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.