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