The State always has had the power to kill to protect it's people, Vynnie. Soldiers use guns on their people's enemies, not frying pans.

I do not see why internal enemies should be dealt with in the same way as external ones. No civilised country should allow the most dangerous criminals to live in jail where they can run their criminal enterprises through intermediaries, and where they can order the assasination of judges, police prosecutors, witnesses or journalists.

Nor should we tolerate terrorists who target civilians in order to promote their twisted ideologies. To allow such people to live in jail would invite more attacks by their compatriots to free them.

Oh their are people who by their actions have reliquished their right to breath

The pedophiles and dispassionate killers of all kinds

The drug dealers and profiteers from human misery likewise.

The biggest issue with the dath penalty has always been "what if did not do it?"

The answer - not all cases involve doubt.
Most cases are supported by evidence and in recent years evidence which can withstand all scrutiny.

Then drug peddlars might never meet their victioms, they are simply trading off the death of their wares.

Drug peddlars have displayed indiscriminent contempt for human life
Their is no issue to their guilt - eg the Bali 9 most of whom had the stuff strapped to their bodies deserve to die.

No buts about their guilt

No need to ask them to redeem themselves or expect a second chance -
Irrefutable proof and participation in a reckless criminal undertaking involving endangerment to kill on a massive scale is as evident as the nose on their faces.

So why wait - hang, shoot, electrocute, poison them - any way - who cares - use more "humanity" toward them than they would have shown their victims, that is enough.

That is all they deserve - humane termination.

The same applies to those who randomly and unilaterally plant bombs to blow up people in USA, UK, Australia or anywhere else. Suicide bombing might be their chosen exit but let them be denied the opportunity to take others with them - if caught planning it - that is enough to justify their extermination.

Unfortunately, we lack the politicians with the gonads to follow up on it.

The view that the majoority of people belive in the death penalty is far from an arguement to justify it: often the majority are wrong. There is a certain kind of tyrrany in democracy.

One of the arguemnts for the death pnealty is ita power to deter - proven to be sadly wrong.

And yet another is that if killing a criminal for murder for example saves just one life it is worth it: well the sad facts are innocent people are executed on a regular basis - but the death penalty is one sure fire way to ensure a number of innocent people are killed, so that approach does not add up.

And then there are the chest beaters who tell us ourleaders don't have the guts to impose a death penalty; Again I'd argue the death penalty is a cowardly way to deal with anything. It is usually the same kind of moral and itellectual coardice that drives peoiple to crime.

Ethical issues aside, hasn't it been shown that the death penalty doesn't really work? It doesn't reduce serious crime in the countries where statistics are available. And where does Botanywhig draw a line in her/his acceptance of capital punishment? Should we put juveniles to death for what they have done? What about those who are mentally incapacitated? Give them medication until the diagnosis is borderline and then put them to death as has documented in Texas? Neither do more savage recriminations or harsher jail terms fix it, Sage. I believe the majority within our jails could be helped with intensive resourcing and a serious attempt at rehabilitation. Check what Bernie Matthews, more qualified than all of us, has to say on this site. Perhaps some are always going to create havoc...I don't know. But neither does anyone else really, and we all seem to be getting less tolerant. I'm not sure what the best solution is but killing others doesn't really solve anything in the long term. And as for "No need to ask them to redeem themselves or expect a second chance..." Come on, Col Rouge; have faith!

Sneekeepete “It is usually the same kind of moral and itellectual coardice that drives peoiple to crime.”

From what I have posted you will see I support the death penalty.

Far from you criticising my “moral and itellectual coardice” duh spelling!

I find judgemental attitudes, which allow you to indulge in knee-jerk criticisms of my view typically more “cowardly” and more “intellectually enfeebled” than anything I have expressed.

Instead of making good reason not to implement the death penalty you fall back on the hackneyed “double negative” of “It has never been proven to work”

The Death penalty works – it acts as the “deterrent” to the person who committed the crime – for sure they will never ever commit such a crime again.

We are all individuals and capable of individual choice. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. Denying its use leaves us with the possibility of some bleeding heart will give a criminal a second chance and that criminal will indulge themselves in a second capital offence. This (or these) subsequent offence(s) will never be inflicted on some innocent victim in the future because the perpetrator would be deceased - deterrent effect 100%.

Dealing Drugs and acts of terrorism are more horrendous than say a murder within a family, for they are indiscriminate whereas some “mitigating circumstances” might be found in a “hot-blood act”.

I have, on a number of occasions, needed to have comprehensive and thorough police checks done on my background. I would be disqualified from doing some of the work I am presently engaged in if there were any “criminal blemishs” in my background – yet you would suggest that same “character” is no different to of a common felon.

The reality - there is a “chasm” of differences between my “moral and intellectual” values and the “moral and intellectual” values of drug dealers and terrorists who deserve the death penalty.

Mountbank – happy to debate the point – as I said above – the “death penalty” deterrent works when applied to the offender – they will never, ever commit such a crime again.

Col R thinks my speeling is poor - so shoot me!

He clearly is keen to see some one dead. An dgoes on to suggests I implied his and the character of a common felon are much the same. I merely said those moral and intellectual weaknesses within th criminal psyche are not that dissimilar 2 that which drives the capital pnishment argewment - having a few common features certainly doesnt equate with commonality in character which iz made up from a constellation of factors - however murderers and those who extoll the virtues of the death penalty still seem to share that inate desire to kill other people for one reason or another. I dont.

And as for drug smugglers lets take a leaf from the book of logic of the gun lobby; drug smugglers dont kill people, drugs do.As do proponents of the death penalty. We could expedite things and close the market and kill the addicts. I mean how far back through the chain of command do we take that line - do we kill the Afghan poppy farmers? or we do kill the CIA and British agents over seeing the controlled propogation of opium? - or maybe we reach back to their political masters who carry the ultimate responsibility of that failed policy that lets the industry flourish. - or maybe we blame the electorate who put them there. So many people to punish and so few gallows.

The death penalty is an answer to nothing. It is an open mouthed silent scream of despair from the very afraid.