Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

upstairs for coffee

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

A few examples from the UK:



Getting rid of psychopaths like them would not be murder, it would be a public service. The fact that millions of pounds is spent every year to look after those animals is scandalous (they can't be put in the general prison population after all, they need special units)

You have deflected from my question though. How can a state legitimately prohibit murder yet sanction it on an individual basis?

Yeah sure, sometimes I get on the rabble bandwagon and my instinctive visceral urge is to say "Kill all rapists and pedophiles!" when I hear shocking stories. But on reflection I wouldn't be comfortable living with state sanctioned murder.

Look at this, the last words of a death row inmate Texas - http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_info/porterhenrylast.html

end of the road

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Getting rid of psychopaths like them would not be murder

yes it would, if what they did is classed as murder which it is and rightly so

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

it would be a public service.

for ferrel blood hounds who like standing and cheering at people being killed, yet the same people would give out about muslim countries doing the exact same thing even if they do it for less.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The fact that millions of pounds is spent every year to look after those animals is scandalous

that much would still be spent even with the death penalty, infact more would be spent

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

they can't be put in the general prison population after all

yes, because whether you like it or not the prisons have a duty of care to them like all prisoners.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

they need special units

special units which would have to be there anyway even if the death penalty was used for them, the psychiatric units would have to be there for the other patients that would need them, and the protection blocks in the prisons would have to be there for other prisoners for many reasons, so no extra money is being spent so no point in trying to make out it is.

cd07

without a doubt! Although not the PC death penalty, for the likes of that scumbag that killed Jill Meagher one should be battered to death.

Hitchens

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Look at this, the last words of a death row inmate Texas - http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_info/porterhenrylast.html

and your point is........................? :rolleyes:

crazy cabbage

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

How can any state prohibit murder by law but then sanction the death penalty? Contradiction?

By definition Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being

If the state sanctioned it by very definition it wouldn't be murder as it would no longer bu unlawful

Having said that i would never agree with the death penalty and agree with you 100%. But the answer to your question is no. It is not a contradiction if it is sanctioned.

upstairs for coffee

Hitchens wrote: »

and your point is........................? :rolleyes:

And my point is..............where do you draw the line with who gets the death sentence? Is it specific to pedophiles and rapists or do you include people like that in the link.

Your username isn't doing its namesake justice

crazy cabbage

rox5 wrote: »

Yes I would support it. Life should mean life (as in they stay their prisons and rot until they die) for rapists, murderers, etc, but some seem to just get out of jail way too soon for good behavior and stupid excuses like that, and they up re-offending again.

I do not know what defines good behavior but i think that early release would be reasonable IF we had a proper rehabilitation program.

The purpose of jails is to protect society from harm for these people. If these people are rehabilitated properly well then i see no reason why they should be kept in jail as they would no longer be a treat to society. Ok. Clearly there has to be a minimum time away from society in some sort of establishment though.

But we simply don't rehabilitate people in this country though so i agree with you in that there is people getting out way to early. But i disagree with just locking them up until they die.

Hitchens

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

do you include people like that in the link.

people like what exactly....................????????? what's so significant about the fellow in the link??

what does an anonymous message board username have to do with any of this??

crazy cabbage

Hitchens wrote: »

people like what exactly....................????????? what's so significant about the fellow in the link??

what does an anonymous message board username have to do with any of this??

Let not talk about any particular case.

Let imagine that i kill someone one. The circumstances do not matter. I was initally very bitter and uncooperative. I am rightly sent to jail. I go into a rehabilitation program and work with therapists and councilors to get to the root of the problem. Initally i make no progress and laugh at them. Sure there is nothing wrong with me. I made a mistake sure but it was just a flash of anger at the wrong time in the wrong place. It could have happened to anyone i think to myself
Then i start to make progress and start to see where i went wrong. I begin to get very emotional over some of the things that i have done in my life. Not just the murder but other things to that no one knew about. Things like not never going to see my parents after my brother died. Or some of my old friends that were always there for me but i was never there for them. Some silly things that i have never thought about before. I bring these up in sessions and i begin to make progress. I also start my education again. Have always been interesting in biology so i start a biology degree from my cell.
The years roll by and i truly become very sorry for what i have done. I have got my degree plus another one to boot. The counclers and therapists all agree that i have make excellent progress and all agree that i would likely never recommit. They say there is as much chance of me recommiting as any given person on any given street.

Put the family of the deceased aside. Do you believe that the person depicted above should spend the rest of this life in jail. The purpose of jail is to protect society but in this case there is now nothing to protect society from. What is the point? He could be a productive member of society. What does him staying in jail achieve? Aside form revenge for the deceased family? But revenge doesn't justify anything. What does it achieve?

rox5

crazy cabbage wrote: »

I do not know what defines good behavior but i think that early release would be reasonable IF we had a proper rehabilitation program.

The purpose of jails is to protect society from harm for these people. If these people are rehabilitated properly well then i see no reason why they should be kept in jail as they would no longer be a treat to society. Ok. Clearly there has to be a minimum time away from society in some sort of establishment though.

But we simply don't rehabilitate people in this country though so i agree with you in that there is people getting out way to early. But i disagree with just locking them up until they die.

I actually agree with you at that, it's just I believe those who cannot be rehabilated and who will just reoffend again and again no matter what help they get, should either get life in prison or death penalty for EXTREME cases.

But you are right on rehabilating these people right at the start, most of the worst criminals start out with petty small crime, if they had be rehabilated right the start, given the push in the right direction, maybe we would have less crime to deal with.

SV

end of the road wrote: »

exactly, thats why it should never be brought in, if it was, then that would mean multiple people doing a monstrous thing and giving up their rights to be treated as equals, where would it stop

See, this is a stupid argument that I always hear with stuff like this.

They're completely different situations, raping and murdering an innocent person is not the same as a person going through a trial, found to be guilty and being killed in a humane way.
To suggest it's the same thing and that you're 'just as bad' is ridiculous.

crazy cabbage

rox5 wrote: »

I actually agree with you at that, it's just I believe those who cannot be rehabilated and who will just reoffend again and again no matter what help they get, should either get life in prison or death penalty for EXTREME cases.

But you are right on rehabilating these people right at the start, most of the worst criminals start out with petty small crime, if they had be rehabilated right the start, given the push in the right direction, maybe we would have less crime to deal with.

How do we know that they can not be rehabilitated?

The only way we could possible know that is if they are a psychopath and this is medicaly shown. Like i have said before most psychopaths go on to live almost perfectly normal lives but if they do turn to murder? I dont know but killing them becouse they have an illness doesn't sit right with me.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

seb65 wrote: »

It actually is a deterrent. If the serial killer/rapist is dead, they ain't committing no more crimes.

Not entirely sure you understand "deterrent"

Jumboman wrote: »

The EU is a protector of Irish sovereignty ? Are you taken the piss ? We have no sovereignty left thanks to the EU.

Not true. We have no sovereignity left because we autorised FF to create an environment in which we could willingly sacrifice it.

I advocate a independent Ireland which is neither part of the UK or the EU sometime along the lines of Iceland or Norway. But the eurofiles would not like that because they have an inferiority complex about Ireland.

Yeah, why not? I don't live there any more and it'll be fun to watch from a distance.

Back on topic: has anyone given a good practical reason for reinstituting the death penalty complete with ojectives and methods of achievement along with a workable plan to deal with the economic implications yet, or am asking stupid questions again?

Sciprio

At sometimes i do think about it. But then i think that if they get put to death it would be all over for them so they won't care. I think life in the most horrible conditions making them longing to be dead would be a better idea.

I am not sadistic or anything i just like justice to be served!

end of the road

SV wrote: »

They're completely different situations, raping and murdering an innocent person is not the same as a person going through a trial, found to be guilty and being killed in a humane way.
To suggest it's the same thing and that you're 'just as bad' is ridiculous.

no it isn't, the state has said this person can't commit that rape or murder and rightly so, however it then turns round and says.
remember we said you couldn't commit that murder? well now were going to kill you because we can even though we have said that you couldn't do it, one rule for one and another rule for someone else, to punish a particular crime by commiting said crime is ridiculous and hypocritical

crazy cabbage

Sciprio wrote: »

At sometimes i do think about it. But then i think that if they get put to death it would be all over for them so they won't care. I think life in the most horrible conditions making them longing to be dead would be a better idea.

I am not sadistic or anything i just like justice to be served!

read below

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Let imagine that i kill someone one. The circumstances do not matter. I was initally very bitter and uncooperative. I am rightly sent to jail. I go into a rehabilitation program and work with therapists and councilors to get to the root of the problem. Initally i make no progress and laugh at them. Sure there is nothing wrong with me. I made a mistake sure but it was just a flash of anger at the wrong time in the wrong place. It could have happened to anyone i think to myself
Then i start to make progress and start to see where i went wrong. I begin to get very emotional over some of the things that i have done in my life. Not just the murder but other things to that no one knew about. Things like not never going to see my parents after my brother died. Or some of my old friends that were always there for me but i was never there for them. Some silly things that i have never thought about before. I bring these up in sessions and i begin to make progress. I also start my education again. Have always been interesting in biology so i start a biology degree from my cell.
The years roll by and i truly become very sorry for what i have done. I have got my degree plus another one to boot. The counclers and therapists all agree that i have make excellent progress and all agree that i would likely never recommit. They say there is as much chance of me recommiting as any given person on any given street.

Put the family of the deceased aside. Do you believe that the person depicted above should spend the rest of this life in jail. The purpose of jail is to protect society but in this case there is now nothing to protect society from. What is the point? He could be a productive member of society. What does him staying in jail achieve? Aside form revenge for the deceased family? But revenge doesn't justify anything. What does it achieve?

Do you not think justice was served there? Why continue surving justice where there is no longer a need? Because it makes you feel better?

SV

end of the road wrote: »

no it isn't, the state has said this person can't commit that rape or murder and rightly so, however it then turns round and says.
remember we said you couldn't commit that murder? well now were going to kill you because we can even though we have said that you couldn't do it, one rule for one and another rule for someone else, to punish a particular crime by commiting said crime is ridiculous and hypocritical

The punishment for murder is murder.
That's a simple equation right there, if you don't murder then you will not be murdered by the state.

It would not be a crime to kill someone who it had been decided by judge, jury and trial that they were deserving of said punishment.
I have no idea how people find it hard to get their head around this.

Hitchens

Venables will receive another new identity at great expense to taxpayer.

Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger said they were ‘filled with terror’ by the decision to grant parole to Jon Venables, 30.

Rehabilitated, yeah sure!

hsianloon

Its a very effective and cheap punishment. Its fatal flaw is being irreversible.

But I don't think we should do away with it. It has its place in crimes so heinous that anything short of ending a criminals life is travesty to the victim and justice.

It should be used only when there is no room at all for doubt eg evidence that's so indisputable eg the defence lawyer just gets on his knees and begs for any scrap he can

My view is that its a good punishment but encumbered by a judiciary and investigative efforts that aren't there yet. If my house window is broken...I'm going to fix it, not break the other ones so they match

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hitchens wrote: »

Venables will receive another new identity at great expense to taxpayer.

Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger said they were ‘filled with terror’ by the decision to grant parole to Jon Venables, 30.

Rehabilitated, yeah sure!

So, are you saying it didnt work in this one case or it never works, full stop?

end of the road

SV wrote: »

The punishment for murder is murder.

but the first murder is illegal, so to then punish someone for doing something illegal by doing that same thing doesn't make sense.

SV wrote: »

That's a simple equation right there, if you don't murder then you will not be murdered by the state.

either murder is right or wrong, the only case where it might be justified is where your life is in danger but then in many of those cases thats questionable

SV wrote: »

It would not be a crime to kill someone who it had been decided by judge, jury and trial that they were deserving of said punishment.

it would be yes, and the state doesn't deserve to be able to do that.

SV wrote: »

I have no idea how people find it hard to get their head around this.

they can, it just doesn't make sense is stupid and hypocritical

end of the road

Hitchens wrote: »

Venables will receive another new identity at great expense to taxpayer.

and? under the law he has served his time, i or you don't like it but that is how it is

Hitchens wrote: »

Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger said they were ‘filled with terror’ by the decision to grant parole to Jon Venables, 30.

i'm sure they are, you would hardly expect them not to be

Hitchens wrote: »

Rehabilitated, yeah sure!

he isn't, but that doesn't mean others won't be, remember the death penalty was stopped over there and completely abolished here for a reason, it failed, doesn't work as a deterrant, is expensive, DNA evidence isn't fool proof and never will be, infact no evidence will ever be good enough to satisfy me to carry it out

end of the road

hsianloon wrote: »

Its a very effective and cheap punishment.

LOL, not one bit cheep, costs more then a life time in prison and no evidence will ever be good enough to satisfy carrying it out, not even worth the risk of one innocent persons life.

hsianloon wrote: »

Its fatal flaw is being irreversible.

absolutely, and the rest, which is why it was abolished here

hsianloon wrote: »

But I don't think we should do away with it.

ireland has abolished it.

hsianloon wrote: »

It has its place in crimes so heinous that anything short of ending a criminals life is travesty to the victim and justice.

no it doesn't have its place in a modern society, only in a blood hound ferrel society, ending a criminals life might be a travisty for some but not for many who have moved on and realised that the death penalty no longer has and in fact never had its place.

hsianloon wrote: »

It should be used only when there is no room at all for doubt eg evidence that's so indisputable eg the defence lawyer just gets on his knees and begs for any scrap he can

which is never going to be the case ever

hsianloon wrote: »

My view is that its a good punishment but encumbered by a judiciary and investigative efforts that aren't there yet.

or never will be enough to satisfy carrying it out

hsianloon wrote: »

If my house window is broken...I'm going to fix it, not break the other ones so they match

that sums up the death penalty, break one window and have yours broken for it

Me_Grapes

end of the road wrote: »

either murder is right or wrong, the only case where it might be justified is where your life is in danger but then in many of those cases thats questionable

Not all killings are the same, it's not as black and white as you're making it out to be. As you said, you can legally kill someone by self defence. There is unlawful and lawful killings as our statute books say.

Why can capital punishment not go under the umbrella of 'lawful killing' as the perpetrator has given up his right to life by taking an innocent person?

It's only hypocritical if you deem the perpetrator as having the same rights as the innocent victim.

B.A._Baracus

I support the death penalty.
For serious crimes. Such as serial rapists, serial murders etc.

I've read threads like this on boards before and you always get a mixed opinion. I respect another persons opinion... it's just I always come back to the same form of thinking.... and that's human rights. That a person could horrifically kill 10 people but yet we are meant to with-hold their human rights? ... but they sure as hell didnt care about the human rights of their victims.

Then it's the whole "eye for an eye and everyone will be blind" argument. Which I always think is rather stupid to mention.

woodoo

I would like to see hangings and public floggings brought back to the town square like in medieval times.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Me_Grapes wrote: »

Not all killings are the same, it's not as black and white as you're making it out to be. As you said, you can legally kill someone by self defence. There is unlawful and lawful killings as our statute books say.

Why can capital punishment not go under the umbrella of 'lawful killing' as the perpetrator has given up his right to life by taking an innocent person?

It's only hypocritical if you deem the perpetrator as having the same rights as the innocent victim.

Has he?

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I support the death penalty.
For serious crimes. Such as serial rapists, serial murders etc.

I've read threads like this on boards before and you always get a mixed opinion. I respect another persons opinion... it's just I always come back to the same form of thinking.... and that's human rights. That a person could horrifically kill 10 people but yet we are meant to with-hold their human rights? ... but they sure as hell didnt care about the human rights of their victims.

A government can not simply turn around and revoke someone's human rights.
If they could, we'd be on a seriously slippery slope. Saying that someone revoked or gave up his human rights is merely opinion - there is no legal status.

Then it's the whole "eye for an eye and everyone will be blind" argument. Which I always think is rather stupid to mention.

- because...?

B.A._Baracus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

A government can not simply turn around and revoke someone's human rights.
If they could, we'd be on a seriously slippery slope. Saying that someone revoked or gave up his human rights is merely opinion - there is no legal status.

My point was that it really isn't "fair" - fair in the sense that an evil person has rights after what they've done. If you get me.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

- because...?

Because it's a stupid and flawed argument. An eye for an eye means the exact same as do onto others as they have done onto you. We are talking about the death penalty and the justice system. You can't apply "eye for an eye" to one aspect of justice without applying it to all

Because each crime is different. Each crime holds a different weight. That would mean if I was to punch you... it wouldnt be charging me and suing me. No it would mean charging me and you legally punching me :pac: Or if I damaged your property you would have a legal right to do the same :pac: or if not you, by someone within the law :pac:

That's why I say an "eye for an eye" is a stupid thing to mention.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

My point was that it really isn't "fair" - fair in the sense that an evil person has rights after what they've done. If you get me.

Then what's the point of even having human rights...? The whole point being that, even if you commit a crime, you are still human, even if you don't act that way. If not, then none of us have human rights.

Because it's a stupid and flawed argument. An eye for an eye means the exact same as do onto others as they have done onto you. We are talking about the death penalty and the justice system. You can't apply "eye for an eye" to one aspect of justice without applying it to all

Because each crime is different. Each crime holds a different weight. That would mean if I was to punch you... it wouldnt be charging me and suing me. No it would mean charging me and you legally punching me :pac: Or if I damaged your property you would have a legal right to do the same :pac: or if not you, by someone within the law :pac:

That's why I say an "eye for an eye" is a stupid thing to mention.

The quote refers to emotive acts of vengeance, rather than laws. In a legal frame, it would refer more to taking the law into your own hands.

Whether or not it would apply to a death penalty debate, you'd have to first clarify if the death penalty was such an act of vengeance.

It's not a flawed argument (unless you're pro-anarchy) - it just might not be relevant.

B.A._Baracus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Then what's the point of even having human rights...? The whole point being that, even if you commit a crime, you are still human, even if you don't act that way. If not, then none of us have human rights.



The quote refers to emotive acts of vengeance, rather than laws. In a legal frame, it would refer more to taking the law into your own hands.

Whether or not it would apply to a death penalty debate, you'd have to first clarify if the death penalty was such an act of vengeance.

Just because a government passes a law - any law - doesn't male it morally right.

If a person raped and killed 10 people. Do you think there is a chance of them being rehabilitated?

And have you ever seen American prison documentaries? ... What do you think happens when a extremely violent person recieves a life sentence? They don't just get locked away in a room for the rest of their life. They still are a threat to prison staff. Do you care about the prision staff? What about other prisioners lives? Do you care about them?

You seem to value human life blindly. Not the worst trait. But what about the lives of those who have to deal with them? ... the 'causality' of taking the moral high ground, right?

Or do you perhaps not care to think about that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

If a person raped and killed 10 people. Do you think there is a chance of them being rehabilitated?

And have you ever seen American prison documentaries? ... What do you think happens when a extremely violent person recieves a life sentence? They don't just get locked away in a room for the rest of their life. They still are a threat to prison staff. Do you care about the prision staff? What about other prisioners lives? Do you care about them?

You seem to value human life blindly. Not the worst trait. But what about the lives of those who have to deal with them? ... the 'causality' of taking the moral high ground, right?

Or do you perhaps not care to think about that.

Everything here is a classic straw man argument - I never made any points you replied to.

my my my

wooah black betty

A_Sober_Paddy

yes...needs a poll

B.A._Baracus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Everything here is a classic straw man argument - I never made any points you replied to.

Fair enough

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Then what's the point of even having human rights...? The whole point being that, even if you commit a crime, you are still human, even if you don't act that way. If not, then none of us have human rights.

I believe that when you cross a line... you've lost your human rights. Certain evil people come to mind when I say this ... Hitler etc.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The quote refers to emotive acts of vengeance, rather than laws. In a legal frame, it would refer more to taking the law into your own hands.

Whether or not it would apply to a death penalty debate, you'd have to first clarify if the death penalty was such an act of vengeance.

It's not a flawed argument (unless you're pro-anarchy) - it just might not be relevant.

My point was that people say killing another, who killed another, is wrong. That no matter how serious (and evil) the crime is. We should never kill them. i disagree. My opinion I know. But my opinion.


Your turn. Reply to my points.

hsianloon

e="end of the road;85391249"]LOL, not one bit cheep, costs more then a life time in prison and no evidence will ever be good enough to satisfy carrying it out, not even worth the risk of one innocent persons life.

absolutely, and the rest, which is why it was abolished here

ireland has abolished it.

How could the death penalty cost more than life sentence ? We could just do it immediately. No way a bag of potassium, benzodiazepine, and muscle relaxants cost more than that.


no it doesn't have its place in a modern society, only in a blood hound ferrel society, ending a criminals life might be a travisty for some but not for many who have moved on and realised that the death penalty no longer has and in fact never had its place.


which is never going to be the case ever

or never will be enough to satisfy carrying it out

that sums up the death penalty, break one window and have yours broken for it[/quote]

I know its been abolished in Ireland.

Whats most people disagreeing about the this punishment. Was this ever voted on by the irish people or just adapted because theyre western/civilized etc. There are people here here arguing for it , so obviously its not as unanimous a decision as you're saying it it.

I don't disagree its an imperfect solution, but so is just jailing them. How many people become repeat offenders ? Who becomes responsible when they reoffend since we judged them to be rehabilitated after spending taxpayers money on them ? People suffer to because we can't do what needs to be done both ways

worded

Yes, but only for bankers.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I believe that when you cross a line... you've lost your human rights. Certain evil people come to mind when I say this ... Hitler etc.

EDIT - furthermore, Hitler decided to take his own life: is the death penalty helping evil mass murderers?

But again, what is the point of a human right, if you can lose it while still being human? I see your point, but as I said earlier, can this situation exist without making a mockery of human rights?

My point was that people say killing another, who killed another, is wrong. That no matter how serious (and evil) the crime is. We should never kill them. i disagree. My opinion I know. But my opinion.


Your turn. Reply to my points.

But again, you need to ask what you want for a justice system - justice or vengeance? Do you want it to be based on emotion or not? Bearing in mind, as soon as you do introdcue emotion-base, the possibility of mistakes goes up because emotion is not the best state of mind on which to base such decisions.

Me_Grapes

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Has he?

I strongly believe he/she has.

I believe the right to life is a qualified right, the caveat being do not take the life of another innocent person. Not that difficult a principle to live by I think you'll agree. Do you think it's okay for a cold blooded killer to hide behind his right to life when said killer showed their victim absoloutly no regard for their right to life?

I'm being hypothetical by the way, I'm against the death penalty because one miscarriage of justice is one too many, but the idea that people like Ian Huntley, the James Bluger killers and the like have the same rights as you and I enjoy doesn't sit well with me at all.

B.A._Baracus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But again, what is the point of a human right, if you can lose it while still being human? I see your point, but as I said earlier, can this situation exist without making a mockery of human rights?



But again, you need to ask what you want for a justice system - justice or vengeance? Do you want it to be based on emotion or not? Bearing in mind, as soon as you do introdcue emotion-base, the possibility of mistakes goes up because emotion is not the best state of mind on which to base such decisions.

and ... my post is #281 ? what about that. after all you made reference to me not getting back to your points. Maybe i should do the same.

JillyQ

Yes in the case of child abusers, serial rapists, and for the murder of a garda, soldier or army officer in course of there duties for the state.

end of the road

JillyQ wrote: »

Yes in the case of the murder of a garda, soldier or army officer in course of there duties for the state.

why for the murder of those 3 and not all murders? having it like that is more or less saying the state values their life more then the average person and that murdering them is more serious, which it isn't.

end of the road

hsianloon wrote: »

How could the death penalty cost more than life sentence ? We could just do it immediately. No way a bag of potassium, benzodiazepine, and muscle relaxants cost more than that.

not going to happen like that, you can't just execute someone straight away, evidence can come to light later on that they may be innocent

hsianloon wrote: »

I know its been abolished in Ireland.

fair enough, its just that your post suggested that you didn't realise that.

hsianloon wrote: »

Whats most people disagreeing about the this punishment. Was this ever voted on by the irish people or just adapted because theyre western/civilized etc. There are people here here arguing for it , so obviously its not as unanimous a decision as you're saying it it.

yes this was put to the irish people back around 2001 2002, so the people had their vote, they voted to abolish it, so if they now want it back thats just tough as its not going to happen

Hitchens

end of the road wrote: »

not going to happen like that, you can't just execute someone straight away

of course you can, it just takes (political) guts to do it

Hitchens

end of the road wrote: »

why for the murder of those 3 and not all murders?

you're right there, it should be for all murders

end of the road

Hitchens wrote: »

of course you can, it just takes (political) guts to do it

no you can't, you have to allow an apeal, to execute them straight away for it to turn out later on that they were innocent would definitely be political suicide, but thankfully the EU has made sure this backward ferrel punishment is finished forever, wiped away like all the other backward things, ireland is a modern society now, get used to it.

Hitchens

end of the road wrote: »

no you can't, you have to allow an apeal, to execute them straight away for it to turn out later on that they were innocent would definitely be political suicide, but thankfully the EU has made sure this backward ferrel punishment is finished forever, wiped away like all the other backward things, ireland is a modern society now, get used to it.

no, you actually don't have to allow an appeal

the old 'modern society' comeback doesn't stop murders, if a few judges or politicians kids were murdered you'd hear a different tune

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Me_Grapes wrote: »

I strongly believe he/she has.

I believe the right to life is a qualified right, the caveat being do not take the life of another innocent person. Not that difficult a principle to live by I think you'll agree. Do you think it's okay for a cold blooded killer to hide behind his right to life when said killer showed their victim absoloutly no regard for their right to life?

I'm being hypothetical by the way, I'm against the death penalty because one miscarriage of justice is one too many, but the idea that people like Ian Huntley, the James Bluger killers and the like have the same rights as you and I enjoy doesn't sit well with me at all.

With all due respect, the Geneve Chater of Human Rights was not based onw hwat you beleive or not. The basis being: he is human therefore deserves human rights.

Even in the US States that have the death penalty, they accept this. And, asI said to BA, if you can revoke a human right, what is the point in having them?


On the topic of Ian Huntley: here's a guy who attempte suicide twice. Is killing him not giving him exactly what he wants?

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

and ... my post is #281 ? what about that. after all you made reference to me not getting back to your points. Maybe i should do the same.

Hang on, that was - and you accepted thus - a straw man argument. There is no point in me debating with you a point I never made!! You can't simply ignore the content of a post you reply to - deal with my questions regarding violation/revokatino of human rights and it's consequences, as well as the aim of a justice system, and then, when that topic is delt with, introduce the new one.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hitchens wrote: »

no, you actually don't have to allow an appeal

Yes, you do. If you've going to kill someone, you bette be DAMN sure you have the right person and that you'er doing it legally.

Hitchens

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yes, you do. If you've going to kill someone, you bette be DAMN sure you have the right person and that you'er doing it legally.

he'll/she'll be given due process and a fair trial, his/her guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, .............no worries there

end of the road

Hitchens wrote: »

he'll/she'll be given due process and a fair trial, his/her guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, .............no worries there

happened many, they were later found innocent, their isn't a doubt reasonable enough to allow carrying out the death penalty, no matter how good technology gets