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 > Capital punishment still has majority support in Australia > Comments

Capital punishment still has majority support in Australia : Comments

By Sinclair Davidson and Tim Fry, published 16/10/2007

It is not unreasonable for the Australian government to oppose the execution of Australians overseas while opposing the death penalty in Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
"The bottom line is this: it doesn’t pay in electoral terms to oppose the execution of terrorists. The ALP should have realised that before McClelland’s speech."

Whilst this is true, McCelland has received positive feedback because he stood up on a matter of ALP (and Liberal!) policy and of principle regardless of popularity. Even if people don't necessarily agree with it, it still generates respect.
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 9:54:03 AM
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
So its come to this.
What are the effects postive or negative on the "economy" of public executions?
Economists or the bottom-line boys rule OK.
Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 10:10:58 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
It is a ridiculous assertion that it is OK to execute people in Indonesia but not in Australia. To support such a position implies that the value of human life is somehow less in other countries than in Australia.

Economists often misjudge the complexity of human behaviour. For those who have a religious conviction that they will be martyred and hence improve their lot in life, execution will act as a perverse incentive to commit murder.

As a policy test, a cost/benefit analysis on capital punishment without assessing alternatives is an ill informed debate. As it is, the authors present no information to inform whether execution actually deters crime and certainly quantitative analysis would not inform the social costs to society of a "hang 'em high policy". Capital punishment is not and should never be reduced to an economic debate.

Also, there are plenty of "practising Christians" in America (and probably elsewhere) that support executions. Their head of state is just one such individual.
Posted by Voevod, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 10:52:22 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
No, it isn't unreasonable Voevud. It's not about supporting the death penalty for some people and not for others.

It's the fact that like it or not, other countries run things differently. We can privately disagree, but that's different to actively opposing.

I wouldn't mind seeing our government make noises against the death penalty overseas, but then again, ultimately I tend to think it won't actually do much persuading and has the risk to harm international relations in some cases, so I can understand the approach.

It isn't about saying it's okay overseas but not here. It's about realising that when it's overseas, it isn't our call.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 11:11:08 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
"Opposition to the death penalty is an elitist concern.

According to the 2004 Australian Election Study 51 per cent of Australians support the reintroduction of the death penalty for murder."

Subtracting 51 percent from 100, leaves 49 per cent who don't support the reintroduction of the death penalty for murder.

How many of those are actively opposed to the death penalty is an unknown (it depends on what you call active opposition), nonetheless the fact that there's been a decline suggests that the "elite" who are opposed to the death penalty has grown since 1993 (see Davidson and Fry, "Capital punishment still has majority support in Australia", OLO, 16 October 2007).

Will opposition to the death penalty remain an "elitist" concern once a minority of Australians support it? That position looks very close already, with only 51% supporting it.

It seems someone lost track of the distinction between fact and opinion in the writing of this article.
Posted by Paul Bamford, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 11:47:34 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
What a thin argument and what a waste of ARC funding.

The authors obviously don't have any empirical evidence to support the claim that capital punishment acts as a deterrrent or we can be sure they would have presented it.

Opposition to the death penalty is not an elitist opinion; it's an informed one. The authors' own figures (for 1996 and 2004) support the fact that public opinion has moved as levels of understanding and awareness have increased.

The death penalty is always wrong and any civilized nation has a duty to take that position to the world, especially if that nation is attempting to impose its democracratic ideals onto others, as we are in Iraq for example.

Capital punishment only prolongs the philosophy that killing people is an acceptable activity. We will never remove the threat of terrorism while we stoop to the same barbaric practices ourselves.
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 12:11:50 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
If the death penalty is the ultimate form of redemption against a past crime, why is it then that Australia has consistantly refused to release the remains of people hung by the state. Must they and their families pay for their crimes for all of eternity?

In the case of the Bali bombers the fact is that both Rudd and Howard, who both confess to be church going christians are in favour of hanging Indonesians. But when it comes to white Australian drug terroists, its another matter, once again we are sending out the wrong message to Indonesia and making ourselves a bigger target.
Posted by Yindin, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 12:23:57 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
Funny how those who generally oppose the death penalty usually support abortion and euthenasia. Pretty warped logic!
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 1:56:15 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
Only in your eyes, runner.
Just because your fundamentalism prevents you from seeing the reasoning, doesn't mean it's not there.

Though I dare say explaining it to you, as evidenced in other threads, is a futile exercise, since you'll refuse to see it anyway.
Nevertheless, I'll continue to try.

For the umpteenth time:

a) Not everyone sees the collection of cells that is a foetus, and in the early stages, hasn't yet a developed brain and is incapable of thought, as a person.

b) Voluntary euthanasia is about the choice of a person with a terminal condition. Their life isn't going to improve, so why they should be commanded to live because of someone elses beliefs, is a touchy issue.

On the other hand, whether they are good people or bad, there can be no question you are killing a human being against their will.

Disagree by all means, but don't keep obstinately trying to pretend there isn't a case for the other side of debate.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 2:05:36 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
Thank you for your comments. A few quick points. Evangelical Protestant Christians do tend to support the death penalty, all others don't, on average. This is an op-ed; the full version of the paper can be obtained by emailling me.
Our interest is not on the death penalty per se, we have no data to support whether it deters either crime or terrorism - our interest is in electoral voting behaviour. Professor Justin Wolfers has researched the deterrence debate (he is opposed to capital punishment). His research is summarised here:
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Press/DeathPenalty(AP).pdf
His own (short version) paper is here:
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Press/DeathPenalty(BEPress).pdf
Posted by Sinclair Davidson, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 4:32:59 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
It is this kind of political expediency that causes voters to have little or no respect for politicians.

Brendan Nelson said he was opposed to capital punishment but that he ‘respects’ the Indonesian legal system when it decides to execute the Bali bombers. These two points of view are mutually exclusive but when couched in ‘politician speak’ he thinks it ok.

We want our politicians to have principles and to stand up for those principles whatever the consequences for their party or their own personal ambition. If they do not have the integrity to do that they should not insult our intelligence by twisting the English language to protect their own agenda

“In other words, does the execution of a murderer prevent still more people from being murdered. If yes, then a strong case exists for capital punishment”
What kind of logic is that? How are you going to prove it? We will incarcerate this murderer and if he does not murder again then the theory is wrong. If we execute him he will not murder again so the theory is right. Don’t they have to murder at least a second time before you can begin to draw a conclusion based on evidence? How can they murder a second time if they are either incarcerated or dead? Are you going to execute someone on the basis of probability?
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 7:14:35 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
It's an interesting conundrum, but the bottom line is that either you oppose or you endorse it. There can't be any middle-ground or one-off provisions that alter morality.

If it's OK for a foreign country to legally execute it's citizens then maybe it's equally OK for them to carry out such executions in the streets by members of its own armed forces (ie Government representatives) - as long as some sort of legal process is implied.

It may therefore be equally legally valid for a foreign country to oppress a minority group that they see as a potential threat to their society - whether by harrassment or detention, as long as it follows a judicial process.

To me, it's either OK or not OK, it's either right or wrong - as long as it's consistently applied.

The problem is that if it's OK to execute only terrorists this week, then maybe tax cheats will follow next week.

Anyway, is it right to impose our moral standards on other countries or should we accommodate some of theirs into our own?
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 8:09:17 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
Actually, I have no moral problem with society humanely executing people who commit certain heinous crimes. However, I wouldn't answer a Census question like "do you support the reintroduction of the death penalty for murder" in the affirmative.

That is because I have no confidence that our legal, judicial, police and penal systems always get it right. Indeed, they often get it wrong, including those rare cases where people have been convicted of serious crimes like murder, only to be subsequently exonerated - sometimes many years later. Should these people be sacrificed to satisfy the need that many people apparently feel for revenge, or more prosaically for society to be rid of someeone it says has lost the right to live?

I think not, ultimately. I also think that the Howard government's stance on the death penalty is blatantly hypocritical, to say the least. On the other hand Ian McClelland is to be commended for showing some spine and resisting the "me too-ism" in which Rudd shamelessly engages, in this case contrary to long-standing principles of his own party.

In terms of voting intention, ALP gets my 2nd preference still. The Nationals candidate still gets my last. No change.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 8:33:35 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
Capital punishment is barbaric. To refuse to state this for political reasons is psychopathic.
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 10:35:59 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
There may be a place for capital punishment, but lets put some conditions here:

Firstly it should be carried out in public: in the same way that trials are conducted in public, so should executions.

I would actually go further. Have executions on prime time TV news - no exceptions. Have them played just before all films at cinemas start, preferably to the sound of the national anthem being played - I am sure that some others here remember standing for the national anthem in cinemas.

Have them played in school assemblies.

On the scoreboards just before, at half time and at full time at major sporting events: well why not actually have the evil doer executed in from of the crowd at the AFL or NRL grand final - if most people want capital punishment then surely they want to see it.

And have the execution quick, no nonsense and as pain free as possible. Sedate the evil doer and then have him or her crushed in a high speed industrial press.

After all, if the people want executions IN THEIR NAME let them see what the state (ie the voting population) is doing in their name.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 12:00:38 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
Hamlet,

Executions used to be public in Britain but this was changed after it was found that it actually increased the crime rate.

It seems that many people saw this public spectacle as an opportunity for a public acknowledgement of their otherwise meaningless and anonymous lives - to go out in a blaze of glory as it were.

Industrial press?

Why not just put the offender in a medically induced coma and progressively harvest their organs as required by decent law-abiding citizens or is this too barbaric for you?

Better still, let's practice some Eugenics and take ALL criminals (and their relatives) out of the gene pool by killing them.

In a couple of generations humanity would be closer to perfection.

We would all become decendents of law-abiding killers, instead of just some of us.
Posted by rache, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 12:55:50 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
Capital punishment has no benefit to society other than to satisfy the human need for revenge. In satisfying this need, it has been politically expedient to support executions of individuals overseas especially where the blood lust is strongest.

Mr McCelland made a morally correct but politically inept statement and Mr Rudd then took a popular, but morally bankrupt action in dressing him down in public instead of enlightening him on the finer points of timing in private.

If Mr Rudd does not have the cajones to do the right thing instead of the popular thing in a cut and dried situation like this, I shudder at what will happen if he is let loose to make decisions on our behalf where the issues are less black and white.

PS. I also support voluntary euthenasia and the rights of women to have reproductive choice.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 8:41:11 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
While not endorsing such an action, I do understand one of we citizenry exacting revenge in the heat of the moment for a grievous wrong. I also think in some measure our laws reflect that by imposing minimal sentences in many cases to those who take the opportunity for timely revenge; although in some instances they do go too far. I recall a Sydney policeman receiving no jail time for his shooting of a paedophile who had molested his two nieces.

However I never want to see the power of life or death placed in the hands of the STATE! I cede some of my rights and freedoms to it but this is not one any of us should be countenancing.

If, God forbid, one of my family was terribly harmed or killed with intent and that person made it into the custody of the state before I could lay my hands them, then I would have to accept that they had been removed from harm from me. If however I did manage to take a life in these circumstances I would expect to receive a custodial penalty, not in the least because I want my state to be protective of the lives of all its citizens and to take seriously the taking of any life.

So I think that in answering the capital punishment question people may be extending their gut instinct for revenge, to the expansion of the powers of the state.

It might be interesting to instead ask “Do you believe the state should have to power to take a life?”.

I recall a tour of the old Freemantle prison and seeing the 10 commandments still displayed on the chapel wall. The edict that “Thou shall not Kill!” had been changed to “Thou shall not commit Murder!”. The guide commented that it was in difference to the fact that in the adjoining building the authorities were busily hanging offenders. It would appear the state then had a finer sense of hypocrisy that either Mr Howard or Mr Rudd.
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 12:22:45 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
Most people do not have very strong views about capital punishment because it is not something that comes close to their lives.

The people that do tend to voice strong preferences for capital punishment are those who have been in a relationship with a victim of murder. The views of these people are usually charged with a great deal of emotion and it is easy to get swept up in their anger and desire for revenge. I suspect it is this emotion, which is often exploited by the media, that informs the opinion of the 51% who agree with capital punishment.

Grief is a very complex emotion and bereaved people often give simplistic reasons about why they feel the way they feel and what kind of action by the judicial system would make them feel better.
When you see their rage or their tears of sadness it is hard to step back and be rational about their situation but that is exactly what we need to do. It is acting according to reason rather than emotion that makes us truly human and we need to maintain those standards when we look at the issue of capital punishment.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 7:16:33 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
csteel

You misunderstand the sixth commandment.

It is 'Do no murder', not 'do not kill', as the commandment was handed down at a time when the Israelites were about to kill their way through the promised land.

Also the same book that interprets the commandments dictates death as the suitable punishment for many sins / crimes.

Having said that I will not use the Old Testament to justify the death penalty, as I don't believe that the death penalty should be used in the modern world at all. My earlier point was that if it is used it should not be sanitised, it should not be made into a medical procedure.

One of the things about the USA is that few criminals ever serve close to their full sentence - like 7 years for murder. The choice in many places is death or 7 years. Australia at least keeps its murderers in prison for a lot longer than that. The average sentence to serve being 19 years, whilst 'rest of life' is not uncommon. That should be enough.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 8:34:16 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
Capital punishment remains in principle morally legitimate within Catholic teaching. The late Pope John Paul II did however say that it was to be restricted and limited.
The Catholic religion does not prohibit capital punishment.

The April 2001 edition of First Things, a monthly religious journal, published an article about capital punishment and the church, which was adapted from a lecture by Cardinal Avery Dulles of Fordham University. Dulles said, "The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. …Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the "Consistent Ethic of Life," in 1983, stated his concurrence …that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment.”

Jesuit priest Kenneth Overberg, an Xavier University theology professor, wrote in the American Catholic, "Augustine recognized the death penalty as a means of deterring the wicked and protecting the innocent. …Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed this position….The new Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects this tradition, stating that the death penalty is possible in cases of extreme gravity."

Paragraph 56 of Pope John Paul II’s 1995 Encyclical “ Evangelium Vitae,” states, "…. ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: …when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.
Posted by Webby, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 8:38:57 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
there is nothing quite as absurd or as disgusting as a purported christian arguing the legitimacy of capital punishment.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 11:01:50 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
It is not "absurd" or "disgusting" for a Catholic to say these things.
When Our Lord Jesus was hanging on the Cross, there were two criminals one each side. One scoffed and was met with silence by Our LOrd. The other says that they ( the two ) are deserving of their punsihment whereas Jesus isn't. Jesus responds to the good theief Dismas as follows: " today you will be with me in Paradise".

Earlier in Jesus' life he says tha those who destroy the Faith of children 'these little ones' that " it were better for them to have millstones placed aroudn them and they be thrown into the sea" ( which is not literal but Hebrew idiom and hyberbole to demonstrate that crimes of taking away the Faith in God in children is one of the worst things ( which is what secularists do to Catholic kids these days).
http://www.geocities.com/cath_apolo/death.htm
Posted by Webby, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 11:15:43 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 thought we got rid of the death penalty as it was not ok for one innocent to die with nine that are guilty .Oh but i forgot that it's ok in Iraq and Afganistan these days. SO what happened to life with hard labor or did that stop when everyone said we all have rights ,even killers of many ,to have a tv,air-con and for all the victims of our world to pay for it.Old saying that will always be true FREEDOM IS NOT FREE .
Posted by insignificant, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 11:45:35 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
webby, make your choice: is jesus's suggestion that destroyers of faith are be drowned to be taken literally or hyperbolically? if literally, do you also claim this should be done? if hyperbolically, what is your point?

do you claim the scoffing criminal on the cross deserved to be crucified? does jesus claim this? if not, then what's your point?

i say again: capital punishment is barbaric. my vision of christ is incompatible with such barabrism, and i am disgusted by any christian for whom it is not.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 18 October 2007 4:12:28 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 should be imposed for very serious crimes like that of "abduction, rape and murder". It should especially apply to the abduction and murder of children.

Daniel Miles has now been convicted of the murder of Yolande Michael while on the run from a NSW prison. He had escaped from prison where he was serving time for the murder of 16 year old Donna Newland.

In the mid sixties, Leonard Keith Lawson was released from prison after abducting and murdering a 15 year old girl. While on parole he raped and murdered 15 year old Mary Jane Bower at Collaroy, in Sydney. With the police looking for him, he entered SCEGGS girls school in Bowral, and attempted to abduct a schoolgirl. In the struggle with a heroic teacher, he fired a sawn off rifle several times, wounding the female teacher and killing 15 year old Wendy Luscombe.

When Gordon Barry Hadlow was released from a Queensland prison after 22 years, for the rape and murder of a six year old girl, Samantha Dorothy Bacon, he then abducted, raped, and murdered a 9 year old girl, Sharon Margaret Hamilton.

Had these three child rapist murderers been executed, four young women would still be alive today. The attitude of the anti death penalty brigade is curious. The lives of the worst kinds of criminals are sacrosanct. Only the lives of the innocent are expendable. Capital punishment definitely stops repeat offenders.

Another reason for the death penalty is that is an effective tool for the fight against international organised crime. Hired murderers should be executed as there is no excuse for such behaviour. As for the crime bosses who order the executions, they too must be executed for the protection of the community. Failure to do so would see a situation develop where criminal bosses run their criminal organisations from jail and order the execution of judges, prosecutors, politicians, journalists and witnesses. This is already happening in Italy and in many South American countries that have no death penalty. It must not happen here
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 18 October 2007 5:20:05 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
Hey Hamlet,

I'm not sure where the confusion lies.

The Hebrew word used is "ratsach" which some do indeed translate as murder however it is also used in other parts of the bible when referring to accidental death; see Deut 4:42. "That any one might flee to them who should kill (trans from ratsach) his neighbour unwillingly, and was not his enemy a day or two before, and that he might escape to some one of these cities"

The point may well be debatable however what is not debatable is the fact that the accepted Anglican translation was 'kill' not 'murder' and this particular Anglican prison chapel deviated from this. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremantle_Prison

I am satisfied that the authorities did see the hypocricy and changed the wording in light of it.
Posted by csteele, Thursday, 18 October 2007 3:21:44 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
redneck

u speak to much sense to be on this issue to be on this post.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 18 October 2007 3:28:15 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
CJ Morgan “Indeed, they often get it wrong, including those rare cases where people have been convicted of serious crimes like murder, only to be subsequently exonerated - sometimes many years later”

Whilst no system is perfect, the incidence of error are in the tiny minority. Wikipedia quotes names of cases, but avoid comparing those numbers against the total numbers convicted.

I guess it proves that despite all the best intentions, “life just ain’t always fair”.

However, certainly, errors aside, the majority of folk do support the idea that some criminal acts warrant forfeiture of the right to live.

For my money, I would add second offence drug dealers in the mix.

Their heinous actions are more indiscriminately deadly than either Julian Knight or Martin Bryant’s shooting spree’s and made worse by the motivation to financially profit from their victims.

So if it ever comes up for debate or referendum, I will have no problem in electing for a return of the death penalty.

Oh and all the historical issues which have supposedly been resolved with DNA, well we have DNA as a forensic tool, which will make every criminal conviction more “reliable” in the future that it ever was in the past.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 18 October 2007 8:04:43 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
csteel

As God had just killed the firstborn of the Egyptians not so long before the commandment was 'issued', and as I said Leviticus lists stoning as an appropriate response to certain sins / crimes, such as adultery, I fail to see how the interpretation of the Hebrew into the modern day version of 'kill' rather than murder stands up.

In terms of protection of society - if a felon (assuming a fair trial) is caught they should be imprisoned, under appropriate conditions, until they are no longer a danger to society.

This maybe until they have died from natural causes. This may meet the Roman Catholic (sorry folks - I am a prot from way back and I fail to see the bishop of Rome having authority over me) discussion of the protection of society.

Mind you, if an evil-doer is killed because they do not yield to authority and the legal authorities have to use deadly force to capture him / her I do not see a problem: except that unlike the movies no-one who kills another, even in self defence, walks away without some 'wound'. I used to work with a guy, whilst working as a security guard, who shot and killed someone who attacked him with a screwdriver. The coroner ruled that the killing was in self defence: but this guy suffers to this day.

So who would we want as societies executioners?
Posted by Hamlet, Friday, 19 October 2007 12:19:22 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 say that some murderers are more deserving of execution because they have abducted and murdered a child is just an emotional reaction.

Why is the murder of a child more despicable than the murder of an adult? That child may have grown up to become a brutal dictator and have been responsible for millions of deaths. In this case you could argue that the murderer has done a 'good' thing by saving all those lives. What about the murder of someone like Victor Chang who could have gone on to save hundreds of lives with his special skills. Should his murderer be held responsible for the lives of all those people Victor Chang would have saved?

You cannot make a decision about the severity of a murder based on the identity of the victim. You cannot place a value on the life of one person over another unless you have some way of measuring that value and comparing it with other values. To make an argument for selective capital punishment on the same grounds is equally unreasonable.

“The lives of the worst kinds of criminals are sacrosanct. Only the lives of the innocent are expendable.” All life is sacrosanct and no lives are expendable. Neither murder or capital punishment will ever change that
Posted by phanto, Friday, 19 October 2007 12:35:54 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
Human beings are emotional organisms, Phanto. And we do not like it when people abduct, rape and kill our children.

The reason why the murder of a child is considered more despicable than the murder of an adult is because children are considered innocent, are defenceless against an adult male, and are every societies most precious resource.

We already do make decisions about punishment based upon the identity of a victim. Any criminal who attacks a child or a frail elderly person will not only be more severly punished in the courts, even his fellow criminals in jail will spit on him. And yes, the circumstances of Victor Chang's murder would make the offenders prime candidates for the noose.

If all life is sacrosanct, then we must immediately disarm the Australian Army and replace their Steyr rifles with frying pans.

In Australia today, several hundred mostly young people are dying of heroin overdoses each year. If several hundred Australians were being killed every year by a foreign power, this country would be at war. We would do everything possible to kill our enemies and prevent these attacks upon our citizenry. We would blow our enemies to pieces, burn them to death with napalm, shoot them, and bury them alive. Yet Phanto objects to doing exactly the same thing to the predators who have declared war upon their own society and who actively prey upon it.

As a former soldier, I was given official instruction on how to kill the enemies of my people. Many of the enemy soldiers that I was trained and expected to kill would be decent, brave men just doing their duty. It beggars the mind for anyone in society to claim that it is OK to mow down brave enemy soldiers who fight you face to face.

You can kill them by the thousands. Even in the tens of thousands and get medals for doing it. But when it comes to aeroplane bombers, hired murderers, terrorists, child rapist murderers, serial killers, mob bosses, drug traffickers and traitors, taking their worthless lives is a sin.

Bovine excretia.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 19 October 2007 5:05:20 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
Why won't the elites hold a referendum on capital punishment?

Because they know that the electorate supports it. Now, you can't go and let the people push the policies of a nation when a few toffs think they are far better than anybody else, huh? Such is the class distinction filled mantra of these people of the both the Left and Right fields of politics.

I support the death penalty for serious offenders(sex crime offenders, drug dealers, murderes, etc) on their 2nd conviction. Never the first conviction. Unless ofcourse the person in question is so twisted, that it is clear that the sicko is not fit to live due to such an unwell state of mind.

When an Australian goes to another nation, they must face laws and ways of these nations. Expecting to be punished by Australian laws in another nation stenches of arrogance. Australia should only investigate the charges so that should we believe that the person is unfairly or incorrectly charged, then support them. Those caught with drugs in Singapore, Indonesia, etc must be abandoned. We don't need such filth back in Australia to spread their cancerous disease.
Posted by Spider, Friday, 19 October 2007 9:24:39 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: "The lives of the worst kinds of criminals are sacrosanct. Only the lives of the innocent are expendable. Capital punishment definitely stops repeat offenders."

Actually, the idea is that no lives are expendable. I see your point insofar as releasing offenders risk lives, but you're stretching the point to say anyone is expendable.
Logically speaking - if somebody didn't support anyone being killed, then they wouldn't support the death penalty. Yet you extrapolate that to having an attitude that innocent lives are expendable, when in actuality they oppose killing in all forms.

I'm not sure whether advocates for the death penalty actually believe this, or whether it just makes for colourful invective, but it certainly distorts the debate through a cheap emotive slur.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 19 October 2007 9:58:38 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 made the comment "Bovine excretia" in reply to the expression of my opinion.

If you real concern is to stop murder and violence in our society you might begin with your own aggression. The need to ridicule someone because they do not agree with you is the sign of someone who does not know how to deal with their anger. Aggression soon enough can become violence and violence can become murder.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 19 October 2007 10:32:30 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
Hey Hamlet,

Moral equivalences over the ages are indeed problematic, for instance one can end up linking the Passover tragedy with the tragedy at Beslen - ‘Let my people go or I will slaughter your children’.

In fact most of the commandments - if you apply your reasoning - can be thus diluted. Adultery was wrong but not if it with a slave girl or stealing and lying was wrong unless it is committed against those outside your tribe. Questions of universality aside we even find Jesus effectively neutering the edict about working on the Sabbath.

In the light of today’s moral standards Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and a whole host of other biblical figures are little more than immoral, conniving, reprobates. Deceit, murder, adultery, theft and even pimping could be laid at their doorsteps. But for the time they provided spiritual beacons for a dispossessed people struggling for survival.

When Abraham lead his son away to do G-d’s bidding and murder him he was intent on not sinning i.e. disobeying his Lord. Surely this is the difference between sin and morality. If a current religious leader with his son in tow was to walk past you or I with the stated intent of doing the same our moral sense would naturally be to do all we could to prevent what the man from acting out his perceived anointed duty. However in the strictest sense we would be sinning.

Therefore might not the Anglican church, in their translation of this commandment, be placing a modern moral overlay on it, one that we as a modern society, should all strive for and expect nothing less from our government?
Posted by csteele, Friday, 19 October 2007 11:45:00 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, in the 'privileged whites' thread we both agreed that importing those with significantly different cultural values risked damaging Australia's social cohesion and cultural identity.
Now I see you are in favour of the death penalty.
Interesting, because I see opposition to the death penalty as a basic Australian value (as enshrined in Australian law), and hence *your* personal values are damaging to Australia's social cohesion and cultural identity.
Posted by dnicholson, Friday, 19 October 2007 11:51:51 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 see that you were never in the Army, Phanto.

Armies everywhere hardly give much respect to "Thou shalt not kill" philosophies". Not only do armies say "Thou shalt kill", but also "Great woe shall bedide thee if thou dost not."
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 21 October 2007 12:22:50 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
Even armies don't kill for the sake of it. If an enemy surrenders, they are not simply killed.

As Carl von Clausewitz pointed out war is politics, deaths in war are not the same as either capital punishment or murder, except when committed without a military aim to advance the political cause.

Thankfully we have moved beyond the ideas of the Mongols, and any other number of pre 1500 warrior groups, that is, that any armed resistance will result in the death of all men, women and children belonging to the resisting group. It was a great way to terrorise and ensure surrender, but not so 'civilised' as we think of ourselves today.

Capital punishment cannot be equated with killing by armed forces, except where those armed forces are committing war crimes.
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 21 October 2007 4:01:56 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
As I see it this line sums one of the best reasons for capital pubishment .
"As a punishment it does not rehabilitate offenders, but it does prevent recidivism." especially when it come to self confessed terrorists like the Bali bombers.

But I have a question for all of the bleeding hearts, if you don't want the scumbags killed how about we lobotomise them instead?
Cheers Comrades
Posted by Iain, Sunday, 21 October 2007 5:36:59 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
Rehabilitation isn't being so much denied but rather the offender has given up thier life because of the enormity of their capital crime which can be met with justice by capital punishment.
Mercy is shown to the offender by our prayers which is our duty to do in charity if we live in Christ.
Also, offenders have an opportunity to confess their sin to a priest in Confession if Catholic or if not a Catholic to at least make a perfect act of contrition by praying to God and calling on his Divine Mercy from the merits of the Cross of Calvary to take away his sins.
The reparation for the crime is usually made up for through the mental torment leading up to the execution.
In Christ there is both justice and mercy; and mercy is the end result for all who seek it no matter how evil.
The only 'unforgiveable sin' is the sin against the Holy Spirit which is final impenitence, that is, to be on your death bed or go to your death without any preparation and not asking for forgiveness.
The death penalty is only the condemnation in this world but need not go further for those who confess while there is time.
Posted by Webby, Sunday, 21 October 2007 9:50:55 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
RE Col Rouge
All drug dealers should be executed now.
As in every member of our governments that allow a ,scientifically proven, manufacture ,distribution and only now a limited advetising ,of a drug that is proven to be addictive,proven to kill and has no health benefit. Yes the good old tobacco . The facts are their of them taking money from the dealers,protecting them and allowing them to deal in death with total immunity from prosecution and the death penalty. So i will be there on the day to see you kill them one after another for dealing in the drugs and ,taking their 50 percent cut,killing kids and keeping a law on the books to allow full immunity from all this death.
And yes i do smoke.
Posted by insignificant, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:42:18 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
Real soldiers disagree with you, Mr Hamlet. The diggers in the First AIF called themselves "Two bob a day murderers."

Whatever silly justification you use, you are claiming that killing external enemies is OK, but killing internal enemies is not OK.

I would also point out that soldiers wear uniforms while criminals do not. If child abductor/rapists, aeroplane bombers, terrorists, mob bosses, hired murderers, armed robbers, and heroin importers wore uniforms which allowed them to be shot on sight, then I might be persuaded to be lenient on them if they surrendered.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 22 October 2007 5:06:41 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
webby, your marriage of sanctimony, superstition and bloodlust is truly stunning. can you substantiate your virulent version of christianity with christ's words, or this nastiness simply your own proud invention?
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 22 October 2007 5:21:41 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
Insignificant “All drug dealers should be executed now.”

If that is what you believe, I suggest you pursue it as a lobbyist.

However, I would note, you are not be quoting me.

I did not say what you said.

As for drugs, we have legal drugs, tobacco, alcohol, caffeine prescription pharmacueticals etc and then we have illegal drugs.

My reference to drug dealers were to the illegal variety and proposed second offence conviction for an illegal drug dealers should face the death penalty.

Why?

Because that is the sentence which they, generally inflict for profit, on their addicted victims.

So, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

I guess it got lost in “insignificance”!


But since the name fits, I guess you have decided to take to wearing it.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 22 October 2007 10:39:14 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