Individual,

To echo Belly’s and Anthony’s arguments there is also the point that you cannot have one law for some and another law for others. Anthony has pointed out the hypocrisy of you claiming it should be okay to harm an intruder or ‘potential’ murderer and rapist. The case of self-defense, if proven, will work in your favour, if indeed you have harmed or killed the intruder IN self-defense. But what if, in the dark, the knife or gun you supposed the intruder was carrying, was nothing more than a stick or a torch? Your claim of self-defense would be null and void.

The reason this law is in place is to avoid situations like the above, where people presume to take the law into their own hands and practice vigilantism. Conversely, if the intruder is indeed carrying a gun and has no qualms about using it, yet you are armed only with a baseball bat, you are putting yourself at great risk – another reason why the law exists.

To claim that our inability to defend our property or loved ones is taken away from us by the law and this is leading to increased crime is untrue. In the US, for example, where just about every second person is toting some kind of weapon, robbery and intrusion onto private property with the intent to harm is not lessened by the knowledge that the owner of the property is armed and ready to shoot first.

Increased crime in our western society stems from the fact that we are living in an era of utter self-interest, where the rights of others are ignored. From the smallest acts, like continually playing loud music and annoying neighbours to hooning, stealing, raping or killing, it is all done with a total disregard for the sensibilities of those around us and with with whom we are forced to share our society, and a total disrespect for those who must uphold the law - the police.

Until we learn how to treat others with the respect we demand for ourselves, crime will never lessen.

individual,
Although I agree that the law on self defence needs reworking, this is not the thread for that. Post another thread and I will be happy to discuss same.

This thread is about punishment for hienous crimes.

It seems to me that those that oppose the death penalty cannot put forward any alternative that is suitable and makes economic sense.

Banjo,
Isn't this an issue of justice and what kind of society we want?
And so, isn't "economic sense" a second order priority?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I believe the death penalty should only be carried out when the crime is proven BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT. Beyond reasonable doubt is NOT good enough. Some years ago i rented my property out to a bloke who had been tried, convicted and sentenced to 20 years jail for killing his wife. Two years later it was proven that he had not committed this crime and the REAL culprit was put on trial after admitting to some one that he had done the dirty deed. If this bloke had been given the death sentence what a travesty of justice that would have been.

Banjo,

Economics, of course, is part of any consideration of law and its various applications. However, to dismiss the potential economic pitfalls of execution by thinking it a quick and easy solution, is a mistake.

Several have cited the enormous number of incorrect judgements upon people who are later found to be innocent of the crime. Add the costs of arresting, charging, holding, investigating, prosecuting, fighting appeals, passing judgement, incarcerating until execution date and finally, executing (with all the psychological assessments and reports that will go with it) to the costs of relaunching investigations, new findings, presenting of new evidence, and discovering that the wrong person has been executed to the final array of costs associated with suing the legal system and all its representatives by a distraught family and all the palaver that goes with that and you have one hell of an expensive solution.

It boils down to the simple fact that you will never please all of the people all of the time. There are those who are for capital punishment and those who oppose it. There are those who are for life sentencing, and those who oppose it. Then there are those who say that whatever we do is akin to putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound – that we should be addressing the cause of crime, rather than fighting over the best way to punish those who commit such crimes.

There are lots of ‘answers’ to the question of what punishment best fits the worst kinds of crimes. The problem is that none of them provide a blanket solution, as every case must be treated on its own evidence (merit).

Additionally, I don’t think the discussion on this thread need necessarily be restricted to heinous crimes. Crime against another person is a crime, regardless of its perceived severity. And if we think the system is wrong, then it is wrong in its entirety and we should address the criminals and the prosecution of them as a whole.

Antony and Scribler,
Economics is and has to be a consideration, especially as the costs of present incarseration is so high. Last I heard it was around $100,000 p/a.

what about instead of the present 'holiday resort' type prisons, we have some lower cost run jails and/or others where 'hard labour' means just that and the government recoups some of the costs by utilising the prisoners labour. That concept seems to have been killed off by the do gooders.

The aim should be to protect the community from the crims, especially from those that have committed hienous crimes.