Col you state:
>>We will only evolve by allowing everyone to be free to think and be as expressive as they want. We will stagnate if we try "controlling" them.<<

Col Rouge - you deny other posters their freedom of expression in so many other threads, that your post here results in a complete lack of credibilty.

BTW why is it you only believe in death penalty for drug pushers and apparently not for other even more heinous criminals?

What really is your point here? Do you believe that Australia should argue against the death penalty in other countries? Rhetorical question I already know the answer because you think the death penalty actually helps reduce crime.

Well having read you posts elsewhere I know how much import to apply to anything you have to say.

BTW death penalty doesn't work just look at USA.

For what it's worth,Capitol punishment and Life Sentencing in Ozzieland is absolute nonsense.Our Judiciary haven't a clue when it comes to sentencing e.g how many of us read in the News everyday about some guy who murders or rapes or seduces 10-20 underage kids - yes maniac's like Ivan Milat who callously tortured,maimed and sadistically murders his back-packer victims, or Val May Beck who malaciously lured poor Sharyn Kingy into the forest with her arch fiend-defacto-lover,grappled with the innocent ten year old,physically held-her-down while he repeatedly raped and tortured her, before finally ending her suffering by strangling her.Sadly, the list goes on and despite the abhorrence some of this forum's contributers manifest - truth is we are SOFT on crime, not that we are intellectually 'above-it-all', but reality we are a byproduct of the 'transportation' days, and are sympathetic because we could end up swinging on a noose ourselves, hence let's scrub it.We hear of villians getting 6/10 years only to be released in two ?? Then the Christopher Skaces, Bond's,Packer's,William's and now Hillard escaping with rapts over the knuckles. The Coperate sector's embezzelers are copping it sweet. So what's new ?

Strangely, xena writes:

BTW death penalty doesn't work just look at USA.

Of course it works. Jurors assign the death penalty when they find it just. When murderers are executed that is the punishment.

What doesn't work?

In additon, the death penalty saves innocent lives. See below.

How doesn't it work?

Furthermore, without the death penalty, the evidence is clear that many more innocents are at risk.
 
There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
 
Is execution an enhanced incapacitator?
 
Living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.  Who would have known?

Deterrence

" . . . a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, (capital) punishment." (2)

"Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many as eighteen or more murders for each execution." (2)
 
"This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death." (2)
 
7 recent studies, as well as the anecdotal evidence, say the death penalty is a deterrent. Is there any negative consequence that doesn't deter some folks. Of course not.
 
Your choice.
 
Spare murderers lives and sacrifice more innocents. Execute murderers and spare more innocents.
 
Full report -  All Innocence Issues: The Death Penalty, upon request.

Full report - The Death Penalty as a Deterrent, upon request

There is nothing strange about the lack of deterrence of the denalty DS.

Your claims have been refuted throughout this forum. Death is often the easy option for criminals - try solitary confinement for the rest of your life - now that's punishment. And it fits the crime let the criminal stew in her or mostly his juices all alone till they die of old age.

How does a life sentence endanger innocents?

How does appointing a state sanctioned killer to perform the execution achieve anything?

And if the accused is innocent then another life has been murdered - but that's OK it was by the state.

NOW back to the THREAD, USA as a world power could really lead by example by adopting HUMANE approaches to crime and punishment. Then perhaps our other neighbours would follow suit. Eventually.

xena writes: Your claims (of deterrence) have been refuted throughout this forum.

No, they have not been. All prospects for negative consequences deter. That is, universally, true and unrefuted. None of the 7 recent stdueis, finding for deterrence in the US have been refuted.

Xena writes: Death is often the easy option for criminals - try solitary confinement for the rest of your life - now that's punishment.

That has already been discussed. About 99% of criminals disagree with your position.

xena aks: How does a life sentence endanger innocents?

living murderers harm and murder, again, in prison, after escape and after improper release. Executed murderers don't. A greater concern for innocents provides more support for the death penalty.

xena asks: How does appointing a state sanctioned killer to perform the execution achieve anything?

Jurors tells us that it provides a more just sentnece in some cases, as well as an enhanced method of protecting and sparing more innocent lives.

xena proclaims: And if the accused is innocent then another life has been murdered - but that's OK it was by the state.

No one says its OK. But the state, by not executing, is sacrificing more innocents. However, there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900. The states mistake is in not executing murderers and, therefore, sacrificing more innocents.

xena writes: NOW back to the THREAD, USA as a world power could really lead by example by adopting HUMANE approaches to crime and punishment. Then perhaps our other neighbours would follow suit. Eventually.

Explain how depriving jurors of a sentence they find to be just is a benefit. Explain how sparing murderers lives and, thereby, sacrificing more innocents is more humane than imposing justice and sparing innocents by executing murderers.

DS, that I think you are mistaken does not in any way mean I believe your motives are other than high-minded. I have no doubt your intention is solely to see innocent lives spared. But let me ask you one question: which would save more lives (innocent or otherwise)? More state-sanctioned killing, or turning your back on 200-odd years of constitutional history and getting rid of the gun culture?