One thing most agree on is that the punishment often doesn't fit the crime.

Imagine a system where the absolute minimum for murder is 20 years, no parole and you only get out after 20 if you have behaved.

Then, this time increases depending the age of your victim.

Say a person murders a 10 year old and, that 10 year old could reasonablly be expected to live to age 85, this would mean they were robbed of 75 years, so, in this case unless you were ten yourself, you would never be released.

A 30 YO would mean you would spend at least 55 years, and so on.

At least this may act as a better deterrent, especially when kids are murdered, but I must stress, this shoukd only apply to cold murder, where there is no circumstantial situations.

Personally, I would prefer they were done away with. But that's another issue.

Treat each case on its merits. No mandatory sentencing.

Harsh penalties? Yes, definitely.

But let’s be very careful about mitigating circumstances and definitely not lump all murderers immediately into the worst of the worst category.

There are worse things than murdering someone. For example, Rudd’s opening up of onshore asylum seeking, which indirectly (well, actually pretty directly) has cost the lives of hundreds of people. And yet he is probably going to become Labor’s next leader and our next PM after Abbot!!

Rehctub, with much respect, I think that the criteria that you are talking about for judging the severity of a murder and hence the length of a sentence is entirely the wrong sort of thing to base a judgement on.

It can certainly be a small part of it, but there are so many other things to consider, in every murder case.

I can’t imagine that the severity of the sentence would have much to do at all with deterrence. I mean, even the minimum sentence is a huge deal for anyone.

Unfortunately the idiotic evolution fantasy leads many to believe that the life of a human is the same as that of an animal. That is why murdering the unborn is okay to many and the murdering of others often receive small sentences. The more secular we have become the cheaper a life has become.

Nice plug on the subject of anti abortion runner.

Perhaps when a child celebrates it's first birthday, three months after birth, you could call it murder.

Ludwig, as I said in my post, each case has to be evaluated.

About the only thing I agree with with the Seppo's is degree's of offence. I think there's so many types of murder that each need to fall within a few different classes. I think 15 years for intentionally taking a life is nuts and I agree it needs to be harsher. I think sentencing here is lacking right across the board.

I don't believe in the death penalty. It's too final, and the coppers don't always get it right. One innocent person executed is too much and I think that would corrupt the system. I would have no faith in them if that happened. It isn't worth the risk.

Ludwig has it right.
We must allow some differences exist.
I can not ignore runner, I should but the task is too much.
I find his stance bigoted.
And think religions, all of them, have twisted humanity's ability to consider how we best handle so very much including this subject.
Increasingly as western world distances its self from its traditional God, a day will come that sees other fantasy's grow to replace them.
Christians do not like my views, do not give consideration to this question.
Why so many Gods, so many creators.
SURELY if God created this world, and every thing on it, he never needed so many names and faces?