Actually, I have no moral problem with society humanely executing people who commit certain heinous crimes. However, I wouldn't answer a Census question like "do you support the reintroduction of the death penalty for murder" in the affirmative.

That is because I have no confidence that our legal, judicial, police and penal systems always get it right. Indeed, they often get it wrong, including those rare cases where people have been convicted of serious crimes like murder, only to be subsequently exonerated - sometimes many years later. Should these people be sacrificed to satisfy the need that many people apparently feel for revenge, or more prosaically for society to be rid of someeone it says has lost the right to live?

I think not, ultimately. I also think that the Howard government's stance on the death penalty is blatantly hypocritical, to say the least. On the other hand Ian McClelland is to be commended for showing some spine and resisting the "me too-ism" in which Rudd shamelessly engages, in this case contrary to long-standing principles of his own party.

In terms of voting intention, ALP gets my 2nd preference still. The Nationals candidate still gets my last. No change.

Capital punishment is barbaric. To refuse to state this for political reasons is psychopathic.

There may be a place for capital punishment, but lets put some conditions here:

Firstly it should be carried out in public: in the same way that trials are conducted in public, so should executions.

I would actually go further. Have executions on prime time TV news - no exceptions. Have them played just before all films at cinemas start, preferably to the sound of the national anthem being played - I am sure that some others here remember standing for the national anthem in cinemas.

Have them played in school assemblies.

On the scoreboards just before, at half time and at full time at major sporting events: well why not actually have the evil doer executed in from of the crowd at the AFL or NRL grand final - if most people want capital punishment then surely they want to see it.

And have the execution quick, no nonsense and as pain free as possible. Sedate the evil doer and then have him or her crushed in a high speed industrial press.

After all, if the people want executions IN THEIR NAME let them see what the state (ie the voting population) is doing in their name.

Hamlet,

Executions used to be public in Britain but this was changed after it was found that it actually increased the crime rate.

It seems that many people saw this public spectacle as an opportunity for a public acknowledgement of their otherwise meaningless and anonymous lives - to go out in a blaze of glory as it were.

Industrial press?

Why not just put the offender in a medically induced coma and progressively harvest their organs as required by decent law-abiding citizens or is this too barbaric for you?

Better still, let's practice some Eugenics and take ALL criminals (and their relatives) out of the gene pool by killing them.

In a couple of generations humanity would be closer to perfection.

We would all become decendents of law-abiding killers, instead of just some of us.

Capital punishment has no benefit to society other than to satisfy the human need for revenge. In satisfying this need, it has been politically expedient to support executions of individuals overseas especially where the blood lust is strongest.

Mr McCelland made a morally correct but politically inept statement and Mr Rudd then took a popular, but morally bankrupt action in dressing him down in public instead of enlightening him on the finer points of timing in private.

If Mr Rudd does not have the cajones to do the right thing instead of the popular thing in a cut and dried situation like this, I shudder at what will happen if he is let loose to make decisions on our behalf where the issues are less black and white.

PS. I also support voluntary euthenasia and the rights of women to have reproductive choice.

While not endorsing such an action, I do understand one of we citizenry exacting revenge in the heat of the moment for a grievous wrong. I also think in some measure our laws reflect that by imposing minimal sentences in many cases to those who take the opportunity for timely revenge; although in some instances they do go too far. I recall a Sydney policeman receiving no jail time for his shooting of a paedophile who had molested his two nieces.

However I never want to see the power of life or death placed in the hands of the STATE! I cede some of my rights and freedoms to it but this is not one any of us should be countenancing.

If, God forbid, one of my family was terribly harmed or killed with intent and that person made it into the custody of the state before I could lay my hands them, then I would have to accept that they had been removed from harm from me. If however I did manage to take a life in these circumstances I would expect to receive a custodial penalty, not in the least because I want my state to be protective of the lives of all its citizens and to take seriously the taking of any life.

So I think that in answering the capital punishment question people may be extending their gut instinct for revenge, to the expansion of the powers of the state.

It might be interesting to instead ask “Do you believe the state should have to power to take a life?”.

I recall a tour of the old Freemantle prison and seeing the 10 commandments still displayed on the chapel wall. The edict that “Thou shall not Kill!” had been changed to “Thou shall not commit Murder!”. The guide commented that it was in difference to the fact that in the adjoining building the authorities were busily hanging offenders. It would appear the state then had a finer sense of hypocrisy that either Mr Howard or Mr Rudd.