Don, Corby was not one of the "Bali Nine"; hers was a separate matter involving a relatively small amount of cannabis, while theirs involved a large amount of heroin.

Also, the USA, or at least several of its constituent States, have legalised cannabis for both medical and recreational use.

I smoked cannabis, quite heavily at times, for about 25 years. I no longer do so, although I'm not militant about it and if offered a joint at a party would probably accept. When I was younger I tried several other recreational drugs, including LSD, psilocybin in the form of magic mushrooms, amphetamine and cocaine, but I was never tempted to try heroin or barbiturates and I never had a "habit" with any of the illegal drugs I used, which makes me very fortunate. On the other hand, I am somewhat habituated to having a nice cold beer or 6 of an afternoon and I was very much habituated to tobacco for about 15 years until I decided to stop, which I found fairly easy, although challenging.

Tanya Plibersek's speech in Parliament on the subject was excellent and her husband is to be commended for his willingness to use his own experience as an example.

I'm sympathetic to the plight of Chan and Sukumaran and feel for the pain and suffering of their families even more. It would be easy to make a facile argument about their culpability in producing sons who would make such a bad decision, but even if it were true, it would not change the fact that they are being punished for someone else's actions, which is and should be contrary to every principle of justice.

When the fact that the use of this penalty is not even effective at doing what it is purportedly intended for it is hard to imagine any purpose for it other than stupid macho political grandstanding.

Any serious criminality overseas should be repatriation to serve the relevant time in the jails of the home country if that country is willing to enforce sentencing. Death should not be an option.

Yes Don And right on every count!

The war on drugs is said to be around 80 years old, and in spite of that fact; and has cost more US lives than WWW 11, the use of illicit drugs seems to increase? That's not how you measure success!

And we're also told that up to 90% of many prison population are there because of some involvement with illicit drugs, using or pushing?

Due to prison privatization, keeping a prisoner incarcerated now costs some $70,000.00 plus PA per prisoner!

Addiction is a medical problem, and imprisonment is treating a medical problem with an entirely inappropriate response.

And all to often results in an ordinary Joe or addict, coming out a professional criminal! Should we say well done or money well spent.

In controlled and regulated doses, heroin, is even more efficacious as pain relief than morphine; and there's a very strong case for including medical marijuana, in our grab brag of pain relieving substances.

We can extract the useful alkaloid by a few weeks immersion in alcohol, which can then be evaporated off in a vacuum. It doesn't need to be smoked.

In light of all these facts and the fact that prohibition, even where a death penalty is applied, just doesn't work; and the endless and totally ineffective war on drugs just costs more and more lives and national treasure.

Surely it is time to say thus far and no further; that too many good people have sacrificed their very lives and for what!?

And let's not forget the thousands and thousands of innocents caught up in the crossfire and killed! If it were just politicians paying the collateral damage price, THE LAWS WOULD CHANGE TOMORROW!

We need to decriminalize drugs and reasonable personal possession.
Albeit, with the exception of ice and drug labs.

Ice only came to prominence with more recent heroin droughts; and with the drought ended, should fade into disuse?

Particularly if all the resources now used against marijuana, heroin and cocaine, is directed almost exclusively at it and contaminated impure killer ecstasy!
Rhrosty.

I too have an intellectual aversion to the death penalty, firstly as prefer to limit the power of state over the individual, secondly as its deterrent effect appears to be limited, and finally, executions are not reversible in the occasional event of wrongful conviction. I am glad that Australia as a first world country is taking all reasonable steps to get them clemency and a life sentence, and fully support the PM's and FM's efforts.

However, given the horrific effects that the trade in illegal drugs has on its victims and their families, I am not overwhelmed with sympathy for the ringleaders of the Bali nine, and view their "miraculous rehabilitation" with some skepticism. While I would prefer them to serve their natural lives behind bars, if they should meet the grim reaper, I won't lose much sleep.

Hi there Mr AITKIN...

Though I do not support Capital Punishment, if Messrs CHAN and SUKUMARAN are executed, it's not meant as a deterrent, rather a punishment ! Your last sentences summed up quite well I thought, the situation these two are now in, '...they gambled and lost...' ?

The writer quotes Roy Morgan as concluding that only “one in three support the death penalty for murder”. The relevance of that claim escapes me.

Last I looked, Roy Morgan on 27 January 2015 concluded 52% of Australians agree with executions of Australians convicted in foreign jurisdictions of drug crimes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-05/triple-j-partly-to-blame-for-bali-nine-execution-campaigner-says/6072966

The writer goes on to say “I am opposed to the use of the death penalty for variety of reasons, one of them being that the judicial system can always be wrong”. Breaking news: in this case there never has been any doubt of or rebuttal to the evidence of the guilt of the two Australian drug runners.

Frankly I am aghast at the level of media interest in this matter and the hyperventilating by politicians with respect to how Indonesia should apply its laws.

And as for the joke that Australians will boycott travel to Bali if and when Indonesian justice is dispensed. Funny. The UAE often (unjustifiably to many)incarcerates foreigners who transgress its laws. It even sentenced one Australian, Matt Joyce for 10 years''on the evidence of a witness who was found by an Australian court to have lied''.

Guess what? Australians still go to work in the UAE. And thanks to Qantas getting into bed with Emirates, more Australians are transiting through Dubai on their way to Europe.

So much for people putting their money where their megaphone is.

Don, you ask what can any society do with substances that can do great harm to people, and then list a few of the half-hearted failed attempts that have been made. The "war on drugs" has been such a dismal failure, by any possible measure, that it makes one feel that the answer is obvious. We have lost the damn war, so let's throw in the towel and consider the most rational and cheapest response.
Legalise all drugs, but keep a government monopoly on the manufacture and distribution, thus taking away the exorbitant profit from the drug dealers, and the problem will almost certainly disappear.
Alcohol and nicotene are bigger problems by far, but we've learnt to live with them.
The war on drugs is tremendously expensive, probably of the order of revenue from the GST. Abbott is trying to balance the budget by taking money from those in society least able to pay, the same people who are bearing the brunt of this war. Rhosty, above, has listed only some of the costs that we are paying. We have stupidly thrown down the gauntlet and challenged the criminal element to pick it up, and they have responded, due to the enormous profits possible. Have we learnt nothing from Prohibition in the US.
Read "High Society" by Ben Elton, for a much clearer description of the problem, and it's solution. But get us out of this phoney war.

Beaucoupbob if you were to legalise all drugs, & give the government, [read bureaucracy], a monopoly on distribution, the price would double within a year, & contraband drugs would become even more profitable.

Only an open slather on distribution would reduce the price. I am not sure reducing the price, or legalisation is a good idea, but have no strong opinion.

On the other hand, the death penalty is most effective in removing criminals from our streets & lives. So also are really heavy penalties, if they were ever enforced. If proven rapists were put down, there would not be all these second or third rape offences.

While our enforcement of sentences is so slack, that 15 years means about 3, I'm all for the death penalty for most vicious offences.

I am in favour of the death penalty although waiting ten years is cruel and unfair. I would like to see the current two drug traffickers pardoned for that reason. I have no doubt the death penalty is a deterrent and far less aussies would now be taking the 'chance'. I do however have great difficulty with the fact that the muslim Bali murderers of over 200 plus are walking free. The Australian left media made fools of Australia by claiming innocence for Corby and showing contempt for the Indonesians. It is one can of worms.

I thank Craig for his correction, and will make an appropriate change to the main text. I thank the others for restrained and thoughtful contributions.

In 2001 the Taliban had stopped the production of heroin in Afghanistan, hence there was a worldwide shortage.

When the USA invaded Afghanistan it soon became the number one producer which now accounts for 90% of the world's heroin.

The HSBC was busted for laundering drug money but no one was charged and the fines were miniscule in comparison to the HSBC profits.

The really big drug lords run our finance system.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChIF6yvTL6k

Drug abuse can no more be "solved", Don Aitkin, anymore than homicide, bank robbery, abduction, or rape can be "solved." That does not mean that we should not try to minimise the impact of these crimes on our society by using all means necessary, including the death penalty. I think that the yanks have got it right here. In those socially progressive US states which rightfully use the death penalty, juries (that's right, ordinary people) recommend the death penalty to judges in cases involving "and" crimes. Robbery and Murder. Rape and murder. Abduction and murder.

Genetically eradicating the worst kinds of violent criminals, preferably before they can breed, is essential to the continuing existence of the human race. But western society is essentially a product of Christianity with it's worthy concept of forgiveness, and the concept that any person can change. Unfortunately, these humane concepts are not in accord with modern studies in criminality, which show that most very serious crime is most usually committed by a core of criminals who can never change. "You can't unbake the cake" is how one FBI agent described the personalities of the worst kinds of offenders.

The best thing that society can do is to exterminate these people. As an ex soldier, I am perplexed at why anyone should oppose the death penalty while at the same time supporting the idea that every sovereign state has the right to keep an army. Soldiers are equipped with guns, not frying pans. Shooting down external enemy soldiers by mowing them down with machine guns by the millions is OK. Blowing soldiers up and burning soldiers alive is OK. But selectively shooting internal enemies who can be more of a threat than enemy soldiers is not OK? How does that work?

The Australian government has condemned to death the entire membership of the ISIS organisation, and it is carrying out the executions with smart bombs dropped by Super Hornets, while simultaneously claiming it does not support the death penalty.

Hi LEGO,
interesting comment. There are some powerful arguments against the death penalty, which the US experience adds to. I'll put them in list form to make it easier to reference them if anyone wants to discuss the issue.

1. It is ineffective as a deterrent. Capital crimes are very rarely the product of rational planning.

2. It is enormously expensive. The procedures required to ensure probity are much more complex than for custodial sentences. Capital prisoners spend very long periods on death row, which is itself the most expensive form of custody and they are very rarely able to fund their own defences.

3. Juries are possibly the least best way of deciding guilt and innocence in capital cases, which are often highly emotionally charged. As well as leading to miscarriages of justice, exposing ordinary people to the details of such crimes can be extremely traumatising.It could be argued that someone who was not liable to be traumatised should not be regarded as fit to sit on the panel Many jurors have become firm advocates against the use of the death penalty.

4. It is likely to cause an escalation in violent criminality, especially if it is too broadly applied. A drug dealer or sexual offender who knows they are facing death if caught will not hesitate to use violence to try to escape. In a similar vein, it increases the likelihood of "suicide by cop" and the risk to police that might entail, as well as the chance of cops shooting first on the chance that violence may occur. It also desensitises police to the use of weapons and leads to a heavier-handed approach to the public.

5. It degrades the value of human life within the State. States that are willing to kill their citizens are without exception states in which human life is seen as cheap.

6. It punishes families and friends of the offender.

I won't discuss the psychology of vengeance here, but if anyone's interested...

Killing is the order of the day, whether it be strapped to a tree and shot, bombs dropped on your head in some far off distant land, deranged people with religious hang ups etc, of course some are legal and some not, but killing is killing, even I had training legally to kill using a bayonet in some ones stomach or perhaps making it quicker by using my faithful 303 rifle, so quite frankly what is the problem, two men will be disposed of, but killing will continue by Governments in all countries in some shape or form.

Must see. The history of Heroin and how our Govts use it for power and profits. Sibel Edmonds who initiated The Boiling Frogs site joins James Corbett in this revealing insight into this subject. They have to make it illegal to keep prices extremely high. Sibel Edmonds is an ex FBI whistle blower. http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/10/14/the-eyeopener-morbid-addiction-cia-the-drug-trade/

Hi Craig.

This will be a double post as I am off for a few days.

1. Capitol punishment is a deterrent. It definitely stops repeat offenders. I can name three Australian murderers who have murdered again after serving long prison sentences. One had been sentenced to death, but had his sentenced commuted to life in prison and murdered another woman after his release. He chased a woman down a Sydney street and blew her head off with a shotgun in front of an elderly lady who tried to intervene.

2. It may be enormously expensive in the USA, where prsoners languish for 15-30 years, but under the British system, the condemned were hanged within two weeks of sentence. The cost of maximum security prisoners is about $80,000 dollars per prisoner. Bullets cost only 20 cents, and in China, the cost of the bullet is billed to the family.

3. Our justice system uses juries and if you don't like it, it is just too bad. In the USA. it is the juries who recommend the death penalty to the judge, so your claim that members of juries become opponents of the death penalty looks odd to me.

4. Your premise works both ways. In cases where two offenders have been arrested for a capitol offence in the USA and detectives find it near impossible to find enough evidence to convict, it is common for the detectives to offer one offender a deal in which he gets life in prison instead of death if he gives evidence against the other offender, whom the detectives consider to be more dangerous and controlling.

5. I don't buy your premise that states who kill offenders are uncivilised. My premise is that those states too weak to protect their innocents by killing the worst kinds of criminals deserve to become dysfunctional. In many countries without the death penalty, organised criminals routinely kill judges, witnesses, prosecutors and journalists. Such nations are not nice places to live.

6. It gives closure to victims families. I am more concerned with the victims families than the perpetrators families

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.

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 Victorian State 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

Here are a few condemned offenders you should cry over, Craig.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpzTJuIDYtw Oba Chandler was executed for a crime which beggared belief. He befriended a mother with two teenaged daughters who were on vacation in Miami, and invited them for a ride in his boat. He took with him a gun and three heavy blocks of concrete with ropes attached. After taking the women to sea, he produced a gun and bound them. He raped the mother and threw her overboard with the rope around her neck attached to the concrete. He then raped a 17 year old and threw her overboard with the rope around her neck. Then the 14 year old got the same treatment. Even Oba Chandlers daughter was glad he was executed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYX_nNpVwqg This gang of four charmers killed no less than eight people during a string of armed robberies in the USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkDcV7Gwq3M These two offenders made a specialty of abducting teenage girls from the street. The five girls they abducted were raped and tortured to death slowly.

My favourite candidate for execution is that sub human (William Mitchell) in Greenough, Western Australia who entered a family home (Greenough Family Massacre) early one morning after axing to death a 15 year old boy (Daniel McKenzie) (who had walked outside to greet whoever it was who had entered the family driveway. He then entered the boy’s mothers bedroom (31 year old Karen McKenzie) and axed the sleeping mother to death in her bed, then raped her. He then entered the room of a 7 year old girl (Amara McKenzie),and axed her to death. (Other details of her death were suppressed by the coroner.) He then entered the room of a 5 year old girl, (Katrina McKenzie) and axed her to death also. (Other details about her death were suppressed by the coroner.) You want this bastard to escape from prison and do it again to your kids, Craig?

Must see. The history of how our Govts use drugs for profit and wars.http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/10/14/the-eyeopener-morbid-addiction-cia-the-drug-trade/

Well, LEGO, I must say that was worth waiting for. A flawless exhibition of some great psychology.

First there was the wonderful demonstration of Kohlberg's stage 3 of moral development, drifting slightly into stage 4 but then coasting back to the pre-conventional stage 2 and just touching on stage 1. Absolutely textbook!

See my comment on juries above.

Once again we are seeing the Corby extravaganza where crime does pay to the criminal or criminals, they, and their extended families are like politicians with their snouts in the trough, for goodness sake they are criminals, they knew what they were doing at the time, the Bali nine would have been very wealthy if their drug plan had worked, they would not have worried too hoots about the people affected by their drug dealings, it only concerned us, we will be wealthy, the families themselves possibly knew what they were up to, if it succeeds we will be helped out financially.
Women's Day, New Idea, TV channels and Media will be paying thousands of dollars to families to tell their stories of their hardship and distress at the doings of their drug dealing sons and daughter, this is completely wrong, it proves crime pays, so why do we all not join them if the money tree brings us wealth either way.
One does not condone the death penalty but drug smugglers have to learn their lesson that prison for life being mandatory, these people if returned to Australia would perhaps have spent six months in jail, released, and then back to the lucrative drug smuggling game.
Drug smuggling in Asia is the death penalty, you know that before you start your game of hide and seek.

Hi there CRAIG MINNS & LEGO...

I've read with some interest, while you two tease out the relevant facts associated with capital crime and punishment per se. Believe it or not as a retired copper with direct experience with investigating serious crimes, I don't support the use of Capital Punishment, either as a deterrent or as a punishment.

As I've stated ad nauseam, both here and in other forums, those North American States, where they continue to practice Capital Punishment, it is not used as any sort of deterrent. Rather, as the title implies, it's a 'punishment' nothing else.

All this talk of they were young and didn't know what they were doing, they knew alright, the dollar sign was foremost in their mind, at the tender age they were caught one was already employed and conscripted for war games, so please stop the young and innocent scenario. which the do gooders prattle on about, get in the real world.

LEGO,

We can still reduce them without execution.

<<Drug abuse can no more be "solved", Don Aitkin, anymore than homicide, bank robbery, abduction, or rape can be "solved.">>

Methadone programs have been met with a lot of success. Targeting at-risk groups with developmental crime prevention measures seems to have had a preventative effect.

Execution won’t “clean” our gene pool of crooks either, I’m afraid, because our behaviours are the result of a complex interplay between our genes and environment. They are not the result of just one or the other.

1. I like what you did here. You claim capital punishment is a deterrent and to prove it, you start discussing incapacitation instead. An impressive sleight of hand.

Capital punishment most likely doesn’t deter (and is meant to, despite what o sung wu is strangely claiming - any claims that it isn’t have only arisen with the lack of evidence that it doesn’t in order to make it appear as though opponents are attacking a strawman) and the US provides us with a good test case here with it’s different laws for different states, and the opportunity it provides in allowing us to monitor homicide rates as states abolish and re-introduce capital punishment. One of the reasons it doesn’t deter is because severity of punishment is far less effective than swiftness and certainty. Also, those who commit crimes tend to miscalculate the risk of getting caught.

2. If prisoners on death row were executed a lot sooner, then the number of innocents killed would be far greater than it already is. The Innocence Project has already managed to get 20 people off death row after proving they were innocent, and between 4-5 of those on death row are exonerated every year. That wouldn’t be possible if they were executed straight away.

Continued…

...Continued

4. Lighter sentences for the one who dobs works too, and no-one dies that way. Further to what Craig said, however, is that there is evidence that capital punishment has a brutalising effect on societies. One way this can be seen is the increased levels of assaults and homicides in US states just before and just after a highly publicised execution.

5. What countries are you talking about; how does the lack of capital punishment penalty in these countries lead to judges, witnesses, prosecutors and journalists being killed? You’re not suggesting that all of the members of these organised crime syndicates served a life sentence when they otherwise would have been put to death, are you?

6. Not really. This is something that has just been assumed: http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/01/26/study-finds-executions-do-little-to-heal-victims-families/64973.html

The last two of your posts were just an attempt at emotional manipulation that wouldn’t be necessary if you had a good case. One further concern that Craig didn’t mention was the disproportionate extent to which minorities are executed. And yes, before you say it, the higher levels of involvement in crime found in many minority groups is controlled for there.

Tony Abbott being his big mouthed self wanting to hurt the Indonesian population with all sorts of, we will do this or that, or did that, we are talking about drug smugglers not tea ladies, the more I am beginning to hear all of the bull, I am beginning to wonder if Indonesia should get on with it and get it over and out of our media forthwith, it is not the first killings by all Governments, they excel at it, I no more than any one else do not like the death penalty, rehabilitated while in prison, they should never have been there in the first place if they had used their heads, to smuggle drugs in Asia is a death sentence, wake up folks.

a. i know the issue of capital punishment is a sensitive issue. My stand is where there is murder, the guilty should be executed for the heinous crime committed, ie the taking of another life. This is about the sanctity of life. Some of you will say we should not put another to death because life is precious. But it is precisely because of the sanctity of life that we MUST have the strongest deterrent and punishment to keep this principle.

b. Capital punishment on other issues such as treason, drugs, corruption etc are highly debatable. My guided principle would then be ..follow the laws of the country. Each country has their own social problems and some of these problems can be so grave that the law makers of that country deem it to be so serious that they resort to the ultimate punishment ... ie capital punishment.

australia has to learn to respect the culture and the laws of other countries
indonesian laws have been adopted by a duly elected govt
they have a serious social problem to solve

australia need to review its own value system in many areas

if you do not want to die....dont commit those crimes in those countries
do it at home (sigh...sad that i am even saying this)

2 side arguments which i think are not relevant and are emotional in nature

a. these 2 ringleaders have corrected themselves and have repented. Now this does not change the punishment. It is good for their souls and the fact that there have repented will serve as a good example for others who wants to profit from other people's misery. Would we have exempted the killers of the Sydney Cafe and Paris heist if they repented?
you may say this is a drug offence and not murder
but unfortunately that is how the Indonesian law have classified such offences

b. the Indonesian govt themselves are appealing for clemency for their offenders in 3rd countries
my response to this is simple... they are doing precisely what the australian govt is doing.
this is politically motivated

To AJ Phillips

1. Craig claimed that capitol punishment was not a deterrent. I claim other wise. Yet you take me to task for not proving my premise but give Craig a free pass because you agree with Craig. I like the way you think. Your side need not prove anything but your opponents must prove everything. And if we can't prove your position is wrong, then it proves you must be right.

Neither side can prove their premise. But I'll tell ya what. After the Indos shoot Chan and Sukhamaran, it will be a long, long time before any Australian is stupid enough to try and use Indonesia to import heroin into Australia.

2. The premise that lots of condemned prisoners have been found "innocent" after judicial review is a furphy. It just means that their convictions have been declared unsafe. One example is David Hicks, who should have been executed for his treason. Everybody knows that Hicks is a traitor and a self admitted terrorist, but legal manoeuvring means that he can now claim he is innocent of anything.

3. Homicide rates increase in proportion to well publicised prize fights. All your premise proves is that the media has an effect upon violent behaviour.

4. South American countries have no death penalty and narcotrafficantes kill thousands every year, including judges, prosecutors, witnesses and police officers. Organised criminals have been known to order their accomplices to murder people from within jail. They can't do that if they are dead.

5. Ï used four valid legal cases to display to the "nobody deserves to die" brigade that some people most definitely deserve to die. Your objection to my argument was based upon the fact that my "emotive" argument was extremely effective.

6. You ignored my premise that it is hypocritical for Australia to execute ISIL members using warplanes while simultaneously claiming that is does not support the death penalty, and that the death penalty solves nothing.

7. Human behaviour is a product of genetics and cultural conditioning. Genetically eradicating the worst examples of violent criminals would improve the human race.

LEGO, the rates of capital crimes have shown no change in countries with the death penalty. Look it up for yourself. I'm not going to bother putting up links for you to ignore. The death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent, because the sorts of crimes that earn a capital sentence are not rationally planned by the perpetrators.

Some have been acquitted after evidentiary reexamination, some have been acquitted after new evidence, some have been acquitted because of poor judicial instructions to jurors, some have been acquitted because their convictions were deemed unsafe on appeal owing to bias within jury panels. There are many reasons and they all add up to your stupid, childish model of "hang 'em high and let the Lord sort 'em out" being demonstrably stupid and childish.

War is national defence intended to stop the advance, sieze and hold the ground held by and destroy an enemy which would otherwise destroy the integrity of the state. It is a last resort when all other mechanisms available have been exhausted. The death penalty is a petulant response to individual poor behaviour and precludes any possibility of trying other mechanisms.

There is no association between genetics and commission of serious crime.

The Pinhead of the Year Committee is in current session and I'm pleased to advise that you have received multiple nominations.

Life is precious-except in war, what is the difference in shooting two drug mules by firing squad or killing two of your supposed enemy in war by firing squad, absolutely no difference. Killing is killing, Abbott by joining with his USA friends will have far more blood on his hands than an Indonesian President wanting to shoot drug mules, at least that will not be in the thousands of innocents killed.
Governments love the killing machine by one means or another, many writers here miss that side of the story, legal or illegal depends on which side of the fence you sit on.

<Violence genes may be responsible for one in 10 serious crimes
The genes for extremely violent behaviour have been discovered by scientists who fear they may be responsible for one in 10 serious crimes.
Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden analysed the genetic make-up of 895 criminals from Finland to see if violence was in their DNA.
The majority of violent crime is committed by a small group of antisocial, repeat offenders, who seem incapable of rehabilitation.
Now scientists believe they have found which genes are responsible for high levels of rage and violence. They believe that they could be responsible for up to 10 per cent of serious crime in Finland.>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11192643/Violence-genes-may-be-responsible-for-one-in-10-serious-crimes.html

Thanks OTB, I was waiting for that.

From the article:

" Prof John Stein, Emeritus Professor of Physiology, University of Oxford, said "This is a very interesting study with plausible aspects.

“But please do not accept the claims that these alleles are 'responsible for 5-10 per cent of violent offences in Finland'. All they show is that they may contribute 5-10 per cent to the chance of an individual being very violent.

“These alleles are quite common and so environmental factors are probably much more important. For instance simply improving prisoners diets can reduce their violent offending by 37 per cent."

Prof Jan Schnupp, Professor of Neuroscience, University of Oxford, added: "Half the people in your office will carry these genes. Odds are 50/50 that you do. How violent has your day been? To call these alleles "genes for violence" would therefore be a massive exaggeration.

“In combination with many other factors these genes may make it a little harder for you to control violent urges, but they most emphatically do not predetermine you for a life of crime.”"

So what value should be placed on your assertion that, "There is no association between genetics and commission of serious crime"?

It's sound, although slightly over-strong.

What should we make of your selective quoting of your own reference to make a misleading point?

Some more from that link:

" Dr Malcolm von Schantz, Reader in Molecular Neuroscience, University of Surrey, said: “Behavioral genetics is a very interesting area of research, but also one that is full of controversies.

“There is both the issue of whether a genetic association can be replicated, and the issue of how to interpret it – the public will be asking themselves if the scientists suggesting that violent offenders should not be fully accountable for their actions.

“So does this paper bring us closer to a situation where violent criminals can claim diminished responsibility because of the genes that they were born with?

“I think we have to remember that it becoming increasingly clear that there is not one single genetic variant that has a large effect on this, or indeed any complex behaviour.

“The pattern that is emerging is one of many genetic factors where each one has a small predisposing effect.” "

LEGO,

You’ve stuffed up the numbering system Craig started. Probably to throw myself and others off. You’ve added a 3 when I never responded to a 3; you’ve responded to my final remarks in 5; my 5 remarks in 4; you added a 7; and 6 drags up the 3 that I skipped.

1. Nope never suggested anything of the sort. That’s just slander. And I DID provide evidence for my claims, the whole reason you’re getting defensive is to avoid responding to it; you then ASSUME that “[a]fter the Indos shoot Chan and Sukhamaran, it will be a long, long time before any Australian is stupid enough to try and use Indonesia to import heroin into Australia.”

You stated emphatically that capital punishment was a deterrent and then tried to prove it by talking about incapacitation. Own it.

2. That lots of people on death row have been found innocent is a fact, not a “premise” or a “furphy”. Unsafe convictions? What about all those cleared of any wrong-doing at all through DNA testing? Much of it comes from dubious eye witness testimony in which racial bias played a role (so much for the “virtues” of racism). Hardly a “furphy”.

3. By itself, yes. But not in conjunction with this http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/46540/1/661596729.pdf. I only provided one piece of evidence for the sake of brevity. You make the mistake of thinking that my arguments are based on assumptions as naive as yours.

4. How is South Africa evidence of what will eventually happen to countries that don't have the death penalty? What about all their other social problems? Do you think capital punishment will make an effective difference despite all these? Not every criminal is put to death too, you know. You want a comparison of countries with and without the death penalty? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country. Hardly supports your argument that countries without it are more likely to be dysfunctional.

Continued…

...Continued

5. Whether or not your emotive arguments were effective is entirely subjective. The fact remains that if you had a good case, then you wouldn’t need them.

6. Craig Minns has answered this well. All I’ll add for now is that pacifists (the complete opposite to you) would also equate capital punishment with the casualties of war the way you have. It just goes to show how the black and white perspectives of extremists always lead them to faulty conclusions. By the way, I don’t think anyone argues that the death penalty “solves nothing”. It’s certainly a good method of incapacitation and you knew this only too well when you used incapacitation to argue for a deterrent effect.

7. Not just cultural conditioning. I said "environment" for a reason. Culture is just one aspect of environment.

And no, genetically eradicating the worst examples of violent criminals would not improve the human race because, as I said, behaviour is the result of the interplay between the two. Many combinations of genes can be criminogenic in one set of environmental circumstances and productive in another. A genetic disposition for aggressive behaviour, for example, can help one to become a good soldier, a good rugby league player or a good wife beater. How the genetic disposition to aggression manifests in reality, however, depends on one’s current environment and their environment throughout the various stages of their development.

There goes your black and white thinking again.

OntheBeach, ,the majority of crime is committed by anti social behaviour,, I presume you are happy for the social behaviour of war mongering Governments , please include all in your assumption of anti social behaviour and not just selected people you feel are anti social, we can all become anti social if it suits, even on OLO.

Ojnab,

You would be better off directing your questions to someone else. I was simply questioning a statement.

Ojnab

If life is so precious, the ALP also has blood on their hands by letting 1200 asylum seekers drown.

Hi there OJNAB...

What exactly are you saying ? That by executing these two, amounts to a 'war crime' ? The crimes these two have been convicted, are hardly that of being 'anti-social' either. Unless of course you're saying that it may well be anti-social if one wished to extrapolate it's literal meaning as broadly as possible ? They, together with their other seven confederates possessed a serious amount of heroin, that would have brought them considerable amount of profit had they managed to get it into Australia ?

Had they been apprehended in most other western nations, they would be facing some very serious gaol time. Moreover, if caught in other S.E. Asian countries, they'd be most likely, confronting mandatory execution as well ? No doubt they're in a real mess, and I don't have an ounce of compassion for either of them, but I am opposed to the death penalty nevertheless !

Any real compassion must be consigned to their families. Both of which must be going through a living hell. And it's typical of Indonesia to play havoc with their emotions, by perpetuating this prevailing climate of, 'the unknown' ? No firm dates have been given, other than the knowledge that normal Indonesian practice for an execution, is a very short 72 hours only ?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. The Indonesians hate us, always have, always will ! In 1964/65 I was involved in the 'Indonesian Confrontation' in Malaya & Borneo. Those Indonesian troops we'd captured, made their sentiments known to both us and the British Army, in who's company we were in operations with. Their sentiments were abundantly unequivocal. They believed we white foreigners were weak, without any spine to fight them ? Worst still, they did not respect us at all ?

No O sung Wu it is not a war crime., what one tries to point out is that killing is killing,. Some interpret writings in different ways to the meaning that was written Abbott must not antagonise Indonesia, we could be overrun in one night while we all slept, they have the means of doing so, tread carefully with diplomatic relations.with them
Personally, although not liking the death penalty, these two knew what they were doing in the first place, we do not know the complete story with the families of them, wealth if successful could have been evenly distributed with all. The whole Corby family were involved in one way or another, we can all put on the tears in front of cameras, we did not know, but did we? they know the answer to that, because lies are the order of the day now it is hard to know which is fact or fiction.
I remember the drama that was going on with Barlow and Chambers some years ago, Mrs Barlow was very vocal that her son should not be killed, but he was.
Indonesia has already executed drug traffickers, it would make a mockery of the whole thing if they let two Australians off, what about the others to be shot the same day or night, they are human beings also, once you start something it would be very hard to change the rules.now, but who knows.

Hi there OJNAB...

You're spot on with your opinion concerning antagonising the Indonesians. One thing Asians do not like, that's 'loosing face', or being lectured too. Make no mistake, we need Indonesia more than they need us. They could just as easy source many of their goods and technologies from Japan or South Korea even China.

Geographically we have the benefit of being relatively close to them so it makes good logistic sense, as well as quality assurance, by them sourcing much of their food requirements from us - still we're not speaking about trade and other issues herein are we ?

These two will be executed. Most definitely. Any doubt was removed by the unintended but totally innocent remark made by PM ABBOTT, concerning the generous donations we've made, whenever various climatic events have destroyed much of their coastal infrastructure. They would perceive it as throwing it back in their faces as it were. Diplomatically, he made a grave error, though quite innocently, nevertheless an error as far as the Indonesians are concerned. Again, they DO NOT like to loose face, under any circumstances !

As far as Ms CORBY is concerned, personally I think she was more or less an unwitting player in the scheme of things ? I don't believe the lady is particularly smart, quite the reverse if think, so given she's not up to much personal plotting I think she's really just an unwitting mule of sorts, probably for her family member(s) perhaps ?

"One example is David Hicks, who should have been executed for his treason. Everybody knows that Hicks is a traitor and a self admitted terrorist, but legal manoeuvring means that he can now claim he is innocent of anything."

Not a good example because he was in fact not guilty of breaking any laws, Australian or American.

Hi Craig.

If there is no correlation between genetics and crime, could you please explain why 95% of prison inmates are males?

Rotsa ruck.

The primary advocates for the death penalty are murderers, and the worst kinds of organised criminals themselves. Murderers obviously believe that killing people will solve their personnel problems, and I agree with them that it is a good way to solve our social problems. Organised criminals firmly believe that killing, or threatening to kill anybody who opposes them, is a very effective way to control people's behaviour. And of course, they are correct. It just goes to show how much smarter and practical the exponents of self interest and greed are, compared to the exponents of humanitarian idealism.

Most people can grasp the concept that the more severe the punishment, the less likely that people will engage in proscribed behaviour. If this was not so, then every punishment would be lenient, because what would be the point of making any punishment severe? The death penalty is the ultimate punishment to our worst offenders, and it should be an mandatory sentence for any offender who murders a prison officer, or a police officer. I am sure that the police associations and the prison officers associations would agree with me.

Your claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent, because the rate of capitol crimes in those states which do have this punishment has not decreased, looks more like creative interpretation than a serious premise. Armed robbery was once rare in Australia when it was a hanging offence. Now it is almost out of control. That sorta screws up your statistical analysis.

Your claim that killing your people's external enemies in is essentially different from killing your people's internal enemies seems bizarre to me. In WW1, Australian diggers themselves labelled themselves "two bob a day murderers."

Lol, you're a funny guy, LEGO.

Not very smart, but definitely funny.

A bit like farting in a spacesuit...

To AJ Phillips.

I did not "stuff up the numbering system Craig started". You did. Craig enumerated six points and you missed number 3. But I did not point out your fault because I was not fishing for some irrelevant detail to get some mileage out of, like you need to do.

I accept your apology.

Your only valid argument against the death penalty is the fact that innocent people in the USA have either been executed for a crime to which they were innocent, or their conviction was quashed because it was no longer legally safe. But the alternative for the death penalty is life without parole, an almost equally ghastly sentence for an innocent person. If your objection to the death penalty is because an innocent person would be punished for a crime they did not commit, you should be just as ardent in supporting the abolition of any punishment whatsoever for exactly the same reason.

But your objection is not primarily because an innocent person may be convicted, you even object to the death penalty even when you know that the person is clearly guilty.

And yes, I am convinced that the death penalty is an effective deterrent for at least some people thinking about involving themselves in capitol crimes. All but two US states abolished the death penalty during the Aquarian years of the seventies. Most have now re introduced that penalty as a more appropriate punishment for stranger related homicides involving serial killers and spree killers, and for incredibly violent gang bangers who's crimes and cruelty beggar belief. PNG has declared it's intention to re introduce the death penalty because of the crimes of "rascol" gangs who's crimes are seriously reducing economic development by driving away tourists and investors.

There is nothing wrong with permanently removing from existence the enemies of our people and our society. It is paradoxical to maintain that soldiers may kill the external enemies of our societies, but it is inhumane to kill our internal enemies, who are usually much worse people than enemy soldiers, and much more deserving of death.

LEGO,

You were free to add the 3 back in, or continue to leave it out. I did not switch responses around and add new ones. Did not having a 3 there confuse you? You and you alone stuffed up the numbering. Own it.

It’s seems you changed your tune about the innocents executed and released (which in itself is enough of an argument against the death penalty). But then you follow it straight up with this…

<<...the alternative for the death penalty is life without parole, an almost equally ghastly sentence for an innocent person.>>

The problem with innocents being executed is the fact that they can’t be released when found to be innocent, so your claim that I should then…

<<...be just as ardent in supporting the abolition of any punishment whatsoever for exactly the same reason.>>

is utterly stupid, and demonstrates that you are incapable of any rational thought on this topic.

<<But ... you even object to the death penalty even when you know that the person is clearly guilty.>>

Correct! That’s the first of my opinions that you’ve actually guessed correctly. Congratulations. My objections also include the fact that capital punishment is most likely not a deterrent; the racial and socioeconomic discrimination in its application; the counter-productiveness in the likely brutalising effect that it has on societies; and the fact that its application is often arbitrary and capricious.

I had a bit of a chuckle over this...

<<Most people can grasp the concept that the more severe the punishment, the less likely that people will engage in proscribed behaviour. If this was not so, then every punishment would be lenient, because what would be the point of making any punishment severe?>>

How about retribution? Incapacitation?

There's another reason to not support capital punishment: it doesn't satisfy the sentencing rationale of deterrence.

You claim to know more about criminology than me and yet you don't even know the rationales behind sentencing are..?

Hi there IS MISE...

From my understanding of US Military jurisprudence, in this extraordinary matter, pursuant to what Mr HICKS was originally tried for; 'Giving material aid to the enemy' or similar. It was recently determined that particular citation was erroneous, because the offence didn't actually exist ? Therefore any plea from Mr HICKS or, any inculpatory evidence tendered, in support of his guilt, is now irrelevant and no longer germane to any charge ?

The brief facts are; Mr HICKS left Australia about 15 years ago for Pakistan, for the express purpose of undertaking training with sympathizers of both the Taliban and al Qaida groups. Thereafter he headed over to Afghanistan for the purpose of receiving further training under the expert tutelage of Osama bin Laden's (dec.) proscribed terrorist group. It was here, that he was ultimately apprehended by US forces.

My opinion of this bloke is immaterial ! It would now appear as a result of his exoneration of all charges in the last few days. We're informed that it's certainly not Mr HICK'S intention that he seek some monetary compensation for his experiences while in American custody. Rather he hopes the Australian government will at least meet all his medical expenses, as a consequence of the multiple injuries and illnesses that he had occasioned him, as a result of his incarceration at Guantanamo Bay, for the past six years ?

Why not extend him full returned servicemen's rights as well, under the Department of Veterans' Affairs ? After all, he did serve in a war zone, so his entitlement is not in question ? I'm sure he'd be welcomed in most RSL's too ?

Hi AJ.

Still nit picking over your own mistake? I didn't ping that you had stuffed it up until I had responded to five points, and realised that there should have been a sixth. I could not be bothered erasing everything and starting again just because you can't read or count. (or think).

I am aware that pre DNA testing, innocents in the USA may have been executed, but that does not change my mind about the validity of the death penalty. The same DNA testing that either found people innocent, or at least cast questions on their guilt, is the same technology that can now prevent people being found guilty of crimes they did not commit, and direct the justice system to those who have committed capitol crimes.

Your claim that people given life without parole who are innocent, may still be found innocent if not executed, is small comfort to those who are innocent and will remain in jail for the term of their natural lives. Your beef should be with the application of the investigative procedures and the burden of proof, not with the sentencing.

Your declaration that you oppose the death penalty even for those who are clearly guilty, simply proves that your supposed concern for innocents being executed is just a tactic.

I support the death penalty because it is most likely a deterrent, minorities most often get the penalty because they are the ones committing the most and worst crimes, it makes society less brutal ny permanently removing the most violent and psychotic members of societies who commit the most and worst crimes, and in enlightened and socially progressive western countries which have it, their investigative procedures have significantly improved.

That is another reason I support capitol punishment. It satisfies societies need for payback

Hi there LEGO...

I recognise you're very much for the Death Penalty because you say it most likely is a deterrent ? Whether or not it is a deterrent I wouldn't know ? However by judicially killing another human being, in my opinion reduces our society down to the level of those, who commit these terrible capital crimes in the first place. Furthermore those who we ask to officiate in an official, State sanctioned execution, invariably it has a very deleterious impact upon their own emotional well being as well ?

Despite what we often hear on mediums, such as 'talk-back radio' after a particularly horrendous crime against a women or child has occurred. Many of these 'hairy chested' tough guy's, all loudly proclaiming they'd gladly pull the lever to hang this terrible monster ?

To systematically, purposely and intentionally, take a human life, in a prescribed way, at a set time and place, is very very tough indeed. The first time you take a life, you think of nothing else for days. You convince yourself that you have 'right' on your side, but it doesn't change a thing, you still question your own actions, your particularly part in the killings, everything about it, you toss it around in you mind endlessly. "I'm only following orders" you tell yourself, over and over again. Yet you still find it hard to reconcile the morality of your actions in your own mind, while trying to sleep at night ?

Believe me when I tell you LEGO, anybody who blatantly claims *to your face*, that killing another human being, (no matter what the circumstances are), doesn't really bother them, is a absolute liar ! As I said, those killings are at the forefront of your mind for days and days, until your next killing or killings comes along, to again; continue to disturb your sleep !!

LEGO,

If your excuses were true, then your 3 would answer my 4 (since I skipped 3), and yet it doesn't.

Sprung.

Yes, DNA technology is a good thing. It allows us to scientifically debunk racism, and it reduces the chances of someone being executed by mistake. But mistakes still happen and if you think that a reduced amount of innocents being killed by the State suddenly makes it all okay, then you have a few screws loose. Good luck with opinion.

And what's this supposed to prove..?

<<Your claim that people given life without parole who are innocent, may still be found innocent if not executed, is small comfort to those who are innocent and will remain in jail for the term of their natural lives.>>

You mean my "point", not my "claim". Oh, it makes it sound so much more hopeless when these people are just relying on my personal opinion, doesn’t it.

I'd be willing to bet most would prefer to live out their full lives knowing that they hung around as long as possible to see their exoneration, even if it never came.

<<Your declaration that you oppose the death penalty even for those who are clearly guilty, simply proves that your supposed concern for innocents being executed is just a tactic.>>

Nope. It just means that I have more than one reason for opposing it. Some of us are actually capable of basing our opinions on more than one thought, you know.

<<I support the death penalty because it is most likely a deterrent...>>

And yet you've provided nothing beyond your assertion to support this.

<<...minorities most often get the penalty because they are the ones committing the most and worst crimes...>>

I already explained that this is controlled for in the statistics.

<<...it makes society less brutal ny permanently removing the most violent and psychotic members of societies...>>

Still no evidence. You're just digging your heels in now.

<<That is another reason I support capitol punishment. It satisfies societies need for payback.>>

Society is filled with individuals. You can't possibly make this call.

My apologies, LEGO. Your 3 does answer my 4. Looks like you may have been telling the truth after all. Pity you ruined your chance to hold the moral highground there by pretending I stuffed up even when I had explained that I deliberately skipped 3.

Hi there Mr Wu.

Of course it is a deterrent. Most people who's brains have not been debilitated by higher education, can recognise that the more severe the punishment, the less likely people will engage in proscribed behaviour.

I do not agree with your premise that killing our nations enemies "reduces us to their level." US SEALS sniper Chris Kylie officially "executed" 160 people in Iraq (actual score was more like 250), do you consider him to be a murderer and a criminal? When Kylie died, the people of Texas spontaneously lined 200 miles of road on which his body was being transported back to his home, to pay their respects. I consider it bizarre that it is considered socially admirable to indiscriminately mow down enemy soldiers by the tens of thousands (who can often be admirable, chivalrous and honourable men themselves), but some people consider it utterly reprehensible to selectively exterminate after a fair trial, a handful of the worst types of criminals, who have declared war on their own societies by deliberately targeting women and children.

I am aware that most men can not kill or even seriously injure another person face to face, (unless threatened, or under the influence of alcohol and or other drugs) and those who do that can undergo severe grief and exhibit PTSD. But around 10% of males can do it and it does not bother them at all. These men are the natural soldiers and protectors of any society. Kylie in his book (and in the movie "American Sniper") was asked by a psychiatrist if the PTSD symptoms that he was exhibiting (aggression, drunkenness, and dangerous driving) was because of guilt from killing (officially)160 people. His reply was "That's not me. I grieve for our own men who I could not save." "Every person I killed was evil." (page 377)

Well AJ,

Since when has DNA technology "debunked racism?" According to one anti racist book I read, (The War Against Children") The US National Association of Coloured People successfully lobbied the US Congress to withhold funding to any scientific research project which could prove a link between genetics and crime. That included trying to shut down the historic "Human Genome Project" who's director (Nobel Prize winner James Watson, co discoverer of DNA's double helix) was sacked when he made an offhand public statement confirming a link between genetics and crime. When people who have your views try to shut up the world's most towering scientific intellects, because science is at odds with their social or religious views, it just goes to show that we have not advanced too far since the Pope threatened Galileo.

"What this is supposed to prove", is that there is a link between genetics and behaviour, and that genetically eradicating those humans most prone to the most violent anti social behaviour will improve the human race.

I have already explained to both you and Mr Wu, that making punishments incrementally more severe for proscribed behaviour, does at as a deterrent for most people. Most people can understand this simple concept, why can't you?

If most black races are over represented in serious criminal behaviour, and most Asian races under represented, then this tends to confirm Watson's premise of a genetic link between genetics and crime. Any argument to the contrary, usually entails the usual "blame the white guys for everything" excuse, which is itself a racist premise.

Of course, you could come up with some other excuse AJ. But I doubt if your social conditioning allows you to come up with anything original. But I double dog dare you to try.

I think this deserves another run. It seems appropriate for those with "The Certainty of Being Out of Brains"

You have a natural tendency
To squeeze off a shot
You're good fun at parties
You wear the right masks
You're old but you still
Like a laugh in the locker room
You can't abide change
You're at home on the range
You opened your suitcase
Behind the old workings
To show off the magnum
You deafened the canyon
A comfort a friend
Only upstaged in the end
By the Uzi machine gun
Does the recoil remind you
Remind you of sex
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
I looked over Jordan and what did I see
Saw a U.S. Marine in a pile of debris
I swam in your pools
And lay under your palm trees
I looked in the eyes of the Indian
Who lay on the Federal Building steps
And through the range finder over the hill
I saw the front line boys popping their pills
Sick of the mess they find
On their desert stage
And the bravery of being out of range
Yeah the question is vexed
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
Hey bartender over here
Two more shots
And two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound
The war has started on the ground
Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gain terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range

Thanks again to Mr Waters for his brilliantly poetic character portrait.

LEGO,

I’ve already explained the Watson saga. The US National Association of Coloured People were wasting their time. We already know that there is no one crime gene and that there is a link between genetics and crime, but not without environmental factors to determine whether (infinite combinations of) genes will manifest as criminogenic, productive, or benign (and this is one discovery that has debunked racism). This is why we can’t “genetically eradicate those humans most prone to the most violent anti social behaviour”. We would have to kill everyone.

I’ve already warned you of the perils of measuring IQ too, but since you mention it. African American IQs, on average, are increasing (with equality, mind you) at a faster rate than caucasian American IQs. At the current rate, they’ll be smarter than whites within several of generations. What will be of your racial theories then?

<<I have already explained ... that making punishments incrementally more severe for proscribed behaviour, does at as a deterrent for most people.>>

And I’ve already explained that the severity has a statistically in significant effect on deterrence. This is because people tend to misjudge the risk of getting caught. Furthermore, people who commit crimes have been found to disproportionately focus on the rewards over the risk. For these reasons, certainty of punishment is more effective. Swiftness is also more effective as a ‘specific deterrence’ (you can look that one up yourself) because the longer the length of time between a criminal act and the punishment, the less likely an offender is to associate the punishment with the crime.

I could refer you to the data on this but, as usual, you won’t look at it.

<<Most people can understand this simple concept, why can't you?>>

Most people could also see that the earth was flat once too.

<<Any argument to the contrary, usually entails the usual "blame the white guys for everything" excuse, which is itself a racist premise.>>

It doesn’t matter what colour either party is. We see this with white minorities and majorities in Europe.

You’re just repeating your old arguments now.

Gee, Craig Minns. Unable to respond intelligently to my last post to you, except tossing in a sneery one liner, you are now trying bad poetry.

I can do better than that. Here is Tom Lehrer.

Oh, we are the folk song army
Everyone of us cares
We all hate poverty, war, and injustice
Unlike the rest of you squares

There are innocuous pop songs, yeah
But we regard them with scorn
The folks who sing them have no social conscience
Why they could't care if "Jimmy crack corn."

If you feel dissatisfaction
strung your frustrations away
Some people may prefer action
But gimme a folk song, any old day.

The tune don't have to be clever
And it doesn't matter if you stick a couple of sentences into one line.
It sounds more ethnic if it ain't good English
And it don't even gotta rhyme.

Remember the war against Franco?
That's the kind of place each of us belongs
Though he may have won all the battles
We had all the good songs.

So, join in the folk song army
Guitars are the weapons we bring
To the fight against poverty, war, and injustice
Ready, aim, sing.

"Gee, Craig Minns"

And what's your name, old man? Oh, the bravery of being out of range; the vicarious thrill of watching others do your dirty work.

Could you even hold a rifle up any more, old man?

Does the recoil remind you
Remind you of sex
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next

Mentioned in the media this morning, why isn't Abbott jumping up and down about executions in two of his most loved countries the USA and Saudie Arabia, typical of everything now, look one way and never the other way, Indonesia bad, bad and bad, the USA , let's not rock the boat, so OK, OK, and OK, hypocrites abound. One wonders if these two drug mules were found guilty in the USA and were to be exterminated possibly nothing would be said or done, can't upset our allies can we, it is a one eyed society.
Although as mentioned I do not like the death penalty in what ever country it is allowed, I do wish Indonesia would get it over with one way or the other, then let Women's Day and TV networks fork out thousands of dollars to relatives to tell how their sons were such good people and were coaxed into the drug trade by unscrupulous people, even if we knew what they were doing, sob, sob.

Hi there LEGO...

Thank you for your response. I don't know much about Chris KYLIE, other than he was a much acclaimed military sniper in Iraq (I think?). Apparently, he'd admitted when questioned, that his killing of armed individuals in a war zone had little psychological impact upon him personally, during his military deployment ? Of course I can't comment, nor can I get inside his head.

In 1986 I trained as a Sniper, with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, in the United States. Part of that training included the psychological impact of 'making the shot' as it's described. Of course there's little comparison to be made between law enforcement marksmanship, and military sniping. Fortunately, I've never been called upon to 'make the shot'. Could I do so, I honestly don't know ?

I've had other 'FIRST HAND' experiences in taking life. I have no idea what Chris KYLIE felt like, after his first 'result', but after the dust settled, mine it hit me like the proverbial freight train ! Even worse for me, it was no means the last. Now nearly fifty years on, I remember vividly many of the circumstances arising out of the whole sorry mess. Obviously Chris KYLIE is made of much sterner stuff than me, a much tougher bloke by all accounts ? Well wherever the truth may lie as to my level of courage and my conscience, I'll defer absolutely to the 'steel' Mr KYLIE has running through his veins ?

I still don't resile from my position for a moment, no government has the moral right to ask any individual, to legally 'put to death' another human being for a crime against society. It's morally reprehensible. Moreover if it's the wish of the presiding government that certain crimes attract and deserve capital punishment, then let a member of that government officiate at each and every execution !

I suppose that its now beside the point that
one of the suspected "King Pins" behind the Bali 9
drug mules is free and living a life of luxury in
Australia. What I don't understand is why the
Australian Federal Police did not follow the Bali
9 back into this country, and wait until they made their
delivery, then arrest the "King Pins" really responsible
for the drug trade. We're told that the Bali 9, were
questioned by the Australian Federal Police - and they
stated they could not give out any information without
risking the lives of their families. However, the Federal
Police could have simply allowed the Bali 9, to come back
here and followed them until they delivered the goods.

We wouldn't have the current situation we have today.

o sung wu, your comments are obviously deeply personal and very well considered. There are some here who could learn a lot from your example.

Foxy, I think we have to accept that the AFP acted in good faith in choosing to take the action they did, even though in hindsight it seems to have been a poor choice. The only other interpretation is that this was a deliberate ploy to make an example of these people.

If that is the case then there are serious questions that should be asked about the origin of that decision and those questions should be asked very forcefully. If it turns out that such a decision was not made outside the organisation, at Ministerial level, then the probity of the AFP is in doubt.

Whether Chan and Sukumaran are sacrificed to Widodo's ambitions or not, this matter has a long way yet to run.

Foxy the difference would be a kiss and a hug from the law makers here, do we ever hear what happens to all of these people who get caught here, there are many, jails are full so what do we do with them, a drug grower and supplier lived next door some years ago, four years he traded and nothing happened, except his live in partner was so over the moon she lived in cupboards in the house, he would still be in the drug trade, that was his life, he could not be rehabitated, they tried, that is the difference,
Interesting you mention the family could be in trouble, my assumption is they knew what their sons and daughter were up to, but wait, the dollars will soon flow with interviews, etc, think of the wealth the Corby family have now accumulated
They were caught in the right country, they knew their fate if caught, Abbott & Co keep out of it, get on with running Australia and not Indonesia, they are drug traffickers

Hi there CRAIG MINNS...

Thank you for your words of understanding, I very much appreciate it, much more then many will realise. Concerning the actions of the AFP in this matter, it's my understanding a co-operative strategy works, with all Nations with whom we have LO's in our Embassies and High Commissions.

A case of 'you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours' situation, when tracking and interdicting hard drugs through the underworld pipelines of each country. Eventually, when the 'product' has reached it's intended target destination, a decision as to when and how the pinch is to be made is decided. Why it was decided the Indonesian authorities should make their move, I don't know ?

As an insert, it's well known within our immediate region (S.E. Asia), Australia is considered extremely soft when dealing in Drug Trafficking, so much so we've literally 'no face', as opposed to 'losing face' within our zone ? It's a pity really, it's not our police that are 'soft', it's our governments who are at fault.

To O Sung Woo

If you could not "make the shot", you should never have volunteered for sniping, or been accepted as a sniper.

The military of every country have been fully aware that most men can not kill the enemy, for more than 200 years. Some nimrod hunters find that they are even unable to even kill animals, which is a condition known as "buck fever." It takes a certain psychology to make a real soldier who can kill people in large numbers without being overcome with guilt. Elite military forces which are force multipliers, are very disprortionately made up of natural born killers, who are still decent men in civvy street. Perhaps Chris Kylie's father got it right when he told his son that people fell into three categories. Sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. Foxy and Craig Minns are sheep. Ivan Milat, Ted Bundy and those ISIS clowns are wolves. US marines, SAS, paratroopers and Chris Kylie are sheepdogs.

Once again you claim that governments do not have the right to kill criminals. But the paradox is, that you probably agree that governments have the right to tell their armed forces to kill their nations enemies. If my premise is correct about your attitudes, how do you reconcile this apparent contradiction? Please write as much as you can in your reply so that I can analyse your logic.

To Foxy.

The Australian Federal Police probably deliberately tipped of the Indonesian Police because the Feds wanted the drug runners executed. The police see the dead bodies of addicts and people gunned down in drug wars. They see the dead victims of robberies caused by drug addiction. And what is worse, is that they see the children of drug addicted parents and they know what miserable lives those kids lead. The Feds are probably angry that our government is too pansified and sheepish to do what is necessary to protect our people.

Let's face it LEGO, the only "gun" you've ever played with hasn't worked in years.

A bit like those old 3 inchers parked up outside every second RSL: a reminder to future generations of what happens when you let old men with delusions of adequacy get carried away with themselves.

Hi there LEGO...

I don't believe one can theorise about killing, until one is directly involved in it. Myself, I don't believe I'm a sheep, a wolf or a sheepdog. I've had a lot to do with the SASR in the West, and none would attempt to 'label' themselves as anything other than well trained soldiers. Be assured, none of them believe themselves to be any type of 'super soldier' - 'we all bleed when we're cut' a Regimental maxim.

Further to your view, the probable reason why the AFP informed the Indonesians of the unlawful activities of the so called Bali 9, is to see them executed, is an altogether interesting hypothesis indeed ?

Why does our government send troops to kill our enemies, is because they are our enemy. Drug runners, are not the enemy, they are criminals ? There's no contradiction at all. The latter are criminals, and as such they are dealt with pursuant to our Statutes.

If the death penalty was available in our statute, it's possible they would be executed, pursuant to that statute. Thankfully the death penalty no longer exists for any offence under Australian law ?

O Sung Wu, why are they our enemies? ordinary people do not create wars, we are told by our Governments they are enemies, Vietnam was our enemy because we were told by an imperialist Government they were, look what happened there, China is fast becoming an enemy, likewise Russia, once again the ordinary people do not want to create wars with these people, but Governments do, we are also being brain washed into the terrorist syndrome when in actual fact these people have severe mental problems like Martin Bryant of years ago, Governments know this but prefer to use the word terrorist., Governments want us to become subservient to them, with unemployment rising, demonstrations will become not allowed, even on Monday we will be subject to internet policing by our present Government, our rights are disappearing.
This brief has nothing to do with the subject matter, but my feelings on that have been expressed here.

To O Sung Wu

Your premise that it is OK for governments "to send troops to kill our enemies, because they are the enemy", hardly explains the clear double standard of why it is OK to kill external enemies, but not internal ones, who are usually much worse enemies than the external ones.

As a student of military history, what has always struck me as the tragedy of war, was that governments sent their finest young men to kill another nations finest young men, for political reasons. Often those fine young men openly admired the courage and personnel qualities of the fine young enemies they were fighting and killing. And after the war was over, those self same former enemies continued to admire each other. British war veterans from the El Alemein and Tobruk batles attend the annual ceremony over Erwin Rommel's grave, and form friendships with Africa Korps veterans.
British naval seamen express admiration for the courage of Argentine pilots who flew though murderous AA fire to bomb them. Japanese and Australian veterans of the Kokoda Track battle, who in battle executed each others captured prisoners during that bitter fight, now sit down together in restaurants and swap war stories.

You think it is OK for the finest young men of any society to kill the finest young men of another "because they are the enemy."

But when it comes to the Ivan Milat's of this world (at least 7 young people murdered), or the Ted Bundy's (at least 36 young women raped and murdered) , or the Gary Ridgeway's (at least 60 young women raped and murdered), you consider their worthless lives sacrosanct. They must not be killed because you think it is inhumane to kill sadistic and deranged monsters.

That is the reasoning I do not understand.

Soldiers of the world would be better used fighting and shooting the Milat's, Bundy's and Ridgeway's of this world, as well as the Mafia, M19, Al Qaida, The Taliban, and the Narcotrafficantes, instead of each other. The world would be a much better place.

Hi there OJNAB & LEGO...

During the Indonesian Confrontation and the Vietnam war I was a member of the ARA. Consequently the government of the day determined Oz would provide troops to aid British forces to stop the Indonesians (Pres.SURKANO) from overthrowing Malaysia in 1964/65. And later on (about 1964) the AATTV was deployed, purely to assist the South Vietnam government to train their own troops. We'd all been repatriated back to OZ from Malaysia in 1965, and after a 'breather' we'd received another deployment advice, for South Vietnam. The thing is...

As a soldier it's not up to me to decide who I shall oppose. Otherwise why be in the military at all ? Neither is it a moral argument, it's simply a matter that once you sign on the 'dotted' line, you're sworn-in and are required to obey your commander's orders and directions, provided those they are lawful ? I couldn't imagine, Armed Forces of any Nation were comprised of individuals who examined every direction, order and ambush, from a strictly moral perspective. If that were to happen, you'd have utter chaos, and would most probably end up being eviscerated by the enemy ?

What I will readily confess to you both, when that moment comes during your deployment to any 'active combat zone', and you're required to put into action everything you've been taught - 'FOR REAL', all sorts of emotional and mental images, conspicuously come to the fore !

Concerning those dreadful criminals you've both cited, MILAT and ors. You'll not get any argument from me gentleman ! Remember I spent years as a copper, I reckon we'd all be on the same page concerning these types. Fortunately Ivan MALAT was not someone that I had anything to do with, fortunately for me at least. However, there were others just as evil, murderous and sinister as MILAT ? Someone I mentioned previously on this Forum, one Archie Beattie McCAFFERTY ? Perhaps you can Google him if you wish ? Personally, the only time I'd like to see Archie's name featured, is in the obituaries.

o sung Wu, I do agree with you that if you join the armed forces then that is the occupation you have chosen, you then must fight anywhere you are sent by the war lords (Governments).
Having been conscripted as an eighteen year old into the army, this is a different ball game, I did not choose that profession, but was ordered there by the Menzies Government, so any killing of young lads is blood on that Government hands when they were killed in the Vietnam & Korean wars, the Russian Cold War was also of concern to Menzies.
WW1 young lads joined because of King & Country, a war mainly connected to Royalty, Willhelm 11 of Germany, Victoria's grandson was a main agitator, why King is beyond me (joining the forces now you have to show allegiance to the old lady, would be better if Country only) also the white flower syndrome was alive and well, guilt if not joining was a stressful situation to them at that time.
WW2 was no better, the mother country needed you but did little in Singapore when they were needed, they soon run off and left it to the Americans.
Soldiers were ordinary men who basically were conscripted because they felt they should, and to protect their country from invasion.
Join the armed forces, to kill or be killed, that is your choice, but not conscription.
We have digressed away from the subject matter of " Death for Drugs".

Hi (again) OJNAB...

Indeed we've digressed from the topic. Although I'm against the death penalty, it doesn't mean I'm all soft and forgiving for blokes like these two. If it were within my own purview they would receive a sentence consistent with the seriousness of their offence, together with their attitudes they both cleverly concealed upon their arrest.

The arrogance they both managed to conceal, as well as the contempt and scorn they maintained, of the Indonesian justice system - much like, '...they're only a third world country, we'll be able to manipulate and exploit their naivety, every chance we get...' this type of indifference and insouciant dismissal and thinking, is often vehement amongst such criminals from developed nations ?

Sadly for them they've greatly underestimated their captor's alleged 'naivety' entirely, and are now looking down the barrel (literally) of half a dozen (modern) military assault rifles ! SUKUMARAN particularly will no longer be in a position to physical intimidate these small in statue, but tough Indonesian police officers ? Do I have compassion for them ? Not a scintilla, nothing, zip ! That said, I'm still, wholly against Capital Punishment !

The only departure from my implacable and resolute stance against the death penalty, as I've indicated previously in another similar topic ? As an example, if a member of ISIS is caught, having just committed wilful murder, during a terrorist attack, he should be executed contemporaneously for that offence. Provided his/her criminal conduct and his/her identity has been witnessed, and beyond 'any' doubt whatsoever.

OJNAB and LEGO, I believe I've more or less exhausted my belief's and my reasoning. Moreover, I've probably not satisfied any of your questions sufficiently, especially those queries concerning 'morality' precisely ? Your example of soldiers killing enemy soldiers, all the while society's enemies (our worst criminals) are kept alive, and at taxpayers expense, a seemingly contradictory state of affairs, and I'd agree with you ?

Such philosophical uncertainty, together with dubious criterion impacting upon our society's sense of morality, shall continue to reman unresolved I expect ?

Drug peddlers don't harm anyone.
What they do is make poison available for wilful fools, knowing what it is, to opt to take it voluntarily (and even pay money for it), contemptuously brushing aside the mountains of information flooding the public arena which makes it perfectly clear what drug abuse will do.
The purpose of the war on drugs is to maintain their street value and to fill the gaols, leaving inadequate space for imprisoning those who commit aggression against hapless victims who have not volunteered (and even paid money!) to be its recipients. Hence the epidemic of street thuggery and domestic violence.

O sung Wu thank you for your posts, I do appreciate your writing, I also agree with how you feel, I have those same feelings with the two drug mules, don'kill, but kill, after all it is Indonesian law, what worries me more is the reaction of the Indonesian people to Prime Minister Abbott regarding money previously given for relief purposes, he must be far more diplomatic before he opens his mouth, he is a Prime Minister and not a man in the Street who can say what they like, why rock the boat over two druggies.

Hi there OJNAB...

Thank you for your kind words I really appreciate them. The two in BALI are in a tough position, a position they no doubt placed themselves in. Now they must face the sovereign Nation of Indonesia's justice system, and there's nothing anyone can do about it ?

I agree with you OJNAB. Mr ABBOTT would've been better served by saying nothing about Australia's aid package, all that will do is inflame and embarrass the proud and sensitive Indonesian Psyche, I suspect ? I guess we'll soon see ?