For Australia to NOT have the death penalty as an option is absurd.

The death penalty has nothing to do with crime deterrent or revenge but is
simply the absolute insurance that we the community are protected from any
possible repeat crimes by the person concerned.
The persons who have committed the worst crimes & have demonstrated total, premeditated disregard for fellow human beings,have without question, lost their rights.
Housing & feeding these worst offenders for life is simply not justice.
The death penalty must be reinstated throughout Australia.

Oh YEAH, and let's send the families the bill for the bullets and harvest the organs of the executed......not.

If one innocent gets executed I vote we get to execute a member of your family to balance the Chi.

<<The persons who have committed the worst crimes & have demonstrated total, premeditated disregard for fellow human beings,have without question, lost their rights.>>

Sorry I am questioning that. Even by your standards they still would have rights. Unless you would condone torturing them to death perhaps. Starve them for a while first. Deny them their right to legal representation?

"the absolute insurance that we the community are protected from any
possible repeat crimes by the person concerned."

A most ridiculous argument. What crimes? They havent been committed yet. I fear for a world that would hang someone for what they might do at some point in the future. No one would be safe. The whole concept is ludicrous and shows how little you have thought out your argument.

Not to mention the number of innocents who have been murdered by the state in the past. We hardly trust them to govern us let alone hold our lives in their hands. Bugger that.
The arguments against the death penalty are many and were all sorted out many years ago. Go do some research on why we got rid of it.

The main overiding reason to reject the death penalty is that it is barbaric and inhuman and we are (supposedly) civilised and reasoned people not barbarians who solve our problems with killing and violence.
Or are we?

That logical path will lead you into all sorts of places you might not want to go, waswassa.

>>The death penalty has nothing to do with crime deterrent or revenge but is simply the absolute insurance that we the community are protected from any possible repeat crimes by the person concerned.<<

Similarly, the cutting off of hands is absolute insurance that we the community are protected from any possible repeat crimes by the person concerned.

Also, if we are prepared to allow the state to kill people on our behalf, why would we not allow ourselves the same privilege? Find the murderer, hunt him/her down, and put a bullet through their head.

What's the difference?

I guess murder is easier to justify to yourself, if someone else is doing it for you.

The death penalty has certainly made Singapore a safer place for men, women and children. Only those in denial would try and argue that it has not saved lives. Humanism always leads to misplaced compassion where more innocents get hurt and killed.

But Australia does at least have the death penalty by proxy: You tell the police that you believe that one of your kids is going to be a drug mule. The police tell you that all will be well and that your child will not be allowed to leave the country. The police then make no effort to stop the would be drug mule and instead put your kid under surveillance and tip off the law enforcement authorities in the country for which your child is headed. As there is no agreement as to where the arrest will take place, the police in Australia have effectively taken a course of action which could subject an Australian citizen to the death penalty. All legal apparently.

So, in a country in which the death penalty is prohibited, it is possible for a public authority to subject a citizen to the death penalty in another country. That stinks enough, but it is actually worse than that, because for a piece of filth who commits a vile crime here and gets a total joke of a sentence in an Australian court, the authorities will not provide evidence to another country if such evidence could result in a death sentence for that person.

Talk about twisted morality.

Runner please, this is the person that writes regularly of your god and religious standing. how can you possibly agree with the death penalty. Who do you think you are GOD.
Simple question, can you give life? then don't be in a hurry to take it.

No to death penalty ever runner would you agree?

Runner

Singapore's death penalty is an example of the last ritualised human sacrifice remaining in many modern civilisations. What purpose does killing a person actually serve? In the case of drug prohibition it does great harm to humanity by greatly increasing crime and associated injury to people: A death penalty merely increases the price of the prohibited commodity further and amplifies the crime and human suffering. How is that useful?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/16/drugs-decriminalisation-doctor-ian-gilmore

I am horrified by the death penalty even being considered.

We have seen far too many people found to be innocent of murder years after their convictions, to ever be absolutely sure that they committed a murder.

As far as I am concerned, we condone the actions of murder if we condone the execution of murderers.

I don't think we can hold the Indonesian Legal System up as a shining example to us at all. They are considering executing a 19 year old Australian for being a drug mule in Bali, but an elderly Indonesian Muslim Cleric convicted of planning terrorist bombs that killed dozens of people, is not even jailed for long.

I fully support a 'death penilty' in Australia,

BUT!
Only ever when the offender has been caught 'red handed' by the authorities, commiting a 'pre-meditated' murder. No exceptions what so ever.

You can only ever take a life, if one has been taken.

What if the crime was a result of a mental disorder?.

We're all assuming that all horrendous crime is a result of sane people making atrocious decisions for other reason that to cause pain. Unfortunately criminology ain't that simple.

The law is based on intent. I'm not saying serious mental issues are an excuse for crime, but it can be a reason. Considering the intent side of the law - which is the absolute guts of Australian law - how can you say with ABSOLUTE certainty that this person was in complete control of their faculties before the crime, even if it appears that way?. You can't.

Agree with the points on principle- but the risk of killing the wrong guy isn't worth it.
Life without parole, apparently, would cost about the same.

I am pretty sure that the US has a higher murder rate than Australia. The US also has the death penalty (in most states), while Australia does not. So does the death penalty makes life safer? Apparently not.

Many Australians (including me) are descended from people who were sentenced to death for minor offences, the equivalent of being a dumb drug mule today, but then reprieved and transported. Most convicts became law-abiding citizens. Descendants of convicts became pillars of society - successful businessmen, doctors, scientists, writers, artists, musicians, teachers, farmers, members of parliament. I'm sure some also became crooks (as did some non-convict settlers).

It's easy to say oh that was then, and we'd only execute the worst murderers today. Lindy Chamberlain, maybe?

The justice system is not perfect and there have been cases of death penalties being applied only to find out later the person was innocent. We've seen that with racial profiling in the US in particular.

Life imprisonment is not only a deterrent but also assures us that the perpetrator is behind bars for life with no option for parole - in the worst of cases.

Decisions about capital punishment are not
really about deterrence. They're 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.

People will continue to remain divided on this
issue.

Having said that, I must admit that I don't know
how I would feel if someone took the life of
one of my family members in cold blood. I hope
that I would be strong enough not to demand an
"eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but
I simply don't know how I'd react.

The DEATH PENALTY IS BARBARIC. I for one do not condone anyone being executed. A prime example is Australia's last legal sanctioned execution, "Ronald Ryan", who was hanged by the neck until dead. Over the years since his execution there have been elements of doubt as to his guilt of the crime he was executed for. In my opinion it is better for 10 guilty people to spend their lives in prison than to execute 1 innocent person. There have been many documented cases of victims being executed only to have new evidence arise to prove the executed victim was innocent of the crime.

I have no problem at all with the Ivan Millats of this world winning the death penalty. There is NO rehabilitating a serial killer. So why house, feed and maintain them in prison for the rest of their lives? The Travis brothers and their cohorts that killed Anita Cobby in such mind-numbingly horrific fashion, are also a waste of space.

For the serial killer, or "predator" as they're known, jail is only placing their activities on "pause". If you are deemed to be a "predator", there are only 2 solutions...imprisonment for the rest of your natural life, or the death penalty. That's it! I've studied these people a bit, and they are truly perversely sick people...for many of them, the act of killing is a sexual turn-on. They are constantly on the prowl for victims, and on the days that they don't find one, they often return to the site where they have buried a previous victim, and masturbate over the grave.

As it was correctly stated, jail is not a deterrent, nor is the death penalty. The death penalty just relieves the society of the unresolvable problem. "Corrective Services" isn't called that because it "corrects" flaws in people, but it corrects society by removing
"flaws" from it.

As far as an innocent person being put to death, with the forensic science now available and the appeals that are allowed, an innocent person is highly unlikely to be convicted. It's not impossible, but it's highly improbable.

The sanctity of human life only works when others also believe in it. It doesn't work on those that have no regard, and predators certainly have no regard for it, so why should we of them? It's a nonsense. The planet is over-crowded, but we're concerned with the death penalty of predators?!? Or, to put it in another context, most people are okay with sending troops overseas to kill people for oil, but we shy away from executing serial-killers?!? HELLO? Is anyone awake out there? Or is it the wonderful hypocrisy that we can accept "collateral damage" to others, but not to our own?

"most people are okay with sending troops overseas to kill people for oil, but we shy away from executing serial-killers?!?"

Perhaps government perceives a much greater threat to our civilisation from terrorism than it does from people who commit other horrible crimes.

For me, to justify a death penalty I would have to justify the state ending my own life against my will. I cannot do that so I dont support capital punishment. That might seem selfish, but I also have concerns that poor policy choices, such as the death penalty, can kill people other than serious felons and the wrongly convicted, and devalue life.

As an example, the terrorist cells in Afghanistan that are subject to lethal military force from many foreign powers, are in part funded by the opium trade. The value of opium is a consequence of its illegality and the punitive measures, including capital punishment, used to suppress the trade. So it could be argued that capital punishment, as a component of drug prohibition, is causing the death of Australians in Afghanistan, as well as incurring the substantial cost of supporting a military campaign in a foreign country.

In short…the heroin trade finances the enemy, and America needs an enemy to fight to both justify the Industrial Military Complex, and at the same time, utilize that complex to attain resources for a consumer-driven economy of excess. That means, the heroin trade must be fostered, not eliminated. Otherwise, if there were no bad guys in the world, who would you fight, and how would you justify trillions of dollars spent in arms per year by one country alone, which just also happens to be the largest consumer of everything, except sushi and haggis, on the planet.

When America first invaded Afghanistan, I was watching an episode of Foreign Correspondent and the reporters encountered a poppy-field being GUARDED by US troops. When asked why they were guarding instead of destroying that poppy-field, the response was, “Oh, we’re not here to destroy the local economy, but to protect it.”

Since protecting Afghanistan’s local economy, 90% of the world’s heroin comes from that economy.

During the Vietnam War, 90% of the world’s heroin came from the Golden Triangle…Laos, Cambodia and Thailand, where the CIA were, but the Vietcong weren’t. But it financed the Nth Vietnamese, the Chinese AND the Americans.

Are we starting to see a trend here?

With heroin financing the enemy and buying arms, arms are sold to the enemy, sold to the government to fight the enemy, and all justify other political expediencies that we called “the Communist invasion” during Vietnam, or the “terrorist insurgents” in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroin trade both directly and indirectly works hand-in-hand with the arms business and the politics of the region, and facilitates a lot of the propaganda for both sides.

TBC...

Without something like the heroin trade financing our “enemies”, who lately always just happen to be Third World countries with no chance of a “fair fight”, we would just basically walk in and take what we want. But then we look like bad guys to our own populace and that we are bullying little guys. With something like a heroin trade that finances a few fanatics and freedom fighters, with a bit of disinformation, we easily look like good guys coming to the aid of a fledgling country undergoing problems…well, that’s the picture they like to paint to us, anyway. Yet we never do this where there isn’t oil close by, or some political strategic value or resource. Hence we let Mugabe in Zimbabwe murder people for over 20 years and do nothing to help those “misfortunates”. Ergo, it’s all BS!

And finally, ponder this…how do you think all of that heroin gets to the West from some stone-age hick with no electricity or running water in the middle of nowhere? Do you think Habib loads a camel with heroin and treks to New York?!? Or during Vietnam, how did it get from Laos to LA? Who is it that makes that product a lucrative product, but a lucrative market? And who has the freedom of travel to and from those makers and markets? If you think it’s just a few drug dealers and their “mules”, then think again.

Welcome to American Foreign Policy 101…nothing is as it seems.

Fester,
Your view that our troops are merely sent overseas to kill is misinformation. They are there to protect the innocent and assist in establishing a peaceful society against the murderers. They will kill those that threaten the peace. Look at East Temor, Afganistan etc.

The problem with death penalties is where to draw the line over when to enforce and when not to enforce it. I'm sure many people could draw a line, it is drawable for most people. But that line is also different for most.

If we had a death penalty, who would get to say when it was enforced? Would this be likely to change depending on the political seasons?

We as a country are safer off without one.

@Bugsy, "The problem with death penalties is where to draw the line over when to enforce and when not to enforce it. I'm sure many people could draw a line, it is drawable for most people. But that line is also different for most."

So indecision is the answer? The problem you cite is the same for absolutely everything in life, and so is not an answer. A jury of 12 peers can decide that fate.

"If we had a death penalty, who would get to say when it was enforced? Would this be likely to change depending on the political seasons?"

It's not that big a problem. The legal system is well adept at determining these things as they have done in the past. We had the death penalty until 1967 when Ronald Ryan was hung. Plus there are models to follow and/or adapt from other countries that currently have the death penalty such as many States in America.

"We as a country are safer off without one."

I don't know whether we are safer or not as a country. But for the area that the offender formally resided in, it's not just safer that they are in jail, but psychologically, it's safer when they are executed when the crime is heinous enough. And as I said earlier in the case of predators, there's no such thing as rehabilitation, jail merely puts their activities on pause. The families of the victims of these people, I believe, deserve closure. Not be mocked from a cell or live in the fear of release.

And if they're never going to see the light of day again, why keep them for decades in a prison?

Or let me put it another way...should there be the death penalty for a war crime? And most war crimes pertain to the killing of innocents, so conceptually, what's the difference between killing a few innocents in a war, and killing a few during peace-time?

So IMO, if I can be hung for a war crime, then I can be hung for a peace-time crime of similar magnitude.

I don't have any problem with the notion of the death penalty for certain crimes. However, I have no confidence that the judicial and penal systems would get it right all the time.

I mean, it's not as if innocent people aren't sometimes convicted of serious crimes, only to be vindicated many years down the track, is it?

We can all think of examples like Milat where the death penalty would not be easy to support in principle.

But once you have the death penalty it can be abused for political purposes and then it won't only be the Ivan Milat's who are killed by the State. In some countries like the US the death penalty in some States is highly politicised and judgements under that sort of hollowmen environment is too risky IMO.

We should have a death penalty.
After several years in prison a sex crime prisoner was said to be unfit for release, no reform had taken place.
What they are doing now is bulding a house for him inside the prison,
This has got to be a sure case for the death penalty.
After 25 years this man has threatened sex crimes against kids if released.

@MindlessCruelty

Indecision? No. Your comment seems to display a certain naiveté about the justice system in Australia. Juries determine guilt or innocence, they do not sentence the convicted, that is done only by judges. Individuals. Then the question becomes, which judge will enforce and when? In the US some judges are seen to be much harsher than others.

When I commented that we as country are safer, I did not actually have in mind being safer from criminals, but rather the state, and under that the 'system'. Our children travelling overseas are safer also. At the trial of Australian citizens overseas, eg Shappelle Corby the Australian Government is able to lobby for stays of execution or non-death penalty punishments, because we as a country are opposed to the death penalty. This would not be the case otherwise.

It will be the case that sometimes our citizens will be the target of foreign politics, eg. whenever the government of of a country wants to 'crack down' on foreign offenders, even if there is enough doubt under our own standards.

I think we are all safer without it.

I've come across some interesting data on
the death penalty as is applied in the US.
It's taken from Ian Robertson's, "Sociology,"
and in it he tells us that:

"the death penalty
often fails to deter, as presently applied because
no punishment is less swift or less certain..."

It seems that in the US a death sentence is never
carried out immediately: to minimize the chance of an
innocent person being executed, courts permit an
elaborate review process that sometimes lasts a
decade or more. And far from being a certain
punishment for murder, the death sentence is almost
certain not to be given or applied. According to Robertson
only about 5 percent of convicted murderers arrive on
death row, and many of them will never be executed.
Most convicted murderers are sentenced to "Life"
imprisonment - but in a recent Bureau of Justice
Statistics survey it was found that more than half of them
serve less than seven years behind bars.

Who are the unlucky few who do get sentenced to death
or even executed? According to Robertson - it depends
on the state. 90 percent of all executions have taken
place in the South, and 75 percent have occurred in just
four states - Floridda, Texas, Georgia, Louisiana.
Another factor is the ability to afford a skilled lawyer,
more than 90 percent of death-row inmates apparently
are so poor that they have to rely on court-appointed
defenders. The other factor is the race of the homicide
victim. In the US, people are four times more likely
to die for murdering a white as for murdering a black -
in fact, Robertson tells us that 96 percent of those
on death row killed whites - and about 70 percent of the
blacks awaiting execution murdered a white person.

In theory, it would be
possible to make death the swift and certain punishment
for homicide - but that would involve the specter of about
fifty executions in the US every day of the year.
Something without parallel or precedent in a civilized
society.

I believe in the death penalty "if" both the judge and the executioners are legally forced to take responsibility for the execution. In other words, if at a later date the executed person is found to in fact be innocent beyond doubt .......... then the judge and executioners should be executed for murder.

If we expect criminals to take responsibility for their murders, then we should apply the same standards to the sentencing Judge and the executioners.

Normally, the ONLY reason why executions are able take place is because those responsible for the executions are permitted to bear NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER for the execution.

How many judges/executioners would be prepared to send a person to the gallows if they know that they would also be executed, if the executed person is actually shown to be innocent in the future? Not ONE I bet.

By the way, I'm playing the devil's advocate, in case anyone hasn't guessed. But I think the point is still valid actually.

Innocent people have been tried convicted and executed, that is enough reason to not institute a death penalty. IMO life in prison should be life, a 10 year sentence should be ten years, truth in sentencing is the issue and the convict should be employed within the prison 8 hours a day six days a week. Rather than taking their life, make their life one of servitude until their death.

@Bugsy," Your comment seems to display a certain naiveté about the justice system in Australia. Juries determine guilt or innocence, they do not sentence the convicted, that is done only by judges. Individuals. Then the question becomes, which judge will enforce and when? In the US some judges are seen to be much harsher than others."

And you seek to display an authority that you don't have, by manipulating what I said. I didn't say that juries sentence, but that they can determine the fate. I said the legal system is adept at making these determinations. Naivety from me? No, but from you that are afraid of decision...the fear of an unfair decision. I bet you're neurotic!

You then fall back on your original comment of differing people having differing views. Tell us something we don't know! Currently in Australia we imprison aboriginals disproportionately than whites. At no time did I suggest that any system is perfect, for they can't be with people running them. Based upon your (ir)rationale, we should not imprison anyone for a crime, as it might not be fair.

If you're scared of the death penalty, then you must be scared of all penalties based upon that exact rationale...it might not be fair. Gee, we might be human and get something wrong! Shudder!

Grow up!

I note everyone selectively avoided answering the war crime question. Too conflicting for you, is it? Then I say again, grow up! These decisions are not meant to be easy. I may sound as if I take the issue lightly, but I don't.

TBC...

@benq, making judges liable for a poor decision...ridiculous! You want to hold a judge liable for a decision made that is dependent upon good/bad police and detective work and the findings of a jury after listening to a set of legal eagles, and then hold the judge solely responsible?!? That's stupid!

People, you need to grow up and both understand and accept that people are human and so make mistakes. No system can cure that. Fear of a wrongfully applied penalty is not a legitimate fear, for the vast majority of the time, they get it right.

Perfection is for fantasy-land and neurotics who have no grasp upon reality, but base their entire existence upon unsubstantiated irrational fears...the fear of consequence always being primary in their listings, and something not being fair, being the second primary fear.

Some perspective...

The death penalty is NOT meant to be a deterrent...just as locks on your front doors are not deterrents for thieves, but merely remove temptation away from "honest" people. The prisons are NOT rehabilitation centres, but are PRISONS that confine the movements of convicted criminals, and does more to educate criminals and create networks for activity on the outside upon release, than anything else, or acts as a holding centre for the mildly mentally retarded that can't get away with a petty theft. They're not hospitals from which people get better from an illness, nor a deterrent for crime as evidenced by every society. They are for the removal of problems from society. The death penalty is permanent removal, in contrast to temporary.

Ummmm mindless, as stated I was being devil's advocate. Do you know what "devil's advocate" means?

Of course, if we don't agree, we have to grow up. We don't agree, so we are neurotic.

What if I grow up and still don't agree?

Get over yourself.

@benq, being indignant for talking swill, cuts no ice, devil's advoctae or not.

@Bugsy, if the shoe fits, wear it. Try addressing the content rather than the hyperbole, which I admit to being prone to. I'll try to be less judgmental, if you try to address the issue. I can agree to disagree, but surely you can put forward a better argument than the fear of error, since humans will always make errors. And the politicization of the death penalty, for the small percentage of the population that would be considered for this penalty, I believe also to be relatively insignificant.

@Bugsy & Benq and all...would you like to attempt to address the war crime parrallel?...if I can be hung for killing a few inocents during war, why can't I be hung for killing a few innocents during peace? Where is the consistancy of penalty for the equal magnitude of crime?

Military personnel are judged by military law in courts martial and not by jury. That being said, I haven't noticed too many Australians being on trial for war crimes lately. The last time I heard of someone being hung for war crimes, they were done so by a country that had the death penalty, ususally their own (eg. Saddam). I don't think that this line of argument is relevant, unless you could show me that an Australian court martialled for war crimes within Australia would be sentenced to death?

I do not live in fear of error, and have not used this in my argument. That is your presumption. I don't like what the death penalty does to societies and the attitudes to crime it fosters in people that have it.

One of the major arguments for the death penalty is precisely that it acts as a deterrent, although I am sceptical of that and you openly admit that you also think that it is not meant to be. The argument about deterring "honest people" is exceptionally weak. If prisons are not for rehabilitation, then why do they try and engage in rehabilitation? If they are not correctional facilities, where we at least attempt to study and to change the ways of the criminally minded, why have them at all? You seem to have (rather flippantly in my opinion) made up your mind as to the nature of correctional facilities, although the debate has been ongoing for hundreds of years and still continues.

I agree they are not hospitals for the mentally ill, even though they are increasingly being used as such in the US, such is the woeful state of their health care system.

What I am concerned about is that once you have a death penalty, even if only introduced to punish the most vile of offenders, that the goalposts can be shifted. In the world today there are countries that execute people for alcohol consumption. I know it would not be likely to happen here, but how do you ensure that the goalposts stay where they are?

I dont have a problem with the death penalty, so long as I get to choose who is dispatched and how. For example, cyclists tend to congregate together around bicycle shops and lycra distributors, and so powerful explosives are required. whereas your more garden type of offender just needs a few bullets in the head.

Philo

"Your view that our troops are merely sent overseas to kill is misinformation. They are there to protect the innocent and assist in establishing a peaceful society against the murderers."

I am concerned by all deaths, but was thinking more about the death of Australian troops as this thread is about whether or not Australia should have a death penalty. In this context I was arguing that policies like drug prohibition can kill Australians, such as Australian troops in Afghanistan.

MC

I cannot pretend to understand the CIA, so I confine myself to considering the consequences of drug prohibition on the less conspiratorial level of harm minimisation.

Out of interest, were you sitting on death row a few minutes before your execution for a crime you were wrongly convicted of, would you resent the state the ability to end your life against your will, or would you be more philosophical and at least be happy that the state gets it right most of the time? Would you sign up and be an organ donor?

I think sonofgloin nailed it here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3921#96650

'Nuff said.

Talk about twisted morality.
Spot-on Fester,
It's this twisted morality that is the cause of it all. Our academic goodie gooders drafted up ALL these laws which make criminal activity a viable option rather than a deterrent. Then, when those criminals get bailed up in a country which tells you up front that you'll jeopardise your life with drug trafficking those same goodie gooders scream blue murder.
I for one would be extremely dismayed at an innocent being put to death but I am also extremely dismayed at criminals being treated better than their victims. I know from first hand experience how it feels to be handed the short end of the stick by some useless bureaucrats. However, if there is indisputable evidence of some heinous crime then take the perpetrator off the planet. If this means that some crims get away with their deed then so be it because sooner or later they'll get caught again as the loopholes will only encourage them to have another go.

Our near neighbour has the death penalty, but lets face it how on the ball are they? 3 years jail for blowing innocent people up in the name of religion, and 20 years jail for a bag of weed (admittedly it was a large bag). Now I see the folks described as "convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby", but on the other hand "Drug mule Scott Rush". The fact remains, if the pot got through it would be no real problem but if the heroin got through several people would die. Just make them take their own product, and the responsibility is their own once more.

@Bugsy, good response. Thanks.

“I do not live in fear of error, and have not used this in my argument. That is your presumption. I don't like what the death penalty does to societies and the attitudes to crime it fosters in people that have it. “

Didn’t you say you were concerned about a wrongful conviction? Isn’t that error?

What is it that the death penalty “fosters” within societies? What attitudes are developed?

“One of the major arguments for the death penalty is precisely that it acts as a deterrent, although I am sceptical of that and you openly admit that you also think that it is not meant to be.”

Yes, it’s a misconception that I believe has been used in a political context as an over-simplified argument for the masses. An interesting stat…at the time that Howard revoked our ability to possess fire-arms, introducing stringent gun laws, would you like to take a quick guess as to what weapon was responsible for 60% of the murders in Oz? Ponder a minute…I’ll give you the answer…the Wiltshire Stay-Sharp Knife. Statistically, it should have been those knives that were banned, not guns…but I’m being facetious. The point is, it demonstrates that certainly 60% of the murders committed were crimes of passion…on-the-spot decisions. They were not planned or pre-meditated, but spontaneous. No thought about consequences or deterrents have even had time to enter the person’s head. Much of the crime that is committed is without thought, and more often than not, an emotional response to some perceived aggravation.

So prison is not a deterrent, but a consequence of actions, whether considered or not. As demonstrated, many decisions are not considered, but are made in the heat of the moment. As I suggested, neither is the death penalty a deterrent. The death penalty is a consequence for heinous actions, to permanently remove a problem from society. Let’s call it what it is. I’m no fan of political correctness, in fact, I detest it.

TBC...

But if I was a politician saying what I am, how much support would I receive? A few fringe-dwellers and rednecks, probably. So we concoct titles like Corrective Services, rather than Dungeons Incorporated. We don’t like to call it what it is, we like to dress it up (admittedly, I dressed it down). I’m not disabled, I’m gifted, or I’m special. It’s positive spin. We don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings…well, no-one that might vote for us, anyway. We use words that people want to hear. “Prison” says what it is,,,confinement in cells. How can that possibly connote “corrective” in any other way than, “that’ll fix ‘em for doing it!” As if confining someone in a cell can have any rehabilitative effect. But we call the same thing Corrective Services, and it must be so, for the name suggests it.

“The argument about deterring "honest people" is exceptionally weak.”

Not at all. Ask anyone that works in security. Door locks are predominately a joke, and do nothing to protect the home from a professional thief. Only amateurs and the average person. Put it this way, if you live in a conventional home with tiles on the roof, why would I use the door to gain entry? There’s absolutely nothing to prevent me coming in through the roof in most houses. Depending upon what it is I’m stealing, will determine the exit. And most alarms are nothing but toys to the professional thief. BTW, I’m not a thief, but in my profession, sometimes mix with bad company.:-)

“If prisons are not for rehabilitation, then why do they try and engage in rehabilitation?”

And what might that rehabilitation be? And before you answer, let me tell you that I work in mental health, and have worked in the prison system. So please elucidate. Let me also tell you that it was only 10 years ago that the first psychologist was employed by the juvenile justice system to work full-time in one of their centres in Sydney. Otherwise, it was, and still is, basically nothing but a holding area.

TBC...

There’s no programs of any substance occurring, and the ones that are, are limited and basically only with those detainees that will co-operate…very few.

The mental health staff there, are there only to assess potential self-harm/suicide risks, other psychiatric symptoms, and administer medications. They don’t run programs. They ensure relative stability.

“If they are not correctional facilities, where we at least attempt to study and to change the ways of the criminally minded, why have them at all? You seem to have (rather flippantly in my opinion) made up your mind as to the nature of correctional facilities, although the debate has been ongoing for hundreds of years and still continues.”

Flippant…I can see how you perceive that. I’m more crusty than flippant. After 30 years in my industry, I’m entitled to be jaded and cynical, and am usually quite strongly opinionated. Of course, that doesn’t make me necessarily right, but I’m just letting you know what I’m like.

“Correctional facilities”...are by name and not by function. It sounds nicer than Dept. of Prisons. Just like “madness” used to be an official term, today is an insult. We change euphemisms to represent departments. DOCs is a wonderful example of this…it’s first incantation was Youth And Community Services (YACS), but its name became synonymous with incompetence, so they changed their name, but not the management, to Family And Community Services (FACS), but retained their reputation, so changed again to Department of Community Services (DOCS) which then spawned Department of Aged, Disabilities & Health Care (DADHC), which has recently changed again to just ADHC. In 25 years they’ve had more names than average spy, and are even more incompetent than they were 25 years ago, but now the incompetence is systemic. But that’s another story.

My moniker of MindlessCruelty is chosen on the basis of what bureaucracies are to mental health…mindless cruelty. DOCS, ADAHC and Corrective Services would be amongst that lot.

TBC...

“I agree they are not hospitals for the mentally ill, even though they are increasingly being used as such in the US, such is the woeful state of their health care system.”

Welcome to Australia. We’re already headed well down that path. We already use an American company for the detention centres used for asylum seekers and boat-people. I know as I applied for a job at one...the contract they sent out was something you would have to see to believe, which is why I didn’t go, but it was with an American company. There was recently a tender by an American company to take-over our prisons in NSW. They’re just working out how to sell the privatisation of the prison system to the public, I suppose. But I was receiving e-mails from friends working in a jail about a petition against this very thing.

As far as studying the criminal mind…there’s more than plenty to go around, and for the very few that would face the death penalty, with the legal system and appeals, insanity pleas et al, there’s more than enough time in most cases. It’s not often that you strike something really NEW. The surprises are to the uninitiated, but after about 10 years or so, you don’t see too much that’s new.

“how do you ensure that the goalposts stay where they are?”

We can’t, nor should we. Societies change over time, as do attitudes towards many human activities. We had the death penalty, and now we don’t. We had a social shift in attitude. The time may come where we shift again…it only takes an event that outrages the community enough for them to demand its return, or a charismatic politician to push the point. In that sense, society is fickle, but that’s human nature and the nature of collectives. So I don’t believe it should be a concern for us, unless of course individually we feel strongly enough and decide to agitate for a change in policy. My agitation is not THAT strong. I just have an opinion that differs from current trend.

MindlessCruelty, you do realise that everything 'said' here is all written down and you can actually go back and check who said what?

I did not say I was concerned about a wrongful conviction. I don't know where you got that from. This is at least the second time that you have repeated the same mistake even after I corrected you. Never mind. Next time eh?

I say the argument about deterring 'honest' people is weak, because 'honest' people generally do not need deterring.

If prisons are nothing but a holding area, no deterrent and no rehabilitation, then why do we have them? To make 'honest' people feel safer, even though this must be an illusion? All your complaint about the current and previous state of the prison system is legitimate, however you do not give an alternative, except death for the bad murderers of course. I get the sense that you think that the prisons do nothing, quite likely so, but that maybe they could do something? Or is there no hope that the prison system could be even marginally effective at any stage?

This is still beside my other point in that supporting the death penalty greatly weakens our position when arguing against it to countries that use for what we consider relatively minor offences.

But I take your point, my agitation to mainatin teh status quo is not very active either, because it's the status quo and not likely to change any time soon, at least for Australia, which is just the way I like it.

I tend to agree with Bugsy. Prison is meant to be deterrent and a punishment as I see it and with some small hope for rehabilitation (which also crosses into the deterrent aspect). The rehabilitaive aspect is certainly debatable and I would suspect not possible for many too far gone.

Prisons keep dishonest people out of society so they can do no more harm and that is fine with me.

The death penalty aspect is it's potential to be politicised and used as propoganda which increases the probability of wrongful death penalty sentencing.

I don't think we should minimise the 'mistake' aspect of a death penalty or diminish it's effects not only to the family of the accused but to the victim's family and to the greater public.

PatTheBogan makes a great point about governance in relation to the death penalty and where in some countries the death penalty is imposed too readily for 'political' reasons, clearly demonstrated by the contrast in harsher penalties for smuggling dope than for terrorism.

clearly demonstrated by the contrast in harsher penalties for smuggling dope than for terrorism.
Pelican,
Drugs cause way more harm than the occasional terrorist. Let's face it it's drugs which cause so many to become so intolerable that some people simply say stuff it & take radical action. Then we blame those who take action & mollycoddle those who cause this retaliation.
Don't for one moment fool yourself into thinking that terrorists are necessarily "bad". Most so-called terrorist attacks are simply a retaliation. If you have a bad Govt then you can vote it out but you can't vote bad bureaucrats out with it, they remain & continue to cause suffering with impunity. They are the "real" terrorists not the bloke next door who is being driven to the end of the tether. I could think of quite a few bureaucrats who should be sent to Bali with some weed in their packs. Have you ever thought how many lives are destroyed by bureaucrats ? Are you aware of how many people are driven to suicide because of bureaucrats ? No one talks about this death penalty for innocents here.

@Individual, "Have you ever thought how many lives are destroyed by bureaucrats?"

Mate, come the revolution, the bureacrats are first against the wall! With you and me having our choice of spot and weapon in the firing-squad. I couldn't agree more.

@Pericles, the politicizing of the death penality is inevitable as it is with any issue...we're politicizing over it now. As far as the death penalty for dope, that's in Muslim countries and unless you're thinking that we're about to turn predominately Muslim and for that to effect our political decisions, then it's not a realistic point.

About prison being a deterrent...didn't you notice the stat I provided about at least 60% of murders being crimes of passion? Plus, you need to appreciate that there are entire sub-cultures that don't give a rats about "doing a bit of time". It's not a deterrent other than to honest people. It's certainly not a deterrent to anyone that believes they're so smart that they can get away with the crime they are committing, which is human nature, that we all believe we're smarter than the next guy and the system. How can it be a deterrent to someone that believes they're smarter than the system? Otherwise no-one would cheat on their taxes, grab a free train-ride or newspaper, shop-lift and the myriad of petty crimes that are perpetrated each day, let alone major crimes.

Rehab: I have worked in the system. Trust me when I say it is nonexistant. Fallacy. Not even the facade of it. Just in name only of the title Corrective Services.

Finally, I would suggest this...it's not prison acting as a deterrent that prevents us from killing someone else for trite reasons. It's our own sense of right and justice that prevents us. Most of us, regardless of society, are relatively peace-loving, which is why "society" works so well and survives on not much more than tacit approval with a little governance.

Individual
Well I do have to agree with you about the drugs aspect but don't see how someone like Corby can get 20 years while those involved in bombings are treated less like prisoners (some gaining hero status) and where sentences were reduced. I did not intend my previous post to imply support of drug peddlers.

My intention was to indicate the potential dilemmas in States where death penalties are legitimised.

Ignorant and self-serving bureaucrats may cause harm but so can ignorant and self-serving businessmen, social workers and politicians etal.

Plenty of people have the potential to cause harm but we as individuals also can choose what to do about that and how we respond. We can do nothing or we can use what we have at our legitimate disposal to ensure accountability.

It is a bit difficult though if one has been sentenced to death and can no longer fight on to clear their name.

Pelican,
no argument from me there. Yes Corby is extreme & I don't really know why she had the stuff. Apparently she still claims not guilty & refused to plead guilty to get the President's leniency. That should make anyone think. Were I this President I would pardon her for that stance alone. The Bali 9 are a totally different kettle of fish. They did it with the full benefit of Corby's publicity & clearly outline risk. I find it difficult to drum up sympathy there but of course I feel for the parents.

"it's not prison acting as a deterrent that prevents us from killing someone else for trite reasons. It's our own sense of right and justice that prevents us."

You're having a lend of the forum, aren't you, MC. So you are suggesting that a group of kids growing up in isolation would naturally form a lovey-dovey Utopia? More like Lord of the Flies I would think.

But I guess that is the way some think. It's all about "How to deal with them?" and "What to do with them?". Yes, we would all live in a perfect world unburdened with the law or prisons if not for "them".

Could I proffer the quaint ideas that no-one is perfect nor without hope of improving himself?

individual:>> I find it difficult to drum up sympathy there but of course I feel for the parents.<<

Indi, particularly because of the folks shelving the kid (and he is a kid) to the police. Who then told the feds who then told the Indonesians hence he got the death penalty because he was apprehended in Indonesia. The guilt must be intolerable, did they do the right thing, who the hell knows.

If you are rich/famous, you can do what you like. Drive around drunk, bash the missus, overdose in the car... pretty well anything you like as long as you can demonstrate you are somebody special. At the other end of town, poor people are being run through like cattle, represented by legal aid (uni students).

My guess, is that a lot of Aborigines and Lebanese people would be fried, but rich kids will be let off with a warning. Kind of like what happens in the States...

@Fester, “So you are suggesting that a group of kids growing up in isolation would naturally form a lovey-dovey Utopia? More like Lord of the Flies I would think.”

I didn’t say that it was innate and not without any conditioning. It’s a big topic to cover in 350 words. Sheesh! But heaven forbid that you should request clarification or elaboration, when making an asinine assumption is so convenient for you.

“Could I proffer the quaint ideas that no-one is perfect nor without hope of improving himself?”

Of course no-one is perfect. But everyone is not without hope of improving themselves? I appreciate your optimism, but that’s unfortunately not so. The vast majority yes, but there are some that are beyond self-improvement in relative terms for a variety of reasons, but mostly their own attitude towards life, the universe and everything, and their own personal history of social conditioning, before we get to any bio-physical abnormality. There is such a thing as the lost cause. As I said, admittedly, it’s a very small few, but they do exist, I assure you. I have worked in the institutions that house them, treat them, manage them, re-admit them, or house them permanently, and that’s not the prison system, but the mental health system. Even if we had perfect conditions and funding, we would have some “lost souls”, as that’s the nature of the variance in humanity.

Utopia? I’ve read Thomas More’s book, and it is the nature of humanity and its variance that this idyllic world cannot be so. It’s why Communism turns into totalitarianism, and why Capitalism turns into oligarchs ruling groups of nations. Systems are not corrupt, people are corrupt.

And finally, who is “them” that you so colourfully make other presumptions about?