Poll: Do you agree with the death penalty?

By Sinead O'Carroll

Image: Daniel Patmore/AP/Press Association Images

24/04/12 7,037 Views 183 Comments

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT HASN’T existed in reality in Ireland since 1954 (although it wasn’t fully abolished until 1990).

However, the death penalty is still used as a punishment for the most serious of crimes in other jurisdictions across the world. Later this year, Californians will be asked to vote on the abolition of all capital punishment after the motion qualified for the winter ballot yesterday.

The alternative sentence being posed in the US State is a life in jail without parole. Although Amnesty International claims that even more American states are moving to ban capital punishment, it still has its supporters, including the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. US attorney McGregor Scott believes that it is the “will of the people” to retain the practice, while arguments to end it have largely been made for monetary reasons.

In light of the movements on the other side of the Atlantic, we thought we’d ask your opinion on capital punishment.

Do you agree, in principle, with the death penalty?

Poll Results:

Have feedback? Email the author

From the web

Comments (59 Comments)
Order: Popularity

- 6
- 84
Ferg Breen 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
A friend of mine is a lawyer in the states and he is currently working on stopping the execution of a man who he believes was wrongly convicted. He is unfortunately a death row cliche: black and poor. I was told if he had any money for a decent lawyer during the trial there is no way he would have been convicted.

Even if in principle the death penalty is a good idea, is it worth having when our justice systems are so flawed? Too many innocent people have been murdered by the government user the guise of a death penalty.

Life in prison without parole sounds like a miserable existence to me.

Reply
- - 38
  - 9
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  They all claim they’re innocent. Why not give us his details and we can check it out?
- 2
- 30
Jack Dermody 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
If the UK had the death penalty then the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four would be dead today….

Reply
- - 2
  - 14
  Rommel Burke 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Agreed. If I remember correctly the Birmingham judge expressed his disappointment that he was unable to impose the death penalty in the case. Like it or not innocent people do end up in prisons. I would say it’s better to imprison until natural death occurs than be responsible for the death of one innocent person in cases where the death penalty is an option
- 12
- 79
Paul Breen 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Nope. The State should not have power to take life. Also, miscarriages of justice and the sheer barbarism of it.

Reply
- - 5
  - 31
  Rob Queen 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Paul, my thoughts exactly. If, as I am sure we all agree, it is wrong to take a life, then why should it be right for the state to take a life? And that’s before we get into all the miscarriages of justice which will inevitably occur.
- 9
- 56
Alan Gaffney 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
One dead innocent man is not worth a million guilty dead men.

Reply
- - 27
  - 5
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Can you prove that equation? I’m prepared to vote yes even though there is a risk I could be executed when innocent.
- - 1
  - 6
  Alan Gaffney 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Quick search on google came up with this, http://africanexaminer.com/troy0925 along with multiple entries from the states
- - 18
  - 1
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  That doesn’t support your original point in the slightest.
  
  Half that article you referred us to was about a fictional novel, hardly relevant to reality. I don’t know the extreme detail about the Troy Davis case but the judge did at his final appeal and rejected his appeal. I have no knowledge of the accuracy of the African Examiner newspaper. If you read this you get a totally different slant on the case than your referenced article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Davis
- - 15
  - 1
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  I’ll never figure out the thumbs voting here. I clearly showed the flaws in Alan’s point and I get 5 reds and NO greens?
- - 1
  - 9
  Chris 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  I dont think alans point was meant as a literal equation, I tend to agree with him regardless of having any “proof” because its what I believe. Maybe thats why you got the red thumbs?
  
  Also you have been asked to provide some research to back up your claims that execution provides closure. You have given one quote which was taken the day of the execution, hardly a long term follow up.
  
  Would be an interesting study, im sure most people would presume that execution would bring closure however this may not be the case and a study of victims families 5 years after the execution of the murderer could prove/disprove yours and our arguments
- - 1
  - 6
  Jonathan Biggins 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  @William
  
  The only thing you “clearly showed” is your own psychotic tendency. If the act of killing someone is deemed wrong, then it is a contradiction to carry out that act on someone else (even/es[ecially someone who has carried out that act themselves). But that’s a rational argument, which, judging by your oversize contributions above, is clearly beyond your capacity. You prefer to rely on vacuous content-free pseudo-notions such as “closure”, “revenge”, etc., which don’t require thought, just pre-adolescent reaction.
- - 1
  - 0
  William Grogan 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Gosh, Jonathan, you suggested out of four posts that two of us contributors see a shrink and that I’m psychotic. Another poster was told to go back to his crayons. Is that an example of your cutting edge repartee to someone who doesn’t agree with you? Is that easier than maybe thinking of a proper reply.
  
  You said, “If the act of killing someone is deemed wrong, then it is a contradiction to carry out that act on someone else”. This is clearly illogical as in the US the act of execution is NOT deemed wrong by a majority of voters. It’s deemed to be the correct thing to do. Murder is only ILLEGAL execution.
  
  I did show Alan’s referred to article was a very biased and inaccurate slant. Whether I’m psychotic or not doesn’t change that. Maybe you might read Alan’s post and see if I’m wrong by referring to some detail.
- - 0
  - 0
  William Grogan 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Chris, if he didn’t mean it as an equation then the statement is meaningless. In one of the few cases referred to in this discussion the victim’s mother clearly said that the execution would give her closure. I’m not sure it’s possible to do a meaningful survey on this. Even if only some co-victims got closure then it’s worth it. In the case I was personally associated with, there was closure when the person who killed committed suicide in hospital. In fact everyone was relieved. They were afraid that the person would get out and then their lives would be in danger. I have given logical arguments, so there is no point in repeating them, that there is better closure with an execution then with a life sentence, which rarely even means that. I think the average life sentence served is Ireland is only about 12 years. It used to be less. There is certainly more closure for the executed murderer!
- - 0
  - 0
  Chris 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  A way to do a meaningful survey would be to interview and subject 50 people who have lost a loved one to an interview/analysis. Half of these people could be in a country where the death penalty exists and half in ireland say. Interview them after the even. after the trial and then say 10 years later when the person is executed and then 5 years after that again.
  
  From the interviews/analysis we could compare their emotional state at each point in time. We may see that all 50 dont have closure at the end regardless of execution or we may see that only those who were involved in the execution felt closure. Or else we may see that the families who were not holding out for closure had healed emotionally years before the execution even took place. That would be my thoughts, that the families who know execution is down the line are constantly holding out for that event to get closure and never get a chance to heal on their own,
  
  Of course there are some flaws in this experiment as it would be hard to trully do it blind, i.e there is no “placebo” involved as all parties probably know why they are being interviewed and this may skew the results
- - 0
  - 0
  William Grogan 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Chris, only 50 would be useless.
- - 0
  - 0
  Chris 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  dude, just let it go…
- - 0
  - 0
  William Grogan 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  ……you first :)
- 14
- 68
Dylan Ryan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Wow, shocked that so many people agree with the death penalty. Surely the worst punishment is having to live your life in captivity.

Reply
- - 28
  - 10
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  That can’t be true for several reasons. The article made the point that death row inmates make a bigger effort to avoid their fate. If life inside was worse than death more of them would commit suicide.
  
  All they loose is their freedom. They get well fed, have free health care which isn’t available to all Americans, are warm, clothed, watch TV, play sport, have a library, can study etc….
- - 6
  - 16
  James Daly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Hi William,
  I would not say that American prisoners are well fed: have you seen the awful food they have to eat? A friend of mine visited an American prison recently and was offered a sample of the prison food but couldn’t actually bring himself to eat it, it was that bad.
  
  The free healthcare argument is a bit of a misnomer too. Many US prisons are built in very remote rural areas and the state is not willing to pay for a doctor to travel that far to treat them. Most of them get about a 40 second session with a doctor via video link when they need it, which I’m sure most would agree is inadequate for a sick person.
  
  The access to library and study materials and times at which they can play sport can be severely limited too.
  
  I’m not totally disputing your comment, but these are things that must be borne in mind.
- - 18
  - 7
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  James, at the risk of making a joke about such a serious subject; they are probably better fed than the average American.
- - 2
  - 10
  James Daly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  You are actually right on that one William, the food given to prisoners contains all the nutrients, vitamins, etc that a person requires (unlike the McDonald’s diet favoured by many on that side of the pond), but the fact remains that it is practically inedible, revolting rubbish.
- 4
- 29
Joe Sixtwo 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
I believe the death penalty should mean that the person will not leave Prison alive but the state should not execute anyone.

Reply
- 5
- 33
Rachel Newman 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Although when you read the details of some crimes you think that the death penalty is the only answer, an eye for an eye and all that, that’s emotional not rational! And as everyone was saying it clearly does not deter crime. Incarceration costs the tax payer, yes but instead of locking up the most heinous criminals, give them a sentence that fits the crime, and for the duration of that sentence they should have to undertake hard labour. Make them work for their provisions.

Reply
- - 7
  - 6
  Conor Murphy 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  if you force them to work that’s slavery.
  
  Did you ever wonder how America competes in manufacturing? They by any definition still have slaves. oh ya and if you want to be extra sensitive they’re mostly black. Also takes a lot of jobs away from the economy. Google how much American prisons produce, scary sh*t.
- 11
- 50
Lisa Daly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
when you take into consideration the huge number of innocent people all over the world who have been put to death and incarcerated for no good reason except to appease some polititian, hick town sargaent, or appease a misguided media influenced public. there can be no acceptance of the death penalty. and how can america of all places in the world justify such a barbaric way to treat a human being. and then have the audacity to call themselves christians.

Reply
- - 29
  - 9
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Why is it barbaric?
- - 2
  - 4
  Jonathan Biggins 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  @William: ask your psychiatrist…
- - 2
  - 9
  Chuck Farrelly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  William, I think the barbarism comes, at least in part, from the minutiae of what’s involved. Setting a date at which a person is going to be killed, telling them “this is your last night of existing”, selecting a last meal, coming to their cell and chaining them up to walk them to their death, seeing the audience watch you as they strap you into place for the injection or place the noose around your neck…..
  
  And when it’s all over – who is better off? It’s not restorative, it’s just revenge.
- - 0
  - 0
  William Grogan 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Chuck, the act of rape and or murder is barbaric because the person raped or murdered is innocent. The murder victim didn’t have the benefit of a trial, evidence, etc the murderer did. The murderer took it upon himself to decide the date the victim died, didn’t give them time to say goodbye to their families, never mind a last meal. Murders execute their victims without the merciful way the state does. Murderers don’t care what suffering the victim goes through or how they die. The barbarism of the murderer is enormously greater than that of the state carrying out the wishes of the people. What’s wrong with revenge? Revenge forces evil people to pay for their heinous crimes. My argument is that it is proper, logical and necessary for murders to pay the ultimate penalty. To not do so in my opinion is intellectual weakness and immoral. Not to execute them is to let down the victim because you’re too squeamish and perhaps too politically correct to punish murderers appropriately.
- 15
- 61
Seanbeag 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
I’d rather we just kept people in prison for the right amount of time.

Reply
- 1
- 13
David McDermott 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
I don’t agree with the death penalty but life should mean life. None of this out in 12 years crap. If you are sentenced to life you don’t get out basically!!! Or put prisoners to work doing community work (obviously not the dangerous psycho ones). Prisoners shouldn’t just sit in a cell watching Telly playing x box draining money. Put them doing painting walls or something.

Reply
- 4
- 24
David Watson 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
i voted no, but i’d love to hear the yes argument. out of curiosity

Reply
- - 29
  - 7
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  I’ll give you a few. There are people raped & murdered every year by those previously convicted of murder and released, including children. There was a case a few weeks ago in the UK I think. It gives closure to families. Revenge. Punishment. Deterrence. It would save a huge amount of money if they executed them quicker when they are clearly guilty. Quicker execution would also act as a better deterrence. If I was murdered or any of my family or friends I would prefer my murderer to also be executed. The fact that the majority want the death penalty means that it’s undemocratic not to have it. Why not execute them anyway?
- - 2
  - 34
  Mary Murphy 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  William take it from someone who has a family member who was murdered in cold blood – the death or murder of the person who done it does not bring about closure. I would rather those that killed my uncle live with their crime for the rest of their lives, everytime I see their faces all I feel is pity for the sorry lives they have
- - 19
  - 4
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Mary, you have my sympathies but the murderer of your uncle was not executed, maybe that’s why you do not have closure. Victims of all crime live in fear of the murderer being released, of meeting them in the street. I’ve experienced that via some friends.
- - 2
  - 15
  Paul Condon 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  William, could you provide links to some credible research to back up your claim that executions bring closure to victims’ families?
- - 0
  - 13
  Mary Murphy 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  William one of his murderers was killed by others so in a way he was executed for the crimes he committed not just against my uncle but for the other murders he had a hand in. The others involved are still walking around and I can say I honestly feel nothing but pity for them
- - 1
  - 8
  Chris 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  @William What if someone tried to take the law into their own hands and get revenge by killing, raping or whatever the criminal who attacked their family member? In my opinion while you could see the reason they had for doing it it would still be barbaric and the person would have to suffer the consequences for it. I dont think the state as any more of a right to carry out the revenge than someone like that…
- - 11
  - 1
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Paul, this is what the mother of the policeman who was murdered by Troy Davis said when he was executed, “I hope that tonight I can close the book, wake up tomorrow with a little peace, and just live out the rest of my life.”
  
  There are of course degrees of closure. Finding the guilty man is one step, punishing him is another. It must vary by individual. Execution must give a great deal of closure by definition of what closure means. The murderer can’t ever get out of jail, there’s never the risk of meeting him on the street, there will be no more appeals, he can’t appear in newspapers claiming to be innocent, the case is far more closed with an execution than a jail term etc.
- - 1
  - 13
  Chris 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  I dont think, “closure” is a valid enough reason to kill someone…after all the crime was committed on the idividual who died, the family are only second to them so in my opinion there closure shouldnt matter as much as your suggesting
- - 10
  - 1
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Chris, that’s why the law is there and if the law doesn’t punish the guilty it would be replaced by lynch law.
- - 7
  - 1
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Chris, the family are often known as the co-victims. If the father of a family is murdered does it not follow that his wife and children are also victims? Victims of a very serious crime, the removal of their husband and father from their lives. Furthermore to some extent they must now represent him as he’s dead and can’t represent himself.
- - 2
  - 8
  Peter Nolan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  I’d actually argue that having a death penalty goes contrary to closure. If the expectation is given to victims and relatives of victims that life in prison is ‘it’, the end of the line, then that end of the process can give about as much closure as they’re going to get.
  
  On the other hand, in US states with capital punishment the average wait time for an execution ranges between 14 and 20 years, depending on state. Meanwhile, 68% of those sentenced to death have those sentences commuted upon initial appeal, and – looking at the appeals process overall – by the time a convict gets to the end of the line, 86% of them will not be executed (whether being ultimately found not guilty and their conviction quashed, or their death sentence being commuted). That’s BEFORE you consider that prosecutors only pursue the death penalty in 2% of first degree murder cases, nationally in the US, and only achieve that sentence from the judge in 1% of first degree murder cases.
  
  So, it seems to me that sending out the message to victims’ relatives that they *require* and *need* to have the guilty party executed to restore their peace of mind when, in reality, that will only happen in 0.14% of convictions seems dangerous and irresponsible for anyone truly concerned about these people’s mental wellbeing.
  
  And that’s leaving aside the MASSIVE hole in the argument as to whether or not there’s any real evidence victim families genuinely feel better after an execution. AND whether making people feel good about themselves should be the concern of the justice system in the first place…
- - 2
  - 5
  Peter Nolan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Sorry, meant to say there a 0.14% chance of an execution sometime in the next *20 years* which also a salient point — is setting an expectation on victims’ families that they’re *supposed* to be waiting for something for 20 years before they can have this vague promise of ‘closure’ fulfilled really not just setting them up for more misery than necessary?
- - 7
  - 2
  Kieran Mac Court 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  David, in response your question – I voted yes because I believe that life is so priceless and precious that a murderer – a taker of someone’s one chance of life – forfeits his right to his own life. Not for vengeance sake, but because the state ought to recognise that life is too precious to allow murder to go unpunished The ultimate sanction is also the ultimate deterrent. Rates of recidivism amongst executed murderers are nil. Even Breiivik in Norway acknowledges the pathetic sanctions the state have to being to bear against him.
  Btw, only murderers should be hung. Murder is the worst crime a man can commit.
- - 1
  - 4
  David Watson 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  if they got it wrong, which does happen it would be both wrong and a huge violation of an innocent man’s human rights. also when it comes to pedophiles and rapists – there are people out there who make up allegations, whilst this is a small number of cases, it doesn’t mean that people haven’t been falsely prosecuted for someones allegations. look at the guy in cork who hung himself because his ex girlfriend had him arrested on a false rape charge.
- - 3
  - 1
  Kieran Mac Court 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  David. Re rapists & paedophiles. They deserve to be locked up for life, and I mean life. Whole life. But the death penalty should only be for premeditated murder.
- - 1
  - 0
  William Grogan 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  David, humans get things wrong all the time. It’s not an argument to ban execution otherwise you would have to ban cars, planes, fags, drink etc…. No one would be executed without firm evidence. In the US there is a second trial just to decide is the guilty person should be executed.
  
  No one is going to execute someone on simply the evidence of one person’s word.
  
  I’m from Cork and I didn’t hear of that case. Can you supply details so I can check. I can’t image too many non depressed people would commit suicide based on an allegation.
- 38
- 117
Paula O Mahony 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Barbaric practise is my thought.

Reply
- - 70
  - 32
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  The crimes they commit are far more barbaric. We all die, they just get to die sooner.
- - 9
  - 27
  Clare Ryan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  some people no doubt deserve to suffer for what they’ve done, but innocent people die too, just one question you have to ask ‘could you push the button?’ , if the answer is no then you’ve against it.
- - 26
  - 12
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Clare. I’m not against Neurosurgery but I wouldn’t do it, even if I was taught how to.
- 6
- 30
Trish Loughman 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Killing is either wrong or it’s not.

Reply
- - 13
  - 7
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  That statement is obviously daft. Would you kill to save your own life?
- 8
- 35
Louise Brierley 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
The death penalty offers no solutions and clearly does not act as a deterent. Some crimes are terrible and heinous but they are committed by criminals. The justice system should be above this level. Capital punishment is premeditated murder and emotionally crucifies innocent members of those sentenced to death. I recommend all to see/read Capote (Truman Capote ‘In Cold Blood’).

Reply
- 7
- 31
Siobhán deBarra 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
I am actually completely shocked that 33% of Irish people would be ‘for’ the death penalty. I swear I think we are regressing as a nation. An eye for an eye is never the answer. The current system isn’t good enough either ‘Life’ imprisonment should be exactly that ‘Life’ not 12years! A life sentence with hard labour, not lying around all day getting fed and watered. Change is needed yes, but not the death penalty.

Reply
- - 4
  - 7
  Yvonne Byrne 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Can’t figure how anyone could give you a red thumb for your comment.
- - 4
  - 0
  Peter Nolan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  If it helps a lot of the people commenting and voting are obviously posting from abroad. As with all Journal polls it can’t really be taken as a snapshot of what *Irish people* per se think (though obviously Irish people make up the bulk of the voters, I’d say)
- - 4
  - 2
  Shanners 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  You morally object to the death penalty in favour of what is effectively life long torture? I find that a bit hypocritical.
  
  Personally would be in favour of the death penalty in some heinous cases. The journal linked to one such case in the seven deadly reads article last Sunday.
- 12
- 43
Kerry Blake 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Barbaric practice.

Reply
- 36
- 99
Steve Lawlor 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
While in general I wouldn’t agree with it, there is no doubt that some people deserve it.

Reply
- - 24
  - 48
  Louis FitzPatrick 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Then that means you are for it!
- - 6
  - 83
  Peter Nolan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  No it doesn’t. It means there’s a very great difference between thinking there are people in this world who deserve to die, and thinking that we, as a society, deserve to kill them.
- - 18
  - 20
  Emsy wemsy 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Albert fish needed to be put down. Don’t think so?read about him,about what he told a mother he did to her four year old boy. The details were so horrific I had nightmares. He was a cannibal who loved to torture.when they did an X-ray on him they saw something like 4 nails sitting in his pelvic area,each were several inches long and he had put them there himself. Imagine what someone who enjoyed inflicting that much pain on himself could do to others before eating them?? I’m not joking,I really had nightmares,woke up crying about baby Billy.
  But other than that kind of disgusting creature? I can’t think of another person off hand that I genuinely think should be executed. And those who think anders should get it aren’t thinking beyond anger. He would become a martyr which is never good.
  Since the case I agree with is so unbelievably rare I can’t say I would agree on keeping the death penalty as too many innocent people could get it….
- - 5
  - 12
  Chuck Farrelly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  But Emsy, if we allow ourselves to kill him (and I don’t think I’d hesitate!) then we allow ourselves to kill other people too. The notion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is entirely subjective and sooner or later we’d execute an innocent person. A lot of people would have happily pulled the lever on Michael Feichin Hannon
  
  Also, the death penalty seems to have a coarsening affect on societal attitudes to life in general. His death would be no loss, but by choosing to kill people like that in the name of The People we end up harming ourselves as a society
- - 3
  - 2
  Emsy wemsy 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Just to get you to understand why Albert fish needed to be put down,I went and found the description of what he did to Billy gaffey. This man was a serial killer. This torture,murder and cannibalism was not a one off. Don’t read this unless you have a strong stomach. I consider myself to have a very strong stomach and have always enjoyed gore movies,but this was the hardest thing I’ve ever had to read
  http://www.alien-ufos.com/politics-current-events-serious-discussion/4225-you-judge-over-18-disturbing-content.html
  And his Wikipedia page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish
  I’ve read other things he said as well,I don’t know why I did it to myself but I feel scarred for life
- 7
- 29
David Robert Grimes 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
the death penalty is a cruel and barbaric practice; it does not deter crime, and it frequently gets it wrong resulting in the deaths of innocents.

now, imprisonment is expensive but for a large majority of criminals rehabilitation works and is cheaper. so we should be opting for a rational approach where we realise most crime is connected to social and economic factors and actually give inmates a chance to redeem not reoffend. train them, educate them, treat them as humans. when done correctly rate of reoffense drops hugely.

sadly this is often shouted down by the vile people who support archaic vengeance based punishments like the death penalty.

Reply
- - 4
  - 0
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  My reply to this post ended up at the bottom.
- 2
- 14
Ruaidhrí Maxwell 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Death is too easy, serving a life sentence and having to deal with the fact of taking away another persons life for the rest of yours is more of a punishment. In any case we need serious custodial reform, prison is not a deterrent for criminals but more of a learning experience. Unless we act to properly treat them in why they commit crimes and make an attempt to curb their behavior prison has done nothing but cost the tax payer money.

Reply
- 99
- 208
Desmond O'Toole 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
The death penalty does not deter murder. The death penalty inevitably leads to the execution of innocent people. The death penalty regime is hugely expensive to maintain. The death penalty, especially in the US, targets the black and the poor. Other than a desire for vengeance there is no rational basis for the death penalty.

Reply
- - 87
  - 100
  Bua_na_cainte 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Considering one single inmate costs the taxpayer an average $225 a day in jail, how is the death penalty more expensive. Do you have figures to back this up?
- - 44
  - 42
  Mike Reid 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  I don’t see where he said it’s more expensive.
- - 11
  - 86
  Peter Nolan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  In California, the death penalty costs the taxpayer $137m a year. It’s estimated eliminating it and instituting life imprisonment instead would cost $11.5m a year.
  
  The higher price tag for the death penalty comes from the fact that understandably, convicts push their basic constitutional right to due process to the maximum in order to avoid execution, or even to simply delay it. Death row convicts therefore create a lot more court time and legal costs than those sentenced to life without parole. There’s also the matter of compensation costs resulting from wrongful executions – which massively dwarf those from wrongful imprisonment.
- - 8
  - 57
  Floodzie 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  One of the arguments currently used in California is that the death penalty is more expensive than keeping someone in prison, as a large amount of taxpayers’ money is spent during the appeals process.
  
  …not that I think money should ever be a justification for killing or preserving a human life.
  
  Personally, I think death is too easy a way out for murderers; life imprisonment is much more preferable – at least they are still alive and suffering, via loss of freedom, for their crime.
  
  Also (and to a lesser extent), a murderer is useful alive as an object of study, from which useful knowledge may be gleaned that leads to the prevention of future crimes.
- - 10
  - 42
  Kevin Smyth 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  @Bua. Can you use Google?
  
  A very quick Google brought up this page:
  http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost
  
  Also, there seems to be more executions in the bible belt states, compared to the rest. What’s with religious folks being all for execution? Anyone who believes in the death penalty needs to educate themselves on the topic.
- - 48
  - 12
  John Birch 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Otoolie,capital punishment gives closure. Not to mention the elimination of housing costs. Confeitior Deo.
- - 5
  - 18
  Strongbow62 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Let’s say we agree. So the next question is who we execute. So imagine you have a paedophile murderer. What method to use? Should we do a Robert Emmet and hang , drawn and quarter, disembowelled while alive. Maybe just lethal injection. So is it a method of disposal or retribution? If you have this level of violence practised legally it ups the ante throughout society.Outside in society violence becomes an acceptable way to resolve issues. Look at Iran who hangs homosexuals in a public square. The USA just has a more sanitised method. I like Ireland as it is. I also hold the Norwegians in the highest regard for their intelligent and progressive way they’ve dealt with their recent tragedy.
- - 10
  - 2
  Ciaran O'Hare 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Ah the ol do you have figures request. What a douche.
- - 4
  - 9
  Jonathan Biggins 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Yes, Ciaran, those thinkers are annoying with their facts… Now, go back to your crayons…
- - 8
  - 3
  Sean 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Vengeance is a good enough reason for me.
- - 16
  - 5
  Gary O Connor 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  you kill someone and you the agressor gets to live, meals excersise all paid by the tax payer even the family of the one you killed, how does life in jail become the better, i say eye for an eye a life for a life, death penalty will deter people from killing others as if caught you die too.
- - 1
  - 9
  Desmond O'Toole 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  But Gary, all of the evidence, and I mean all of it, demonstrates that the death penalty has absolutely no deterent value. Likewise while you say an eye for an eye, etc, Christ in the gospels specifically says that this maxim is wrong. Add to that the fact that innocent people are inevitably put to death where the ultimate penalty applies and you have no rational basis for the death penalty.
- - 0
  - 0
  Seamus McDermott 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  The discussion about the cost-effectiveness of the death penalty is repugnant, and I would have thought it beneath the readers of the journal. Are you saying you want to kill people because it’s less expensive than letting them live? Unconscionable.
  Is that what we do? Keep you around because you’re cheap, and kill you because you cost too much?
- 3
- 13
Chris Dunphy 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
I voted no. Why stoop to the murderer’s level? But a life in prison has to be one of permanent austerity and made meaninful for everyone. There should be hard work involved – work that somehow gives something back to society; and there should be compulsory therapy, particularly where substance abuse was cited as a mitigating factor. There should also be a form of education that gets the criminal to fully understand the impact of their crime on the victims, the victoms’ families and broader society. Life should also mean life.

Reply
- 0
- 5
pip white 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
sasha . sexual abuse is a horrific crime. as is rape. and the victims have to live with that for the rest of their lives. they can’t escape them memories. so please do not refer to it as not a really bad crime.

Reply
- - 3
  - 1
  Sasha Musgrave 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Pip, I agree that sexual abuse is a horrific crime, as is rape, and the victim have to live a living nightmare for the rest of their lives, and that does deserve the death penalty, I was just making a distinction, between that and the horrific murders, that have been committed in history, of course I am not implying that those who commit sexual abuse should be free, by no means should they be free, they should be locked up for the rest of their lives, and I think that they nevershould be freed. Sorry, of course it is a really bad crime, and I think that the people who abuse, should definitely be punished for what they did to other people, who have to live with it for the rest of their lives.
- - 1
  - 2
  Ciara Ní Mhurchú 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Sasha, if someone rapes your kids thats grand is it?? Jesus woman wtf???
- 1
- 8
Paul Anthony Ward 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
One of the rare social issues were the traditional Irish Right & modern Irish Left agree.

Reply
- 1
- 6
Piotr Tarnawski 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
@Desmond: very true, that’s why it is more complicated issue than just simple yes or on.

Reply
- 4
- 11
Grace Booker 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
so we should be opting for a rational approach where we realise most crime is connected to social and economic factors and actually give inmates a chance to redeem not reoffend. train them

Reply
- - 3
  - 5
  Raf ⚡ 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  The abolishing of death penalty is either a sign of advancement of the western culture as most of us would like to see it or as one of many signs of decay of the dying west trying to play “humane” with its own cancer as some mid and far eastern cultures see us.
  
  I don’t really know which, only time will tell. If our culture still exists in a couple of hundred years, we’ill must’ve been doing something right, right?
  
  Death penalty aside, would anyone mind if public caning was restored? A French friend of mine couldn’t believe how safe he felt in Singapore (where they have both punishments I understand).
  He stayed in a fairly poor neighbourhood and was shocked nobody ever locked their doors. He told me his apartment in Paris had been robbed regardless of the amount of locks.
- - 2
  - 11
  Desmond O'Toole 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  I lived in Singapore .. your friend is spinning you a line if you think Singaporeans all go around without locking their front doors. I felt reasonably safe in Singapore as well. But then I feel reasonably safe in Dublin … and in Paris, Berlin and Brussels. What makes for a safe society is not brutal punishments but a sense of solidarity between citizens. What encourages that sense of solidarity amongst citizens is good education, health and other life chances not a desire for revenge on criminals.
- - 5
  - 3
  Edward White 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  That rationale works on the assumption that murderous psychopath’s respond to therapy. Typically they don’t and that’s what makes them so malevolent. They have no moral compass like the rest of us and are a malignancy that needs to be dealt with like any cancer.
- 0
- 3
Gearoid Walsh 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
In light of what Sam Harris says about the nature of free will, blame and responsibility, which I find convincing, the death penalty seems cruel and absurd, though it’s understandable people want it for some kind of satisfaction.

The state murdering people as a punishment for murder is also absurd. I don’t believe there is any evidence that it truly acts as a deterrent either.

I think we need prisons to protect society, not to punish or deter. They don’t do that by any stretch of the imagination. We could, instead, be seeking to rehabilitate prisoners by giving them a sense of consequence and responsibilty, much like drug addicts are given in rehab programmes. It may not work for everyone, but I don’t think it’s even tried the vast majority of the time. I don’t believe the state is sincere in doing that. In America, prisons are literally big business.

Reply
- 6
- 11
Donal McCarthy 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
I’ve no problem with it in principle.

It’s just rarely worked in application.

Reply
- 11
- 15
JibberIrish 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
An eye for an eye.
Just wouldn’t trust the people administrating it.

Reply
- - 5
  - 22
  Desmond O'Toole 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Interesting that you mention that biblical quote. Here’s the quote in full (Mathew 5:38 ff):
  
  “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”
  
  Funny how the fundies in the US who are so fond of quoting scripture seem to get tongue-tied when they get to Jesus’ words on this matter.
- 1
- 4
Maria Conroy Byrne 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Totally against the death penalty. The whole concept is abhorrent to me. In fact, there are very very few situations where I think it would be acceptable to take the life of another human being.

Reply
- 11
- 13
Common Sense 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
I used to think NO, what right do we have to end the life of another human being.
But I’m getting more right wing as I get older (or as I’m exposed to more and more horror in this world).

In cases like the Norweigan mass murderer, he will never get a release from prison, he is not repented for what he has done, it will be impossible to trust him or integrate him with society again. So maybe in his case and similar cases, the death penalty is justified.

Reply
- - 0
  - 3
  Conor Murphy 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  If they see him as not a danger after 21 years he goes free.
- 0
- 2
Sarah Ryan 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
I’ve campaigned to prevent executions and remember the case of Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams , who eventually was executed even though he used his time in prison in a positive and reformed way, I think the death penalty is needed but the complexity of who should receive it is of danger to society choosing who should live and die and for those reasons I think there has to be a better option than execution, especially when it is proven that many innocent people are put to death wrongly. Prison needs to be reviewed bring back Alcatraz.

Reply
- 0
- 2
Alan Murphy™ 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Neither options. Some feckers like fritzl and brevity should be breaking rocks every day from now till the day they die in Isolation. Don’t make it easy for them

Reply
- 0
- 2
James Mark Donnelly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
In principal yes, in reality, probably not.

Reply
- 19
- 18
stephen duggan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Prison = flat screen televisions, sky sports, 3 hot meals a day, free gym, pool tables. Punishment??

Reply
- - 5
  - 13
  James Daly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Do some research on Mountjoy and Limerick prisons. I’m sure you’ll change your view.
  Lots of people believe that prison is like a holiday, but these are the people who haven’t actually looked it up and whose opinions are based on what they read in tabloids like the Daily Mail and the Indo (yes, the Indo).
  
  Anyone i have ever met who is actually aware of conditions in Irish prisons has said that is is a horrific and brutalising experience.
  However, I have met many more people who know very little about Irish prison conditions and think prison is a great place to be.
- - 4
  - 11
  Desmond O'Toole 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  The punishment is in the denial of liberty. It’s not our job to make the conditions of that punishment any more harsh. As David says above, our responsibility is to rehabilitate first and only where this is not possible and a person remains a serious threat to the rest of us, to keep them in prison. By the way, your description of what constitutes imprisonment suggests that you’ve never stepped foot inside an Irish prison.
- - 9
  - 5
  stephen duggan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Unlike the the two of ye I have seen the inside of mountjoy. (not as a prisoner) Real insightful by the way. Name the prison thats famous for its terrible conditions. That’s why they are closing the place down. Do some research yourselves on the new prisons we’re building. I knew somebody who’s brother went to prison a while ago and he LOVED it. The two of ye have obviously never been the the victims of serious crime. I’d like to see ye advocate rehabilitation then…
- - 8
  - 2
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  If prison is that bad, why do criminals keep going back inside?
- - 1
  - 4
  Desmond O'Toole 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Wrong on both points, Stephen, re: prison visiting and being a victim of violent crime.
- - 1
  - 8
  James Daly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Stephen, there are no plans to close Mountjoy or Limerick.
  
  Denial of liberty is the punishment. If we wanted to punish people further by forcing them to live in inhumane conditions, being brutalised or not being fed then that should be part of Irish law. It is not part of Irish law, nor should it be (in my opinion). Imprisonment is the punishment.
  
  I have done lots of research on the new prisons “they are building”: the super-prison at Thornton Hall which is now not going to be built and the new prison in Cork that is attempting to address the insanitary conditions in the current Cork prison.
- 1
- 3
Joan Featherstone 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
For me it’s very difficult to decide on this one, bit like the abortion issue, I’m neither for or against, thankfully never been in either situation, and both always have extenuating circumstances!

Reply
- 21
- 15
Edward White 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
I think there’s an argument for and against. With people like Breivik I wouldn’t hesitate to but a bullet in the back of his head. Is that revenge? Absolutely! And there’s nothing wrong with that if it brings some closure to the families of the 77 innocents he wiped out in heartbeat. The other side of the argument is you run the serious risk of executing someone who is innocent. Then there are those who take the moral high-ground and pontificate about how terrible capital punishment is. I guarantee you not one of them has experienced what it is like to have a child or family member killed by some of the monsters that prowl this planet.

Reply
- - 2
  - 13
  Conor Murphy 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  So all punishment should be decided by the victims?
- - 7
  - 17
  Billie Hetfield 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Killing Anders won’t bring back the 77 victims. The worst punishment he can get is to spend the rest of his life in prison.
  
  I was in Oslo that day. I was about 5 minutes away. I was outside the building 15 minutes prior to the bomb going off. I was there on business. Had that bomb gone off earlier it could have easily been me as one of the 77. I wouldn’t want anyone avenging my death. Brevik is a murderer, you and I are not. We need to be bigger than that.
- - 15
  - 4
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Billie, executing someone legally is not murder. If you had been killed maybe your family & friends might have a different opinion than you think.
- - 3
  - 11
  Billie Hetfield 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  I don’t agree. Just because something is “legal” it doesn’t mean it’s right.
  
  It’s certainly debatable wether the death penalty is state sponsored murder or not.
  
  The victim should have no part in the justice process. They wouldn’t give a fair trial. Society has to be bigger than an individual.
- - 11
  - 3
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Billie, it doesn’t matter whether you agree or not, executing someone legally is not murder.
- - 7
  - 2
  Edward White 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  @ Billie: by all accounts the Norwegian prison system is a holiday camp and while I appreciate you were there, we all were except you just happened to be a little bit closer. Capital punishment is not a deterrent and is not murder by legal definition no more than abortion is. It’s societal revenge and that’s the reality. If someone shot your child for no other reason other than they felt like it let’s see how you would react because I don’t think you being 15 minutes away from a mass murder means anything.
- - 1
  - 0
  Michelle Rogers 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Check out http://peacefultomorrows.org/ They do know what it is like to have a family member killed but having been victims of violence, they choose a forgiving and non-violent path – what brilliant people…
- 4
- 5
Evelyn Fennelly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Even those that have committed violent crimes (murder, rape, aggrevated assault) have an inalienable right to life.

Prison systems certainly need to be improved, with priority being to ensure that meaningful rehabilitation is possible for those serving time.

The death penalty is not justice.

Reply
- - 0
  - 0
  Mark Sweetman 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  you can’t polish a turd
- 9
- 7
Aidan McHugh 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Should only be used in extreme cases. The world is just better off without some of the scum that are out there.

Reply
- 66
- 27
Devon Gorman 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
What is the point in spending millions a year to feed and shelter people that have committed severe crimes ie. murder, rape etc… These people have made their decision. I do however believe there should be a professional screening to see if the person has both the capacity and desire to mend their ways. I believe that the money that is pumped into keeping these people alive while in prison, could be better spent on the honest hard-working people that abide by the Law.

Reply
- - 9
  - 26
  Paul Condon 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Should the death penalty be used to deal with people who aren’t honest or hard-working then? Or who don’t generally ‘abide by the Law’?
- - 23
  - 7
  Devon Gorman 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  As i said, the Death penalty should only be considered if the person has committed a ‘Severe’ crime. Obviously if someone stole a a bar of chocolate etc, then the death penalty is a bit dramatic. What i am saying is there are a lot of criminals who don’t have, or never will have the desire to be good people. And it is these people that commit heinous crimes against their fellow man that deserve it.
- - 4
  - 22
  James Daly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Devon, how could we ever have a professional screening to infallibly find out if a person has the the “capacity and desire to mend their ways”? That would be impossible.
  
  And what if someone doesn’t have the capacity? That implies some kind of psychological issue. Should we execute people who have psychological problems?
  
  On your point about spending millions a year to feed and shelter prisoners, as has been pointed out earlier it is actually (believe it or not) more expensive to execute people than it is to imprison them for the rest of their lives. Hard to believe but it is true!
- - 6
  - 23
  Hubert Ahern 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  and what if youre wrong? it has happened you know… you cant make someone undead when you realise your mistake
- - 23
  - 1
  Devon Gorman 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  You say that a professional screening is not possible, but what is it they do to prisoners that request parole? In principal it is the same thing. And i do understand that this system would be difficult to implement, but it is most certainly possible.
  
  With regards to killing people with psychological problems, If that person has Raped or killed because of a neurological disorder the proposed screening would see that and treat it accordingly.
  
  You say it is actually more expensive to execute these people. First look at where exactly the money is being spent. The long drawn out court cases, Appeals yada yada. These would all be done away with if they simplified the ‘System’ ie. Screening. I am not foolish, I do understand that such a screening is unlikely to be introduced, but at the end of the day there are financial problems right across the globe and keeping prisoners who have done terrible things alive is (in my eyes) ridiculous. The money spent on keeping people like that fed and sheltered could be going to rebuilding the financial sector.
- - 1
  - 15
  Paul Condon 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Again Devon, that’s a very simplistic view of criminal behaviour. What would you class as a ‘severe crime’ that demands the death penalty? How would you define a ‘good person’ and why should only those fitting this definition have a right to live? How many executions of innocent people would be acceptable?
- - 2
  - 17
  Paul Condon 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  “The money spent on keeping people like that fed and sheltered could be going to rebuilding the financial sector.” So we should kill criminals to solve the financial crisis? Wow.
- - 1
  - 10
  James Daly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Devon, those who are released on parole are assessed for risk to society but they also receive supervision and their release is conditional on them not breaking the terms of their parole. The parole system is based on the knowledge that it is impossible to infallibly predict a human being’s behaviour and that’s why those safeguards are in place.
  
  However, once you have executed someone, there is no going back. If a mistake is made, the damage is done. Under the system you propose, in most cases they could not know that a mistake has been made because it would be impossible to prove after the event that if the prisoner had not been executed, he would not have reoffended.
  
  As for your comment about simplifying the system, are you proposing to do away with the appeals process? So if a judgement is handed down that I am to be put to death I will have no form of recourse? That would be an extremely dangerous situation and that’s why there isn’t a single civilised society in the world (by which I mean a country with a developed governmental system) that allows such a process (i.e. capital punishment without the opportunity to appeal).
- 0
- 1
pip white 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
sorry meant opinion pole.

Reply
- 0
- 0
pip white 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
every one is entitled to there opinion. hence the pole .

Reply
- 0
- 1
John Moriarty 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
years ago I saw the film “Dead Man Walking” and read the book, any inclinations I had towards acceptance of DP were put firmly out of the question. But say occasionally some bad basterd deserves it; thing is we as a society do well by ourselves to keep our collective hands clean. Locking them up for good is then OK. I would consider leaving (some of?) them with a rope if they wanted it.

Reply
- 21
- 11
Seán Kearns 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
So, lets say a man is caught in the act of murder and rape…. 100% guilty with lots of forensics, he confesses, expresses no remorse etc. And suppose this man is sentenced to life in prison and while he’s in there, he kills other inmates…

Wouldn’t it be better that he was executed rather than kept in prison where he kills other people??

I voted yes, not because I want every criminal to face the death penalty, but because sometimes it helps stops people re-offending and because some people do deserve it. And where there is sufficient evidence, and after a lengthy appeals process, and where psychologist say he is likely to re-offend.

Reply
- - 10
  - 12
  Kevin Smyth 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  What?
  If he’s likely to re-offend, just lock him up for life, no parole. I can’t understand your concern for other prisoners. Are they not equally as violent and dangerous?
  Have you thought about innocent men, locked up for years and then executed, by their government? All legal.
  You haven’t thought this through.
- - 3
  - 9
  James Daly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  First of all, that’s an unlikely scenario. But a prisoner is dangerous like you described, he will be placed in solitary confinement in a high-security prison (e.g. Port Laoise).
  There are less drastic solutions than killing someone!
- - 6
  - 1
  Seán Kearns 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Locking a man up for life without a chance of ever getting out? Like that’s much better, living in small cell for the rest of his life, much more humane indeed.
  And not every prisoner is violent and dangerous.
  And people have been locked up for years on a wrong conviction, but I’m only saying that this should be the case where there is conclusive proof and a fair, above board appeals process.
- - 0
  - 7
  James Daly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  I didn’t say every prisoner was violent and dangerous: I was responding to the scenario you posed.
  
  And I didn’t say anything about locking up a man for life without a chance of ever getting out: I said that if someone, as you suggested, posed a risk to others, then he is placed in solitary confinement for as long as he is considered to pose such a risk.
- 9
- 5
Mark Sweetman 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Hard labour for the rest of their years, put in a stocks on the main street for the public to pelt tomatoes and swears at them, and their crime and label tattoed onto their heads, with the odd whipping here and there for bad behaviour. This is a fate worse than death and in some cases would be deserving.

Reply
- 8
- 4
pip white 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
I believe 100% in the death penalty. And I think it should be brought back to this country. Why should it be all touchy feely for the scum of the earth that torture and kill children. that brutally rape someone. that kills someone for no reason. yes we should also have stricter Prison sentencing in this country. get rid of their home comforts. cos its not a holiday for them although they think it is. the justice system as a whole needs to ed overhauled completely in Ireland. do away with the softly softly approach. have something like a 3 strike rule to prevent the little shits that appear in court every few weeks and getting away with suspended sentencing and probation.

Reply
- - 2
  - 4
  Jonathan Biggins 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Find a better psychiatrist.
- 25
- 8
Chuck Farrelly 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
It’s heartening to see so many of you have come over to the “pro-life” side of the fence. If only you had the same regard for the life of rapists’ children as you do for rapists

Reply
- - 4
  - 16
  Desmond O'Toole 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  What an ugly observation, worthy of the very worst in anti-choice rhetoric #commentfail
- - 3
  - 11
  Cyril Butler 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Chuck nobody wants to kill babies or children. That is a ridiculous statement. This obsession of the so called pro life movement is insane. Infact the opposite is true the so called prolife movement in the US are pro death of human beings as opposed to foetus. They are also pro suffering of actual humans through the denial of health care.
- - 2
  - 2
  Sean Walsh 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  ah the self righteous progressive liberals
  It not ok to kill one conscious human responsible for its acts and yet it is totally acceptable, in fact a human right, to be able to kill another who who has done no wrong all in the name of choice… idiots
- 6
- 3
tom_cos 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
I support the death penalty for one crime only – that of genocide. The issue of course then depends on what your view of genocide is. My own view is that genocide the crime of the political authorization mass murder on an industrial scale.

Hitler, Goebels, Himmler, Heydrich, Goering and anybody at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. Milosevic and Karadzic are two more.

I believe it applies, not out of revenge, but out of contagion – the ability of those at the highest political levels to spread and propagate their evil views.

It’s quite a narrow definition and that is the way it should be.

Reply
- - 1
  - 10
  Martin Quigley 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Tom,
  
  Taking the life of a killer legitimises the act of murder. It brings us closer to the murderers ideology and undermines the very concept of justice. I think that if we, as a society, condemn murder then we must do so in all its forms.
  
  I would also have very strong doubts about martyrdom acting as an effective measure to stem the contagion of extremist views.
- - 0
  - 0
  Edward White 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  How does multiplying one life x 1000+ make the crime any less heinous? Those who propagate evil on a mass scale are as culpable as Fred & Rosemary West behind closed doors.
- - 2
  - 1
  tom_cos 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Martin – I take your point on board about martyrdom. My belief in the death penalty for genocide is to prevent those guilty of propgating it being allowed to live on, spreading their views. I think there would need to be consideration as to whether martydom would be an issue, and I would not be inclined to support a mandatory death penalty. That said I do not think that executing somebody like Hitler or Heydrich or Karadzic undermines the concept of justice – in my eyes, it may prevent the further injustices, beause said individuals will no longer be able to propagate their worldview. I think this brings the argument back to your point regarding martyrdom, and my reply to it. It is an interesting debate.
  
  Edward – I disagree – when a state – ie, cabinet ministers – sanctions murder on an organised scale to rid itself of a particular group, it is entirely different to the murder carried out by deranged individuals – they cannot be compared. The crime of genocide is not the murders themselves – it is the putting the state apparatus in motion to carry the murders out.
- - 0
  - 2
  Edward White 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Whatever apparatus or modus operandi is used the end result is the same; murder! And murder wholesale is no less egregious than were it sanctioned by someone wielding a pen or wielding a sword. You can’t minimise a crime or make it any less deserving of the death penalty just because it doesn’t come under the mantle of Genocide?
- 6
- 3
Scarr 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Death penalty should be a tool of last resort but one that is available none the less. Only for use in cases where the evidence is overwhelming and the crime is very serious, though I personally would agree with it in relation to certain limerick criminal types

Reply
- 11
- 4
Jay Coleman 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Personally if someone killed me I’d hope that he/she would die in a painful manner. None of this forgiveness bull
If someone harmed my family/friends I wouldn’t have the slightest hesitation in pushing that button.
Why? I don’t believe in God or any of that afterlife nonsense. When you’re gone you’re gone and that’s it….the fact the an evil person lives while a good person dies is abhorrent to me.

Reply
- 16
- 5
Shane Holbrook 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Barbaric seems to be the word of the day going by these comments lol

Reply
- 9
- 3
Piotr Tarnawski 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Ddpmmd wrote : The death penalty does not deter murder. The death penalty inevitably leads to the execution of innocent people.

Innocent like Anders Breivik?

Reply
- - 1
  - 12
  Desmond O'Toole 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  No, innocent like these six men:
  
  Ray Krone, released in 2002. Spent 10 years in prison in Arizona, including time on death row, for a murder he did not commit. He was the 100th person to be released from death row since 1973. DNA testing proved his innocence.
  
  Madison Hobley, Aaron Patterson, Stanley Howard and LeRoy Orange, pardoned in 2003. Sent to death row on the basis of “confessions” extracted through the use of torture by former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge and other Area 2 police officers in Chicago. They were pardoned by outgoing Governor George Ryan, who also commuted the remaining 167 death sentences in Illinois to life imprisonment.
  
  Jonathon Hoffman, exonerated in 2007. Convicted and sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of a jewelry store owner. During Hoffman’s first trial, the state’s key witness, Johnell Porter, made undisclosed deals with the prosecutors for testifying against his cousin. Porter has since recanted his testimony, stating that he lied in order to get back at his cousin for stealing money from him.
  
  http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-innocence
- 6
- 2
Piotr Tarnawski 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Desmont wrote : The death penalty does not deter murder. The death penalty inevitably leads to the execution of innocent people.

Innocent like Anders Breivik?

Reply
- 26
- 5
Keith Mills 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
When there isn’t a single doubt over guilt, pre-meditation, then yes.

Reply
- - 2
  - 16
  Rob Davies 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  There may always be a doubt. Surely it’s preferable to keep someone in prison indefinitely rather than mistakenly execute them.
  Consider the Birmingham six. If the death penalty had been in the UK at the time they would surely have been executed, imagine the fall out in that case once they were proven innocent.
- 36
- 6
Darren Brady 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
The Lord did say ‘an eye for an eye’, let them fry.

Reply
- - 4
  - 22
  Paul Condon 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Sorry, who?
- - 3
  - 17
  Kevin Smyth 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Must mean a member of the House of Lords.
- - 4
  - 22
  Desmond O'Toole 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  This is what Jesus ACTUALLY said (Mathew 5:38 ff):
  
  “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”
  
  You need to do your bible homework, Darren.
- - 5
  - 14
  Brian Callinan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  He also said to turn the other cheek. That’s the problem with quoting the bible. It’s full of contradictions. Definitely wouldn’t recommend using it as a basis for framing law let alone one’s own moral code.
- - 3
  - 7
  Peter Nolan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Brian, that’s not even a contradiction though. They’re both from the same passage and Jesus is explicitly saying “eye for an eye” as an encapsulation of the ‘revenge=justice’ instinct he’s telling them *NOT* to follow.
- - 2
  - 9
  Brian Callinan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  @Des/Peter
  
  I posted my comment before I saw the passage posted by Desmond. Thanks for that, I’m happy to admit my ignorance I didn’t realise that those two lines were in the same passage. I thought that the ‘eye for eye’ line was from the old testament. Is it mentioned there as well? If so is it advocated as being just?
  
  I’ll be honest I’m too lazy to read the whole bible from start to finish, but am I’m correct in saying while the first commandment is ‘I shall not kill’, god goes on to lay waste to towns and cities? If so isn’t this a little duplicitous? Surely he should be following his own rules?
  
  I think that there are interesting parallels in modern time. Where government has one set of rules for citizens and another set for itself.
- 7
- 2
Chris lynch 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
All the people saying it doesn’t deter crime, neither does locking people up for life, so what do we do.

BTW I not for or against the Death Penalty – it honestly doesn’t concern me the slightest bit. I don’t stay up at night thinking about it.

Reply
- - 1
  - 3
  Peter Nolan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  I think you’re conflating ‘deter’ with ‘eliminate’. Of course having life imprisonment on the books doesn’t *eliminate* serious crime. The statistical evidence shows, however, that it does *deter* (ie *lessen*) it. Meanwhile statistical evidence also shows that capital punishment neither eliminates nor deters.
- 48
- 7
Tom Sullivan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
I’m against it except in cases of high treason (i.e. selling your country out to foreign interests)

Reply
- - 0
  - 10
  damien o'c 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Are you sure you’re not related to Alan Partridge? He believes in the the death penalty for treason and murder…….aaaaahoy!
- - 4
  - 11
  Joseph McGranaghan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Really Tom, I’ve always though of nations and nationality as an abstract concept created to give us a false sense of belonging, it’s only a piece of rock. Plus no one ever has the right to condemn another to death in cold blood.
- 18
- 3
William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Its not cruel and it’s not barbaric. Their crimes are.

It doesn’t “frequently” get it wrong. It’s quite rare an innocent person is executed and probably getting rarer.

Rehabilitation doesn’t work in the slightest. Look at the papers any day, criminals are constantly before the courts with multiple convictions. Most murderers that are executed are previously convicted criminals.

You have just called 62% of those that voted, hundreds of people, vile. I think that makes you either very stupid or vile.

Reply
- - 6
  - 0
  William Grogan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  The above is a reply to David Grimes’ post.
- - 0
  - 5
  Lorcan Garrett 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  62% voted no against the death penalty…
- - 1
  - 3
  Joseph McGranaghan 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  William do you are saying its not barbaric for a state to kill in cold blood? And if the person is innocent, what recourse do they have then? Also don’t read the papers or mass media at large if you want a true reflection, in the last 20 years media hyperbole has gone out of control, fear sells. Instead, look at the crime stats as a whole, you might be pleasantly surprised
- - 0
  - 0
  William Grogan 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Joseph, your post is too patronising for comment. The quality of your post would indicate that you would be better off doing some more reading yourself.
- - 0
  - 1
  William Grogan 25/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Lorcan, you may be correct but the figures change all the time, it’s now 61% NO. I can’t now check what they were when I posted. Nevertheless to call so many people vile, is vile.
  
  I think it would be useful to have a second poll at the end of the comments so that people could vote again. It would be interesting to see if people changed their opinion after reading the comments.
- 6
- 1
Sasha Musgrave 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
Prisoners who have committed very bloody murders should definitely be put to death, like the ones who were involved in murdering Roman Polanski’s wife and friends, and the La Bianca’s back in 1969, which was a really horrific crime, which really justifies the death penalty, and unfortuneately they escaped it when it was abolished in California in 1972. Their trial should never have taken so long, and if they had been convicted a year earlier, then Polanski and other relations of the victims would have got justice, and it does damage to the memory of those who were helpless and died in the hands of these people. However if it isn’t such a bad crime, like sexual abuse, they should be locked up for the rest of their lives. Only in the case of horrific murder, should the death penalty be used.

Reply
- - 1
  - 6
  Ciara Ní Mhurchú 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
  Sexual abuse isnt a bad crime?? Are you on crack? Its one of the worst if not The worst on a par with murder.
- 1
- 0
Luca Costa 24/04/12 Comment reported, thank you Report this comment
In the immortal words of Spartacus… “kill them all”. Only joking before you rip me limb from limb in 5 seconds flat.

Reply