Should Ireland reintroduce capital punishment?

Wibbs · 23-04-2012 11:42am

tigger123 wrote: »

The death penalty is state sanctioned murder, no more, no less. And it's also revenge, not justice IMO.

I'd agree with this. It's too clinical and cold blooded for me. If say a bloke came home to find someone beating/raping his girlfriend and gutted the scumbag like a fish, I'd not be crying for said scumbag. However waiting 5 years after trials and appeals to then strap them to a gurney with full state participation is just wrong to me.

hooradiation · 23-04-2012 11:44am

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Well the same can be said for any form of human advancement. Thousands upon thousands of innocent people are killed every year because of motor vehicles, electricity, and plenty of other human endeavours.

faulty analogy.
We don't use those things as punishment for crimes, which is what we're supposed to be talking about here.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Furthermore plenty of innocent people have served life sentences in prison but I don't hear anybody calling for prisons to be abolished.

The difference being you can release people who have been incorrectly incarcerated, and compensate them somewhat for their loss of freedom. It's not perfect, but it's not irrevocable either.

However, we aren't able to raise the dead.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

The number of innocent people executed in the United States is minuscule now. The advances in DNA technology and the body of evidence needed to convict someone has greatly improved the process.

Ignoring the big honking [citation needed] for your assertion on the US, you're still betraying a more fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
You're ok with the fact that innocent people will be killed if the death penalty were introduced.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

The termination of faulty dangerous humans, and the redirection of financial and biological resources can only be of benefit to society in the long run. How many sick and dying people in Ireland are waiting in hospital beds for heart transplants etc? How many remorseless killers are sitting in their cells enjoying their pathetic 7 year sentence. The solution is clear to me.

I'm not sure which is worse, the leap you've made from not being happy with sentencing means you need to move right up to executions or that you're painting your poorly reasoned stance as some kind of virtuous act because you're asserting that the "money saved" (the reasoning that there would be savings is, in and off itself, wrong) could be used for sick people.

It's a very special kind of utilitarian thinking that would spin a fantasy like that.

Skid · 23-04-2012 11:51am

The option in the Poll for 'Forced Labour camps' is just a bit too Nazi sounding.

I might have given it a vote if it said something like 'Mandatory Public Works Programmes'

Carlos_Ray · 23-04-2012 12:06pm

hooradiation wrote: »

faulty analogy.
We don't use those things as punishment for crimes, which is what we're supposed to be talking about here.

But we use them to better society, which is what I'm talking about.

hooradiation wrote: »

The difference being you can release people who have been incorrectly incarcerated, and compensate them somewhat for their loss of freedom. It's not perfect, but it's not irrevocable either.

However, we aren't able to raise the dead.

Really, how exactly do you compensate someone for locking them up in a cell their whole life? You can't. The fact that they were granted their "life" is in many ways worse for them. If I was convicted as innocent man I'd rather be executed then spend 50 years of my life in prison. In fact, I like may people would kill myself. That's a death sentence in itself, but a lot of people ignore it because it satisfies their conscience.

hooradiation wrote: »

Ignoring the big honking [citation needed] for your assertion on the US, you're still betraying a more fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
You're ok with the fact that innocent people will be killed if the death penalty were introduced.

I think you're the one that needs a citation. If you disagree with what I said then I suggest you find something that backs your opinion up. I believe that the American justice system is one of the best in the world. Just check up on the long list of convicts currently on death row. Convicted by a jury of their peers. If you think they're innocent ....prove it.

hooradiation wrote: »

I'm not sure which is worse, the leap you've made from not being happy with sentencing means you need to move right up to executions or that you're painting your poorly reasoned stance as some kind of virtuous act because you're asserting that the "money saved" (the reasoning that there would be savings is, in and off itself, wrong) could be used for sick people.

No, you're the one that made a connection with the poor sentencing and the death penalty. I merely mentioned them both exclusively.Do I believe that the sentencing in Ireland is a joke? Yes. Is that why I believe in the death penalty? no. I believe in it regardless of the sentencing, because as I said it can be used in a way to benefit society both financially and medically. I'm concerned with practical benefits to society, not wishy washy moral ideals that result in a society that channels more money into the villains than the victims.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 23-04-2012 12:08pm

Where's the, "no, **** your death penalty you bloodthirsty* bastards, but I am in favour of harsher non-capital sentences."

*yes, yes, you are. On a base level, here's no other reason for it.

hooradiation · 23-04-2012 12:21pm

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

But we use them to better society, which is what I'm talking about.

That makes the assumption that the reintroduction of the death penalty would be for the betterment of society.
So far that case has not been made.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Really, how exactly do you compensate someone for locking them up in a cell their whole life? You can't. The fact that they were granted their "life" is in many ways worse for them. If I was convicted as innocent man I'd rather be executed then spend 50 years of my life in prison. In fact, I like may people would kill myself. That's a death sentence in itself, but a lot of people ignore it because it satisfies their conscience.

Then, feel free to kill yourself should you ever be in such a situation.

However the fact remains that one form of punishment is permanent, the other is not.
Which if we're going to both agree that the justice system is fallible then I'm puzzled how you can seriously then argue that an imperfect system handing out permanent punishments is the best possible system.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I think you're the one that needs a citation. If you disagree with what I said then I suggest you find something that backs your opinion up. I believe that the American justice system is one of the best in the world. Just check up on the long list of convicts currently on death row. Convicted by a jury of their peers. If you think they're innocent ....prove it.

You really no idea how burden of proof works
Here's a quick crash course - when you assert that something is factually correct, such as "The number of innocent people executed in the United States is minuscule now" then the onus is on you to demonstrate that your statement is true, if asked.

Also, I find it telling that your reasoning for believing your unfounded opinion on the US system is fact is predicated on volume of prisoners on death row and that seeing as they are on death row they are, ipso facto, guilty.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc at it's most obvious.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I believe in it regardless of the sentencing, because as I said it can be used in a way to benefit society both financially and medically.

And yet, despite insisting the financial benefits of reintroducing the death penalty, you've so far been unable to demonstrate how this would work.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I'm concerned with practical benefits to society, not wishy washy moral ideals that result in a society that channels more money into the villains than the victims.

You are not concerned with anything of the sort, you have bad ideas poorly reasoned and you're insistent that they make sense.
You're more concerned with revenge than anything else, as demonstrated by the misguided notion that incarcerating people is somehow channelling money into these 'villians'
How does that work, exactly?

And "wishywashy morals"? Yeah... how dare people try and hold themselves to standards a little higher than base impulses.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 23-04-2012 12:24pm

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

.... I'm concerned with practical benefits to society, not wishy washy moral ideals that result in a society that channels more money into the villains than the victims.

Give examples of the two phrases in bold, please.

Logical Fallacy · 23-04-2012 12:29pm

bananarama22 wrote: »

For violent crimes I seriously believe that capital punishment should exist in this country, for crimes such as murder, rape, drug dealing, gang membership, several criminal records, espionage/treason and perjury resulting in the imprisonment of an innocent person.

Why?

Anything I have read about it tells me capital punishment does not do anything to drop the level of related crime.

As such, do you want capital punishment because you feel it is a worthwhile deterrent or do you want it out of some misplaced moralistic reasoning?

Personally I agree with the death penalty for heinous crimes. I know its not a deterrent and doesn't effect violent crime rates, however, if carried out correctly and efficiently it can save the state millions of euro.

It costs the guts of 100,000 to hold one person in prison in Ireland for a year. (I think its around 77,000 per inmate). It would cost significantly less to terminate the life of a sadistic killer or Paedophile within the first year of his/her conviction than to keep them locked up with digital TV for the rest of his life. Some of the money saved by the state could be pumped back into the failing health or education system.

I have no idea where you got that idea.

Lets look at the US. Average cost per prisoner per year is around 47,000 dollars. Average cost of an execution is about 2 million across all states that have the death penalty. So you need to imprison someone for 42 years before you hit that cost.

Average time served for murder in the US is 25 years.

Like I said, I'm very curious to know where you got the above idea.

bananarama22 · 23-04-2012 12:34pm

MellowToast wrote: »

human rights keep getting in the way of proper punishment for scum

people who have no idea how terrible humans can be tend to not want capital punishment

prisons are just a different word for hotel imo

the vast majority commit criminal acts again when they are set free

it is very hard to know what should be done. the only belife I have is if you take some1s life then your human rights should be ripped from you. that includes clean water (they should be given disease ridden water) and the likes. this is never gona happen in my life time and i am only 23...so lets just not employ anyone who has been in prison (haha which is already the case). they already have their criminal jobs, they don't need 2nd chances from good people, who should give those jobs to other good people. their bad people that end up in prison, why should we care if they can't get a job, if their 12 offspring are hungry or if they have no education.

people make their own choices in life, that effect the kids as well i know, but bad people will make bad choices for themselves and set bad examples to their offspring. good people make good choices in life and so their offspring will excel at life. this is what the world has ALWAYS been like.

bad people will never change is my point, they will just get worse with every generation.

Jayziz, all hail Dictator MellowToast :P

saa · 23-04-2012 12:34pm

Well something needs to change I know violent punishment isn't the solution but the reality is that is the punishment criminals dole out to each other is violent and going to prison for a few months and getting to go to court 25 times doesn't seem to phase anyone around my area, they continue to get caught being involved with drugs and violent or petty crimes and are still hanging around these are mostly the kids who instead of being punished in school were thrown out, and there might of been a time where they would of had to find work or they would be out on their ear but in stead they are given so much of the wrong kind of support.

paddyandy · 23-04-2012 12:43pm

12 Months in a Siberian Prison would knock the Guff out of many offenders .We have no real Jails here in Ireland more like Hostels . Take a life lose a life, like for like .

bananarama22 · 23-04-2012 12:44pm

Dannyg90 wrote: »

A must harsher punishment would be life imprisonment without parole in solitary confinement where food is pushed into your cell through a trap. With a rule that any contact with prison officers would be silent, also ban visitors. The criminals would soon go mad with zero outside contact or human interaction and they'd have the whole time to think about their crimes

Give Mrs. Trunchball a ring. She might be able to help you

Zombrex · 23-04-2012 12:48pm

paddyandy wrote: »

12 Months in a Siberian Prison would knock the Guff out of many offenders .We have no real Jails here in Ireland more like Hostels .

All evidence suggests otherwise. The harsher the prison the more likely the person is to re-offend when they get out, since the prison system brutalizes the criminal, making them more violent and aggressive.

Psychological re-habilitation is the only productive way of lessening re-offense. If that is impossible it must be assessed should the criminal be released at all.

ejmaztec · 23-04-2012 12:53pm

paddyandy wrote: »

12 Months in a Siberian Prison would knock the Guff out of many offenders .We have no real Jails here in Ireland more like Hostels . Take a life lose a life, like for like .

Yes, kick em in the gulags.

MungBean · 23-04-2012 12:56pm

tigger123 wrote: »

The death penalty is state sanctioned murder, no more, no less. And it's also revenge, not justice IMO. Nobody has the right to take the life of another human being.

The fact that its state sanctioned makes it lawful and ergo not murder. Its the lawful killing of a human being.

I think society has the right to remove an individual who is a threat to others in that society regardless of how that infringes on that persons rights. So that to me shows their rights are secondary when they pose a threat to society.

I also think that if there's no hope of rehabilitation and a person has been permanently removed form society they should no longer be offered the rights of a member of society and society should not be obliged to shoulder the cost of providing for them.

So to me execution is a valid option and one that should be used to ease the burden on society that is created by certain individuals who cannot be a part of that society.

Logical Fallacy · 23-04-2012 12:57pm

paddyandy wrote: »

12 Months in a Siberian Prison would knock the Guff out of many offenders .We have no real Jails here in Ireland more like Hostels . Take a life lose a life, like for like .

Indeed, i mean the Russian prison system has a fantastic record with regard to repeat offending.

Oh...wait.

MungBean wrote: »

The fact that its state sanctioned makes it lawful and ergo not murder. Its the lawful killing of a human being.

I think society has the right to remove an individual who is a threat to others in that society regardless of how that infringes on that persons rights. So that to me shows their rights are secondary when they pose a threat to society.

I also think that if there's no hope of rehabilitation and a person has been permanently removed form society they should no longer be offered the rights of a member of society and society should not be obliged to shoulder the cost of providing for them.

So to me execution is a valid option and one that should be used to ease the burden on society that is created by certain individuals who cannot be a part of that society.

It costs more to execute someone.

I don't think the most expensive option should be the one that we take if we are looking to ease the burden on society tbh.

bananarama22 · 23-04-2012 12:58pm

Zombrex wrote: »

All evidence suggests otherwise. The harsher the prison the more likely the person is to re-offend when they get out, since the prison system brutalizes the criminal, making them more violent and aggressive.

Psychological re-habilitation is the only productive way of lessening re-offense. If that is impossible it must be assessed should the criminal be released at all.

But what about criminals who just break into a persons house, damage the property, steal money and appliances and terrorise the occupants and even killing the ****ing owner of the house if he or she gets in the way. Should they just be rehabillitated with little or no renumeration for the losses incurred by the owner? What about revenge for the owner? Should the owner get solace in the fact that the prisoner is just being rehabillitated?

Answer this, PLEASE, would you want mere rehabillitation and a slap on the wrist if a member of your family was brutalised?? hmmmm ?? would you?

Logical Fallacy · 23-04-2012 1:01pm

bananarama22 wrote: »

But what about criminals who just break into a persons house, damage the property, steal money and appliances and terrorise the occupants and even killing the ****ing owner of the house if he or she gets in the way. Should they just be rehabillitated with little or no renumeration for the losses incurred by the owner? What about revenge for the owner? Should the owner get solace in the fact that the prisoner is just being rehabillitated?

Answer this, PLEASE, would you want mere rehabillitation and a slap on the wrist if a member of your family was brutalised?? hmmmm ?? would you?

Studies have shown that the families of people who were murdered and where the murderer received the death sentence don't actually feel any better about it, or validated, or are more convinced that justice has been done. It also does nothing to ease the pain of the loss of a loved one.

Once again, I get the feeling most people are posting in this thread from some weird moralistic standpoint instead of actually just opening up google, reading some stuff and trying to form a decent, informed opinion.

MungBean · 23-04-2012 1:06pm

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It costs more to execute someone.

I don't think the most expensive option should be the one that we take if we are looking to ease the burden on society tbh.

Me neither which is why I think we shouldnt base it on the US system and implement it into our current judicial system which would increase the cost to the state as you say.

I'd be in favour of the death penalty for those convicted of multiple murders or other violent offence who have been sentenced to life (in my opinion should mean no parole) and who's appeal has been rejected.

Basically if your gonna re-introduce something as drastic as capital punishment you need a serious over haul of the entire judicial system. My view is that it should be aimed at reducing the cost to the state of housing career criminals and violent offenders who have no place in civilised society.

Carlos_Ray · 23-04-2012 1:07pm

hooradiation wrote: »

That makes the assumption that the reintroduction of the death penalty would be for the betterment of society.
So far that case has not been made.

The case has been made. Exterminating a convict within the first year of his conviction would cost less than keeping him in prison for ten or more years. Not to mention donating his organs to people that need them. It's really not that difficult to understand.

hooradiation wrote: »

Then, feel free to kill yourself should you ever be in such a situation.

However the fact remains that one form of punishment is permanent, the other is not.
Which if we're going to both agree that the justice system is fallible then I'm puzzled how you can seriously then argue that an imperfect system handing out permanent punishments is the best possible system.

As humans we will never have a perfect system. I am of the opinion that the death penalty if carried out correctly can contribute a lot more to society in the long run. Will innocent people die? Possibly, however, innocent people have always died for the greater good of society.

hooradiation wrote: »

You really no idea how burden of proof works
Here's a quick crash course - when you assert that something is factually correct, such as "The number of innocent people executed in the United States is minuscule now" then the onus is on you to demonstrate that your statement is true, if asked.

Also, I find it telling that your reasoning for believing your unfounded opinion on the US system is fact is predicated on volume of prisoners on death row and that seeing as they are on death row they are, ipso facto, guilty.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc at it's most obvious.

You're asserting something different but refuse to provide anything to back it up. Because you can't. Its obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that that advancements in science and technology have greatly reduced the level of innocent convictions for all types of crimes. CCTV and DNA have caught murderers etc red handed, and they have been rightly convicted as a result. I trust in the system, and I firmly believe that the vast majority of people executed in America over the last ten years were guilty. If you believe that more than a miniscule amount were innocent then it is up to you to prove it.

hooradiation wrote: »

You are not concerned with anything of the sort, you have bad ideas poorly reasoned and you're insistent that they make sense.
You're more concerned with revenge than anything else, as demonstrated by the misguided notion that incarcerating people is somehow channelling money into these 'villians'
How does that work, exactly?

And "wishywashy morals"? Yeah... how dare people try and hold themselves to standards a little higher than base impulses.

I'm concerned with practical benefits to society. Revenge doesn't come into it.

77,000 EURO year per prisoner is in my opinion channelling much needed funds into the wrong area.

Well good for you. Sit up their on your high moral ground and enjoy the view. Perhaps you'll be able to see Larry Murphy and other sadistic rapists roaming around as free men from that elevation. Or perhaps the run down hospitals were people are left to die on trolleys while awaiting transplants that never come. But at least thanks to your moral standards, those in prison won't ever have to worry about anything like that. They're tucked up nicely in their expensive accommodation.

Give it two hundred years and the death penalty will be back. Of that I am sure.

bananarama22 · 23-04-2012 1:15pm

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Studies have shown that the families of people who were murdered and where the murderer received the death sentence don't actually feel any better about it, or validated, or are more convinced that justice has been done. It also does nothing to ease the pain of the loss of a loved one.

Once again, I get the feeling most people are posting in this thread from some weird moralistic standpoint instead of actually just opening up google, reading some stuff and trying to form a decent, informed opinion.

I'm not just talking about murder, I'm talking about vandalising a person's home, terrorising the occupants and making off with money / appliances / pricless family heirlooms / something that a dead relative might have left them. Then it's gone, gone.

Harsh prison sentences and forced labour camps to pay off the debt to the people they robbed.

Ush1 · 23-04-2012 1:15pm

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

The case has been made. Exterminating a convict within the first year of his conviction would cost less than keeping him in prison for ten or more years. Not to mention donating his organs to people that need them. It's really not that difficult to understand.

:pac:
You have to be taking the p*ss, do you know how many appeals are given with the dealth penalty and how long each one takes?? 1 year??

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I'm concerned with practical benefits to society. Revenge doesn't come into it.

77,000 EURO year per prisoner is in my opinion channelling much needed funds into the wrong area.

Well good for you. Sit up their on your high moral ground and enjoy the view. Perhaps you'll be able to see Larry Murphy and other sadistic rapists roaming around as free men from that elevation. Or perhaps the run down hospitals were people are left to die on trolleys while awaiting transplants that never come. But at least thanks to your moral standards, those in prison won't ever have to worry about anything like that. They're tucked up nicely in their expensive accommodation.

Give it two hundred years and the death penalty will be back. Of that I am sure.

Why don't you have them doing labour then?

If all you care about is the value of society surely having them constantly working makes more sense?

ChippingSodbury · 23-04-2012 1:24pm

The risk of detection is a far more important factor than the severity of the punishment when it comes to offending/ reoffending. Capital punishment is pretty barbaric. I'd be more in favour of giving offenders hard work to do that benefits Society (and the offenders, or you may as well never let them out).
I liked (not!) the previous comment of an earlier poster saying that they shouldn't get jobs after being released: what does he expect them to do?? If they can't get a job, the old crime world beckons once again....

MungBean · 23-04-2012 1:25pm

Ush1 wrote: »

:pac:
You have to be taking the p*ss, do you know how many appeals are given with the dealth penalty and how long each one takes?? 1 year??

Who decides how many appeals and how long they should take ? Is it international or EU law that capital punishment MUST be conducted in a certain manner ?

Why don't you have them doing labour then?

If all you care about is the value of society surely having them constantly working makes more sense?

You still have the cost of housing them, guarding them, providing for them and the threat they pose to security staff. How much can they contribute through forced labour ? If it was manageable then I'd say send em to the mines but I'm not sure how much could be gained from it. Plus your back to square one with added cost if they act up and refuse to work. How do you dicipline someone who's consiged to forced labour for the rest of their lives ?

hooradiation · 23-04-2012 1:28pm

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

The case has been made. Exterminating a convict within the first year of his conviction would cost less than keeping him in prison for ten or more years. Not to mention donating his organs to people that need them. It's really not that difficult to understand.

So, not only are you advocating a return of the death penalty, but also abandoning any attempt to safeguard against people being incorrectly sentenced?
Does nothing about this approach strike you as, even in the least bit, wrong?

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

As humans we will never have a perfect system. I am of the opinion that the death penalty if carried out correctly can contribute a lot more to society in the long run. Will innocent people die? Possibly, however, innocent people have always died for the greater good of society.

It's not possibly, it will happen. There is no "Possibly" about it. At least have the testicular fortitude to acknowledge what will be part of the outcome of your ideas.

You seem to be ok with, figuratively speaking, throwing innocent people under a bus, in order to have the system that you've dreamt up.

Something I find devoid or reason, sub optimal in solving any of the problems you've cited and as you've masterfully demonstrated totally without merit.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

You're asserting something different but refuse to provide anything to back it up. Because you can't. Its obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that that advancements in science and technology have greatly reduced the level of innocent convictions for all types of crimes. CCTV and DNA have caught murderers etc red handed, and they have been rightly convicted as a result. I trust in the system, and I firmly believe that the vast majority of people executed in America over the last ten years were guilty. If you believe that more than a miniscule amount were innocent then it is up to you to prove it.

Ok, so we can add "burden of proof" to the things you just don't understand.

Also kid, if it's "obvious to anyone with half a brain cell" then it should be trivial for you to back up your original contention instead of complaining that I need to do your work for you.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I'm concerned with practical benefits to society.

No you're not, you're trying to play a numbers game to add some kind of justification to the idea that the death penalty has merit.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Well good for you. Sit up their on your high moral ground and enjoy the view. Perhaps you'll be able to see Larry Murphy and other sadistic rapists roaming around as free men from that elevation.

Basic reasoning is not the moral high ground, but seeing as you also seem to believe that opposition to the death penalty is tantamount to wanting murders free then I'm not entirely sure you're paying attention.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Or perhaps the run down hospitals were people are left to die on trolleys while awaiting transplants that never come. But at least thanks to your moral standards, those in prison won't ever have to worry about anything like that. They're tucked up nicely in their expensive accommodation.

Of course, this makes the frankly stupid argument that it's impossible to have
quality healthcare without instituting the death penalty. Of course, I use the word argument lightly, false dichotomy and appeals to emotion are neither and seeing as you've finally resorted to that drivel I don't think I'll have to entertain your ideas for much longer.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Give it two hundred years and the death penalty will be back. Of that I am sure.

Well it's good that you have such conviction in your stance that you can make a prediction you'll never live to see.

Logical Fallacy · 23-04-2012 1:31pm

bananarama22 wrote: »

I'm not just talking about murder, I'm talking about vandalising a person's home, terrorising the occupants and making off with money / appliances / pricless family heirlooms / something that a dead relative might have left them. Then it's gone, gone.

Harsh prison sentences and forced labour camps to pay off the debt to the people they robbed.

Yeah, but this makes no sense what so ever. How does a forced labour camp help a victim recoup the cost of lost or damaged property?

It doesn't, at all.

Also, harsh prison sentences are pointless without harsh prisons.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

The case has been made. Exterminating a convict within the first year of his conviction would cost less than keeping him in prison for ten or more years. Not to mention donating his organs to people that need them. It's really not that difficult to understand.

How do you do that exactly? Just remove the appeals process?

Ush1 · 23-04-2012 1:35pm

MungBean wrote: »

Who decides how many appeals and how long they should take ? Is it international or EU law that capital punishment MUST be conducted in a certain manner ?

Since the EU is totally opposed to the death penalty, hardly. So how many appeals should they get? Do you know much about the appellate process and why it takes so long and is so expensive?

MungBean wrote: »

You still have the cost of housing them, guarding them, providing for them and the threat they pose to security staff. How much can they contribute through forced labour ? If it was manageable then I'd say send em to the mines but I'm not sure how much could be gained from it. Plus your back to square one with added cost if they act up and refuse to work. How do you dicipline someone who's consiged to forced labour for the rest of their lives ?

They would contribute more than being dead. Well if you're not sure how much would be gained it's a viable option yes?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 23-04-2012 1:45pm

MungBean wrote: »

The fact that its state sanctioned makes it lawful and ergo not murder. Its the lawful killing of a human being.

No, it's still murder. Making it legal doesn't change the definition.

I think society has the right to remove an individual who is a threat to others in that society regardless of how that infringes on that persons rights. So that to me shows their rights are secondary when they pose a threat to society.

I also think that if there's no hope of rehabilitation and a person has been permanently removed form society they should no longer be offered the rights of a member of society and society should not be obliged to shoulder the cost of providing for them.

So to me execution is a valid option and one that should be used to ease the burden on society that is created by certain individuals who cannot be a part of that society.

"Permanent removal" does not automatically mean murder.

bananarama22 wrote: »

But what about criminals who just break into a persons house, damage the property, steal money and appliances and terrorise the occupants and even killing the ****ing owner of the house if he or she gets in the way. Should they just be rehabillitated with little or no renumeration for the losses incurred by the owner? What about revenge for the owner? Should the owner get solace in the fact that the prisoner is just being rehabillitated?

Answer this, PLEASE, would you want mere rehabillitation and a slap on the wrist if a member of your family was brutalised?? hmmmm ?? would you?

OMG!! OMG!!! Pervert! rapist! Scumbag!! Wahhh!!!!! Wahhh!!!!!

Seriously. The first think you're going to have to do is lose the over-emotional crap. Law, whateverway you look at it, deals in cold, hard facts and nothing else.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

The case has been made. Exterminating a convict within the first year of his conviction would cost less than keeping him in prison for ten or more years. Not to mention donating his organs to people that need them. It's really not that difficult to understand.

How are you going to speed up the appeals process?

As humans we will never have a perfect system. I am of the opinion that the death penalty if carried out correctly can contribute a lot more to society in the long run. Will innocent people die? Possibly, however, innocent people have always died for the greater good of society.

How about you? You willing to go to chair for this ideal? Didn't think so.

I'm concerned with practical benefits to society. Revenge doesn't come into it.

77,000 EURO year per prisoner is in my opinion channelling much needed funds into the wrong area.

Bollocks. It's revenge. there's no other logical argument. Execute and sort out appeals within one year? It's takes twice that at least to get the conviction in the first place! - what makes you think they're going to rush through the appeals? Especially when the convicted starts stalling? And with legal costs of less than 77k?

You, my friend have not done the research.

Well good for you. Sit up their on your high moral ground and enjoy the view. Perhaps you'll be able to see Larry Murphy and other sadistic rapists roaming around as free men from that elevation. Or perhaps the run down hospitals were people are left to die on trolleys while awaiting transplants that never come. But at least thanks to your moral standards, those in prison won't ever have to worry about anything like that. They're tucked up nicely in their expensive accommodation.

Stil lwaiting for you to define wishy washy morals as per the last page. And the scaremongering doesn't work on rational, thinking individuals.

Give it two hundred years and the death penalty will be back. Of that I am sure.

Backwards or forwards?

MungBean · 23-04-2012 1:48pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Since the EU is totally opposed to the death penalty, hardly. So how many appeals should they get? Do you know much about the appellate process and why it takes so long and is so expensive?

I dont know how many appeals they should get I'm not a judge and I havent studied this topic, I'd say 2 after the original conviction. But that would be after a serious overhaul of the system and only for individuals who commit serious crimes and/or have previous convictions enough to warrant being sentenced to permanent incarceration/death.

Are you referring to an appeal system here or somewhere else ? Like I said there is no death penalty here so whatever system that would be implemented would dictate the cost of an appeals process.

They would contribute more than being dead. Well if you're not sure how much would be gained it's a viable option yes?

They may not be contributing more they may be costing more by creating more problems. Of course its an option but I cant see how it would be achieved without further cost and more problems. I think the question I asked was a very relevant one, and one which you didnt answer. How do you discipline someone consigned to a life of forced labour who refused to work ?

MungBean · 23-04-2012 1:50pm

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, it's still murder. Making it legal doesn't change the definition.

The definition of murder is "unlawful killing" though isnt it ? If its legal its not murder.

"Permanent removal" does not automatically mean murder.

Once again if its lawful it isnt murder. And is the state has the power and right to permenantly remove someone from society regardless of how that infringes on their rights, then a lawful exectution is with the power and rights of the state and the persons right to life can be superseded by the rights of the state.

al28283 · 23-04-2012 1:56pm

bananarama22 wrote: »

What about the "charming gentleman" who danced on the head of that poor Polish man here to make a living "just for the buzz".

are you going to go through every example of something horrible something did?

What about Cameron Todd Willingham who was proved to be innocent years after being executed?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 23-04-2012 1:58pm

MungBean wrote: »

The definition of murder is "unlawful killing" though isnt it ? If its legal its not murder.

Intentionally and knowingly taking the life of another human being. Making it legal just makes it the legal taking of the life of another human being. Which, by definition, is still murder.

Once again if its lawful it isnt murder. And is the state has the power and right to permenantly remove someone from society regardless of how that infringes on their rights, then a lawful exectution is with the power and rights of the state and the persons right to life can be superseded by the rights of the state.

I should, perhaps, have written "permanany removal does not autoamtically mena the death penalty".

It has the power, but I would argue does not have the responsibilty. We all have the power to kill.

Logical Fallacy · 23-04-2012 2:00pm

al28283 wrote: »

are you going to go through every example of something horrible something did?

What about Cameron Todd Willingham who was proved to be innocent years after being executed?

Well, there are very few valid arguments for capital punishment and any that have been raised within this thread have been countered quite well.

So now it's just "what if's?" in an ever decreasing circle until people disappear up their own assholes.

Ellis Dee · 23-04-2012 2:04pm

The short answer is "no".:)

Even if Ireland's lawmakers were to decide to reintroduce a legal means of murdering people, there would still be an awful lot of loose ends to tie up. The EU does not allow its members to have the death penalty, so we'd have to leave the Union, with all the practical difficulties that this would cause. Ditto the Council of Europe and all the international conventions that Ireland has signed.:D

Even if all of those formidable obstacles were to be overcome somehow, it would remain a fact that people who seem to have committed grave crimes are occasionally acquitted by courts - on technicalities or because there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Abolishing juries at the same time as the death penalty is reintroduced wouldn't help, either, because judges can and do sometimes get it wrong as well.

Unless the OP has it in mind to abolish trials altogether, or at least ban defence counsel, there will still always be a perception in the eyes of the Daily Hatemail-minded that guilty people have not been punished.:rolleyes:

MungBean · 23-04-2012 2:04pm

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Intentionally and knowingly taking the life of another human being. Making it legal just makes it the legal taking of the life of another human being. Which, by definition, is still murder.

My understanding is that the definition contains the word "unlawful". But depending on where your coming from and who you deem to have the "right" to do something I suppose it can be contested. But to me if its lawful then its a right and as such not murder.

I should, perhaps, have written "permanany removal does not autoamtically mena the death penalty".

It has the power, but I would argue does not have the responsibilty. We all have the power to kill.

My point though is that if its enacted into law then it becomes a right for society or the state to perform it. Who dictates what a right is ? Society does, so if society claims the right to execute by enacting it into law through a democratic process then it becomes a right. So I'd see it as not only having the power to do it but also the right if its lawful.

Ush1 · 23-04-2012 2:08pm

MungBean wrote: »

I dont know how many appeals they should get I'm not a judge and I havent studied this topic, I'd say 2 after the original conviction. But that would be after a serious overhaul of the system and only for individuals who commit serious crimes and/or have previous convictions enough to warrant being sentenced to permanent incarceration/death.

Are you referring to an appeal system here or somewhere else ? Like I said there is no death penalty here so whatever system that would be implemented would dictate the cost of an appeals process..

In the US it goes higher and higher through the number of courts till it gets to the supreme court.

I'm saying that if want to have a fair appeal process like for instance in the US, where still mistakes will be made, it takes time and is expensive therefore executing someone does not save the state money.

MungBean wrote: »

They may not be contributing more they may be costing more by creating more problems. Of course its an option but I cant see how it would be achieved without further cost and more problems. I think the question I asked was a very relevant one, and one which you didnt answer. How do you discipline someone consigned to a life of forced labour who refused to work ?

Well, like with any prisoner their is various punishments for inmates that don't abide by the prison rules. There is plenty of prisoners who are serving multiple life sentences that still detest solitary confinement, taking away of commisary, etc, etc...

You could implement various things but these are side issues really.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 23-04-2012 2:33pm

MungBean wrote: »

My understanding is that the definition contains the word "unlawful". But depending on where your coming from and who you deem to have the "right" to do something I suppose it can be contested. But to me if its lawful then its a right and as such not murder.

My point though is that if its enacted into law then it becomes a right for society or the state to perform it. Who dictates what a right is ? Society does, so if society claims the right to execute by enacting it into law through a democratic process then it becomes a right. So I'd see it as not only having the power to do it but also the right if its lawful.

Dictionary I just picked up said, "to kill by an act constituting murder" and
"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously." And then something abotu a flock of crows.

The act, in itself, though, does't change. Either you murder someone legally or illegally. Same difference. I certainly don't accept that a law change actually changes the definition of the word.

Some people will tell you that abortion is murder. Either it is or it isn't, but that definition doesn't change if you move to place where the law is different and then do it there.

Right as in "correct" or right as in "moral"? Society doesn't really dictate what is and is not a human right. Thankfully.

ChippingSodbury · 23-04-2012 2:40pm

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

So now it's just "what if's?" in an ever decreasing circle until people disappear up their own assholes.

Your name is a bit long but:
"Logical Fallacy, he was there,
He did his famous roll,
He stuck his head between his legs,
And vanished up his hole!"

Zirconia · 23-04-2012 2:52pm

I believe it should only be re-introduced with the strict provision that if someone who is convicted and executed is later found to have been wrongly convicted, the judge and jury in the original case (assuming a unanimous verdict is required in a jury trial) must be executed without right to appeal this decision - and that they are all fully aware and in agreement with this before they make their original decision. This should reduce the likelihood of miscarriages of justice to almost nothing. Alternatively they can convict but not ask for the death penalty - the forced labour option along with a real LIFE sentence sounds about right.

Carter P Fly · 23-04-2012 3:05pm

Yes for teh death penalty and Yes for chain gangs and yes for crimals actually serving the time handed to them.

MungBean · 23-04-2012 3:39pm

Ush1 wrote: »

In the US it goes higher and higher through the number of courts till it gets to the supreme court.

I'm saying that if want to have a fair appeal process like for instance in the US, where still mistakes will be made, it takes time and is expensive therefore executing someone does not save the state money.

Well it would depend on the system that would be implemented here. I understand that currently in the US its an expensive process but I think a system could be implemented here that would be different. I certainly dont see any point in appeal after appeal looking for a technicality on which to get out a death sentence when the result is permanent incarceration anyway. For someone convicted of a certain crime and having been upheld through a couple of appeals it should be enough to deem that person guilty of the crime. For someone with so many previous convictions that they warrant permanent incarceration then it should be irrelevant. Similar to the perma ban on here, there comes a time when your chances run dry and there's nothing the state can do to rehabilitate you. At that point there's no one thing to appeal that will change the sentence.

Well, like with any prisoner their is various punishments for inmates that don't abide by the prison rules. There is plenty of prisoners who are serving multiple life sentences that still detest solitary confinement, taking away of commisary, etc, etc...

You could implement various things but these are side issues really.

I dont think its a side issue if your proposing forced labour as an alternative to capital punishment. For it to work it would have to be of some value and the threat of solitary confinement to me I dont think would be enough to force people to work unrewarded for the rest of their lives. I think the cost of having to control that environment would outweigh any gains that could possibly come from it.

MungBean · 23-04-2012 3:46pm

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Dictionary I just picked up said, "to kill by an act constituting murder" and
"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously." And then something abotu a flock of crows.

Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

The act, in itself, though, does't change. Either you murder someone legally or illegally. Same difference. I certainly don't accept that a law change actually changes the definition of the word.

Some people will tell you that abortion is murder. Either it is or it isn't, but that definition doesn't change if you move to place where the law is different and then do it there.

Your confusing the word murder with killing someone. You can kill without being a murderer. The act doesnt have to change and the definition doesnt have to change because murder is only murder when its deemed to be murder by the law. Abortion is considered foetal homicide here but not in the UK. Just because someone thinks its wrong doesnt make it murder.

Right as in "correct" or right as in "moral"? Society doesn't really dictate what is and is not a human right. Thankfully.

Right as in the lawful, social entitlement. Society does dictate what rights a person has through the laws it uses.

Ush1 · 23-04-2012 3:55pm

MungBean wrote: »

Well it would depend on the system that would be implemented here. I understand that currently in the US its an expensive process but I think a system could be implemented here that would be different. I certainly dont see any point in appeal after appeal looking for a technicality on which to get out a death sentence when the result is permanent incarceration anyway. For someone convicted of a certain crime and having been upheld through a couple of appeals it should be enough to deem that person guilty of the crime. For someone with so many previous convictions that they warrant permanent incarceration then it should be irrelevant. Similar to the perma ban on here, there comes a time when your chances run dry and there's nothing the state can do to rehabilitate you. At that point there's no one thing to appeal that will change the sentence.

You don't see the point in technicalities which define a life or death sentence?

New evidence comes to light constantly in cases after many, many years. Often there is vested interests and evidence may have been with held etc..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Skinner#Texas_Criminal_Justice_Reform_Law

So your system would see two chances to appeal a death penalty, what way are these appeals you're proposing going to work? How long and how much detail? What courts? I assume you support the concept of a trial?

MungBean wrote: »

I dont think its a side issue if your proposing forced labour as an alternative to capital punishment. For it to work it would have to be of some value and the threat of solitary confinement to me I dont think would be enough to force people to work unrewarded for the rest of their lives. I think the cost of having to control that environment would outweigh any gains that could possibly come from it.

Having people punished costs money! Killing people quickly and without any sort of proper due procedure may work out cheaper but is insanity.

So let me ask you then, would you abolish a life sentence because by your reasoning there is no point at that stage, there should be a custodial sentence of a certain amount and after that death?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 23-04-2012 4:07pm

MungBean wrote: »

Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

Your confusing the word murder with killing someone. You can kill without being a murderer. The act doesnt have to change and the definition doesnt have to change because murder is only murder when its deemed to be murder by the law. Abortion is considered foetal homicide here but not in the UK. Just because someone thinks its wrong doesnt make it murder.

Right as in the lawful, social entitlement. Society does dictate what rights a person has through the laws it uses.

Still don't see how making it legal makes it morally right. Murder, for me, is cold-blooded and pre-meditated, irresepctive of who's doing it.

But how about this: I don't support the pre-meditated killing of another human being by the State, just because they think they have the right.

RichieC · 23-04-2012 4:11pm

I despair at how we've fallen as a people. the Justice system should not and can not be allowed to start handing out death sentences to satiate the blood lust of ignorant fools.

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/deterrence.jpg

forfuxsake · 23-04-2012 4:15pm

Does anybody care about the fact that the EU would never let us do that and to do so would economical and moral insanity?

We would not only be outside the EU but outside the EEC with absolute no ability to trade with any country in Europe. We would join Europe's biggest pariah state, Belarus, and face the same economic sanctions as they do for using the EU charter on Human Rights as toilet paper.

Say what you like about France, Spain, Germany, Italy and Greece but they are better bedfellows than China, N.Korea, Belarus, Iran, Saudi Arabia and yes even than the 35 states of America which permit this inhumane, brutal and ultimately ineffective punishment.

It may stop the criminal( but so does prison) and it doesn't stop crime. You want to eliminate crime then you have to look at rehabilitation for those who can be rehabilitated and proper sentencing for those who cannot.

The problem with the justice system in Ireland is that it is not just. Hard prison when rehabilitation would be more effective and holiday camp when hard time would be more effective.

interesting article regarding plans for the prison system in the North.
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/rehabilitation-not-dogoodery-3086667.html

MungBean · 23-04-2012 4:25pm

Ush1 wrote: »

You don't see the point in technicalities which define a life or death sentence?

New evidence comes to light constantly in cases after many, many years. Often there is vested interests and evidence may have been with held etc..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Skinner#Texas_Criminal_Justice_Reform_Law

So your system would see two chances to appeal a death penalty, what way are these appeals you're proposing going to work? How long and how much detail? What courts? I assume you support the concept of a trial?

I dont see the point in appeal after appeal looking for a technicality (the cop didnt sign this paper) after a number of appeals have been rejected and the proof of the crime is insurmountable. You think Ted Bundy should have been allowed waste everyone's time and resources with appeal after appeal looking for someone who didnt cross a t or dot an i ? Your still pointing to the American judicial system, I'm not advocating copying the American judicial system.

Yes I support the concept of a trial why wouldnt I ? As long as a trial lasts and as much detail as is need to prove innocence or guilt.

Having people punished costs money! Killing people quickly and without any sort of proper due procedure may work out cheaper but is insanity.

Due process is closely entwined with the law. Laws can be changed and if they are changed so too does due process change. Due process can be awarded everyone and still limit appeals and end with execution. I havent once stated due process should be done away with.

So let me ask you then, would you abolish a life sentence because by your reasoning there is no point at that stage, there should be a custodial sentence of a certain amount and after that death?

Depends on the nature of the crime and/or previous convictions. A life sentence with the possibility of parole isnt what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about individuals who have been convicted and sentenced to permanent incarceration whether by crimes of a serious nature or by sheer number of previous convictions. If you have no possibility of parole, and have appealed and been found guilty the required amount of times whatever that may be then I personally think that society has done all it can do and isnt obliged to uphold your rights any further. At that point it is a waste of resources to provide for you any longer.

Nodin · 23-04-2012 4:44pm

MungBean wrote: »

I dont see the point in appeal after appeal looking for a technicality (the cop didnt sign this paper) after a number of appeals have been rejected and the proof of the crime is insurmountable. ...........

...all evidence is examined and put forward by people, who - being human - are fallible. This fallibility not only includes errors, but deliberate deception. As a result you can never have truly "insurmountable" evidence.

MungBean wrote: »

I'm not advocating copying the American judicial system.

Rather irrelevant, as the problems highlighted above would still crop up.

MungBean wrote: »

keep propping up the rights of scum at the expense of everyone else to appease the moral sensitivities of ignorant fools instead. .

A fallacious argument.

Ush1 · 23-04-2012 4:44pm

MungBean wrote: »

I dont see the point in appeal after appeal looking for a technicality (the cop didnt sign this paper) after a number of appeals have been rejected and the proof of the crime is insurmountable. You think Ted Bundy should have been allowed waste everyone's time and resources with appeal after appeal looking for someone who didnt cross a t or dot an i ? Your still pointing to the American judicial system, I'm not advocating copying the American judicial system.

Yes I support the concept of a trial why wouldnt I ? As long as a trial lasts and as much detail as is need to prove innocence or guilt.

It's not that simple unfortunately, technicalities are their for a reason. Ted Bundy should have the same rights as anyone else in that position.

I'm not pointing to the American judicial system, I'm pointing to an instance when many appeals down the road evidence was shown to be not submitted, long after 2 appeals.

MungBean wrote: »

Due process is closely entwined with the law. Laws can be changed and if they are changed so too does due process change. Due process can be awarded everyone and still limit appeals and end with execution. I havent once stated due process should be done away with.

Great! Well due process unfortunately is the expensive part, especially if you want it done right, which includes dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Which unfortunately circumvents your next paragraph on saving money by executing people.

My point is that you won't! If you could save money within any sort of reason, the US would be doing it. Saudi Arabia might be more your style though?

You haven't answered me at all with how your revoluntionary system is going to operate by the way.

MungBean wrote: »

Depends on the nature of the crime and/or previous convictions. A life sentence with the possibility of parole isnt what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about individuals who have been convicted and sentenced to permanent incarceration whether by crimes of a serious nature or by sheer number of previous convictions. If you have no possibility of parole, and have appealed and been found guilty the required amount of times whatever that may be then I personally think that society has done all it can do and isnt obliged to uphold your rights any further. At that point it is a waste of resources to provide for you any longer.

So a constant string of minor crimes results in the death penalty? What if someone is constantly being refused parole, change his sentence to death? How about someone criminally insane? Well he'll just be in a mad house for the rest of days, might as well kill him!

MungBean · 23-04-2012 4:56pm

Nodin wrote: »

...all evidence is examined and put forward by people, who - being human - are fallible. This fallibility not only includes errors, but deliberate deception. As a result you can never have truly "insurmountable" evidence.

For the purpose of law there can, a confession of guilt is insurmountable evidence in the eyes of the law that someone is guilty.

Rather irrelevant, as the problems highlighted above would still crop up.

The problems highlighted were the sheer amount of appeals and the cost that comes with them. As I'm not advocating the implementation of the American judicial system I dont see how the same issue will crop up in relation to cost and number of appeals when I'd advocate it only be used in extreme circumstances with insurmountable evidence or sheer number of previous convictions. In those cases I see no reason to shoulder the cost of appeal after appeal with the objective not to prove innocence but only to reduce sentence.

A fallacious argument.

A mirror argument to Ritchie's argument that it would be implemented to satiate the bloodlust of ignorant fools. Once which I deleted quickly when I realised how little it deserved a response.

Should Ireland reintroduce capital punishment?

Comments