rights argument and I gave you one. I didnt say all human rights people were EU. But I think its fair to say that most of them here in Ireland would be middle class Irish Times D4 types who have no understanding of the real world.

looking_around

Mr Williams wrote: »

And what sort of "job" is it to "defend" a child rapist ? These people are the lowest of the low.

by law, EVERYONE is entitle to an attorney. Sometimes it's just the wrong straw pulled.

There are some that like to defend those they know are criminals. Why, is up to them... but I reckon most who do, are forced to.

He's entitle to a lawyer, and if he can't get one the courts will. It's that simple. (and this is a good thing. It's not ok to allow it for some and not others, because thats where innocent people start getting jailed).

Stop shipping for revenge, it won't change anything, it won't discourage others. and worse, those who commit a crime are more like to kill victims. It's a risk thats not worth taking.

Anyway, I reckon you're trolling, so I'll leave it at that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mr Williams wrote: »

You asked for a human rights argument and I gave you one. I didnt say all human rights people were EU. But I think its fair to say that most of them here in Ireland would be middle class Irish Times D4 types who have no understanding of the real world.

Entirely possible, but without them being here, again, there's no point in arguing.

I'd gladly take up the debate, but, as I said, I'd need clarficiation as to who you mean and what you mean; because at the moment it's not 100% clear.

Christy42

Mr Williams wrote: »

And what sort of "job" is it to "defend" a child rapist ? These people are the lowest of the low.

You can't have a court case without a defense. If they don't have a defense then they have already admitted guilt and can proceed to getting the maximum sentence shortly thereafter.

If they feel they have been wronged in some way they are entitled to have someone who knows the law to help defend them. I would like that if I was wrongly accused.

If you want to stop child rapists getting off with low sentences or on technicalities then you change the law to account for this (hiring solicitors to make sure it is iron clad) and training gards so they don't make mistakes leading to technicalities.

upstairs for coffee

A society says murder is illegal but then state sanctions execution?

Irish jail time is not severe enough to come close to warranting the discussion of executions. Rapists get 5 years but some want that bumped up to execution? No logic in that.


Tougher sentences, stricter parole rights. If there was a serial child rapist or whatever then yeah I'd probably support the death penalty.

Holsten

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Tougher sentences, stricter parole rights

Why? They do nothing.

The thinking has to be outside of the box to see some actual real results.

Locking away the bad people doesn't make the issues go away.

J_E

Holsten wrote: »

Locking away the bad people doesn't make the issues go away.

Unfortunately people would rather fantasise about much more sinister punishments than make an attempt to redeem a person in prison.

I swear, some of the previous posts in this thread are completely sadistic in nature and completely ignore that there is a human involved, no matter how ****ed up, or worse, the chance that a person is falsely accused of something.

Jumboman

If it was up to me I'd get someone like Charles Bronson to deal out justice to the peados.

OldNotWIse

No.

The tendency for human error is too high.

Justice not revenge.

OldNotWIse

Oh dear. There was me thinking this might be an interesting thread, but a quick scan through shows the Daily Mail cohort has arrived: "beasts"/"animals"/"human rights brigade"/"monsters"/"lock em up and throw away the key" - usual mob mentality/vigilante justice/hysteria - whats the point?

Jumboman

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Oh dear. There was me thinking this might be an interesting thread, but a quick scan through shows the Daily Mail cohort has arrived: "beasts"/"animals"/"human rights brigade"/"monsters"/"lock em up and throw away the key" - usual mob mentality/vigilante justice/hysteria - whats the point?

So what would you call these "people" who rape children ?

OldNotWIse

Jumboman wrote: »

So what would you call these "people" who rape children ?

Criminals. Why?

Jumboman

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Criminals. Why?

There are not criminals they are beasts. The whole point of been a criminal is to make money, even the biggest scumbag criminals would be against child abusers.

Holsten

Jumboman wrote: »

There are not criminals they are beasts. The whole point of been a criminal is to make money, even the biggest scumbag criminals would be against child abusers.

You know that by calling them "beasts" you are dehumanizing them.

This is not a good path to go down, it doesn't help anyone.

It's happened before in history which I'm sure you're aware of.

OldNotWIse

Jumboman wrote: »

There are not criminals they are beasts. The whole point of been a criminal is to make money, even the biggest scumbag criminals would be against child abusers.

Not buying into the category D tabloid hysteria and name calling does not mean one is not against child abuse.

Glad that criminals still have standards though. I can sleep tonight knowing there is a God.

ABC101

As far as I am aware (open to correction) but the EU does not allow member states to have implement the Death Penalty.

So even if the citizens of Ireland wanted capital punishment it would not be enacted.

Problem with the death penalty is that it is Terminal. Once done, no going back.

I don't have enough faith in the Gardai Siochana to ensure they had the right person.

Look at the Frank Mc Brearty case and the Ian Baily situation. Both of these men could have been executed despite the lack of evidence.

You see... Ireland is the land of Zero Accountability... even if the wrong person was hanged / shot / head chopped off / electrocuted / lethal injection or whatever... there would be no accountability, except the taxpayer would have to cough up more money to the surviving relatives etc.

Those people who wrongly persecuted an innocent person would still be free to enjoy life, pensioned off early etc etc. After all why should one care... when the taxpayer will be picking up the tab.

John Lonegan had an interesting article in the media recently,

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/you-dont-hear-of-the-boys-in-welloff-areas-being-stopped-30075748.html

He expressed grave concern that the new generation of criminals do not have empathy. They are hardened people, unable to understand the sufferings of others.

I don't think Ireland has an answer to these types of criminals.

I Heart Internet

No.

Deliberate taking of human life, save in legitimate self-defence, is always wrong.

The death penality is barbarism with a veneer of state-sanctioned respectibility.

Jumboman

Holsten wrote: »

You know that by calling them "beasts" you are dehumanizing them.

This is not a good path to go down, it doesn't help anyone.

It's happened before in history which I'm sure you're aware of.

And what do you think happens to the victims of these animals ?

I'm sorry but if someone rapes a child they deserve to be dehumanized.

Mr. Incognito

I think we should only kill those that believe in the reintroduction of the death penalty

However, finding people that are agreeable to kill them may be tricky

FGR

Nevermind the death penalty..would one consider the reintroduction of imprisonment with hard labour?

I think it would be of benefit. Not necessarily a chain gang but within the prison walls. Would it show life-criminals that prison isn't as easy to endure as it is for now?

Holsten

Jumboman wrote: »

And what do you think happens to the victims of these animals ?

I'm sorry but if someone rapes a child they deserve to be dehumanized.

Why? You continue to do this nothing changes. More children get raped over and over and over and the cycle continues.

It's just pushing the problem away instead of actually trying to deal with it.

Jumboman

Holsten wrote: »

Why? You continue to do this nothing changes. More children get raped over and over and over and the cycle continues.

It's just pushing the problem away instead of actually trying to deal with it.

How would you deal with them then ?

Holsten

Jumboman wrote: »

How would you deal with them then ?

I'm not intelligent enough to come up with a solution, but going backwards is certainly not the right answer.

The aim should be to prevent crime before it happens and if it happens the aim should shift towards preventing it ever happening again.

Punishment upon punishment won't do anything to prevent it happening again, if anything it increases the chances so a new approach should be looked at. Norway seem to lead the way in this regard with the lowest re-offending rate in Europe.

Jumboman

Holsten wrote: »

I'm not intelligent enough to come up with a solution, but going backwards is certainly not the right answer.

The aim should be to prevent crime before it happens and if it happens the aim should shift towards preventing it ever happening again.

Punishment upon punishment won't do anything to prevent it happening again, if anything it increases the chances so a new approach should be looked at. Norway seem to lead the way in this regard with the lowest re-offending rate in Europe.

If the beasts were put down on their first offence it would never happen again.

Holsten

Jumboman wrote: »

If the beasts were put down on their first offence it would never happen again.

Hahah there's just no getting through to you.

Jumboman

Holsten wrote: »

Hahah there's just no getting through to you.

I'm glad you think this whole isssue is funny:rolleyes:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

If the beasts were put down on their first offence it would never happen again.

Now that's just stupid - of course it'll happen again.

What you are doing by killing a pedophile is just that: killing one pedophile. The fact that there could well be tens of thousands of them out there seems to not be a problem worth worrying abotu and therein lies the essense of your fallacy:

You think that, by waiting for the pedophile to rape a child, you are preventing the rape of children.

zoe 3619

No

Jumboman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Now that's just stupid - of course it'll happen again.

What you are doing by killing a pedophile is just that: killing one pedophile. The fact that there could well be tens of thousands of them out there seems to not be a problem worth worrying abotu and therein lies the essense of your fallacy:

You think that, by waiting for the pedophile to rape a child, you are preventing the rape of children.

Do you read the Irish Times or The Guardian by any chance ?

J_E

Jumboman wrote: »

If the beasts were put down on their first offence it would never happen again.

I am so glad you will never play a role in the justice system...I think The Sun are hiring though.

OldNotWIse

Jumboman wrote: »

I'm glad you think this whole isssue is funny:rolleyes:

If you ceased referring to them as beasts, animals, monsters etc people might take you more seriously. It's almost as if you swallowed a bale of News of the Worlds.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jumboman wrote: »

Do you read the Irish Times or The Guardian by any chance ?

Is this your way of avoiding the argument, by any chance?