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.