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.