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?