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...