O sung wu,
Yeah, I support capital punishment for those who cimmit heinous crimes, like those of Mrs Morse, anitta Coby and the two young girls near the NSW/VIC border. Or the backpackers murders. Whats more I could easily pull the trigger. These have forfeited their right to be living in our society. Trump and Baker regularly apply for release, where death penalty ensures they will never do it again.

If John Howard can use the Port Arthur incident to wholesale remove guns from us, I see nothing wrong in using the next hienous crime to introduce death penality.

I have shot dogs for far less.

You do like to got a bit over the top don't you o sung? You first get willies mixed up with guns, now you tell anyone who may argue against you that they are vengeful & draconian. A great way to argue if you have a bias.

Personally I don't think punishment works by the time we get to serious crime. A few cuts with the headmasters cane, or who ever gives the cane in Malaysia may help, if applied early enough in life. I also have no belief in rehabilitation, just a way of employing a pile of useless "ologists".

Nope punishment & rehabilitation is not much use. The requirement is to get those capable of such crimes off the street, & out of decent peoples lives.

Obviously the cheapest way to do that is to top them. If you're too squeamish for that, find another cheep way, but make it as permanent.

How about life, meaning full life with no time off, in a POW type camp, in the middle of the Simpson desert.

No wardens, just guards on the outside, & let the crims run the place. Should save you finding someone to press the button as well, they would do it for us.

Now go for it all you bleeding hearts, I've got a couple of surf towels ready to mop up the blood, as it pours out of the computer.

http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/liebman/liebman/Liebman%20Study/!index.html
I would offer this link as a contribution to the debate.
Aside from my objection to the notion of killing as a way of stopping people from killing, I am profoundly concerned about the potential for error.
The Justice Project referred to in the link, investigates cases where serious doubt exists about the validity of many death row convictions.
The results will astound you. The error rate of conviction is huge.
Whilst I fully agree that our currrent system of justice is probably the best we can find, it's far, far from perfect. Just ask Lindy Chamberlain.
That imperfection in the system is, in my view, sufficient reason to not have the death penalty.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

O SUNG WO, I have started threads on this subject and given it much thought.
I knew, briefly a cop involved in the Morse Murder, it hurts him Peter, still.
It would hurt anyone if they could read the full story.
Know still, best mate, an ex prison warder.
No easy task, unless I take the path some others have, put up a just silly offer.
I believe the costs of imprisonment play a huge part in sentencing and early release.
Maybe too big a roll, an over riding one.
Such as out never to be released? Capital punishment.
We need to consider anew system, I put prison factory's true work on the table.
To pay the costs of imprisoning, to lift the conditions in prison.
And j8ust maybe see the prisoner not us pays, leaving the concerns about wrong early release on the side.

Hi Belly,
An interesting point you make, about cost influencing sentencing.
Some years ago, I ran a division of a US multinational, another of whose divisions managed prisons in the US.
The head of that division told us over dinner that his group paid campaign contributions to judges, (who are elected the US), to ensure that sentences are kept as high as possible, thus keeping the prison population high and maximising profit for the division.
So, here the cost pressure is keeping sentences low, whilst in the US, cost pressure is to keep the sentences high.
It's a funny old world, isn't it.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

many who oppose the death penalty are in favour of killing the unborn. Why? Because the right and convenience of the woman is more important than the baby. Hmm!