Bring back capital punishment?

Mr.Nice Guy

I feel I have argued my case well.

Oiche mhaith. :cool:

Wheely

Well I dunno about everyone els on this board but that guy drove me f**king nuts!!!! I think we all kicked his ass tho, at yourselves on the back!

mycroft

True, but the evidence available varies case to case. That is the point.

And again the point whistles so far over your head I'm beginning to think you're a smurf.

The quality of evidence in one case is irrelevant to the sentencing in another.Justice is supposed to blind and it's morality absolute. The evidence used convict in one case are irrelevant when jury consider the facts of their case. Likewise the quality of evidence used to secure a conviction in any case is irrelevant when considering sentencing, becuase if found guilty, the prosecution have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Thats an absolute, you cannot be "more guilty" or "less guilty".

It's up for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they fail to do they (the jury) must aquit. If theres a probablity of innocent, and the prosecution fail to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt innocent is the only verdict possible.

And once again you'll fail to grasp that.

You're now arguing that the quality of the evidence should determine sentencing; that a ruthless and meticlous killer, who covers his tracks, maintans his innocence and is convicted on radical and contraversal evidence should recieve a prison sentence in your court. Meanwhile the remorseful drunkard who kills a man in a violent rage, confesses, should recieve the death penalty because his innocence is not in question.

Thats your argument.

However the crime dictates the sentence not the quality of the evidence. Thats not some bureacratic hold over, thats a principle of our legal system.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I'm not getting anything wrong. Just because we have a difference of opinion on something you seek to ram your views down my throat.

Good luck with that. You'll need it.

We're not having a difference of opinion, you have shown an abject lack of understanding of the fundamental principles of our legal system, and a frankly terrifying inability to understand it, despite, bonkey, sceptre, wheely, murphmurph, and my attempts to explain it to you.

The debate is pointless it's like trying to discuss the morality of peer to peer file sharing with Genghis Khan. The fundamental ignorance you're displaying over how the justice system works, and your indifference to numerous posters different ways to educate you is both staggering and wearying.

You don't grasp or understand the ethics of a court of law, the basic principles governing how trials are run, yet you feel free to comment on them.

I'll buy a pint for the first poster who makes you grasp how wrong you're getting this.

Wheely

Well said, mycroft!

murphaph

mycroft wrote:

I'll buy a pint for the first poster who makes you grasp how wrong you're getting this.

At current rates of inflation that pint'll cost you at least a score.

rsynnott

It's good to see that not many people are agreeing with this nonsense...

Besides the risk of executing innocents, there's also the risk of escalation; if it did become a cheaper process than prison, there'd be a huge temptation to use it in more and more circumstances.

Mr.Nice Guy

Wheely wrote:

Well I dunno about everyone els on this board but that guy drove me f**king nuts!!!! I think we all kicked his ass tho, at yourselves on the back!

Kicked my ass? You're a funny guy. Hey, you "at" yourself on the back to your heart's content.

mycroft wrote:

And again the point whistles so far over your head I'm beginning to think you're a smurf.

Have you considered doing stand-up comedy mycroft?

mycroft wrote:

The quality of evidence in one case is irrelevant to the sentencing in another.Justice is supposed to blind and it's morality absolute. The evidence used convict in one case are irrelevant when jury consider the facts of their case. Likewise the quality of evidence used to secure a conviction in any case is irrelevant when considering sentencing, becuase if found guilty, the prosecution have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Thats an absolute, you cannot be "more guilty" or "less guilty".

When did I use the phrases "more guilty" and "less guilty"?

mycroft wrote:

It's up for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they fail to do they (the jury) must aquit. If theres a probablity of innocent, and the prosecution fail to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt innocent is the only verdict possible

So you think OJ Simpson should have been found not guilty? Wasn't the key part of that trial "if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit"?

mycroft wrote:

that a ruthless and meticlous killer, who covers his tracks, maintans his innocence and is convicted on radical and contraversal evidence should recieve a prison sentence in your court. Meanwhile the remorseful drunkard who kills a man in a violent rage, confesses, should recieve the death penalty because his innocence is not in question.

Thats your argument.

That is not my argument. That is you putting words in my mouth.

mycroft wrote:

However the crime dictates the sentence not the quality of the evidence.[/QUOTE

I never argued otherwise!

mycroft wrote:

You don't grasp or understand the ethics of a court of law, the basic principles governing how trials are run, yet you feel free to comment on them

What makes you qualified to say that I "don't grasp or understand the ethics of a court of law, the basic principles governing how trials are run"?

Have you proven me wrong on anything?

I've noticed YOU duck two questions I put to you in my last post:

Why will evidence emerge acquitting them?!

It seems in your mind everyone convicted of a crime will eventually be acquitted!

So you think the men shown in the footage (the London bombers) are actually innocent is that right?

Not to worry though Perhaps you and 'Wheely' could discuss these points over a pint.

Oiche mhaith. Oh before I go, here's a reminder of the type of scumbag in society these days:

http://breaking.tcm.ie/story.asp?j=187497440&p=y874983yz&n=187498318&x=

gregos

The death sentence is not a deterrent. People are deterred more by the chances of being caught than by the severity of the punishment. If you think you have almost no chance of getting caught, you don't care if there's a death sentence or not.

There are people I'd like to feed feet first through a mincer for the things they've done, but that's retribution, not justice. Sometimes the courts are wrong, sometimes police lie, sometimes witnesses lie. Each of those would mean a dead innocent person. We can't bring people back from the dead. All we can do is keep them out of circulation. Sometimes, "life" should mean life.

mycroft

When did I use the phrases "more guilty" and "less guilty"?

You use this terminology

Mr Nice guy wrote:

If there is doubt, the death penalty could be avoided.

and

Mr Nice Guy wrote:

As I have 'painstakingly' pointed out, people would not receive the death penalty if there was significant doubt.

You seem to think people can be convicted when reasonable doubt exists, you think people can be proven guilt can be proven in degrees and these people are therefore deserve of the death penalty. To wit you're happy to convict someone for life if "doubts" exist, and execute them if these "doubts" aren't there.

Hence "less" and "more" guilty. A perfectly valid way of describing what you've repeatdly said.

So you think OJ Simpson should have been found not guilty? Wasn't the key part of that trial "if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit"?

You've just taken my usage of the word acquit, and tied it up some half remembered quote. Haven't you? Why raise the OJ simpson case? You're literaly grabbing half understood quotes from TV and flinging them back at me.

Did you not understand what I said?

It's actually like trying to argue with a parrot. You half understand things and say them without grasping their meaning.

Again this was the orginal quote by me

mycroft wrote:

It's up for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they fail to do they (the jury) must aquit. If theres a probablity of innocent, and the prosecution fail to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt innocent is the only verdict possible

Why are you flinging the OJ simpson ruling at me? What point are you trying to raise? Explain it. Please. What point about reasonable doubt and burden of proof are you trying to make by raising the OJ case? What point are you trying to make by throwing some dubious soundbite from a showboating lawyer at me?

That is not my argument. That is you putting words in my mouth.

No it's not is a valid extrapolation of your argument, you've stated and I'll show you again.

Mr Nice guy wrote:

If there is doubt, the death penalty could be avoided.

and

Mr Nice Guy wrote:

As I have 'painstakingly' pointed out, people would not receive the death penalty if there was significant doubt.

Essentially a remorseless killer who kept up the pretence of innocence would be granted life imprisonment in your version of the law. While the remorseful killer, who confessed would face execution. Because in the first case they're be doubt, in the latter none.

mycroft wrote:

However the crime dictates the sentence not the quality of the evidence.

I never argued otherwise!

yes, yes you are. Don't you see that? Can't you grasp and understand that. you said and I'll repost it

Mr Nice guy wrote:

If there is doubt, the death penalty could be avoided.

and

Mr Nice Guy wrote:

As I have 'painstakingly' pointed out, people would not receive the death penalty if there was significant doubt.

In your worldview; If there are doubts about guilt you can convict but not give the death penalty, if there's "superior" evidence; the death penalty can apply. In essence, the evidence will dictate the severity of the punishment and not the actual crime.

What makes you qualified to say that I "don't grasp or understand the ethics of a court of law, the basic principles governing how trials are run"?

Becuase you've consistently failed to show it here. Consistently failed to grasp it, you've refered to the principle of reasonable doubt as a "bureacratic hold over" when instead its the cornerstone of of the philosophy of our justice system.

Have you proven me wrong on anything?

i haven't had to, you've constantly demostrated you don't understand what you're talking about.

I've noticed YOU duck two questions I put to you in my last post:

Why will evidence emerge acquitting them?!

It seems in your mind everyone convicted of a crime will eventually be acquitted!

No court of law is infallable. Miscarriages of justice will always occur. Invariably you end up executing innocent people. Invariable in some cases after a execution new evidence would emerge.

And this again is what you fail to comprehend.

How many innocent people do you feel should be executed by mistake, before execution becomes unacceptable? For me the answer is none. So therefore for me we shouldn't have the death penalty, because we'll end up executing a person who will turn out to be innocent. And I don't think thats acceptable.

it's not that I believe everyone will be acquited I just know that eventually a misscarriage of justice will occur and an innocent person will die, how many innocent people who have to die before you change your mind?

So you think the men shown in the footage (the London bombers) are actually innocent is that right?

Are you actually reading the posts? Seriously, is the information being digested, absorbed, understood? Again I've provided quotes by you to back up assertion of your arguments, kindly do the same. Where did I say the above?

As it stands right now. right now. in the eyes on the court. Those men are innocent. The prosecution will need to prove their guilt. Thats what we're discussing here, death penalties and burdens of proof. The onus is on the state to prove the men were attempting to carry out the bombings, and one of the pieces of evidence will be the video footage. The video footage does not as you put it

Mr Nice Guy wrote:

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

My point video footage as a yardstick should not be used on it's own as irrefutable evidence of guilt. You're scammering around to try and find some golden piece of evidence that would ensure that the only people you execute are people who are really guilty and not probably guilty, and video footage on it's own doesn't cut it.

And again it's just in one ear and out the other with you; so tell me, prove me that you understand.

Do you understand that you cannot convict someone the jury believe is probably guilty?

Therefore you cannot use the quality of evidence in a trial to define the sentence?

Therefor it is impossible for your system that we will only execution people if they're definetly guilty and not only "probably" guilty to work. Because you only convict people who are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and there is no infallible system of justice.

Wheely

(Intro)
This is cracking stuff.....right first and foremost, Mycroft, I wanna buy your rock...Im having serious tiger troubles.

(Point 1: The Legal Philosophy or "Bureacratic" Thing)
Secondly, Mr. Niceguy, your just plain wrong...obviously you dont understand how the justice system works but I wont explain the concept of reasonable doubt again cos, its just been done too many times. Ah fudge it, you cannot be convicted of a crime, any crime, as a custodial sentence deprieves you of your liberty, one of the most fundamental of all human rights, unless you a re proven guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, there is no "beyond reasonable doubt plus camera evidence" ok, now dont be smart cos your side-stepping everyone's arguments all thread. Guilford four, birmingham 6, all that crap about disputed confessions and Irish outcry does not matter one single bit as the standard of proof, beyond resaonable doubt, was met.

(Point 2: The Judge Thing)
Now judges have to have the only power to dispense to justice, its their function in a democratic society, and in our society, its a function constitutionally prescribd to them. If you want the executive branch to be able to suprcede the judiciary ,its a violation of seperation of powers and a little dictatorial in nature, now i dont think you'd want that.

(Point 3: The Example)
You dont seem to be buying the guilford 4, birmingham 6 cases as good enough examples of the flaws in the capital punishment system so try the case of Timothy Evans, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of murdering his wife and child and out to death by hanging. " years later, same apt block the discovery of many more bodies killed by a man named John Reginald Halliday Christie at the famous address 10 Rillington Place. New evidence showed that it was Chrisite who murdered Evans' family and Evans was pardoned by the Queen 2 years after his death. Tell me what good that did him.

(Point 4: A Rhetorical Question)
Now tell me if he had have been sentenced to life imprisonment, what good it would have done him. If you asked Gerry Conlon did he wish that he had have been excecuted rather than spend 16 years in prison before his vindication as I think deadduck said he would, what do u think he's say?

(Point 5: International Human Rights Law)
You are just plain wrong, niceguy, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its LEGALLY BINDING counterpart tha Internationa Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both comdemn the death penalty, the US is actually in violation of international human rights law by practicing it. Would you like us to be in that category also?

(Point 6: The U.S Thing)
And as for not allowing the US as a comparison, they still havre higher prison populayion than us as a PERCENTAGE of their population so the fact that their population is larger is irrelevant

(Point 7: My General Feelings and An Indisputable Fact about Humanity)
Now i do think that there are people out there that deserve to die, that deserve the death penalty, but the fact remains that there is no such thuing as a perfect system, and no-one can devise one not even you, its called human error. And if your playing with something as valuble and precious as human life then your system MUST BE PERFECT. But ew cant provide that, therefore the deatrh penalty is always wrong. "Better ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man convicted" This saying can be multiplied by infinity when discussing human life.


Now Niceguy, there's my "story" all cut up in nice hopefully digestible little pieces for you. I await your thoughts but I wont hold my breah as it seems you have tucked tail and ran.

Wheely

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheely
what I asked asked was are you willing to entrust a system you admit to being flawed with another human beings life?



I'm willing to have in place the required accountability for such a crucial measure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheely
Please answer the question I ask from now on! Also waiting on a response to my first post which you conviniently skipped over.

Perfect example of this guy.
Question:Are you willing to entrust a system you admit to be flawed with another human bring's life? (Yes or no answer)

Answer:I'm willing to have in place the required accountability for such a crucial measure

And he wonders why I ask him to answer the questions Im asking!

bonkey

Two questions for Mr. Nice Guy:

1) Can you give a specific case where you believe someone was found guilty enough to be incarcerated, but not guilty enough to be executed were your system in place? Oh - and before you select the Birmingham 6, I believe that the judge made a remark when passing sentence that he regretted that he could not sentence them to capital punishment (although I may be mistaken) because its what they deserved but the law didn't permit him to do so.

2) Regarding the Bulger case...you say the camera is indisputable evidence. What if the boys stood up in court, and said that they had been approached by a distraught man who claimed that Jamie was - in fact - their son, and (one way or another) persuaded the boys that Jamie should be with him and that they should fetch him. The boys do so, with the best of intentions, only to find out later that they had been lied to and the mystery man later killed Bulger.

Yes - its a what if. I accept that this was not the defence used. But say it was. Say there was some evidence suggesting that there was at least some degree of truth in the boys' defence argument. How indisputable is your camera evidence now? Still enough to execute? Not enough to execute, but enough to convict? Or not enough even for a conviction?

jc

murphaph

This thread is going nowhere. Mr. Nice Guy is incapable of debating in this arena because he clearly doesn't understand the principle of 'reasonable doubt'. 40W.

rsynnott

Another point. There are only two developed-world countries who execute; the US and Japan. Now, Japan, throughout history has had a low crime rate. The US, however, has a very high one, which is rising every year. It also has the world's largest prison population, both overall and by percentage of population. So, execution works, does it? Why do you believe this? It seems to go against all available evidence.

Lennoxschips

I don't believe in killing, so therefore I am against capital punishment.

Even if I did believe in killing, there are enough precedents of innocent people being proven that they were not guilty - after they had already been executed. It's hard to release somebody who has been killed.

Mr.Nice Guy

Rather than waste my valuable time writing a huge essay going over points that I've either answered already or that are either completely irrelevant, I will make the following points:

1) I believe capital punishment can be a deterrent. I believe people will think twice about committing a terrible act of murder if they know they run the risk of being killed themselves.

2) I believe accusations that I don't understand the principle of reasonable doubt are both inaccurate and irrelevant. What I have argued is that greater accountability could be put in place. I argued that a judge should not have complete power over the death penalty. For example a system could be put in place whereby the judge would have to recommend it or else apply for it. Bottom line is, I don't favour judges having sole power over the matter.

That is my position, gents. You can agree or disagree with me on the matter. That is the beauty of living in a democratic society.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Rather than waste my valuable time writing a huge essay going over points that I've either answered already or that are either completely irrelevant, I will make the following points:

1) I believe capital punishment can be a deterrent. I believe people will think twice about committing a terrible act of murder if they know they run the risk of being killed themselves.

And again wheres the evidence that is this the case?

2) I believe accusations that I don't understand the principle of reasonable doubt are both inaccurate and irrelevant. What I have argued is that greater accountability could be put in place. I argued that a judge should not have complete power over the death penalty. For example a system could be put in place whereby the judge would have to recommend it or else apply for it. Bottom line is, I don't favour judges having sole power over the matter.

.

translation ; he still doesn't have a bloody clue about reasonable doubt.

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

And again wheres the evidence that is this the case?

By virtue of the denigration of society since it was abolished here in Ireland.

mycroft wrote:

translation ; he still doesn't have a bloody clue about reasonable doubt.

LOL. The issue of 'reasonable doubt' that you've been bleating on about is a red herring.

And why so negative all the time mycroft? I sense emotional turmoil within you. It's a lovely day out. Enjoy it and stop whingeing.

Regards.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

By virtue of the denigration of society since it was abolished here in Ireland.

Lots of stuff has happened in the interium, you've failed to demostrate the direct link between the abolishment of the death penalty and the denigration of society. For example Radio eireann was set up around the time, we abolished to death penalty who says its not RTE fault?

LOL. The issue of 'reasonable doubt' that you've been bleating on about is a red herring.

No it's not, it goes straight to the heart of your misconceptions ignorance and inability to understand the principles of law.

And why so negative all the time mycroft? I sense emotional turmoil within you. It's a lovely day out. Enjoy it and stop whingeing.

Regards.

Y'know for someone who claims to hold the moral high ground in debates and not engaging in personalised attacks or comments, you do find yourself restorting to insipid snide conscending comments about posters, alot don't you?

This piece of cowardly backpeddling and abject failure to response to the numerous posts and comments from a variety of posters in the pages before only goes to demostrate the weakness of your position, your shoddy debating skills and poor reasoning abilities.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

Lots of stuff has happened in the interium, you've failed to demostrate the direct link between the two.

I disagree.

mycroft wrote:

No it's not, it goes straight to the heart of your misconceptions ignorance and inability to understand the principles of law.

It is a red herring. The issue in question was 'should we bring back capital punishment' not 'should we have a debate on law?'

mycroft wrote:

Y'know for someone who claims to hold the moral high ground in debates and not engaging in personalised attacks or comments, you do find yourself restorting to insipid snide conscending comments about posters, alot don't you.

No I do not. I checked in here today and posted and your first remark was "translation ; he still doesn't have a bloody clue about reasonable doubt."

Snide, ignorant, unnecessary and out of order. I've had my run-ins with you on other threads, one in which you resorted to personal remarks repeatedly and I've also observed your attitude towards posters on this forum. It's negative, it's condescending, it's derogratory and quite frankly, it stinks.

Consider yourself on my ignore list from now on as I don't need to put up with such abuse.

Regards.

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

By virtue of the denigration of society since it was abolished here in Ireland.

Yeah, the denigration of society has got nothing to do with this at all at all. :rolleyes:

AngelofFire

I am emphatically opposed to Capital punishment, Killing someone for committing murder is a form of revenge not justice. It does not deter people from breaking the law, the USA has over 10,000 gun murders per year, it is highly flawed in its application and is disproportionatley used against ethnic minorities and people from poor socio-economic backgrounds. If a state kills people in the name of justice, it is demonstrating a force of reason that will filter down into its citizens, in other words violent state=violent society. I dont believe that it makes sense for a state to tell people that killing is wrong when the state itself is engaged in the act of killing

bonkey

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Rather than waste my valuable time writing a huge essay going over points that I've either answered already or that are either completely irrelevant,

So, I'll take that to mean you're not going to answer my questions - both of which are relevant, and not something you've already answered, but there you go.

That is my position, gents. You can agree or disagree with me on the matter. That is the beauty of living in a democratic society.

I would have said thats the point of a discussion forum myself....but hey....I guess you're free to post and not want to subsequently discuss too.

jc

ian21

I dont think anybody, state or individual has the right to take the life of another but I do believe that punishment should be more severe than it currently is in this country. Currently we have a society where 'Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding. ' The answer to this i believe is not to allow prisoners serve their punishment in prisons. The answer is to bring back the whip. Although this may sound draconian, you may bet that if a person went to commit a crime, the reminder of lashes on his/her back would provide a major deterrent. Crime is not accepted in certain other countries, yet why do we in the 'civilised' west have to put up with it. Although we're more advanced in more areas, we still cannot solve the ever increasing problem of crime. Punishment should fit the crime. Rehabilitation does not work alone.

magpie

Could we bring back 'gibbeting'? That also has a good deterrent factor for the man on the street, albeit a little unhygienic. I believe there used to be one on Thomas St - and look what happened to the place once they took it down.

ian21

Thomas St smells bad enough sometimes without rotting corpses.....

netwhizkid

Bring back old sparky or swing em up ! yee haa Of course their should be capital punishment i'd love to see haughy or lawlor going to the gallows. It is a great detterent if you commit a crime now you better accomadation than several hotels at massive cost to us taxpayers. It is the obvious choice if life meant life i'd be against it but as it stands now with the rotating door prison system hang half them, especially any drug dealers and violent assault people, drunken skangers should be hung period.

mycroft

netwhizkid wrote:

Bring back old sparky or swing em up ! yee haa Of course their should be capital punishment i'd love to see haughy or lawlor going to the gallows. It is a great detterent if you commit a crime now you better accomadation than several hotels at massive cost to us taxpayers. It is the obvious choice if life meant life i'd be against it but as it stands now with the rotating door prison system hang half them, especially any drug dealers and violent assault people, drunken skangers should be hung period.

So capital punishment for perjury, abuse of planning laws, and tax evasion, and drunk n disordely?

:rolleyes:

murphaph

netwhizkid wrote:

...drunken skangers should be hung period

I'm sure you meant to say "drunken skangers should be hanged, period".

rsynnott

mycroft wrote:

So capital punishment for .. and tax evasion

They do this in China. Although I'm against state-sponsored murder, I can't help wondering what the Ansbacher-y people would think about that...