Following on from another thread, we have a matter presently pending, the execution of the Bali bombers and coming soon, the execution of some of the Bali nine.

Many find the idea of the state executing anyone horrendous.

Many will justify their view by arguing a belief that the system is not perfect and might execute an innocent man but that argument goes throughout our judicial system from giving someone a criminally record, non-custodial conviction all the way up to murder.

So if we dispense with the issues of “doubt” and assume the legal system only convicts those who are guilty we come back to the question

Do some crimes warrant a death penalty?

On this matter I do believe some crimes offer more compelling justification for execution than actual murder.

I can understand how in the heat of the moment, someone might be pushed to act irrationally and irresponsibly and in a manner contrary to their normal behaviour, in essence a crime of “passion” and whilst killing someone and responsible for their action, do not deserve execution.

However, some crimes are cold and either calculating or indiscriminate.

Julian Knight comes to mind.

For me, so too drug dealers.

Someone who deliberately trades in illegal drugs with the knowledge that their product will significantly diminish and debilitate peoples lives is as much a cold blooded killer as (say) Ivan Milat or the Anita Cobby killers (Michael Murdoch, Gary Murphy, Les Murphy and Michael Murphy).

My view is second offence drug dealers should be executed (allowing them one and only one opportunity to ‘turn around’).

Predatory Pedophiles might also "qualify"

Some folk think a killing (say) a police officer or prison guard should warrant a death penalty but not extend it to the killing of civilians.

I personally disagree with this, what is good for one is good for all and the work duties of an individual should not make a difference.

So who thinks what?

I know this has no chance of changing present law but ultimately, what do we, the law abiding public, deserve as protection from criminals?

An interesting topic.

While I think there is an immutable and straightforward principle operating in life that you "reap what you sow", how to go about executing justice is a completely different and complicated question.

There's no doubt that the Cobby killers and Julian Knight et al are the sort of people that deserve a horrible penalty for what they have done. But why put a good person in charge of pulling the trigger, completing the electrical circuit, or lethally injecting these people? Why should it be left to them to do the dirty work of society?

The gangland killings in Melbourne are a perfectly good solution in my opinion - nothing like a bit of self-annihilation amongst the so-minded. Putting people like the Cobby killers in jail might end up with them having a nasty accident.

Maybe by society remaining vigilant and keeping the pressure on and just letting nature take its course, justice will be done. Fully and in every dimension.

Col Rouge: "if we dispense with the issues of “doubt” and assume the legal system only convicts those who are guilty we come back to the question"

LOL. How do you plan to do that, Col? The US has possibly the highest standards of proof in capital cases anywhere and yet we still have people being released on " new evidence" after languishing on death row for years.

Frankly, the death penalty is solely a sop to the bigots and easily-affrighted sheep who used to make up lynch mobs. I can't help but think you'd feel right at home slinging a noose over a handy limb given the opportunity, dispensing with the issues of doubt all the way...

Col Rouge: "Someone who deliberately trades in illegal drugs with the knowledge that their product will significantly diminish and debilitate peoples lives"

What of someone who trades in legal drugs with the same knowledge? Or someone who trades in illegal drugs with his own view of the harm they may cause (obviously, he'd be "dispensing with the issues of doubt" just like you). Is it the act or the intent or does a death sentence require that one be in full possession of all facts regarding the outcome of his crime? I know, let's "dispense with the issue of doubt" and just hang in 10 anyway; after all, we can't be too careful, can we? Want to volunteer for the first lottery?

I recommend you visit news:alt.activism.death-penalty and ask your puerile questions. Someone there may have the patience to discuss things with you, but I doubt they'll be kind.

That should have read "hang 1 in 10". Damn sticky keys.

Col: "Many will justify their view by arguing a belief that the system is not perfect and might execute an innocent man but that argument goes throughout our judicial system...

So if we dispense with the issues of "doubt" and assume the legal system only convicts those who are guilty.."

I haven't even read the rest of your post because your first point makes no sense. The argument you cite is specifically about the death penalty and certainly doesn't "hold throughout our judicial system". There is a qualititive difference between executing an innocent person and locking them up.

Life, no matter how unpalatable our living arrangements, is, for most people, preferable to death. An innocent person trapped in a system they know to be procedurally fair and robust enough to deal with the complexities of their case (as apposed to the good/evil model the death penalty requires) can live in hope. Many people unjustly jailed for decades, like the Guilford Four, go on to have fulfilling lives.

Not enforcing the death penalty also gives our legal system the ability to right wrongs and fix mistakes. The appeal system and the ability to overturn judgments is a cornerstone of a just, flexible system of justice — a civilising force, a force for good.

See: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=292&scid which examines the cases of 21 people who were sentences to death but are innocent.

The paper quotes the Marquis de Lafayette: "I shall ask for the abolition of the death penalty until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me." There is not logical or intellectual reason for you to assume that "the legal system only convicts those who are guilty" because we know, demonstrably, that this is not the case, and we have already developed a legal system that is sophisticated enough to account for this. After all, we know from those countries that do execute that the death sentence does not deter others from committing crimes, nor does it, paradoxically, affect recidivism rates.

So yeah. So far, not convinced.

Not this stupid death penalty crap again....So Col Rouge wants to execute a drug dealers. Even though the drug war is a costly and irrelevant circus and to do so would make Australia as extreme as Islamist counries like Indonesia. No recognition that the person who buys and consumes the drug has any responsibility for their actions whatsoever.

As for exectuing the Bali bombers it really does achieve nothing, but satiates revenge. This needs some perspective. The Allied West has killed thousands more civilians than the Bali bombers ever did and those civilians will and have not only received *no* justice, but their deaths are dismissed and excused as inconsequential.

This is an issue that won't go away.

When you take a life, should you forfeit
yours?

We need to examine the type of society
we want Australia to be.

The only way this question can be settled
is by a national referendum.

Do we want to re-instate the death penalty?

It's up to the nation to decide.

Why not public stonings? You could even televise it and the public can vote for their favourite stone thrower.

Somehow this just seems like a step backward in evolution. Besides, a lot of people would much rather be killed than spend the rest of their life in a cage. I still believe in the argument that if your society doesn't approve of murder, then it's a bit contradictory for the state to use murder as a punishment. It's not even a proven disincentive to crime.

Col,

Your stand on drugs doesn't fit with your belief in personal accountability. Drugs themselves have no direct baring on a persons actions. A person commiting a crime on drugs, or to afford drugs, is still choosing of their own free will. They also buy and use the drugs in the first place using their own free will.

Drugs may mess with ones mental state to be a contributing factor to crime, but so can bad parenting or abuse as a child. So any parents of children who suicide or cause harm to others must also be executed for their contributing to the mental state of their offspring?

Not many judges accept drunkeness as a defence for commiting a crime, so why should the provider of the drug be responsible for the users actions? Especially when the majority of users act responsibly.

Anyone remember that New Years Eve when the police officer who stated 'there wasn't much violence because all the kids were on Es instead of Booze' got into trouble? I really cant relate to this opinion of drug dealers as a moral equivalent of murderers. All they do is provide a service to a market of willing users.

Col,

It would be difficult to put to one side the assumption that the legal system always gets it right. You cannot discuss the concept of a death penalty without considering human error. As one poster already pointed out the USA has a high rate of death penalty or life imprisonment mistakes which were borne out after improvements in DNA technology.

Anyway, in respect of your wishes there are other reasons the death penalty is not desirable. Some have already been mentioned ie. the sort of society we might wish to live in and how 'life' is valued. If the State values 'life', it would seem a hypocrisy to impose a death penalty.

There is evidence that a death penalty increases the rate of murder (of victims) in crimes such as rape for example. A rapist knowing he might face the death penalty is more likely to kill his victim than realease her should the penalty be less severe. The same is true of longer sentences or life imprisonment for this type of crime.

This is not to argue that all crimes should be measured on risk to victims but the risks are much higher when the death penalty is on the table.

I have no sympathy for drug pushers but many of them are drug addicts themselves and the death penalty for selling drugs seems a bit severe given that the buyer also assumes some personal responsibility. The danger of drugs is common knowledge thanks to education and advertising. There is certainly a case for increasing the jail terms as a deterrent as drug pushers are unlikely to murder their client base (as in the example of rape above).

Col,
You are right, the death penalty should be an option in sentencing. But I would restrict it to heinous crimes only. Like the Annitia Coby Killers, Ivan milat, Trump and Baker who raped and tortured Mrs Morse, the bastards that killed the Collins girl and her friend, (forgotten her name, sorry) down the NSW coast, and the like.

I think these fiends have forgone any right to be in our society and not be allowed to take any more oxygen.

I would be perfectly happy to put the noose around their necks or inject them.

Foxy, there is absolutely no chance of a referendum on the issue. Its a myth that we control the politicians. If it were true we would have Citizen Initiated Referenda.

Yeah, I think a death sentence is definitely a worthy outcome for some crimes. Ivan Milat, being one, but what if you execute one that's innocent?. At what crime do you draw the line on execution?. Murdering one?, or two?, or murder including rape?, paedophilia?.

A thousand guilty executions DOES NOT justify one innocent execution, or the execution of one without ABSOLUTE proof they did it.

It's a track we shouldn't go down. I'm for harsher sentencing. 15 years (max) for murder doesn't cut it.

StG:"A thousand guilty executions DOES NOT justify one innocent execution, or the execution of one without ABSOLUTE proof they did it."

Well and precisely put. Since 1972's Furman decision by SCOTUS, a capital trial and appeals process has become so expensive and time-consuming that there are literally thousands of people on death rows across the country, most of whom will die in jail, rather than on the executioner's gurney or chair. Some of those people are undoubtedly either innocent or are guilty of a lesser crime than the one they are incarcerated for. Meanwhile, administration of the system has become a huge money-spinner for lawyers, prison officers and the communities that host the facilities, while draining millions, if not billions, from legal defence funding provided by the Federal Govt.

All-in-all, that country is paying a high price for pandering to the fearful.

The main argument for the death penalty is that
it will deter murder. If that were true, there
would hardly be any homicide in the United States,
which has the death penalty. Yet the opposite is
true, the American homicide rate is by far the
highest in the industrialized world.

There may be a couple of reasons for this. The
first is that homicide, is rarely premeditated,
it usually occurs in the heat of the moment,
such as family arguments, bungled robberies.
In the few cases where murder is premeditated,
the offender obviously doesn't expect to get
caught or punished anyway.

The second reason often is that as currently
applied, no punishment is less swift or less
certain. A death sentence is never carried out
immediately: to minimise the chance of an
innocent person being executed, courts permit an
elaborate review process that sometimes lasts a
decade or more.

Ian Robertson, in his book, "Sociology," tells us
that:

"Decisions about capital punishment are not
really about deterrence. They are about retribution -
about society's revenge on a person who takes another's
life. Whether such retribution is justified is not
a matter of measurable facts; it is a moral judgement
for each individual to make.

Some people feel that those who kill another human being
should pay the supreme penalty and forfeit their own
lives; others feel that human life is so sacred that
society is demeaned when the state kills its citizens,
however grave their offense. "

In any event some 75% of Americans according to a
recent Gallup poll - favour the death penalty.

As I wrote in my previous post - it's up to us to decide
what kind of society we want to live in, and put pressure
on our politicians.

RobP I understand your view but do not support the “natural attrition” approach which you observe. I have a preference for order over mayhem.

Antiseptic
All you do is pile on ad hominens, this acknowledgement exceeds the recognition your contemptuous post deserves.

Veronika, you post to the reason I made the conditional assumption of guilt beyond doubt.

You missed the reason for my caveat, hence you have not addressed the issue, merely repeated the constraint which I worded the caveat to avoid.

I welcome your input based on acknowledging my caveat to "beyond doubt"

Steel your own prejudice is apparent in our opening sentence. I have been visiting OLO for some years. I do not recall the question being asked here before, although I an happy to stand corrected.

Because your personal view is such does not reduce the merit of discussing the option. I suggest you try to muster reasoned argument to answer the question, rather than simply attempt to shut down the debate.

Foxy understand your reasoning and agree however, was looking for personal views to the validity of the sentencing option and not the method to test its public support.

US you have made that comment previously. I have answered it previously.
My libertarian values recognize that freewill comes with responsibility.
A drug dealer victimizes his ‘clients’.
His 'freewill' is what allows him to decide to become a cold blooded predator, no different to a serial killer or pedophile.

Pelican that is why I made the caveat, ignore the issue of doubt, please focus on the issue of the sentence and decide on that, not secondary conditions of mistake etc.

Thanks Banjo, maybe my definition of ‘heinous’ is broader than yours : - )

StG your reservations is why I made the caveat. However I do not understand your final comment in the light of your initial statement.

Foxy thanks for your last commentary.

The US homicide rate, I suspect has a lot to do with the availability of guns, which do not exist on the same scale in most of the industrialized world plus a few sociological influences enshrined and if not unique, more significant in US history (eg race and emancipation issues).

For me the issue is not simply about retribution but about the issue of respect. Respect for the killers victim(s).

For someone to freely pursue a course of taking anothers life, all excuses aside, is serious stuff.

Some would say internment without hope of release is worse than execution.

Problem, internment without hope leaves the criminal with no constraint not to harm his gaolers and other inmates.

Then we get the apologists, who see the hopeless prisoner as a project for reform and become a victim of the torrent of lies and excuses which the criminally irresponsible deploy to justify their acts, Lord Longford and Myra Hindley spring to mind.

To me while I abhor the damage, harm and in some cases wanton savagery these individuals cause. I still have great concern with absolutes particularly in “punishments”.

An early life among “less civilized people” and living on a prison farm (in PNG), at a time of ‘colonialists/religious missionaries’ has left me with a legacy of contempt for absolutist views. I learned that labels and morals are when applied to an individual inconsistent, inaccurate, and discriminatory most often seeded by irrational fear and ignorance.

Law is based on the lowest common denominator in order to catch offenders of our (cultural based) morals.

consider "Is killing a human a capital crime?" Col’s definition was if its cold premeditated ori cruel.

Case: In 1945 4x Aussie soldiers fleeing the Japs came across a native's home. They raided his garden raped his wife and stole his canoe.
The native Warmi was 17 spoke no English had hardly seen a non indigene, initiated as a man 5 months before, part of his test and status a man was his self made canoe. He had been married for 4 months. He had been out hunting when he came home he found his beaten wife and the theftof his food.
Warmi hunted those men down and killing 3 of those men on at a time. Some months later he was arrested and sentenced for 3murders and paedophilia (his wife was 13). What sentence does he deserve? Were there extenuating circumstances? Do you consider them? What about his cultural issues?

How can you explain any leniency to the soldiers wives/ children? Or differences between judgements for similar crimes?
There must be consistent rules(ings), the moment you offer options you get discrepancies yet without injustice.

In the case of drug induced schizophrenics and many addicts are because of susceptibilities (gene)unknown to the individual.
Who amongst us can claim that they have never done anything dangerous/stupid even though we knew better? Would boot camps, punishment solve the root problem…No they need treatment.
the right answer... ?... its just counter-productive to seek retribution.

I forgot. I favour learning why it happened and stopping it happening elsewhere untill then I agree the only sensible solution is one that helps the victim(s) to heal or at least continue with life and not let the event define them.
eg I don't believe that Anita Coby's parents aren't helped by all the continual sensationalizing and pointless voyeurism by the media. TV shows like "Real Crimes" with graphic reiinactments and gorey details etc. After all the perpetrators are in jail.
I have been both a victim and a councillor. To me, punishing the individuals who attacked me wouldn't help(ed).
There must be a solution somewhere.

"StG your reservations is why I made the caveat. However I do not understand your final comment in the light of your initial statement."

Posted by Col Rouge.

Fairly simply, I don't agree with the death sentence. That's the ABSOLUTE in 'justice'. If you execute someone there's no 'new evidence' option. They are dead, that's it.

Just because I believe that Australia shouldn't take on capital punishment that doesn't mean I am a bleeding heart. Sentencing punishments is lacking here. Someone should get life for a premeditated killing, or at least 30 years. White collar criminals should be punished much more harshly than they are. IF you wanna be a criminal, embezzlement is the way to go.

Personally, I'd rather be executed than locked up in a Thai jail for eternity. But I can't speak for everyone else. Innocent people get locked up, it's a fact, but killing the innocent is inexcusable...

Col Rouge:"All you do is pile on ad hominens, this acknowledgement exceeds the recognition your contemptuous post deserves."

Yes, it was contemptuous, fools seldom deserve any more consideration. When you can answer the questions I put and which you are seeking to avoid thinking about by crying "he's picking on me", I may be less contemptuous.

Col: "Veronika... You missed the reason for my caveat..."

I didn't miss it, I just don't buy it.

I love the way you posed the question, then bagged everyone out because they didn't answer in the way you wanted. Now everyone is accusing everyone else of ad homming them. Ah, the beauty of an internet forum.

Anyway, if you really are interested in "personal views to the validity of the sentencing option", then I, personally, find the death penalty lacks validity as a sentencing option.

Aside from all the excellent points other posters have made, it certainly doesn't, in my opinion, indicate "respect" for the victim or their family. On the contrary, it assumes they can only think about judgment through the prism of their own experience.

There was a fantastic Australian Story about Dr Khulod Hassan, a doctor who was brutally murdered by on of her patients. The patient was schizophrenic and posssessed of the idea that she had infected him with a fatal virus when she treated him some time ago. He was sentenced to 25 years in a psychiatric facility. Outside the court, her daughter Nawaar Hassan said, "It's a sad situation for everyone. Obviously it's tragic for us and for the community, but it's also tragic in that we have this person who is very, very ill and needs treatment and so, this verdict, it's the best way not only to protect the community but to make sure that he gets the treatment that he needs."

I found her intelligence and dignity and understanding incredibly inspiring.

For those that didn't see it, the transcript is well worth a read: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/waitingroom/default.htm

Dear Col,

I've always been against the death penalty
in the past.

I felt it was barbaric and sent the wrong
message. Killing people who kill people,
to show killing is wrong.

That's like belting someone into "goodness."

If our civilization was to advance, I felt we
had to move away from "an eye for an eye,"
mentality.

However, watching the Bali bombers on television
pushed all my emotional buttons - and I reacted
strongly on another post.
"Shoot the S.O.B's" was my initial reaction,
until other posters made my re-think my outburst.

I guess what I'm trying to say is - this is
a controversial issue and our views aren't
set in concrete. Who knows how each of us
would react if a heinous crime was committed
against one of our family.

We can only hope that reason would prevail.
The death penalty doesn't bring the victim back
to life, but admittedly it gives closure to
the victims families.

Today, DNA testing and other methods of modern
crime scene science effectively eliminates
almost all uncertainty as to a person's innocence
or guilt. Although some jury members may be
reluctant to convict if it means putting someone
to death.

Col, it's a tough issue. And, to me, ultimately
a moral choice. I personally would find it
extremely hard to vote for the death penalty.
It would have to be under extreme aggravating
and mitigating circumstances.

That's about the best "personal view" I can give
you.

Interesting topic, Col!

“So who thinks what?”

I’d like to discuss the death penalty persé without going into the reasons or the particular crimes that would justify it. Discussing drugs would be too distractive; I find the death penalty and drugs topic complex enough issues without combining them (for now).

My stance is that Life without Parole should be the highest punishment- there would not be a need for the death penalty.

Firstly, I think nations should avoid violence, and the death penalty seems to glorify it.

Secondly, even though emotionally I don’t give a rat’s about the death of some criminals, and I admit that it would give me some satisfaction to see all serious criminals executed, I cannot allow myself, my emotions, to justify such barbaric punishment, also because I view civilisations that still apply the death penalty as more or less retarded.

People’s emotions towards criminals such as hate, revenge, and anger are understandable but emotions should have no place in a fair justice system.
The important thing should be that the criminal is taken away from the community. Microchip ‘em all in case they escape, then lock ‘em up safely away from society.

“For me the issue is not simply about retribution but about the issue of respect. Respect for the killers victim(s).”
I’ve been thinking about that as well, but came to the conclusion that resorting to the most primitive and barbaric solution is not all that respectful.
It’s also not logical to fight violence with violence.

What I’m also worried about is: would any witnesses of murder be in more danger with the death penalty in place? It would reduce the risk for a murderer to murder any witnesses as well.

Foxy said, “We need to examine the type of society we want Australia to be.”
I don’t want Australia to be a primitive, retarded nation where civil justice has no importance.

But…
Perhaps allowing criminals, who were given the Life in Prison without Parole sentence, a choice between Life in Prison or voluntary euthanasia is something that needs consideration.

Col Rouge: << So if we dispense with the issues of “doubt” and assume the legal system only convicts those who are guilty... >>

But we can't dispense with doubt, because every legal system on the planet gets it wrong sometimes. As others have pointed out, once someone's been executed there's no possibility of correcting the legal error if they were incorrectly convicted.

However, Col inadvertently provides an even better reason for not having a death penalty, when he advocates execution for drug dealers because in his idiosyncratic and uninformed view they are apparently as bad as mass murderers. I think that most reasonable Australians would disagree with that view, yet there are plenty of third world jurisdictions that take Col's position, including some of our closest neighbours, for example. Like Foxy and others, I'd like to think that Australia is more civilised than that - and for that very reason.

Celivia: << Perhaps allowing criminals, who were given the Life in Prison without Parole sentence, a choice between Life in Prison or voluntary euthanasia is something that needs consideration. >>

Having said that, Celivia beat me to the other point I wanted to make :). In principle, I have no objection to someone choosing suicide over life in prison.

Good evening All and to you too - COL R...

The Death Penalty debate - always creates much discussion.

As usual COL R. you present a most interesting point of view. You cited several individuals who would immediately qualify for the 'long drop', Mr Julian KNIGHT being one.

I'd like to mention another two gentlemen that instantly comes to my mind - Messrs. Alan BAKER and Kevin CRUMP. Two of the worst *@&$#* maggots that ever walked upon this earth. I don't know if many of you good people remember the Mrs. Virginia MORSE murder, of Moree in NSW ?

I won't even attempt to describe the specific details of what these two individuals did to that poor woman, before they mercifully killed her ! Surfice to say, it was absolutely beyond heinous, wicked, or egregious !

Personally, I DO NOT support the Death Penalty per se ! However, I'd be at a loss to mount any arguement whatsoever, for leniency for these two, if capital punishment were still on our statutes.

Both these individuals are still in gaol. With recent 'special legislation' enacted by the Govt. of NSW ensuring they're N E V E R released. This is consistant with the original trial Judge's sentence and attendant comments. Gee with live in a horrible world when you think of it !?

Funny how those who oppose the death penalty are the first to vote for the murder of the unborn. In their eyes a repeat pedophile offender is of more value than the unborn. Not surprising I suppose when our amoral society is so brainwashed by the Secularist.

o sung wu,
I understand what you are saying, but it appalls me to think that the Crump and Bakers and the Murphys of this world still get to enjoy nice things even though they have lost their freedom.

They get to enjoy music and art of their choice,nice tasting food, maybe even laugh at some TV comedys and conversations with others.

I honestly think that they do not deserve anything nice at all.

I have a friend who is a police officer and he tells me that when in the dock being charged, these fiends are usually smirking at each other.

Foxy says we need to decide what sort of a world we want to live in. Well I want a world where we know that these bastards no longer exist and there is no chance of them commiting further attrocities.

Hi BANJO...

What you say is true with respect to the insolence and contemptuous attitude some of these creeps display - both during the charging process and even in a court of law, particularly post sentencing !

I not sure what one can do about it these days. It would seem most folk couldn't care less what happens with these 'ne'er do wells'? Providing of course, it doesn't have a personal impact on them or theirs. Out of sight, out of mind.

The authority, in fact the 'Majesty' of the blue uniform, once held a degree of respect, even fear. Today though, coppers are despised even reviled particularly by younger offenders. The fact is they're forever informed of their rights but never the responsibilities they have to the community.

As I've often said. I'm so glad that I'm out of the job now...retired with a modest but adequate pension. I've got great concern for those who have newly graduated from the Academy. Armed with a perception of a great career and vocational future, and to make a difference! With boundless energy and buckets of idealism, they go forth into the world in order to protect the innocent and detain the guilty. I'm out of the job thankfully............more or less still alive.

Veronika “I didn't miss it, I just don't buy it.”

Then you are addressing a separate and different issue.

The reason for the caveat was to stop the usual confusion which muddies the death sentence debate of “certainly of guilt”.

If you would like to answer the question, do you support the death penalty and the reasons for feeling so. Please don’t bother if all you want to do is tell us how ‘imperfect’ the trial system is.

Foxy thank you for your contribution.

I realize and appreciate you are dealing with the subject with more gravity than some posters.

What would qualify as “extreme aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” ?

Celivia “also because I view civilisations that still apply the death penalty as more or less retarded.”

Why do you perceive them so?

“emotions should have no place in a fair justice system.”

Agree, but atonement for a crime and penalty are not emotions and both parts of the sentencing process

“It’s also not logical to fight violence with violence.”

Sometimes there is no alternative but that is a different debate.

i disagree with your view regarding witnesses, otherwise we would all be hostage to every criminal.

I guess for your final point, the voluntary euthanasia the murderers victim had no choice, I see no merit in offering a killer the choice : - )

CJ Morgan, I refer you to my response to Veronika

O sung wu, pressing the point, I am after your reasons for not supporting the death penalty, when you so readily recognize how some killers are deserving of it.

Interesting view runner

Banjo, you and I agree although I seek no personal revenge, I would expect efforts to be in place to ensure the execution be the most humane possible, an injection of sedatives before a the fatal drug. The execution for me, should be neither a public display nor a matter of public rejoicing.

Personally, I would support reintroduction of the death penalty.

Because, as a libertarian, I do believe personal responsibility and accountability accompany personal freedom.

And criminals need to be held accountable.

Given the Libertarians’ natural distrust of government decision making, it is remarkable how vehemently Col defends state sanctioned killing and the broad range of crimes he deems punishable by death.

Of course it is human to be contrary and one can only see human frailty in Col’s stance as one of a personal issue, given that he can’t distinguish between the crime of dealing marijuana and that of a mass murderer.

However, Col has asked us to provide our reasons pro or con the death penalty.

There are crimes so heinous that the perpetrators should never be released from imprisonment. Throw away the key for the likes of Ivan Milat or the 9/11 bombers.

What I don’t believe is that the death penalty achieves any of the following:

Deterrent: Many studies have been made, yet there is still no evidence that capital punishment acts as any deterrence at all. The death row sections of prisons in countries as diverse as Indonesia and the USA are fully populated. In terms of anthropological history, the death penalty never worked in the past either.

Vengeance: State sanctioned killing does nothing to bring back the victims nor alleviate the suffering of living victims. Vengeance is an emotional response and has no place in a civilised community. Revenge is the response of the immature.

Determination of guilt: There is no 100% effective means (even with the advent of DNA testing) to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As has already been posited by others; a single execution of an innocent can never justify the killing of many guilty.

The Executioner: Someone has to do it. I have always found this the most morally distasteful aspect of state killing. That the state is granted the power to appoint a human being to kill another human in carefully premeditated steps is chilling. It cannot be compared to warfare, where, ideally killing is in defence of a person or persons.

The executioner, in fact, is granted an exemption that is far beyond the rights and freedoms of any other citizen.

Great points, Fractelle.
I’d find it quite creepy to have an executioner as a neighbour.

Col,
“no merit in offering a killer the choice”
The only thing that counts is that a criminal has no access to society for the rest of his life, and if that person prefers to die rather than spend life in jail without parole, I can see the merit.
The voluntary euthanasia option might well prevent a suicide, which can add unnecessary stress to the prison guard who finds the body and the people who have to clean up the mess of the suicide.
If you do want to see the return of the death penalty, offering this choice has even more merit otherwise the criminal who was sentenced life in prison without parole would have a motive to kill a guard or prisoner in order to be sentenced to death for this murder.

Re Civilisations that still apply the death penalty are retarded.
”Why do you perceive them so?”
Although it is natural that we want vengeance by putting to death criminals, in a civilised society we should be more advanced than to act upon our primitive responses. Killing without consent doesn’t belong in an established democracy where civil rights are valued because there are alternatives and killing is unnecessary.
Gandhi said: "An eye for an eye will only make the world go blind."

“atonement for a crime and penalty are not emotions”
Killing unnecessarily shows that emotion has come into the picture.
It’s sufficient to keep a dangerous criminal away from society. I regard using the death sentence as an overreaction, and overreactions are emotional.

“Sometimes there is no alternative”
But there is an alternative to the death penalty, which I think, is far superior: life imprisonment without parole.
Firstly, it keeps dangerous criminals are kept away from society.
Secondly, criminals can work, for the rest of their lives, and their earnings can go into a restitution fund towards their incarceration, to compensate survivors of crime (or families of murder victims), and into violence/crime prevention programs.

A dead murderer contributes nothing.

G'day all...

I've noticed that nobody's cited Martin BRYANT as an absolute splendid candidate for the 'gurney' ! I'm reliably informed that he's attempted to end his indeterminable incarceration by his own hand on several occasions. He's failed thusfar.

Therein, COL R. is one of the main reasons why I don't support the D.P. Apart from all the usual moral arguements associated with Capital Punishment,which I do generally support, I must confess.
Why then should we allow some of these evil killers the easy way out ? I'm of course referring to the likes of Messrs. BRYANT M.; BAKER A.; and CRUMP K. as notable examples.

Despite a contary view, gaol is NOT easy. There's a strict order amongst inmates, and often those I've cited above, generally do not intergrate well with other crims. Moreover, there's often a need to place them 'on protection'. This type of 'administrative segregation' implies to other inmates, that these types have had 'the dog' put on 'em . Whether this perception is fact or fiction, doesn't really matter, they've got 'the dog' therefore, they're marked men, for a long time.

As I've said, gaol is NOT easy.

o sung wu,
Like you I am not sure what we CAN do to get people to show more respect for others, but I know what we should do. Aside from weeding out corupt police officers and generally teaching our kids to respect others, we can impose realistic sentences on criminals. I notice the Bali 9 are not smirking to each other or showing contempt for the Indonesian courts. Good coppers must be appalled at some of the sentences we hand out. No wonder the crims laugh!

Col is right in that the death penalty should be an option for certain crimes.

Vengeance is not my reason. As stated before, these scum that commit heinous crime have shown they are not worthy of being any part of society and not kept at our expense. They should be put down ASAP.End of problem and end of story.

Dear Fractelle,

Welcome back!

Your wisdom has been sorely missed.

I hope you'll continue posting fo ages,
you're needed on this Forum!

As there's no way to absolutely prove guilt, even with overwhelming evidence, nobody should be convicted of any crime, ever!
In fact, based on this logical conclusion, there should be no laws at all.

Instead of seeking vengeance for acts already committed, we should try to focus on the causes of crime and thereby reduce future crime rather than punish irreversible acts from the past.

One way to reduce crime, as has been proven by studies, is to increase the abortion rate.
We need to destroy the potentially guilty before they actually commit crimes.

The death penalty as an option is also unacceptable.
It would still be the state that would conduct the execution, not the criminal themselves.
Locking people in a small concrete box for 30 years is much more humane.
Prisoners requesting the death penalty obviously still don't appreciate the value of human life, and need remedial classes in civic values, not acquiescence.

Nobody should have the right to kill in self defense either.
After all, the attacker hasn't actually killed you yet, and must be proven guilty of a crime in a court of law before appropriate action can be taken.

On the subject of state-sponsored killing, what right does the state have to order soldiers to their death in defense of our territory?
After all, the invaders might win the war, making their deaths completely meaningless.
If criminals can only be killed if proven absolutely guilty, then soldiers should only be sent into battle if victory is absolutely certain.
We cannot condone anybody dying by state command for no good reason.

Foetuses on the other hand, should be destroyed en masse by state-funded clinics.
So they don't grow up to be people with no respect for human life.

'One way to reduce crime, as has been proven by studies, is to increase the abortion rate.'

That's very true. Also street lighting is infinately more effective than CCTV cameras too.

Foxy

I am heartened by your kind welcome back, life has been far too grim lately.

I know I am not alone in saying how much I appreciate the grace which always accompanies anything you have to say on OLO.

Regards

F

Fractelle, my ‘libertarianism’ is not some form of anarchy.

I consistently support the need for government, as a regulator.
The criminal court system is one of the oldest regulatory authorities.

My concerns to government is when they start to interfere in the activities which do not concern them, like inventing new taxes to raise more revenue than that needed to finance the legitimate needs of government.

Cevilia, understand your views.

I have been trying to find some summary way of expressing why I disagree with you and it comes to this

When someone treats others with murderous contempt and actions, I believe they relinquish the right to even be housed and restrained in prison.

Their continued existence presents a risk of escape, continued violence, future change in government policy toward non-parole sentences.

I know a little about prison industry.
It faces two problems,

finding suitable work.

pricing for that work in a competitive market where ordinary businesses are at a significant commercial disadvantage ( not a level playing field).

To “A dead murderer contributes nothing.”

A live one contributes negatively to the whole, the cost of his incarceration exceeding the benefit of his existence.

Stuart Walker “we should try to focus on the causes of crime and thereby reduce future crime rather than punish irreversible acts from the past.”

Criminals are the product of both their nature and the nurturing environment in which they are brought up.

Reducing future crime would require the eradication of the environment (nurture) into which criminals are born.

That would be hard enough but the other contributory influence, “nature”, is even harder.

Short of people being pre-licenced and required to qualify to breed, you cannot change the nature influence and I would fear, such a temptation would result in two things

Unforeseen changes and consequences to the gene pool.

A system which was more likely to abuse and corruption than the chaos which we presently accept.

‘Diversity’ is what produces opportunity, evolutionary advancement and criminals.

I will sooner accept a system which produces criminals than support a system which eliminated criminals and who-knows-what-else

Well, I'll try to make my points succinct.

Practical reasons for opposing the death penalty:

-As mentioned by others, correcting a life imprisonment is possible to the extent of release and perhaps compensation, correcting an execution is not. Plus, I have very little faith in our legal system for convicting the guilty or not convicting the innocent. (But mt I suppose preference for an inquisitorial system is another issue).
-Psychological harm to the executioners.
-Ambiguity on issues of sanity. How crazy do you have to be to avoid a death penalty? Anyone who qualifies for the death penalty probably has some psychological issues to a certain extent.
-As mentioned by other posters, I've yet to see convincing evidence it actually is more effective as a deterrent than serious sentences.

Moral reasons:

-Institutionalising the right to take a life in cold blood.
-Sending a message that cold-blooded killing is a solution to problems. (I'm using the term cold blooded, because I'd argue self-defence killings tend to be in a different category).
-I'd argue that killing should always be avoided where possible. In this case, it's possible.
-International image. Aside from the US, consider the countries we'd be categorised with in using the death penalty.
-On a diplomatic level, this also makes it more difficult to take a serious stance in opposing other nations use of the death penalty, when they don't have an effective judicial system.
-Our system is based around two pillars - deterrence and rehabilitation. The death penalty only embraces one.

TRTL
Excellent reasons for opposing the death penalty, I fully agree.
“consider the countries we'd be categorised with in using the death penalty”
That’s a chilling thought! The death penalty would give our government the same powerful tool that repressive governments use.

Col, thanks for your reply.
“the cost of his incarceration exceeding the benefit of his existence.”
Perhaps, but I’ve come across information showing a death sentence is more costly.
Example, “At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defence over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty…” http://tinyurl.com/66sy4t

”I believe they relinquish the right to even be housed and restrained in prison.“
But the death penalty violates a basic human right- the right to life.
The criminal is still a person and persons have basic human rights.
They can voluntarily give up that right, but others shouldn’t take it from them, with force. Their share of possessions could be passed on to the victims’ families, or else they work for their keep and retribution.

Prison industry.
”It faces two problems, finding suitable work. (and) pricing for that work in a competitive market”
I admit that I know very little about prison industry, but I trust if we really want it, economists and others will be able to work that out practically.
Australia was more or less built on the hard work of convicts. I’m sure someone can come up with a system/idea that would work for modern prisoners.
It also can give prisoners work satisfaction, which would reduce the violence that generally can result from boredom.

I wonder if you’ve given some thought to the fact that the economically disadvantaged can’t afford the same quality of defence as the wealthy.
I’ve heard the phrase, “Capital punishment punishes those without capital”.
There’s a lot of truth in that and I find that worrying.

O sung wu Martin Bryant is just another case for consideration, although the be-kind-to-the-insane might come into it, I believe his IQ was a long way from treble digits

My support of both Capital punishment and a woman’s right to choose abortion are for similar reasons

The abortion issue is about the right to exercise choice and bearing the possibility of emotional guilt as a consequence of that choice

The death sentence is about people taking ultimate responsibility when their choices adversely effect others and bearing the consequences of that act (a fetus/embryo not being an “other”).

TLTR

First practical reason is covered by my caveat

I would expect some folk quote able to act as executioner without psychological harm. Different folk deal with tough stuff every day, slaughter yards, lost dogs home. Death is part of life.

“Sanity” issue is no different to the issue of free-of-doubt to guilt

The effect as a deterrent is arguable either way.

It certainly has a very

Moral reasons

Lots of other things are institutionalized, I guess institutionalizing the possibility that taking life may result in surrendering life is a good message.

Mitigating circumstance will always prevail in some circumstances. Remember each case is tried and judges separately so when self defence, level of sanity and passion etc. form part of the defence they are considered in sentencing.

I consider “international image” a joke. I believe a Australia is best measured by its population. If the rest of the world found us an untenable state, they would not be queuing up to migrate here (same applies to USA).

Out system tries hard with rehabilitation, the return on effort is at best dubious across all levels of criminals. For rehabilitation to work you have to get beyond behaviour and into attitude. Only when you change the criminal attitude do you stand a chance at rehabilitation.

Observation: in a cold blooded killer, the ‘attitudes’ needed to be changed are beyond redemption.

Cevelia “Perhaps, but I’ve come across information showing a death sentence is more costly.”

The cost of appeals… and $470,000 equates to the cost of about 7 years confinement at $70,000 pa, the approximate cost of warehousing each max-security prisoner.

Which would produce for “execution”, a saving on any murderer convicted under the age of 50.

“But the death penalty violates a basic human right- the right to life.”

The right of “free association” is another “basic human right” which is forfeit by the criminal action,

“Life” no different to any other “basic human right” and equally subject to forfeiture.

Prison industry. I know little, my partner a lot more having been a prison manager with the “industry activity” directly under her control. Your theory is along way from what is practically possible.

I find giving any problem to an economist usually results in the production of two additional problems to add to the original one and no practical solution.

Your comment on the work ethic and boredom might be applicable to many people but prisoners do not conform with your model, that is why they end up in gaol to begin with.

“economically disadvantaged can’t afford the same quality of defence as the wealthy.”

We should not be driven by the economic capacity of the least able, any more than we should use the physically unfit to represent us in sports.

And I would have thought execution protects the economically disadvantaged as much as the wealthy.

Studies show, most crime is within the local community of the perpetrator therefore, if the criminal is “economically disadvantaged” he is more likely to take his crime to his peers, therefore the “economically disadvantaged” will benefit more than the “wealthy”

As for “Capital punishment punishes those without capital”.

I do not agree, it sounds like no more than a Jingoistic cliche or a jingle, to me.

““industry activity” … Your theory is along way from what is practically possible”
You could be right. I don’t know enough about the prison industry. But there have been some successes such as the Prison Blue wear and others. And improvement is usually possible when given effort.

High costs of death penalty
Well- the costs are calculated a bit differently as I understand because the cost is weighed in the initial trial. Look here, this Florida site explains it better than I can: http://www.fadp.org/
” our state has spent more than $1 billion on its death penalty system, for a return of only 58 executions. That's more than $18,000,000 per execution, and for what return?”

Anyway, my main concerns are moral reasons.

” “Life” no different to any other “basic human right” and equally subject to forfeiture.”
Human rights should not be taken away from human individuals unless it’s necessary, and killing someone is not necessary when they can be given life in prison. We don’t need to overreact and take the maximum amount of rights away when taking away a minimum of rights is just as effective.

I don’t see the merit of the death penalty.
There’s no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent.
In fact, the US states as well as countries around the world without the death penalty consistently have lower murder rates than states and countries that do carry out the death penalty.

“execution protects the economically disadvantaged as much as the wealthy”
I seriously doubt that, but maybe you could elaborate and/or provide a link to one of those studies.
Over the years, I’ve read enough about inequality in the system to believe that it's true. There's info on how the economically disadvantaged and the black don’t have access to the same level of defense.

I find execution too risky because it’s final and innocents have been executed.
The best way to eliminate the possibility of executing an innocent life is to have no death penalty at all!

Col,
The name of that girl murdered down the NSW coast was Barry. Collins and Barry. I am sorry that I could not remember her name. Their deaths are known as the 'Bega school girls murders'. Similar to Anita Cobby, with abduction, rape, abused and throats cut. A heinous crime indeed.

Aside from Virginia Morse, that o sung wu mentioned, a couple of others come to mind, like Ebony Simpson and Janine Balding. No doubt there are others that I would class as heinous.

The actions of the perpetrators of these crimes clearly demonstrate they have forfeited any right to exist in our society in any form. They should be put down ASAP. My research shows that the murderers of Janine Balding were giggling to each other and making loud remarks and finger gestures to the gallery during the trial. These scum show no remorse at all.

I feel so much for the victims and their families.

Celivia,

I agree the economic baisis of argument ofr or against is crass and I only commented on it in response.

The issue of blacks and the poor etc having not the same access to a defence falls into the same category, being issues not to do with the death penalty itself but other possible imperfections in the legal process and 'risk of error'. Hence the caveat to my opening statement.

As for the murder rate in USA, there are many other inextractible factors which contribute to US murder rate, including availability of weapons and ethnic/racial mix.

These makes isolating the availability of a death penalty as either a contributory or negatory factor to crime impossible to assess.

Banjo, I feel much like that too. some crimes display an absence humanity which even any future remorse or contrition can not set aside.

Being a father, I do not know how I would feel if I lost a child.

But being close to someone who has lost a child to murder, I observe the devastation of the crime is not solely to the slain. The victims include the family of the dead too.

Likewise, I personally see the death, destruction of meaningful life and mayhem caused by drugs as making a drug dealer on par with a murderer.

I have no problem in considering say a second offence drug dealer (one chance to change) as an equal candidate for execution. The callousness of the act is on par with the actions of a serial killer, with two differences, the victims death is slower, the victims are selected with even less discrimination.

I believe in libertarian values and those values make people accountable and responsible for their actions.

In certain cases, Killers should be held accountable for the death they bring to their victims by surrendering what they took from those victims.

Col,
I will have to concede that second conviction, or more, drug dealing should have an option of the death sentence.

I think the saddest picture I have ever seen was in the 'Tele' a few years ago. Photo of a young woman lying dead from an overdose, on the footpath in inner Sydney. It also showed her little son, about 2-3, sitting on the gutter near her, waiting for mummy to wake up.

We do terrible things to each other. I could only hope that the poor little kid got good foster parents or good grandparents. Far more consideration should be given to victims.

Banjo, with respect to the dead woman in the gutter, the chances are that she got hold of some heroin that was either extra strong, or was diluted with something else toxic.Heroin, per se, is not especially hazardous. The hazard of its use could be reduced markedly by legalising and regulating it just as we regulate alcohol.

BTW, before anybody starts accusing me of being a heroin addict, I've never touched the stuff, but I did have a girlfriend some years ago who was a nurse who used it quite regularly, although she usually acquired it through a fellow medical worker who apparently manufactured it himself. She was very conscientious about dosage and I'm sure she was never in danger of an overdose. That woman is now a Director of Surgical Nursing at a major hospital. I have no way of knowing if she still uses.

Hysteria is all too easy to feed, which is yet another reason not to have a death penalty.

Antiseptic, that last point is a very good one.

How often does 'crime and punishment' become a political topic? We like to believe the separation of powers is effective and the judiciary is not affected by the legislature, but in reality this isn't always the case.
The charges against Sergeant Chris Hurley and the Palm Island affair being a prime example.
(Note here, I'm not making any judgement either way on the Hurley matter, but it was clearly a case of political intervention in a court process. Would the same thing have occurred if it had not been such a high profile case?)

I suppose some might argue the political change was in the aim of justice - but ask yourselves, do you really think this will always be the case?
In the case of the death penalty, when we start appeasing the desire for revenge (I'm aware many people don't see it as revenge, but you can't honestly say there won't be people out there who use it as that) what's the likelihood of politicised trials.

Stuart Walker: your sarcastic hyperbole lacks witticism and credibility. The abortion debate is another matter and a passing glance at all your points reveals them to be shallow and politicised.

Celivia - I agree with you in opposing the death penalty, however I do concede that executions are more cost effective than life imprisonment. As it stands, imprisoning someone for life doesn't actually give them the opportunity to make restitution as you suggest. We pay a financial price for opting for life sentences, I just think that financial price is worth it to know we live in a society that doesn't condone premeditated killing.

(runner, Stuart, before you go calling abortions premeditated killing, the abortion debate is about establishing fetuses are developed people.
As it stands, there's no evidence that one fetus can be differentiated from another in any way that matters, with only theoretical strawman arguments to counter this. If you want to debate abortion, fine. Debate it on an abortion thread and actually tackle the issue instead of spouting hysterical innuendo).

TRTL:"however I do concede that executions are more cost effective than life imprisonment"

Not if the US example is any guide, at least since the Furman decision in 1972. The total cost of trial, incarceration while appeals are exhausted and eventual execution is many times that of merely "locking 'em up and tossing the key away". That fact is not in dispute.

However, if a less rigorous process for determining guilt without question is allowed, the cost may well plummet, at the expense of the increased likelihood of execution of an innocent. No doubt there are those here who would be happy to see public lynchings, "dispensing with the issue of doubt", but I'm not among them.

Antiseptic “heroin that was either extra strong, or was diluted with something else toxic.Heroin, per se, is not especially hazardous.”

Whilst heroin may not be “especially hazardous” its “danger” is in its addictive properties.

To feed the addiction, the addictive is required to accommodate the demands of the drug dealer who, to improve his profits, ‘cuts’ heroin with whatever comes to hand, be it toxic or not.

Such an action, the calculated introduction of a possible toxic compound for injection, displays the callous, cold blooded and indiscriminate attitude taken by drug dealers which results in near and actual death.

It is this “callous, cold blooded and indiscriminate” recklessness and disregard for humanity which qualifies the drug dealer as a serial murderer and hence why I would support a death penalty for second offense drug dealers.

Antiseptic, defend the scum of the earth all you like. All your protestations will never make them any more than what they are, parasites and vermin, willingly killing other people to fuel their personal greed.

Parasites and vermin hold no social or community value. We are better off with them dead than polluting the air we breath.

If you think that is getting a little emotional, you might be right but it is very simple, I like to live in a clean house and environment, not one infested with parasites and vermin.

“No doubt there are those here who would be happy to see public lynchings, "dispensing with the issue of doubt", but I'm not among them.”

Strange, I see not one single post which suggests either.

Maybe you could point me to what you are referring or are you just posting for dramatic effect?

Col Rouge: "Whilst heroin may not be “especially hazardous” its “danger” is in its addictive properties.

To feed the addiction, the addictive is required to accommodate the demands of the drug dealer"

Did you read what I wrote, or did you go immediately into rant mode? I suggested that it should be regulated and legalised, just as other drugs of addiction, such as alcohol, nicotine and caffeine have regulations pertaining to their lawful use, and more especially, sale. The thing is that if drugs were sold for their intrinsic value, nobody would have much financial incentive to sell them on. Instead, people are "required to accommodate the demands of the drug dealer".

It's a pure case of market forces driving prices up. Ah, that's right, I keep forgetting you're a big fan of free-market capitalism. As you were.

special comment for col rouge , you want to refraze your comment in the child abuse post where you say a person who is raped as a child becomes a pedophile you are one sick mother _ucker that needs to get real help for your brain

as for this comment ,the death pealty should be here for the purpose of those who kill and those who rape our children

you condemed other people about their comments on this subject saying the odd things such as no for the death penalty then yes make up your mind as your very first post states you are for it then you later go on in the topic in a new post saying no to it


also those who are in goal for the most cruelest crimes should not live

as stated by the name of ,the murphys and co offenders baker and crump of which crump changed his name to taylor in maitland goal in 1983,even you should of known that col rouge

luthwaite is another that should die ,so should luke wickens who kidnapped the little girl out of her charlestown home and destroyed her

ivan milat and their are many many more i could mention they are the one's who need death by hanging or the firing squad

as for you col rouge you have seen and covered up for the goverment like the rest of those who worked in these institutions

you don't know how us victims live and suffer with the rapes and abuse that happend to us as children

you stated a long time ago you worked for the correction's department so you know im not lying about the rapes and abuse that happend to us victims in the states institutions

do the crime do the time if it means death so be it

the forgotten australians are victims of those who worked at the institutions in the state of new south wales and all other states of australia who raped and abused us when we were children in their care

huffnpuff

Col,
I agree that killers should be prosecuted and punished.
Nobody who’s responsible for the death of another, including leaders such as George Bush, should be above the law.
However, under no circumstance,could I agree with the death penalty.
Even IF the judicial system were flawless, the DP is primitive, barbaric and uncivilised.

Should judges, juries or others involved and responsible for the execution of the innocent be prosecuted for negligence with which they’ve handled the case?

As for drug dealers, you may already know my stance on drugs. It’s similar to Antiseptic’s view: decriminalise/legalise them.

I’m a very moderate drinker of wine- I love just one (pre-) dinner glass of good red.
Yet, I’ve watched several alcoholics, one very close to me, die of the effects of alcohol so I’m very aware of the bad effects it can have. It's all about responsibility and moderation.

Like with alcohol, many other drugs can enhance the enjoyment and quality of life without badly destroying someone’s health when used responsibly. I simply don’t understand the logic used for banning some drugs and not others.

Shouldn’t people be free to choose what to put into their own body, whether it’s high quality health food, transfats and other crap, alcohol, tobacco, or any other drugs?

TRTL,
” I just think that financial price is worth it to know we live in a society that doesn't condone premeditated killing.”
I agree, but am not convinced that a life sentence is more costly than the death penalty but I’m not overly eager to take too much trouble to find out, as the outcome wouldn’t change my stance.

HuffnPuff,
Murder in addition to rape would mean less risk for the rapist than rape alone if rape and murder would receive the same punishment.

Cevilia “I agree that killers should be prosecuted and punished.
Nobody who’s responsible for the death of another, including leaders such as George Bush, should be above the law.”

And

“Should judges, juries or others involved and responsible for the execution of the innocent be prosecuted for negligence with which they’ve handled the case?”

Then mount a prosecution of George Bush and those who are you think are negligent.

Apply due process and see how well you fair.

(But I don’t rate your chances).

Re illegal and legal drugs and the alcohol versus heroin debate

Get heroin legalized and you will have moved forward but until you do it remains illegal and a criminal act to traffic in it privately.

“Shouldn’t people be free to choose what to put into their own body,”

Show me where I have ever suggested using heroin or other illegal drugs should be outlawed.

Everything I have written has been to attack the trafficking and dealing in illegal drugs, not in the personal use of them.

As for the case you and antiseptic put for decriminalization, I love it when folk claim the war of drugs is not working… when they have no comparison to the effects on society if these drugs of dependency were not illegal.

So I will give you one. When opium was introduced to China from India around 1860, its use became wide spread, and by 1905, one quarter of the male Chinese population became addicted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua00/sdua00.pdf

use of illicit drugs remains currently in the 2-4% range (this figure gets lumped in with alcohol sometimes and also whole of life use where someone like me who smoked pot three times is included as a “user”, to make it seem more significant ) of course, “addiction” rates are way less than one-time-use rates.

So how would you fancy this society of ours dealing with a 15 time increase (to around 2 ½ million) in the number of junkies and assorted crack-heads lurching from fix to fix?

I figure life would become pretty crap for both users and non-users.

Thanks Banjo for your agreement. The issue of penalties for drug dealers is a difficult one and not something I expect to see change to what I would like but at least if I can influence enough folk we will move closer to getting some sanity into sentencing and punishments which fit the crime. Which I am pleased to see includes expropriation of their ill gotten gains. No point in banging these criminals up only to release them to live of their invested wealth, acquired with the blood of dead drug addicts,

Huffnpuff ” say a person who is raped as a child becomes a pedophile you are one sick mother _ucker that needs to get real help for your brain”

I have not made such a statement.

Please support your claim by giving us all a posting (thread / date etc) reference to where I am supposed to have said it.

As for someone who may become a pedophile because they were a victim-

We all remain responsible for our own actions, regardless of what may have been done to us.

I see no merit or mitigation for excusing anyone for the disadvantages of their past.

Such a policy of exemption is the road to ruin for us all, being where no one is accountable for anything.

“as for you col rouge you have seen and covered up for the goverment like the rest of those who worked in these institutions”

When you can prove that libelous claim, prosecute me.

I cover up for no one. Never have, never will.

this is you comment in the

child abuse is a blight on us all

Spikey “So you'd pick up your own daughters if they got into strife, but turn away from a neighbor in need?

Happily, not all the world is as self-centred and smug as you, old feller”

Absolutely on the first

and to the neighbour, I would yet after my daughters.

Of course, I know my neighbours. As I know my friends

but to the likes of you? All I know is you are judgmental and quick to criticize those you have no direct knowledge of.

Both features being deficient in the qualities which would ever endear me to ever think of doing anything for you or ever asking for anything from you or considering your view worthy of even momentary recall.

Barfenzie “A caring and compassionate community”

Don’t seek compassion from government or government employees at any level. They are paid to do a job. Your existence and possible expectations merely burdens them with responsibilities they would sooner not have.

In my times of need I have found my friends the source of support and the medical profession a source of professional service but I don’t think even doctors consider their patients their friends or their ‘work’ necessarily their ‘purpose’.

To parents, even poor ones, they are the best ones to bring up their own children, Lenins experiments proved it.

“Pedophiles by the way are usually abused children”
yes but we are all individually responsible for our own actions and the pedophile ignores his or her own childhood pain when inflicting similar on their victims.

I would call it lust and self entitlement displacing any sense of empathy, respect or compassion .
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 17 July 2008 10:23:15 PM

this is your comment correct col rouge

from huffnpuff

now col rouge im not lying here but you stated that post that

pedophiles by the way are usally abused children

so you are a qualified doctor to state that or have some qualifications to prove your post

this is a disgrace to victims like me that a person who once worked for the corrections department , says something like what you have ,

so now your friends out their will know that you forget what you say and write ,

aye the thing is col rouge we victims know who the pedophiles are and and how the goverment and the institutions are protecting them

and this is true

even cardinal pell covered up the catholic church from the courts and the pope ,

and the state of new south wales continues to do the same

from a real victim

huffnpuff

hope you read it throughly col roug

Huffnpuff ““Pedophiles by the way are usually abused children”

Someone else said that, I quoted it for reference to the point I was making which was

“we are all individually responsible for our own actions and the pedophile ignores his or her own childhood pain when inflicting similar on their victims.”

So exactly what do you suggest I need to “rephrase” to satisfy your

“you want to refraze your comment in the child abuse post where you say a person who is raped as a child becomes a pedophile you are one sick mother _ucker that needs to get real help for your brain”?

“aye the thing is col rouge we victims know who the pedophiles are and and how the goverment and the institutions are protecting them”

Read my posts and read how I have consistently criticized organizations who fail to clean out the corrupt from among their number.

“even cardinal pell covered up the catholic church from the courts and the pope”

I am not a papist and did not elect the incumbent state government anywhere.

I have a simple belief

We have a right to do what we want but we are all responsible for what we do.

If we kill someone or repeatedly deal in illegal drugs, subject to mitigation (and I can think of no mitigating circumstances which apply to drug dealers), it is reasonable to face the death penalty.

Not sure if pedophiles deserve the death penalty or not but open to hear the arguments for and against.

“from a real victim”

I cannot make right what might have been done to you.

All I can do is support your demand for openness and no cover-up, which I do.

Col Rouge: "When opium was introduced to China from India around 1860, its use became wide spread, and by 1905, one quarter of the male Chinese population became addicted."

And when banks were allowed to self-regulate, with fat profits to be made by doing the wrong thing, we had today's mortgage crisis. No doubt that's just the free-market at play, eh?

The point is that it needs to be regulated to ensure that it is both clean and sufficiently available at a price low enough that the profiteers don't have an incentive to be involved, just like the banking sector. Your original claim was that (I paraphrase) "drug dealers are bad, they should be taken out and shot", yet you refuse to properly consider a means by which drug dealers may be taken out of the equation.

Col Rouge: "use of illicit drugs remains currently in the 2-4% range"

What is your evidence for this extraordinary claim? The most recent figures I've seen show that REGULAR cannabis use is occurring among about 10% of the population, and that's without even considering the opiates and amphetamines and their derivatives. Smoking still runs at about 25% and harmful alcohol consumption is at something like 20%.

Col Rouge: "So how would you fancy this society of ours dealing with a 15 time increase (to around 2 ½ million) in the number of junkies and assorted crack-heads lurching from fix to fix?"

Remember Ford Slimming Pills? Here's an old radio ad for them:
"OLD RADIO ADVERT
Man: Are you too fat? Too fat? To fat to fit the Ford Pill figure? Be slim and be smart, follow the Ford diet chart and take Ford Pills. Ford Pills. Ford Pills. F.O.R.D. Ford. Ford Pills
Keeping you looking trim and healthy
Keep you really regular.
Buy Ford Pills. "

My parents had a corner shop in the early 80s and among other things they sold those pills. They were high-strength Benzedrine and were available over the counter. We had regulars who'd come in and buy 10 packs at a time "to keep me regular".

Antiseptic,
Your spin is good. "The chances are that she 'got hold of'..." Drug users do not just 'get hold of' drugs. they buy them from illegal drug dealers that care nothing for their clients. The dealers continually seek out more users so if one dies from overdose or contaminant, who cares. The dealers are scum and penalties need to be very harsh with the death penalty as a sentencing option for those with more than one conviction for dealing.

This debate is not about whether or not some drugs should become legal. It is about sentencing for serious crimes.

Celivia, Your message to huffnpuff was not real clear, but I take it you are saying that rape victims are spared because the penalty for rape is not as severe as for murder. I suggest you are speculating.The same as if I suggested that the death penalty was a deterant for murder, even though it may well be in some cases.

I can only say that not having the death penalty did not save Virginia Morse, Anita Cobby, Lauren Barry, Nicole Collins, Ebony Simpson or Janine Balding. These girls were abuducted, tortured, abused and raped repeatedly then had throats cut or drowned. Such filth as the offenders are should be shot like rabid dogs. Yet we feed and keep them in warmth and comfort.

Banjo, I don't "spin", I try to make intelligent posts and hope that intelligent people will respond intelligently. Sometimes they do. Sadly, this occasion appears to be one of the other times...

Antiseptic “And when banks were allowed to self-regulate, with fat profits to be made by doing the wrong thing, we had today's mortgage crisis. No doubt that's just the free-market at play, eh?”

So, what are you saying, mortgage lenders should be executed or maybe those who borrow and walk away from their debt.

When you borrow money you have to sign an agreement. My sense of personal responsibility says you live up to the agreement or face the consequences and if you cannot find someone to lend you the money at terms you are prepared to accept, don’t borrow.

You get the choice, the killers victim does not and the drug addicts addiction makes him or her less able to negotiate with their supply too, making them a victim.

I do not know if you are being obtuse or fatuous but the point you are trying to make is clearly facile.

“Smoking still runs at about 25% and harmful alcohol consumption is at something like 20%. “

Both are “LEGAL” and I would like to see your data and definition of “Harmful alcohol consumption”.
Not that “4 glasses of beer and your binging” rubbish, which the socialist swill are trying to thrust down us I trust?

Re Ford Pills

Something people were unaware of their harm and so laws changed, just like wide scale and legal use of opium, cocaine, DDT and lead in petrol.

You should keep up with the times.

As for Banjo observing ‘spin’; that is all you are doing, spinning your wheels.

Creating a lot of smoke and going nowhere.

“I try to make intelligent posts and hope that intelligent people will respond intelligently.”

With statistical claims but no source at all.

I posted references. you should do similar or be seen wanting, as far as ‘intelligent’ is concerned.

You want meth amphetamine made legal, get the law changed.
You want to freely shoot heroin on street corners, get the law changed.

Until you do, they are illegal drugs of dependency and the illegal dealers who trade in them are deserving of a death penalty.

Col Rouge: "Antiseptic “And when banks were allowed to self-regulate, with fat profits to be made by doing the wrong thing, we had today's mortgage crisis. No doubt that's just the free-market at play, eh?”

So, what are you saying, mortgage lenders should be executed or maybe those who borrow and walk away from their debt."

Do try to keep up, old chap.

Col Rouge:"Re Ford Pills

Something people were unaware of their harm and so laws changed, just like wide scale and legal use of opium, cocaine, DDT and lead in petrol."

and yet, despite the "harm", they were part of the routine consumption pattern of hundreds of thousands. What harm accrued to society as a result? Did we have hundreds of thousands of "crackheads" roaming the streets looking for their next fix? If not, what on Earth happened? According to your doubtless thought-free analysis, I grew up in a nation of druggies. My own mum had a hard time getting off valium and both she and Dad died of smoking-related diseases, which makes them typical of their generation, junkies though they may have been.

Col Rouge: "Until you do, they are illegal drugs of dependency and the illegal dealers who trade in them are deserving of a death penalty."

So now it turns out your sole criterion for the death penalty is that the victim should be doing something illegal? Did someone mention lynch mobs?

Banjo,
I meant to say that it’s worse to rape and kill a child than to rape it and let it go, and the law does (and should) recognise that. Shouldn’t murder attract a higher penalty than rape?
BTW, why don’t we simply castrate paedosexuals and repeat rapists?

By all means make a list of all the murder victims in Australia, but the murder rate in some countries that apply the death penalty, like in the US and India, is much higher than Australia’s, thus their list would be even longer.
There's no evidence that the death penalty has any effect on murder rates at all.

Col,
“folk claim the war of drugs is not working… when they have no comparison to the effects on society if these drugs of dependency were not illegal.“
You probably know what happened when the US banned alcohol. That was a blunder as well. Bush can queue up with the other US presidents who have lost the ‘war on drugs’.

“U.S. Ranks #1 in Consumption of Pot, Cocaine, Smokes
the U.S. leads the world and -- just in time for the Olympics -- takes the gold for the use of tobacco, pot, and cocaine, far outpacing other countries, even the Netherlands, where drug laws are far less draconian.
While income and age may be factors determining drug use, it appears that a country's drug policies have little impact on use.”
http://www.alternet.org/story/92434/

The USA, as a country with the largest number of people who supersize themselves to death; could do better and divert the millions they waste on the drug war to healthcare.
But no, if there’s a health problem it needs to be solved with yet another prescription drug. BigPharma have now managed to talk American paediatricians into selling statins to children.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7650

In the meantime, Fast Food stores in Australia and around the world are still allowed to bribe kids with toys to eat crap.

Antiseptic “Did someone mention lynch mobs?”

Twice now by YOU and "hysteria"

You see law and order as one thing and I see it as something completely different.

Show where I have said anything which beckons the anarchy which would ensue from either your lynch-mob attitude or your “junkies-a-go-go” approach to unfettered distribution of drugs of dependency.

The sense of responsibility enshrined in the values I maintain will come head to head with your dysfunctioning-crackhead-whore society.

Of course, my values will prevail,

you and your ilk will be too busy trying to find your next fix and a vein which still works.

Celevia, not sure what your anti-American rant is about really, it makes no sense at all.

Whatever you say, you don’t live there. I do not know if you ever have but I did from 1999 to 2001.

Texas is so close to Australia that I had none of the culture shock I experienced coming from UK to Aus.

You use data from a counter-culture source, likely peddling its own counter-culture gibberish, which suits its own agenda and you seem to be freely promoting their propaganda, Lenin had a couple of choice words for it.

I thought you were more discerning than that.

I had digressed a little from the original thread to respond to the previous vanities of the “legalise narcotics and addiction” brigade but only to illustrate with what happened in China should presently illegal drugs be legalized.

In USA terms it would mean about 40 million junkies, they have a bigger population than Aus, who would only have to carry about 2 ½ million addicts, presumably on “medicare”.

And you seem to think the "war on drugs" has failed?

I would say, looking at the rates of narcotics use and addiction being experienced in Australia and USA, it represents a significant diminution / containment, compared to the millions of addicts your free-for-all would produce.

Maybe you think modern junkies are less susceptible to addiciton than the Chinese of 100 years ago?

Wrong.

FACT: heroin and meth-amphetamine are significantly more addictive than opium ever was.

Col Rouge: "You see law and order as one thing and I see it as something completely different.

Show where I have said anything which beckons the anarchy which would ensue from either your lynch-mob attitude or your “junkies-a-go-go” approach to unfettered distribution of drugs of dependency."

I've not suggested anything unfettered, but quite clearly suggested regulation - you know, the good ol' LAW 'n' ORDER you're so fond of spruiking when it suits you.

Here's the comment that you snipped from my post above when replying that demonstrates your hysterical, lynch-mob mentality quite clearly: "Col Rouge: "Until you do [succeed in having drugs of dependency legalised], they are illegal drugs of dependency and the illegal dealers who trade in them are deserving of a death penalty." That little gem was in response to a considered argument in favour of legislation to regulate drugs of dependency and hence remove the dealers from the equation and shows that your sole criterion for 'hangin' 'em high' is that they have done something illegal. Once the product is legalised, good ol' Col will be down at the Stock Exchange buying as many shares as he can get hold of, after all, they're a good bet for the super, eh?

Celivia also gave you some very good links which you won't have clicked on, because you're "dispensing with the issue of doubt" and you certainly don't want to take any chances of some of that creeping in, do you. It might lead to *gasp* thinking.

Tell us Col, do you automatically accept every law as being right and proper, or do you just obey them out of fear of the consequences if you don't? Please, for once, try to be honest in your answer and avoid your usual ranting of untruths, hard as that may be for you to do. Think of it as a challenge.

Antiseptic,
Come on. Your use of the term "she got hold of" was used to imply that she was the only one involved in procuring the drugs. She found them on the street or picked them off a tree? Her death was an accident?

This woman bought them off a dealer who business was selling illegal and dangerous drugs. To my mind this involves the dealer in her death and the loss of a mother to her little boy. Why you seek to lessen the impact of drug dealers culpability in the drug trade is beyond me, as they deal in other peoples addiction and death.

The instance I refered to was only one of many, many sad tales involving drug dealers. It is happening all the time, but some people simply cannot see much wrong. Drug dealers should pay harshly for their greedy involvement.

By the way, the fact that you did not defend your stance and resorted to making further implications regarding my intelligence shows your inability to continue the debate, so I chalk that up as a win.

Celivia. Glad you clarified. I agree that rape and murder should attract a higher penalty than rape alone. That is not to lessen the seriousness of rape.

On the matter of the deterant effect of the death penalty. I do not think any comparision to what takes place in another country is valid here. It is now over 30 years since the death penalty was abolished in NSW. A comparision of the applicable crime rates for the 30 years before and after the abolition of the death penalty would seem far more reasonable.

If done by a reputable body, I would form my opinion on such data in relation to death penalty deterants, but I doubt very much if the anti death penalty lobbyists would do likewise.

Antiseptic “hysterical, lynch-mob mentality quite clearly”

You are the only one who is talking lynch mobs.

There is no suggestion of any “lynch mob” in

“they are illegal drugs of dependency and the illegal dealers who trade in them are deserving of a death penalty."

Show me where “death penalty” equates to “Lynch mob” before you make your purile accusations.

I firmly believe people are accountable for their actions, regardless of circumstance (although sometimes “circumstance” is a mitigating influence).

Those who profit form dealing, illegally, in a drug of dependency with the full knowledge that the trade will significantly diminish the life expectancy or the “customer” if not the immediate death of the customer is a callous and calculated act which is no different to the actions of a serial killer and as such is deserving the same punishment as a cold blooded serial killer.

Regardless of your arm-chair analysis of my motives, everything I have written is in support of a law and order approach to using the death penalty as a sentencing option.

By your posts, you seem more interested in floating the idea of legalization and free access to narcotics and drugs with a high level of dependency. Maybe smoking your whacky tobaccy has addled your cognitive skills, the hysteria is all yours, plainly though you are in denial, another symptom of paranoia (= hysteria on steroids).

Actually whilst on the topic and to expand on the addictive properties of modern drugs, the impact of contemporary marijuana, over the older varieties which were around 100 years ago or so is the same impact as heroin to opium, an accelerated impact on the senses and a significantly more rapid degeneration in personal control and stability. Whilst picture of Arabs smoking hashish through a water pipe are nostalgic, the impact of the stuff they smoked was a lot less than inhaling the fumes from a cone of the current product these days.

Same applies to Crack Cocaine over the original product

Banjo: "on. Your use of the term "she got hold of" was used to imply that she was the only one involved in procuring the drugs. She found them on the street or picked them off a tree? Her death was an accident?"

ITYM you INFERRED it to mean that. If so, you would appear t have difficulty with English comprehension; the wording is quite explicit. There are several ways she could have got hold of the drugs that don't involve her buying them directly from a "dealer" and there is every chance that if she died from it, the stuff was actually of higher purity than she realised. There was a spate of such deaths a few years ago when there happened to be a glut of heroin on the market. Quite a few people died, but not because they were getting anything mixed with their drug, rather because they weren't.

BTW, it is rare for anything overtly toxic to be mixed with heroin or other drugs, since dealers have no incentive to kill their customers. So yes, her death was most likely a tragic accident, albeit a long, slow one that could have probably been averted at any time. If the sale of these substances was properly regulated, the issue of variation in quality would disappear and the price could be kept low enough to make illicit transactions unattractive. Voila! No more "evil dealers".

Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but I tend to think both options (death penalty for dealing, or legalisation) are worse than the status quo.

As it stands, we have a system of enforcement which leaves users of most of these drugs alone, (more or less. Unless they're stupid about it).
Dealers still receive penalties. Granted, this will ultimately mean it's an ongoing problem, but I'm of the view that you'll never wipe out the drug trade completely.

I wouldn't mind seeing tougher penalties (not the death penalty) in regard to heroin and methylamphetamines, but I think in relation to marijuana and standard amphetamines, the balace is about right as while these drugs can cause dependencies, they don't carry the same punch in terms of addiction. For these ones, I'm of the view that the police should just continue to target the dealers.

I concede all the points made in regard to legalisation. What I offer in response, is the fact that on a societal scale, the two most harmful drugs are cigarettes and alcohol - the legalised ones.

OK, I just want to take a step back and look at Col’s initial question,

“If we assume the legal system only convicts those who are guilty we come back to the question, do some crimes warrant a death penalty?”

For moi et al, the answer is that we object to the DP for principal reasons. For Col et al, some crimes do warrant a DP.
In the framework of this debate, it makes no difference to me what the crime is, so I’m not sure if I see merit in continuing to discuss drug dealers and drugs.
Whether illicit drugs are more destructive than legal ones won’t change my view on the death penalty. So I can’t see merit in further discussing drugs (unless it was a drug debate separated from the DP issue).

The most convincing argument that could have me rethink my DP stance would be whether the DP would be a significant deterrent and would guarantee safer communities and a more civil society.

Perhaps Banjo and Col are right that discussing other countries is somewhat irrelevant to Australia, but Australian statistics even support overseas ones.
Over the last 20 years in Australia, the homicide rate has fallen from nearly 6 per hundred thousand to less than 4.4, and experience overseas supports this Australian evidence.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi03t.html

BTW I don’t think that it is unreasonable to think that the DP could be a deterrent because there wouldn’t be many criminals who, given a choice, would prefer death over the alternative- life imprisonment without parole.
But this view is not supported by evidence because in reality DP does not appear to be a deterrent.

So I’ll leave it at that for now- I first want to find out whether any of the supporters of DP have convincing arguments to show me that it is a deterrent and I’ll take it from there. I have looked for evidence myself to no avail.

Good call, Celivia. The discussion has been hijacked by the hysterics.

Col Rouge, poses a hypothetical, eh? I wonder if he has some slippery slope planned for us if we support the death penalty given perfect justice.

I detest the idea of justice as vengeance - and eye for an eye and all that. It is a waste. I view justice as necessary evil required to make society work. The costs of lawyers, judges, police, courts, prisons - the list goes on and on, are just horrendous. Almost invariably the cost is more than the crime itself. This huge cost can not be justified simply as the righteous way to gladden the victims heart by giving them vengeance.

And so the idea of a crime deserving the death penalty sounds twisted to me, as it implies the penalty is societies vengeance for the crime. Take o sung wu's colourful example, "Alan BAKER and Kevin CRUMP, two of the worst *@&$#* maggots that ever walked upon this earth". To pose my own equally absurd hypothetical, let us assume if their crime went unpunished we could be sure they would not break the law again, and nor would it inspire anyone else to do so. What should we do? I say let them go, of course, because I am not after vengeance. Let them become productive members of society. That is the beauty of posing hypothetical's. Set the starting conditions right and you can end up anywhere.

But I am meant to be discussing Col's hypothetical, not mine. We are apparently perfectly certain they are guilty and we are certain they will strike again, or inspire someone else to do so. They must be removed from society, there is no other option. But to incarcerate them places imposes a huge cost on us, and they contribute nothing. So obviously they must die.

If only the real world were so perfect, it would all be so simple. But in real world people can be rehabilitated, justice isn't perfect, and the death penalty is no better at deterring crime than jail. In the real word my answer is different.

Some have pointed out the death penalty is more expensive than throwing away the key. That's news to me, but it seems undisputed.

Given its more expensive, doesn't act as a deterrent, and has sometimes killed people who were later found to be innocent, what possible justification is there for it? I can only see one - a desire for vengeance.

Have I missed something? If not it has no place in modern society. None. Whatsoever.

No, you've not missed anything, except that some supporters of a death penalty claim that it prevents rescidivism, which is trivially true, since other forms of penalty also do so, without the concommitant risk of executing an innocent and hence, without the additional cost burden of absolute proof of guilt that must be demanded within a just society.

I think we have exhausted this.

Thanks folks for your input

A few for the return of the death penalty

Some against and

Some others uncertain.

I am someone who thinks its return would be a good thing and not a reversal (as some have suggested) to the ‘bad old days’ where people were expected to be accountable for their actions (rather than a bunch of paid psycho-babble experts explaining it was all to do with wetting the bed until the age of 12)

I think this way because I have an absolute belief in our personal resposnibility and accountability for our actions and not a trivial idea to see a return of ‘lynch mobs’, which one person seemed fixated upon.

I would like to see the matter be put to a referendum.

(That automatically stacks the case in favour of those who support the status quo)

Should a referendum prevail for its return, I would support the sentence being appropriate for second offence drug dealers (for reasons previously stated) as well as murder and other heinous crimes.

Anyway, I doubt anything will happen under Krudd & Co like it did not under the liberals.

Better late than never :)

Hmm.. I think the death penalty is valid.. but only in cases where the evidence is incontrovertable.

Some verdicts are reached on the basis of circumstantial deduction.. fuzzy witnesses... but others include DNA evidence such as semen samples etc..

I'd reserve it (Death penalty) for..

-Convicted terrorists who are unrepentant. (with adequate evidence or confession)
-Kidnappers..
-Standover/Extortionists.
-Drug Dealers (high up ones)

Not much I can offer here because most has been covered and no matter what I say it will be wrongly understood or criticized by some.. never mind.. this is my bit.
cheers

The death penalty should be reserved for those who can prove they're related to God...

Thanks for this discussion, Col.
i thought that the discussion had come to an end as well, but then I thought about your main reason (personal responsibility and accountability) for capital punishment.

I fail to understand how a criminal would be held more accountable by being killed than by life imprisonment without parole.
Can someone who’s dead be held responsible and accountable?

The family of the executed person, however, have to deal not only with the crime performed by someone close to them but with losing that person as well.
If it's about being personally responsible and accountable, then isn't the criminal let off the hook after execution?

But someone who’s locked away for the rest of his life at least KNOWS why he has no longer access to freedom and society, and hopefully thinks about his crime, perhaps feels remorse.
He will have a lot of explaining to do, not only to his own conscious, but also to his family.

Polycarp,
Since you’re new to the discussion I’m curious what your main reason is for being pro capital punishment?