The death penalty is the only safe course. A life sentence does not mean “life”. There is a constant effort for diminution of sentences essential to the safety of the community.
Consider the following facts:
” Corrective Services boss Peter Severin has jetted at NSW taxpayer expense to conferences in Mexico, Colorado and Namibia to discuss issues such as the “The Victory of the Soul” with prison chiefs around the world.
But under his watch in NSW some of the state’s most infamous killers have been granted prison privileges while “culturally and linguistically diverse” inmates have been surveyed to see what they want on the menu.”
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/never-to-be-released-prisoners-get-soft-serve-in-jails-from-corrective-services-boss-peter-severin-who-jet-sets-to-mexico-and-colorado-to-brainstorm-jail-policy/news-story/fee87b8594a5b2b36f517b36e0986f1a

philips, I have to go with leo on this. The risk of a crim being released is too great when weighed against the damage and mayhem he has caused and has yet to cause if he were free.

I always imagine the peace and tranquility with such people removed from society.

To be able to shift the threat of death from our shoulders onto theirs where the burden of guilt actually belongs.

Hi Leo,

In mid-1971, a Taperoo schoolgirl was found dead on a beach here in Adelaide. Fritz van Beelen did nearly twenty years for her murder, before being pardoned. I think he's still pursuing a compensation claim. The death penalty might have still been on the books in SA at the time: the last bloke executed in SA was hanged only seven years before.

The evidence against van Beelen always seemed dodgy: the girl came home from high school in Port Adelaide by bus, went down the beach and wasn't seen alive again. Van Beelen picked his wife up at the central GPO at 4.50 that Friday afternoon. Port Adelaide and Port Road were much busier back in those days, especially on Fridays, yet he was supposed to have been down at the beach, accosted, perhaps assaulted and murdered the girl, buried her body under seaweed, got back to his car and driven through Port Adelaide along Port Road to pick his wife up at the GPO at ten to five.

From memory, a crucial piece of the 'evidence' was that the girl had red woollen fibres on her uniform, and he was wearing a woollen jumper with red in it. Red woollen fibres are in most woollen garments. It seemed ludicrous at the time, but was enough to help put him away for an offence that he didn't commit, and which may not have been an 'offence' at all, given that there were no marks on the girl's body, and it's possible she was alive until the next morning.

Fortunately, van Beelen wasn't executed and is now free - nearly fifty years later, and around seventy - to seek justice.

Joe

.

Dear Ashbo,

.

You ask :

« It seems to me you … accept that miscarriages of justice have and will occur. With this in mind what is your JUSTIFICATION for the death penalty? »
.

Anybody who, for whatever reason, happens to be within the geographic jurisdiction of Australia, is automatically subject to Australian law.

The simple fact of being within that jurisdiction (even if only temporarily) implies that he accepts the terms and conditions of Australia’s democracy. He is deemed to voluntarily subscribe to the “social contract” of Australian society. Like all contracts, the social contract contains rights and obligations together with corresponding sanctions that apply if those rights and obligations are not respected.

As usual in such cases, the legal principle of “ignorance of the law is no excuse” (“ignorantia juris non excusat”) applies. If that were not the case, anybody could claim that he was unaware of the law to avoid liability. This principle applies in every country in the world, without exception.

So, if we were to authorise the judiciary not only to deprive those found guilty of crimes, of their freedom, but also those found guilty of “atrocious” crimes, of their lives, we would simply be applying the terms and conditions of the social contract which the criminals would be deemed to have fully understood and voluntarily accepted.

In accordance with International Human Rights Law, the right to life is an inalienable right of every human being. However, there are certain situations in which State actors are required to take drastic action, which can result in individuals being killed either by law enforcement agents or armed forces personnel, in defence of the nation.

This is a natural reaction of defence and retaliation which occurs when individuals or society as a whole come under attack. It is common practise among all life forms without exception. One could even say it is a law of nature. Unlike the so-called survival instinct, it is totally independent of the conscious mind.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Nature has attributed many life forms with immune systems capable of detecting and locating enemies or potential enemies that threaten them, and elaborating strategies to destroy them. The so-called enemies are, of course, other life forms. Here is how it works :

http://www.imgt.org/IMGTeducation/Tutorials/ImmuneSystem/UK/the_immune_system.pdf
.

Though plants lack an immune system comparable to animals, they have developed a stunning array of structural, chemical, and protein-based defences designed to detect invading organisms and stop them before they are able to cause extensive damage.

It is by application of this law of nature, that I consider that it is perfectly legitimate for society to deprive certain individuals of their lives. However, while the criminal act of taking another person’s life is perfectly inadmissible, “atrocious” crimes such as child murder, serial killing, torture murder, rape murder, mass murder, terrorism, and premeditated murder that is carefully planned and executed, are even worse.

As civilised human beings, I consider that we should reserve application of the most extreme measure, the deprivation of life, exclusively to those individuals found guilty of “atrocious” crimes, all other criminals being subjected to deprivation of their freedom, proportionately to the gravity of their crimes.

The risk of judicial error, which can never be totally excluded, also pleads in favour of the limitation of the extreme sanction to only the worst cases – but, in my opinion, not to its total abolition, as at present.

.

ALTRAV,

I have never known of a “Never to be released” prisoner being released in Australia. So, I fail to see how the risk is too great.

<<I always imagine the peace and tranquility with such people removed from society.>>

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to work that way. There is much evidence to suggest that capital punishment actually has a brutalising effect on the societies that use it.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=brutalizing+effect+of+capital+punishment