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.