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...