Almost daily, we're assailed with media reports of yet another dreadful crime being occasioned against some innocent man, woman or child.

What is society's remedy ? If not a mandatory Death Penalty, for these heinous and atrocious crimes.

What other punishment is both available and appropriate ?

Personally, I DO NOT support the death penalty for any offence. I'm probably amongst only a small handful of ex police or law enforcement members who don't support such a draconian and vengeful punishment. Then perhaps I'm very wrong too ?

For many of you who DO advocate and endorse such a solution, how then ought it be carried out ? Apparently we're a very enlightened and civilized society. Therefore, what are the most humane methods available to a civilized society, in order to kill a human being ?

Hanging; electric chair; lethal injection; gas chamber; or something even more basic and economical, firing squad (Gary Gilmour, c.1980's Utah) ?

And what 'type' and gender of individual should be appointed to effect or perform such a punishment ? What amount of remuneration and benefits would be appropriate also, for such a onerous task ?

Is there ever a case to be mounted, for the NOK of the victim, to be permitted to carry out the punishment ?

Perhaps, even someone reading this humble thread, could be of a mind to lawfully execute another human being.

For those who are totally opposed to Capital Punishment in all it's forms, as I am, then what other penelty options does society have available to it ? A case for corporal punishment perhaps ? Singapore and Malaysia have it.

Consider for a moment, the enormous costs associated with keeping people like Martin Bryant or Julian Knight (Hoddle Street, Melbourne, who murdered seven innocent souls) in gaol for many years ? The yearly costs to the Taxpayer are astronomical, and climbing.

I read somewhere, a great sage once said, inter alia '...a civilized society can only be judged by the way it deals with it's wrongdoers...'. Easy to say, but is he/she correct ?

O sung wu,

This is not a new question, but you raise some interesting points.

My personal rule of thumb is that if I am not prepared to push the button or pull the trigger to rid the world of one more murderer, rapist or child molester, I should not expect anyone to do it on my behalf.

The suggestion of special financial recompense or benefits for anyone whose appointed task is to execute another person is, personally, abhorrent and is the first step down a slippery slope. If we brought back the death penalty for certain crimes in this country (which would never happen), then obviously there would be people appointed to carry out the task, and they would be paid for their ‘job’ just like anyone else. But to make the job ‘more attractive’ by offering a better salary, or extra benefits, is wrong. Perhaps the judge who passes the sentence, or the jury themselves, should be the ones to perform the execution.

Then there is the question of which crimes ‘fit the bill’. In the eyes of criminals themselves, the most heinous crime is that of child molestation. I find it interesting that even amongst the perpetrators, there is such a ‘code of conduct’.

I agree that the cost of incarcerating criminals is far more than any tax-funded government can afford. You also raise the issue of the perceived increase in crime. Is this because there are more people, and therefore more crime? Or is it because of a growing wave of dissatisfaction within our wonderful western society? The rich get richer, the poor remain poor, the ill can’t get the care they need’, the criminals don’t get the punishment they deserve. Is it any wonder crime is on the up?

It’s interesting that many people call for a reintroduction of the death penalty, yet abortion and euthanasia are a mortal sin. I can see no instance where the execution of a criminal should take precedence over the consensual ending of a life of suffering.

I oppose the death penalty for a number of reasons. Firstly it puts the innocent as well as guilty to the death. In January 2003, Illinois Governor George Ryan commuted the sentences of all the state’s death row prisoners on the grounds that the system was so flawed that it could not ensure that the innocent were spared. There is no doubt many people proven innocent later, have been executed. The death penalty will never deter violent crime. Again in the US where for western society you find the executioner at his busiest the following facts should be considered: If anything, credible evidence points clearly that the death penalty is no deterrent, in the US it points in the other direction. A study by Thorsten Sellin found that between 1989 and 2002, California (one execution), Texas (239 executions) and New York (no executions) all had almost identical patterns of murder rates from year to year-—though overall, Texas’ average was highest.
If you can afford the best legal representation, you won’t end up on death row. Simply put, the richer you are the better your chance of avoiding the death penalty. The death penalty does nothing for the victim, and even less for the family of the victim it will prolong the suffering of those close to the victim as they endure, often years, of legal battles over the penalty.
Juries can be hesitant to find a person guilty when they know the arbitrary penalty is death. There are lots more reasons to oppose the death penalty.

i just finnished my considerd reply in three posts
at your last topic

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5357&page=9

basicly said stop wasting money the wrong end
to the wrong people....get police to do their job[keep the peace//protecting life and property..[and yes even a night in the lockup or kick up the butt

but full right to complaint
i see police as there for me..to protect me from me as much as protect me from you etc..its cyclick..

think..you gave a ticket..the state got revenue..
but am i more safe now or less..better/worse?

we got one angry driver..with fines totaling more thatn the cost of the tire..[clearly a worn tire..suggests trouble with getting a new one..symptom

rededy:POLICE SHOULD ORDER THE NEW TIRE FITTED
there and then..or fit it..but the cost is the cost of the service!

not burden on top of burden..just so you got warrents any time your masters chose*

but stuff your two party patcy system
where a kid can get 3 moths jail!..for stealing two drinks

and a banker can get a bonus plus a bailout
for sending a money system broke..or a lawyer into govt..

police arnt paid to think
thery used to have a rule book..but now the only rule is do as your ORDERD..mind numb revenue raisers..

if the vehicle is unreg..the cop fixed..it there and then
there now maker payment or go to jail..@..JAIL TIME AT AVERAGE WAGES RATE*..

ONLY..if danger
the cop orders a new car
4/cost of simple intrest free repayment..

BUT*
we get burden upon burden
lawyers making law..cops too dumb or drunk to think

but my cure has allready been posted

in short give them away..with aid....so the scum does some balancing karmic good for a society if not this one by leaving..

cheers
johan

allmost over giving it all away from nix
but not quite..the glass is almost empty..the spirit evaporated*

was that little falla yelling the pain/da pain
..or the plane..is plain

i know how he felt..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5357&page=9

To quote the 19th C French novelist and thinker, Emile Zola, " We teach that killing is a terrible crime. And how do we teach it? By killing."
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

OUG brings up some interesting issues and offers one possible solution.

It is not just the cost of ‘housing’ the perceived worst criminals that is at issue here – it is the cost of advocating court solutions for every misdemeanor, deserved or otherwise. So much money is wasted on nit-picking bureaucratic legal fights that the time, energy and money required to deal with the real criminal issues, and find and fund viable solutions, are no longer available.

OUG’s suggestion of packing all the real criminals (murderers, rapists, thieves, molesters and the like) to their own place and letting them sort it out themselves (a la the British sending their worst to Australia, or that silly futuristic 80s movie about the island of Manhattan being a criminal-run prison) is not totally without merit.

Of course, the world is now so over-populated there is literally nowhere to ‘send’ them, so it would necessitate having to establish a ‘country-within-a-country’, so to speak. Throw up a few 10 metre walls, give them basic infrastructure, allow them to farm, produce and trade (if they can); allow them to establish their own rules and regulations, currencies, etc and let them have at it. No guards within, little on-going and rising-cost burden to tax-payers (after initial hideous expense). Of course, for the condemned, there would be no right of return, no escape and no intervention. Harsh? Absolutely. Will it ever happen? Outside of the movies, unlikely.

In other words, there is no easy solution to this problem. Indeed, many would argue that there is no problem – crimes are committed, criminals are punished in the most humane way possible, and the world keeps turning.

Unfortunately, our civility is merely a veneer. It will not protect us against our baser instincts.