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 > Strengthening official opposition to death penalties > Comments

Strengthening official opposition to death penalties : Comments

By Tony Smith, published 9/9/2005

Tony Smith argues Australia must convey its disapproval to any foreign government that executes criminals.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Your article is correct in pointing out that the political elite and both major parties are opposed to capital punishment. What a pity they are not supported by the people. As Henry Bolte once said, if you want to become politically popular, put on a good hanging.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 9 September 2005 9:09:49 AM
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
Its interesting how the "death penalty" is applied in civilised societies - by armed security services - where a terrorist incident occurs.

The latest execution of a Brazilian in the London underground shows how legal niceties can be circumvented by punitive "shoot terrorists as a warning" and "take no prisoners" policies.

British authorities have long had a record of claiming that the "terrorist" may have a bomb trigger or explosives strapped to him. Therefore, on the balance of risks and legal consequences, its better to shoot him.

This extracurricular form of the "death penalty" also occured in Gibralter in 1988 when a plainclothes UK SAS squad effectively ambushed 3 members of the IRA. The Irishment were not armed nor did they carry bombs.

Witnesses reported that once the IRA members were shot and lying on ground they were each despatched with a shot to the head. Later, the closed enquiry in Gibrater absolved the SAS of any responsibility.

While I think the move towards stronger security laws is valid it shouldn't provide any impetus to this UK style of "death penalty" being applied here.
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 9 September 2005 11:42:52 AM
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
I can't even begin with this article: I just disagree with it on so many levels.

First, I am in favour of the death penalty. The authors’ sneering assumption that civilised people must be pathologically opposed to its application is simply insulting.

Second, and more important, I am of the view that it is not the business of Australia to intervene in the correctional affairs of allegedly less advanced, death penalty jurisdictions.

If an Australian decides to commit a crime in such barbaric political entities, it is their problem, not the nation’s. So long as the trial is fair, the penalty must be the decision of the host country.

I smelt a repellant, neo-colonialist attitude being aired in the original article. The white man’s burden is a far more archaic notion than that of capital punishment
Posted by BotanyWhig, Saturday, 10 September 2005 12:04:56 AM
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
Tony Smith might find it confronting that we live in a democracy. At one time it used to be 'government of the people, by the people etc'. If a majority of the people are in favour of the law of talion so be it.

It may be possible to convince the people that the law of talion is barbaric if the people can be assured that longer prison terms will be applied to savage and vicious crimes. For instance, the only time that a human has any contact with the killers of nurse Anita Cobby is the time when a mortician's van travels to the prison to collect the bodies of these terrible creatures at the time of their deaths. And that should be when they die in prison at whatever age (60, 65 or so). They should never be released.
Posted by Sage, Saturday, 10 September 2005 11:13:02 AM
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
How about getting your noisy anti everything friends to push for a referendum on the death penalty, Tony? If we could stop Catholics and Artz graduates from voting against the motion, the reintroduction of the death penalty might well be carried by the first unanimous vote in Australian history.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 10 September 2005 10:03:52 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
I encourage all to reflect on this basic principle of liberty: it is self-evident that whatever rights or powers citizens give their rulers will, at some time, be used to win popularity stakes at the expense of individuals - guilty or innocent. Once the state has the legal power to kill, abuses will follow. They always have, they always will.
Posted by vynnie, Sunday, 11 September 2005 4:12:14 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
The State always has had the power to kill to protect it's people, Vynnie. Soldiers use guns on their people's enemies, not frying pans.

I do not see why internal enemies should be dealt with in the same way as external ones. No civilised country should allow the most dangerous criminals to live in jail where they can run their criminal enterprises through intermediaries, and where they can order the assasination of judges, police prosecutors, witnesses or journalists.

Nor should we tolerate terrorists who target civilians in order to promote their twisted ideologies. To allow such people to live in jail would invite more attacks by their compatriots to free them.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 12 September 2005 4:56:20 AM
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
Oh their are people who by their actions have reliquished their right to breath

The pedophiles and dispassionate killers of all kinds

The drug dealers and profiteers from human misery likewise.

The biggest issue with the dath penalty has always been "what if did not do it?"

The answer - not all cases involve doubt.
Most cases are supported by evidence and in recent years evidence which can withstand all scrutiny.

Then drug peddlars might never meet their victioms, they are simply trading off the death of their wares.

Drug peddlars have displayed indiscriminent contempt for human life
Their is no issue to their guilt - eg the Bali 9 most of whom had the stuff strapped to their bodies deserve to die.

No buts about their guilt

No need to ask them to redeem themselves or expect a second chance -
Irrefutable proof and participation in a reckless criminal undertaking involving endangerment to kill on a massive scale is as evident as the nose on their faces.

So why wait - hang, shoot, electrocute, poison them - any way - who cares - use more "humanity" toward them than they would have shown their victims, that is enough.

That is all they deserve - humane termination.

The same applies to those who randomly and unilaterally plant bombs to blow up people in USA, UK, Australia or anywhere else. Suicide bombing might be their chosen exit but let them be denied the opportunity to take others with them - if caught planning it - that is enough to justify their extermination.

Unfortunately, we lack the politicians with the gonads to follow up on it.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 12 September 2005 1:19:32 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
The view that the majoority of people belive in the death penalty is far from an arguement to justify it: often the majority are wrong. There is a certain kind of tyrrany in democracy.

One of the arguemnts for the death pnealty is ita power to deter - proven to be sadly wrong.

And yet another is that if killing a criminal for murder for example saves just one life it is worth it: well the sad facts are innocent people are executed on a regular basis - but the death penalty is one sure fire way to ensure a number of innocent people are killed, so that approach does not add up.

And then there are the chest beaters who tell us ourleaders don't have the guts to impose a death penalty; Again I'd argue the death penalty is a cowardly way to deal with anything. It is usually the same kind of moral and itellectual coardice that drives peoiple to crime.
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 9:41:03 AM
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
Ethical issues aside, hasn't it been shown that the death penalty doesn't really work? It doesn't reduce serious crime in the countries where statistics are available. And where does Botanywhig draw a line in her/his acceptance of capital punishment? Should we put juveniles to death for what they have done? What about those who are mentally incapacitated? Give them medication until the diagnosis is borderline and then put them to death as has documented in Texas? Neither do more savage recriminations or harsher jail terms fix it, Sage. I believe the majority within our jails could be helped with intensive resourcing and a serious attempt at rehabilitation. Check what Bernie Matthews, more qualified than all of us, has to say on this site. Perhaps some are always going to create havoc...I don't know. But neither does anyone else really, and we all seem to be getting less tolerant. I'm not sure what the best solution is but killing others doesn't really solve anything in the long term. And as for "No need to ask them to redeem themselves or expect a second chance..." Come on, Col Rouge; have faith!
Posted by mountebank, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 9:53:59 AM
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
Sneekeepete “It is usually the same kind of moral and itellectual coardice that drives peoiple to crime.”

From what I have posted you will see I support the death penalty.

Far from you criticising my “moral and itellectual coardice” duh spelling!

I find judgemental attitudes, which allow you to indulge in knee-jerk criticisms of my view typically more “cowardly” and more “intellectually enfeebled” than anything I have expressed.

Instead of making good reason not to implement the death penalty you fall back on the hackneyed “double negative” of “It has never been proven to work”

The Death penalty works – it acts as the “deterrent” to the person who committed the crime – for sure they will never ever commit such a crime again.

We are all individuals and capable of individual choice. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. Denying its use leaves us with the possibility of some bleeding heart will give a criminal a second chance and that criminal will indulge themselves in a second capital offence. This (or these) subsequent offence(s) will never be inflicted on some innocent victim in the future because the perpetrator would be deceased - deterrent effect 100%.

Dealing Drugs and acts of terrorism are more horrendous than say a murder within a family, for they are indiscriminate whereas some “mitigating circumstances” might be found in a “hot-blood act”.

I have, on a number of occasions, needed to have comprehensive and thorough police checks done on my background. I would be disqualified from doing some of the work I am presently engaged in if there were any “criminal blemishs” in my background – yet you would suggest that same “character” is no different to of a common felon.

The reality - there is a “chasm” of differences between my “moral and intellectual” values and the “moral and intellectual” values of drug dealers and terrorists who deserve the death penalty.

Mountbank – happy to debate the point – as I said above – the “death penalty” deterrent works when applied to the offender – they will never, ever commit such a crime again.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 3:11:17 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
Col R thinks my speeling is poor - so shoot me!

He clearly is keen to see some one dead. An dgoes on to suggests I implied his and the character of a common felon are much the same. I merely said those moral and intellectual weaknesses within th criminal psyche are not that dissimilar 2 that which drives the capital pnishment argewment - having a few common features certainly doesnt equate with commonality in character which iz made up from a constellation of factors - however murderers and those who extoll the virtues of the death penalty still seem to share that inate desire to kill other people for one reason or another. I dont.

And as for drug smugglers lets take a leaf from the book of logic of the gun lobby; drug smugglers dont kill people, drugs do.As do proponents of the death penalty. We could expedite things and close the market and kill the addicts. I mean how far back through the chain of command do we take that line - do we kill the Afghan poppy farmers? or we do kill the CIA and British agents over seeing the controlled propogation of opium? - or maybe we reach back to their political masters who carry the ultimate responsibility of that failed policy that lets the industry flourish. - or maybe we blame the electorate who put them there. So many people to punish and so few gallows.

The death penalty is an answer to nothing. It is an open mouthed silent scream of despair from the very afraid.
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 15 September 2005 1:59:20 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
"The death penalty doesn't work" Says Mountbank. Gee, that's funny. On Monday, Sydney had 22 armed robberies in 24 hours. Armed roberies were rare in my youth. To start with, people in NSW who's employment obliged them to carry or handle large amounts of cash (as well as jewellers, banker tellers and gun shop owners) had a right to carry a concealed pistol. The other reason was, of course, armed robbery was a hanging offence.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 16 September 2005 5:17:58 AM
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
Gee redneck must be old. While there were executions for theft in NSW at the time of the First Fleet, that state abolished the death penalty for all crimes except piracy and treason in 1955.

It's worth noting that the USA is the only Western nation that retains the death penalty - clearly it's a wonderful deterrent, given the absence of crime in that enlightened country.
Posted by mahatma duck, Friday, 16 September 2005 8:31:03 AM
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
To Mr Mahatma Duck.

1. Yes, I am "old".

2. 48 states of the USA had responded to inappropriate humanitarian concerns and suspended the death penalty by the early seventies. The only holdouts were Florida and Texas.

But today almost every US state has reintroduced it because of the public outcry over the existence of new types of sadistic murderers who are now being created in today's society. The FBI claims that there are now 50 "working" serial killers in the US of which around a dozen are apprehended each year.

The abolishion of the death penalty was a noble ideal, but with violence levels increasing in society which includes the bombing of civilian airliners, the pendulum of public opinion is now swinging back. It is only a matter of time before it is reintroduced here as well.

Personally, as an ex soldier, I see nothing wrong with killing the enemies of my people. As Vegetius once said, "A dead enemy smells good."
Posted by redneck, Monday, 19 September 2005 5:22:01 AM
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
Jesus red, remind me not to play you at ping pong. You would have no problem killing your enemies? Killing? As in...death?

I'm sorry, I just find this very curious. Ok, so let's say you're enemies are bad guys. Why are they bad guys? Because they killed people maybe? ...do you...see what I mean..?

Maybe this subject is a little over my head. Being a pacifist (and also enlightened), I'm not quite able to grasp the whole 'kill enemies' thing unless it's on playstation. I mean, does it not strike anyone else as a little...I don't know...caveman? Aren't we a little more grown up these days?

'A dead enemy smells good'. My god, I think I'm going to throw up.

A delicious roast dinner smells good. Marijuana smells good. Sex smells good.

..But different strokes for different folks I guess! I'll stick to my sex, drugs and delicious roast dinners, you go around smelling dead people. As long as it makes you feel fulfilled, that's all that's important.
Posted by spendocrat, Monday, 19 September 2005 10:17:21 AM
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
This may be a little too deep for your marijuana addled brain, Spendocrat, but people who go around killing your people for fun or profit are most definitely bad guys.

I would not like to see the death penalty as a general punishment for homicide, but when it comes to men who plant bombs in civilian aircraft, abduct, rape and murder women and children, or kill numerous people for sadistic fun, the world would be a better place if we genetically eradicated them.

Every people on Earth believes in the death penalty, Mr Spendocrat. Every country has an army and every army is armed. They are not armed with frying pans but with lethal weapons. Those weapons they are quite happy to use on other men for no other reason that they may speak a different language to them, or they may wear a uniform which is a different colour to them.

I thought thay all of this was obvious, but it is hard for me to understand how drug addicts think. Could you please stop smoking that wacky tobaccy? it is not only bad for your lungs, it is very bad for your ability to think straight. It is so debilitating, that it is now recognised as a leading cause of Schizophrenia. You appear to be suffering from an advanced case.

I know that the world is a big bad place full of unpleasant things, Spendocrat. But if you want to dance with the fairies in a brown blurry haze, then please just keep out of the way while the serious people attempt to solve all your problems for you.
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 4:59:53 AM
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
I doubt that those that are against the death penalty have ever been on active service and been involved in combat death, or party to a violent crime. Redneck is right here, the death penalty is the only way to ensure that the perpetrator doesn't commit the crime again.

However, it must be implemented with due care and not as it is in the brain dead USA, or muslim countries. Anyone that uses a weapon to rob someone, should be locked away for a very long time. Anyone that kills someone with a weapon during a crime, including some crimes of emotion, should forfeit their life.

It is all well and good to say that we don't have the right to take a life, but we must have a way to deter these sorts of crime. One way would be to introduce a different type of punishment for crimes. First, if you commit a crime of violence, you go to jail, even if it is for 3 months. Your second crime of violence, should get you a free ticket to countries that are in conflict, our government to choose, like Zimbabwe, Sudan, or Iran. The government would pay these countries to take these people, but not support them. This would ensure that people were aware of where they would end up when they commit violent crimes. The criminals would then have to try and survive in a place that replicates their attitude to life.

Security forces, including police should be brought to account any time someone is killed by them. If they have made a mistake, they pay for it. Why because they are trained to operate in situations like that and therefore are more responsible for their actions.

Kill more than one, death, rape more than once, death, bomb someone, death.

One thing that people fail to adress, we should all be legally entitled, to defend and execute someone in the protection of our loved ones and our homes by home invaders.

Lie in politics, death 5 times over, oops sorry no politicians left.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 7:47:24 AM
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
LEADING cause of schizophrenia, red? I think you’ll fine that studies have shown it only has this effect on those who are already prone to that particular illness, and even then it’s particularly rare. And you called me an addict too, which is kinda funny. By the way, I’m also an alcoholic because I have a few drinks every now and then, and when I get a headache I take Panadol, so I’m addicted to pain killers. Also, I watch TV and go on the computer, so I’m a multi-mediac. Besides, what’s worse, being a little hazy once in a while or being a KILLER? But we’re getting off topic here.

My point was simple. I find enjoyment in peaceful, friendly, loving activities. You find it in smelling dead bodies. You can’t see the irony in wanting to kill those because they kill? And you’re questioning MY ability to think straight?

But what would I know, right? I'm just a dreamy stoner who never hurt a fly. Maybe violence CAN be stopped with violence. I mean, throughout the entire history of the human race it hasn't worked yet, but I have a good feeling about tomorrow.

Make no mistake, red. ANYONE who wants to kill is a problem, and never a problem solver. Violence breeds violence. Maybe that’s why every country has an army, because we’re all caught in a loop! Would you not like to see the end of violence in this world? It starts with you.

Well, I guess I’m a dreamer.

But I’m not the only one!
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 11:38:59 AM
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
These pages never cease to amaze me: the talk of death certainly boils the blood on some cirlces. And there seem to be some that find the concept of killing people very appealling indeed, if not exciting - I sense there is a lot of one handed typing going out there amongst those keen to get a few corpses happening.

And now there are those that seem to think having been on "active duty" or being a vicitm of violent crime makes some sort of difference. I have yet to be apprised of what being on "active service" does to add to the value ones ideas.

You dont need to have been a fightin' man to know or understand death, its meaning or its consequences.

And as for those feeling comfortable killing the enemies of "my people" - what constitutes and enemy? and who the hell might be "my people" do you have to pass a test? who is the judge? in these matters: or perhaps good soldiers dont ask questions they just do as they're told.
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 12:54:48 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
You took my position to an absurd length, yet you object when I returned the complement and did exactly the same to you.

I was trained by my country, Mr Spendocrat, to kill the external enemies of my people. And I do not see anything wrong with that. Nor do I see anything wrong with killing the internal enemies of my people, especially those whose crimes are ghastly and who are preying upon their own people like a pack of cowardly wolves.

Your position is that of the morally pure dreamer, who wishes to display his moral and intellectual superiority over the brainless proletarian cretins. You do this by taking an absurd and unobtainable moral position over the subject of violence. Your position is in fact little more than an act of social climbing snobbery, with which you display your aspiration to join the ranks of the fashionable Brahmin caste. In this aim, you adopt the attitudes and parrot the slogans formulated for you by the peers from who’s ranks you seek acceptance. These attitudes are held up to you as the epitome of intellectual enlightenment, and they are the attitudes you must accept if you wish to be accepted as card carrying member of the trendy young things, who know so much better than everybody else how everything should be done.

Have you ever tried thinking for yourself? Has it ever occurred to you that some people may find it profitable and fun to pacify pacifists? Could I remind you that every civilisation who ever found Nirvana and went to sleep in the sun, usually woke up with some bastards foot on their neck? The history of the world, Mr Spendocrat, has always conformed to a very simple plan. He takes who has the power, he holds who can. If you think that you can keep psychopathic despots or even Ivan Milat at bay by sitting around the campfire with your friends and singing “Kumbaya” or “Imagine”, then I think that you may indeed have smoked a bit too much of that Mexican loco weed.
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 7:29:54 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
'You took my position to an absurd length, yet you object when I returned the complement and did exactly the same to you.'
Heh, yeah, fair call.

Hey, I admitted to being a dreamer, don't forget that! I'm just saying, I think human beings can be better than they are, and maybe will one day evolve intellectually and emotionally beyond the need for violence and war. I have no misconceptions that this is an incredibly ideal notion. I just think there is the potential in every human being to be peaceful, and if it were realised, we could stop the ridiculous, pointless, circular fighting and work towards more important things, like...curing cancer, searching outer space, I dunno, whatever. Anythings better than constant pointless death.

Look, for all I know you're right, violence could very well be an inherant and unescapable aspect of humanity. The problem I have is that some people, yourself included, seem to almost revel in it! Anyone who takes pleasure in killing is sick, proper sick.

I know I've quoted him several times now on this forum, but I feel this is appropriate:

'You know all that money we spend on military funding? Billions of dollars, right? How about instead we use that money to feed, clothe and educate the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one single human being excluded, then there would be no need for war, and we could explore space, both inner and outer, together, forever, in peace.'

- Bill Hicks

PS: I do so think for myself. Hmphf.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 12:22:28 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
The topic under discussion, Mr Sneaky Peter, is capitol punishment. If you wish to cross swords with me on this subject, then have the courtesy of stating your own position and the reasons why you hold your particular view. Then we can face off on an equal footing.

Your tactics so far have been to simply barge in here claiming the high moral ground and barking a series of questions at me. This is designed to place me entirely upon the defensive and make me react to your initiative. To accept your post would mean that I am unable to effectively fight back. But I have seen these tactics before and I am way ahead of you. I know that when I answer your questions, you will simply throw more questions at me to keep me off balance, which will prevent me from making you articulate your own position. They are tactics which have probably worked very well for you before on people who are easily fooled, but they do not work on rednecks.

Your other tactic is to claim that I find the concept of killing other human beings “exciting” or “appealing”. Such tactics are called creating a ‘strawman argument”. This is where you take your opponents point of view to it’s most absurd lengths and claim that it is in fact his real position.

The valid point which I was making with Mr Spendocrat, Peter, is that many people who oppose capitol punishment hold a contradictory viewpoint. Many of these people see nothing wrong with soldiers executing their nations external enemies on the field of battle, yet by some application of doublethink, they regard the execution of their own societies most dangerous vermin to be an unpardonable sin. I do not make that distinction.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 7:19:02 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
Mr Spendocrat. You share a vision with me that the human race must become a space faring civilization or face extinction. You and I only differ in how that can be achieved.

Your vision is that human beings must make some sort of intellectual decision to be entirely rational and simply stop being violent towards each other. When this important rational decision is finally made then great benefits will accrue. Vast expenditures will stop being misdirected towards unprofitable and wasteful ends and a new age of Aquarius will rule.

There is just one little thing wrong with that blissful vision, it presupposes that human beings are Star Trek Vulcans who can think entirely rationally. But human beings do not think rationally, they think emotionally. We can think rationally when we have to, but in order to understand human behaviour, it must be appreciated that it is primarily directed by powerful human emotional needs. If you do not understand that, then I would deduce that your social skills are very poor.

Your logic is a bit like saying that the obvious way to prevent world overpopulation is for boys and girls to stop lusting after each others bodies and for both groups to stop screwing each other. While such a decision would be entirely logical, it is unlikely to gain any triumphant popular support. But if you want to think logically, here is a bit of logic for you.

The proportion of any population which has engages in serious criminal behaviour is around 5% of the population. That 5% is primarily responsible for Australia’s incredible $32 billion dollar per annum crime bill. That is $32 billion dollars misdirected from education, vital infrastructure and scientific research. But even within that 5%, most are once only offenders or peripheral players. Most serious crime is the work of a tiny fraction of that 5%. The cost of incarcerating these serious offenders works out at $1000 dollars a day. Rope is $2 dollars a metre
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 22 September 2005 4:46:01 AM
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
Red, I’m glad we can talk through this reasonably.

As I explained, my main problem was in the ‘pleasure’ some seem to take in…you know, ‘smoting thy enemies’. As I explained, you may very well be right when you say that violence is inherent in human behaviour. I put it to you then, (and this is probably breaking into philosophical territory) that if it is something that is unescapable in the same way as lust, then why would violent actions not be forgivable? After all, violent behaviour is a ‘fact of life’ in society as you claim. The perpetrator is merely acting out an inevitability of global consciousness. Why then, would punishment do any good, if we’ve already accepted violence won’t go away? Just a thought.

You said my logic would lead to people stopping screwing in order to control the population. Well, I would suggest maybe birth control would be a far more logical option. This may seem niggly, but it’s an important distinction, because if we were to stretch the metaphor, it would be to create an environment where humans can act out their natural sexual/competitive/violent/whatever urges without doing the damage. Sport, instead of war, maybe? Have you seen rugby players? They’re obviously born to fight. They could reasonably be considered nature’s warriors with nothing left to fight about.

I think we are at a major turning point in human history. For the first time ever, through science, psychology, philosophy and a sort of ‘global’ perspective, we are able to objectively view human behaviour, all the way from one person through to whole societies, and go: “yeah we do that because that’s how we used to survive in hunter and gatherer days. It’s an instinct that’s no longer need though.”

Recognising the ‘why’, I believe, is the first step towards overcoming the problem. I just don’t see just the acceptance of violence to be a very productive attitude.

Apologies for getting off track a little...

PS: I get the costs thing. To me it seems like a reasonable price to pay for a kickass free society.
Posted by spendocrat, Thursday, 22 September 2005 9:48:41 AM
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 answer to redneck - I have stated my case but lets go over it again:

Capitol punishment is morally wrong: It exists in some jurisdictions to make a few people fell good - some even feel aroused by the concept; killing is futile: kiling begets killing - killing murderers is little more than a vengefull act that begets revenge; the judiciary make too many mistakes and kills too many innocent people and or kills those who are mentally impaired; killing criminals is no proven deterrent.

There are close paralles between those who kill for fun, profit, passion, politics and those who kill for revenge guised as justice - it is a destructive state of mind that perpetuates a down ward spiral of hatred and bitterness and more killing will not stop it and fails to benefit any one; capitol punishment does not protect a community it just exposes it to more death fostering an exceptance of violent acts.

I will say no more on the subject.
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 22 September 2005 10:01:43 AM
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
Almost every human being has the capacity for extreme violence. If a large predatory animal attacked your young son you would hardly stand back and watch the animal devour your child. Violent behaviour is perfectly natural, whether that behaviour is judged to be right or wrong at the time depends entirely upon situational context.

That does not mean that since violent behaviour is natural that it should be considered inevitable and legal. Laws exist primarily to prevent violence within the group. But extreme violence towards out groups can be considered admirable behaviour, depending upon situational context again. Soldiers who can slaughter their nations enemies like civilised men usually have medals, honours and laurels heaped upon them for their efforts. No society on this Earth proscribes violent behaviour towards any threatening out group. Even the Christian Ten Commandments do not state “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” They say “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” (That is, kill within the group.)

I can see that my example which I gave to you last time which illustrated that human behaviour is much more dependent upon human emotional needs and drives than upon logic or reason did not sink in. So I will give you another.

Billions of people on this planet have a compelling emotional need to imagine that they are immortal, and that their conscious mind will somehow live forever. To this end, they will worship ephemeral spirits or wooden idols in their quest to gain that immortality. It is no use using reason or rationality to convince them that they are stupid, because they do not want to know. Their deep emotional need to acquire immortality transcends any logic, but this does not mean that they are inherently stupid. Many of these people are very successful.

Finally I would add that whereas you claim that humans have reached a new age where we can transcend our emotional minds and become less violent. Sorry to disappoint you, but violent criminal behaviour in this and almost every Western society is rising exponentially. That is why so many US states reintroduced the death penalty.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 22 September 2005 9:17:06 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
Uh…..huh. Yeah, the death penalty in the US sure did stop all that crime!

Firstly, when I said I believe we are capable of being less violent, I didn’t say we *are* being less violent. You say that violence in society is rising exponentially. I never said otherwise. So don’t worry, you haven’t disappointed me.

Of course I trust you know what exponential means and couldn’t possibly have been using the term literally, right? But I digress.

I’m not sure what your example proves. You are likening those who ignore rationality for spirituality to those who ignore rationality for…what? Killing? I don’t get it.

I understand perfectly the idea that you’re attempting to convey. I was just telling you that you got the metaphor wrong. You said my logic would extend to stopping screwing. I was saying no, my logic would extend to birth control (which is actually far more logical). The same logic can be extended to the main point - rather than real war, perhaps a less damaging way to express these natural human urges, video games maybe, or that thing where you get into those huge sumo suits and jump on each other. Safe war, just like safe sex! Makes for a far more well rounded metaphor, don’t you think?

If you really want to talk logic, I think my ‘Killing = bad, Living = good’ logic is pretty hard to beat. It’s worked for me pretty well so far, anyway.

…I’m looking for points to respond to, but your post is so wishy washy it’s hard to know what point (if any) you’re trying to make. Ok, so a lot of what I’ve said has been just thoughts. The only real statement I’m standing behind is that it’s sick to take pleasure in any killing. Are you arguing against me on that point, or not? Because that’s all this started with. I was questioning why you would take any pleasure in death. Pretty basic really.

Well?
Posted by spendocrat, Friday, 23 September 2005 9:57:40 AM
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
spendocrat, “perhaps a less damaging way to express these natural human urges, video games maybe”. The use of video games and other simulated violence, has been shown to increase, rather than dispel violent attitudes. Because so many of us see the futility of violence, yet fail to agree as to why, shows that it may not be natural at all.

It is more than likely to be indoctrinated and programmed into us, socially and culturally. As to why, can be for a variety of reasons, those old mythical ideologies that continue to express themselves violently around the world is a major cause. The need in the past to provide security and devise methods to bring down food and attacks from hostile carnivorous. The development of superstitions that created differences between different groups.

Many things would bring about this programming. In this day and age we have other methods for living, but have failed to remove the old indoctrinations.

To alter this would require a total change to education and society. In the past, the excuse, I know not what I do, was acceptable. Not now, those that commit heinous crimes, are fully aware of life and what it means. So it is more important to provide a relevant deterrent for these crimes that is fully understood by all. Those that have a brain, will adhere to social and legal standards.

Those that are just so self centred as to see nothing but what they want and use what ever means they can to get it, don't deserve to live within a civilised society. You can only make society safe to live in, if you remove the problems. That is the real logic, not what we would all like to see or feel good about.

We have a growing technology that is making it easier to determine the actuality of a crime. Used in the right way, mistakes would virtually disappear. If you tell someone that they will die if they do a certain thing, and they still do it. Whose fault is that, certainly not the victims or societies.
Posted by The alchemist, Friday, 23 September 2005 12:18:12 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
Human beings are the most successful predators on this planet. The normal human reaction to the act of a hunter gaining a kill is usually pride or even elation. If you do not understand that, then I presume that you have lived an unnaturally deprived life entirely within a city, have never gone hunting or fishing, and so have never experienced one important facet of normal and natural human behaviour.

Your philosophy on violence is that human beings must stop being human. You maintain that all humans must heed the call of their logical minds and judge that all violence is bad, because you say that all violence is bad. That is a bit like saying that all crime can be cured by simply telling all criminals that their behaviour is hurting people and they should therefore stop being naughty. Good God. Is this the level of your intellectual capacity? How old are you? 10? 11? 12?

I know exactly what the word “exponential” means. If you might trouble yourself to buy a copy of “Rising Crime in Australia” by Lucy Clarke, you would see with your own eyes the “J” curve graphs which indicate the rising levels of violent criminal behaviour in this country. Serious criminal behaviour in this country was FALLING until the beginning of the 1950’s. It then began to rise slowly and the rate of increase has become steeper each your. That is an “exponential” rise.

But it is not hard to understand why violent crime is rising. We have allowed the importation of certain crime prone immigrant groups who look upon our people in the same way that a pack of wolves looks at a flock of defenceless and non violent sheep. And we have allowed our entertainment media to glamourise the concepts of violence, criminality and drug abuse to our youngest generation, to the extent that the Australian Institute of Criminology has said it is “puzzled” by the serious increases in violent criminal behaviour (including rape and murder) being committed by Australian children.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 24 September 2005 5:24:11 AM
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
Yeah, I’ve gone fishing. It’s alright, a bit stinky though. But I’m no hunter. Just because it’s an ‘important facet of natural human behaviour’ doesn’t mean it’s for everyone. For example: creativity and by extension, art, is a natural human endeavour too, but not everyone is creative.

Mmm no, my position on violence is not that humans should stop being human. When I talk about an end to violence, I’m not talking tomorrow, next week or in a few years. I’m talking about society evolving over massive periods of time, gradually improving with each step. I’m looking at a much bigger picture here, from the time humans became human, through to the drop of the ocean that’s our society today, and beyond. Like I said: dreamer.

No need to patronise, like I keep saying, I’m aware that violence is inherent in humanity. Want me to say it again? I’m aware that violence is inherent in humanity. So you don’t need to keep telling me, ok? Thanks.

Steeper each year is not what exponential means, mr intellectual capacity. Exponential is like this: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, so on. Some quick maths: If there was just one criminal in 1950, and criminals increased exponentially every year, there would be 144115188075855872 criminals today.

Mmm, yeah immigrants are responsible for this physically impossible rise in crime, of course. Of course they all come from countries where crime is really common and everyone does it, so they don’t know any better, like China and the UK. I went to the UK and every single person was a violent criminal! We really should stop letting all those sneaky foreigners in, they do NOTHING for the economy and NEVER do well in education institutions. I personally join you in blaming everyone different for societies ills. If nothing else, it's easy.
Posted by spendocrat, Monday, 26 September 2005 9:53:48 AM
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
The death penalty has its place, not in Australia. Thailand for example, hands out pamphlets on the plane enxplaining the consequences. Its not just sprung on people, they are generally trying to make a profit out of peoples misery. I think the fairer option would be to make these people consume the contraband that they are carrying. O.K. Schapelle would be there for a while trying to smoke 10 pounds of personal, but those lowlifes trying to smuggle heroin would find things harder.
So one person (or nine) straps quantities of drugs to their body, gets caught, cries foul about foreign laws. No harm in trying...
If they got through, cut the stuff and sold it, how many would die from that? they'd make a profit, and probably do it again.
This creates an industry of misery and theft and prostitution and all other kinds of social problems.
Compared to that bullets are cheap.
Posted by The all seeing omnipotent voice of reason, Monday, 26 September 2005 1:13:11 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
You might be interested to know that your sainted peace prophet who wrote your theme song “Imagine” has been called a wife beater by his ex wife. Seems that he did not live up to the high ideals that he never tired of pontificating towards everybody else.

The crime graphs published in “Rising Crime in Australia” show that almost every category of violent crime is getting steeper each year. The book was published in 1999 and they are probably going straight up by now. And yes, immigration has a lot to do with that.

If you ever stopped tranquilizing your brain and started researching, you might find a few facts which might jerk you out of your dreamtime. These facts are contrary to your dreamy philoshophy and you will wish they were not true. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics ( Bulletin, issue 57, page 4) clearly states that 55% of the handgun murders in the entire state of NSW occur within the precincts of two notorious ethnic ghettoes. If that does not indicate to you the values (or lack of them) of some of Australia’s recently arrived immigrant groups, then I don’t think that reasoned thought can permeate your marijuana sizzled brain.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics ‘Prisoners in Australia” (march 2002) is another source which clearly displays that people from several notorious ethnic groups are very much over represented in serious criminal behaviour. Finally, there is NSW Police Sergeant Tim Priests book, “To Protect and To Serve” which relates the degree of serious ethnic criminal behaviour in NSW and the attempts by self seeking NSW politicians to conceal the truth from the public about it’s extent.

But doing a bit of research and thinking is very hard when your brain is traumatized and seriously under utilized. So I can understand that thinking straight may be a bit beyond your capacity at this time.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 26 September 2005 8:36:56 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
I’ll take John’s word over Yoko’s, thanks red.

‘they are probably going straight up by now’
Now, what are you basing that on, red? If crime was really rising that fast, don’t you think that news would be plastered across every front page? Cause…that’s pretty big news…

The reality is, certain types of crime are on the rise, and others are on the decline - the same as it’s always been. One thing that’s for certain is that right now is nowhere near the most dangerous time in history, even in the history of this country.

So, with those figures about immigrants and crime…what is it exactly that you’re saying? That ‘ethnic’ groups are responsible for more crime? What’s your solution? Gas em?

Yes, there are questionable values of SOME of Australia’s immigrants (your words). There are also questionable values of SOME of Australia’s citizens who have been here their whole lives. It’s an arbitrary distinction. You could also say that because most of the criminals are poor, all poor should be viewed with suspicion. It’s PREJUDICE, and there you are saying that I’M the one with no reason? I think you’ve spent too much time in the sun.

Jeez, what well rounded research you’ve done, too. 55% of ‘handgun’ murders. Never mind the murders that are done other ways, never mind the killings that aren’t premeditated, never mind you can only find a (seemingly) significant statistic in one state. You’ve found a percentage that supports your racist views and you’re sticking with it.

Hahah 0WN3D LOLZ!! How about we agree to disagree, huh? Our opinions aren’t about to change any time soon.

And PS: For the last time, I am aware of crime!! I'm also aware of environmental destruction, of human rights abuses around the world, of slave labour, corruption from those in power, blah blah blah. But I guess those things aren't as important to you as the suspicious looking lebanese guy on the corner, right?
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 9:24:03 AM
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
Crime has nothing to do with ethnicity, it's to do with environment in which we live. So blame the Government for allowing (promoting even) these "ethnic ghettos". Why should we put up with these pockets of squalor with poor infrastructure? If we were all more spread out and intermingling, there'd be less crime.

An example of where these stats may not reflect reality: A service policeman that works in the Penrith area recently told me that asians don't report domestic violence, since it's perceived as losing face to involve the police.

ps: how do we know Yoko isn't fibbing?
Posted by lisamaree, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 3:30:36 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
Concern about rising crime rates in NSW has become such an issue that almost every state election has become a law and order election. Only last week Sydney had 22 armed robberies in 24 hours, a new record which is stretching the capacity of the NSW Police to protect our community. If you claim that some types of crime are declining, please tell me what types are declining so that I can throw your wishful thinking right back in your face.

My figures about ethnic crime simply point out that certain ethnic groups are very disproportionately responsible for serious spates of violent criminal behaviour. What we do about it is up to the Australian people. Personally, I do not think that people from these ethnic groups should be allowed into this country because of their unacceptably high rates of criminal behaviour. And I do not agree that poverty is a major factor today in crime. Lucy Clarke’s book “Rising Crime in Australia” made the point that criminal behaviour in Australia was at it’s lowest during the Great Depression, ironically when we were at our poorest. Similarly, rates of serious violent criminal behaviour are skyrocketing during a time when the Western world has undergone a period of unprecedented prosperity. If poverty causes crime, then crime should be falling, not rising.

I would also point out that there is nothing wrong with prejudice because we all do it. Even you claimed that I have “spent too much time in the sun.” THAT, my dear Spendocrat, is prejudice. You can not wag your finger at me over a contrived moral issue and then hypocritically do it yourself in the next sentence.

And thank you, my figures do indeed back up my racist attitudes. They also happen to be true. So you have the problem justifying your misplaced humanitarian ideals while I am quite comfortable knowing that I have the valid argument that backs up what I say.
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 5:01:29 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
To Lisamarie. Your assertion that crime has nothing to do with ethnicity is wrong

Ethnic criminal behaviour has become so bad in Australia that in 1993, ethnic organisations successfully lobbied the federal Government to prevent the Australian Bureau of Statistics from keeping or analysing any data related to ethnic crime. The only information the ABS was allowed to examine was “prisoner ratios by country of birth.”

The ABS publication (4517.0, “Prisoners in Australia”, 26th March 2002), clearly displays that has figures showing that there are indeed very wide differences in incarceration rates from people born in different countries. These differentials are not in the order of a few percent, they are in the order of hundreds of a percent. For example, people born in Romania are 26 times more likely to be jailed than people born in India. I think that you would agree that this is a very significant difference and one which can not be brushed aside by any presumed statistical anomaly. Romanian crime in Victoria has become so bad that the Victorian Police has created a “Romanian Squad” to keep track of the legions of Romanian criminals now roaming our streets and preying upon OUR Australian community. Similarly, the Vietnamese suburb of Cabramatta is notorious as the heroin capitol of Australia.

But some ethnic immigrant groups (ie, Japanese and Danes) are so law abiding that they do not even appear as prisoners at the time of the ABS report.

The USA is a lot less politically correct when keeping crime statistics than we. They do note ethnicity. The incarceration rate for African Americans in 1993 was 1,497 per 100,000. For Hispanic Americans it was 529. For “white” Americans it was 306 and for Japanese Americans it was only 36.

Whether you like it or not, some ethnic groups plainly make much better immigrants than other ethnic groups. Unless we wish to see our $32 billion dollar a year crime bill continue to rise, we must become more discriminating over who we allow to immigrate here.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 4:49:05 AM
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
‘…that I can throw your wishful thinking right back in your face.’
Wow, someone’s getting cranky! Maybe it’s time for a nap.

How did we get on to ‘ethnic crime’ anyway? Weren’t we on a more philosophical topic, that being the necessity of violence in modern society? I liked that one better, less appallingly offensive.

Now first of all, I’m fairly sure someone’s skin pigment and brow-ridge is not the determining factor in their criminal behaviour, which is really all ethnicity is (everything else is cultural). Secondly, as I said before, you’re talking about one state, which to me says a lot more about the culture and social issues within NSW then it does about ‘ethnic crime’. We need to be looking at the causes of this sort of crime, not blaming an entire group of people.

And what right do you have to claim any sort of ownership of this land, and decide who’s allowed and who isn’t? Aside from the Aboriginal population, we are ALL immigrants. If you don’t like the state of the country, fine, go back to where YOU came from.

And by the way, I never said poverty ACTUALLY causes crime. I was using it as an example as to why it’s not right to lump people into categories as you do. I could just have easily said ‘people with messy hair’. I chose poverty arbitrarily. So you wasted a paragraph there.

‘And thank you, my figures do indeed back up my racist attitudes. They also happen to be true.’
Yep, and there’s no other statistics in the world that may suggest otherwise, right? Oops! You agreed to being racist, which means a rational debate isn’t possible, which means I’m not going to bother anymore! Take care, red.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 9:37:01 AM
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
sneekeepete "Capitol punishment is morally wrong: "

After protesting about my comment regarding his spelling, sneekeepete comes out with the above.

'Pete invest in a spell checker - you are seriously in need of it

The only form of "Capitol punishment" I can think of is being forced to listen to old Max Bygraves ballards (pressuming he was with Capitol Records).

As for the rest of your impersonation of the barely lucid - I will not dignify your view with a response.

But for other posters with a view on this matter -

The point with the death penalty - some crimes are committed and are so heinous they "deserve" the perpetrator's death.

Prison should be about reform.
Prison should be about rehabilitation.

Second offence Drug Dealers and vicious socio / psycho-pathic murderers do not reform and cannot be rehabilitated.

Not just for their crimes but for the contempt they have displayed for their fellow citizens, they deserve the ultimate punishment.

"Death" just happens to be it!
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 12:39:59 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
Hi Col Rouge. It looks like both Sneaky Peter and Spendocrat have both spat the dummy out and did the runner. I have always been amused at how the people who consider themselves morally and politically superior to everyone else go to jelly when confronted by an uneducated redneck who knows how to think in practical concepts.

You may not know that when Malaysia executed Barlow and Chambers for heroin trafficking, it instituted an immediate drought of heroin in Australia and God knows how many lives were saved because of it.

Similarly, when two home invaders were shot dead in Brisbane in separate incidents 10 years ago by irate home owners, the offence of "Breaking and Entering" practically disappeared in Brisbane for weeks afterwards.

Personally, I hope that the "Bali 9" are all lined up and shot. Heroin deaths each year in this country has reached 1000 persons a year, with an unknown number of other deaths related to heroin and methadone. I find it incredible that any civilised country can demand that it soldiers should throw away their young lives defending that nation against it's external enemies, and then that society does not have the stomach to end the worthless lives of it's most dangerous internal enemies.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 6:07:25 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
Oops, sorry red, my apologies, I apparently wasn't clear. I'm not leaving this thread because I 'turned to jelly', or 'spat the dummy', no, no, don't misunderstand me! I'm leaving the thread because it's completely pointless debating with an irrational racist fool. I hope this clears things up, sorry about the mix up there.

Peace
Posted by spendocrat, Thursday, 29 September 2005 9:41:34 AM
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
Redneck – “Hi Col Rouge. It looks like both Sneaky Peter and Spendocrat have both spat the dummy out and did the runner. “

yes the pretentious know-alls of supposed “education”, yet seriously deficient experience, have the inside track on telling the rest of us how we should think, feel and snap to attention at their whim

It reminds me of how Latham spat the dummy when we did not fall prostate before his mighty ego and self anointed omnipotence. Darn it how many arms are pointlessly busted and reputations vilified in pursuit of his career aspirations – when he throws everything away so easily – obviously totally deficient in stamina, courage and character.

When the wannabes come along high on self righteous opinion but unable to present “reasoned argument” they prove they are not worth spit.

Spendocrat “its completely pointless debating with an irrational racist fool.”

At the risk of repeating myself – that is the response of those “obviously totally deficient in stamina, courage and character.”
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 29 September 2005 12:59:49 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
Well yeah, maybe, or maybe its just cause I can't be assed.
Posted by spendocrat, Thursday, 29 September 2005 1:07:52 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
I realise I'm off the thread a bit but I want to pursue the crime/ethnicity thing with Redneck: This is a difficult one because if the ethnic population are going to be living in these "ghettos" together, and there's a lot of crime in those ghettos, then it can't be attributed to the ethnicity - it's also the poverty that's an inherent part of the ghettos.

I have no doubt that there are many black americans in US jails. I also know that on a racial percentage basis, the ratio of white:black americans living in poverty is <1. What I'm saying is that I believe there is a correlation between poverty and crime that can't be ignored when studying ethnic crime. Another factor: I've no doubt that black americans are targeted by policemen, just like aborigines are targeted by australian policemen.

Re death penalty: I've always had issues with the fact that a person may be charged with a crime they didn't commit and get the death penalty. Plus I'm not satisfied as to the infallibility of the decision as to which crime or how bad the crime should recieve the death penalty. Redneck you have said yourself that we're not like Star Trek Vulcans, we're humans that think emotionally and not rationally. And I would not be the person that injects the needle - would you?
Posted by lisamaree, Thursday, 29 September 2005 5:06:32 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
I think Tony Smith confuses existing Australian law with universal fundamental rights and wrongs.
Capital Punishment is not law in Australia because our democratic parliaments have decided such. Whatever he personally thinks of the death penalty (which in fact is rather obvious) he has no right to claim that Australians, more or less unanimously, hold it as an inherent wrong in the same manner that they hold, for example, democracy, freedom of movement or freedom of speech as inherent rights.
Mr Smith might respectfully be reminded that the issue has never been to a plebiscite or referendum or for that matter has it been on the platform of one major party at an election while not on the other. The reason for this is not to difficult to figure out bearing in mind that most polls generally record a roughly 50/50 split on the issue.
To imply that practically all Australians are morally opposed to the death penalty because it happens to have been outlawed by the Parliament is like saying Australians support the fundamental principle of abortion and are aghast at countries who forbid it merely because at the moment the number of federal MPs who support it barely outnumber those who reject it.
Do we also wholeheartedly support the basic principle of compulsory voting and encourage our ambassadors to do what they can to oppose the barbaric practice of voluntary voting wherever it may be forced on innocent subjects? What about all those European democracies who don’t practice trial by jury, or other democracies where judges can be removed by popular vote?
The Australian government has a duty to ensure that, for the moment, capital punishment is not practiced within this jurisdiction, but after that it should do no more than respecting the laws of other democracies just as it expects other nations in turn to respect the laws of Australia
Posted by Edward Carson, Thursday, 6 October 2005 2:11:57 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. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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