I don't think killing people is necessarily any less humane than locking them up for decades; all it does is to give the prosecuting parties an easy out if they turn out to have been wrong. And I think that by calling it the 'death penalty' you stack the odds against it immediately-- it's not a 'penalty' at all, or shouldn't be, just a way of removing someone who cannot live peacefully in our society. Yes, it often fails as a deterrent, simply because many of these tortured killers actually WANT to die. Perhaps legalised no-questions-asked euthanasia is the answer here.

Having said that, your article consists mainly of examples of people who shouldn't suffer the death penalty whether it is on the statute books or not, and of course I agree that it is not appropriate to apply it in these cases.

But Martin Bryant? The Oklahoma Bomber? All talk of 'penalties' aside, don't you consider that society would be a lot safer if people of this type were permanently and irrevocably removed?

I'd gladly support capital punishment for any elected representative who lies, misleads, distorts, misrepresents or otherwise deludes the sheeple. Furthermore, any collusion with lobbyists, developers, big business or any other organization or individual not being a registered voter to be treated similarly.

Is risk of execution a deterrent? What deters minor criminals or accidental witnesses from grassing on powerful criminals?

The real danger of state execution is the risk that someone is executed who doesn't deserve it. Executing innocent people is a national sport in jurisdictions like Texas. How can the state deter THAT?

An appalling string of innocent people in Australia have been gaoled for murders they didn't commit. Strictly, police and prosecutors who perverted the course of justice to obtain conviction of innocent people could have been deterred if they had been subject to the same penalty, no ifs or buts, if it had transpired that the convicted person (like Lindy Chamberlain and a considerable number of others) had been railroaded. The same rule would deter execution of innocent people. Execution would require a nod from the Attorney General who stood to be hanged if wrong. America might have benefited if this was applied to Governors of Texas. Retrospectively.

"But when some governments around the world are permitted to kill and to use outdated and barbaric forms of punishment like the death penalty, when lives are at stake, it is time to ask ourselves and the societies we live in the difficult questions."

Indeed, particularly when Amnesty International turns a blind eye to the killing of unborn babies! Amnesty International's official policy is that they "do not promote abortion as a universal right" but "support the decriminalisation of abortion". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International#AI.27s_new_abortion_policies_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church)

There is no doubting that abortion is a barbaric form of punishment -- it is the imposition of the death penalty on the most innocent human beings, unborn babies.

I often hear the old chestnut that the death penalty doesn't deter violent crime, nonsense. I heard on the radio a chap (some UN envoy from Qatar) say all the Middle Eastern countries who behead violent criminals have the very LOWEST crime levels, and have so for years.

This other rubbish about how the punishment is cruel and unusual - what! What's cruel and unusual about a needle in your arm as they do in Texas? Or the gas chamber! You get needles all day, every day in hospital!

I'll tell you what is "cruel and unusual", the horrific rape and murder of women and girls where they are bashed raped and murdered. What's worse, a needle in your arm or the above!

Somebody mentioned that Tasmania killer Bryant. Does he not deserve to be "put down" like a rabid animal? Those two in Bali who had all that smack, they were full of themselves originally, now these creeps are getting worried. Think of all the hundreds of lives these two were prepared to destroy with their heroin? Shoot them I reckon, and soon.

I agree with the author. The death penalty is barbaric, and it’s a great shame that it is being resumed in some countries, after decades of a trend towards abolition, especially in democratic countries.

Jon J Is right, locking people up for life may not be any more humane than killing them. But it is at least reversible. I lived in the UK in the 1970s when the IRA was bombing civilians, and the strength of public feeling again those suspected of being bombers was, understandably, incredibly intense. If the UK had maintained the death penalty at that stage, I have little doubt that those convicted of the bombings would have hanged. Yet it turns out that many of those convicted were innocent. The same outpouring of public fear and outrage that is prompted by the most awful crimes puts pressure on police, judges and juries than can make miscarriages of justice more likely

misanthrope - I often hear the old chestnut that the death penalty doesn't deter violent crime

It appears to be pretty effective in stopping the clowns who get their heads amputated :) :) :)

thanks Raycom the rules are different for the most vulnerable (the unborn). Those that speak loudest against the death penalty often support butchering the unborn.

As usual my favorite Philosopher gives a unique perspective on this topic, a perspective which is supportive of Michael Hayward's thesis.
This essay http://www.dabase.org/p9rightness.htm was written in response to the execution of the former bad-guy of Iraq who we were all taught by the media in Pavlovian and Orwellian fashion to hate. And yes he was a vile human being.
By the way there is also a section on the horrible topic of abortion in this essay.

I agree with the author on this one.

If the state agrees to execute criminals, then they are no better than the criminals who commit murder.
The chance of executing innocent people is too great, given the problems we have in our legal system.

Australia should continue it's current stance on no executions of criminals.
Let them suffer a lifetime behind bars doing hard labour...

The death penalty is not progress in modern society
Mickey,
You've got that right, it's a major component in the stifling of progress.
On a lesser scale, I had conversations with a couple of indigenous today. One a Lawyer the other in the aviation game. They both fully & utterly agreed with me on the subject of national service & stiffer sentencing. Everyone in our village is simply sick to death with the ridiculously lenient punishment handed to thieves & assailants.
I think it won't be long before people are forced to take the Law into their own hands because the magistrates are literally aiding young criminals.

Dear misanthrope,

You are perfectly entitled to come on this forum and be as belligerent, bellicose and just plain ignorant as much as you like but how about at least attempting to get your facts straight.

You wrote;

“I often hear the old chestnut that the death penalty doesn't deter violent crime, nonsense. I heard on the radio a chap (some UN envoy from Qatar) say all the Middle Eastern countries who behead violent criminals have the very LOWEST crime levels, and have so for years.”

What rot!

Qatar's murder rate is higher than many European countries who do not have the death penalty such as Iceland, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Austria etc. It certainly is lower than the US, which happens to the only Western nation besides Belarus with the death penalty, but then so is most of the rest of the world. Qatar is actually on par with Australia and New Zealand for murder rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Facts in future mate, not just something you may or may not have heard on the radio.

You quote Wikipedia Csteele, of course that source can be trusted Mate!? You and your little 'peaceniks' mates, wouldn't have the guts to execute anyone, you come on this On Line Opinion and start abusing all and sundry, if they disagree with you. Mate you're a real jerk for the way you think. One thing can't be denied if you execute a murderer, you can be assured he'll never commit the crime again. But if your leave it to the leftys like csteele and his cohorts the killer will spend his life in jail costing the tax paying public huge amounts of money to keep the killer alive. That makes a lot of sense doesn't it just?

Dear misanthrope,

You are a strange fellow aren't you.

Let us have a little look at what we have here. You quote some bloke on the radio but give no source. I challenged your assertion with figures from Wikipedia. You deride it but then offer no alternative facts to counter my source, just a flippant churlish remark.

As to me coming on here and “abusing all and sundry, if they disagree with” me I will confess to this; I had a quick look at your posting history and noted your aggressive and bullying stance on homosexuality and those who support gay marriage. As the old adage goes 'treat others as you would have them treat you', or in this case I have treated you as you have treated others. If you don't like it perhaps modifying your own behaviour might be in order. However if you do like it we shall have some fun.

As to me and my little peacenik mates, I am 6'5” in the old scale and 100kg in the new. Most of my mates are from my sporting days and not too many of them are much smaller. Yet I don't think there would be any of them who would have the 'guts' to execute someone, I certainly would not, but then again I wager neither would you.

However there is certainly no cowardness involved. In any case executions are often carried out in a manner designed to lessen the impact of those taking the life.

“Members of the police force’s elite Brimob paramilitary brigade make up firing squads. They consist of 12 armed soldiers however only three of them actually have live rounds in their weapons – the rest have blanks. Nobody knows who has the live rounds and who has the blanks. This is to ease the conscience of the firing squad and so that no-one knows who fired the killer shot.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/harsh-reality-of-kerobokan-prison-awaits-british-gran-sentenced-to-death-in-bali/story-fnat79vb-1226559942582

Ultimately mate, if you truly have no problem in taking another's life it doesn't mean you are brave but rather an inhuman psychopath.

The death penalty is not 'cruel punishment', it is Justice - where the evidence is irrefutable and the crime sufficiently severe - such as murder in the absence of mitigation (such as self-defense, defense of another, or where there is mental impairment - such as might be argued in the case of Martin Bryant).

What should happen to the two men who (allegedly) hacked a soldier to death in the UK, in broad daylight before many witnesses (and where one of the assailants even gave a media presentation to a bystander, stating his intention was to start a 'war')? A slap on the wrist? Or 'Justice' for the slain soldier, for his family, and for all who stand horrified by this inexcusable act of barbarity?
Are we free 'Men', or cringing curs too weak and feeble to apply legitimate Justice?

'Amnesty' for all the rapists and murderers - because we are 'civilized'? So, what of those men who raped and murdered a young woman traveling home on a bus with her companion in India? (Poor fellows were just out for some fun I suppose; or were they perhaps deluded into thinking no-one would care - she was just a woman after all?)
Should we care more for the possibility of 'reforming' those men, or for the woman and her companion? She is dead! What Justice does she deserve?

Sure, it is necessary to do all we can to ensure that no 'innocent' is unfairly convicted or punished, and that any punishment should fit the crime, but to stop short of the death penalty, when 'Justice' calls for no less, is a pure cop-out, an evasion and abrogation of our genuine responsibility.
Death for drug dealing? No. For unconscionable murder? Yes.

Should we be criticizing Japan and Indonesia, or they us - for we are the 'weak' ones, the ones unwilling to do what is 'right'? We may go to war in defence of the innocent, do our own 'innocents' deserve any less consideration?

'Civilized' or weak, spoiled and pampered?

Dear Saltpetre,

We are indeed free men and women who have decided that the State should not hold the power of life and death over we the citizenry.

We have stood up and said the notion of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth belongs back where it came from, in the Old Testament.

We have decided we do not want executions done in our name and that we consider them barbaric.

We have decided that what separates us from the 'curs' or beasts is the belief in the sanctity of each human life and that for us as a society to condone executions would make us lesser, closer to those who murder, than what we wish for ourselves.

I call it civilised behaviour and I'm proud to be part of a country which, certainly on this issue, continues to engage in it.

"we must stand up and speak out until it is no longer acceptable for governments to take a life on our behalf"

Like Medicare-funded abortion and euthanasia?
Strange where "progressives" arbitrarily draw the line.

Revenge? What's wrong with revenge?

"Progress"? Every advanced civilisation in world history had executions.
The only question was what crimes deserved it.

Deterrent? *No* penalty deters crime or there'd be no crime at all.
Penalties and punishments are a *response* to crime, that is all.

No option for capital punishment may actually lead to inadequate investigations and prosecutions, since the outcome can always be reversed and the innocent party "compensated".

How many times do we hear of the released "life sentence" prisoner, or "cured" psychopath, who commits more atrocities as soon as they're out in the streets?
What "justice" for those victims? Victims that would never have suffered had their attacker been executed previously.

Your leniency also assumes a materialist perspective, assuming no metaphysical level of reality, where all minds/souls are connected.
When a vicious criminal is executed, their mind is severed from the living forever.
Kept alive, their soul-sickness infects our own consciousness, leading other vulnerable minds to deteriorate into crime.

the State should not hold the power of life and death over we the citizenry.
csteele,
I agree, the state must not have such power, that's what juries are for !
I have been a victim of crime several times now, the offenders being known to everyone in the community because they are repeat offenders because visiting moron magistrates are repeatedly letting them off. The whole community is utterly disgusted at academic Law, we're now trying to reinstall traditional law. It'll be interesting what barriers the hangers-on do-gooders will put up. What barrier would you put up csteele ? If you don't want 3-5 break-ins in a community of 400 a week you could either get tougher will the culprits or you could offer to compensate the victims if you feel sorry for the little $hits. which way are you going ?

Individual "...we are trying to reinstall traditional law".
What on earth is that then, and who are 'we'?
Are you talking about Aboriginal law, the cane, hanging, the stocks, stoning or what?

If indeed you are gathering a posse together to make up a vigilante group, then you should consider that maybe they don't allow free Internet access for you to post on the forum when you are in jail!

We have moved on from the good ol' days Individual, and I for one am glad we have.
Australia does not support corporal punishment...

When you have introduced a barbaric element into your society with ridiculous immigration & refugee regulations, you need barbaric penalties to handle your new population.

When you have religious elements in your society barbaric enough to kill an innocent man, simply to make a point, it is time for so called barbaric punishments.

When do-gooder magistrates have trained a generation of youth that it is OK for them to ignore the law, you need very tough penalties to stop the rot.

When the whole society is crumbling into a "mobs of Rome" environment, you can fix it or die. Our dogooders want us to die.

Well bugger them.

Dear Hasbeen,

I'm not sure sodomising our religious elements is the answer.

Oh wait! I see where you are coming from. An eye for an eye so to speak.

Perhaps we should let the current inquiry play out first.

If justice is not seen to have been done then I suppose you taking the matter into your own hands so to speak could be seen to be an option, but only if you think you are up to it ol' fella.

Suseonline,
how about a comment re my second last sentence ?

Suseonline & csteele,
how about offing us a solution. What do you suggest we do when we want to go away for a couple of weeks but by leaving the premises for a few days at the most they'll be broken into & robbed. insurance companies will not insure you on indigenous communities for obvious reasons. You know that upon your return you have been robbed & when the culprits get caught by police the Magistrates let them off again with a caution, Again, & you get no compensation whatsoever. What do you suggest ?

An opposition to the Death Penalty, especially for the likes of that Bloody Handed, Muslim lowlife in Britain, is not care for the criminal. It is the larger question of the Bloody Handedness that states can develop as seen in Syria, China, Cambodia and many other generally Leftish tourist destinations. Having death as never an option, for even for the vilest Criminal acts, makes it harder to generalise to Political perversion of this penalty. As recently seen with Obamas' "Chicago Doctrine" perverting the offices of the IRS and Justice Department, the greater the barrier the better.

csteele I wonder why I don't believe you? OK "mumma" csteele let's have some fun with your little threats 6foot 5inches, and 100kgs. You're overweight aren't you? I don't know if I should call you "lurch" or "mumma" You say I bully people, yet you try to bully me? Telling me your 6ft 5inches, anyway I simple don't believe you, so there mumma csteele! Being so big with such a small heart,I'd expect nothing less from you, 'little man'.

Little men both in height and mentally always try to be big, particularly when the doubting side can't prove it, one way or other, so your safe for the moment mumma.

You say quote my source? I did, a bloke who was a UN envoy in Qatar! Or are you too self absorbed do read what I said?

What's all this nonsence mumma that you go on with about, 3 live rounds and others with no rounds to save their feelings? You got that info out of a comic eh? Obviously because of your rather bizarre size 6ft 5inches and being overweight, you couldn't get into a uniform. So I can only conclude you've never been in the Army so you wouldn't really know anyway "mumma" csteele!

Individual,

I'm told in one 'community near Adelaide, nobody ever goes to town shopping 30 km away without leaving someone in the house, otherwise it will be stripped by the time they get home.

CSteele,

I agree with you that

"We have stood up and said the notion of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth belongs back where it came from, in the Old Testament."

Uncanny. That butcher in London used those words to justify killing. But still, I agree that even he shouldn't be executed, no matter how peacefully, perhaps on a morphine pump, operated by the relatives of his victim.

"We have decided we do not want executions done in our name and that we consider them barbaric.

"We have decided that what separates us from the 'curs' or beasts is the belief in the sanctity of each human life and that for us as a society to condone executions would make us lesser, closer to those who murder, than what we wish for ourselves.

"I call it civilised behaviour and I'm proud to be part of a country which, certainly on this issue, continues to engage in it."

Spot-on. We are more civilised than these half-wits and religious fundamentalists to whom the lives of others - non-believers - mean nothing. Even those killers are entitled to live - perhaps in life-long solitary confinement, safe from other murderers, but living nevertheless where they can, in time, reflect on the misery they have caused.

Perhaps the means of bringing their torment to a close should be freely available to them - belts, pills, razor-blades, but it should be up to them, nobody else. The right to take a person's life is nobody's business but that person's.

Of course, that shouldn't stop us from p!ssing on their graves......

Joe

Joe, loudmouth, you say there's nothing stoping you from pissing on their graves, but we still shouldn't execute them? The two blokes who murdered that young soldier in London also shouldn't be executed either?

That soldiers death was barbaric, and the offender's were walking around them shouting with obvious glee! Yet they still shouldn't be hung? I just don't get where you're coming from Joe?

If you were to take a poll of all London people, I'd be very surprised if 75% of them wouldn't favour the death penalty for these two people? In my old country they would've been shot dead there on the spot and if they lived they would have been tried and executed within a maximum 3 months.

Mate I just don't understand your leaniency or your pity for these two very bad blokes?

Thanks Misanthrope,

No, on very difficult reflection, I don't support the death penalty, even for ideologically-driven murderers such as these two.

And no, I'm not saying it's easy :)

Life imprisonment, with ample means to self-abbreviate the sentence - that's fine with me. Contemplation and remedy, as long as they lie within the power of the perpetrators of that vile crime, within the context of lifelong imprisonment - no seaside visits, no 72 virgins.

And yes, I agree with you, that if I had been one of those coppers, I don't think I could have hesitated, at that moment. But surely we have to try to be above that ? Scum like those Islamists may glibly talk about 'an eye for an eye', and - effectively - collective punishment, but surely we don't have to be as uncivilised as that ?

What appals me is that - wait for it, it will happen - sections of the pseudo-Left will gradually come out in some sort of mealy-mouthed support for this terrorism, and ally themselves with the most backward ideologies. All in the name of anti-Americanism, somehow, of course.

Joe

What hypocrites! You will send young men to war on your behalf, to kill or be killed - or would you rather we had rolled-over in WWII and were now speaking Japanese or German? Wimps!

Not willing to do your own dirty work, you profess 'civilization' and how 'we are all better than that' to hide your cowardice at what has to be done in the name of the innocents whose lives have been taken without just cause and without the benefit of 'reason'.
"Piss" on the graves of the damned barbarians, but not lift a hand to wreak Justice upon them who have so despoiled our 'civilization' by their cruel and evil elevation of their own worth and their own 'rights' above those of others?
The reality is that 'they' piss on you and you roll over and take it.

Leave them in prison to 'contemplate' the evil they have done? They must just love you - especially for providing them with the opportunity to play 'games' with other inmates, and particularly the 'sexual' kind, or to continue to be 'bestial', in full knowledge that you are too kind and thoughtful of their interests in preference to the interests of their victims.

Too wimpish to do what needs to be done? OK, but don't impress your weakness on others. Justice needs be done, not vengeance, just plain old Justice for lives taken without just cause, and for whom no more dawns will break, no child will call them parent, or run to them in joy or in pain.
No, their life is gone, and from you no pity, no anger, no 'closure', because real 'Justice' offends your 'sensibilities'.
I hope you can sleep well, dreaming of how you protect the lives of the guilty in preference to affording justice to their victims.

Hi Saltpetre,

Wow, you really are worked up, aren't you ? No of course I'm not saying that we should not defend ourselves, or that our young men should not be encouraged to go to war in defence of their country. Ideally, it should be voluntary, precisely because they would be putting their lives on the line. That is why, to me, the blokes who have been killed in Afghanistan are the real heroes - and if we ever leave that country before defeating the Taliban, I suspect we will bitterly regret it in the future.

And no again, I don't think those butchers deserve to be mixing with other prisoners - once they have been found guilty, they should be kept in solitary confinement for life, perhaps with an hour or so out each day, maybe around 4 a.m., but certainly not able to flash their dicks at other prisoners, like big-shots.

They are human beings, and entitled to minimal respect as such, but they have committed a vile act, and should contemplate that for the next fifty years or however long they choose.

I do regret that i will probably not live long enough to piss on their graves, but.

Joe

State sanctioned murder has a long and appalling history of getting it wrong and killing the innocent. It also makes it hard to posit laws against murder when the state and society turns to it constantly to deal with those who transgress the law.

Dear misanthrope,

Lol. I think I'm going to like you.

It is indeed a truism that bullies tend to tear up when they get some of their own medicine back. Here's a tissue.

Dear individual,

The topic and my posts address the death penalty. You ask me for a solution to the break-ins in your area. Sorry but I don't think executing them is an answer.

That might seem a little flippant but therein lies a salient point. You wrote; “I agree, the state must not have such power, that's what juries are for !”, but you see they are not. In our system of justice juries only get to decide a person's guilt. It is the State, through the judges, that decides the appropriate penalty. Perhaps the act of stealing your lawn mower may one day incur the death penalty but I for one don't want that option open.

Dear Loudmouth,

The rare agreement between us should not go unacknowledged. Thank you.

You wrote on an earlier thread;

“It's worth remembering that Breivik, on the one hand, and al Qaida, on the other, are both prepared to use the most evil methods to exterminate innocent people, and that each of them extend their hatred towards Marxists, liberals and democrats.”

It is interesting observing the reactions of people toward the perpetrators of the horrific slaying of the British soldier compared to Breivik whose toll of innocent lives was almost unimaginable.

Until recently, I've always supported the lack of a death penalty in Australia, mainly due to my total lack of confidence in the laughably titled 'justice' system. Quite obviously, the possibility of executing someone later found to be innocent is too repugnant to allow. Furthermore, recent political tampering with long accepted principles of justice (double jeopardy & right to silence being two examples) demonstrates how irrelevant justice has become. That said, there are clear moral issues involved in sending our young people off to war where they are legally required to do their utmost to kill other young people, with criminal penalties applicable if they refuse. Closer to home, the media circus surrounding the late Denis Ferguson left no room for doubt that at least 99.99% of Australians would gladly exterminate him on sight. Mind you the same angst wasn't directed at certain other kiddyfiddlers who just happened to maintain a lower media profile although their indiscretions vastly exceeded those of the old bloke who 'looked like a pedophile'. I'd dearly love to see the results of a 100% genuine survey into public attitude on death penalty for a Denis Ferguson clone who had just had his way with their children. Somehow I suspect the attitude of even the most vocal 'anti death penalty' zealots would change. Personally I don't have a position one way or the other re pedophiles, however a humungous 'big stick', even one that will never be used is likely have a significant deterrent effect on seriously bad folk generally.

You ask me for a solution to the break-ins in your area. Sorry but I don't think executing them is an answer.
csteele,
That's exactly the reply I expected. You see, if we don't do anything to discourage petty crime then the seriousness of crime goes up until it reaches a stage when people like you turn around & tell us how terrible it is that such things happen. They happen because people like you refuse to do anything when it needs to nipped in the butt. That was my point.
My tactic is prevention so that no cure is needed. People like you ignore the problem until it is out of hand & then you accuse those who think somewhat more sober & logical as barbaric.
You, who condemns us for trying to stop barbarism & then barbarism occurs because you stopped us from preventing it, you are the real barbarian.

I agree with you entirely Saltpetre with your position on the death penalty. What you say is right, if you put them in jail, and the conditions are such it's like a holiday place and they laugh all the way, costing the public millions to keep them, year in and out.

I will agree to this. If there's some doubt as to there guilt, no execution should be considered at all, ever.

What really annoys me is when you get these mumbling fumbling mamma's boy, like the FAT 6ft 5inch mamma csteele bleating and threatening everyone who disagrees with "her", she's just a big girls blouse this little milk sop. I think that mamma csteele is 6ft 5inch only in her tiny little brain?

Saltpetre I respect the fact that you have the courage to speak you mind WITHOUT fear of favour, about the death penalty. PROVIDED there's no doubt about the persons guilt, as I said earlier? Some people say it's a cruel and unusual punishment? How is it so? You give them a fatal needle and that's it!

In my old country they would carry out death penalty every Friday, and as far as I know they still do it on Friday. You wouldn't dare do a murder, or peddle drugs knowing what's going to happen to you. There's still a lot of stealing though unless it's nailed down hard.

Gee Misanthrope, your 'old country' sounds just right for you now, what with all those executions going on and all.

Why on earth would you stay in such a weak country as Australia then?

Australia is known widely as one of the best countries in the world to live in, and refugees and would be immigrants all over the world clamour to get in here.
So why would we want to change it then?

The death penalty is an old-fashioned non-effective punishment that will remain something that happened in the past...

So, csteele, you are abhorred by Breivik, but what about the fellow who raped and murdered Jill Meagher, and finally admitted it - but only after being presented with irrefutable evidence of his crime?
Could you perhaps be persuaded to make a teeny exception in these two cases at least, and join me in putting the needle in their arm? (If only metaphorically. For myself, I would gladly volunteer - and I am genuinely a peace-loving person.)

I guess not. But if anyone ever deserved to have their rights, including their life, to be forfeit, and without further ado, it would have to be these two. (And those two aholes in the UK.)

I agree with misanthrope that, where there is doubt, one cannot in good conscience consider the death penalty (and would have to be cautious about even advocating a prison sentence), but where there is no doubt whatever, then, if the shoe fits?

So, if euthanasia is legalized it's ok for someone to assist in performance of the 'last rites'; and it's ok for soldiers to use lethal force in warfare when their life or the lives of others are threatened by an enemy (even if that enemy hasn't even killed anyone yet), but a proven murderer must be given a snug little cell for the rest of their 'natural', at taxpayers expense, because here at home, far from the battlefield, we are all 'above all that'?
(What a marvellous defence attorney you would make; maybe you could even make Breivik look like a true 'patriot'.)

Our legal system is a farce, and because we don't advocate and apply the death penalty, those who shake babies to death, or commit vehicular homicide, are given a few months in minimum security. And so it goes down the line, so that lesser crimes, like B&E cop only a virtual rap over the knuckles.
A weak society invites itself to be taken advantage of, and that is what is happening. Eternal Vigilance and security for all? Not when we even refuse to match penalty to crime.

Joe,
If I had my way you could piss on their graves tomorrow.

The poms need bigger guns. Sheez, 8 shots fired at close range and they are still alive.

Not to mention that armed coppers took 20 minutes to get to the scene.

I support the death penalty for heious crimes, The crims do not deserve to be part of our society.

All done quick and forgotton about, our life goes on.

Hi Banjo,

Yes, it's very tempting, I'm wrestling with the pros and cons, and it's a sort of 55: 45 situation in my mind.

But while it may be logical that if somebody takes a life, they are liable to forfeit their own, this really is the logic of a backward society, perhaps a form of reasoning not beyond chimpanzees. And surely we are beyond that.

On the other hand, I'm not against the liberal use of solitary confinement, lights out from dusk to daylight, an environment which may stimulate contemplation and reflection. It may make criminals like Martin Bryant or Breivik better people, but that would be up to them.

Joe

[I apologise for offending any chimpanzees reading this article.]

Breivik decided that the most expedient manner of addressing the issue or problem he had identified was to kill other human beings.

The two in London also came to the conclusion that the best way to deal with what was occurring in Afghanistan was to run a man down and hack him to death.

What this boils down to is the fact that you lot are adopting the same mindset. I am rejecting it. I am taking issue with who see the answers to the problems they identify within their own societies as involving the taking of human lives.

Thankfully most civilised Western nations have also rejected it.

Thankfully most civilised Western nations have also rejected it.
csteele,
And now they're starting to pay for that mistake.

Dear individual,

Well my friend I suppose the ball is in your court to show us how that is the case.

The evidence is surely there. The United States is the only major Western nation that continues this barbaric practice. Reliable homicide figures are available for it and all the other Western countries.

All you need to do is illustrate how having the death penalty has curbed the murder rates in that country over the others.

The floor is yours.

Of course my position is that citizens in a country where the state uses the taking of life as a means of solving its problems will have a greater propensity to contemplate similar methods to resolve their own problems.

Show me where I am wrong.

The United States is the only major Western nation that continues this barbaric practice.
csteele,
Well, you might call it Western, I don't anymore. I think Australia is the last Western society but even that is rapidly changing. Judging by your sentiments I gather you have never been the victim & or relative of a victim of crime. It does make a huge difference in one's thinking. It's what's commonly referred to as an eye-opener.

As always, this topic brings out the passion in people.

The arguments in favour tend to go to a perception of a deterrent effect, a social hygiene approach or a simple desire to have vengeance.

The arguments against go to the concept that we are socially advanced beyond such measures, the irreversible nature of the act making any excution of an innocent irremediable, the fact that there is no evidence of deterrence and (not yet discussed here, as far as I can tell) cost of implementing processes to ensure the accused has every chance to show why it should not be carried out in the particular case. There's also sometimes the issue raised about what crimes are appropriately punishable by this means: should it be all murders, or only those with aggravating circumstances; is violent rape in the set; should wilfully negligent actions that result in sufficiently bad outcomes be included and so on.

I used to strongly oppose it, but I'm more ambivalent these days, largely because I have more confidence that technological advance has made misapplication unlikely. I like the idea of having a social antiseptic available and I think that I'd personally rather be killed than spend my whole life in prison. I'm not too bothered whether it deters or not, we already have a justice system that is supposed to do that and doesn't seem to work too well at it, but nobody suggests we should dispense with that.

The compelling argument against, at least as it is done in the US, is cost. Death row is expensive to run and inmates spend on average over 10 years there. Some have spent over 20. Every assistance is provided to inmates to appeal their sentence, which can cost many millions.

On balance, I lean toward it being unjustified on that basis, since I think such an approach is essential for this to be a justiciary process and not just a barbaric act of vengeance.

Sueseonline you are mistaken if you think I don't like this country. I love this country, as does my grown children and does my grandchildren, when they grow old enough to appreciate the many many good things we have in this country. Particularly freedoms.

What is wrong with this country and many other western countries is we are very weak when it comes to the way we treat violent criminals and other very violent people. In eastern Europe from where I originally come from, they execute to punish offenders, not to deter offenders for punishment. Allowing these "pretend" ILLEGAL boat people into this country is importing more criminals. Australia will regret this move more and more, you watch.

Many experts say that execution does not prevent crime. So what. So it doesn't prevent crime. What execution should be used for is as a punishment. Nothing more or less. That ABC Lady in Melbourne who was killed and raped. If the bloke who did it is captured and found guilty, hang him. NOT to prevent crime, to punish him for the very evil crime he did to this lady.

I don't know your age Suseonline, but you seem to understand very little realities of this world by your strange stance on real and permenant punishment.

Dear Suseonline & others vehemently opposed to death penalty

Imagine if you will, a Denis Ferguson clone getting his grubby paws on your 8 or 10y/o daughter for a few weeks and when he's finished with her, there isn't much left for you to bury. What would your thoughts be concerning the death penalty after that ?? Note that I'm not arguing for or against, I'm not in the slightest bit clucky nor ever have been, consequently I'll never need to make this decision myself. When the Denis Ferguson media circus was playing, it certainly appeared that virtually everyone in Australia would have gladly exterminated the old bloke personally, and more to the point, they would have thoroughly enjoyed doing so. I'd love to how someone totally opposed to the death penalty would respond to something very close to home.

Antiseptic - I'm more ambivalent these days, largely because I have more confidence that technological advance has made misapplication unlikely.

My thoughts are exactly the opposite, the legal / judicial system has become totally inaccessible due to avaricious legal leeches (both practicing & political versions) & their supremely arrogant judicial cronies rearranging things to their own purposes, consequently I see no reason to have any confidence whatever in the whole sorry game. Doing a head amputation on some poor mug later found to be innocent is *NOT* good for ones karma. That aside, in general I don't have particularly strong feelings for or against, although I certainly wouldn't argue against capital punishment if someone proposed introducing it as penalty for the bloodsucking parasites in Canberra who commit every sin known to mankind and a heap more. As I've noted in another posting, I'd be EXTREMELY surprised if even the most rabid anti-capital punishment advocates didn't take a completely different tack when one of their rug-rats was 'used' by a Denis Ferguson clone & returned in several pieces. What would be your response ??

Praxidice, you may well be right about the self-serving nature of the legal system, especially in civil or administrative law matters and summary offences. However, despite the odd poor decision (the Baden-Clay matter comes to mind, where a man is sitting in prison awaiting trial for murderdespite there being nothing but a circumstantial case and innuendo against him) that often seem to be associated with lots of media attention, the criminal law works pretty well on the whole I think.

A trial and appeals process for serious criminality isn't taken lightly, as is only right and that is the main reason I oppose the DP. Thoroughness costs, and in our social democracy we taxpayers end up footing the bill for both sides, which makes long-term incarceration a more financially attractive option. Even in the US, where some lawyers routinely offer their services pro bono in capital matters, DP cases can cost millions.

It's just not worth the trouble, in my view.

What would be your response ??
Praxidice,
Not so fast. I'm still waiting for an answer from that lot, wait your turn please :-)

Individual, actually I AM a relative of both a victim of a manslaughter crime, and a relative of a perpetrator of manslaughter. So I have seen it from both angles.
In neither case did I want to see a death penalty, although my family members were upset that the guy only got time for manslaughter instead of murder...

I strongly believe that if we allow state sanctioned executions, then we are no better than the murderous criminals, and I never want to go there. The anger and bitterness against the murderer does not disappear when they die. I know this for a fact.

Dear Suseonline and friends,

I notice you are studiously avoiding the kiddyfiddler issue, mind you thats EXACTLY what I expected. The media manufactured furore surrounding the life and times of Denis Ferguson provided a pretty indication of how Australians really think when the chips are down.

Hi Praxidice,

In some jurisdictions, sentencing of such people is somewhat 'flexible', at the discretion of Parole Boards, etc., and a person like the one you mentioned could be kept in custody indefinitely, not necessarily in touch with any other prisoners or, of course, with access to the internet. So lifelong incarceration is an option.

Joe

Praxidice, are you also saying those many child abuse priests, religious persons should also be executed, as you will have problems with the Vatican, Salvation Army, Anglican Church etc etc !!

Kipp - Praxidice, are you also saying those many child abuse priests, religious persons should also be executed, as you will have problems with the Vatican, Salvation Army, Anglican Church etc etc !!

I did make a particular point, not once but several times, that I'm the least clucky individual on the planet, and as such the activities of kiddyfiddlers will never directly concern me. What I was attempting to discover was how people directly affected, ie if their own 8 - 10y/o offspring were seriously 'used' by a Denis Ferguson clone and returned in several pieces. I purposely didn't mention priests of whatever 'franchise' because its highly unlikely they would attract anything like the same degree of unbridled hate as the media managed to generate in the case of Denis Ferguson. The media circus made public sentiment on death penalty quite obvious, its merely a question of the incentive. Since Suseonline has carefully ignored the question addressed directly to her, I believe that answer has now been provided by default.

I agree with Jon J, [the first post]
The sole objection I can see to permanently removing murderous sociopaths is the possibility of wrong judgement, as so frequently occurs in our Prime ministers favourite country, the USA.
I'd certainly rather be dead than locked up for life in one of their or our prisons--that's a cruel and unnatural punishment if ever there was one!

Dear individual,

You wrote;

“Well, you might call it Western, I don't anymore. I think Australia is the last Western society but even that is rapidly changing.”

Forgive me if I see that as a rather clumsy attempt to evade a straightforward question.

I'm not that concerned which counties you deem to be Western, how about for the sake of the argument you go with what the rest of the world sees as the Western nations. I would rather not have to spell them out for you but will do so if I must.

You need to be able to explain how the only so called Western nation that employs the death penalty has murder rates orders of magnitude higher that all those other nations which do not. If it really had anything like the deterrence capacity that you claim for it then the data would show the opposite. It doesn't.

Please explain.

As to this:

“Judging by your sentiments I gather you have never been the victim & or relative of a victim of crime.”

You really need to knock off going places you have no idea of.

Praxidice, I don't know how often I have to say that I don't support the death penalty.

Obviously, if I didn't support the death penalty when someone actually killed one of my relatives, then I won't support it for paedophiles either.

I like the idea of castration, followed by a lifetime in jail, living within the general prison population, for this particular brand of criminal...paedophile priests included.

I believe the death penalty is actually the easy way out for serious crime perpetrators.

Antiseptic,

I don't believe cost should be a primary consideration in Death Penalty cases, as the cost of long-term maximum security confinement must be enormous. I see the fault being the long drawn-out appeals process.
I mean, how many opportunities should a convicted murderer get to find a loophole or a technicality through which to evade justice? When is enough, enough? Two appeals, five, twenty?

We want and need the criminal justice system to be fair, to be thorough and unbiased, and to be certain in its application, such that there is scarcely room for doubt. That is, as far as humanly and technologically possible. Failing that, the 'system' is courting a lengthy appeals process, and the possibility of wrongful conviction (and wrongful dismissal).

I can certainly understand a reluctance to apply the death penalty where there is even the slightest chance of significant extenuation, or if conviction has relied heavily on 'circumstantial' evidence (which always seems to leave room for doubt).

But, should equal appeal provisions apply when there is no doubt? It appears so in some jurisdictions, but under what authority and in whose interests? The Public, the lawyers, the judiciary, the State, or only the indicted?

Of course, some may offer a 'plea bargain', where the death penalty is removed as a sentencing option in return for a 'guilty' plea. Perhaps a life sentence, without possibility of parole (and without the option of appeal) may afford effective justice (and save considerable expense) - as long as it is not a first and 'easy' option for a lazy or 'over-worked' prosecution and constabulary in capital cases.

So many 'outs' to application of the death penalty, but when these fail, after a 'fair' testing, what further excuse can reasonably be given for failing to carry out the 'just' sentence?
I believe it is fear - fear that we may be the innocent railroaded to the noose.
Can we really have so little faith in our 'just' judicial system?
I believe such fear is outdated, not the application of 'Justice' for innocent victims.

You need to be able to explain how the only so called Western nation that employs the death penalty has murder rates orders of magnitude higher that all those other nations which do not.
csteele,
That's because it has more non-western crapheads than any other.

Saltpetre, the difference between the death penalty and other punishments is that it creates a step change in the situation if it is applied, whereas other penalties are readily remediable if misapplied.
Moreover, because of the undue attention paid to some cases (I mentioned the Baden-Clay matter in Qld, also the Jayant Patel case is instructive) there can be media and political pressure on the parties to achieve a strong guilty verdict, or to apply a more serious penalty than may be strictly warranted on precedent. That can lead to very serious miscarriages in the heat of the moment. The experience in the US is that it can take quite some time in some cases before it is possible to get a dispassionate investigation of the facts in a matter and that witnesses are not always reliable in high-profile matters.

Here's a good reference on the relative cost of the death penalty in one US state. In our system I suspect it would be considerably higher and as is said below, this cost would be doubled if the system was made properly fair to the accused.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

"Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2008):

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.
The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.
The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.
The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year."

Daniel Miles has now been convicted in 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.

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. on the run, he entered SCEGGS girls school in Bowral and attempted to abduct a schoolgirl. In the struggle with a teacher, he fired a 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.

Leigh Robinson was sentenced to death for the stabbing murder of 17 year old shop assistant Valerie Dunn on June 8, 1968, in Melbourne. His sentence was commuted to 30 years jail after a mercy plea was accepted by the government of the day. Released after 15 years, he continued his war on our society with convictions for rape, sexual assault of two underage girls, breaking and entering, and theft. In 2008, Robinson murdered Tracey Greenbury, 32, after having an argument with her, and chasing the terrified woman down a street with a shotgun, before literally blowing most of her head off in front of an elderly female neighbour.

Only last year, a convicted murderer of a teenaged girl escaped from prison in Western Australia and murdered another young woman. I forgot to get the names and details of that case.

Had these four child rapist murderers been executed, five 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

Suseonline,
Your delight in making wrongdoers suffer does you no credit because it makes the state even more of a sadistic creature than the criminal. Reparation, if possible, rehabilitation, if possible, are the only ways to alter a criminal's sociopathic behaviour and the only things a state should do to criminals. If these are impossible then a quick, clean execution solves the problem.
The reasons for the violence and murders in the USA are manifold, among them rampant fundamentalist christianity, a violent, gun-toting police force, a 'justice' system that denies innocence until proven guilty, brutalises suspects and creates criminals in the vile torture chambers they call prisons. A violent society that has existed in a state of permanent war for over a century with zero respect for the lives of people in other countries, must expect their own backyard to become violent.

ybgirp, the main problem with the '...quick clean execution' is that there is no such thing.

The medical reports following executions in the US are known for their gruesome detail into how often they are ineffective in producing a quick, painless death.
So suggesting this method of punishment does you no credit.

Obviously I am not alone in my thinking, given that capital punishment is not carried out at all in Australia.

Discussing how we would save the state so much money if we executed the criminals makes me wonder just which of the criminals you would execute?

Would we knock off all the murderers? Well, that would have to include those poor sods who mercy kill their dying relative...is execution ok for this brand of murderer?

Will we only execute those we are 'sure' were guilty?
As far as I am concerned, the only sure evidence is actual clear video footage of the murder. Would we have that available very often do you think?

Suseonline, the Americans appear to deliberately use the worst possible forms of execution - low voltage DC electricity that slowly burns the brain, whereas high voltage AC would instantly kill. Or they use a combination of drugs that cause an unpleasant death. A glass of nembutal kills painlessly and quickly, as does a plastic bag filled with an inert gas over the head. Both are without any unpleasant side effects as they work, both achieve death very quickly.
I've been quite clear that there must be no doubt as to the guilt of the murderer. And I do not consider the act of voluntary euthanasia on a loved one murder, any more than shooting a severely injured horse, dog or cat is animal cruelty. Indeed, not to put them out of their misery is the cruel and inhumane act.
If human life is so valuable, why are our soldiers assisting the USA to murder thousands of innocent men women and children with drones, bombs and other armaments in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq and everywhere else the USA imagines it's economic interests are at stake? Why is it OK for Obama to authorise the assassination of anyone anywhere on the planet he deems might become a security risk - even USA citizens in their own country? The notion that life is sacred for violent murderers and people who maim and cripple for their personal gain is absurd. And your suggestion that we join them in committing similar violence in retribution is abhorrent.

Dear Lego,

Don't get me wrong while I am steadfastly anti the death penalty I am also vehemently anti releasing rapists and murderers of children early, if at all, nor allowing them into minimum security prisons.

Good afternoon to you LEGO...

I've deliberately abstained from commenting on matters that have emerged as a consequence of this particular Topic, mainly because I raised a similar discussion, on the death penalty, some months ago on 'The Forum'.

That said, I've nevertheless followed the discussion thus far with some interest until I saw your comments apropos the likes of Leonard Keith LAWSON and ors. I could be wrong, but you have a certain 'turn of phrase' that leads me to believe perhaps you've been in the job at one time ? Probably I'm wrong, and in any event it's inconsequential to the precise theme of this topic.

I spent most of my working live in the coppers and I came to know the criminal antecedents of Lawson quite well, particularly as a result of further crimes he committed, whilst locked-up within the walls of Parramatta Gaol. He attacked and held hostage, a young female Salvation Army choir member, during a service in the gaol chapel. Though her release was secured, and Lawson was overpowered and locked-up. One might conclude, it all ended-up (reasonably) OK ? Actually it didn't really ! Some years later the female victim, sadly committed suicide.

Many pundits for the death penalty have strongly argued, had Lawson been executed for his earlier capital crimes, two further innocent lives would have been spared. I guess there can be no argument there.

Personally, I'm on record as being totally opposed to the death penalty, for ANY reason whatsoever. I'm most definitely in favour of corporal punishment for certain heinous offences occasioned against women and children. But the death penalty, absolutely not.

o sung wu - Personally, I'm on record as being totally opposed to the death penalty, for ANY reason whatsoever. I'm most definitely in favour of corporal punishment for certain heinous offences occasioned against women and children. But the death penalty, absolutely not.

I'm yet to be convinced there is reason to have any degree of confidence in the legal / justice systems. Not only has the legal establishment ably demonstrated its total disinterest in anything but money, but we've seen recent examples where centuries old laws have been turfed out by numbskulled politicians seeking personal glory. Take for example the scrapping of double jeopardy & proposed abandonment of 'right to not self-incriminate' provisions in Queensland. As per Blackstones Formulation 'its better that ten guilty go free .....'

There are however a few gotchas. Firstly, our supposedly 'advanced' society has no issue sending our kids off to war, and imposing on them a legal requirement to kill people. Most interestingly, our society actually criminalizes military personnel who refuse to kill, and as a nation we (collectively) support the unspeakably evil practice of warfare. What say we DEMAND our then head of state personally lead the troops into battle ... how many wars would Australia be involved in then ?? More to the point, how long would the red-headed witch, or for the matter, the RAbbott, continue to infest the planet ??

Secondly, the media circus surrounding the late Denis Ferguson left no room for doubt that 99.99999% of Australians would happily dismember the old bloke personally and enjoy doing so. Mind you they would never admit such in a situation where they could be identified. Personally I'd be EXTREMELY surprised if effectively everyone here wouldn't personally shred a Denis Ferguson clone kiddyfiddler who 'used' one of their offspring, and especially so in the case of the most vocal anti death penalty advocates. Sure they wouldn't dare admit it, but then hypocrisy is, and always will be, part of the human condition.

to be continued

continued

Kiddyfiddling doesn't rate high on my hate list because it won't ever affect me personally, on the other hand, I wouldn't even make a peep in protest should someone propose the death penalty for breach of trust on the part of elected representatives AKA bloodsucking parasites. Furthermore I'd have no qualm about extending the death penalty to members of the legal establishment who rate profit more important than clients, to arrogant upstart judiciary, to banksters, & to public company CEOs who think they are worth $20,000,000pa.

Note particularly that establishing guilt conclusively is infinitely easier in the latter examples, hence my unqualified support for the death penalty whereas I would oppose it in any other situation for exactly the same reason, ie impossibility of being totally certain of guilt.

For what its worth, the issue of cruel & unusual treatment is a non event. Its quite possible to put animals down humanely, so why not human animals.

And hi to you, O Sung Wu.

Only space prevented me from providing a few more examples. How about John Leslie Coombes. Who murdered a man in 1987 and served 11 years He was paroled and then killed a man and was sent to jail and given parole again. He then murdered a young woman, and hopefully, the idiots will keep him in jail forever, this time?

Then there is Lithgow inmate Rodney Francis Cameron, who was jailed three times for murdering four people at random, and has now been jailed for life, where he has now admitted to two more murders in Victoria and two in South Australia while on the loose.

Then there is David Barak, who killed his wife, and was given two years jail because the judge said that he had shown "true remorse and contrition", who was released from jail and two months later murdered another woman?

You know, as an ex soldier I do love reading first hand accounts of soldiers in battle, especially from both sides. It actually saddens me that so many fine young men have to kill each other for political reasons. Yet all of those wasted young men, on both sides of many conflicts, often have great respect for each other. I am sure that most of them would much prefer to kill the Ivan Milats and Ariel Castro's of their own societies, than kill each other.

When judge Falcone in Sicily was murdered by the Mafia, the Italian government sent in Italian paratroopers to keep order. There was one fine looking young para nursing an MG 42 who loooked like he could take on the whole mafia single handedly with his machine gun. I was sorry that he was not allowed to do just that and get rid of those internal terrorists that have plagued Italy for too long.

'evening to you PRAXIDICE & LEGO...

I've no argument with either of you two gentlemen. Everything you say has merit. Where we do depart company is the question of the death penalty.

And I must confess to you both, I don't have a realistic or an appropriate alternative to the death penalty, only a suggestion ?

They have this bloke down in the Victorian Prison system, I believe his name's Julian Knight ? He shot and killed at least seven or eight purely innocent souls (randomly), on a busy inner city street in Melbourne. Believe it or not, he's due to make application for parole in a couple of years ! I know little of the facts of the case, but are you kidding me, releasing this bloke back into the community !

He deserves to be put to death absolutely there's no argument from me. But we should NOT execute this creep, notwithstanding he richly deserves it.

So what then do we do with him ? Are we not a very advanced, civilized society ? If so my humble suggestion - despite the huge economic impost to the community, he MUST remain confined (maximum security), for the rest of his natural life. He must die (naturally) in custody, without ever having a moment of personal freedom. This bloke has forfeited ALL right to any freedom forever ! That's my solution to people like Knight and other similar criminals.

LEGO, some of those names you mentioned, I recognise, but only from media release is all. Lawson, well as I said, I was part of the Parramatta Gaol investigation on him. Incidentally, he died in Grafton Gaol, some years ago now. You know Lawson was a brilliant painter. He also authored a popular comic back in the 60's, 'The Lone Avenger', a cowboy comic ?

O Sung Wu,

Yes, I remember The Lone Avenger.

And I completely agree with you on all your other points - no, no death penalty, but yes, lifelong imprisonment.

And for some, murderer/rapists for example, lifelong solitary confinement, so that they don't have any opportunity to influence any other prisoners, and perhaps in some very remote town, so that they will be forgotten.

From there they can contemplate that they still have a life which they denied others, and how precious it is.

"ybgirp "A glass of nembutal kills painlessly and quickly, as does a plastic bag filled with an inert gas over the head. Both are without any unpleasant side effects as they work, both achieve death very quickly. "

Is that right? Have you seen either of these methods personally?

I haven't watched someone die after taking Nembutal.
I have, however, read quite a bit about the woman that took 3 weeks to die after she travelled to Mexico to buy and ingest Nembutal.
(See "When Erin Chose to Die" The Australian.)

So I guess it doesn't always work quickly.

A plastic bag filled with gas would work by suffocating someone...a truly awful way to die, and it takes about 3 long minutes of violent struggling. And yes, I have watched people choke to death.

Neither of these methods should be considered by a humane society.
Australia is a humane place to live, so we don't have the death penalty.

Suse,

I can't comment on the use of Nembutal (or other drugs), but you are mistaken about the inert-gas-filled plastic bag. I am surprised you may not be aware of Shallow Water Blackout - where a diver who has undertaken lengthy hyperventilation in order to saturate their blood with oxygen (to extend the length of their dive), concurrently expelling most of the CO2 from their blood-stream, simply runs out of oxygen before the CO2 level in their blood can trigger the brain's breathing centre - they simply black-out when the oxygen supply to the brain becomes inadequate to maintain brain function, and they then may drown (if they start to breathe automatically whilst still underwater without regaining consciousness), or they just die from anoxia (brain-death).

Unfortunately death from shallow water blackout is not rare, and those who succumb do so without feeling a thing - they simply fall into unconsciousness without warning, and never wake up.
(You will have noted that it is CO2 concentration in the blood which triggers the brain's breathing centre, and not any lack of oxygen.)

The same effect could be obtained by placement of an individual in a sealed room filled only with nitrogen or carbon monoxide (both colourless and odourless gases), and without any hyperventilation being necessary to induce blackout and subsequent death. Not too brilliant maybe, but it would be entirely painless.
This would be a similar death to those who fall asleep in a carbon monoxide atmosphere (as can be and has been occasioned by a leak in a natural gas supply in the home from a gas heater or stove), or from the use of a combustion heater or portable generator or other combustion engine in an enclosed space (such as a closed bedroom or lounge room during winter, or down a mine shaft), or in motor vehicle which leaks exhaust carbon monoxide into the cab.
(As you will be aware, the blood's haemoglobin takes up CO more readily than it does oxygen.)

To Mr O Sung Wu

Australia is still fundamentally a Christian country who's underlying culture believes in the redemption of sinners who are contrite about their sins. For over 100 years there were many programs in jail calculated by well meaning Christians to confront very violent criminals with their crimes, in order to rehabilitate them. Whereas this idea had a great deal of merit, it could not apply to that very small percentage of very violent criminals who are genetically prone to very violent behaviour, who are almost completely unreformable, (without psychiatric care and the use powerful drugs like Prozac) who are the ones who never stop offending, and who are responsible for significant distortions in crime and homicide rates.

I do not understand the economics of keeping people like that in maximum security the term of their natural lives at $80.000 dollars pa, when our welfare budgets are unsupportable, our hospitals at Code Red for most of the day, our infrastructure crumbling, and our scientific research almost non existent for lack of funds.

Surely the Chinese method of a 25 cent bullet in the back of the head is far more cost effective, especially if the organs of the Enemy of the State can be harvested and sold to keep alive people who are worthy of life?

As for "humanely" killing people like Ivan Milat, or that dog in WA who broke into a sleeping woman's home,axe murdered her, then raped her corpse and then raped and axed her two toddler daughters, I really don't care if they were burned at the stake.

You talk of what factors create a civilised society? I would have thought that it would include the will to use its power to protect it's own people, instead of crying over those who have declared war on their own community, and who should be genetically eradicated, preferably before they can breed.

Other societies have removed unsocial traits from their populations through genetics. The Catholic Church has been removing religious fanaticism from its order for generations, by its policy of sexual abstinence by its own clergy.

There is no doubt it would be quite possible to turn someones lights out without inflicting pain or suffering. Whether or not the yanks choose to employ barbaric termination methods isn't the point, if a majority of Australians decided the death penalty should be applied in specific cases, the question of pain & suffering isn't a real issue. When its all said and done, zillions of animals are put down with nary a squeak of protest from do-gooders. Whats more relevant are the theological / religious / humanitarian implications for those who consider such, and the very real risk of miscarriage of justice, not that there is anything like justice in this country given the bottom-feeding legal / judicial / political establishment we have.

to be continued

continued

All that aside, everyone on the planet has a price beyond which principles are irrelevant, if / when a sufficiently horrific crime gets close enough to home, the attitude toward death penalty will change. Most people readily accept application of death penalty in war zones and with dangerous dogs ... there isn't a quantum change involved in extending it to serial murderers, kiddyfiddlers etc. Is it reasonable to regard some our more colourful mass murderers as more 'human' than a pit bull which has chewed up a bunch of people ?? I suggest that those who claim said 'human' deserves better than the dog will change their mind very quickly when their spouse & kids are the victims. As I've noted previously, one only had to follow the media circus surrounding the late Denis Ferguson to get a good indication where public opinion lies in extreme situations. For the record, I was one of very few who didn't clamour for extermination of Ferguson. Whilst I'd oppose the death penalty in most cases, I'd change the rules to require any elected officials who want to send out troops to war personally lead them into battle, maybe its even worth considering sending the mass murderers into battle alongside the red-headed witch and / or the RAbbott. Mind you I don't believe Australia would get involved in many yankee wars in that situation. In conclusion, its hypocritical arguing against the death penalty for court sanctioned criminals when we not only encourage it but demand it of military personnel in a war zone.

Dear Lego,

“Australia is still fundamentally a Christian country” … “I really don't care if they were burned at the stake.”

Good one, both topical and historical.

Not another sneery one liner, csteel? Cmon, you can do better than that. Go for that 350 word limit. Show us you have thought out your position, can cross connect lines of thought, and are confident enough to submit a reasoned argument.

As for what I wrote, I am not a Christian, and although I have much respect for Christian concepts such as forgiveness, compassion and redemption, I am no pacifist. A I think that some people are so dangerous and cruel, that giving them a taste of what they gave to innocent (usually) women and children, looks like poetic justice to me.

Perhaps you can blame my army training? It is perfectly all right for soldiers to shoot, blow up, stab, or burn to death enemy soldiers. Why should the worst kinds of criminals be exempt from what soldiers dish out to other soldiers?

"Give me men about me who are fat -
sleek headed men, and men as sleep o' nights."
"Yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look."

Thus may the pampered ones, snug and content in their lack of exposure to evil, sense the merest tingle of foreboding.
And, shrugging off such minor transient discomfort, make haste to re-assume the comfort of their assured disbelief and complacency.
Just so did Rome, Empire and Order crumble before a stealthy and entirely unscrupulous foe.

No-one may rest while evil lurks in parts we dare not enter, where we may not discern the source of our misgiving; yet is there place untouched, immune, beyond breach? Not so whilst smiling face concealing ill intent may be milling in the mass of hurried unconcern.
Too late when bitten, and hearts are rent.
No undoing of futures foregone.
No balm and no recovery - from blind and foolish complacency.

One may not ascribe a conscience, penitence, or a capacity to reform, to a rabid dog.
A leopard can not change its spots, and what is more telling, has not, and can not form an intention to do so.
We should not be mislead. Mere cloistering away from society injures only society.
The boil deserves nothing less than excising, fully and finally.
"Out, damn Spot!" Let Justice be done.

Very good, saltpetre.

My favourite is from Roman Alus Vitellus.

'A dead enemy smells good."

The normal way to make a political point is to start off with premises and then come to the conclusion you hope you have proved. After you have completed this syllogism you are at liberty to make further points using, as premise, the ‘truth’ you have just allegedly proved.

Mr Hayworth seem to work in reverse. He starts off with a “preaching to the choir” type style assuming for some reason that readers are already in agreement;“barbaric punishment like the death penalty”, “the role of governments is to protect their own people from harm, not kill them “,“[C.P.] demeans us all”, “dangerous to build a criminal justice system based on what is essentially an eye for an eye philosophy”, and doesn’t bother to attempt to justify these allegations. (Isn’t ‘eye for an eye’ simply a metaphor for ‘punishment fits the crime’?)

Only near the end of his essay does he attempt to give some rationalisations, one of an unsourced statistic from Canada and the other in declaring the risk of executing an innocent outweighing the benefits of C.P., without in fact, detailing what those benefits might be.
One suspects that this article may well have been originally written for a home audience at his anti-death penalty organisation Amnesty International.

Edward Carson - One suspects that this article may well have been originally written for a home audience at his anti-death penalty organisation Amnesty International.

You may well be right. Interestingly, not one of the anti-death penalty drones even hints at a problem with its application in war. Surely the poor mug on the receiving end of whatever weapon is not remotely near as 'guilty' as some lowlife bottom-feeding grub who exterminated half a suburb ?? If we are going to decry state-sanctioned turning the lights out treatment of the worst scumbag serial killer who ever infected the planet, how then can we justify state sanctioned killing of people purely because they are unfortunate enough to wear a certain uniform that identifies them as a 'baddie' ?? The simplest way to solve this dilemma of course is to insist the then head of state (personally) leads the troops into battle. Whilst I'd dearly love to see the red-headed witch on the firing line (or the RAbbott for that matter), I very much doubt we'd get involved in any future yankeefied conflicts.

Ahhh, praxidice,
Your delicious turns of phrase delight me. Well put!

'Killing' (as per CP) is 'barbaric'? Rolls off the tongue nicely, does it not? But how accurate in the broader context, we should wonder.

The 'human' animal, extraordinary, amazing, intriguing - and how prone to self-indulgence when it comes to truth and perspective, in the harsh light of reality.

We 'kill' to eat (but not personally of course, oh no, dastardly dirty stuff - best left to the 'untouchables'), and this follows nature's example, up to a slender point, in quest of survival.
But then, in nature predators kill to eat, to raise young, to propagate the species; males compete for mating rights; and almost all will fight for territory. But how many males/females are intent on killing a rival, and how many go so far, with intent? Such contests are rarely fatal - in nature.
Not so in the 'human', where deadly force is so often the direct and immediate means, and weapon of choice.
'Barbarous'? Of course.
But to 'execute' a psychopath? Oh no, we mustn't, for 'we' are too civilized?

The human animal is a paradox, an 'enigma'. Superficially 'enlightened' (at least some are, and many like to think so), yet beneath the thin veneer lurks a blood-lust like no other, held in check by slender and vulnerable threads - of 'conscience' or possibly of religious conviction, of 'morality'.
Yet where is morality in Syria, in Yemen, Somalia, the Congo or North Korea? (Or in Iraq, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland?)
'Humanity', living compassion, and deadly scourge, all at once; living in group 'delusion', or in stout denial of glaring evidence?

What we would 'like' to be, generally, is commendable.
What we 'are' is inconclusive.
The quest for peace, at home and abroad, demands that no quarter be given to genuine threats to harmony and security; and this must apply no less to any home-grown psychopath than it does to the likes of Al Qaeda, Al-Shabaab, Taliban or terrorist extremist.
Make an exception for one murderer, then why not for all?

praxidice: "I very much doubt we'd get involved in any future yankeefied conflicts."

We will have to see how the Syrian conflict develops. At present, the US and other Western governments including Australia's, are supporting the rebels, who include foreign jihadists allied to al-Qa'ida. It is estimated that as many as 200 Australians might be fighting for al-Qa'ida in Syria as part of a contingent of foreign fighters drawn from Western and Middle Eastern Islamic communities. Not only are they persecuting innocent civilians including ancient-community Syrian Christians, but they are gaining first-hand terrorism experience. Yet, all the Western including Australian governments are doing is sit on their hands. Shame!

Rayco

I think you missed my point

We should only get involved in ANY war if the head of state personally leads the troops into battle. Anything else is immoral.

The history of the world reveals
A very simple plan
He takes who has the power
He holds, who can.

LEGO

That much is true as far as it goes, however the sheeple by their very apathy generally elect to allow grubs to hold power. There will always be far more sheeple than grubs, therefore it will always be possible for the sheeple to take control, in fact very occasionally, a mob of sheeple do awake from their stupor and overthrow the grubs. Problem is that revolutions only seem to happen in 'funny' countries, Australia is 'too civilized' (ie in a perpetual coma) for the vast majority of local sheeple to even consider challenging the grubs here. Seems we've managed to retain the worst features of the pommy class system in that the dumbclucks we elect are almost universally regarded as our 'betters'. I was impressed by the SMH story yesterday on Senator Madigan, that makes three current Senators who have admitted the Australian political circus is utterly corrupt. Add to that Pauline Hanson & Big Clive & we have a slowly growing list of people either inside the system or close enough to know who have bucked the 'old boys club' and exposed what some of us have suspected for yonks.

Dear LEGO,

You wrote;

"Not another sneery one liner, csteel?"

What do you mean 'another'?

You are going to have to show me the plethora of 'sneery' one liners I have supposedly delivered.

But leaving that aside, this thread seems to be a little deserted now and as I finally have a little time up my sleeve I thought it would be a good opportunity to reacquaint.

You had written on another thread;

“Hi Mr Csteel. If you want to take a cheap shot at me, at least have the courtesy of directing your post at me. But I can understand your shyness. You had better have done your homework if you want to cross swords with me.”

I had unfortunately committed to refrain from further posts on that particular thread if a certain other poster did the same therefore I did not respond. So how about 'crossing swords' or more aptly 'crossing words' here? It might be fun.

I will be presumptuous and make a start.

I am putting forward the proposition that as a former member of the armed forces you represent the 0.5% of our community who should only be very cautiously listened to with regard to capital punishment. Our society has determined that to make that 0.5% an effective fighting tool that the natural human resistance to taking the lives of fellow human beings should be tampered with and dulled. This often is something that will often stand the test of time as it has obviously done with you. It is recognisably abnormal but accepted as a price we are all willing to pay. These views however are not those to base public policy on.