To Banjo and ALTRAV.
It seems to me you both, to varying degrees, accept that miscarriages of justice have and will occur.
With this in mind what is your JUSTIFICATION for the death penalty?
Your justification cannot, it seems to me, be based on the death penalty acting as a deterrent.
Is it that living in a society that has and enforces the death penalty better in some way than a society that does not?
If so, in what way exactly is it better than the other?

Ashbo says:” Banjo and ALTRAV.
It seems to me you both, to varying degrees, accept that miscarriages of justice have and will occur.
With this in mind what is your JUSTIFICATION for the death penalty?
You say that it is not a deterrent, but no paedophile, after suffering the death penalty, has reoffended, and a paedophile is not capaple of rehabilitation
The intractable pervert and murdererLennie Lawson is a clear example.
“He was sentenced to death but this was commuted and he became a popular prisoner, embracing Catholicism and painting murals of Biblical scenes in the chapel at Goulburn jail. He was released after seven years.
Finding work as a commercial artist, he settled at Collaroy and befriended a neighbour named Mrs Bower, who (knowing nothing of his past) allowed him to paint her 16-year-old daughter. During a private sitting in his flat in 1961, Lawson raped and murdered the girl.”
http://www.sydneycrimemuseum.com/crime-stories/the-crimes-of-lennie-lawson/
If the death penalty had been carried out, it would have saved a number of innocent lives.
The State has a duty, and a right to impose the death penalty to protect the community.
Do you have a better way of dealing with intractable perverts, ashbo?

To Ashbo.

You've asked for a justification of the death penalty. Here is one to consider. Justice, even if it is flawed justice is better then injustice. We make mistakes and therefore our systems of justice does too. But if it actively and successfully fights injustice, then it is a better system then one that does not fight injustice. The death penalty is a sure way of ending a criminal.

That's one justification. Can't say it's right or better then a system without the death penalty. But that because it's really difficult to discern if the other system is doing any better or as well of fighting crime in the communities.

Cousin Leo,

Perhaps life imprisonment should mean life. Robert Stroud, a.k.a. the Birdman of Alcatraz, was sentenced to life without parole for (from memory) two murders. He spent forty-odd years in jail and died there. My mum told me that he became a world authority on sparrows.

So perhaps not the death penalty, but life - meaning life, never to be released. Never to ever again be a danger to the rest of society.

Joe

Loudmouth, even though I would like to agree with you I would feel a lot safer if he was dead.

It is because the system is flawed that it is not beyond imagining that at some time after the criminal is incarcerated he could take on the services of another scumbag, better known as a lawyer.

With the net result the crim is released.

No I am not prepared to take that risk.

Joe,

There is the option of having, “Never to be released”, stamped on their files (the most well-known example here would be Martin Bryan). Perhaps it should be made easier for the courts to do this?

Of course, there’s the issue of the cost of housing criminals for the rest of their lives, but, in the US at least, the death penalty actually works out to be more expensive due to the rigorous standards which must be fulfilled in order to carry out the punishment. I can’t imagine a more civilised country like ours would be much cheaper.

--

There is little-to-no data in support of the death penalty (where modern civilised countries are concerned, at least), and the states in the US that still allow the death penalty are a laughing stock for much of the rest of the civilised world (Sorry, Not.Now_Soon). It’s one way in which they are alone join the ranks of dysfunctional societies such as those in the Middle-East, in that regard.

Much of the data debunking the death penalty as a suitable form of punishment can be found at http://deathpenaltyinfo.org. The site is fully referenced, if anyone doubts the claims made there.

In my opinion, for so long as there is the risk of executing innocent people, there is no justification for the death penalty. Life-without-parole can be somewhat corrected at a later date, in the event that the accused is found to be not guilty. The death penalty, on the other hand, cannot be.