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.