The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Lives cut short - the ugly reality of the death penalty > Comments

Lives cut short - the ugly reality of the death penalty : Comments

By Tim Goodwin, published 6/7/2005

Tim Goodwin argues Australia should be doing more to encourage our neighbours to abandon the death penalty.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All
For:
Is the use of capital punishment a deterrent or punishment? From a pro side, to call it a punishment would better suit the deterrent claim. It reflects the crime. A deterrent is for those who would commit the crime, not have committed it.

The option: Life in prison. In Australia the average lifer is about 15yrs at the moment. Some are natural predators who will kill again, no matter the punishment instilled. If Life is to be an option, it should be life.

Then weigh life against the social cost. The average cost of housing prisoners is roughly $38,000(AUS). The conditions for most prisoners? They generally have access to many resources victims and other citizens don’t have. Where’s the justice?

Against:
Does the death penalty make the society as bad as the executed? Are we no better than those we kill, if we condone killing to satisfy our desires (safety, vengeance, etc.)?

What is the price we pay for an innocent death? Current figures indicate that no innocents have been killed. Well, who’s current figures? Who can really know? A rhetorical argument but then, what is the price society is willing to pay? What is the price an individual is willing to pay? What if it was your father, brother, daughter? Corby by example (yes, yawn!). Who REALLY knows if she’s innocent (no, not believes, KNOWS)? What if it was the death penalty? Better yet, what if a true offender had been located after she had died? Some thinking required.

Life in prison offers the chance that offenders will make a change. Life offers offenders time to learn and grow. It can also offer offenders a living hell for a long time. Resources might be plentiful but security, peace and contentment is near non-existent.

I do not know the answer. I think each will come to a place they are comfortable with. However I would err on the side of caution – I know I wouldn’t sleep well if I put some one to death and was wrong. Would you burden another with that responsibility?
Posted by JustDan, Friday, 8 July 2005 1:17:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Justdan, I would insert the needle myself into the arm of a murderer of my child, so no one else would need to feel bad about accepting responsibility. I wonder how many others would feel justice had been served if the victim and their families were given the same care and consideration as the perpetrator. People make their choices in life, we're taught right and wrong at a very young age. Above all else an Australian Killer has a life to live, his victim, none! Of course, it seems I have more faith in our legal system getting it right, in the first place, when arriving at the verdict of Guilty.
Choice
Posted by Choice, Friday, 8 July 2005 7:06:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reply to JustDan:

The death penalty is a punishment that deters. It is given because it is just. That justice saves innocent lives.

Under all conditions, a life sentence puts more innocents at risk than does a death sentence.

Both are punishments, both are deterrents, but the death penalty is both an enhanced incapacitator and and enhanced deterrent.

The death penalty can never make society as bad as the executed person? There is a distinct moral difference between the crime and the punishment. Two acts of killing do not mean equal morality. That is why we can easily distinguish between killing in self defense, in a just war or in capital punishment vs a criminal who rapes and murders little girls or the Nazis in WW II.

JustDan writes: "Current figures indicate that no innocents have been killed. Well, who’s current figures?"

I debate this topic widely and there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900. There are concerns that it has occurred and probabilities suggest that it probably has. On the other hand, the proof is overwhelming that murderers harm and murder, again, quite often. That is not disputed.

You write: "Life in prison offers the chance that offenders will make a change." True, a chance to become better and a chance to become worse and a chance to stay the same. Two out of three are bad.

Offenders much prefer a life sentence over a death sentence, by about 99:1. There is a reason for that.

You write: "However I would err on the side of caution – I know I wouldn’t sleep well if I put some one to death and was wrong. Would you burden another with that responsibility?"

The facts say that erring on the side of caution would be to support the death penalty. People burden themselves, quite willingly, with that responsibility. First, the murderer is responsible for their own fate. Secondly, the judges, prosecutors and jurors knowingly put themselves in that position.
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Friday, 8 July 2005 8:34:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who remembers the Coby killing will remember how her parents went on to forgive the perpetrators. There are numerous other examples. I don’t know if I could do it but it is interesting to see that for some people forgiveness is easier than hate – or maybe less destructive.

If anything was to happen to any of mine I’m sure that I would feel like imposing the death penalty – and more. State sanctioned death is a different thing. I think it brings us all down.
Posted by hutlen, Friday, 8 July 2005 9:28:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In Australia and I suspect in most countries, the majority of murders/manslaughter and attempted murders are committed by someone close to the victim and usually a family member. They are usually crimes of passion.
It is the role of forensic psychiatrists to work out whether a person is mad or bad. There are bad people out there and they are not all mad.
Mental illness such as depression is often the cause and not infrequently in domestic homicides there is a suicide at the end which saves on the capital punishment.
As a society we need to have a greater awareness and acceptibility of mental illness. One in four of us have a depressive illness at some stage. Societal expectations, modern life and our not picking up warning signs aid in producing homicides.
There are also psychopaths and sociopaths who would be little influenced by whether or not there is capital punishment.
The reduction of gun availablity is also associated with murder rates.
The gun is much more lethal than a knife when used in crimes of passion. It takes some considerable effort to stab someone to death.
The USA has a bad history in this regard. Changing these laws and societal values may be more effective in reducing homicide than the death penalty.
Posted by Odysseus, Sunday, 10 July 2005 9:40:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Odysseus

I agree with all your points.

I find it very hypocritical that we take a dim view of our asian neighbours application of the death penalty, yet ignore the fact that our biggest ally - the USA is generally ignored.

Does the death penalty really reduce murders? I doubt it. I don't see any evidence of this if the USA is any example.

Will provide statistical evidence if sufficiently prodded by other posters. But really, I think it should be self evident.

In addition, there is always the possibility of innocents sentenced to death - is this acceptable?
Posted by Ambo, Monday, 11 July 2005 3:21:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy