If the death penalty is the ultimate form of redemption against a past crime, why is it then that Australia has consistantly refused to release the remains of people hung by the state. Must they and their families pay for their crimes for all of eternity?

In the case of the Bali bombers the fact is that both Rudd and Howard, who both confess to be church going christians are in favour of hanging Indonesians. But when it comes to white Australian drug terroists, its another matter, once again we are sending out the wrong message to Indonesia and making ourselves a bigger target.

Funny how those who generally oppose the death penalty usually support abortion and euthenasia. Pretty warped logic!

Only in your eyes, runner.
Just because your fundamentalism prevents you from seeing the reasoning, doesn't mean it's not there.

Though I dare say explaining it to you, as evidenced in other threads, is a futile exercise, since you'll refuse to see it anyway.
Nevertheless, I'll continue to try.

For the umpteenth time:

a) Not everyone sees the collection of cells that is a foetus, and in the early stages, hasn't yet a developed brain and is incapable of thought, as a person.

b) Voluntary euthanasia is about the choice of a person with a terminal condition. Their life isn't going to improve, so why they should be commanded to live because of someone elses beliefs, is a touchy issue.

On the other hand, whether they are good people or bad, there can be no question you are killing a human being against their will.

Disagree by all means, but don't keep obstinately trying to pretend there isn't a case for the other side of debate.

Thank you for your comments. A few quick points. Evangelical Protestant Christians do tend to support the death penalty, all others don't, on average. This is an op-ed; the full version of the paper can be obtained by emailling me.
Our interest is not on the death penalty per se, we have no data to support whether it deters either crime or terrorism - our interest is in electoral voting behaviour. Professor Justin Wolfers has researched the deterrence debate (he is opposed to capital punishment). His research is summarised here:
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Press/DeathPenalty(AP).pdf
His own (short version) paper is here:
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Press/DeathPenalty(BEPress).pdf

It is this kind of political expediency that causes voters to have little or no respect for politicians.

Brendan Nelson said he was opposed to capital punishment but that he ‘respects’ the Indonesian legal system when it decides to execute the Bali bombers. These two points of view are mutually exclusive but when couched in ‘politician speak’ he thinks it ok.

We want our politicians to have principles and to stand up for those principles whatever the consequences for their party or their own personal ambition. If they do not have the integrity to do that they should not insult our intelligence by twisting the English language to protect their own agenda

“In other words, does the execution of a murderer prevent still more people from being murdered. If yes, then a strong case exists for capital punishment”
What kind of logic is that? How are you going to prove it? We will incarcerate this murderer and if he does not murder again then the theory is wrong. If we execute him he will not murder again so the theory is right. Don’t they have to murder at least a second time before you can begin to draw a conclusion based on evidence? How can they murder a second time if they are either incarcerated or dead? Are you going to execute someone on the basis of probability?

It's an interesting conundrum, but the bottom line is that either you oppose or you endorse it. There can't be any middle-ground or one-off provisions that alter morality.

If it's OK for a foreign country to legally execute it's citizens then maybe it's equally OK for them to carry out such executions in the streets by members of its own armed forces (ie Government representatives) - as long as some sort of legal process is implied.

It may therefore be equally legally valid for a foreign country to oppress a minority group that they see as a potential threat to their society - whether by harrassment or detention, as long as it follows a judicial process.

To me, it's either OK or not OK, it's either right or wrong - as long as it's consistently applied.

The problem is that if it's OK to execute only terrorists this week, then maybe tax cheats will follow next week.

Anyway, is it right to impose our moral standards on other countries or should we accommodate some of theirs into our own?