@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.