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