“…incapacitation can be achieved through appropriately lengthy jail sentences.”
C’mon David, you know that in practice that just doesn’t happen. Yes Ivan Milat and Martin Bryant will die in jail, but all other murderers in time will be released, while still healthy enough to wield a knife, bat or garrotte.

“The state, as a collective of individuals, should not generally have moral rights that individuals do not have.”
Gee, I’m not allowed to forcibly take money off my neighbour to pay for foreign aid, or maintain an armed police force, or issue a CPO (compulsory purchase order) for the house at the end of the street to be levelled for a park, so it looks like the state can’t do that either.

“…and signals, wrongly, that violence can solve problems.”
Err…doesn’t grabbing that 357 Magnum and blowing the brains out of someone about to rape you solve a problem? And what about carpet bombing Baghdad to suggest to it it should withdraw its troops from Kuwait. Didn’t that solve the problem of territorial aggression?

Your example of the surgeon is a "straw man" argument. You really will have to do better.

David

Very good article, David, thank you.

It fascinates me that it is often the same people who rail against the brutality of ISIS who most eagerly express their support for the death penalty.

"The state, as a collective of individuals, should not generally have moral rights that individuals do not have."

As has already been pointed out the state well any truly breaches that concept on a massive scale.

The confiscation of personal property under threat of force (our income tax system) being one of the more obvious breaches.

Senior politicians, police etc being protected by guns while most are not allowed to own a gun for the purpose if self protection.

There are a whole range of ways that states impact on the lives of those not convicted of any crime that individuals do not have.

I din't see any easy answers to some of those dilemas, rather I consider that argument to be pointless in this discussion.

R0bert

So here speaks a clown with a PhD, so bow down & give praise. He is a scientists, so knows all, at least in the rarefied incestuous atmosphere of the university campus.

Come on David, you are not talking at some campus group dinner party, you are out in the real world of real people, talking to people who actually live in the real world.

You have to do much better than this bit of fluff if you want people to listen.

It fascinates me that it is often the same people who rail against the brutality of ISIS who most eagerly express their support for the death penalty.

Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 9:51:42 AM

Predictable as ever.

Is there something wrong with railing against the brutality of ISIS? Perhaps you think ISIS is doing a great job? Are you suggesting fighting ISIS is the equivalent of carrying out the death sentence? If so, isn't ISIS also carrying out the death sentence, which now that I think about it, they say they are doing.

Do you really believe ISIS is an organisation worth defending?

If you cannot distinguish between death sentence carried out by a State in which it is legal, and the violent evasion of barbaric Islamic savages, there's no point even trying to talk sense with you.

CH, what on earth gives you the idea that I think ISIS is worth defending?

However, bear in mind that as far as ISIS is concerned, it is a State and in that state it is legal to carry out the death penalty by public decapitation (but beheading sounds so much more satisfyingly pornographic, doesn't it?), or by public immolation or by various other means. Presumably you, staunch defender of states' rights that you are, think this is all right and proper.

I just don't buy any of that!

We train soldiers to kill and efficiently as possible! We drop bombs that all too often fall on the innocent as the guilty, and are seeking new ways to do it remotely, from a supposedly safer distance.

Even today, we are discussing where we should have our subs built!

And these machines in some nations hands, are the most lethal weapons ever built; and capable as just a single sub, of destroying most of the so called civilized world!

We parade around waving banners that decry the death penalty, while an elderly neighbor is left to fend for themselves!

We seem to be able to find endless empathy for convicted criminals; but bugger all for an elderly and virtually helpless housebound neighbor!

Another even more helpless prisoner, who will also die soon, and what's worse, all too often, from our (couldn't give a rats) neglect!

I sense diabolical double standards on display here; and empathy reserved strictly for (look at me, look at me) heroic public consumption; and little or none when the T.V. Cameras and News Crews are missing in action; or busy chasing ambulances!

The more we back the Indonesians into a corner, with our megaphone diplomacy and double standard public protests, the more likely they are to find less and less compassion for people who knew exactly what they were doing and the risks involved!

And their rehab may be as disingenuous are they were, when trying to smuggle potentially lethal drugs across state borders! Save your sympathy for more worthwhile causes!

That said, suppose we reintroduced capital punishment? And include in the list of possible recipients, Indonesian people smugglers, given some of their customers will also die, as have many already!

A culpable death remains a culpable death, regardless of form or manner of (drugs or drowning) delivery!

How long, do you think, would it then take for the Indonesians to take the death penalty off of the table?
Rhrosty.

Hi All...

I don't agree, with much of what David has said, other than I don't support the death penalty. He outlines many of the issues that criminologists tend to espouse, the last of which is that of retribution by society. Whereas, I firmly believe that the word punishment (retribution) should come first, with the others following.

He cites individuals such as Ivan MILAT and Martin BRYANT as two criminals who'll probably not see the light of a day's freedom ? There are many others who should never be released either, far worse than MILAT, and believe it or not, BRYANT - BRYANT'S evil was magnified purely by the large number of victims, of this individual's murderous rage, rather than the sheer horror and atrociousness of the specifics of the crime itself !

Alan CRUMP and Kevin BAKER were as bad as I've ever heard or seen, as well as the MURPHY brothers, who followed closely behind. Indeed, there are a small select number of criminals in gaols around Australia, who MUST die therein, and will do so, provided all government's retain their nerve, and 'stare-down' these 'far lefty' ratbags calling for the release of these maggots on compassionate grounds ! Never ever, must some of these evil 'things' EVER see freedom !

Please understand, it's only police who get to 'see' and to 'smell', a really horrific crime scene. Even the Coroner is often spared such horrors (not by much, I'll grant you) that police have to deal with. Moreover, it's only police who to take home those images of horror, and smells so dreadful, regardless of the showering, you'll never remove 'the stink' from your 'being' ?

Not governments, the public, the criminologists, lawyers, medical doctors etc. and many others, it's the police that first, must deal with the initial scene of such abject human depravity and degeneracy.

If society wishes to determine, whether a killer is ready to be released from gaol - FIRSTLY, ask the opinion of the investigating detectives ! It is they who truly know ALL the circumstances of that crime ?

O sung wu, I agree. I don’t also support the death penalty, but I don’t think this article argues the case against very well. I also agree with VK3AUU that the surgeon analogy is a poor one.

Swanton asserts that the death penalty “doesn't conform to modern notions of how we should treat fellow humans”, but doesn’t say why “modernity” is a legitimate test of the ethics of a penalty, or even explain what “modern notions of how we should treat fellow humans” actually are. He also says that “A better alternative to many people's eye for an eye system of morality is one based on an ethical principle that it is wrong to kill other people against their will.” I happen to agree, but I’d expect an article like this to try to explain WHY that is a better system, not merely to assert it.

I oppose the death penalty because:
- The evidence does not support claims it acts as a deterrent
- It doesn’t save money – people sentenced to death will typically exhaust every legal option they can to avoid execution, and legal processes are very expensive
- The legal system often makes mistakes, especially in the high-profile and emotive cases most likely to attract the death penalty. Many people convicted of IRA bombings in the UK, for example, were later shown to be innocent.
- It is rarely applied impartially. Black men are disproportionately likely to be executed in the USA. Almost none of the people executed in Indonesia in recent years were Indonesian.
- It allows no possibility of rehabilitation or restitution.
- It can seriously affect the metal health of prison staff and others who participate in the gruesome practicalities of killing another human being.
- Life imprisonment is not a soft option.
- There is no humane way to execute someone, and anticipation of execution causes acute suffering for prisoners and their families.
- I believe that taking human life diminishes and degrades the society that practices it.

Another take on the list of reasons to oppose the death penalty from someone who supports it:

- The evidence does not support claims it acts as a deterrent
* death criminals cannot reoffend
- It doesn’t save money – people sentenced to death will typically exhaust every legal option they can to avoid execution, and legal processes are very expensive
* the legal process can be streamlined. Also at nearly $100,000/yr to incarcerate, 25, 30, 45 years will clock up a much bigger expense in the long run
- The legal system often makes mistakes, especially in the high-profile and emotive cases most likely to attract the death penalty. Many people convicted of IRA bombings in the UK, for example, were later shown to be innocent.
* only apply the death sentence to the most horrendous crimes and for killing a Police Office and only when there is absolutely no uncertainty.
- It is rarely applied impartially. Black men are disproportionately likely to be executed in the USA. Almost none of the people executed in Indonesia in recent years were Indonesian.
* as above; the undeniable evidence is agreed by all (expect perhaps the accused)
- It allows no possibility of rehabilitation or restitution.
* Horrendous evil stalker rapists and tortuous murderers, serial paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. They cannot be trusted ever again.
- It can seriously affect the metal health of prison staff and others who participate in the gruesome practicalities of killing another human being.
* I doubt this; if the act is carried out by a person who can detach himself from personalising the act, professionally detached so to speak, like a Samurai, without hate for the victim, such concern is not an issue. It does require employing the right person for the job and after much psychological assessment.
- Life imprisonment is not a soft option.
* Lifelong imprisonment is more inhumane. Inmates should at least have the option of an on-demand cyanide pill via a straw in the wall

continued...

- There is no humane way to execute someone, and anticipation of execution causes acute suffering for prisoners and their families.
*Did the perpetrator facing a death sentence treat his victim humanely? Evil serial killers, cowardly killers of the elderly, the frail, the defenceless, children, etc don't deserve sympathy. Speeding up the process like the Chinese do can eliminate this concern.
- I believe that taking human life diminishes and degrades the society that practices it.
*That's your belief and assessment. Many agree with you and many don't. I do not see how the death penalty degrades the society at whole; it is simply a facet of the reality in which it takes place that does not effect most of the people.
*From a karma perspective, receiving the death sentence for committing a similar crime actually allows the person to pay their dues in this life.

David Swanton claims that the only possible reason for the death penalty is deterrence and retribution. Wrong. Executing the very worst offenders definitely stops repeat offenders. I have previously posted the names of four Australian abductor, rapist, murderers who "served lengthy jail terms" and murdered five more women and children after release.

The claim that "the large majority of experts consider that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting the contention that the death penalty deters criminal behaviour." sounds like double talk to me. Where is the scientific evidence to support the premise that capitol punishment does NOT act as a deterrent? Your incredible claim means that if no evidence exists to support the death penalty, then the absence of evidence supports the idea that capitol punishment should be abolished.

There is no evidence to support there is no life on Neptune, therefore life must exist. Great logic.

Your "retribution" premise is laughable. The principle that offenders with medical problems and mental problems may not be considered legally responsible for their actions is already enshrined in law. Every single county on Earth believes in killing external enemies, because every country on Earth has some sort of armed force to protect it's people. Those soldiers are armed with every kind of lethal weapon imaginable. The double standard that people like you display, is that there is nothing wrong with killing external enemies in whatever numbers you like, but it is absolutely wrong to kill internal enemies, who are usually a lot worse than the external enemies.

I will take notice on human rights when I get to vote for what they should be. Australia is a sovereign state and Australian laws are supposed to be the generally accepted will of the Australian electorate. Unelected International busybodies can go to hell. And just in case you have missed it, the Indonesians are rightfully telling Australian busybodies like you to go to hell. You have just as much right to tell the Indonesians what to do in their own country, as the Indonesians have of demanding that Australians do not eat pork.

Good evening to you both, RHIAN & CONSERVATIVEHIPPIE...

I agree with everything you've said apropos making out a case against Capital Punishment. Have absolutely no doubt gentleman, as an ex detective, I've a distinct loathing for most of these individuals, and strongly recommend 'protracted' gaol time, served in maximum security, together with penal servitude (no longer an option now, regrettably), nevertheless with hard labour, is an absolute must, in my opinion !

The only problem being, we've got these ridiculous 'premature' parole conditions, and a real difficulty with substantial remissions being available, plus special remission that generally accompanies industrial disputation of gaol staff, and other unforeseeable remission being granted ? Consequently we have the crook out and about sooner rather than later ?

The word 'joke' is often 'muttered', and is generally bandied about by all those on the side of the Crown (Prosecution) ? The difficulty being, these crimes are considered so very serious, and are amongst those normally classified as capital crime, and under different circumstance, the punishment would attract a mandatory Death Sentence ? Apparently, if you behave yourself your life sentence, normally means you're out and free, in between 12 to 15 years, the last 4 or 5 years spent in low security incarceration ! My only question - what price is a life ?

In my humble opinion (for what it's worth) a life sentence for the crime of homicide, should attract a absolute minimum of 25 years, again, ABSOLUTE MINIMUM of 25 YEARS ! Depending on the degree of violence, and other judicial considerations, to do with issues of aggravation and compounding the offence of homicide (not necessary to argue each point herein?) that minimum of 25 years, is increased exponentially, to a point of - 'life' without ANY possibility of being paroled or licensed to freedom !

These are only my thoughts on a process of dealing with capital crimes, and the suggested punitive measures as an alternate to the Death Penalty ?

.

Dear David (the author),

.

Perhaps you might like to read the following article :

http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FDocumentStore.ashx%3Fid%3Dc1447c7d-6904-4d9e-a7d6-a67edd6fb115%26subId%3D300148&ei=0fL2VOHGMMrzat25gLgO&usg=AFQjCNGFEgm86rD84Z5IQxCtmCDeD0GZ6g&bvm=bv.87519884,d.d24

.

O Sung Wu,

Appreciate your remarks on what the police have to see;

I was involved, as the representative of one of the families, in a double suicide and was present from not long after the police arrival to the bodies being taken away by ambulance.
It was not a nice experience and whilst I was there two Probationers were brought in to see their first view of dead people, in this case two teenage boys dead by shotgun in the mouth.
The two constables left looking a bit shaken.

On another occasion I was part of a select group who were shewn police photographs of death scenes; one that I particularly remember was of the Warder who was bludgeoned to death at Emu Plains by two escaped prisoners from another prison.
The senior officer who was giving part of the presentation was scathing in that this particular killing had been found to be "manslaughter". The viciousness as shewn by the shattered and scattered skull was obvious.

A policeman's lot is not an easy one.

The death penalty for trafficking drugs in Indonesia was in place when these two were caught. End of story!

By all means lobby for changes, but they can't be made retrospective.

BTW, if anyone does choose to lobby for change, just make sure they're not using my taxes as well.

Conservative Hippie

You argue mainly from how the death penalty might work in theory. The practice is often far removed.

On your specific points:

Dead people cannot reoffend, but nor can people imprisoned for life. And if a wrongful conviction is made, the wrongfully imprisoned can be released, but the dead can’t be brought back to life.

Legal processes can be streamlined, but the quicker and simpler you make the process, the more likely it is you’ll be killing to wrong person.

The most horrendous crimes are precisely those when emotion and public/media pressure make wrongful conviction more likely, and the demand for the death penalty most strident. Again, witness the IRA (non) bombers. If the UK had the death penalty, they would undoubtedly have been hanged. And are you old enough to remember how fiercely the public loathed Lindy Chamberlain?

In principle the penalty should be determined only by the crime. In practice, the rich, educated and influential are much less likely to be executed than the poor and illiterate, even allowing for the latter’s greater propensity to offend. As a death row guard in this survey says, “I’ve never seen a rich man executed”:
http://web.stanford.edu/group/journal/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Osofsky_SocSci_2002.pdf

The study also found that prison officers: ‘experience stress and emotional reactions, frequently having a hard time carrying out society’s “ultimate punishment.”’ Detachment is in fact a sign of mental disorder or psychological damage. The best death row guards care for their charges, which is why the process of killing them is so distressing.

Any human being holds the possibility of rehabilitation – witness the Bali 2. That’s not the same as releasing or trusting them. Even the repentant and rehabilitated must complete their punishment.

LEGO
There is no “absence of evidence”. There is lots of evidence, but it is inconclusive and contradictory. The US National Research Council conducted a survey of more than 30 years of studies and concluded “research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates is not useful in determining whether the death penalty increases, decreases, or has no effect on these rates”.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty

Double standards are alive and well when it comes to grandstanding on the death penalty and cruelty.

The Government, the media and the do-gooders have all spoken out against the death penalty that is hanging over the heads of two Australian drug traffickers.

The same parties have spoken out recently against the cruel treatment of wild animals in the training of greyhounds. The perpetrating trainers face life expulsion from greyhound racing.

It is surprising that the author, an ethicist, fails to acknowledge that around 100,000 unborn children who are completely innocent and defenceless, are subjected to the death penalty by way of abortion each year in Australia.

Although it is known that unborn children can feel pain as early as 20 weeks after fertilisation, there is no recognition of the cruelty they suffer in the termination process. What’s more, in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT, unborn child killing is legal right up to full term of pregnancy.

Then there are those in the community who scream blue murder when wild animals are culled for over-population reasons, yet endorse the culling of unborn children of female gender.

To add insult to injury, the killers of the innocents and the accessories to the killing get away scot-free. Not only are the perpetrators not condemned by the responsible State or Territory government, but the Federal Government comes to the party by subsidising expenses incurred.

To Rhian.

The "National Research Council" could have been composed by Arjay, Yebiga, and Susieoncrack, for all I know.

The premise is, that the death penalty is no deterrent. The criminal underworld do not believe that for a second. They are not idealists such as yourself. They tend to be practical people who know the value of threatening to kill anybody who informs on them, or who will act as a witness against them.

It stands to reason that some people will be deterred from engaging in criminal behaviour, if the penalty is severe enough to make them think again. Here in NSW, it costs State Rail $60 million dollars p.a. to repair damage caused by graffiti vandalism to trains and railway infrastructure. Singapore does not have that problem. Offenders caught spraying graffiti in Singapore are flogged. Result? No more graffiti in Singapore. I don't have a problem with the concept of first offenders and young offenders being given a second chance. But there has to be a point where crimes are becoming to disruptive of society, and humanitarian concerns are seen as just too ineffective and expensive to effectively combat them, especially with repeat offenders.

I have already named four offenders who were jailed for murder, and who re offended killing five more women and children after release. Others I can name have been sentenced to long prison sentences only to kill other inmates, or even prison officers, in jail. One child rapist murderer in Victoria and was considered so dangerous that the Victorian government illegally kept him in jail after the conclusion of his sentence. Another child rapist/murderer in Queensland bragged to other inmates how he looked forward to doing it again after release. The governor of his jail made him serve every single minute of his 25 year sentence before the law compelled the governor to release the child killer.

These mutants should not be breathing.

LEGO

You say “The "National Research Council" could have been composed by Arjay, Yebiga, and Susieoncrack, for all I know.” But a moment googling would show it is in fact composed of the National Academy of Science, the National Academy of Engineering, the National Academy of Medicine, and the National Research Council. It is a well-respected source of expert independent policy advice and analysis.

In some cases, life imprisonment should mean exactly that. For the most serious offences, and where there is a significant chance of reoffending, the offender should stay in jail until they die (of natural causes).

The alternative to the death penalty for the most serious crimes is life imprisonment, not freedom. So your underworld analogy doesn’t work – the mafia don’t operate maximum security prisons.

The question is whether the prospect of execution is more of a deterrent than the prospect of a life in jail. There are many reasons that it might not be. A life in jail is a horrible prospect – arguably worse than death. Many murders are committed in the heat of the moment with little regard for consequences, or with such strong motives that even the severest of penalties won’t deter. Criminals typically overestimate their ability to evade detection. Even for the most serious crimes, the probability of receiving a death sentence is small, and the probability of it actually being carried out even smaller. It is usually many years, sometimes decades, between sentencing and execution.

Rhian,these two were caught with kilos strapped to their bodies, how on earth could they ever be found not guilty.

Raycom, the two are not the same. Besides, abortion is nit murder as they are not born and if they were, they would be celertating their 1st birthday in about three months.

But, had these two escaped capture and the drugs made the streets, many unborn may well have been killed and/or deformed all with no care to these two.

Rules are rules and you can't get caught knowing the rules then cry wolf.

The media have a lot to answer for here and may I suggest in the future the indo governments should inform us thatntheynhave executed drug smugglers, rather than suggesting they're going to.

Hi there IS MISE...

Yes indeed, it's one of the least desirable parts of the job I'm afraid. And to say one gets use to it, is not altogether truthful, particularly when one needs to handle small children, who've been the subject of brutal murder.

Indeed, I seem to vaguely remember the murder of that Emu Plains prison warder, who if I recall was slaughtered while he slept ? Perhaps I'm wrong, I had nothing to do with the investigation, in fact I don't think I was even in the job in those days ?

The smell is another feature that never seems to leave you either, and even months after an event, a certain odour can trigger a memory of some awful vision to do with a crime of extreme violence.

Though IS MISE, you're a soldier in the Korean War, you and your platoon colleagues would've had similar experiences too, I would imagine ? Some memories are really hideous, so much so you take 'em to bed with you, days after the event ?

Some killers I've had to deal with, are beyond any compassion, any resemblance to a human being. A case for execution could very easily be made. But why ? Why allow these bastards the luxury of escaping punishment, by a quick merciful hanging ? Much better to have them languish in maximum security gaol for the rest of their natural lives !

Yes LEGO, that's right. It's a new thread. That means you can repeat all the claims I discredited in the last thread as if the question of their validity had somehow been reset.

And of course the most murders occur in the womb. Yep the Passover mentioned but no mention of the hundreds of thousands of butchered unborn baby. Unbelievable logic especially with someone with a science phd. Oh well just shows the smartest can be brainwashed and hard hearted.

Rehtcub
Even for people caught “red handed” there can be extenuating circumstances – threats or coercion, mental illness or incapacity, or ignorance (maybe Schapelle really didn’t know what was in her bag, though I doubt it).

No-one is sentenced to death, or life imprisonment, without the case against them being strong. But it can still be wrong. Since the 1970s, some 150 people in the USA who were sentenced to death were subsequently found to be innocent.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row?scid=6&did=110

Every time the death penalty is discussed on OLO, someone raises the notion of absolute certainty or being caught red-handed.

Now, while I can't speak for corrupt countries like Indonesia, in more civilised Western countries there is only the notion of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The law can't work with a concept as problematic as absolute certainty, and nor could it ever reasonably be reached. How do we know, for example, that the Bali Nine weren't whisked away to a private room only to have kilos of heroin dumped on the desk in front of them and told that it was strapped to their bodies. With an Asian and a big black man present, I'm sure an eye witness or two would even inadvertently invent a memory of them being caught red-handed and report seeing the heroin. It happens easily, and it happens all the time. Ruben Carter's was a famous case that was subject to similar biases.

The above is unlikely almost to the point of absurd - even in a corrupt country like Indonesia. But the law has to entertain all possibilities, which is why 'beyond reasonable doubt' is used instead of something as unrealistic as absolute certainty. So to those who say they'd support capital punishment only when we could be absolutely certain that the accused was guilty, your position is pointless; and to those who think that being caught red-handed invalidates anti-death-penalty arguments in some instances, it doesn't

Indeed A J PHILIPS...Ruben ('Hurricane') CARTER, wrongly convicted of homicide, and a world champion pugilist, of some notoriety ! I believe the same fellow may've ultimately been 'Admitted to the Bar' in the State of his original conviction too ? Justice gone awry, I suspect ?

Rhian.

Your own premise asserts that scientific evidence into the effects of the death penalty are "contradictory and inconclusive". OK, so we are left with common sense. Common sense says that the more severe the penalty, the less the likelihood that people thinking of committing very serious crimes will commit them. Chan and Sukamaran are classic examples. They coldly considered the penalty, the rewards, and their chances of being caught, and they decided that it was worth it. They lost. They are guilty. They will be executed. Thair execution will be widely publicised. And there are probably some more imported ethnic criminals living in Australia who also dream of making themselves rich by killing Australians, who will have second thoughts about imitating Chan and Sukamaran's business model.

Your claim that life in jail is worse than execution is a contradiction. If life imprisonment is worse, than all of your arguments supporting the idea that innocents can be convicted and punished for a crime they did not commit just went right out of the window.

Australia has sentenced every member of ISIS to death without trial and our Air Force is carrying out those executions as we write. We do care if we kill innocents with our bombs but that will not stop us from killing people that we consider an unacceptable threat to our society. My main premise is, that if kuilling external enemies by the thousands is OK, then killing a few of the worst and dangerous examples of our internal enemies is also OK.

Murderers who are sentenced to long prison terms and then kill again after release should be executed. Same for prisoners who kill inmates or prison officers in jail. Ditto for those who kill police officers. Here in Australia, at least three undercover police oficers who penetrated criminal bikie gangs and later gave evidence against them, now live in fear of their lives. This is unacceptable. So too, those who abduct, rape, and murder for fun do not deserve to live. Toss in a few Trimboles and Clarks and Australia will be a better place.

If the ultimate penalty, death, is not a deterrent then no punishment is a deterrent; so why have gaols?

What David and others are evading is the fact that the 'Republic of Indonesia' is an illegitimate power, and with the exception of Wahid havs never given a toss about any principle. The two Australians and other foreigners are being executing for domestic political reasons.

What Australians should be thinking about is what that Indonesian and other Indonesian policies reflect about the Indonesian public, their government, and whether Australia should be aiding or trying to protect itself from those aspects of its neighbour?

Dear Is Mise,

<<If the ultimate penalty, death, is not a deterrent then no punishment is a deterrent; so why have gaols?>>

Because many do not share this belief that death is the ultimate penalty.

LEGO
Why does the possibility that life imprisonment is worse than execution diminish the argument that the innocent are sometimes convicted? My point is that those wrongly imprisoned can be freed and compensated; those wrongly executed cannot.

Daeron
The article addresses the morality of the death penalty in general, not the specifics of the Bali 2. I agree that sovereign states make their own laws and penalties, but sometimes those laws are brutal and unjust, and we have every right to say so.

Is Mise
I don’t think the death penalty is not a deterrent, but it’s clearly not very effective. In the USA, states with the death penalty have higher murder rates on average than those without. The key question is whether it is more of a deterrent than the alternative - life imprisonment. This is where the evidence is mixed an inconclusive.

Even if neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment were deterrents, we would still have jails – to keep dangerous people off the streets, for punishment, and to provide opportunities for rehabilitation.

I'm sorry folks, what a lot of you are missing about this whole question of capital punishment, is that particular sentence is meant wholly as a 'punishment' nothing else. Not as a deterrent, a warning, a fiscal imperative (though some Nations may disagree?) nothing. It's a 'punishment' only, for taking another's life ! And as such, I don't agree with this ultimate sentence !

On another note, some have compared or contrasted, which is the worse of the two options ? Life imprisonment or being put to death ? Knowing maximum security gaols as I do, unless you're one tough, brutal dude, execution would be far more preferable, in my opinion.

Yuyutsu,

"Because many do not share this belief that death is the ultimate penalty".

Then what is the ultimate penalty?

Is Mise, for me, being locked up in a high security prison with nothing to do and nothing to look forward to for the rest of my life would be much worse than a quick death.

However, if I was wrongly convicted, I'd fight to the death to stay alive, because where there's life there's hope of the conviction being overturned. It wouldn't be much consolation to me if that happened posthumously, after all.

Dear Is Mise,

<<Then what is the ultimate penalty?>>

It differs from one person to another.

Consider what you personally dread the most being inflicted on you - for a few it would be death, but most of us envision one or more inflicted scenarios that would be much worse (obviously I won't openly describe mine, in case it's used against me).

Rhian

You ask if the prospect of life in prison is more of a deterrent than the prospect of execution? Answer. No. In the USA, it is common for prosecutors in capitol cases, where the prosecutor is worried that the offender may get off, to offer life in prison in exchange for a guilty plea. This offer is almost always taken up by the suspect in cases where the offender knows that he may get off, but the weight of evidence is still against him. In capitol cases involving two offenders, it is common to offer life in prison to one offender, in exchange for him being a witness against the dominant offender. This saves much court time and taxpayer money.

Your second question, involves the concept of the innocent being found guilty of a capitol crime. It is true that innocent people have been executed for crimes that they did not commit. This was because execution was the usual punishment for the crime of murder, a hundred years ago. We are a much more humane society now, and those advanced societies with capitol punishment typically impose the death penalty in cases where the sadistic nature and cruelty of the offender is almost beyond belief. In addition, investigative procedures have improved immeasurably in the last one hundred years. The same technology which has found people innocent of crimes is more usually used today to prove offenders guilty. In any case, I suspect you oppose capitol punishment even when the offender is a serial murdering monster and it is beyond any reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

Now I have answered two of your questions, I expect you to answer mine.

If you have no problem with the Australian government using the Australian Armed Forces to bestow the death penalty on our external enemies, why do you oppose the government doing the same selectively with our internal enemies?

Military operations routinely involve killing innocents, regardless of how much care we take not to do so. Do you oppose all military operations in defence of the realm, because we may kill innocents?

LEGO,

Your "proof" that capital punishment serves as more of a deterrent than LWOP is proof of nothing other than the fact that people who have been sprung are willing to bargain and generally see death has the more severe punishment. Deterrence, on the other hand, cannot, by definition, be measured when someone has already been caught because you’re not trying to deter them from anything.

The question is whether a potential offender is more deterred by the prospect of death than they are by the prospect of LWOP. Most of the evidence suggests they're not, and for the reasons I mentioned in the other thread that somehow no longer count because this is a new thread. Whether or not one fears death more than LWOP has little to no influence on the decision to carry out an offence.

Capital punishment supposedly being the usual punishment for murder a hundred years ago is not the reason innocent people have been executed. You're just making this up as you go now. What about the innocents executed over the last 50 years or so?

<<We are a much more humane society now, and those advanced societies with capitol punishment typically impose the death penalty in cases where the sadistic nature and cruelty of the offender is almost beyond belief.>>

Or when a murder was premeditated. Either one.

But this is disingenuous coming from someone who thinks that even drug dealers or traffickers should be executed. Apparently you consider yourself to be less humane than others.There will always be creep. Texas is now executing mentally retarded people.

Improved investigative procedures are still flawed too, and always will be. This is not an argument unless you consider there to be a number of innocents executed that is small enough to actually be acceptable.

As for your inability to distinguish between capital punishment and military combat, killing enemy soldiers is not a "punishment", it's a means of defence. I'm sure if it was safe and we had the resources, then we'd capture and imprison every enemy combatant for life.

Continued…

...Continued

Killing them would probably then horrify the more enlightened and civilised in our societies and only appeal to the more angry and ignorant conservative types. Similarly, people in tribal times would have thought we were mad if we suggested to them that they build a cage for those who deviated from what was considered acceptable behaviour to the tribe and then bring their food to them, because they simply didn't have the resources to do that.

All that being said, it would be more accurate to compare military combat with a police shootout. With capital punishment, the state is killing someone who has already been incapacitated and is no longer a threat. I think anyone who is fine with that has a few screws loose. The fact that you cannot distinguish between enemy combatants and criminals suggests a concerning level of paranoia on your behalf.

By the way, it's 'capital' punishment, not 'capitol'.

Rhian, sorry, mental ilness doesn't wash with me as one of the most over used 'get out of jail free cards' around. If someone is that mentally il, why are they on the streets.

As far as provoked goes, that comes under aggravated asult, different again.

As for compassion, I'll bet Mr Big couldn't give two hoots about the lives he destroys, nor would his fall guys.

I will say though that the Indonesian police have now tarnished this case and it would not surprise me if these two now get off.

AJP, I'm not certain that "capitol punishment" isn't worse than the other form. Imagine being locked in a room with only Hansard to read for the rest of your life...

To AJ Phillips.

Most people can understand that the lower the penalty for any type of criminal behaviour, the more likely that people will offend. Conversely, the more severe the penalty, the less likely people are to offend. Rhian claimed that Life in Prison was more of a deterrent, because it was worse than capitol punishment. I submitted a reasoned argument that it was not. You have simply offered an opinion agreeing with Rhian, using "evidence" that you did not bother to submit.

With modern forensics, and with the fact that the death penalty would only apply to the very worst offenders, the possibility of a wrongful conviction in a capitol case today is insignificant. Here in Australia, around 300 people are murdered every year. But those murderers that deserve the death penalty from that group are a tiny minority. And I would challenge you to name any serial killer or child abductor/ murderer that you think was innocent of the crime that he was convicted of. Same for any convicted meth cooker, terrorist, or major drug importer.

If you claim that killing soldiers in combat is different to execution, you have at least crossed the Rubicon and admitted that killing external enemies is OK. Your opposition to the death penalty is therefore a contradiction unless you can explain why killing external enemies gets you a medal, but killing internal enemies is inhumane and morally unacceptable.

Precision Guided Munitions, drone strikes, and sniper shots sure look like executions to me. The only difference to executing soldiers to executing criminals, is that with soldiers, the reason why the poor bastard is being killed is because the colour of his uniform (if he has one) is a different colour to the man who pulls the trigger. And if an innocent walks into the crosshairs, well, sorry about that.

Just in case you have not noticed, police today look like soldiers, complete with helmets, armoured cars, sub machine guns, and armour, because of terrorism and extremely violent offenders. Soldiers can kill the enemy, but our judicial processes may not.

G'evening to you REHCTUB...

Your remark concerning mental illness, '...as one of the most over used 'get out of gaol free card'...', though this defence may be tried every so often, it's a really tough excuse to defeat the charge of murder ?

One of the most important elements of a crime that MUST be proved by the Crown is the 'mens rea' (the criminal intent). When an accused wishes to raise mental illness as an excuse, it's he (the accused) who has to prove he was mentally ill at the time he committed that homicide. It's not up to the Crown !

The 'test' if you like for mental illness in law, is contained in a decision ex House of Lords, in London (the mid 1840-50's) called the 'McNaghten Rules'.

Briefly, it goes something like this (please excuse my memory if you will ?)

In the criminal law everyone is presumed sane until the contrary is proved.

'...It is a defence to criminal prosecution for the defendant to show that he was labouring under such a defect of reason, due to a disease of the mind, as either not to know the nature and quality of his act or, if he did know this, not to know that he was doing wrong...

The burden of proof is exceptionally on the defendant, but he may rebut the presumption of sanity by adducing evidence that satisfy a jury, on the balance of probabilities that he was insane within the terms of the McNaghten Rules !

It should be noted herein, this piece of 'useless information' the 'McNaghten Rules' - we were required to learn it by heart ('rote' learnt if you like) for our 'detective training course' ! It was considered so important, as a legitimate 'defence to homicide', we were required to understand and apply it thoroughly ! It only applies to murder, or some other serious charges where the issue of 'mens rea' is in question, as a doubtful element to that charge.

LEGO,

When comparing a $50 fine to, say, 20 years in prison - yes.

<<Most people can understand that the lower the penalty for any type of criminal behaviour, the more likely that people will offend.>>

But for the tenth time now, there is virtually no evidence of there being any statistically significant difference between LWOP and capital punishment. I've even linked you to peer reviewed evidence of this but, as usual, you didn't look at it...

<<You have simply offered an opinion agreeing with Rhian, using "evidence" that you did not bother to submit.>>

What kind of a sicko is so desperate to believe that killing people is a good sentencing option that they deliberately avoid data that contradicts the belief?

And Rhian did not say that LWOP was more of a deterrent than capital punishment. Only that it could be argued that it was.

<<With modern forensics ... the possibility of a wrongful conviction in a capitol [sic] case today is insignificant.>>

How did you decide it was Insignificant? How many innocents killed do you think would be alright, and how did you determine that?

<<And I would challenge you to name any serial killer or child abductor/ murderer that you think was innocent of the crime that he was convicted of.>>

I can only speak of the cases in which the accused was eventually found innocent.

<<Your opposition to the death penalty is therefore a contradiction unless you can explain why killing external enemies gets you a medal, but killing internal enemies is inhumane and morally unacceptable.>>

I already did in my last response.

<<The only difference to executing soldiers to executing criminals, is that with soldiers, the reason why the poor bastard is being killed is because the colour of his uniform...>>

Oh, you forgot the whole bit about incapacitation.

I've already addressed every one of your inane points in that last post of yours. I'm sorry that it takes a bit of intelligence to draw from it the more subtle points that counter any additional points that you may have made in your last post.

To AJ Phillips

You agree that most people will be deterred from engaging in criminal behaviour if the penalty is heavy enough, then you claim that this could not apply in capitol cases. You claim that this is because of "peer reviewed scientific evidence." But when "peer reviewed scientific evidence" contravenes plain common sense, a thinking person becomes sceptical.

"Peer reviewed scientific evidence" from climate scientists that the Earth is going to cook because of human induced climate change is starting to look like a hoax. Tobacco companies could always find some medical scientists they could trot out in front of cameras who (in return for generous "research" grants) would say that smoking did not cause cancer. These scientists were not lying, they really did believe it. Lastly, psychology is a very inexact "science", some claim it is more a "black art". Court cases involving cashed up clients like Alan Bond saw a platoon of "peer reviewed psychiatrists" claiming that Bond was perfectly sane, opposed by a platoon of "peer reviewed psychiatrists" claiming that Bond was as mad as a hatter. I myself have read "peer reviewed scientific evidence" from psychologists who claim that the images portrayed and the messages transmitted by the media has no effect on human behaviour. Bullshiit.

However much respect I have for science, I know that some scientists are ideologically driven, some prone to finding results which will please their benefactors, and in the case of the genetic component in crime, prone to keep their mouths shut in public if they know what is good for them. I think I will go with common sense when it comes to the death penalty, as well as faith in modern forensics and the direct evidence of security cameras and telephone signal intercepts which that plainly point to guilt or innocence in modern court cases.

Continued

Continued

This topic is about the "moral" aspect of the death penalty. I gave you a moral perspective in that I asked you to explain the clear double standard that it was morally OK to kill external enemies but morally reprehensible to kill internal enemies. Your "explanation" was so silly that I easily demolished it. A sniper is an executioner. A drone pilot is an executioner. When I asked you to comment upon what I had replied, you dismissed it with your throwaway "I already addressed that." No, you didn't.

You did not respond because you know I am right and you did not want to go down that path.
I can tell more about what my opponent is thinking from what they will not discuss, than from what they actually say. This is the weakest link in your moral argument and you can bet that I intend to keep sawing away at it. And please note, I am willing to address the hard questions from you. I don't need to run away from your valid points like you need to run from mine.

As for your "what kind of a bastard...?" quip. I can respond same, same. What kind of a bastard thinks more about the welfare of terrorists, major drug importers, mafia bosses, psychotic narcotrafficantes, serial killers, and child murderers, than the protection of their own people?

As David Swanton's article said, the purpose of penalties is rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution. You can't rehabilitate people like Milat or Bundy. You can incapacitate child rapist murderers for a long time, but when they get out they may do it again and that has already been proven. Capitol punishment is a deterrent because common sense tells me that the more severe the penalty, the less people will be tempted to break the law. And it definitely stops repeat offenders. But an important aspect is retribution. When it comes to monsters like Bundy who abducted, raped, and tortured 36 women and children, hanging is too good. They should have burned that bastard at the stake.

Back to your old dishonest tactics, LEGO? That didn’t take long this time.

<<You agree that most people will be deterred from engaging in criminal behaviour if the penalty is heavy enough, then you claim that this could not apply in capitol cases.>>

No. I didn't say that at all. Go back and read what I actually said. Read this too while you're at it: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/deterrence%20briefing%20.pdf

Your claims regarding peer reviewed evidence and climate change conspiracies are another way of saying that you’re just going to believe whatever you want to believe. And this coming from someone who didn’t know the difference between weather and climate too.

What is common sense to you is only common sense because you are ignorant of the facts and the complexities of deterrence theory. The fact that you could get this far in your argument and not have touched on the role that certainty of punishment plays in deterrence is a testament to that. It was once common sense that the world was flat. Common sense often fails us.

<<... you dismissed it with your throwaway "I already addressed that." No, you didn't.>>

I had already explained why killing an incapacitated criminal was different to killing an enemy combatant. That was sufficient. Your talk of medals, inhumanity and immorality was just an attempt to distract from that and desperately prod for a contradiction in my position that isn't there.

<<As for your "what kind of a bastard...?" quip.>>

I said “What kind of a sicko ...”. You changed it to “bastard” to make it sound like I sympathise with, or am more concerned for the welfare of, serious offenders.

<<You can incapacitate child rapist murderers for a long time, but when they get out they may do it again and that has already been proven.>>

This is also an argument for LWOP. Which is the harsher punishment, however, is debatable and subjective, but I'm happy to settle on capital punishment being the harsher penalty because I consider the risk of executing innocent people unacceptable enough to sacrifice a bit of retribution.

AJ,

Just a small point

"All that being said, it would be more accurate to compare military combat with a police shootout".

This is not more accurate or even middling accurate because police are 99.99%, in shootouts, firing at criminals whereas soldiers are usually firing at people who have never committed a crime in their lives, and would be, in most cases, good citizens of their country.

Back to your old dishonest tactics, AJ Phillips?

I went back and read what you said on the previous page and you agreed that increasing penalties reduced the numbers of people who considered engaging in criminal behaviour. Your exact words were......"When comparing a $50 dollar fine to 20 years in prison, yes." Yet though you agree that death is the heavier penalty, you will not admit that it is therefore logical that the death penalty must be a greater deterrent.

Your opposition to the death penalty is not based upon the issue of the possible innocence of an accused. You have previously declared, with much vehemence, that you oppose capitol punishment even when it is certain that the offender is guilty. Your position is purely a philosophical one based upon vanity. You live among academics who have decided that opposing the death penalty is what a rooly, rooly smart and socially progressive person should advocate. And like an adolescent sucking on a fag because he thinks it makes him look adult, you have bought the image.

My opposition to whatever "scientific" evidence you claim to have is based upon a certain knowledge that science is not always right. Scientists can be ideologically driven, and driven by economic factors and career aspirations. Climate change is a perfect example. First we had Climategate, and then the revelation that climate researchers in Australia were fiddling the data from 100 years of record keeping, in order to make the figures resemble what they thought reality ought to be. Climate scientists accuse the geologists who oppose their science of being in the pockets of mining companies. Geologists accuse the climate scientists of creating a doomsday scenario to get research funding.

In the Pacific War, allied soldiers routinely "executed" wounded and helpless Japanese soldiers. We shot up lifeboats full of survivors and machine gunned men helpless in the water. We killed them for practical reasons, and because like the very worst criminals, they did not deserve any mercy. Your claim that killing in warfare is only between armed combatants has no basis in reality.

Is Mise,

The primary reason LEGO cannot see the difference between enemy combatants and criminals is because he sees them both as threats to society. When an enemy combatant is killed, they were the frontline of a threat to our security. A prisoner who is put to death is no longer a threat to society when they are put to death. Incapacitation that is a key difference between killing enemy combatants and killing those on death row. This is a factor that LEGO is overlooking, and it was the all-important context of what I had said.

Enemy combatants have not been incapacitated, and this is why my analogy was more accurate. Whether or not they are model citizens in their own country is not relevant to the analogy.

All that aside, the difference you point out between military combat and police shootouts still doesn't help LEGO's argument, if that's what you were hoping to achieve.

.

LEGO,

Those weren't my "exact" words, but that's close enough.

<<Yet though you agree that death is the heavier penalty, you will not admit that it is therefore logical that the death penalty must be a greater deterrent.>>

I will happily admit that (to those who view it as harsher) capital punishment should logically be a greater deterrent than LWOP. The problem, however, is that that's not what the vast majority of data suggests. There are many of reasons why the data may contradict prima facie logic. Such logic assumes that we're rational beings, for starters; it could be that most don't perceive there to be a big enough difference between LWOP and capital punishment; or it could mean that there is not enough certainty of punishment (you didn't read that article I linked to, did you?).

<<Your opposition to the death penalty is not based upon the issue of the possible innocence of an accused. You have previously declared, with much vehemence, that you oppose capitol punishment even when it is certain that the offender is guilty.>>

"With much vehemence," eh? Hardly. You're so dramatic.

Continued…

...Continued

Some of us are actually capable of having more than one reason for holding a belief, you know.

<<Your position is purely a philosophical one ...>>

I've sure provided a lot of evidence-based reasoning for someone whose position is purely philosophical.

<<My opposition to whatever "scientific" evidence you claim to have is based upon a certain knowledge that science is not always right.>>

Fair enough. You at least need to know what that evidence is before you can reject it though. Trusting a common sense that is based on incomplete data and using that to reject data you’re not even aware of? Now THAT is the mark of a purely philosophical position.

<<First we had Climategate...>>

Yeah, thousands of emails and all that was found was a handful of lines that sounded suspicious when taken out of context. Hardly a grand conspiracy.

<<...and then the revelation that climate researchers in Australia were fiddling the data from 100 years of record keeping, in order to make the figures resemble what they thought reality ought to be.>>

Are you referring to data homogenisation? You don't even know, do you? You just read something on a denialist blog and it sounded incriminating so you lapped it up. But I'm not going to be drawn by your throwaway lines into a debate about climate change just because you’ve lost this one.

<<We shot up lifeboats full of survivors and machine gunned men helpless in the water.>>

This does nothing to negate my point about incapacitation. War can bring out the worst in people and you're a sick person if you think that in such behaviour there lies an acceptable rationale for implementing the death penalty too.

Anyway, as you pointed out earlier, we're generally a more humane people now. You seem to flip-flop between a pride in our improved civility, and an admiration and longing for our more barbaric past. Whatever suits your argument at the time, I guess.

<<Your claim that killing in warfare is only between armed combatants has no basis in reality.>>

I have made no such claim.

To AJ Phiillips.

Thank you for admitting that the death penalty "should logically be the greater deterrent."

I did not read your "scientific" link about the alleged ineffectiveness of the death penalty, for four very good reasons. The primary reason, is because I have no confidence that your "scientific" explanation is not without ideological bias. I would not expect that you would bother to read scientific studies like "A Mind To Crime" or "The Bell Curve" either. Because these works contradict your belief that the reason why black men are very disproportionately represented in very serious violent crime is because they are the poor oppressed victims of white oppression. Any scientific work that refutes your racist belief, you consider suspect.

In this respect, we are even stevens.

Your strongest argument, is the one about the possibility of an innocent being executed for a crime they not commit. You ask if this is "acceptable?" But if we are trading the lives of innocents here, I challenge you to name one executed criminal in Australia who was innocent, against my five innocent victims of criminals in Australia who served long prison sentences for abduction, rape and murder, who then killed again after release. Add to that one innocent woman in WA killed by an escaped murderer. Is six dead innocent women and children "acceptable" to the anti death penalty squad?

Add to that, the number of prisoners and prison warders have been killed within jails by extremely dangerous prisoners already serving long sentences.

Your premise that killing external enemies should be considered different to killing internal enemies, because captured criminals are "incapacitated" does not wash. "Incapacitated" criminal bosses have been known to continue their criminal enterprises from within prison, importing drugs that devastate communities, and ordering the execution of witnesses, informers, police officers, prosecutors, and judges. "Incapacitated" criminals escape and kill again. Extremely dangerous abductor/rapist/murderers are released from "incapacitation" to kill again because "Life" in jail almost never means what it says in this country. There are only a handful of "Never To Be Released" prisoners in NSW jails.

continued

LEGO
I didn’t claim that life imprisonment is more of a deterrent than execution, only that the evidence is mixed and inconclusive.

I have little to add to AJ Philips’ comprehensive refuting of you analogies with soldiers killing during war.

Modern forensics may reduce the risk of wrongful conviction, but they don’t eliminate it. Of the 150 death row prisoners found innocent in the USA since the 1970s, 80 were convicted after DNA testing was introduced in 1985.

Rehctub
There are many mentally ill people on the streets who probably shouldn’t be – Martin Bryant was probably one of them.

Sorry, LEGO. I was going to wait for your next post, but my response already got too big.

I'm not sure why you thanked me for my acknowledgment on deterrence. It didn't support your argument at all given everything I followed it up with. All it demonstrated was that logic, based on incomplete data, is prone to error.

That article I linked to didn't even mention the death penalty. It spoke about the complexities of deterrence theory and what it means for the development of sentencing measures from an economic perspective. The fact that you don’t expect me to read something like The Bell Curve is telling. Not everyone just wants to confirm their preconceptions, you know. I’m happy to read something that may contradict my views because I care about the truth of them. If I’m wrong about something, then I want to know. So we’re not even stevens there.

I read The Bell Curve and it’s not as bad as you make out. The authors glossed over the environmental influences that help to determine IQ, and the problems of measuring IQ with just one number, a bit too much. Some of their conclusions were a bit dubious too, and those that were have since been discredited. But other than that, it wasn’t too bad.

Unfortunately the the main author died shortly after the book was released and the surviving author wasn’t very good at defending it when racists leapt on to it as scientific evidence of their beliefs, then anti-racists responded with knee-jerk reactions. The authors acknowledge the likely (now effectively confirmed) influence of environmental factors on cognitive ability on page 270. The surviving author even noted in 2012 that the gap in IQ between blacks and whites in America has narrowed since the book was written. If they were arguing for a purely genetic link between race and IQ, as racists seem to imply, then he must think evolution can work mighty quick!

Neither books you mention contradict anything I’ve said or implied regarding race and over-representation of blacks in the justice system.

Continued…

...Continued

<<...your belief that the reason why black men are very disproportionately represented in very serious violent crime is because they are the poor oppressed victims of white oppression.>>

That is not my belief. I’ve addressed this well over ten times now. The last time being here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17092#301897. What is wrong with you?

Regarding innocents being killed, you’ve also presented an argument for greater use of LWOP and better prison security and procedures. That way, even fewer would be killed with the risk of innocents being executed no longer being a problem. You did, after all, speak highly earlier of the virtues of typically only executing criminals "in cases where the sadistic nature and cruelty of the offender is almost beyond belief”, so there would still be plenty of other violent offenders to worry about.

As for the number of innocents killed in Australia versus those killed by people who were released, that’s difficult to gauge because of how long it’s been since the death penalty was used in Australia. On the one hand you talk of the improved investigative techniques used these day, then you forget about that when considering our ability to determine whether people executed in the distant past were innocent or not.

<<Is six dead innocent women and children "acceptable" to the anti death penalty squad?>>

Of course not, but the state didn’t plan, professionalise, carry out or condone those killings. You have no appreciation at all for the significance of symbolism, do you? I could equally argue that avoiding the symbolism that capital punishment carries with it (perhaps through the brutalising effect of capital punishment) would prevent more deaths. You simply don’t have the data to make the assumptions you’re making. Neither do I at the moment, but at least I’m willing to look for it.

As for crime bosses and incapacitation, could you link me to some data on that? I’ve had a good look and can’t find much. Incapacitation isn’t the only difference between enemy combatants and prisoners either. But we’ll get to the other differences in due course.

I accept your apology, AJ Phillips. I could not follow through with my "continued" post as I ran foul of the "four posts in 24 hour" rule. No matter, I will dissect your latest post.

I thanked you for at agreeing with the idea that the death penalty seems a greater deterrent than capitol punishment. it is logical, and therefore a common sense premise.

My reason for mentioning The Bell Curve, was because you dismissed my analogy about climate change research, which I had used to highlight the idea that scientific research is not always objective. It can be used to push an ideology that has no relation to self evident reality using the prestige of science to create credibility. Because of your objection, I tossed in another example, that of "The Bell Curve", which I presumed would be more acceptable to you, as an example of a scientific position which you probably disagreed with.

And we still are even stevens. After reading "A Mind to crime" and "The Bell Curve", I needed to read an opposing view. So I went to Dymocks and bought Peter R. Breggin's book "The War Against Children." It was laughable. But I digress. Oh, and by the way, I had previously completely missed the post that you directed at me with your link. I think it was because of Early Onset Alzheimer's.

Back on topic.

The point I made about innocents, was in reply to your post in which you asked me if executing a few innocents by mistake is "acceptable?" My response is, to point out that this logic works both ways, and that my case is the stronger. You do not know of any innocents in Australia who were executed by mistake in the final decades of capitol punishment. But we do know that five young women would have lived if four abductor/rapist/ murderers had been executed. My five actual dead killed in the last decades of capitol punishment trumps your theoretical dead for the same period.

continued

continued

And yes, I do have appreciation for symbolism. An enemy of the people is still an enemy regardless of whether he is an internal enemy, or an external enemy. If it is OK to kill enemy soldiers by the thousands, who may be a very decent people in civilian life, it is symbolically OK to kill a handful of internal enemies who are absolute monsters.

Symbolically, punishments must be proportionate to the crime. The Green River Killer, Gary Ridgeway, confessed to strangling to death 48 young women, although the actual figure is believed to be twice that number. Life Without Parole is a manifestly and symbolically inadequate a sentence for a crime of such magnitude.

Your quip that "if we had the resources. we would simply capture and imprison every enemy combatant for life," got a wheeze out of me. We already do that in Guantanamo Bay. But "liberals" like yourself think that imprisoning terrorists is just as awful.

As for crime bosses and incapacitation, try reading "Killing Pablo" about the murderous reach of narcotrafficante Pablo Escobar. Escobar had a bomb put in a commercial airliner to give the Columbian government a message to stop trying to arrest him. Every man, woman and child on the airliner was killed. When that failed to prevent the Columbian government from inconveniencing him, he had a school bus full of kids machine gunned. When they eventually got him, they could not execute him, because there is no capitol punishment in Columbia. Only the innocents can be routinely killed in Columbia. Escobar then ran his criminal empire from his personnel prison complete with Olympic size swimming pool, harem, and zoo. When he got tired of it, he walked out. The yanks used radio intercepts to find him, and when his hideout was surrounded by the police, somebody was smart enough to put three shots in his ten ring.

Columbia sounds like the sort of capitol punishment free utopia that you dream about.

LEGO, generalisation from extremes is not just poor argumentation, it's stupid.

Another deeply reasoned objective reply from Craig Minns. I am sure glad that Craig Minns, Arjay, Yebiga and Susieoncrack are on your side, AJ Phillips.

Rhian is OK. I think I can turn him from the Dark Side.

Yes, indeed it was, LEGO. Wasted on present company, of course.