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!