atomictights "Voters in Australia voted Capital punishment OUT in the seventies. "

Really?

Could you direct me to the source of your research for making such a claim?

According to my research – first google hit for “australia capital punishment” http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti03.pdf

Capital Punishment was abolished as follows

Queensland 1922
New South Wales 1955
Tasmania 1968
Everywhere else 1975 except WA who “hung on” until 1984.

I would note the Morgan Gallop poles at the time recorded
1980 - - - - - - - - - -1986
43% Pro Penalty 43%
40% Life Imprison 41%
17% Undecided 16%

Per Morgan Gallop Pole File 1419 11 March 1986.

Mind you a lot of strange things were happening around 1975 (when most places abolished capital punishment) Whitlam for one. Maybe someone was putting something in the water supply.

If you were to do the same today you would find the pro-death would marginally outweigh the anti death lobby.

A crude analysis of those who responded to the OLO thread 3791

“Strengthening official opposition to death penalties”
By Tony Smith, published 9/9/2005

Concludes
7 Posters Arguing for the death penalty = 47%
6 Posters Arguing against the death penalty = 40%
2 Posters View indeterminable = 13%

Not very scientific and not a really sufficient sample but remarkably close to the 1986 pole (above).

The great statistician graces us with his formidable analytical skills once more. However, he seems to be something of an "outlier" again, since - I repeat - *no* major Australian political party is game to campaign on a pro-death penalty platform.

Not even the rodent, who has the most highly developed poll-sniffing faculties of all populist politicians.

Let us use the US as an example - some states have capital punishment and some do not.

If capital punishment is such a deterrent, why do the states with capital punishment have higher homicide rate than those who do not?

"The gap between the cumulative murder rates of death penalty and non-death penalty states actually widened in 2003, from 36% in 2002 to 44% in 2003. "The two states with the most executions in 2003, Texas (24) and Oklahoma (14) saw increases in their murder rates from 2002 to 2003. Both states had murder rates above the national average in 2003: Texas - 6.4, and Oklahoma - 5.9. The top 13 states in terms of murder rates were all death penalty states. The murder rate of the death penalty states increased from 2002, while the rate in non-death penalty states decreased." (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org)."

How to explain this? I believe it is because capital punishment teaches society that murder is acceptable, if you can justify it. Therefore certain, possibly unhinged, people will take their own situation and justify murder - just as the state teaches them.

I believe that murder and capital punishment are never justified - ultimately it only produces a more violent society. What sort of society do you want to live in?

This is what The Hon IDF Callinan AC, Justice of the High Court of Australia has said about capital punishment.

"There does seem to be little empirical data to suggest that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than imprisonment
for life without parole. The fallibility of the criminal justice system, the inability to prove the deterrence theory, and my personal revulsion of state sponsored execution of human beings
support the abolition of capital punishment. In those jurisdictions like Australia where abolition has been achieved, it is important to remember that abolition cannot be taken for granted."

http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/pdf/speech%20callinan%202005.pdf

Boaz - saddam's greatest crime was to point to mohammed as a messenger of god with his dying breath...

Umm... no, I don't even think it's a crime. What about people who do it peacefully? Does this same rule apply to a peaceful preacher who asks that people follow mohammed? Secularists don't care who you're preaching about. It ain't the same as murder.

Runner - this isn't about abortion, but if you must drag it there, it's whether or not you consider a foetus an actual child. Many of us don't. There's you're argument - not a child, not a murder - evidently, not your view, but thankfully we can agree to disagree. I just hope we always can.

In regard to the death penalty - even if you agree with it, is it okay to taunt the guy before hanging him? Is that how you establish a democracy? Say it's okay to kill your enemy in the most degrading of fashion, even if he is a tyrant?

Look at china. 68 offences receive the death penalty. Light stuff, like tax fraud and embezzlement. There is frequent interference in the judicial process. There is the briefest of spans between trial and death.
Can you honestly tell me mistakes aren't made?
So tell me... will Iraq have a foolproof legal system? from what I've seen, that is one holy hell of a long way off. Perhaps we shouldn't be killing people until we're sure.

On saddam, we're probably sure, but it wasn't a smooth trial, with so many lawyers being murdered along the way (yes, this is a bad thing). It certainly wasn't valid in the eyes of the Iraqi public, though to a large number the execution was justified... though not to all. He certainly had his supporters.

I guess what I'm getting at, is in all this chaos, shouldn't an example of civilised behaviour be given as an example? shouldn't we have let saddam live, and tried to learn all his secrets, and what made him do the things he did? Couldn't some good have come of this?

"Let us look at the benefits of capital punishment:"

"1.It enables society to revenge itself on the criminal. Many people forget the origin of law; in the early middle ages if someone killed a friend of yours all you could do was to kill him in return. This led to endless tit-for-tat killings and feuds. The establishment of law meant that violence was confined to the state, and it exacted revenge on behalf of the victim and society."
And now several middle eastern states, full of angry Muslims, have a burning desire to indulge in tit-for-tat killings and feuds against the state of America, and by extension the state of Australia.

"2. It means that we will definitely have no more trouble from this person. There is no way that a bleeding heart in a few years will let him out of jail."
Even if our victim turns out to be innocent.

"3.It provides a deterrent. If anyone disputes this, look at Saudi Arabia and the level of theft compared to here. (In Saudi you can lose your hand for theft.)"
A great argument to use in Oz, of all places; a predominantly white society originally created by the overflow of the gaols of jolly old England; the home of “deterrent” criminal punishment.

"4. It accomplishes all of the above with the least possible expenditure of public money."
Good argument. So good, in fact, it could be used to justify the death penalty for anything from minor traffic offences to calling our esteemed PM a rodent.
This argument is literally childish. For years I tried to teach my children the Golden Rule, and the need to be pro-active, not reactive; ie 'do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, not because they did it to you.
That is the natural child's response: “but he did it to me!”
Grow up.