Death Penalty No Longer Logically Defensible (Nguyen Tuong Van)

[Binkie]

I think you're confusing manslaughter with murder, Sternn. They're two different charges, but only one results in a mandatory sentencing.

However, when I looked into Irish Law, the only remissions that are given are based on good behavior in prison, as you stated, but they only even apply after a quarter of the sentence has been served. So if you're convicted for murder and you're to serve "no less than a 40 year sentence," that means you have to serve 10 years before you're even able to be released after 13 and a half. That break-down can be referenced HERE.

In addition, the Good Friday Agreement, which can be referenced HERE, only provides the circumstances for early release for prisioners already convincted or are scheduled at the time of the Good Friday Agreement, to be released early from prision. Those convincted for murder (that the IRA has to confirm was offically ordered) after it's implimentation have obviously broken the "cease fire" provision and are not eligable for early release. Also to be noted; Jerry McCabe's killers did not benefit from this. None were eligable for early release, as it was not a political murder (as confirmed by Sinn Fien and the IRA), and none recieved it. So if you were to go out right now and knock off a gas station for a few Twislers and killed a clerk, the Good Friday Agreement isn't going to do anything for you.

Similarly, Michael McDowell, the current Irish Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform, reaffirmed what the Irish Government site stated prior. In his speech on mandatory sentencing in 2004, he had this to say:

Originally Posted by Michael McDowell

There are a small number of situations however, where statute takes a more mandatory approach to the imposition of sentences. The most notable exception is, of course, in the case of murder where there is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. The Criminal Justice Act, 1990 provides that a person convicted of treason or murder shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. Where a person is convicted of treason or of what formerly would have been capital murder, the Act obliges a court to specify imprisonment for a period of not less than 40 years as the minimum period to be served.

The Law Reform Commission has undertaken a review of the law relating to homicide. Over the past three years, it has published Consultation Papers on "Homicide: The Mental Element of Murder", "Corporate Killing" and "Provocation". Another Consultation Paper on the general defences relating to homicide is expected. Following consideration of the comments on these Consultation Papers, a final Report dealing with all aspects of the law on homicide may be published.

In its Consultation Paper on "The Mental Element of Murder", the Commission said that its initial view was that the distinction between murder and manslaughter should be maintained. It added that many of the difficulties associated with the distinction could be addressed by other means "including the removal of the mandatory life sentence for murder". There has been some expression of support for this view from senior judicial figures.

While I await with great interest the final Report of the Law Reform Commission on this issue, I can see the weight of the argument that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder is a just and apt punishment - it is part of our law for good reason. Murder is the killing of another person in circumstances where the murderer intended to kill or cause serious injury. It is the gravest crime and must be treated as such. Taking the life of another person must stand in the eyes of the law as an offence for which there is no more serious punishment.

Full speech can be referenced HERE.

Also, those charged in the killing of Gerry McCabe pleaded guilty to manslaughter, not murder. One of the reasons for this was because several witnesses who had previously given statements refused to give evidence at the trial, which was, according to the police, a result of IRA intimidation and threats. This is the reason none were sentenced to life in prison. They were sentenced from 11-14 years in prison. The earliest release for any of the murderers is May of 2007. So "coming months" can better be described as "over a year." As stated before, they're all serving their full sentence, as none of them were eligible for early release.

[Blushing Heliophobe]

Ha! Where's your tulips now?

Anyways. Yes, I believe the justice system should come from a rehabilitation mindset BUT if someone is a voilent or repeat offender, the public needs to be protected from that person.

My heart is not bleeding so much that I would choose to put innocent citizens - men, women, children - at risk. I may forgive you. But that doesn't mean you should have the right to exploit others with no adverse consequences.

It's one nation under God, but I distrust anyone who believes in a God that doesn't care about protecting the innocent.

[CptSternn]

Wow, thats amazing, but once again, browsing the web can't compare to actual real life experiences.

Having been incarcerated in the states, which led to my dismissal from the us military, I can tell you loads about the legal system there.

Having just got out, done time with, and personally knowing the men arrested for the aforementioned men, well, think I might know a bit more about that as well.

Also, I help with the collection and sale of Republican Prisoner gifts. We go around the country to the prisons, collect the arts and crafts that are being made by the current Republican Prisoners, and sell them in booths and shops around the country. I am currently working on a website to display and sell these crafts, and will be happy to show you the site as soon as its done.

But my point being I travel to, meet with, and personally know, the prisoners, their stories, and see the men weekly.

It's nice that you found so many links, and yes, manslaughter vs murder is a different charge, but liek in the states, the men were arrested, charged with, and put on trial for murder. They were only found guilty of manslaughter. Thats the case with 90% of all murders in Ireland, so yes, manslaughter is less, but thats what most people do time for, as murder has to be haneous for a juge or jury to actually impose a murder sentence.

And trust me on that, I know from personal experience.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Wow, thats amazing, but once again, browsing the web can't compare to actual real life experiences.

This is funny, coming from someone who constantly ends their points with, "Google it."

It's nice that you found so many links, and yes, manslaughter vs murder is a different charge, but liek in the states, the men were arrested, charged with, and put on trial for murder. They were only found guilty of manslaughter. Thats the case with 90% of all murders in Ireland, so yes, manslaughter is less, but thats what most people do time for, as murder has to be haneous for a juge or jury to actually impose a murder sentence.

You're right, they were put on trial for murder originally. But when the witnesses dropped out, the prosecution suddenly said they were willing to make a deal where they'd accept guilty pleas on the charge of manslaughter.

[CptSternn]

Even if they had a witness, in most cases the dpp will drop charges down to manslaughter unless there is a reason. For example, look at the recent trial of Padraig Nally. He shot a man he caught on his land after beating him, and got 6 years for manslaughter. A good article on all this is located here:

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/articl...ud=38&aid=1186

The writer complains of a few recent cases where the person on trial is given a light sentence for manslaughter, but here, this is how we do it.

[grimreaper993]

The death penalty is Racist. There are much more accounts of Asians, African americans and Latinos being executed than there are caucasians. Personally, I am mega pissed at this. its wrong and it has killed another Vietnamese person. Haven't enough of my people died in the war? Whoever executed him is an asswipe beyond all imaginable standards. Sure it was wrong to smuggle the drugs but I think life in prison would be a more sane way to deal with this crime.

My stance on the death penalty is I'm all for it for repeat violent offenders. Severe violent offenders. People like the gentleman here don't deserve to die. Prison, yes, but death no. It was a waste of a life.

No, putting him in jail for life is keeping him off the streets to commit more crimes. I don't know about foreign prisons, but the prisoners here in America actually have a pretty good life. It's better then some people I know who are trying to eck out a living. Now, it's not the nest quality of life, and it sucks to be behind bars, but don't do the crime if you can't handle it.

Why do they have to accomplish anything? They accomplished commiting a crime. We accomplished punishing them.

Look, it's not like prison is some sort of mystery. Everyone knows what it's like in there. They know how boring and unproductive it is. They still do the crime. Why should we feel bad for them because they put themselves in that situation? We shouldn't.

It's not productive, not for a long shot, but it's fitting.

[WolfMoon]

Originally Posted by grimreaper993

The death penalty is Racist. There are much more accounts of Asians, African americans and Latinos being executed than there are caucasians. Personally, I am mega pissed at this. its wrong and it has killed another Vietnamese person. Haven't enough of my people died in the war? Whoever executed him is an asswipe beyond all imaginable standards. Sure it was wrong to smuggle the drugs but I think life in prison would be a more sane way to deal with this crime.

Bullshit!

They're just trying to keep people from trafficking drugs in their country. If that idiot hadn't gotten caught someone else would have. Are you suggesting that they're targeting Aussies over there? Or that they're the ones that are dumb enough to get caught? I assure you that they've killed more than just people from Australia for the same things.

He should've realized the shit he was geting into before he shoved that first balloon in his ass. I don't agree with killing people on drug trafficking violations, but he was stupid enough to get caught doing it in Singapore of all places. He got what was coming to him.

[CptSternn]

By that same line of reasoning though, women whoare stoned to death in muslim countries deserve it then as they were stupid enough to get caught doing something they knew was wrong and were aware of the penalties for?

[WolfMoon]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

By that same line of reasoning though, women whoare stoned to death in muslim countries deserve it then as they were stupid enough to get caught doing something they knew was wrong and were aware of the penalties for?

Damn you, Sternn!

[Cicero]

The death penalty for anything disgusts me. There is absolutely no way of making sure someone is 100% guilty. And aside from the possible tragedy of murdering the innocent, when serial killers are executed, all the possible information they could provide on what caused their heinous crimes dies with them. Then there are the cases of the death penalty being imposed on crimes that most DEFINITELY don't deserve it.

In the case of Nguyen, what really got me was the fact that after all this, Singapore still claims to be so incredibly "advanced" and "modern". Well last I heard, advanced societies don't hang people. Let alone hang foreigners who weren't even a threat to their country. He was going to sell the drugs in Australia, therefore it was Australia's problem.

People keep saying "well he was stupid enough to get caught in Singapore..." but chances are, the only reason he was in Singapore was because that happened to be the stopover on the only flight he could get. He didn't think "Hmmm... now how can I take a real risk? I know! I'll pass through the anti-drug capital of the world!".

Nguyen was taking those drugs through to pay off the debts of his twin brother. That wasn't some evil drug lord smuggling heroin to buy a few more gold necklaces, that was someone trying to do something for the sake of a family member he loved. He didn't choose the smartest option of course, but everyone makes mistakes. The difference between people such as this and real criminals is that the real criminals aren't committing crimes to help anyone but themselves.

Knowing what the penalties were changes nothing. Nguyen's crime was out of desperation, and desperation blurrs everything out of perspective. The man with the starving family would be fully aware that stealing a loaf of bread is a crime. That wouldn't stop him.

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Originally Posted by Cicero

There is absolutely no way of making sure someone is 100% guilty.

Oh Really?

Care to back that Ludicrous statement up with some Facts?

[edible_eye]

isn't it beautiful?

it's just... BEAU-TI-FUL!

[Magpie_Tendencies]

While I don't agree with the death penalty on principle and I think that hanging is barbaric, this guy knew what he was getting into. There have been many high profile cases in the media and he would have to have been deaf, dumb, blind and stupid not to realise that he was risking his life.

Also, had he succeeded in bringing in the drugs to Australia he would have hurt the addicts, the families of the addicts and the random people that the addicts robbed to get the money to pay for the drugs.

While I think it's wrong that he was killed for his crime, it still stands that he CHOSE to commit the crime in a country that supports the death penalty for drug smugglers. His mistake.

[edible_eye]

if one perpetrates 'X' and is caught, then one will be punished by 'Y'.

that's it.

he bet the house and lost.

such is life... or death.

one thing's for sure - he won't be trafficking drugs any longer.

buh-bye.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Empty_Purple_Stars

Oh Really?

Care to back that Ludicrous statement up with some Facts?

I can't think of any names right now, but I used to have quite an avid interest in forensic science, so I remember the basic gist of it. There have been so many cases where DNA turns out to have come from someone else, fingerprints have been tampered with, witnesses' minds get boggled, those in custody for the crime confess without reason, or people end up with a guilty verdict just because they can't afford a good defence lawyer. Of course there are the times when a whole 60 people see the murder take place and the suspect is found holding the gun and shouting "DIE YOU BASTARD!", then you have a pretty straightforward case; then again, in times like that the murderer is likely to plead insanity.

Now I'm not saying every criminal executed is innocent, I'm just saying that occassionally even the hardest evidence isn't correct. Though I will just clarify that the sorts of criminals I'm thinking of at the moment are low-key murderers, smugglers and thieves and such, war criminals and serial killers are in a whole other dimension from this - but it's those sorts of criminals that should be kept alive to be studied anyway.

[ExistentialDisorder]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I can't think of any names right now, but I used to have quite an avid interest in forensic science, so I remember the basic gist of it. There have been so many cases where DNA turns out to have come from someone else, fingerprints have been tampered with, witnesses' minds get boggled, those in custody for the crime confess without reason, or people end up with a guilty verdict just because they can't afford a good defence lawyer. Of course there are the times when a whole 60 people see the murder take place and the suspect is found holding the gun and shouting "DIE YOU BASTARD!", then you have a pretty straightforward case; then again, in times like that the murderer is likely to plead insanity.

Now I'm not saying every criminal executed is innocent, I'm just saying that occassionally even the hardest evidence isn't correct. Though I will just clarify that the sorts of criminals I'm thinking of at the moment are low-key murderers, smugglers and thieves and such, war criminals and serial killers are in a whole other dimension from this - but it's those sorts of criminals that should be kept alive to be studied anyway.

No they shouldn't. They should be killed, and quickly. the same way they killed their victims. the electric chair is far too kind.

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I can't think of any names right now, but I used to have quite an avid interest in forensic science, so I remember the basic gist of it. There have been so many cases where DNA turns out to have come from someone else, fingerprints have been tampered with, witnesses' minds get boggled, those in custody for the crime confess without reason, or people end up with a guilty verdict just because they can't afford a good defence lawyer. Of course there are the times when a whole 60 people see the murder take place and the suspect is found holding the gun and shouting "DIE YOU BASTARD!", then you have a pretty straightforward case; then again, in times like that the murderer is likely to plead insanity.

Now I'm not saying every criminal executed is innocent, I'm just saying that occassionally even the hardest evidence isn't correct. Though I will just clarify that the sorts of criminals I'm thinking of at the moment are low-key murderers, smugglers and thieves and such, war criminals and serial killers are in a whole other dimension from this - but it's those sorts of criminals that should be kept alive to be studied anyway.

But that not what you said..

You said;

Originally Posted by Cicero

There is absolutely no way of making sure someone is 100% guilty.

So I'm confused. Is that what you meant or not?

[Cicero]

I meant that no amount of forensic science or hard evidence is enough to put someone to death. There's always that miniscule chance of innocence - and I mean miniscule to the billionth chance in some cases, but it's still there.

And to Existential Disorder... If you were a serial killer, caught and charged with horrendous crimes you were guilty of, what would you rather: Immediate (though painful) release through death, or a lifetime of being studied with needles poked into your brain and electro-shock therapy? I myself would choose the former, so for me I suppose the latter would be the better punishment.

And besides all that, there's the issue of the criminal's family. Chances are, murderers will have a mother, father, sister or brother who loves them despite their wrong-doings. Life imprisonment would be a punishment only to the criminal, execution is punishment to the criminal's family, friends and relatives who would have to endure bereavement. Sure, you could argue that that's fair punishment since victims' families endure the same thing. But why add more sadness to the world? That's just fighting fire with fire. For me knowing my sister was a cold blooded killer would be enough to devastate me beyond all comprehension. Losing her completely would throw me over the edge.

Argh, sorry about the long journeys into ranty-ville. I just really find capital punishment to be such an injustice.

[CptSternn]

I feel the same way. Much like the simple argument many make about doing the same to the person who wronged you, I find it hard to believe hurting someone else is going to make your life any better.

Like if a poor person stole something from you to feed his family, then your supposed to be court ordered to steal from him his family to hurt his family in the same amount?

So if say two men get into a heated argument in a bar, and one gets hit with a pool cue and dies, then the other mans family should be compensated by having the first families father executed? Thats basically what I'm reading here.

So having 2 families then, without a primary bread-winner and 2 families without a strong male influence or father figure makes the world somehow better?

Thats the things most people are forgetting here. Your not just 'killing a criminal'. Your killing a human, a person with a mother a father, possibly siblings and children. I think yeah, pushiment is in order, but if your going to execute a person, then you need to be willing to explain it to their kids later why your blood lust led to the death of their father.

I mean, if we look back at the start of this thread, your talking about two young adults who got caught holding drugs. They still have families who will suffer. Why? Because some 3rd world government thinks drugs are bad? I mean, they hand out needles in Amsterdam and allow you to shoot up in public parks on Saturdays under the noses of the police who patrol there. So because of one governments view on a topic, his mother/father/family now must live without their son, and his kids without their father...for what reason?

I say anyone who supports it should sit down with the children and explain it. Better yet, explain why in a country like say India where they can still legally stone you for marrying outside your caste, or Pakistan where women who marry without their fathers permission can be stoned, yeah explain why thats a good idea as well, as if the death penalty is justifiable in one culture based on the laws of some men and a beurocracy, than you have tio also argue that it should be legal in other countries under their laws as well.

Just because you consider yourself more 'civil' than another country doesn't make it so. To an EU country, where there is no death penalty, every country that enforces the death penalty appears quite barbaric.

[Nike]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I meant that no amount of forensic science or hard evidence is enough to put someone to death. There's always that miniscule chance of innocence - and I mean miniscule to the billionth chance in some cases, but it's still there.

And to Existential Disorder... If you were a serial killer, caught and charged with horrendous crimes you were guilty of, what would you rather: Immediate (though painful) release through death, or a lifetime of being studied with needles poked into your brain and electro-shock therapy? I myself would choose the former, so for me I suppose the latter would be the better punishment.

And besides all that, there's the issue of the criminal's family. Chances are, murderers will have a mother, father, sister or brother who loves them despite their wrong-doings. Life imprisonment would be a punishment only to the criminal, execution is punishment to the criminal's family, friends and relatives who would have to endure bereavement. Sure, you could argue that that's fair punishment since victims' families endure the same thing. But why add more sadness to the world? That's just fighting fire with fire. For me knowing my sister was a cold blooded killer would be enough to devastate me beyond all comprehension. Losing her completely would throw me over the edge.

Argh, sorry about the long journeys into ranty-ville. I just really find capital punishment to be such an injustice.

I agree with everything you say.

It has been the case, that innocents were put to death, and I don't think there will be any way ever to be entirely sure of someone's guilt or not in difficult cases. Also, criminals react to the new techniques, too, and sometimes seem to find ways to blame someone else for their deeds, I have an intereseting article about that at home somewhere, but I cannot post any "proof" for what I am saying at the moment, I am sorry.

Also, I think many cases proof, that "justice" is not always fair, and unfortunatley it seems we aren't all the same when it comes to law, simply because of that fact that it's human beings who are responsible for justice, and humans aren't perfect. That's what I believe, at least.

What about Mumia Abu-Jamal, for instance? A critical journalist, who has never been involved in any crimes before, sentenced to death by a pretty obscure court with missing witnesses etc. in Pennsylvania 1982. He and his family are still fighting for his life, and he keeps saying he is innocent, and new forensic methods, new ballistic theories etc. seem to support what he says.

"I remain innocent. A court cannot make an innocent man guilty. Any ruling founded on injustice is not justice. The righteous fight for life, liberty, and for justice can only continue." Mumia Abu-Jamal , Oct. 31, 1998

You can easily find everything you want to know about the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal in the internet, if you are not familiar with it, and I can also recommand to read his books, he has written while being in prison.

It is true, what CptSternn says, every country has different standards for what to call civil, and it is true, that in European Countries Death Penalty is seen as something -well, barbaric. We are getting along fine without it. I don't want to say, that the European system is perfect when it comes to how to deal with crime, because there is no such thing as perfection and we will always have to keep trying to make things better, but to be honest, I am very happy we don't have Death Penalty here.

well, I think that's all I err, feel I've got so say now

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Nike

What about Mumia Abu-Jamal, for instance? A critical journalist, who has never been involved in any crimes before, sentenced to death by a pretty obscure court with missing witnesses etc. in Pennsylvania 1982. He and his family are still fighting for his life, and he keeps saying he is innocent, and new forensic methods, new ballistic theories etc. seem to support what he says.

"I remain innocent. A court cannot make an innocent man guilty. Any ruling founded on injustice is not justice. The righteous fight for life, liberty, and for justice can only continue." Mumia Abu-Jamal , Oct. 31, 1998

What new ballistic theories? Two ballistics experts, one even chosen by the defense, concluded at the bullet holes were .38 cal (not .44 cal, which was written by a medical examiner in notes that are, according to him, disregarded in trials because he has no experience and is in no way qualified to measure ballistics). The five slugs removed from the officer belonged to five spent shells that remained IN Jamal's revolver (which was being carried around in a holster at the time). The markings on the slugs matched the barrel's groves. That's pretty clear-cut. Someone would have had to carefully unstrapped the revolver from Jamal's chest holster and fired all five bullets into the officer in order for him to be innocent. Nothing implicates that as having happened.

This is just another 'high profile' activism case that's riddled with more conspiracy theories than the JFK assassination. Most people who usher in support for the release of Jamal are just anti-death penalty activists, capitalizing off of a multitude of death penality cases. A group was disappointed not too long ago when DNA testing of an Ohio man, put to death for the **** and murder of a 16 year old girl, irrefutablely implicated his guilt. Not sure why interest remains in Mumia Abu Jamal's case by these activists. He's no longer on death-row.

The court system here is designed to review evidence and prior conditions of a court case and sentencing. Jamal's case went to the Federal level and still he's been found repeatedly guilty. The legal system carefuly reviews death penalty cases, of which 67% are generally overturned (including Jamal's). To this date, there is no proof of an innocent man or woman being executed in the US (since 1900).

[Nike]

Well, I had my information from Amnesty International chapter Ballistic Evidence" here:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/do...25686C00526C98

Usually Amnesty is doing quite good research.

To be honest, it is some years back that I was reading much about Abu-Jamal. I read through a few other sites now, too, faulkner.com (I'm not sure about the adress), the wikipedia article, supporters sites, and, well, from reading all this I can't come to any conclusion whether he is guilty or not, because many facts are somehow contradictionary.

I put Jamal merely as an example, not to start a discussion about his trial and whether he is guilty or not, because, I am afraid, this wouldn't lead to any result.
Maybe I should have indicated that more carefully, and maybe I should have found a better example, but, I think it shows that sometimes it is hard to get a clear view of facts by the information you recieve in courts, while trials etc.

I have attended some triles when we were studying Latin law in school, and I could see myself, how hard it often is, to only get an idea of a scene, and that it is not like you can see it in the movies, that the truth is revealing itselves.

Abu-Jamal, however -yes, he is no longer on death row, but I also think, that Jamal recieved a lot of public attention, because he was a journalist, knew how to use media well, and was - at least to a small crowd-already known. Others might not have that *bonus*.
I do believe you, that the US are reviewing death penalty cases very carefully, and still, I think there are a lot of cases where it is hard to find an exact proof whether someone is guilty or not. We are humans, and we make mistakes. Sometimes we find out about them, sometimes not.

Regardless of that, I have to admit, that I am against Death Penalty in general and I am supporting the ideals and actions by AI, not only regarding Death Penalty, but for the protection of Human Rights in general, for human rights are a key element for me.