“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?

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

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.

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

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.

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