The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Death Penalty as a Sentencing Option

Death Penalty as a Sentencing Option

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. ...
  12. 11
  13. 12
  14. 13
  15. All
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.
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 21 July 2008 4:35:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 21 July 2008 5:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Fractelle,

Welcome back!

Your wisdom has been sorely missed.

I hope you'll continue posting fo ages,
you're needed on this Forum!
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 21 July 2008 7:04:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Stuart Walker, Monday, 21 July 2008 9:40:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'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.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 9:28:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 3:27:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. ...
  12. 11
  13. 12
  14. 13
  15. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy