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."