reading the news in the last 2 weeks left me very disturbed
i think as a nation, we are either getting soft, or we are getting lost
or maybe we are just living up to our name... descendants of criminals

2 incidents specifically

(I). the murderer of the police officer who was shot point blank in Tamworth...cold blooded.
and what did he get?
life imprisonment !
for killing a law enforcement officer ?
have we forgotten this officer is the husband of an innocent woman
this officer is the father of a couple of young kids
the son of a law abiding australian couple
the good friend of good law abiding young australians
now gone forever

where is the justice
no wonder my good friend here told me he will personally shoot this murderer and give himself up to the police

who is going to enforce law and order when they get killed like that
are we going to plead for mercy and second chance for this murderer if the one killed is your mother...wife...son...daughter..brother

(II). this murder and rapist was convicted so many times...broke out of jail and then raped and murdered a woman in WA
the state prosecutor asked for life sentence without parole

guess what
the defence counsel pleads for a shorter sentence so the murderer will not have to live out his old age in prison?
has this legal mind gone mad
has he lost his conscience
has he lost his moral compass

this bloke should have been shot or hanged

how come no one asks why is such a dangerous man allowed parole

God save this country

Australia has given up the death penalty.
It is my view the world should.
If the Bali drug smugglers are to die more of us will complain than not.
Much of the feeling parole boards and small sentences let us down, are in the long run ignored by those in power.
I truly and honesty think the costs of imprisonment play are far bigger role in early release than any look at Justice.
We must one day confront how we can reduce the costs to us.
So prisons can become bigger to hold prisoners longer.

Platypus,
In my view, those convicted of heinous crimes like the backpacker murders and Annity Coby, Mrs Morse and the two girls near the NSW/Vic border, should warrant the death penalty.

Life sentence should mean life. There should be no parole for very serious crimes, like violent rape and other violent crimes.

The main reason for current early parole is for governments to save money by not having to build more jails, that should change.

Life should mean up to 45 years with parole only possible after 25 years and no judges for the parole board only honest citizens.
The real reason for early release is because there is a nice little earner for lawyers representing career criminals.
Prison cost, do not make me laugh! I could decrease costs by sensible reform. Run of the Mill crims do not need high security and the cost that goes with it, reserve that for the seriously naughty people. No one escapes anymore from electronic zoos.
Make prisoners work or give them less food,no exercise and no smokes. Ensure they look after themselves or not. Of course if they will not look after themselves then the cosseting will be minimal and no visits from family.
Of course the Public Service are just not up to any job let alone a prison, privatise them all.

@belly

1. you have not commented on why we should not have the death penalty for heinous crimes like murder

2. early parole because of burden to tax payers cannot be the reason why dangerous murders and rapists are released back to society . The case in WA i quoted clearly shows the grave injustice

@banjo

it is people like you that make me believe that australia still has some
i was beginning to think that as a nation, we have lost the moral compass, the courage to stand up and be counted

thks mate

@JBowyer

I agree with your comments
The way we run our prisons, why, no wonder no criminals are deterred
You got good food...protection...exercise...conjugal rights visits.
Reminds me of the mafia in the US jails.

Keep it spartan...make life hard in the prisons.
Imprisonment should not be a walk in the park

thks

someone raised the issue of death sentence for drug offenders

in many countries, it is mandatory hanging for dealing with drugs in excess of a certain quantity (20g?)
the reason these countries takes such a hard stand is precisely because of the grave harm drugs bring along
it is not like smoking or petty thefts
once young people are addicted...their lives are wrecked permanently

there are plenty of people like "Better Man" who traffic drugs for the love of their own family..."i did it for the family" line
they do not for once think about the hundreds and thousands of young lives they are destroying

my personal take on drug offences?
life imprisonment...not death sentence

having said that, i respect the laws of the neighbouring countries who hang and shot such drug criminals.
how i wish our country can have the moral strength to make tough decisions like this

@banjo

sorry...the first sentence should read

"........some hope."

good on you mate.

In my opinion the penalty to the criminal for any crime should always be worse than the crime. This is only fair.

The thief should have all their possessions & the majority of their future earnings taken & used to repay the victim. No ifs buts or maybes, they should lose the lot, until full restitution +10% has been paid.

There should be a waiting period of 3 years between any grants of legal aid. No appeals unless paid for in full by the offender. Legal aid should only be available to full citizens.

With those who kill there can be only one penalty that is fair. It is cheaper too, & avoids the probability of some damn fool bleeding heart parole board ever letting them out to kill again.

Now all I have to do is work out how to add 10% to a death sentence.

A principal argument for the death
penality is that it will deter murder - but what's the
evidence for this view?

If the death penality alone deterred murder, there would
be hardly any homicide in the US, which has the death penalty,
and a great deal of homicide among other industrialsed
nations, which do not. Yet the reverse is true. The American
homicide rate is by far the highest in the industrialised
world.

It therefore seems that the fear of death frequently fails to
act as a powerful deterrent. Why? Perhaps unlike other crimes
homicide is rarely premeditated. It usually occurs in the
heat of the moment. In such situations as family arguments
or bungled robberies when the perpetrator is least likely to
think about the possible consequences. In the few cases where
murder is premeditated the offender obviously doesn't expect to
get caught or punished anyway. In many cases this expectation
is borne out. According to stats about a quarter of murders do
not lead to any arrest, and many arrests don't lead to
conviction.

Another reason the death penalty often fails to deter is that,
as presently applied, no punishment is less swift or less
certain. A death sentence is not carried out immediately, to
minimise the chance of an innocent person being executed, courts
permit an elaborate review process that sometimes lasts a
decade or more. And far from being a certain punishment for
murder, the death sentence is almost certain not to be given
or applied. Only a small percentage of convicted murderers
in the US arrive on death row, and many of them will never be
executed. Most convicted murderers are sentenced to "life"
imprisonment, but according to the Bureau of Justice stats -
found that more than half of them serve less than seven years
behind bars.

Decisions about capital punishment are not about deterrence.
They are agbout retribution. About society's revenge on a person
who takes another's life.

Whether such retribution is justified is not a matter of
measurable facts. It is a moral judgement for each individual
to make

Lexi my sweet, I am not interested in attempting to deter future murderers, that is a pipe dream.

What I am really interested in is preventing proven murderers [or rapists], doing it again.

We all know that rehabilitation is another pipe dream, it just doesn't happen. It is only the bleeding hearts & the psychologist, trying to justify their silly beliefs, that even pretend it does. One of the worst things in our present system is that parole boards & prisoner evaluation departments are full of just such people.

When these people are prepared to accept responsibility of their judgment, & undergo the punishment for the crimes of those they release, & make full personal restitution to those injured by them, they may start to gain some respect.

Far too many are injured by the release of proven murderers & rapists, & just one is too many. The whole catastrophe is best stopped by the death penalty.

@lexi

one principle to bear in mind
ask the wrong question and you end up with wrong solution to the problem
the question here is not about rehabilitation, it is about justice.

if you take a life in cold blood murder (not manslaughter in fits of anger or self defence), you pay with your life

if you cheat...you vandalise...you steal...yes..then we talk about rehabilitation.

you did not read my arguments on the Tamworth case?

@hasbeen

you made excellent points
bravo

10% more?
LOL
that will cross the line to revenge
not justice

let us know be guilty of precisely what we want to eradicate

cheers

Platypus1900 if someone knocks off my TV, computer, or car, depriving me of the use of it until I can find the cash to replace it, or if I am lucky, get replacement through insurance, aren't I entitled to some compensation?

I would not see that as revenge, but simple compensation for my loss.

I for example have recently spent $8000 on rebuilding the engine in a car which was worth about $6000 before the engine rebuild, & is now worth about $6000 since the rebuild. I have also repainted it & fitted a new air conditioning system. The highest the insurance company would go was $8000 agreed value.

This makes sense to me as I expect to drive it for the next 10 or so years I am likely to be driving, & I have no desire to drive some horrid hatchback.

If someone were knock it off, & trash it, or strip it, what compensation do you think would be reasonable, without becoming vengeance?

Fair question platypus 1900, and welcome
Like every poster I have a right to my views.
And you have every right to ask.
Ned Kelly was hung, yet we still talk of him as a hero.
In the 1960,s the last man hung, for no other reason than a states head wanted to look tough kept the nation thinking.
We if we look will see innocent men hung in many country,s proven after death.
Mostly because I share the contempt we mostly have here for killers in the category most likely to be hung.
Banjo talks of that group, my life has seen contact with Police who can never forget the savagery of the Morosai, not sure that is the name, but those two will never be released.
Ivan Milat lived in my mums home town, one I know well Bargo.
He like me [we came in to contact via it] worked on the then DMR/RTA he will never be released, I think we are better than them and all like them.
Murdering a murderer will not bring back the dead.
And a life truly spent in prison will ,at least punish them.

Dear Platypus and Hasbeen,

The point that I was making was that decisions about
capital punishment are not really about deterrence
but about retribution. And, whether this is justified
is not a matter of measurable facts but it's a moral
judgement for each of us to make.

You seem to think that the death penalty will stop
murderers from killing again. If this was true then
there would be hardly any homicide in the US, which
has the death penalty, and a great deal of homicide
among other industrialised nations, which do not.
Yet the reverse is true. The American homicide rate
is by far the highest in the industrialised world.

In theory, of course,
it would be possible to make death a swift and certain
punishment for homicide - but that could involve
the specter of about fifty executions in the US every day
of the year, something without parallel or precedent in a
civilised society.

The controversy on this issue will continue.
Some people feel that those who kill another human being should
pay the supreme penalty and forfeit their own lives.

Others feel that human life is so sacred that society is
demeaned when the state kills its citizens, however grave their
offense. In any event, a large and increasing majority of
Americans - over 75 percent in a recent Gallup poll - favor the
death penalty.

As I stated earlier - it is a moral judgement for each
individual to make.

As I stated earlier - it is a moral judgement for each
individual to make.
Lexi,
Yes, I support the death penalty for heinous criminals once proven beyond doubt. But, I would not do it by way of a hangman or lethal injection. I would do what is done for astronauts, have a cyanide pill ready for use when there's no hope. Some hardened criminals probably would wait many years but if there is no parole some would take up the offer eventually.

@Lexi

no, I do not believe that death penalty is retribution
neither is it revenge
it is justice
if you are the aggrieved party and you kill in return, that will be revenge
if you leave it to the courts of law, it is justice (assumption is it is not a kangaroo court)
if you do it yourself, it is revenge

no, death penalty will not lead to zero murder
that is wishful thinking
we are a fallen race (mankind), there will be lust, murder, lies…covetousness
but the death penalty will serve as a deterrent to a certain extent, that is all we can hope
but at least the aggrieved party gets justice

cannot understand why 50 executions will make our society less civilized?
50 more murders without justice will make us more progressive?
Warped logic

Someone asked…would the death sentence bring back the dead?
Of course not
But justice would have been served

Belly,
The lady's name was Viginia Morse and the rapists/murderers were Trump and Baker. They tied her up, ravaged and tortured her for a week, then cut her throat. Such perpetrators do not deserve to exist and we should not bear the cost of keeping them. Trump and Baker have applied for parole at least once .

similar case to two young teens on coast near NSW/Vic border. Collins was one girls name. They were slain after days of torture.

I would inject them and leave them for the crows to pick.

Dear Platypus,

"There is a higher court than courts of justice
and that is the court of conscience.
It supercedes all other courts."

(Mahatma Gandhi).

And -

"... Justice that the law gives is a punishment."

Lexi my sweet, I find it rather hard to believe that once the death penalty has been applied that that particular murderer will kill again. I expect nothing more than the elimination of said murderer, not to prevent others becoming murderers.

I believe in applying it also for rape with violence. I have no faith in parole boards to get it right more than on the odd occasion. They are all too likely, to let offenders out to offend again. As with the recent case in Melbourne, there was every reason to believe that murdered was going to reoffend. He should never have been let out, & the only way to be sure these people won't be, is to put them down.

The problem may be due to the arrogance of physiologists, who want to believe their brand of hocus pocus is actually a science. Well it sure isn't, & it is time we put them to something useful, like sweeping streets, & put the murderers down.

Just the death of one innocent citizen justifies the death penalty in my opinion.

"There is a higher court than courts of justice
and that is the court of conscience.
It supercedes all other courts."

(Mahatma Gandhi).
Lexi,
Oh all that philosophical warm'n fuzzy stuff. And how did Gandhi & his daughter & grandson end up ?
What's the point of having a Law when the enforcers are crook ?
Punishment is an essential ingredient for any society. Without punishment you get what we have now.

Anyone who takes another life, with intent, in cold blood and, with witnesses like the officer, or the officer Erwin, shot in cold blood in Caboolture has chosen to forego any right they may have had, including the right to continue living, BUT, simply relying on the likes DNA is not sufficient evidence for the death sentence.

It must be indisputable.

Banjo yes mate have the old mans memory trouble.
Know the name just needed you push.
Know to the full story, if you are out there Peter,I remember your pain still.
Past posts told about the impacts those grubs had on serving police who had to see the results.
Local bloke took two kids and mum and murdered them brutally , it too was as bad as that.
I never want such released ever, but still stand by my thoughts we gain nothing by killing them, except re leaving their pain.
Let them suffer till a natural death ends their pain.

Belly,
I suffer from same 'old mans memory' some things clear as a bell, others need a prod.

I am ashamed I cannot recall the full names of the girls raped and murdered on the South coast. Collins was one girls surname. I don't recall the murderers names. Horrible stuff.

@lexi

mahatma gandhi
sure your want to follow him?
go read his life story
i spent 10 years working there and i think i earned a little right to tell you a little more about him

i agree with Hasbeen
you write well... that is about all

may you quote shakespeare to the murderer of your spouse or children or close family members

@Hasbeen
i agree with most of your points except death for rapists
injustice and heinous crime committed...but death sentence may not be appropriate in this instance
i will go as far as castration for repeated offenders
even life sentence with no parole (makes me sick that i have to support this criminal with my taxes paid but i guess we have to or Lexi will say we are barbaric like the malaysians and the indonesians)

i rest my case

Dear Platypus,

I am well acquainted with Gandi and his teachings.
However I gave the quote that I did not because
I am a follower of his by any stretch of the imagination,
but simply because I thought that quote was an appropriate
one in this discussion. You should be intelligent enough
to sort that out for yourself.

As for giving me permission to quote Shakespeare(sic) to murderers
of my family members? That was an OMG moment.
Certainly lowering the bar on this discussion.
I would have thought you were better
than that. But you live and learn.

Hi platypus1900,

My solution would be to convert prisons into secure production facilities. They would be places of education, skilling, social development, exams and segregation from the society whose laws they have breached.

The facility would be commercially run manufacturing business and be required to cover its own costs and generate revenue to be paid back to victims as a compensation dividend to cover damages, legal costs, health treatment for victims and other claims.

The inmates get free food and board, education, trade skills, healthcare and rehab in the form of social skills assessments. In addition to passing the required exams, they must demonstrate their ability to deal with other inmates in domestic, social and working environments.

If they pass the required exams and assessments they are eligible for release on the day their sentence expires, otherwise they stay there until they do. Repeat offenders get to do it all again.

Electives such as remote learning degrees would only be allowed upon maintaining all milestones on their core tasks. They would not be funded by the taxpayer but covered by a HEX fee system.

The worst of the worst get the same opportunities as minor offenders but minimum sentences will need to reflect the severity of the crime yet leave room to provide an incentive to reform.

The products they might manufacture could include equipment for the disabled, electronic aids, prosthetics, repair and refurbishment and a range of specialized items that would otherwise be subsidized though the public healthcare system.

All qualifications and assessments must be at least equivalent to those recognized in the commercial world; this would create the trust employers would need to hire them into the workforce upon release.

No more parole boards, human rights lawyers, public angst about sentences/early releases, public costs for facilities or salaries and a reduction in the number of bureaucrats.

I’m not sure about the death penalty because I don’t see it as a deterrent, just a guarantee that there will be no repeat offense. Perhaps a life sentence plus a one strike and you’re dead policy?

as Lexi said
the bar is very low
yes...perhaps we should let this thread rest

finally, if i have a choice

1. i will not want a single cent of my tax be used to support a convicted murderer in jail for life

2. i will not have sympathy when no law enforcement officers will answer an emergency call to a life threatening situation at a residence of someone like Lexi

have a good day

signed
"not so clever"

Dear Platypus,

There's where you and I differ.
If you had a life-threatening situation in your home,
I would pray that law enforcement would reach you
and your family in time, and I would happily agree
to have my tax dollars pay for whatever you needed
to put things right for you and your family.

But, then I am a firm believer in social equity, compassion,
and an egalitarian society. The vunerable need our help
and support. I don't believe in letting people sink.

@Lexi

wow... i like the way you write
very polite

maybe you should read the book on "straight and crooked thinking" by thouless
that will help you argue a little better

1. you pray that the law enforcement officer will do his work? and all you have for his family and loved ones are your sympathies
what do you have to offer if his wife asks for justice?
read a quote from MG?
on the other hand, i will tell the police officer to go bravely to do his work and may the full force of the law be behind him
i will tell the police officer any convicted murderer of a law enforcement officer will never threaten another officer again

2. i do care like you...and i do not mind my taxes be used to rehabilitate errant criminals who wants to change
NOT convicted murderers

we are not getting any where

i will let you have the final word and let's agree to let this Thread rest.

Dear Platypus,

I don't need to have the last word.
I'll give you a big hug instead. ;-)

Take care.

@Lexi

blessings and shalom.

Dear Platypus,

L'chai-im!

Belly,
Found a Wikipedia article about the two murdered girls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bega_schoolgirl_murders

At the end is references to find others, including Ebony Simpson and Mrs Morse.

very distressing to read.

I am anti the death penalty for one reason.
Because of the evolution of DNA evidence; many convicted criminals have been charged with murders that an innocent man or woman was executed for. Could you imagine the anguish of the innocent as they go through the nightmare of incarceration and trial only to be put to death in the end? If one innocent dies at the hands of the state, it is too many.

I believe life is life and I do not believe that the punishment is solely the deprivation of their liberty. Prisoners should do a mandatory ten hour day of labour, six days a week. No entertainment other than selected hard copy books, no commissary.

There is certainly a relief to the loved ones of the victim when the murderer is executed, and I wouldn’t take that from them, but the innocents that have been murdered by the state had loved ones who grieved as well, both grief’s justified, both victims innocent, but one could have been prevented.

Lexi>> But, then I am a firm believer in social equity, compassion,
and an egalitarian society. The vunerable need our help
and support. I don't believe in letting people sink.<<

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq28qCklEHc

@sonofgloin

you are not against death sentence
you are wary of miscarriage of justice

we need to distinguish this

to resolve your concern, for cases that the jury finds the accused guilty but the defence counsel feels strongly that his client is innocent, let there be a stay of execution...for 1 mth..3 mths...6 mths or even a year.
this should give the counsel more than enough time to gather fresh evidence

for b&w cases like the murderer who shot the police officer point blank; like the repeated offender who raped and murdered a few times, just execute him the next day.

or are you saying, NO.... we can never be sure?

Plat>> or are you saying, NO.... we can never be sure?<<

Yes, no.
There is no half measure in capital punishment, if you introduce it all those convicted of premeditated murder or murder during a felony should be executed after all avenues of appeal are exhausted. You can be convicted of these crimes even if there is no evidence linking you to the body or the crime scene. There is always a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance that everything points to a perpetrator but they are innocent. As I said there are plenty of retro DNA convictions for murder that an innocent had been tried convicted and executed for.

Plat, have you seen the doco on Russian high security prisons exclusively for murderers? They treat the murderer like an object, no humanity, no interaction other than directions and orders. Everywhere they move outside their cell they are shackled and doubled over so their head below chest height to the guards. That is a life sentence.

I agree with sonofgloin.
You can never be absolutely certain of someone's guilt.
Thats why I will never support the death penalty.

Killing murderers would make us no better than them.
If, as many of OLO's posters often go on about, we do live in a predominantly Christian country, then how can any of you advocate for killing someone when one of your God's commandments says 'Thou Shall not Kill"?

Did God forget to add "...except for murderers'?

@sonofloin

i just need to clarify something

in the case of the police officer being shot at point blank in the presence of many witness, i.e. 100% sure (re: Tamworth case), would you agree to death sentence for the murderer?

thks

There is a solution, we make a law they says something like, murder while caught in the act.

For that, the penalty is death.

Now caught in the act means caught red handed by a person of authority, JP, Police, etc, not Joe average on a vendetta.

@suseonline

You are bringing in Christianity?
Good.

1. Are you a practising Christian?
2. Do you attend worship every Sunday ?
3. Do you read the bible everyday
4. Do you pray without ceasing
5. When was the last time you told someone of the love of God and Jesus?

The reason i asked the above questions is simple.
If you are a serious practising Christian, then you should know that at best, you can argue for a position not to say no to capital punishment.

Now, can I suggest you read the following.

http://ltpalculict.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/john-piper-what-makes-it-alright-for-god-to-kill-women-and-children/
http://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html
http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2011/09/what-does-the-bible-say-about-capital-punishment/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6yCTcnzmeM

john piper and john macarthur, 2 of the foremost and respected modern day theologians, do not have any issues with capital punishment
and btw, if you have problems with jpiper's views at the youtube clip, please dont dismiss them, try to do more bible study on the issue and i believe you will come round to the same views.

@rehctub

for a start, i can agree to that

what about repeat offence murderers who confessed to their crimes?
do you agree we should also hang them?

Suseonline,
I have always maintained that this is an incorrect translation. I'm convinced it was meant to be thou "shall not murder."

@individual

i see plenty of superficial quotes and views on christianity and the teachings of the bible

guess we will have to patiently teach proper exegesis of the scriptures

Platy>> in the case of the police officer being shot at point blank in the presence of many witness, i.e. 100% sure (re: Tamworth case), would you agree to death sentence for the murderer?<<

Yes I would agree plat…..but how do you legislate for such an occurrence?
At the scene witness testimony from unassociated third parties is more than valid but when it comes to let’s say surveillance video, technology means that you cannot believe what your eye sees so CCTV footage can be suspect.
As I said it would be mine field to legislate so I still consider capital punishment a no go. But I believe the penal system is soft as butter in Australia.

A sentence of life with hard labour should be the punishment. Six days a week of toil and your only release is through death would see some inmates take their own lives and that would be a just repayment for the crime.

Plat earlier I described the crimes that I believe should carry a mandatory death sentence, but because innocents have been executed by the state before I believe that those convicted of premeditated murder , murder during a felony or murder of a law officer, paramedic , ambo, or firey should receive a life sentence under my previously stated terms of imprisonment.

I’m not soft sport, but to be executed by the state for something you did not do has a psychological plane to it that is as close to a living nightmare as you can get, until the state murders you anyhow. I am not protecting the guilty, I am protecting the innocent with my stance.

Dear platypus1900,

Firstly why ask someone “Do you pray without ceasing” when you patently do not yourself. If you did how would you afford to come on this forum to blaspheme and distort the Christian message as you are now thus engaged?

Christ made a strong statement on capital punishment when he was presented with the young woman accused of adultery;

All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you ibe the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
John 8:2-11

I have a slight interest in seeing how you will dampen this message from Christ, what tricks and deceptions you will employ to try and mould Christ to your perspective, but slight is the best I can muster.

Cont...

Cont...

Perhaps you will choose to go to Deuteronomy where God prescribes the death penalty for all kinds of innocuous things.

Should we accept God's law which says “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
Deuteronomy 22:28–29

In that case shouldn't Georgina DeJesus be returned to Ariel Castro, the man who seized her off the street and held her captive for 9 years along with two other unfortunate girls? Will fifty shekels of silver do the trick for Mr Castro? God's law says it will.

What annoys me most about you sir is that you are so disrespecting the work of thousands of committed true Christians who fought for so many years to rid this country and others of the barbarity of the state having power over the life and death of its citizens. Thankfully they had a set true Christian morals which saw them acknowledging Old Testament laws for what they were, a product of the times with little relevance to our own. They are fair dinkum Christians my friend and you are such an anaemic version in comparison.

Please do use the courtesy of not proscribing for us your version of Christian values. They obviously do not align with Christ's and should be something for your own consumption.

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
csteele,
abhorring religion as I do, I interpret that seizing means exploiting her & not being able to divorce her means he can not run from his responsibilities.

....what about repeat offence murderers who confessed to their crimes?
do you agree we should also hang them?

Now that's a tough one PP, as the last thing we want to do is make suicide easier for some, as I'm sure some would take advantage of such a law.

Dear individual,

I understand the sentiment, and the wish for it to be so but it aint.

Perhaps the New International Version, deemed to be the most accurate/literal but perhaps without the magic of a King James, will make things a little clearer.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

The preceding verses put the meaning beyond doubt.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

I repeat, under God's law as proscribed in the old testament upon the him paying 50 shekels of silver for her Georgina DeJesus should be returned to Ariel Castro and she could never leave him.

Fortunately true Christians do not believe this law is applicable in today's world, only the likes of Platypus1900 and his ilk.

@cs

be fair
i didnt say i agree to the OT practice to be translated to present day
btw, do you know how to interprete scriptures
what is applicable to those under law and those under grace?
what is applicable in OT that is also applicable to the church

i assume you are a christian
talk to your pastor
ask him to explain to you the above and also the difference between murder and the adulterous woman
i trust he will explain to you the context
context is very impt in sound exegesis of scriptures

@rec

suicide?
huh?

@sonofloin

i see where you are coming from
again...the fear of miscarriage of justice

i am glad you didnt have any issues with death penalty for the 100% guilty

i think i will leave it at that

nice chatting with you.

shalom

and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—
csteele,
This sounds rather islamish, no matter what it just proves the idiocy of religion as opposed to live by the rules of God.

So there you go, what about the guy who was recently released on parole, only to rape and murder another victim in Victoria, all while her 4 year old hid in another room.

This is a classic case of a need for the death penalty.

It may also suggest this guy wanted to re-offend, because after all, it's tough enough out there to survive, even if you have a job and no criminal record.

Time to rid our society of these parasites.

@rehctub

interesting isnt it?
how the opponents to death penalty do not see it from the victim's family viewpoint
i also suspect their sense of caring and respect for life is misplaced
the moment you take another person's life in cold blood, you lose the right to live yourself

anyway, i got nothing new to add anymore

Dear platypus1900,

You claim “i didnt say i agree to the OT practice to be translated to present day”.

You most certainly did when you gave us the preachings of that old unreconstructed Calvinist John Piper as justification for the death penalty. Piper, the man who doesn't believe in not only woman preachers in his church but even women deacons or elders, quotes Genesis 9-6;

“Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.”

So his argument is basically saying when you take the life of another human being this is a sin of greater import because you are somehow attacking the image of God.

Further it is typical OT fare of eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. Jesus rebelled and preached against this doctrine which is why the Pharisees thought they could catch him out since knowing he was against killing they felt he could be exposed as being against the 'laws of God'. Jesus' response was 'sure take a life through capital punishment, but only if you can show you are without sin'. As no one is sinless then killing via the law is therefore untenable.

John Piper and yourself reject Christ's teachings on this matter. I invite you to return to your bible and seek the enlightenment offered in Christ's message. I feel you will be a far better person as a result. If you feel this is beyond your capabilities and your fondness for the old Testament continues then perhaps a conversion to Orthodox Judaism is something you might consider.

The safety on the streets of Singapore show how idiotic the dogma that tries to convince people that the death penalty is not a deterrent.Whether you agree with the penalty or not is a differnet matter but stop treating the public like fools with ácademic ' studies that always support leftist dogma.

Whether you agree with the penalty or not is a differnet matter but stop treating the public like fools with ácademic ' studies that always support leftist dogma.
runner,
no truer word spoken, spot-on. reminds me of that moron Terry O'Gorman from the criminal lovers group in Qld.

Yep Indy, O'Gorman & the rest of them should really be known as the lawyers association incorporated. I have never heard a single word from his mouth that was not simply an attempt to water down our laws, to make defending real criminals easier.

I have never seen a lawyer interested in justice, they are only interested in getting their criminal clients off. I wonder why the ABC love him so much?

This is why I believe no one who has ever been a barrister should be made a judge. After years of getting their income courtesy of criminals, they are a damn site closer to the criminals than they will ever be to the victims. Justice is of no interest to them, just using the law to gain a substantial income.

i find the tv show entitled "A Better Man" to be offensive.
obviously it is targeted at a small segment of us australians who think that we are on moral high ground
everyone else enforcing capital punishment are barbaric

in the movie (supposed to be based on the true life story of this drug smuggler), the poor young australian was hanged because he was doing smuggling drugs for his family

wow...how self sacrificing

he was doing it for his family but he didnt care a damn about the thousands of young lives destroyed and many more who will die of overdose of drugs

with shows like this, osama and gaddafi and even hitler can be elevated to heroic status

@individual/runner/hasbeen etc

if we do not push back to such misguided values, who will ?

csteele,

>25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor<

So, is the above not saying the man shall die - for rape, or for murdering a neighbor?
Your quote, not mine. Death means death. Of course where proven.

Pick and choose how you like, so many passages support the maximum penalty for the most severe of crimes - the murder of an innocent.

What would Christ say? Who can really know?
Preventing the stoning of an adulteress (or prostitute) is indeed commendable - since neither would we now consider such a severe penalty warranted (or if any penalty at all be warranted, in our now more compassionate and understanding society).

What would Jesus think about drug dealers? Surely not the death penalty, but at least something fairly severe - considering the damage done to the purity and sanctity of the victims of drugs, both physically and psychologically?

"Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."
This thought could apply to the exercise of leniency toward those of temporary or permanent mental disability (or insanity), but surely not to the cold-blooded psychopath - whether acting with premeditation or in rash disregard?

If I am to be my brother's keeper, surely I should be prepared to kill where it is warranted to protect and preserve the life of innocents - wherever they may reside?

Giving the benefit of doubt to a psychopath (via parole) may be likened to placing the rest of society in the lion's den.
Are you willing to play Daniel, are the parole board? Should those who place society at unnecessary risk suffer the same penalty as the released perpetrator? When such is the law, compassion may be tempered by scrupulous judgement; but until then society bears a hazard it should not be required to shoulder.

Why don't we just call a stoned (real stones) to death couple collateral damage & all will be forgotten in two minutes. Isn't that what the academic bureaucrats in war offices do ?
Proven murderers should not continue to live, lock them into a cell with a cyanide capsule at their disposal. Problem solved, the parole board could be employed doing something useful.

@individual

i agree with your views posted
but on the cyanide pill, no

why were the nazi war criminals hunted down and brought to justice (not revenge)?
why were those found guilty hanged and not given the cyanide pill?
because justice had to be carried out...suicide would have been a miscarriage of justice

fine line...but nevertheless an impt one

come to think of it, why didnt i ask the opponents to capital punishment whether we should keep these proven war criminals in jail and try to rehabilitate them while the 80 million dead cry for justice in their graves?

Dear Platypus,

Talking about justice and the Nazis ...

Yes some villains were captured and punished, for
the most part shortly after the conclusion of the war.
Others escaped retribution, dying, as did Stalin and
Hitler - the evil architects themselves - without
having been brought to justice. However, while half
of the criminals, the Nazis, have been pursued all
over the world for their crimes, the other half, the
communist criminals, were allowed to go free.

They were, in effect, given tacit permission to continue
the operation of their concentration camps, to expand
their draconian systems to include psychiatric wards,
thereby raising torture, suppression, and murder to a
science. The fact that the process persisted was vividly
disclosed to the free world by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn.

Also - as stated in ,"The New KGB" :

"There is no dispute about the enormity of Hitler's
holocaust. But it is equally important to be aware of the
accomplishments of the Soviet secret police, which
brought death to at least four times as many Russians, Poles,
Jews, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Japanese, Koreans,
Chinese, Gypsies, and Romanians, as Hitler did in his
eleven years as a leader of the '1,000-year Reich.'"

@Lexi

ah..dear Lexi, let us deal with stalin and hirohito and yamashita and those who escaped punishment and the likes later

my question to you is simple and a straight forward one
it is not even academic but based on historical facts

"is it ok to hang the nazi criminals?"

or should we imprison them and try some rehab programmes?

cheers

Dear Platypus,

Only if you're going to administer that same sort of
justice even handedly to all war criminals and not
just to a select view. And the evidence against them
has to be beyond reproach. It does not honour those
who suffered and died that we attempt to punish some
war criminals by relying on evidence produced by other
perpetrators of the same crimes against humanity.

@Lexi
You saying if there were 100 guilty nazis, and one escaped and cannot be found, we leave the 99 in the prison?

Now let me make it even more academic
if we do a deal with one of the guilty war criminals and let him off in return for bringing us to the 99, would that compromised your stand?

This is so interesting isn't it?

My point is very simple, let us settle the basic issue of whether it is just to put a proven guilty man to death.

If yes...we can discuss all other scenarios.

My point of contention is the view that putting someone to death is not acceptable under any condition.
That argument cannot hold water.

cheers

Dear Platypus,

You're pro the death penalty. I get that.
As I stated earlier - whether capital punishment
is justified is not a matter of measurable facts.
It's a moral judgement for each individual to make.

From your posts you and many others feel
that those who kill another
human being should pay the supreme penalty and forfeit
their own lives. For me personally - my views are not
set in concrete. It would strongly depend on the
evidence presented and the circumstances involved.

@Lexis

hi...the nazis case
hang or not?
in this particular case i mean

if hitler , goering(this murderer was the coward who was alive and thought the allied powers would give him germany on a platter) and goebbels are alive during the Nuremberg trials and you were the mdm chief justice, what will your decision be after the presentation of the irrefutable evidence by all the allied learned judges?

please dont see this as a type forum bullying
just discussing
if you dont want to respond, it is ok

we can then move on

shalom

why were the nazi war criminals hunted down and brought to justice (not revenge)?
why were those found guilty hanged and not given the cyanide pill?
platypus1900,
Those hunting the nazi war criminals did so for personal gain & satisfaction. They did not do it for the greater good which would simply be to rid mankind of such vermin. The german Labor supporters of the 1930's (Nazis) were no differently indoctrinated as those of 2013.
When their philosophies went wobbly they turned nasty. (just as they are now)
Their executioners were typical of the average cowards whose minds warped with revenge then got some perverse satisfaction of seeing them hanged.
The moral of the story is that prevention is proven to be better than cure, meaning don't wait for the mongrels to gain ground because no good comes of it.

Dear Platypus,

You ask what would my decision be if I was a "Madam
Chief Justice" at the Nuremberg trials - (having been presented
with evidence beyond reproach).

I would have to obey the principles of the law.

I know that you want me to say - hang the lot of them.
However that's not how the law works. Each case must be
weighed and the evidence in each case - properly assessed.
And historically
that is precisely what happened when on November 1945
21 men sat in the dock of a Nuremberg courtroom on trial
for their lives. (A 22nd defendant - Martin Bormann was
tried in absentia).

The judges represented the major victors in the war in
Europe - Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the
United States. The verdicts were announced on October 1st,
1946. Eighteen of the guilty were sentenced to death by
hanging. The remainder received prison sentences ranging
from 10 years to life.

These were the decisions reached by the combined judges.
Which should prove to you
that it is not up to our personal feelings of what
justice should be, that matters - but what the courts
have to decide after being presented with the evidence.
They don't always get it right - but according to the
leter of the law they are supposed to be objective.
That's why Lady Justice wears a blindfold. It stands
for impartiality.

@Lexi

Wow..bravo.
Then we are in agreement that with the due process of the law, and when the accused is found guilty, they are to be hanged and you will have no objections?

Good
Then we are on the same page.

Dear Lexi,

The Law (or the Judiciary) is indeed supposed to be impartial, but there are some problems when the 'Law' is constructed by politicians for purposes other than justice or the public interest - and indeed sometimes the Law is an ass.

Cases in point:
a) Where the US legislates to protect some food processors from litigation which might otherwise be legitimately brought by any Joe Citizen;
b) Where the US legislates to exempt oil and gas miners from a 'Clean Water Act' (ie from otherwise standard environmental protection provisions);
c) Where the US legislates to protect the manufacturers of genetically modified crops/seeds - sometimes acting to the direct detriment of growers of non-modified crops;
d) Where the NSW government plans to introduce legislation (Law) to enable an overturning of a finding of the Land and Environment Court in favour of residents opposing expansion of a Rio Tinto open-cut coalmine;
e) Where governments renege on environmental assurances regarding marine reserves, agricultural land, or heritage forests, in response to lobbying by the relevant 'exploitation' interests, or to gain votes in an upcoming election. (And to hell with the interests of future generations, biodiversity, bees, or previous commitments);
f) When governments legislate to ensure that economic interests outweigh any other primary considerations when assessing development applications (or as former NSW Minister for Mining and Energy - amongst other things - once is reported to have stated "if it's worth mining, it will be");
g) When Corporatism and the Mighty Buck are of foremost and paramount concern in the drafting of legislation generally.

Additionally, we have judges and courts reviewing and revising the operation of the 'law', such that criminals are given cake-walk sentences (or are let off altogether) because of all sorts of constructed 'outs' or 'technicalities' - or even due to misplaced 'compassion'. (Half off for showing 'repentance'?)

Asses abounding; and average good old honest Joe Mugg bearing the brunt, the cost, and the ultimate repercussions.

Honesty in sentencing? In whose pipe-dream?

Honesty in sentencing?
Saltpetre,
Yes, like that child murderer muslim bloke in Qld who got $3000 compensation a few days ago because his prison food wasn't to his religious needs. Justice indeed !

Dear Saltpetre,

I did state earlier that the law doesn't always
get it right. What complicates things is that
in this country we have several legal systems,
rather than one. That's because Australia is
a federation of six states and each state has
its own system of state courts and state laws that
apply only within the state. On top of that Australia
has a system of federal courts and federal laws that
apply in all parts of the country.

@salt

i am a christian
in the past, i used to struggle with the bible teaching on submission to the law and the govt, esp when there are flaws like what you have stated

but nowadays, i come around
i submit
the Word of God is right (as it should be)
except when Caesar ask me to worship him as God
then the answer is NO.

a bad govt is better no govt and lawlessness

cheers

Dear Platypus900,

“this bloke should have been shot or hanged”

“i respect the laws of the neighbouring countries who hang and shot such drug criminals.
how i wish our country can have the moral strength to make tough decisions like this”

Calling yourself a Christian but turning you back on the words and lessons of Christ just doesn't wash I'm afraid.

Matthew 7:20 “Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”

Dear Saltpetre,

Thank you for your post.

You wrote;

“What would Christ say? Who can really know? Preventing the stoning of an adulteress (or prostitute) is indeed commendable - since neither would we now consider such a severe penalty warranted (or if any penalty at all be warranted, in our now more compassionate and understanding society).”

I would say that it is quite evident what Christ's position was on killing those found guilty of crimes deemed deserving of the death penalty. He was against it. It doesn't take a very nuanced reading of the scriptures to ascertain that. To be attempting to impose our values on the situation Christ faced with the adulteress dramatically lessens the impact of his actions. In his time and under Jewish law she should have been put to death.

I have had this debate before with so called Christians like Platypus900. I always say if they are that determined to bring back capital punishment in my society well first find me a sinless person since according to the teachings of Christ only that individual is permitted to flip the switch, or tighten the noose, or push the syringe, or pull the trigger. Of course they would only be good for one killing as their sinless status would immediately disappear once they had done the deed so another would need to be found.

Remember even Christ could not have been employed in this action as the scripture Jesus said “Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one,that is, God.”

You also wrote;

“Pick and choose how you like, so many passages support the maximum penalty for the most severe of crimes - the murder of an innocent.”

Ask those 'Christians' I referred to earlier if they consider abortion as “the murder of an innocent” and I wager the answer would be yes. Should a woman who aborts a pregnancy be shot or hung? This is truly what these aberrant people want for us.

The number of homicide victims in this country continues to fall. It dropped by over 30% in the last decade. We do not have the death penalty. The only Western nation that continues to employ state sanctioned killings is the US which has a homicide rate nearly 5 times ours. Please show me the deterrence effect in action because I for one don't see it.

csteele,

My interpretation of Christ's injunction "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was to draw attention to the hypocritical and unjust stance of the Law of the time - whereby male participants in adultery, or in utilising the services of a prostitute, were not punishable, or at least not with anything as harsh as capital punishment, by any means, let alone by stoning.
Can you not see the hypocrisy operating in the law of the time - and is this same hypocrisy not possibly still operating in so-called Sharia law?
When is what's good for the goose NOT good also for the gander?

In any event, I do not see the lesson being that punishment (of any kind) should only ever be inflicted by those of 'pure' conscience - else virtually no punishment of any kind could ever be delivered, no matter how justified.

Punishment should fit the crime, and justice should be done, and be seen to be done. Anything less is either deceit or hypocrisy.

>Should a woman who aborts a pregnancy be shot or hung? This is truly what these aberrant people want for us.<

This is what is wanted? Surely not. Surely what the 'Right to Life' movement wants is an end to abortion except where the woman's life or health is in jeopardy, and appropriate punishment for perpetrators of non-sanctioned abortions?

However, the abortion debate is complex, and it would be wrong to try to draw direct parallels with the termination by murder of a living, breathing human being. A fine differentiation perhaps, but here we enter the field of the rights of the woman to self-determination.
TBC>

csteele,

Here we are dealing with Law, and Law is man-made - and not always following God's ordinance (and possibly rarely so).
And, we are dealing with Justice - which should genuinely FIT the crime.
Deterrence should be a function of social/societal and behavioural education and development, including, but not exclusively, by way of sanctions and punishment.
The executed murderer will not re-offend, and will not remain living as a constant reminder of a soft and flawed 'system'.
Justice should be seen to be done, and life imprisonment is only an additional burden on the innocent.

Jesus speaking about people who leading people to sin

(Luk 17:1) Jesus said to his disciples: There will always be something that causes people to sin. But anyone who causes them to sin is in for trouble. A person who causes even one of my little followers to sin

(Luk 17:2) would be better off thrown into the ocean with a heavy stone tied around their neck.

The only Western nation that continues to employ state sanctioned killings is the US which has a homicide rate nearly 5 times ours
csteele,
give it a few years when the population here reaches saturation point. For time being however just try to imagine 260 million Australians. Scary eh ?

Dear Saltpetre,

Could I invite you to revisit the scripture, John 8. The chapter is about the Pharisees wanting to trick Jesus into denying the law so they could then have justification for having him killed. This only works if they felt that Jesus would want to refrain from passing judgement on someone that then resulted in them losing their life. In the next chapter they try to get him for working on a Sabbath when he healed the blind man. The one following that he is accused of blasphemy for saying he was the son of God.

This is the theme that is being played out not one about, in your words, drawing “attention to the hypocritical and unjust stance of the Law of the time”.

John 8 is pretty clear, Jesus was against the taking of a life even if it was proscribed by law.

You asked “What would Jesus think about drug dealers? Surely not the death penalty, but at least something fairly severe.”

Well the answer is pretty evident in the Parable of the Sheep and Goats and I reproduce it here for your contemplation;

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Cont..

Cont..

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fireprepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

So the answer to your question is that Jesus would go and visit them in prison, his heart was open to the plight of prisoners, to their stories, to their needs. Of course to the likes of platypus900 he would be displaying 'misguided values' that need to be 'pushed back against'. And this is why his lot are so false and particularly egregious when they attempt to adopt the label of 'a follower of Jesus Christ'. Compare him to Hasbeen and individual, both have views with which I have issues but at least they are consistent and not normally anywhere near as hypocritical.