Bring back capital punishment?

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

1) So basically the judge said "i'd like to give you six months but the public wouldn't stand for it, so it's life my son? No Shipman got life because he was a stone cold killer and got the full weight of the law, life in his case meant life.

No, I don't think judges are that sarcastic. The media were all over that case and it was obvious Shipman was going down for a long time. This doesn't happen to all criminals who receive 'life imprisonment' as you well know.

mycroft wrote:

2) what's the last thing got to do with it. We're not debating prisoner suicide. Utterly irrelevant.

It's relevant in that Shipman did to himself what the justice system could have done.

mycroft wrote:

Do you really think anyone stabbing someone on a bus over chips, or over a race crime, stops and thinks "whats the worse I'll get? 15 years?" No in those instants commiting murder over trival acts they're not considering the consequences. The fact that random murders occur daily in america means theres no weight to that argument of yours.

What makes you so qualified to argue about the psychology of a killer? And what about those killers like Shipman who clearly are aware of what they are doing? Random murders in America are irrelvant to Ireland. They have a major problem with gun crime and their popualtion is far larger than ours.

mycroft wrote:

Why are you asking me? You want to know toddle off and find it.

Temper, temper.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

No, I don't think judges are that sarcastic. The media were all over that case and it was obvious Shipman was going down for a long time. This doesn't happen to all criminals who receive 'life imprisonment' as you well know.

So you think the only thing that stops the courts from handing out tough sentences is the media.

It's relevant in that Shipman did to himself what the justice system could have done.

How is it relevant? Exactly. Do you think shipman wouldn't have commited all the murders if he'd have faced the death sentence?

What makes you so qualified to argue about the psychology of a killer? And what about those killers like Shipman who clearly are aware of what they are doing? Random murders in America are irrelvant to Ireland. They have a major problem with gun crime and their popualtion is far larger than ours.

Common sense? What makes you so qualified to raise this discussion in the first place. You've made several statements about capital punishment, what makes you so qualified.

America is the best example we have. Its a western world similar wealth with the death penalty.

Why do you think the death penalty would be a deterent here but not there?

Temper, temper.

We've seem me angry "Mr Nice guy" thats not me angry. Asking people to do your research for you is just sodding lazy.

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

There is nothing unlawful in using the death penalty. On the contrary, it's entirely lawful.

True, but interestingly in the United States, when the coroner fills out the death certificate of an executed prisoner, he lists "Homicide" as the cause of death. Legally, It is considered "justifiable homicide", as is a killing in self defence, for example. Personally I find these two forms of killing to be diametrically opposed. I can't see how retrospectively killing someone as a punishment and deterrent can be justified when there is ALWAYS some doubt. Too many people have been murdered on death row (It is "non-justifiable homicide, ie a crime when the person is not "justifiably killed") in cases of miscarrage of justice for us to take the chance with people's lives.

Mr.Nice Guy

murphaph wrote:

True, but interestingly in the United States, when the coroner fills out the death certificate of an executed prisoner, he lists "Homicide" as the cause of death. Legally, It is considered "justifiable homicide", as is a killing in self defence, for example. Personally I find these two forms of killing to be diametrically opposed. I can't see how retrospectively killing someone as a punishment and deterrent can be justified when there is ALWAYS some doubt. Too many people have been murdered on death row (It is "non-justifiable homicide, ie a crime when the person is not "justifiably killed") in cases of miscarrage of justice for us to take the chance with people's lives.

I'm not advocating killing numerous prisoners like in Texas or something but in the case of individuals who murder children for example, why not have the option there to deal with these people?

bonkey

deadduck wrote:

it never fails to surprise me how people totally ignore the financial side of these things.

Unless you're proposing the death sentence in preference to all forms of incarceration, I'm staggered that you can make this statement without providing some sort of breakdown as to what percentage of our prison costs go on prisoners who would be executed were we to have the death sentence reintroduced.

So...how about it...can you show that you aren't ignoring the financial reality in preference to a non-informed assumption??? Please don't forget to include an estimation of the costs of implementing the death penalty in showing it would be cheaper - you can use the costs of any developed western nation with such a system in place as a good starting point.

money being wasted on wasters that could be used for much more beneficial things for the rest of us.

You do realise that the same logic could be used to argue that prisoners don't deserve any humane treatment, and should be exempted from the UDHR, regardless of their crimes?

Oh - and to those who are arguing (or considering doing so) in favour of it in the absolutely-clear-cut, no-question cases....could you please explain how we can convict someone beyond all reasonable doubt, but then decide that its not clear-cut enough to execute them? In short - where do you draw the line...or, if you prefer not to draw the line, how many innocents are you willing to see executed in order to save money / extract vengeance / whatever-you-justify-it-with?

jc

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I'm not advocating killing numerous prisoners like in Texas or something but in the case of individuals who murder children for example, why not have the option there to deal with these people?

Because there is always an element of doubt. The case may be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean they actually 'did it'.

deadduck

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

who says we have to do it the american way?

in the case mentioned earlier, where a guy and his girlfriend were on a bus and some waste of skin decided to flick chips at them, the guy asked him to stop, and the guy responded by stabbing him to death. if this was caught on the bus' video camera, surely its a clear cut case.

and as for bonkey, if your trying to say life in prison would cost the same as one bullet in the head, your nick suits you

and for ffs sake, will those of you who can't tell the difference between murder and the death penalty, get your head out of your arses

Mr.Nice Guy

murphaph wrote:

Because there is always an element of doubt. The case may be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean they actually 'did it'.

Even if, as deadduck said, it's caught on camera? Don't be silly.

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Even if, as deadduck said, it's caught on camera? Don't be silly.

Less of the silly please, if you have a point, make it and leave the personal stuff to one side.

Caught on pure digital camera like it soon will be once Dublin Bus upgrade the entire fleet? Caught on pure digital, and hence renderable under digital image rendering software to look like whatever one wants it to look like? A case was thrown out in a US court because a digital image was used as evidence. It was impossible to prove that the image hadn't been altered using image rendering software. The camera usually never lies Like I said, there is always an element of doubt. There have been conspiracies to convict innocents before remember.

deadduck

murphaph wrote:

Less of the silly please, if you have a point, make it and leave the personal stuff to one side.

Caught on pure digital camera like it soon will be once Dublin Bus upgrade the entire fleet? Caught on pure digital, and hence renderable under digital image rendering software to look like whatever one wants it to look like? A case was thrown out in a US court because a digital image was used as evidence. It was impossible to prove that the image hadn't been altered using image rendering software. The camera usually never lies Like I said, there is always an element of doubt. There have been conspiracies to convict innocents before remember.

yeah, i heard bus companies and their employees are notorious for stitching up innocent people for murder

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Even if, as deadduck said, it's caught on camera? Don't be silly.

Every cop on the reclaim the streets 2002 was caught on camera commiting assault, and nearly every one was aquitted.

murphaph

deadduck wrote:

yeah, i heard bus companies and their employees are notorious for stitching up innocent people for murder

The element of doubt remains. You're working on the probability of conspiracy being low, and it is, very low, but not a probability of 0.

deadduck

sure why imprison anyone then, i'm sure if someone was imprisoned for 25 years of their life for a crime they didn't commit, they'd wish they were dead anyway. i know i would.

mycroft

deadduck wrote:

sure why imprison anyone then, i'm sure if someone was imprisoned for 25 years of their life for a crime they didn't commit, they'd wish they were dead anyway. i know i would.

Thats not the debate, you can't release a dead man after new evidence appears.

deadduck

in fairness, i'm comparing "life" to the death penalty. you can't give back the 25 years anymore than you can give back the life. 25 years away from everything you ever knew, your life would be proper ****ed

Guzzler

I think the death penalty is more about vengeance rather than justice. I can understand that some part inside of people bereaved by a murder of a loved one would prefer the killer being six foot under rather than waiting on parole in jail. Is this rational though ? I'd put myself in the vindictive camp.

As far as I can see, no one has brought up the "eye for an eye" card yet. In the name of god where have the christians gone!

I'm all for convicted rapists/paedo's getting regular kicks in the goolies though.

murphaph

deadduck wrote:

25 years away from everything you ever knew, your life would be proper ****ed

But you'd have your life to try to rebuild if you wanted. In any case-not all miscarriages of justice take 25 years to rectify, some people are exonerated at appeal shortly after conviction! So do we just execute people we think won't be exonerated for 25 years because we think their lives would be '****ed', to quote yourself.

murphaph

Guzzler wrote:

I think the death penalty is more about vengeance rather than justice. I can understand that some part inside of people bereaved by a murder of a loved one would prefer the killer being six foot under rather than waiting on parole in jail. Is this rational though ? I'd put myself in the vindictive camp.

As far as I can see, no one has brought up the "eye for an eye" card yet. In the name of god where have the christians gone!

Agreed, although the old 'eye for an eye' isn't limited to Christians. Jews and Muslims have exactly the same things written in their 'holy' books. Spot quiz, does anyone know why Utah uses a firing squad to execute their death row inmates?

mycroft

murphaph wrote:

Agreed, although the old 'eye for an eye' isn't limited to Christians. Jews and Muslims have exactly the same things written in their 'holy' books. Spot quiz, does anyone know why Utah uses a firing squad to execute their death row inmates?

Off the top of my head I'd figure it'd be quite humane. A good marksman can kill you instantly, I've heard gruesome facts about lethal injection and electrocution.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

murphaph

ziggy67 wrote:

Is it because it involves mor-men in the process? :rolleyes:

I'll get my coat..........

Leave that coat on the hook ziggy67 , the answer is because in the mormon religion blood must be spilled in a revenge killing. It's written in the bible somewhere but the mormons take it literally and their executions have always required blood to be spilled.

mycroft

murphaph wrote:

Leave that coat on the hook ziggy67 , the answer is because in the mormon religion blood must be spilled in a revenge killing. It's written in the bible somewhere but the mormons take it literally and their executions have always required blood to be spilled.

lovely.

murphaph

The state of Utah finally abolished the firing squad as a method of execution last year. The whole thing was based on blood atonement

Mr.Nice Guy

murphaph wrote:

Less of the silly please, if you have a point, make it and leave the personal stuff to one side.

Since when is saying 'don't be silly' 'personal stuff'? I wasn't attacking you with that remark.

murphaph wrote:

Caught on pure digital camera like it soon will be once Dublin Bus upgrade the entire fleet? Caught on pure digital, and hence renderable under digital image rendering software to look like whatever one wants it to look like?

You're suggesting a situation whereby a man or woman is killed on Dublin Bus and CIE render it so that an innocent man is seen as carrying out the act?
Do you really see that happening?

mycroft wrote:

Every cop on the reclaim the streets 2002 was caught on camera commiting assault, and nearly every one was aquitted.

But the camera is doing its job if every co is caught on camera! It's the ridiculous justice system that is to blame.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Since when is saying 'don't be silly' 'personal stuff'? I wasn't attacking you with that remark.



You're suggesting a situation whereby a man or woman is killed on Dublin Bus and CIE render it so that an innocent man is seen as carrying out the act?
Do you really see that happening?

No he's pointing out it could happen, which is reasonable doubt, which by your own admission if there is the slightest doubt you'd not be in favour of the death penalty

But the camera is doing its job if every co is caught on camera! It's the ridiculous justice system that is to blame.

A ridiculous justice system that you feel should have the power of life and death.

rsynnott

irish1 wrote:

Well deadduck I had a thread here many moons ago about prisioners having to work while they were in prision like on the roads etc, there was a slight disagreement over how much they should get paid if at all but I think most people were in favour of the idea.

That's not actually a good idea, in general. It's happening in the US, with the result that the private prison industry (yes, really) is lobbying the government for more and harsher sentances. For certain applications, prison labour is cheaper than sweatshop labour (currently, there are restrictions on where goods from US prison labour can be used; there is currently a bill before congress to remove this restriction). It's expected that the US's prison population will rise hugely to meet the demand for slave labour. And there is no evidence of any cost saving. So, sounds good; results are disasterous.

RE execution. Besides the problems with dehumanisation, and impossiblity (the EU would NOT be impressed) there is always the risk of executing innocents. Please note that many people have been freed after new evidence was brought. And, as previously mentioned, execution is expensive.

Still, I can sorta see the charm of Chinese execution of corrupt officials. (only joking)

And firing squad is the most humane modern execution method in wide use (electrocution and gas chamber horrific, US version of lethal injection generally so)

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

No he's pointing out it could happen, which is reasonable doubt, which by your own admission if there is the slightest doubt you'd not be in favour of the death penalty

Technically aliens could come down and frame somebody. It's not very likely though.

mycroft wrote:

A ridiculous justice system that you feel should have the power of life and death.

We all have the power of life and death including the lowlifes who take away life. Why shouldn't these lowlifes suffer the same fate as their victims?

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Technically aliens could come down and frame somebody. It's not very likely though.

So now it's only people you're fairly sure commited the crime will be executed, whether they plead innocent or not.

Again back to the Birmingham six, the court were "postive" they were guilty

We all have the power of life and death including the lowlifes who take away life. Why shouldn't these lowlifes suffer the same fate as their victims?

So now it's not about a deterent it's about revenge?

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

So now it's only people you're fairly sure commited the crime will be executed, whether they plead innocent or not.

If you're caught on camera you clearly ARE guilty. It's not a case of being "fairly sure".

mycroft wrote:

Again back to the Birmingham six, the court were "postive" they were guilty

If there is doubt, the death penalty could be avoided. In the trial for the Birmingham Six, tests to find out whether they had handled explosives proved inconclusive. This, along with the confessions they repudiated, leaves considerable doubt.

mycroft wrote:

So now it's not about a deterent it's about revenge?

It's about a punishment befitting of the crime itself.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

If you're caught on camera you clearly ARE guilty. It's not a case of being "fairly sure".

Not really, for example, they need to prove it is in fact you. CCTV can be notoriously shoddy quality. There is a whole subsection of forensic science all video forensics which is about making identifications. I've seen two experts disagree on the stand over the idenity of a man, filmed in broad daylight, on a 3chip minidv camera, with an experienced cameraman not twenty foot away.

Whats clear to you can be rathermore difficult to prove in a court of law.

If there is doubt, the death penalty could be avoided. In the trial for the Birmingham Six, tests to find out whether they had handled explosives proved inconclusive. This, along with the confessions they repudiated, leaves considerable doubt.

Yes but as usual the point whistles far far far over your head.

In the case the judge's rejected their claims that repudiated their statements and had been made under duress, and was statisfied they were the killers. While Irish public sympathy was there, there wasn't much in britain. Why under your system would they not have got the death penalty?

You say there were doubt, but those doubts didn't appear in the judge's mind, and it's the judge decides the sentence.

It's about a punishment befitting of the crime itself.

Hang on earlier it was about being a detterant now you're in eye for an eye territory. Which is it? Why do you think capital punishment is justified now?