The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Lives cut short - the ugly reality of the death penalty > Comments

Lives cut short - the ugly reality of the death penalty : Comments

By Tim Goodwin, published 6/7/2005

Tim Goodwin argues Australia should be doing more to encourage our neighbours to abandon the death penalty.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
Thank you for this article. The example of the Iranian girl was especially troubling. I guess it may also be a reflection of the minimal understanding many cultures share on the realities of mental illnesses.
Posted by Irfan, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 10:32:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did not see any mention of the USA which is our closest ally strategically.

I would be interested to see information on which states in the USA using the death penalty, the methods and the socioeconomic aspects.

In the USA medical pratitioners participate in executions especially lethal injection and the American Medical Association remains silent. This is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath and the precepts of Western Medicine.

Please list Texas and its executions.
Posted by Odysseus, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 3:34:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The death penalty should be imposed for very serious crimes like abduction, rape and murder. It should especially apply to the abduction and murder of children. To not apply this sensible penalty is to condemn to death more innocents.

Daniel Miles has now been convicted of the murder of Yolande Michael while on the run from a NSW prison. He had escaped from prison where he was serving time for the murder of 16 year old Donna Newland.

In the mid sixties, Leonard Keith Lawson was released from prison after abducting and murdering a 15 year old girl. While on parole he raped and murdered 15 year old Mary Jane Bower at Collaroy, in Sydney. With the police looking for him, he entered SCEGGS girls school in Bowral, and attempted to abduct a schoolgirl. In the struggle with a heroic teacher, he fired a sawn off rifle several times, wounding the female teacher and killing 15 year old Wendy Luscombe.

When Gordon Barry Hadlow was released from a Queensland prison after 22 years, for the rape and murder of a six year old girl, Samantha Dorothy Bacon, he then abducted, raped, and murdered a 9 year old girl, Sharon Margaret Hamilton.

Had these three child rapist murderers been executed, four young women would still be alive today. The attitude of the anti death penalty brigade is curious. The lives of the worst kinds of criminals are sacrosanct. Only the lives of the innocent are expendable.

Capital punishment definitely stops repeat offenders.

Another reason for the death penalty is that is an effective tool for the fight against international organised crime. The crime bosses who order executions must be bumped off for the protection of the community. To fail to do so would see a situation develop where criminal bosses run their criminal organisations from jail and order the execution of judges, prosecutors, politicians, journalists and witnesses. This is already happening in Italy and many South American countries and it will happen here too unless we come down on these sorts of criminals like a ton of bricks.
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 6:58:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes despite this government’s distinct lack of interest or commitment in matters of human rights (apart from free lunches at the UN), it is odd that they can’t at least see a practical side to an active condemnation of executions and associated abuses outside Australia.

Better conditions in some of these cruel regimes would see a decrease in the “boatloads of illegals” seeking to “invade our shores”.
Posted by hutlen, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 7:50:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I studied the death penalty as a first year Uni student a couple of years ago. I argued for it and I still believe it is the best deterrent in the crimes of murder, terrorist acts, paedophilia and rape.

However, I do not think the death penalty should apply to most crimes and I find it sad and extreme on the part of Iran that a young girl was executed because she may have had sex all the while suffering with mental illness. This underlies the appaling fact, as stated by others here, that mental illness is still a taboo topic in some countries.

An appropriate punishment for crime might include life imprisonment (armed robbery, heinous/vicious assault), castration/sterilisation ( sexual predators), 20 years hard labour (stealing cars/property/arson) and perhaps 3 years hard labour (graffiti/vandalism). I could go on. So whilst I'm not in agreement with the death penalty as a sanction for most crimes, I think we could and should do much more in terms of punishment for certain crimes. However, I would imagine that those who are against the death penalty (such as Tim and Amnesty) would probably be strongly opposed to my sentencing suggestions? I would hope not.
Posted by Dinhaan, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 11:55:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The REAL Death Penalty in the US: A Review
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters

Innocence Issues

Death Penalty opponents have proclaimed that 118 inmates have been "released from death row with evidence of their innocence", in the US, since the modern death penalty era began, post Furman v Georgia (1972).

That number is a fraud.

Those opponents have intentionally included both the factually innocent (the "I truly had nothing to do with the murder" cases) and the legally innocent (the "I got off because of legal errors" cases), thereby fraudulently raising the "innocent" numbers.

Deterrence Issues

Seven recent studies, all finding for deterrence.

One study, specifically, found that moratoriums on the death penalty sacrificed innocent lives. All of the other studies confirm that conclusion.

Racial issues

White murderers are twice as likely to be executed in the US as are black murderers and are executed, on average, 12 months more quickly than are black death row inmates.

Any other racial combinations of defendants and/or their victims in death penalty cases, is a reflection of the crimes committed and not any racial bias within the system, as confirmed by studies from the Rand Corporation (1991), Smith College (1994), U of Maryland (2002), New Jersey Supreme Court (2003) and by a view of criminal justice statistics, within a framework of the secondary aggravating factors necessary for capital indictments.

Class issues

No one disputes that wealthier defendants can hire better lawyers and, therefore, should have a legal advantage over their poorer counterparts.  The US has executed about 0.15% of all murderers since new death penalty statutes were enacted in 1973.  There is no evidence that wealthier capital murderers are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based upon the proportion of capital murders committed by wealthier criminals. 

Polling data

74% of Americans support the death penalty, generally. 53% say the death penalty is not used enough. Catholics show 70% support. (Gallup 5/05). Support was 74% in 2003, as well (Gallup 5/03). This support is within the margin of error of the all time high for general support -- 80% (Gallup, 1994)
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Thursday, 7 July 2005 2:38:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe the death penality is appropriate for serious crime. Not for women who kill their abusive husband (justifiable homicide) type of murder but for murder in general. Physical strength to defend oneself becomes an issue where bullies are concerned, such as rapists. Rat poison in the vegimite can be an option!

The killing of children, police and others "doing their job" is murder, and in so doing I believe all rights are forfieted, by their killer. So many killers cry when it is their turn to die, but what of their victims rights?

In Australia, I believe the death penality is appropriate for drug importers and dealers of hard drugs. The living death that addiction causes is worse than any legally administered instantaneous injection.

We kill innocents in war without regrets, yet cry "foul" when murderers would die! We need to get our priorities right!

Choice
Posted by Choice, Thursday, 7 July 2005 6:56:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While the death penalty may indeed be appropriate for those convicted of the most heinous crimes, my biggest problem with it is the impossibility of guaranteeing that those who are convicted of these crimes are always those that committed them.

Dudley claims that the US figures for those being erroneously convicted of capital crimes are inflated - but he doesn't provide the 'true' figure. How many people being wrongly convicted of a capital crime is acceptable? Scary stuff indeed.

Given the appalling revelations of wrongful convictions within our own jurisdictions recently, I would have very little confidence in the infallibility of Australian courts in their determinations of even minor crimes - let alone capital offences if we had a death penalty.
Posted by garra, Thursday, 7 July 2005 7:13:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Death Penalty: Protecting the Innocent

"To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . ". ' (1)

This when death penalty opponents are claiming the release of 119 "innocents" from death row. The deceptions of those opponents were not broadly exposed, earlier, because most in the media had forgotten to fact check . Death penalty opponents never required actual innocence in order for cases to be added to their "exonerated" or "innocents" list.

One would have a hard time finding 20-25 "categorically innocent" people released from death row, who were prosecuted during the modern US death penalty, after 1972, post Furman v Georgia.
 
During that same, post Furman period, about 7500 have been sentenced to death. We now know of a 0.3% error rate (0.4%, using Liptak's lower number) for sentencing actually innocent people to death.
 
None were executed -- meaning both trial and appeals have seen a 100% record in executing the guilty and sparing the innocent.
 
Could anyone have predicted a system that was 99.6-99.7% accurate in finding actual guilt and raising that number to 100%,  on appeal, by sparing actual innocents the carrying out of that sentence?
 
Based upon the accuracy of the actually guilty convicted and the appellate record of identifying actual innocents, is there a more accurate criminal justice practice in the world than the US death penalty? Maybe not.
 
There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
 
Is execution an enhanced incapacitator?
 
Living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.  Who would have known?
 
Full report -  All Innocence Issues: The Death Penalty, upon request.
 
(1) "The Death of Innocents': A Reasonable Doubt",
New York Times Book Review, p 29, 1/23/05, Adam Liptak,
national legal correspondent for The NY Times
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Thursday, 7 July 2005 7:23:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Choice – I agree with your sentiment entirely.

A murder based on an “emotional response” be it a battered wife or hen-pecked husband may well be
1 "Reactive" to the moment – and if accompanied by contrition, potentially forgivable.
2 It is an offence which is unlikely to be repeated.

The opposite is true of drug dealers.

1 The act is a “money” motivated, cold and calculating offence, without the mitigation of emotional influence.
2 The dealing in drugs is a progression in depravity and exploitation of people the dealer may not even know and recidivism rates would suggest all and every drug dealer is likely to re-offend.

Drug dealers, regardless of their own possible dependency, have displayed a complete indifference to their victims and offend and when caught express no expression of contrition or remorse (except for their own pathetic plight) and thus – represent an ongoing danger to the public and should be exterminated painlessly and expeditiously
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 7 July 2005 9:20:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Three years hard labour for graffiti? Yeah people are going to be opposed to that, I wonder why.

I have no doubt that the death penalty has a deterrent effect for some people. But I think that most of the criminals A) don't think they will be caught, B) don't care if they are caught or C) aren't really considering the consequences. Moreover, capital punishment is a legal and social endorsement of violence; executions can fuel bloodlust and promote vengeance. Hence, it encourages violent crime which counters the deterrent effect.

Concern for the innocently condemned is reasonable, but that wouldn't prevent some executions. I can't imagine any need for the death penalty within our society, prisons can be made secure and life imprisonment is a far greater punishment.
Posted by Deuc, Thursday, 7 July 2005 8:59:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The brutalization effect finds that murders will increase because potential murderers will murder because of the example of state executions.

Although deterrence is much more than a simple look at only execution rates and murder rates, we do find that as executions have risen dramatically, the murder rate has plunged.

From 1966-1980, a period which included our last national moratorium on executions (June 1967- January 1976), murders in the United States more than doubled from 11,040 to 23,040. The murder rate also nearly doubled, from 5.6 to 10.2/100,000.  During that 1966-1980 period, the US averaged 1 execution every 3 years, with a maximum of two executions per year.  From 1995-2000 executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000% increase over the 1966-1980 period.  The US murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2/100,000 in 1980 to 5.5/100,000 in 2000 -- a 46% reduction. The US murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966 (17).

The Texas example -- The murder rate in Harris County (Houston), Texas has fallen 73% since executions resumed in 1982, through 2000, from 31/100,000 to 8.5/100,000 (18).  Harris County is, by far, the most active death penalty sentencing and execution jurisdiction in the US.  The Harris County murder rate dropped nearly 70% more than did the national murder rate, during similar periods. Texas' murder rate dropped 62% during that same period, or 41% more than the national average.

Potential murderers may have been affected by the example of the state of Texas but, likely, not in a manner consistent with brutalization. 

And "(t)he biggest decline in murder rates has occurred in states that aggressively use capital punishment." (19)

After a thorough review of deterrence studies, Professor Samuel Cameron observed, "The brutalization idea is not one the economists have given any credence." "We must conclude that the deterrence effect dominates the opposing brutalization effect." (20)
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Friday, 8 July 2005 3:09:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For:
Is the use of capital punishment a deterrent or punishment? From a pro side, to call it a punishment would better suit the deterrent claim. It reflects the crime. A deterrent is for those who would commit the crime, not have committed it.

The option: Life in prison. In Australia the average lifer is about 15yrs at the moment. Some are natural predators who will kill again, no matter the punishment instilled. If Life is to be an option, it should be life.

Then weigh life against the social cost. The average cost of housing prisoners is roughly $38,000(AUS). The conditions for most prisoners? They generally have access to many resources victims and other citizens don’t have. Where’s the justice?

Against:
Does the death penalty make the society as bad as the executed? Are we no better than those we kill, if we condone killing to satisfy our desires (safety, vengeance, etc.)?

What is the price we pay for an innocent death? Current figures indicate that no innocents have been killed. Well, who’s current figures? Who can really know? A rhetorical argument but then, what is the price society is willing to pay? What is the price an individual is willing to pay? What if it was your father, brother, daughter? Corby by example (yes, yawn!). Who REALLY knows if she’s innocent (no, not believes, KNOWS)? What if it was the death penalty? Better yet, what if a true offender had been located after she had died? Some thinking required.

Life in prison offers the chance that offenders will make a change. Life offers offenders time to learn and grow. It can also offer offenders a living hell for a long time. Resources might be plentiful but security, peace and contentment is near non-existent.

I do not know the answer. I think each will come to a place they are comfortable with. However I would err on the side of caution – I know I wouldn’t sleep well if I put some one to death and was wrong. Would you burden another with that responsibility?
Posted by JustDan, Friday, 8 July 2005 1:17:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Justdan, I would insert the needle myself into the arm of a murderer of my child, so no one else would need to feel bad about accepting responsibility. I wonder how many others would feel justice had been served if the victim and their families were given the same care and consideration as the perpetrator. People make their choices in life, we're taught right and wrong at a very young age. Above all else an Australian Killer has a life to live, his victim, none! Of course, it seems I have more faith in our legal system getting it right, in the first place, when arriving at the verdict of Guilty.
Choice
Posted by Choice, Friday, 8 July 2005 7:06:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reply to JustDan:

The death penalty is a punishment that deters. It is given because it is just. That justice saves innocent lives.

Under all conditions, a life sentence puts more innocents at risk than does a death sentence.

Both are punishments, both are deterrents, but the death penalty is both an enhanced incapacitator and and enhanced deterrent.

The death penalty can never make society as bad as the executed person? There is a distinct moral difference between the crime and the punishment. Two acts of killing do not mean equal morality. That is why we can easily distinguish between killing in self defense, in a just war or in capital punishment vs a criminal who rapes and murders little girls or the Nazis in WW II.

JustDan writes: "Current figures indicate that no innocents have been killed. Well, who’s current figures?"

I debate this topic widely and there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900. There are concerns that it has occurred and probabilities suggest that it probably has. On the other hand, the proof is overwhelming that murderers harm and murder, again, quite often. That is not disputed.

You write: "Life in prison offers the chance that offenders will make a change." True, a chance to become better and a chance to become worse and a chance to stay the same. Two out of three are bad.

Offenders much prefer a life sentence over a death sentence, by about 99:1. There is a reason for that.

You write: "However I would err on the side of caution – I know I wouldn’t sleep well if I put some one to death and was wrong. Would you burden another with that responsibility?"

The facts say that erring on the side of caution would be to support the death penalty. People burden themselves, quite willingly, with that responsibility. First, the murderer is responsible for their own fate. Secondly, the judges, prosecutors and jurors knowingly put themselves in that position.
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Friday, 8 July 2005 8:34:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who remembers the Coby killing will remember how her parents went on to forgive the perpetrators. There are numerous other examples. I don’t know if I could do it but it is interesting to see that for some people forgiveness is easier than hate – or maybe less destructive.

If anything was to happen to any of mine I’m sure that I would feel like imposing the death penalty – and more. State sanctioned death is a different thing. I think it brings us all down.
Posted by hutlen, Friday, 8 July 2005 9:28:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In Australia and I suspect in most countries, the majority of murders/manslaughter and attempted murders are committed by someone close to the victim and usually a family member. They are usually crimes of passion.
It is the role of forensic psychiatrists to work out whether a person is mad or bad. There are bad people out there and they are not all mad.
Mental illness such as depression is often the cause and not infrequently in domestic homicides there is a suicide at the end which saves on the capital punishment.
As a society we need to have a greater awareness and acceptibility of mental illness. One in four of us have a depressive illness at some stage. Societal expectations, modern life and our not picking up warning signs aid in producing homicides.
There are also psychopaths and sociopaths who would be little influenced by whether or not there is capital punishment.
The reduction of gun availablity is also associated with murder rates.
The gun is much more lethal than a knife when used in crimes of passion. It takes some considerable effort to stab someone to death.
The USA has a bad history in this regard. Changing these laws and societal values may be more effective in reducing homicide than the death penalty.
Posted by Odysseus, Sunday, 10 July 2005 9:40:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Odysseus

I agree with all your points.

I find it very hypocritical that we take a dim view of our asian neighbours application of the death penalty, yet ignore the fact that our biggest ally - the USA is generally ignored.

Does the death penalty really reduce murders? I doubt it. I don't see any evidence of this if the USA is any example.

Will provide statistical evidence if sufficiently prodded by other posters. But really, I think it should be self evident.

In addition, there is always the possibility of innocents sentenced to death - is this acceptable?
Posted by Ambo, Monday, 11 July 2005 3:21:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Although deterrence is much more than a simple look at only execution rates and murder rates, we do find that, in the US, as executions have risen dramatically, the murder rate has plunged.

From 1966-1980, a period which included the US's last national moratorium on executions (June 1967- January 1976), murders in the United States more than doubled from 11,040 to 23,040. The murder rate also nearly doubled, from 5.6 to 10.2/100,000.  During that 1966-1980 period, the US averaged 1 execution every 3 years, with a maximum of two executions per year.  From 1995-2000 executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000% increase over the 1966-1980 period.  The US murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2/100,000 in 1980 to 5.5/100,000 in 2000 -- a 46% reduction. The US murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966 (17).

The Texas example -- The murder rate in Harris County (Houston), Texas has fallen 73% since executions resumed in 1982, through 2000, from 31/100,000 to 8.5/100,000 (18).  Harris County is, by far, the most active death penalty sentencing and execution jurisdiction in the US.  The Harris County murder rate dropped nearly 70% more than did the national murder rate, during similar periods. Texas' murder rate dropped 62% during that same period, or 41% more than the national average.

And "(t)he biggest decline in murder rates has occurred in states that aggressively use capital punishment." (19)

17) i) Homicide trends in the U.S., Long term trends, Homicide victimization, 1950-99, Bureau of Justice Statistics,  Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, 1950-2000
at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm, Page last revised on January 4, 2001
(ii) Crime in the United States --  2000, Section II --  Crime Index Offenses Reported, "Murder and non negligent homicide", FBI, Uniform Crime Reports at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/00crime2_3.pdf
(iii) "Number of persons executed in the United States, 1930-2001", Key Facts at a Glance, Executions
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Source: Capital Punishment 2000, December 2001 at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/exetab.htm
18) Texas Department of Public Safety, Uniform Crime Reporting, Harris County data, from 1982 and 2000 database.
19)  Boston Globe, 10/28/97, p A12
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Monday, 11 July 2005 3:46:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dudley Sharp - Apart from the fact that your 'evidence' is cited from organisations wishing to justify their decisions and actions....

How many people put to death by US law were innocent of committing murder. I would be interested in those statistics please.
Posted by Ambo, Monday, 11 July 2005 4:00:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As of  1/1/03, The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) claims that "Twenty three (23) innocent people have been mistakenly executed (in the US) this (the 20th) century." (32) This is a common false claim, even though the authors of that 1987 study, in response to a deconstruction of their work, stated, in 1988, that "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these (23) executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (33).  The NCADP is well aware of this, yet it doesn't stop their deception.

Barry Scheck, cofounder of the Innocence Project and featured speaker at the National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty (11/13-15/98), stated that he had no proof of an innocent executed (in the US since 1976) (34).

Not even the nation's leading, biased source for anti death penalty information, the DPIC, says there is proof of an innocent executed. They list 5 "doubt" cases (35): Gary Graham, Joseph O'Dell, Roger Keith Coleman, Leo Jones and David Spence.  A review shows how deceptive the DPIC case descriptions are (36) and how lacking any proof of innocence is.

The Texas case of Lionel Herrera, like others, nationally, has been labeled, by many death penalty opponents, as an innocent executed. A comment from Supreme Court Justice O'Connor. "[T]he proper disposition of this case is neither difficult nor troubling . . .  The record overwhelmingly demonstrates that petitioner [Herrera] deliberately shot and killed Officers Rucker and Carrisalez the night of September 29, 1981; petitioner's new evidence is bereft of credibility.  Indeed, despite its stinging criticism of the Court's decision, not even the dissent expresses a belief that petitioner might possibly be actually innocent." Herrera v. Collins, 506 US 390, 421(1993) (O'Connor, J., concurring)

Of all the world's social and governmental institutions, that do put innocents at risk, I am aware of only one, the US death penalty, that has no proof of an innocent killed since 1900. Can you name another?
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Monday, 11 July 2005 4:11:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Depends how you define innocent, DS. But just off the top of my head, how about Ricky Ray Rector, so profoundly brain-damaged he was incapable of understanding he was about to be killed, and put some of his last meal away "for later". The death penalty did not deter him from the original crime, and he posed no further risk to society. And while we're looking at statistics on deterrence, Stephen Levitt makes a very convincing argument that Roe v Wade was a far more important contributing factor to the fall in the crime rate overall and the murder rate in particular. And no doubt, with sufficient ingenuity and incentive, someone could convincingly show the fall could be attributed to sunspot activity. Can we please deal less with statistics (dubious or otherwise) and more with the question of what happens if someone is executed despite their being innocent. But to add one thing to your stats, some of the technicalities you dismiss are such things as "inadequate assistance of counsel", one case featuring a defence lawyer who was asleep through much of the trial. A high price to pay for someone else's bit of a kip.
Posted by anomie, Monday, 11 July 2005 4:34:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Death penalty
Latest news and actions
The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment.
It violates the right to life.
It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments."

"6. The deterrence argument
Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded: ". . .it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.”
(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 230)"

"10. The death penalty in the USA
• 65 prisoners were executed in the USA in 2003, bringing the year-end total to 885 executed since the use of the death penalty was resumed in 1977. The 900th execution was carried out on 3 March 2004.
• Over 3,500 prisoners were under sentence of death as of 1 January 2004.
• 38 of the 50 US states provide for the death penalty in law. The death penalty is also provided under US federal military and civilian law."

Source:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/whats_happening/death_penalty/facts_and_figures?MySourceSession=6fa70073f526d8611a630c5b981c0eae

Dudley Sharp
How does the death penalty aid the progression of a civilised nation?
Posted by Xena, Monday, 11 July 2005 4:48:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Statistics aren't as unreliable as many people say, it's just that its very easy for people to omit important parts or manipulate in order to further their ideology. It can be countered easily though:

"From 1966-1980, a period which included the US's last national moratorium on executions (June 1967- January 1976), murders in the United States more than doubled from 11,040 to 23,040."
Which according to your first cite was merely the continuation of a pre-existing trend.

"The murder rate also nearly doubled, from 5.6 to 10.2/100,000."
I'd hope so.

"From 1995-2000 executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000% increase over the 1966-1980 period."
Because it was considered illegal during those years.

"The US murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2/100,000 in 1980 to 5.5/100,000 in 2000 -- a 46% reduction."
And it dropped from 9.8/100,000 in 1991 to 5.5/100,000 in 2000 -- a 44% reduction.
Ie. for the 15 years after the death penalty was restored there had only been a 0.4% drop in homicide rates.

"The US murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966"
As Anomie said, perhaps due to abortion. (Freakonomics)

"The Texas example -- The murder rate in Harris County (Houston), Texas has fallen 73% since executions resumed in 1982, through 2000, from 31/100,000 to 8.5/100,000"
Even at it's lowest level Harris County has a rate 50% higher than the US average of 5.6 per 100000; it seems to be a statistical outlier. Given the higher murder rates on average in Texas, it is to be expected that any social changes affecting murder rates will have the greatest effect there.

Here's some more stats, as printed in the New York Times, September 22, 2000.
"Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, FBI data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. A state-by-state analysis found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty."
Posted by Deuc, Monday, 11 July 2005 4:55:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just so you don't all think I'm a monster, the "I'd hope so", refers to the natural correlation between the number of murders and the murder rate.

(I'm wasting a lot of posts clarifying myself today.)
Posted by Deuc, Monday, 11 July 2005 5:00:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very little has been said about whether we should in fact "encourage our neighbours to abandon the death penalty", which was the original proposition.

The first thing that occurs to me is that if there is no consensus among ourselves - and there clearly isn't, just from this thread - we would look pretty stupid trying to influence another country, one way or another.

The next thing that occurs to me is that even contemplating making representations of this nature to another country smacks of colonialist arrogance. By what right should we even consider lecturing another community on their values?

Further, when we actually do sit down with another country (say, China) and discuss human rights (say, Tienamen Square) the dialogue is drowned out by more practical issues (say, whether they will buy our coal or not). Pragmatism has a way of asserting itself, pretty much at the same time as we are told to mind our own business.

In summary, I'd say that we might get a nice warm and fuzzy feeling talking about how civilized we are and how nice it would be if other people were nice and civilized too, I think we are just kidding ourselves.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 11 July 2005 5:38:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

I take your point about colonialism - however, just because it seems like an insurmountable problem (encouraging our neighbours to a more humane systemof justice - and yeah, I get the irony in this statement) it doesn't mean we should adopt a defeatist attitude and say there is nothing we can do to change anything.

It is a lot more than just the 'warm and fuzzies', I note from many of your other posts to this forum that you provide well reasoned debate. I am sure that you are fighter in what you believe, therefore why so negative about the fight for human rights and dignity?

Ulitmately I believe we should be discussing human rights with our neighbours (esp. USA), however we really need to clean up our own back yard as well. Perhaps leading by example is an approach to take. However, we won't be getting inspiring leadership with our current fed. gov. Oh, well, onward ever onward.
Posted by Xena, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 8:35:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Xena, I appreciate your point, but being realistic is not necessarily being defeatist, although in this case you are right in that I do believe the cause to be a hopeless one. And you have identified exactly the source of the problem, which is our inability to work out our own issues amongst ourselves, which surely in all fairness should be a prerequisite to "helping" others solve theirs. Especially problems that they don't necessarily recognize as such.

Am I being too cynical? Perhaps. But in order to keep sane as I get older I tend to choose battles where I have at least a small chance of winning. This is a situation where you have to fight your own troops before you can engage the enemy.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 10:00:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We need more executions in this country like in colonial times. Please read the book, The Fatal Shore which provides graphic accounts of the pulling power of public executions in London. This could attract television sponsorship and help pay for some of our institutions like health..think of the deterent effect.
Why not the stocks, public floggings and a few ducking stools in Brisbane mall for politicians who fib.
Pull the other leg... (this has its origins in public hangings) and we are enriched by this black humour.
I think we could export poor and unemployed to the colonies or the Third World...perhaps even the Second World.
I wonder if Mr Howard could talk to Mr Bush about these ideas.
Posted by Odysseus, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 10:16:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few posts have referred to executions in the United States, and I certainly agree that the US should be criticised for its record in this regard. And indeed it is. There is a vibrant abolitionist movement across the USA, supported by a great deal of international campaigning and media attention focussed on the use of the death penalty and its concentration in particular states.

My article simply does not focus on the USA. Nor does it suggest we should ignore the question of the death penalty in the USA. It is focused, however, on the fact that we live in the region which is the world's leader in executions - in numbers, in the range of offences and in running counter to the global trend towards abolition - and asks what the Australian government is actually doing (and actually achieving) to advance its stated policy of opposition to capital punishment. If Australia is engaged in "human rights dialogue" with China and Viet Nam, and occasionally with Iran - three of the world's leading executioners - what are these dialogues actually achieving when you look at their records on the death penalty?

Finally, on the number of executions in the USA:
* 59 prisoners were executed in the USA in 2004, bringing the year-end total to 944 executed since the use of the death penalty was resumed in 1977.
* 23 of the 59 executions in 2004 were in Texas. Texas has carried out 345 of the 944 executions in the USA since 1977.
* Over 3,400 prisoners were under sentence of death as of 1 January 2005.
* 38 of the 50 US states provide for the death penalty in law. The death penalty is also provided under US federal military and civilian law.
Posted by Tim Goodwin, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 6:07:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There have also been a number of posts about the finer points of deterrence, and various sociological/criminological considerations when measuring deterrence (or lack of deterrence). But when you look at countries in Asia, the arguments hardly even seem to apply.

In Viet Nam, trials are routinely one day long, with the accused unable to properly defend themselves. In China, the government interferes in court processes, police and courts break their own rules on the administration of justice, torture is widespread (and tortured evidence used in courts).Incidentally, the Chinese government argues that it is deterring crime when it pressures regional courts into convicting large numbers of people, who are then shot at particular times of the year in a demonstration of the Party's grip on power.

In Singapore, the people who run the drug trade never face court or a mandatory death penalty for smuggling. For them it’s a business, and the number of ‘mules’ caught and executed a business calculation. The people at the bottom of the chain end up at the bottom of a rope. In Iran, well, you've read the article.

As for whether it is colonialism to engage our neighbours in debate about their use of the death penalty, there are a couple of points to be made. One is that opposition to the death penalty is not simply a "western concern" (whatever that might mean). If it were, the USA would be an abolitionist country.

It is true that Europe is a strong advocate for abolition, but so is South America, which has a strong tradition of opposition to the death penalty, and in some countries, strong associations between executions and the repression of military governments. There is also a pronounced trend towards abolition in Africa.

The trend towards abolition is a global trend - in all regions except Asia. In 1980, 23 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. In 2005, that figure has grown to 85. It is telling that when the death penalty is abolished, it is extremely rare for it to be reintroduced.
Posted by Tim Goodwin, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 6:13:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
reply to anomie:

anomie writes: "Depends how you define innocent, DS." reply - I define it as not being the murderer or an accomplice to the murder(s), as the law does.

anomie: "how about Ricky Ray Rector, so profoundly brain-damaged he was incapable of understanding he was about to be killed, and put some of his last meal away "for later"." reply - The story has never been credible. The law doesn't allow people to be executed who don't understand the nature of their punishment.

anomie all prospects for negative consequences deter somebody. Even the most well known anti death penalty academic, Hugo Bedau, now admits he accepts deterrence of the death penalty, but not that it deters more than a life sentence, even though the evidence says that it does.

please go to: http://www.dpinfo.com/death_penalty_as_a_deterrent.htm

and this, from - John McAdams, Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence: "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

anomie, I published an article about the "sleeping defense counsel" in the Austin American Statesman. I suspect it is unlike anything you had read before. See if you can find it. If you can't, let me know.

and reply to Deuc regarding the New York Times article of September 22, 2000 here is my response:

http://www.dpinfo.com/death_penalty_and_deterrence.htm
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 8:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The death penalty is not a human rights violation

reply to xena:

Some wrongly state that executions are a human rights violation.

The argument is as follows: Life is a fundamental human right. Therefore, taking it away is a fundamental violation of human rights.

Those who say that the death penalty is a human rights violation have no solid moral or philosophical foundation for making such a statement. What those opponents of capital punishmen are really saying is that they just don't approve of executions.

Certainly, both freedom and life are fundamental human rights. On this, there is virtually no disagreement. However, again, virtually all agree, that freedom may be taken away when there is a violation of the social contract. Freedom, a fundamental human right, may be taken away from those who violate society's laws. So to is the fundamental human right of life forfeit when the violation of the social contract is most grave.

No one disputes that taking freedom away is a different result than taking life away. However, the issue is the incorrect claim that taking away fundamental human rights -- be that freedom or life -- is a human rights violation. It is not.

How do we know? Because those very same governments and human rights stalwarts, rightly, tell us so. Universally, both governments and human rights organizations approve and encourage taking away the fundamental human right of freedom, as a proper response to some criminal activity.

Why do governments and human rights organizations not condemn just incarceration of criminals as a fundamental human rights violation? Because they think incarceration is just fine.

Why do some of those same groups condemn execution as a human rights violation? Only because they don't like it. They have no moral or philosophical foundation for calling execution a human rights violation.

In the context of criminals violating the social contract, those criminals have voluntarily subjected themselves to the laws of the state. And they have knowingly placed themselves in a position where their fundamental human rights of freedom and life are subject to being forfeit by their actions.
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 8:28:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DS. On Ricky Ray Rector: why did the prison chaplain resign, claiming what was done to Rector was a horrible crime in itself – that "we're not supposed to execute children"? Familiar with Bedau's book, which (his contributions included) is considerably more nuanced than you let on. And (and I know from your link that I'm talking to someone who's made this subject his life's work, and has heard all the arguments), the reason execution is a human rights violation incomparable with incarceration for life is that you can't be released from the grave. I speak as someone whose horror of incarceration is such that given the choice, and I were guilty, I'd prefer execution. But if I were innocent, I'd prefer to fight to the bitter end. Any comments on Ryan Matthews, by the way? Arguably mentally deficient, and eventually exonerated by DNA evidence. Sentenced to death originally, though. Or are all the cases of exoneration (some of them posthumous) "not credible"? Can't get the Austin American Statesman here. Enlighten me. Always willing to look at a good argument.
Posted by anomie, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 9:34:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No response for the my criticism Dudley? Just a canned response for my concluding quote, which happends to be off base and repeats material I've already debunked?

Your counter argument effectively asks us to exclude the fact that homicide rates are lower in non-DP states *because* homicide rates have always been lower in non-DP states. Now it is entirely possible that there are other reasons why non-DP states have such a serious difference, but the strong correlation makes it probable that either a connection exists or at least a common cause does, such as a culture of non-violence.

The Times article also shows that neighbouring states have markedly different rates:

"The homicide rate in North Dakota, which does not have the death penalty, was lower than the homicide rate in South Dakota, which does have it, according to FBI statistics for 1998. Massachusetts, which abolished capital punishment in 1984, has a lower rate than Connecticut, which has six people on death row; the homicide rate in West Virginia is 30 percent below that of Virginia, which has one of the highest execution rates in the country."

Unless it can be shown that there is a significant long term deterrent effect that outweighs the social cost of capital punishment, then I don't care how much stuff you post. But improper use of statistics bothers me, so I'm happy to refute it, and I think I've done enough to show that your numbers aren't reliable.
Posted by Deuc, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 9:49:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tim, your follow-up posts sound as though you are a little exasperated with your audience. Or at least very defensive. Relax and listen a little, you have tapped a fairly representative cross-section of opinions on the matter, and the fact that they don't all agree with you should not be much of a surprise.

You make the point very well - "[i]f Australia is engaged in "human rights dialogue" ... what are these dialogues actually achieving...?" I put it to you that in such negotiations - particularly at the moment with China - playing the human rights card is actually an expense. Any concessions made on the other side of the table we must expect to pay for, in some form. If trade deals are in the air, you can expect those payments to be in cash. The most likely reason for the lack of progress in these situations is that we can't afford the asking price.

You then observe "As for whether it is colonialism to engage our neighbours in debate about their use of the death penalty, there are a couple of points to be made." (You go on to make only one "point", that this is a universal issue ['opposition to the death penalty is not simply a "western concern"'], as if that should be argument enough.)

However, as you have seen from the responses here, being pro- or anti- the death penalty tends to be a personal issue, much like being pro-life or pro-choice. National policy founded on such visceral responses can only ever pretend to represent public opinion, which waxes and wanes over time. Immediately after some atrocity or other, support to institutionalize the killing of the malefactors will increase, only to subside later as the emotions wear off. So whoever represents us in these debates does so with a very unsound mandate. If we then indulge ourselves in censure of the values of our opposite number at the table, we are likely to sound more than a little patronizing.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 9:31:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles
Thanks for that, and I certainly don’t mean to come across as exasperated. I have been reading the discussion with great interest, one reason why I have tried to refrain from posting any responses (so far at least...).
Posted by Tim Goodwin, Wednesday, 13 July 2005 6:56:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
replies to many

Tim, what, specifically, do you think should be criticized about the US death penalty?

And, yes, the US abolition movement is active, large, well funded and organized. Even though there is no organized or funded pro death penalty movement, just a few individuals like myself, death penalty support in the US is in the 74-80% range.

I don't think that the Australian government is having any adverse effect on death penalty support in your neighboring countries.

Tim, you wrongly imply that deterrence questions don't apply to Singapore or Vietnam, because of the way they impose capital punishment. You are in error. It is the fact that they do impose executions that, specifically, does make it relevant.

Tim fails to mention that there is a lot of death penalty support throughout the world, even in those counties, like in the EU or Sout America, where the governments lead anti death penalty efforts. He failed to distinguish between government opposition to the death penalty and the support for the death penalty exhibited by the populace.

[...] Opinion polls show that Europeans and Canadians crave executions almost as much as their American counterparts do. It's just that their politicians don't listen to them. In other words, if these countries' political cultures are morally superior to America's, it's because they're less democratic.

From Marshall, Joshua Micah. EUROPE'S DEATH-PENALTY ELITISM. DEATH IN VENICE. The New Republic, June 31, 2000

anomie states: Can't get the Austin American Statesman here. Enlighten me. Always willing to look at a good argument.

too long to post here.

Deuc asks: No response for the my criticism Dudley?

My two links covered your criticisms, thoroughly.

Anomie writes: Any comments on Ryan Matthews, by the way? Arguably mentally deficient, and eventually exonerated by DNA evidence.

Sad case. Weren't there 2-3 witnesses who identified Matthews, didn't his alleged accomplice sign a sworn statement that Matthews committed the murder, but later recanted? DNA didn't match. DNA was a match to an incarcerated murderer. Matthews was released. I don't know anything about the mental aspects.
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Thursday, 14 July 2005 2:02:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
reply to anomie and xena

xena asks: does the death penalty aid the progression of a civilised nation?

Progression is subjectively defined. Maybe more just.

Jurors give a death sentence when they believe it is most just. The evidence is sound that by sparing guilty murderers, more innocents are knowingly sacrificed. By executing murderers we spare more innocents.

As Sunstein and Vermeule concluded: " . . . a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, (capital) punishment." (2)

"This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death." (2)

(2)) From the Executive Summary of
Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs, 3/2005
Full report http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1131

anomie asks: DS. On Ricky Ray Rector: why did the prison chaplain resign, claiming what was done to Rector was a horrible crime in itself – that "we're not supposed to execute children"?

Source please? And, why didn't 99% of the others, involved in the execution, not resign? Remember my point, we cannot execute people who aren't aware of why they are being executed AND who aren't aware of what execution means. The returning for dessert story is fiction and/or Rector thought it was a controversial way to go out.

aomie states: Familiar with Bedau's book, which (his contributions included) is considerably more nuanced than you let on.

We disagree. He stated of course it deters. Reason and history find that all prospects for negative consequences deter someone. It is not surprising that the most severe criminal sanction doesn't contradict this truism.

Can you name (with evidence) one negative consequence that doesn't deter some folks? BTW, no one has, yet.

anomie asks: are all the cases of exoneration (some of them posthumous) not credible?

Based upon many reviews, as I previously stated likely around 25 cases of cedible actual innocence released from death row, for cases prosecuted in the modern era, post Furman, 1972. I am unaware of any solid cases of an innocent executed since 1900
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Thursday, 14 July 2005 2:12:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We're still failing to examine the question of how to compensate a later-exonerated corpse, aren't we, DS? Surely this deserves discussion.
Posted by anomie, Thursday, 14 July 2005 1:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW, DS, Rector reference, Marshal Frady, New Yorker, date not to hand. And a closer reading of the Sunstein and Vermeule article shows (a) the nation-wide deterrent effect of capital punishment is entirely driven by only six states—and no deterrent effect can be found in the twenty-one other states that have restored capital punishment, and (b) many murderers lack a clear sense of the likelihood and perhaps even the existence of executions in their state; further problems for the deterrence claim are introduced by the fact that capital punishment is imposed infrequently and after long delays. In any case many murders are committed in a passionate state that does not lend itself to an all-things-considered analysis on the part of perpetrators.
Posted by anomie, Thursday, 14 July 2005 4:25:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doubtless there are those who surely deserve death for their crimes. But who among us has the right to be executioner? The victims’ relatives, perhaps? How does this redress the crime? Many vicious killers want to die. Death can be the easy way out for them. A life time sentence in solitary confinement would surely be worse.

Capital punishment has proven to be no deterrent. Despite DS’s spurious links – a PRO-death web-site (written by himself no less), statistics from Texas! Or shonky claims such as “Barry Scheck, cofounder of the Innocence Project and featured speaker at the National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty (11/13-15/98), stated that he had no proof of an innocent executed (in the US since 1976) (34).”

Since 1976! Please get your facts right duddles.

“If Larry Griffin were being tried today for the murder of Quintin Moss, he would almost certainly be acquitted. The evidence is overwhelming that he did not kill Mr. Moss. But Mr. Griffin is not being tried today. He has already been executed for the murder.”

This is an excerpt from NY Times Bob Herbert dated 14th July 2005-07-15

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/opinion/14herbert.html

There is no doubt about DS’ passion for his subject, but it borders on obsession. I would posit that it brings DS down to the same level as the murderers he wants put to death.
Posted by Trinity, Friday, 15 July 2005 3:02:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Replies - anomie and trinity

Anomie, the findings were (1) the S&V review found a huge saving of innocent life in those 6 states with deterrence. (2) 21 other death penalty states had no deterrence finding because they rarely executed. Had they executed more, those states would also save many innocent lives.

Anomie, the study DID investigate if executions deter crimes of passion. The answer was clear: potential passion murders are deterred by capital punishment. page 8.

Trinity argues: Many killers want to die - it’s the easy way out. A life sentence in solitary confinement is worse.

Roughly 99% of convicted capital murderers seek a life sentence, not a death sentence. Murderers prefer life over a death sentence.

From 1973-2002, there had been 820 executions, 97 of which were "volunteers".

Of the 7255 sentenced to death from 1973-2002:

volunteered for execution 1.3%
did not volunteer for execution 98.7%

Trinity writes: Please get your facts right duddles.

My facts are accurate and you have no contrary evidence.

You are the only one who acts both disrespectful and childish, on this board.

Trinity quotes: If Larry Griffin were being tried today for the murder of Quintin Moss, he would almost certainly be acquitted. The evidence is overwhelming that he did not kill Mr. Moss. But Mr. Griffin is not being tried today. He has already been executed for the murder. NY Times Bob Herbert dated 14th July 2005-07-15

Nononsense. Hebert's analysis is based solely upon a one sided report. The report has already been publicly disputed by some involved in the case. The report wants us to believe that some folks memories of events are better today than they were 25 years ago.

Trinity writes: There is no doubt about DS’ passion for his subject, but it borders on obsession. I would posit that it brings DS down to the same level as the murderers he wants put to death.

I would suggest that equating my expertise as being the moral equivalent of being a capital murderer reflects an absence of any moral standards.
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Friday, 15 July 2005 4:55:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would suggest that an obsession with inflicting the death penalty upon all whether guilty or not indicates the moral level and discrimination of a Ross River Mosquito.

This is Australia we do not have the death penalty. We do not want the death penalty.

This thread really has gone off topic - I admit my part in this, therefore, I will begin by encouraging our American neighbour - Dudley Sharp to take his views back to Texas where they no doubt will receive a more postive response than here - where we are still (by the merest thread) more enlightened than the lynch mob mentality of the extreme right wing faction of the USA.
Posted by Trinity, Friday, 15 July 2005 5:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please, DS, why won't you answer my question? What happens if someone innocent is executed? How do you put that right? Doesn't the state have, in a sense, a higher duty of care than individuals have, to ensure its actions are right and just? Otherwise, what is the point of the state? And I suspect you are making something of a meal of an essentially jurisprudential argument in the S + V piece. It is common practice in academic jurisprudence to argue a case one believes to be fundamentally unsound - which is fairly plainly what Sunstein, at least ( I base this on personal acquaintance, and familiarity with his work) is doing. I believe I mentioned nuance, and your missing it, in an earlier post relating to Bedau. Same goes for S + V.
Posted by anomie, Saturday, 16 July 2005 9:11:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anomie wonders:
Please, DS, why won't you answer my question? What happens if someone innocent is executed? How do you put that right? Doesn't the state have, in a sense, a higher duty of care than individuals have, to ensure its actions are right and just? Otherwise, what is the point of the state?

Anomie, I didn't, previously, answer because it is a ridiculous question that 100% of people already know the answer to.

You cannot make it right.

Which then goes to your question about the state's duty.

And this goes to why governments should have the death penalty.

For example, in the US, there is no proof that an innocent has been executed, at least since 1900.

The proof is, however, overwhelming and uncontested that murderers harm and murder, again,in prison, after escape and after improper release. Executed murderers never harm, again.

So, the state knows that, even without deterrence, that the enhanced incapacitation effect of the death penalty saves innocent lives, or by sparing murderers lives, we choose that more innocents should be murdered.

And, at the very least, that the death penalty deters is a much more probable reality than executions having no deterrent effect.

We all know that the potential for negative consequences always deters some folks. There are no exceptions.

So Austarlia decides not to execute, spares murderers and sacrifices more innocents to murder.

Bad state choice.

And Tim Goodwin's article, the subject of this thread, wonders what more can be done to convicnce Australia's neighbors not to impose the death penalty. More properly, Australians should wonder why they have also not chosen to spare more innocent lives by imposing capital punishment.

Anomie, many state and private endeavors kill innocent peorple, It happens all the time, many times, every day. In the US, of all the state and private endeavors that do put innocents at risk, I can think of only one, the US death penalty, that has no proof of an innocent executed.

Can you think of another?
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Saturday, 16 July 2005 10:56:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trinity, I strongly object to your assumption that the opinion expressed in favour of capital punishment equates to the "lynch mob mentality of the extreme right wing faction of the USA". As I have said previously, I have more faith in the legal system due process of law, than some contributors. The rule of law breaks down when people cease to have respect for it. I believe there are situations that require a person to die for their actions if only to protect many other lives from their "evil intent". In the same way, you feel a murderer should live, I feel the victim should have been allowed to live!. I see nothing "extreme right wing" about such a view. Currently this extremity is reserved for shooting innocent men, women and children in the name of "freeing up democracy"!
And I am about as left as they come from the conservative side of politics. I think America is too quick to condemn if one can go by their TV Dramas, but then I don't believe everything I see on TV either. Courts have "all the facts", we don't. Choice!
Posted by Choice, Sunday, 17 July 2005 4:31:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately courts do not have all the facts. Justice is a byproduct of the legal system not the main objective alas. Why does one barrister eg a silk get paid a lot more than a junior one. Because he is more successful in legal argument and negotiating the sewer of the legal system than a less experienced one. If you committed a crime or wanted to procecute someone, whom would you choose and why. especially if your life was the stakes. Why do big companies employ the "best" barristers and solicitors? There is more chance they will win. What are your chances with a well-intentioned legal aid attorney age 28 compared with a silk age 58 who has been in five thousand similar cases? Which surgeon do you choose too when you guts are on the floor.
I have spent many hundreds of hours in the box and know that it is all like a big expensive bull fight with the emphasis on bull. The winner takes all and whether or not justice is served is really of little interest to the whole affair. It is like a school debate. Even if you win round one, there is always a court of appeal or the supreme court whose judiciary may be influence by political as well as legal persuasions. After all judges are not appointed by the Tooth Fairy. It has not changed much since the days of Cicero.Sorry to burst your idealistic bubble.
Posted by Odysseus, Sunday, 17 July 2005 8:47:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all countries that still have capital punishment, please consider how institutional execution brings you down to the same level as the murderers, serial killers, terrorists. No amount of fuzzy logic will place you in a more righteous or moral position than those you execute in cold blood.

We will never evolve as an intelligent species until we learn how to control and treat the perverse among us.

This thread is about doing more to encourage our neighbours to abandon premeditated killing (capital punishment). It is not whether the death penalty is acceptable. If there are those who wish to debate this issue then write your own article so we can freely debate it on another thread.

The question remains, should Australia be doing more to eliminate the death penalty - no nation can call itself civilised while it sanctions such cold blooded killing. Therefore, the answer to Tim Goodwin's question is yes. However we do need to look at our level of humanity as well before we can preach to others.
Posted by Trinity, Sunday, 17 July 2005 1:45:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DS. In your own words "Based upon many reviews, as I previously stated likely around 25 cases of cedible (sic) actual innocence released from death row, for cases prosecuted in the modern era, post Furman, 1972" The lack of evidence for earlier cases would have nothing to do with lack of, oh, shall we say, just for fun, DNA samples from them? Doubtless you will have a glib, but evasive, reply. What happened to you, DS? You say in your links you used to oppose killing by the state. Is your road to damascus entirely a rational calculation?
Posted by anomie, Sunday, 17 July 2005 11:24:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
reply to anomie:

anomie states: DS. In your own words "Based upon many reviews, as I previously stated likely around 25 cases of cedible (sic) actual innocence released from death row, for cases prosecuted in the modern era, post Furman, 1972" The lack of evidence for earlier cases would have nothing to do with lack of, oh, shall we say, just for fun, DNA samples from them? Doubtless you will have a glib, but evasive, reply.

DS reply: My replies throughout this thread have been accurate and as thorough as this forum allows. I have not been evasive. Some folks on this board have a desire to be hostile, I suspect because they don't like my thorough answers. This is common for anti death penalty folks. I believe there is no good proof for an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900, because such cases are incredibly rare.

The proof however is overhwleming and not questioned that murderers harm and murder innocents, again. Therefore, the anti death penalty position knowingly sacrifices more innocent lives.

Anomie, is that a good outcome?

anomie asks: What happened to you, DS? You say in your links you used to oppose killing by the state. Is your road to damascus entirely a rational calculation?

DS: It is a sad commentary on anomie, that she muct lower herself to this level. Simply because I approve of a just outcome, as I see it, for horrible murderers, is not reason for anomie, or anyone else, to wrongly presume. Anomies childishness and immaturity demand it, I suspect, even within a serious discussion of a weighty public policy discussion.

I am sorry you have chosen to be this way. It is not necessary.
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Monday, 18 July 2005 1:54:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Therefore, the anti death penalty position knowingly sacrifices more innocent lives."

Criminals of particularly heinous crimes should be locked away for life, therefore your above quote is meaningless. I am offended that you should actually attempt to claim the moral high ground on this issue. Tell me, would you offer your services to 'pull the trigger, flip the switch, swing the axe, tie the noose, inject the poison'?

As has been noted in this thread Australia does not have the death penalty. Nor does Australia have the same rate of heinous crimes as the USA.

DS if you wish to debate institutionalised murder please use a forum that is discussing that topic. This thread is about whether Australia should be encouraging its neighbours to abandon premeditated, state sanctioned murder, as trinity has pointed out to you.

Unless you can provide some methods that will assist Australia in eliminating the moral crime of state sanctioned murder, then I suggest you leave this forum to those who wish to discuss the topic.
Posted by Ambo, Monday, 18 July 2005 9:24:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Executing McVeigh will not bring back the people he killed, but it will bring back the machinery of death. The federal government hasn't killed anyone in 40 years, and now they're trying to use McVeigh to bring the death penalty back. But don't make any mistake about it after McVeigh, the next person they kill won¹t look like him, he will look like me. He might be innocent like me, too."

--Darby Tillis, an exonerated former Illinois death row inmate

Another reason why our 'neighbour' the USA should drop the death penalty and butt out of our criminal system.
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Monday, 18 July 2005 10:00:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ambo writes: DS if you wish to debate institutionalised murder please use a forum that is discussing that topic. This thread is about whether Australia should be encouraging its neighbours to abandon premeditated, state sanctioned murder, as trinity has pointed out to you.

You have made two errors, ambo. Judicially imposed execution is not murder, unless you are the type who equates crime and punishment, kidnapping and incarceration and robbery with fines.

I am well aware of what this thread is about. There are many reasons why Australia should not encourage their neighbors to abandon the death penalty and why Australia should have the death penalty. Obviously that is part of the discussion and part of this thread, as it rightly should be.

I have as much right to impose my opinion on this forum and upon Australia, just as many of you have chosen to crticize the US.
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Monday, 18 July 2005 1:09:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No intention of being childish, DS, nor of descending to abuse. I asked merely because it is clear from your links that you are something of a zealot on the matter. It is helpful to know precisely what kind of zealot one is dealing with in such cases. If a person's conviction springs from emotion, and the facts (pro or con) come later, then there is little use in attempting to employ reasoned argument - the person will be impervious. On the other hand, a person with a conviction which arises from reason is one who is open to argument. If I am dealing with the latter, I am more than happy to continue the discussion.
Posted by anomie, Monday, 18 July 2005 1:31:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ambo "Unless you can provide some methods that will assist Australia in eliminating the moral crime of state sanctioned murder, then I suggest you leave this forum to those who wish to discuss the topic. "

So Ambo, who died and left you as room monitor ?

IF you cannot handle an opposing view to your own I suggest you leave this forum.

I for one would welcome the introduction of the death penalty for drug dealing on the second offence - I will be liberal enough to allow anyone one change to rectify from their "mistake" but as things go I rate drug dealers worse than certified sociopaths and deserving no long to contaminate the air they breathe
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 2:50:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trinity I am more scared by
"We will never evolve as an intelligent species until we learn how to control and treat the perverse among us."

than by the idea of the perpetrators of extreme crime being executed. I'm not sure I trust our legal system (or that of our neighbours) to endorse either prospect.

The definition of "perverse" has a way of changing to suit those in power.

In the mean time we do need to find realistic means for ourselves and our neighboor to deal with the reality of individuals who willingly and repeatedly choose to harm others. Long term imprisonment - should other prisoners be subject to risk from someone who is already jailed for life? Should we or our neighbours keep the worst offenders in isolation (a welded shut cage maybe) to ensure they never hurt anybody else? Is execution worse than some of the alternatives?

Not many easy answers.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 6:19:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No there are no easy answers RObert. However, after paying very close attention to this discussion it seems as though some who intend to impose their view are inclined to respond with an abundance of mathematical solutions to well researched, specific and complex questions regarding the killing of innocent people.

I hope we never see welded shut cages either. We don’t even do that to animals.
Posted by hutlen, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 8:40:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that many of us, who are not criminals, believe that we might prefer death over life in prison. This is understandable. But, for violent criminals, specifically capital murderers, that most certainly is not the case.

The pre trial, trial and death row evidence -  the survival effect

At every level of the criminal justice process, virtually all criminals do everything they can to lessen possible punishments.  I estimate that less than 1% of all convicted capital murderers request a death sentence in the punishment phase of their trial.  The apprehended criminals' desire for lesser punishments is overwhelming and unchallenged.

Of the 7300 inmates sentenced to death since 1973, 85, or 1.2% have waived remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not waived appeals.  The evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather live on death row than die.  Why?  The survival effect -- life is preferred over death and death is feared more than life.  Even on death row, that is the rule.

Even such marginalized personalities as capital murderers fear death more than imprisonment.  And that which we fear the most, deters the most. (kudos to Ernest van den Haag and many others)

It is logical to conclude that some of those less marginalized personalities, who choose not to murder, also, overwhelmingly, fear death more than life, and, we, thus, logically conclude that some are deterred from murdering because of the enhanced deterrent effect of execution.

The evidence for the survival effect in pretrial, trial and appeals is overwhelming and that weighs in favor of execution as a deterrent and as an enhanced deterrent over lesser sentences
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 10:11:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trinity "We will never evolve as an intelligent species until we learn how to control and treat the perverse among us."

In Stalins view - people who think like me are perverse and he did his utmost to eradicate us.

In my view socialism is a perversion - and should be controlled by having a vote for socialism being enough to cancel all future voting rights....

Your desire to "control and treat" is prejudical and judgemental in the extreme.

Try "accept", "tolerate" or "re-educate" - or you might find someone with power but different views considers you a suitable case for "controlling and treating".

My personal view is everyone has the right to be bad / perverse (to be defined) - but that they are held accountable for their actions is what brings down the consequences upon them.

We will only evolve by allowing everyone to be free to think and be as expressive as they want. We will stagnate if we try "controlling" them.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 9:11:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col you state:
>>We will only evolve by allowing everyone to be free to think and be as expressive as they want. We will stagnate if we try "controlling" them.<<

Col Rouge - you deny other posters their freedom of expression in so many other threads, that your post here results in a complete lack of credibilty.

BTW why is it you only believe in death penalty for drug pushers and apparently not for other even more heinous criminals?

What really is your point here? Do you believe that Australia should argue against the death penalty in other countries? Rhetorical question I already know the answer because you think the death penalty actually helps reduce crime.

Well having read you posts elsewhere I know how much import to apply to anything you have to say.

BTW death penalty doesn't work just look at USA.
Posted by Xena, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 11:09:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For what it's worth,Capitol punishment and Life Sentencing in Ozzieland is absolute nonsense.Our Judiciary haven't a clue when it comes to sentencing e.g how many of us read in the News everyday about some guy who murders or rapes or seduces 10-20 underage kids - yes maniac's like Ivan Milat who callously tortured,maimed and sadistically murders his back-packer victims, or Val May Beck who malaciously lured poor Sharyn Kingy into the forest with her arch fiend-defacto-lover,grappled with the innocent ten year old,physically held-her-down while he repeatedly raped and tortured her, before finally ending her suffering by strangling her.Sadly, the list goes on and despite the abhorrence some of this forum's contributers manifest - truth is we are SOFT on crime, not that we are intellectually 'above-it-all', but reality we are a byproduct of the 'transportation' days, and are sympathetic because we could end up swinging on a noose ourselves, hence let's scrub it.We hear of villians getting 6/10 years only to be released in two ?? Then the Christopher Skaces, Bond's,Packer's,William's and now Hillard escaping with rapts over the knuckles. The Coperate sector's embezzelers are copping it sweet. So what's new ?
Posted by dalma, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 11:57:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strangely, xena writes:

BTW death penalty doesn't work just look at USA.

Of course it works. Jurors assign the death penalty when they find it just. When murderers are executed that is the punishment.

What doesn't work?

In additon, the death penalty saves innocent lives. See below.

How doesn't it work?

Furthermore, without the death penalty, the evidence is clear that many more innocents are at risk.
 
There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
 
Is execution an enhanced incapacitator?
 
Living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.  Who would have known?

Deterrence

" . . . a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, (capital) punishment." (2)

"Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many as eighteen or more murders for each execution." (2)
 
"This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death." (2)
 
7 recent studies, as well as the anecdotal evidence, say the death penalty is a deterrent. Is there any negative consequence that doesn't deter some folks. Of course not.
 
Your choice.
 
Spare murderers lives and sacrifice more innocents. Execute murderers and spare more innocents.
 
Full report -  All Innocence Issues: The Death Penalty, upon request.

Full report - The Death Penalty as a Deterrent, upon request
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Thursday, 21 July 2005 1:35:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is nothing strange about the lack of deterrence of the denalty DS.

Your claims have been refuted throughout this forum. Death is often the easy option for criminals - try solitary confinement for the rest of your life - now that's punishment. And it fits the crime let the criminal stew in her or mostly his juices all alone till they die of old age.

How does a life sentence endanger innocents?

How does appointing a state sanctioned killer to perform the execution achieve anything?

And if the accused is innocent then another life has been murdered - but that's OK it was by the state.

NOW back to the THREAD, USA as a world power could really lead by example by adopting HUMANE approaches to crime and punishment. Then perhaps our other neighbours would follow suit. Eventually.
Posted by Xena, Thursday, 21 July 2005 8:52:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
xena writes: Your claims (of deterrence) have been refuted throughout this forum.

No, they have not been. All prospects for negative consequences deter. That is, universally, true and unrefuted. None of the 7 recent stdueis, finding for deterrence in the US have been refuted.

Xena writes: Death is often the easy option for criminals - try solitary confinement for the rest of your life - now that's punishment.

That has already been discussed. About 99% of criminals disagree with your position.

xena aks: How does a life sentence endanger innocents?

living murderers harm and murder, again, in prison, after escape and after improper release. Executed murderers don't. A greater concern for innocents provides more support for the death penalty.

xena asks: How does appointing a state sanctioned killer to perform the execution achieve anything?

Jurors tells us that it provides a more just sentnece in some cases, as well as an enhanced method of protecting and sparing more innocent lives.

xena proclaims: And if the accused is innocent then another life has been murdered - but that's OK it was by the state.

No one says its OK. But the state, by not executing, is sacrificing more innocents. However, there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900. The states mistake is in not executing murderers and, therefore, sacrificing more innocents.

xena writes: NOW back to the THREAD, USA as a world power could really lead by example by adopting HUMANE approaches to crime and punishment. Then perhaps our other neighbours would follow suit. Eventually.

Explain how depriving jurors of a sentence they find to be just is a benefit. Explain how sparing murderers lives and, thereby, sacrificing more innocents is more humane than imposing justice and sparing innocents by executing murderers.
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Thursday, 21 July 2005 9:46:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DS, that I think you are mistaken does not in any way mean I believe your motives are other than high-minded. I have no doubt your intention is solely to see innocent lives spared. But let me ask you one question: which would save more lives (innocent or otherwise)? More state-sanctioned killing, or turning your back on 200-odd years of constitutional history and getting rid of the gun culture?
Posted by anomie, Thursday, 21 July 2005 10:27:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Can you name (with evidence) one negative consequence that doesn't deter some folks? BTW, no one has, yet.”
Sure – the death penalty! A hired killer knows what they're doing and the consequences. Yet they still undertake their profession. Seems no deterrent there…

“Had they executed more, those states would also save many innocent lives.”
Who’s to say? Your opinion (which you are entitled to) but don’t make claims in your reasoned, factual debate that have no basis in fact.

“The answer was clear: potential passion murders are deterred by capital punishment.”
If potential passion murders are deterred, then why do they happen? Seems no deterrent…

“For example, in the US, there is no proof that an innocent has been executed, at least since 1900. “
No proof does not equate to hasn’t happened. But the question was, what are the consequences? Try answering that and not repeating this ‘fact’ (Appears quite often. I think we’ll all remember it ).

“So Austarlia decides not to execute, spares murderers and sacrifices more innocents to murder. Bad state choice”
Again – your opinion (and still welcome to it!). The "sacrifices innocence” part’s wrong to. If the murder’s deterred (as you propose) yet there are still murders, then the deterrent fails. Hence, no sacrifice, as it was likely to happen…

“Courts have "all the facts" “
Again, wrong. I also work in the legal system. Facts have little to do with court. Spin and innuendo have more. Odysseus is right when he talks of the cost of justice. Money means access to more resources, more experience. Justice is blind – and also poor. Your argument would have more credibility if the courts were a level playing field – which they aren’t.

“I believe there is no good proof for an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900, because such cases are incredibly rare. “
Seems here, you actually imply that there were cases of executed innocence! But we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Still it begs the repeated/unanswered question – what is the consequence of actually executing an innocent?
Posted by JustDan, Thursday, 21 July 2005 12:43:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Xena, I know this stays off the prime topic but I don't see any part of the debate as absolute black or white or able to discussed in isolation. How can I encourage my neighbour to give up capital punishment if I'm not sure that it is worse than the alternatives.

I see the purpose of prison and or death penalties not as punishment but rather protection for the rest of us (prison by way of deterent). What is the difference between punishment and torture? Part of me would like to see the worst of criminals rot in their juices, another part of me says societies role should stop at protecting ourselves from those who hurt others.

As to how a life sentence threatens innocents. Depends what you call an innocent. Other prisoners (and the occasional guard) are killed by prison inmates. Maybe the other prisoners are not innocents but a percentage of them might be in there for crimes which we might not regard as worthy of a life (or death) sentence. What do we do with the prisoners who continue to be a threat to others?

I have a very strong disgust for the idea of locking somebody up in a manner which makes it impossible for them to ever hurt anybody else. What a barbaric thing to do. I'm certainly not confident that I can tell my neighbour that executing the worst of crimninals is wrong while the alternatives either leave others exposed to risk or cause my neighbour to have cage somebody for life.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 21 July 2005 9:04:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert: >>I have a very strong disgust for the idea of locking somebody up in a manner which makes it impossible for them to ever hurt anybody else. What a barbaric thing to do. I'm certainly not confident that I can tell my neighbour that executing the worst of crimninals is wrong while the alternatives either leave others exposed to risk or cause my neighbour to have cage somebody for life.<<

I think it is vile too, however you think killing someone is preferable? Would you execute someone?

Now, do you think Australia should get its act together with regard to humane treatment of people (eg refugees, indigenous people, people with mental illness etc) first before attempting to persuade our neighbours to cease with state sanctioned killing?

To other posters BTW Australia does not have the death penalty and this is not a forum asking that it be introduced.

I believe it would be presumptuous of Australia to tell other countries what to do regarding punishment. Setting an example works best. Killing only fosters more killing.
Posted by Xena, Friday, 22 July 2005 8:30:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Xena, I'm sitting on the fence on this. In regard to butting in on the internal affairs of other countries - can we have an iron clad rule or is this situational. In a local context I stay out of my neighbours affairs (other than where welcome as a friend). If I knew my neighbours kids were being abused I would take a different approach. I think the same kind of approach applies in international relations.

I agree that setting an example works best but it does not always work.

Do I think executing someone is better than locking them up in a manner where they can never hurt anybody else? I'm not sure. I certainly don't think that execution is a lot worse than the alternatives and that is how some posters appear to treat the topic.
Could I execute somebody? Not sure on that but I am fairly confident that I could not act as jailer to someone jailed in a secure manner either. The argument only makes sense if we consider the alternatives. There are are a lot of things I would find difficult to do but would do if the alternative was worse.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 23 July 2005 9:27:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
to robert and xena

Robert(R) responds to Dudley(D)

D “Can you name (with evidence) one negative consequence that doesn't deter some folks? BTW, no one has, yet.”

R Sure – the death penalty! A hired killer knows what they're doing and the consequences. Yet they still undertake their profession. Seems no deterrent there…

D No robert, with evidence. Deterrence means to stop some people, not all. Read again "doesn't deter SOME."

D “Had they executed more, those states would also save many innocent lives.”
R Who’s to say? Your opinion (which you are entitled to) but don’t make claims in your reasoned, factual debate that have no basis in fact.

D No robert, the context was the specific deterrence study under discussion. A responder didn't read the whole study they were commenting on. The study found that there was a minimum threshold of executions for as deterrent effect. The finding was that that number and above produces a deterrent effect.

D “The answer was clear: potential passion murders are deterred by capital punishment.”
If potential passion murders are deterred, then why do they happen? Seems no deterrent…

D Robert, anyone deterred equals a deterrent. Because all aren't deterrered doesn't mean it isn't a deterrent. The quote was from the study.

D For example, millions are deterred from smoking because of health issues. Millions aren't.

D “For example, in the US, there is no proof that an innocent has been executed, at least since 1900. “
R No proof does not equate to hasn’t happened. But the question was, what are the consequences? Try answering that and not repeating this ‘fact’ (Appears quite often. I think we’ll all remember it ).

D I concede that it has happened, probability suggests. The evidence is overwhelming that murderers harm and murder, again, in prison, after escape and after we fail to incarcerate them. Executed murderers never harm and murder, again. Even without deterrence, executions save innocents.

xena writes: Killing only fosters more killing.

D By that wrongheadedness, we'd all be Nazis or dead, like all the world's Jews would be.
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Saturday, 23 July 2005 12:12:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dudley, you've managed to read some interesting things into my posts (or lack thereof). You certainly put a lot of stuff in my name which I would not put there.

The point I discussed with Xena is about the problem with decreeing the death penalty as barbaric while ignoring the issues with the main alternative. No strong statements against the death penalty other than a distrust of the legal system and an inability to confirm that I would queue up to be executioner (I use flush toilets and don't want to clean sewerage pipes either).

I do sit on the fence about the death penalty, I see good points for it (you've addressed those already) and I see some negatives (it is very final and it may be damaging on society to do it). In regard to the topic at hand I'm not convinced that we should be butting in on our neighbours choices when there are no clean alternatives. We have made a different choice to some of our neighbours on how to deal with a very difficult problem.

Now it's my turn
(D) R I'm sorry I misrepresented you.
(R) Apology accepted D.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 25 July 2005 6:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
reply to robert, who writes - In regard to the topic at hand I'm not convinced that we should be butting in on our neighbours choices when there are no clean alternatives. We have made a different choice to some of our neighbours on how to deal with a very difficult problem.

dudley responds -- we get a lot of people butting into the US position on the death penalty, all the time. that doesn't mean the criticisim is warranted or accurate or responible. However, such criticism has existed forever even when different jurisdictions meant our neighbor in the next cave. Nothing will ever stop it. It certainly doesn't bother me, although it does bother many others. As a member of the human family, I believe we all have a duty to voice our praise and condemnation, where we believe it is warranted.

Robert continues -- Now it's my turn
(D) R I'm sorry I misrepresented you.
(R) Apology accepted D.

Dudley reply - it is not acceptable for you to speak for me, ever. I believe I responded to your exact comments, as I reposted your words. However, if I used some one elses words or misunderstood your wrods, I do apologize for that, of course. However, I am unaware that I did either.

sincerely, dudley
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 12:55:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dudley, apology accepted.

Agreed that I should not speak for you - doing so was a very specific and I thought obvious attempt to get you to think about your actions in attempting to speak for me. I'm fairly confident that the content in that short piece did not misrepresent your approach to the subject of the thread or provide much opportunity to be mislead the casual reader.

Please try a search for some of the quotes you attributed to me across the postings. Go the top of the page and do a "Find on this page" search. The couple I tried were from JustDan not from myself, I did not test them all but am fairly confident that most are not mine.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 12:22:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well,Robert, I think all the quotes were Justdan's.

My sincere apologies. It appears I just thought there were all yours, for some reason.

As Roseanne Roseannadanna would say, Never mind.

sorry to the board, as well. dudley
Posted by Dudley Sharp, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 3:28:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well well :)

I've read most of the posts here, and its quite the illuminating experience.

I observe that the more passionate Dudley is, the more 'intolerant' and 'bigoted' and 'hateful' are some of the views of certain people who disagree with him. That characteristic is one I observe in other threads from the same people who, it appears feel that disagreeing with 'them' is some kind of personal attack.

The other thing I observe, as if it was written in the big blue by a sky-writing aeroplane, is the abundance of 'moral relativism' here.
The classic symptom of this is a) lack of a moral reference for such a position, and b) Vitriolic attacks on Dudly for his position. They kind of go-together. Natural buddies so to speak.

If you don't have a foundation or moral anchor for ones life, then the only way to persuade people is to 'bludgeon' them with 'Your a racist blah blah' )

The Biblical view of the death penalty and Justice in general was 'do the crime, pay the price.' Tooth= tooth (not tooth+leg ) Life=Life. The elders who meet at the gate, would assess the mitigating factors of self defence or outright malicious murder. But the law is the law, everyone knows it.
The eye for eye was not about vengance, it was about justice and if anything LIMITED the punishment. If you steal $20, u repay $20 not $5.
Its not rocket science.

I would not have a problem with the death penalty per se, but I would reserve it for absolute, incontrovertable unambiguous evidence based outcomes.

The idea that the 'state' is reduced to the level of murderer is only applicable in a 'morally relative' universe, and raises the question ''what' level ? is it a good level or a bad level, righteous or evil. If 'evil' ...why so ?

Moral relativism, -takes a thread like this with no 'bible bashers' (till now) for it to be seen for what it is. "untenable"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 8:16:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Should Australia be doing more to encourage our neighbours to abandon the death penalty?

Absolutely.

How? By example. Australia can set the pace for humane and compassionate treatment of all people. For who are we to dictate or presume to judge.

"If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable."
Louis D. Brandeis
Posted by Xena, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 1:09:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding capital punishment, the problem is that there are too many mistakes made by the courts. Recent analysis of DNA found under the fingernails of victims of the backpacker murderer have shown that this DNA does not belong to any Milat family member nor any victim. Ivan Milat has always professed his innocence and there has always been suspicion of police planting evidence. Advances in DNA technology have meant further tests have been able to be carried out on a number of items found in Belanglo. There is no evidence Ivan Milat was ever there. The media has demonised the whole Milat family and defamed them to the point that it is well nigh impossible for members of the public to look at the alternative evidence. More details can be found on the website of the late great Brian Raven:
http://users.tpg.com.au/brianrav/FIRM_Intro.htm
[Deleted for defamatory content.]
Posted by Laura, Monday, 7 November 2005 11:01:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy