We're now living in dangerous times with the awful spectre of terrorism looming large once more. When we do apprehend these killers, these miscreants, that proudly display severed heads of people they've summarily executed, how do we punish them ? Apart from the fact our courts are un-accustomed to presiding over terrorism matters, how should we punish these 'proven' killers ?

Previous judicial antecedents show, that most of the courts are appreciably out of step with community expectations. What will happen when they're required to apportion justice to a 'smirking' convicted terrorists, having just thrust his raised right fist aloft ?

All my adult life I've strenuously argued against the reintroduction of capital punishment, that is until now ? The dreadful scenes of that anguished family of a decapitated US journalist, post that act of unmitigated savagery, moved me indescribably, to the point of cold fury. These individuals have totally forfeited their right to any degree of compassion or leniency. Therefore when they're indisputably proven guilty of terrorism - execute them !

It should be noted herein, the titular centre of Islam, Saudi Arabia itself practices capital punishment. For, but not limited to; Murder, Rape, Blasphemy, Armed Robbery, Repeated Drug use, Apostasy, Adultery, Witchcraft and Sorcery. Public decapitation is the usual method, but stoning is also employed for some crimes.

Dear o sung wu,

Should we model ourselves on Saudi Arabia? It is not relevant to our practices what Saudi Arabia does.

Should the courts apply the law according to community expectations? In some communities lynching is acceptable. They do not accept a trial with due process.

One trenchant argument against capital punishment is that if the wrong person is executed there is no way we can make up for the wrongful act. Even in cases of terrorism that may happen.

One argument for capital punishment is that is a deterrent. A burglar may be deterred from murdering a house holder for fear of capital punishment. That argument does not apply to crimes committed by religious or political terrorists. They may welcome martyrdom for the cause.

The arguments against capital punishments apply even to acts of vile terrorism. We are not they.

No!

The list of people wrongly executed under Australian law is exceeded by the list of people murdered by repeat offenders who would not have repeated had they been executed for their first capital crime.

Capital punishment is the ultimate deterrent to repeat offences, paedophiles come to mind as do terrorists.

Forget killing them, there's a far better way....castration.
It would work well for paedophiles too.
Think about it, the terrorists believe they'll be matyrs in heaven with swarms of willing virgins, take their tackle and that prospect won't seem half so desirable, will it?
Then consider the effect on the terrorist's program, imagine them trying to peruade young men to get involved if their very manhood is on the chopping block! Good luck with that one Abdullah!
Works for me!

Hi o sung wu, most definitely, not considered, but implemented, & quickly.

The west become great, when it adhered to certain principles. It had no time for those who would not work to support themselves & the society, & it had no truck with dissention, at home or abroad in the areas they controlled.

And it should go all the way. We now have judges who are more interested in the well being of the criminal. I am often amazed at the list of crimes, from rape to murder, committed by repeat offenders. I wonder what they are doing out on the street. Is Mise is right, they should never have been out to commit a second offence, let alone been on trial for their 4Th, 5Th or 10Th.

With bleeding heart judges, & parole boards advised by so called psychiatrists, letting these people out to get another innocent, the only way our communities can again become safe, is to eliminate the scum wherever it is found, locally or overseas. While they live there is a probability they will be let out to strike again.

I have no interest in deterrent to other prospective criminals, or mass murderers, I don't believe it works, but every one put down is one less danger to worthwhile people.

The softly softly approach has failed completely in all areas, time to bring back the stick, & the idea that the punishment must fit the crime.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Decisions about capital punishment are not really
about deterrence. They're about 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.

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 number of people -
seem to favour the death penalty.

The usefulness and morality of the death sentence
are controversial, particularly because the United
States is virtually the only Western democracy that allows
executions. A principled argument for the death
penalty is that it will deter murder. Although people
on both sides of the debate have wrenched the statistics
this way and that in support of their claims, there
does not appear to be any consistent difference in
homicide rates between states with the death penalty
and other wise similar states without it.

And if the death penalty 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
industrialised nations, which do not. Yet the reverse is
true; the American homicide rate is by far the highest in
the industrialised world.

o sung wu, I do not agree with the death penalty, its not a deterrent, and its simply societies way of exacting revenge, and revenge is not justice. You recall the 'backpacker' murders some years back, could there be a more heinous criminal than Milat, hard to find one. Yes, I fully understand if it was my child murdered then I may well want revenge in the form of the death penalty, hard to say as I'm not in that situation.

Dear O Sung Wu,

We also need to remember that terrorism is
a complex phenomenon. There are certain conditions -
social, political, religious conditions that exist
and people choose terrorism because they believe that
violence or its threat will be effective and usher in
change. They believe that the violent means justify the
ends. Killing these people - will make them martyrs
and heroes - and possibly may attract others to their
cause. I doubt whether deterrence will be the result.

The answer is simple. If murder is wrong, judicial murder cannot be right.

Good afternoon to all you good people...

I've calmed down a little from yesterday where for the first time in awhile a cold fury came to the surface.

Some of you may recall, I broached this very subject a couple of years back and at that time I spoke against Capital Punishment for ALL crimes. Since then I've had a significant shift, crime is crime, murder is murder' but unmitigated terrorism involving a person gleefully holding up a decapitated head for the purpose of teasing 'whoever' - is no crime, it's an abomination, an obscenity and the perpetrator of which should be destroyed, not punished but completely destroyed.

Some of you may know I'm 75, a retired detective, and a veteran, so I'm not exactly a shrinking violet. But these views and opinions that I've summarised herein, have really concerned me, as I've thought by now, I was sufficiently settled enough to rise above these daily accounts of atrocities and horror, all of which were perpetrated in the name of Islam.

HASBEEN'S correct. We're far, far too soft. Give it back to these 'people' in spades. Twice as hard, without any degree of mercy, in fact the word mercy should not be in our vocabulary when dealing with this 'disease'. Render total destruction and forget all about being civilised, compassionate, mature, above it all etc - total and absolute destruction, perhaps then they'll have a greater degree of fear of us, and leave us alone.

Agronomist,

We should all use the same understanding of words,

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by any other human, judicial murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by the State, but the execution by the State of a criminal, who has been found guilty of a capital offence in accordance with the laws of that State is not murder.

when you have fools who call smacking their kids violence then you are unlikely to have any decent system of law. When those kids that are never disciplined commit horrendeous crimes people are dumb enough to ask why.

To all you good folk who argue against the re-introduction of Capital Punishment, I would agree with you without hesitation. I've already detailed the one exception to that position that I now hold.

It's true there's little evidence that CP acts as a deterrence, nor does it seem to appease the population at large. Probably the only people who do derive any benefit from a judicial execution, is the NOK of the victim ? Even then, those who've been permitted to witness the execution, seem generally unrequited in terms of any sense of having revenge for the victim, on the killer ?

Hello FOXY...

Your last comment is patently true. By killing terrorists can and often does martyrize them. But allowing them to live achieves nothing either, other than to allow them to spread further poison about their distorted objectives and agitprop (if that's the right word?) so we're between a rock and a hard place. Show any degree of humanity, then they consider us weak. Conversely, show them we mean business, and have a measure of 'steel' in our resolve, perhaps then we may gain their respect ? What shall we do ?

I have always been all for capital punishment, but, it must only apply to a case where the offender has been caught red handed, Martin Bryant style, otherwise there is always that chance that an innocent person would have been killed, just like Lindy Chamberland as an example.

As for terrorists, I would be pleased to see anyone who openly supports the cause be executed, full stop. A terrorist doesnt have to pull the trigger so as to say to be a threat and the world would be a much better place without them.

Is Mise, so there is lawful killing of a human being by another human being? I would define this also as murder if it were deliberate.

Agronomist,

If a person is confronted by an armed intruder in their own home, who screams "I'm gunna kill ya!" and they, being in fear of their life, shoot the intruder dead; then do you consider it to be murder on their part?

.

We killed 1,193 people on the roads last year in Australia, including 14 cyclists.

Victoria's Acting Premier Peter Ryan said : “the key thing is that these deaths are avoidable. There are no accidents on our roads. Drivers make poor choices. They choose to speed, they choose to drive under the influence of alcohol and drugs. They choose to be distracted from the particular task at hand.”

We also kill over 250 people a year mostly by knives (38%), beatings (25%) and gunshots (13%). We usually use a double or single barrelled shotgun. We try to get away with it if we can. About 9% of the killings remain unsolved.

We kill most of our victims between 6pm and midnight on Saturdays and midnight and 6am on Sundays, usually during night-time festivities or family gatherings. Three in five of our victims are killed either in our own homes or in theirs.

We tend to kill fairly indiscriminately, even though it’s illegal, including some people we have never met, simply because we don’t like the colour of their skin. We have never met most of the people we kill on the roads either. Though, of course, we do know most of the people we kill with knives and guns and by beatings.

The State may have abolished capital punishment but we haven’t :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-01/national-road-tolls-2013/5181358

http://www.smh.com.au/national/murders-at-a-low-but-knife-use-on-the-rise-20130220-2eroj.html

.

"....A preliminary study by the authors of 894 Western Australian males arrested for homicide offences during the period 1984-2005, and subsequently released from prison, found that 177 (19.8%) of the 894 were subsequently re-arrested for another grave offence (any violent offence including breaking into a dwelling) by the end of the follow-up time (December 31, 2005). Among these 177 men, 13 (7.3%) were in fact re-arrested for another homicide offence...."

Had those 13 murderers been executed after the first offence, 13 people would not have been murdered.

Would the saving of those 13 lives have been worth it?
http://criminology.research.southwales.ac.uk/features/reoffending/

o sung wu mate, the one who gains most from capital punishment is the next victim. The one the criminal is going to kill or rape once they are let out. I am talking about cold blooded killers, or even worse, those who did it for fun.

Don't worry about the taking of human life, these are the ones who didn't quite make it, they are not quite human.

If there was any chance that life was just that, the criminal would never be let out, I would be happy with that, but our bleeding hearts would never let that be.

While there is every likelihood that they will be let out, & will offend again, the only satisfactory sentence is death.

It is the only thing that protects the innocent, & guarantees a killer will not kill again.

There is also the enormous saving in money; the depraved murders of Anita Cobby have and are costing the taxpayer money that could have been well spent elsewhere.

Why don't we just send them back to the warzones and ask the Americans to drone them? At least they can say an actual terrorist was killed in the airstrike.

Dear O Sung Wu,

You ask what should we do regarding terrorists?

What we don't do is succumb to the siren calls of
demagogues, charlatans and ideologues.

We have laws that we are all expected to abide by.
These are laws enacted by the Parliament under the
Australian Constitution. It is important for people
to realise that if they break a law that it is going
to be enforced whether they acknowledge its
legitimacy or not. This applies to all criminals -
including those who choose to engage in terrorist
activities.

Despite all the obloquy shovelled on the head of
politicians, they are the men and women who work the
machinery of our democratic way of life. They reflect
public opinion - and at their best they lead public
opinion - and transmute it into laws that shape our
society and our country.

We have to decide what sort of
country we want to live in - and whether we want capital
punishment to be a part of our legal framework.

I feel the same way about this subject as Rehctub.
Unless we have absolute, undeniable proof that someone has murdered someone else, and that it was premeditated, then I don't support capital punishment.
I can't see that ever happening.

I hate the thought of electrocuting or medicating someone to death if they were actually innocent.
That would make all of us guilty of murder if we had voted to make capital punishment legal.

Sorry Suse & Foxy.

As I see it the bleeding hearts are guilty of murder when they compassionately let a murderer out of prison, having paid their debt they say, then have them commit another murder.

Terrorists are guilty of any murder committed by their brethren. It does not matter which pulls the trigger, or wields the knife, they are all guilty by association, & should all be executed.

Why they did it is totally immaterial, I am not interested. Join or support a terrorist organisation, & you are guilty of any act they commit.

Hi there SUSEONLINE...

It is for this reason I totally oppose capital punishment in matters of criminality. By the way one of the essential proofs needed for murder is; 'malice aforethought' or as you've described 'premeditated'.

HASBEEN & IS MISE... much of what you've both stated I agree with, with the exception of the punishment phase. I oppose putting a criminal to death, I know, call me a 'softie' a 'weakie', it's quite true, I can't stomach the thought of going through the structured, regimented procedure of a State sanctioned execution - it's uncivilised, and I was nearly going to say 'unnecessary', but I'd be wrong !

A proven terrorist is not a criminal; 'it's' a filthy disease, that must be immediately expunged from a civilised planet ! You'll probably note that I chose not to identify a gender, rather referring to a terrorist as an 'it'.

FOXY...as always you mount a strong, logical and reasoned argument, that I could never in all conscience, legitimately rebut. My only point of disagreement with anything you've said in this matter, you've attempted to enjoin the actions of a terrorist with that of a criminal. It's at this point of delineation our opinions must separate.

As I said above, I don't consider ordinary (civil) criminality has any similarity with that of fanatic terrorism. With the latter, all bets are off, discard the statutes, and our moral scruples, ethics, and standards, as well as our 'rules of engagement'. Terrorists should be totally expunged, annihilated - afford them no mercy whatsoever. I'm sorry FOXY, I feel I've unintentionally caused you some affront ? Regrettably, it's just how I feel about this curse.

Suseonline, "Unless we have absolute, undeniable proof that someone has murdered someone else, and that it was premeditated, then I don't support capital punishment"

That could be exhibit 1 of the flaws of capital punishment. The likelihood that an offender might never be convicted because a juror might refuse to accept evidence of guilt put before her, because to do so might result in the judge donning the black square of silk.

o sung wu,

None of the terrorist atrocities that have been reported lately come anywhere near what was done to Anita Cobby, a completely innocent person, who was brutalized, tortured, raped multiple times, mutilated and murdered by five of her fellow citizens.
They had nothing against her, she was just a convenient victim of their lust for some warped excitement.

Yet we keep them alive and look after their health and well being, what a farce.

Is Mise, how can we condemn a murderer's actions, and then 'legally' have them murdered as well? What happened to 'Thou shalt not Kill'?

Put them away for life, medically castrate paedophiles and rapists, put them all to hard labour, whatever.....but I think killing them is too easy.

It is not proven to stop the murders on the streets, as is obvious in the US states where it is legal, so that is why we are a bit more civilised here in Australia.

.

Intentional murder is an act by which the murderer clearly demonstrates his refusal to recognize and respect life as a fundamental right of every human being, including himself. That signifies, ipso facto, acceptance of capital punishment as a just sanction for his lethal act.

However, capital punishment should only be applied in cases where the defendant is judged guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. It should be limited to abridging the life of the condemned person and carried out with dignity, politeness and respect, in conditions of utmost security.

It should be a peaceful and painless death, preferably in a warm, cosy environment. The condemned should receive appropriate psychological assistance and sedation where necessary in order to prepare him for an end of life that he would probably have difficulty accepting. He should also receive spiritual solace, if he so desires, from the religion of his choice.

We all have to die some day and this should simply be the acceleration of the persons natural life cycle – perhaps, even a better, more comfortable death than that which he may have experienced if he had not been condemned.

True, nothing in this world is perfect and some innocent persons may see their lives prematurely terminated. That is unfortunate but it is unavoidable. All lethal accidents are unfortunate and, because they do occur, unavoidable too.

Capital punishment should not be a barbaric affair involving pain, stress and suffering. Nor should it be accompanied by obloquy or opprobrium. It is simply the application of the terms and conditions of the social contract to which we all voluntarily subscribe through the democratic process.

.

Suse,

"Is Mise, how can we condemn a murderer's actions, and then 'legally' have them murdered as well? What happened to 'Thou shalt not Kill'?"

Execution by the State in accord with law is not murder and as for "Thou shalt not kill" it is also translated as "Thou shalt commit no murder", which is the logical meaning.
Killing of fellow humans is justified in self defence, be it in war or in the front garden on a balmy summer afternoon.

As regards execution, a .22 low velocity short bullet in the back of the head is almost instantaneous, very effective and costs a few cents.

'Thou shalt not Kill'?
Suseonline,
Why Not ? Replace that phrase with the more logical 'Thou shalt not murder" & presto ! Problem solved.

strange how opponents have no problem with mums murdering/killing their unborn. I suppose feminism triumps over ideology for this case anyway.

Low shot Runner.
Abortion is the prevention of a life, like it or lump it.
The rights and wrongs of it are a different discussion.
Personally I see the question of capital punishment quite simplistically, and I use that word deliberately.
First, the guilt needs to be iron-clad, as in "red-handed", caught in the act etc.
Second, the convicted needs to have demonstrated their inability to understand and/or live by the basic decencies of humanity, respect for life and the prevention of suffering etc.
Thus, if they've demonstrated their rejection of humanity then humanity is best served by accepting that rejection and acting accordingly, by removing them from it.
The dead commit no inhuman crimes, do they?

Low shot Runner.
G'day Bruce,
Yes when you consider that he most likely would not contribute a Cent to any born baby destined for a life of misery.
Preventing a human being from entering this world is not a fraction of the crime as is forcing a human being to suffer through life.
runner,
we need to be cruel to be kind but not as cruel as forcing suffering upon those whom the likes of you have no consideration for, the living !

runner is on sure ground, many jurisdictions hold that a fetus can be murdered and that therefore at the time of death it was a human being.
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=murder+of+the+unborn

LM, many jurisdictions have quite a few rules that we generally find offensive, Pakistan gaols rape victims, Saudi Arabia beheads criminals, China stockpiles prisoners for parts, just to name a few, so I'd hardly call that good support for any position on abortion.
Nor does any abortion seem to fit in a discussion of capital punishment, unless it's a capital crime somewhere?
TBH, I don't know but somehow it wouldn't surprise me.

Is Mise, are you suggesting we change the words of something a supposed invisible being carved on stone and left for us mere mortals to live by?

G'dayBruce, even if we were discussing submarines, horse racing, or climate change, Runner would still bring up abortion.

The thing is, abortion is safe and legal in this country, and he and his other religious fundie mates will never get over that.
No one is asking any of them to have anything to do with what other women decide about their own bodies. It is no one else's business.

Murder by capital punishment is not legal, but the same righteous people champ at the bit to legalise that......go figure!

I agree in general Suse, but for one detail, the father should have some sort of input in most situations. Exactly WHAT input I'll leave to wiser heads, that's beyond my level of competence, but I DO accept that the ultimate decision MUST be the woman's, free and clear, anything less is quite simply uncivilised IMO.

Hi there IS MISE...Of course the Murphy brothers are (as far as I know) still 'under protection' at Long Bay. The dreadful crimes occasioned to Anita COBBY were beyond deplorable, as were those occasioned to Virginia MORSE of Moree, by the infamous filth of Kevin CRUMP and Alan BAKER (the ring leader) ! Fortunately, both are still in gaol with no prospect of ever being released.

A questing for you if I may IS MISE ? Do you believe life imprisonment, without the prospect of ever being released, is preferable to execution ? Naturally, I support the former. Notwithstanding these slugs that epitomise terrorism. It's not the fact a terrorist murders. Rather it's the 'quality' and 'quantity' of their atrocities that mortify me !

SUSEONLINE...

I fully appreciate your position, when you state your preference for a specific punishment for a distinct category of crimes (Rapists - castration etc). But there are those who would say, in so doing is commensurate with that of torture ? There are many others who would say the abominable crime of rape is also torture ? Victimology is generally complex, whenever we're the victim of one of these appalling crimes, our natural human emotion desires revenge, and that need for revenge, becomes voracious almost beyond that of insatiable.

Low shot Runner.

G'dayBruce

not nearly as low as killing the unborn. The Nazis also insisted Jews were not human just as the killers of the unborn do. The double standards of those opposing capital punishment is very clear despite your idiotic conclusion that abortion is the prevention of life. You obviously went to or have fallen for feminist science school.

Yes I know what you mean O Sung Wu, and I would look for revenge too if I was the victim or family of any of those awful crimes.

However, in the case of castration for convicted paedophiles and rapists, I don't see chemical castration as a form of torture, but more a 'deterrent' against them wishing to further offend.
Surgical castration, under anaesthetic, would not be torture per se though I guess....

"You obviously went to or have fallen for feminist science school"
Runny
I suggest you ask Foxy about that, among others here, not sure she'd agree with you, lol.
if you want a discussion about abortion, start one, or join one?

Hi (again) SUSEONLINE...

I thoroughly support these measures that you've identified, for crimes occasioned against women and children. In fact, I'd follow the Singapore and Malaysian model of corporal punishment, for these categories of offences. Women and children are amongst those who're generally unable to adequately protect themselves against a violent attack.

So it's for this reason, the State should provide sufficient warning of the possibility of corporal punishment as a strong deterrent directed at potential offenders, as a means of assigning women and children with some measure of protection. I don't know about you, but I'm heartily sick and tired of reading about the pathetically inadequate and feeble penalties these offenders receive, at the hands of our erudite 'jelly judges' !

More often than not, it's the woman victim who's cast as the 'agent provocateur' in the eyes of the Court, and that's patently wrong. If detectives are sufficiently convinced there was no question of 'consent' then the bumbling Court should accept that as the 'status quo' or 'judicially noted'.

I'm bound to inform you SUSEONLINE, there's a lot of work done by detectives, in matters of sexual assault briefs. Sorry, I'm well off Topic here.

We do seem to be having problems understanding basic English lately.

Suse,

Murder is the illegal killing of a fellow human being, a legal execution by the State is not murder.
Now did you understand that simple sentence?

Do you also understand that physical castration does not necessarily stop sexual intercourse and that chemical castration is reversible?

Many translations/interpretations of the Fifth Commandment exist but as we live in a nominally Christian country, I offer the interpretation by the preeminent Christian authority:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Suse "....are you suggesting we do not interpret the words of something a supposed invisible being carved on stone and left for us mere mortals to live by,"
Don't you live by them?

G'day Bruce,
Did you read the link?
Then there is this
"There was a parliamentary review into changing the law, the Crimes Act was amended. The changes are referred to as ‘Byron’s Law’, named after Renee Shields’ unborn baby. The new legislation, the Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Act 2005 (NSW) amended the definition of grievous bodily harm in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) to include the destruction by a person of the foetus of a pregnant woman."

http://guides.sl.nsw.gov.au/content.php?pid=242811&sid=4247818

and then there is "Zoe's Law" which, as far as I know, is still before Parliament.

o sung wu,

I think that being locked away without any hope of release is a greater punishment than death, but unfortunately there is always the chance that a change of Government or a change of perception in the chance of winning votes may lead to eventual release and the consequent murder of more innocents.
So execution is the safer and less expensive option.

If we live in a democracy why isn't the issue of capital punishment put to the vote. Its always disturbed me when politicians make decisions on our behalf, that are not congruent with majority's wishes.

It makes sense to eliminate violent evil people who have committed horrendous crimes like you would a rabid dog. Whether its a deterrent or not, we should be sending a clear message to those who may eventually be convicted for a domestic terrorist attack. At the cost of $100K plus to keep people in prison, why waste the money or the bed space on a proven monster, for 10, 20 or 30 years? Or perhaps ever morning at breakfast give the option of an arsenic pill instead of eggs.

A well thought out capital punishment program could be restricted to the worst of nasty evil type crimes, terrorist related acts causing deaths, and possibly murdering a police person (how PC was that?) though I'm sure some on OLO would think killing a cop doesn't deserve special consideration.

The deterrent factor might possibly be enhanced by a speedy judicial system and shorter appeal process. If the death sentence was to be carried out within a year of sentencing, the process would be much more humane than dragging it out like they do in the USA.

As for ISIS related capital punishment... Drone them into non-existence as soon as possible and don't worry about taking them to court.

Hi (again) IS MISE...

You're absolutely correct. It's of little value if we put all our energies into structuring an adequate system for punishing these criminals. When along comes a new government, and in order to ensure a sound voter base, they'd sell their own kids especially if they thought it would guarantee they'd retain power. Not dissimilar to our 'jelly judges' that pervade our halls of justice ?

Is it not a case of; 'plan for the worst but hope for the best' ? Whenever we need to protect a good sound penology stratagem, from the meddling 'mitts' of tedious and unimaginative politicians ?

Is it not a case of; 'plan for the worst but hope for the best' ?
o sung wu,
Only morons would disagree with that.
Shame the Lefties don't think along those lines, imagine the millions of voting power for the good of the nation lost just like that !

Exile to penal colonies would be more a more effective deterrent than the death penalty, a closed, self sustaining community where the prisoners have to do everything for themselves and work together or starve.
With today's technology, renewable energy and so forth a self sustaining prison colony out on an island or in the middle of the desert somewhere would be viable, no visitors, no communication with the outside world, just the threat of exile for life for serious crimes.

Jay Of Melbourne,
very good suggestion, where do I sign ? I can only see one problem with that, our Judiciary.
They've proven beyond reasonable doubt that they have no concept of right or wrong. We'd really need to introduce a new set of Laws & Legislations to achieve the rquired mentality. I think a National Service is the only way ahead if we don't want to become the middle east of the Pacific.

Good evening to you INDIVIDUAL...

'...we don't want to become the middle east of the Pacific...' ? What a nauseating and loathsome hypothesis, and I would've thought, far from being impossible, as evidenced by the strong toehold they already have in this country ?

You know INDIVIDUAL, we Aussies are mugs when you think of it ? We see and hear warning after warning, yet we still see large pockets of the population that seem to reside in this 'bubble of apathy', with an apparent denial of the truth. Folk like the Greens, certain members of the Labor Party, and even a couple of the LNP are demanding that Mr Morrison temper his 'hard-line' on 'Boat' people. Just one of these appalling examples of our collective apathy ? Failure to safeguard our borders.

We see the burgeoning growth of ISIL all around us, but instead of demending that our political masters take a much tougher line...what do we do eh ? '...She'll be right mate, pass me another cold one...' ?

Individual, sadly I believe you're the first person I've heard to really enunciate our (Australia's) near future ? '...we don't want to become the middle east of the Pacific...' A truly mortifying thought, truly mortifying. Therefore we MUST subjugate and subdue this gangrenous and putrefying threat; to our people, our Aussie culture and our beloved country, before it's too late !

o sung wu,

Regarding “pathetically inadequate and feeble penalties”, multiple studies have been conducted around the world, in which interviewers read the details of various real-life court cases to the subjects of their study and ask them to state what they think would be an appropriate sentence. In nearly every case, the people suggest sentences similar to, or less than what was handed down in real-life.

The reason why the public remain so outraged despite these consistent and contradictory findings is because the media do a poor job of reporting the full facts of each case to the public, aggravating factors are always more fun to talk about than the mitigating factors. While time constraints and financial constraints play a role here, there’s nothing we love more than to shake our fists at the television while watching the 6:00 news, and the media knows this.

Jay of Melbourne,

Your suggestion of exile wouldn’t be more of a deterrent than life in prison or the death penalty, I’m afraid. The reason why capital punishment isn’t any more of a deterrent than life in prison is not because of its perceived severity by would-be offenders, it’s because most crimes - particularly the more serious crimes - are not rationally thought out, and any extent to which they are, the perceived benefits are disproportionately focused on while the risks are given very little thought at all. Furthermore, any additional deterrent effect that capital punishment might have had is probably negated by the brutalising effect that it has been found to have on societies.

AJ Phillips,
A charge of murder by definition requires evidence of pre meditation by a rational person, spur of the moment homicide is covered by manslaughter laws.
All of the other crimes the death penalty advocates want covered are also pre meditated in most cases, drug dealing, pedophilia, rape etc.

Exile would offer the opportunity of a wrongly convicted to get at least some justice. However, if exile were to be considered it'd have to be as was suggested by Jay of Melbourne. No modern comforts, let them live by the Law of the jungle, the same Law they first resorted too when committing the crime. To kill someone is not murder. It is murder when you take someone's in self-interest. To help a terminally ill & suffering person to end their misery is not murder, nor is self-defence yet they attract severe sentencing in comparison to the more heinous murder. Punishment for proven murder should beat Death as stipulated by the family of the victim. My personal solution would be harsh internment with a capsule of Cyanide on the cell shelf. It's a good enough solution for Astronauts so why not for murderers as well ?

Exile to an island somewhere seems a good solution, but just where do we find two islands, or maybe four?

Exile to a desert region might work also, but who guards the perimeter?

What would be the punishment for trying to get out?

OSW>> All my adult life I've strenuously argued against the reintroduction of capital punishment, that is until now<<

OSW I do not believe that the “State” has the right to murder their citizens...... on principal, Judeo Christian principals. DNA has seen a plethora of state murder victims cleared after their executions.

Agronomist ended this argument with this succinct line, “ if murder is wrong, judicial murder cannot be right.”

“ if murder is wrong, judicial murder cannot be right.”
sonofgloin,
You have a lot of waking up to do. Firstly, no-one is advocating murder, we're talking about preventing it in case you hadn't noticed.
The death penalty can only be classified as murder if the judge or jury are so bent that they corroborate into sentencing an innocent. It can happen & it has happened but nowadays with cameras everywhere, DNA & other hi-tech it would be an extremely risky thing to do.
Those who are against such punishment better come up with an alternative soon because people have had a gutful of the present sentencing laws.

"Agronomist ended this argument with this succinct line, "if murder is wrong, judicial murder cannot be right."

I agree heartily with this, judicial murder is always wrong, but Judicial Murder is not the same as Legal Execution.

I do wish that we'd all start using common English.

"...but Judicial Murder is not the same as Legal Execution."

Only to the extent that Judicial Execution is not the same as Legal Murder, but maybe the confusion is with the concept of extra-judicial execution?

"I do wish that we'd all start using common English."

Or correct English, Is Mise.

In which case what is being discussed should most correctly be described as premeditated killing.

I must apologise for my inability to choose words that clearly convey my thoughts on (a) Capital Punishment and (b) Destruction of those engaged in terrorism.

I totally oppose Capital Punishment for all classes of criminality. Convicted criminals must have two elements to their offence (i) mens rea (the criminal intent) and (ii) the actus reus (the criminal act). Therefore, the old legal maxim should apply; '...an act does not make a person guilty unless his mind is guilty...'

With this terrorists 'filth', their acts of killing are quite unlike that of a normal murderer. Though there exists an 'actus reus' there's a general absence of 'mens rea'. They (terrorists) simply kill because of some esoteric devotion to their God - to exterminate the infidel, all non-believers and those who've committed the unspeakable crime of apostasy of Islam ?

In the normal criminal sense, the proofs for homicide that need to be covered by detectives are relatively easy ? They are;
'malice aforethought' (express or implied) and 'a death' at the hands of the accused individual.

I'm sure most of you can see there's a precise and indisputable contrast between the two. The ONLY way to effectively deal with terrorism, is to stamp it out - much like a 'pest controller' would deal with any form of dangerous pestilence ? I'm certainly NOT advocating a re-introduction of Capital Punishment for criminals.

Exile to an island somewhere seems a good solution, but just where do we find two islands, or maybe four?
is Mise,
The Northwest I believe has many uninhabited islands. Put several navy boats around them for excercise & stopping the boats at the same time. The crocs will be a pretty good deterrent up there as well.
Anyone caught getting out gets put back with a few lashes to make sure they know they've done wrong !

Individual>> You have a lot of waking up to do.<<

Indy, my heart is not bleeding.

I am against the State having the legal right to terminate life.

I believe that murder committed with either premeditation or for gain should attract a life sentence without parole.

OSW is overwhelmed by the senseless barbarity of the zealots.....as are we all....but life has to have a stable value for it to be deemed as precious.

OSW>> I totally oppose Capital Punishment for all classes of criminality. Convicted criminals must have two elements to their offence (i) mens rea (the criminal intent) and (ii) the actus reus (the criminal act). Therefore, the old legal maxim should apply; '...an act does not make a person guilty unless his mind is guilty...<<

.......o sung you can't have it both ways..........

.

Dear Sonofgloin,

.

You wrote :

« Agronomist ended this argument with this succinct line, “ if murder is wrong, judicial murder cannot be right. »

That is a moral judgement of human conception. There is no morality in nature. There is just what is most efficient for survival of the species and, ultimately, of life in general.

Consider murder as a virus in a computer. To remain efficient, the computer must be equipped with antivirus software that detects the virus and places it in quarantine so that the operator can eliminate it.

It has nothing to do with morality. It is a question of efficiency.

Society must protect itself in order to survive. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, morality, religious dogma, superstition or other human concepts. Call it a “law of nature” if you like.

.

Good evening to you SONOFGLOIN...

I'm sorry but I fail to understand your meaning, when you recapitulate exactly what I'd previously written as the necessary elements of a crime ? As I argued earlier on, the normal criminal 'proofs' that need to be proved by detectives, should not apply to an 'act of terrorism', in my humble opinion ?

It is for this reason that I ask what you mean by saying, '...o sung you can't have it both ways...' ? Have what both ways ? Please elucidate precisely what it is you mean, and what further explanation you require ?

o sung wu,

"With this terrorists 'filth', their acts of killing are quite unlike that of a normal murderer"

Back to the murder of Anta Cobby, her murder was unlike the acts of a normal terrorist.

Would someone, who opposes capital punishment, explain how society could have stopped the 13 repeat offenders, mentioned previously, from murdering those extra 13 people.

Two islands are needed because there are two sexes involved or do you put them on one island together?

or do you put them on one island together?
is Mise,
What a great idea of putting them together. Imagine how there demise could be hastened by jealousy etc. Yes, put them together after they have been sterilised.

Oops, should be their not there. Typo !

Gee we've got some real libertarians here. Can we pluck their eyes out and then sow them back in, so we can pluck them out again! AND that's just for 'J Walking' wait till we get to the murderers and rapists, and its all for their own good!

Banjo Paterson>> There is no morality in nature.

There is also no malice in nature BP........

BP>> Consider murder as a virus in a computer.

Banjo, I take it that this thought bubble comes from the Joseph Goebbels School of Genetics.

BP>> It has nothing to do with morality. It is a question of efficiency.

How can this be Banjo....given the reason for the death sentence is a moral one. The zealots in this case did something immoral; they took lives.....innocent ones.

Given your logic regarding nature, the victims deserved to die because they were not able to defend themselves....survival of the fittest...no morality attached.

BP>> Call it a “law of nature” if you like.

As I said nature carries no malice or retribution in its outcomes.

O sung wu>> It is for this reason that I ask what you mean by saying, '...o sung you can't have it both ways...<<

I will elaborate OSW....previous to this thread you tell me that you were against the State taking the life of a citizen. But now you want terrorists put to death.

Why were you able to morally accommodate “domestic” murders, while “terrorist” murders have incited you to support State murder.....both are murder......so your moral compass must have always supported State murder....as long as the crime qualified for death in your moral compass.

OSW, there is nothing wrong with changing perspective, but personally I am not happy with the State having the right to end a citizens life and even more so in these modern times where we the plebs do not control their governments.

I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Paul. I don't agree with capital punishment, as it is no more a deterrent than a life sentence, and while there are not many cases of wrongful conviction, there are too many for comfort.

.

Dear sonofgloin,

.

You wrote :

« There is also no malice in nature BP........ »

You are right. The word “malice” derives from the Latin “malus” which means “evil”. Evil has to do with morality and religious dogma. The evil one is the devil, Satan.

Whether it be malice or any other form of morality, I agree that there is no such thing in nature.
.

You also wrote :

« ....given the reason for the death sentence is a moral one. The zealots in this case did something immoral; they took lives.....innocent ones. »

Again, you are right in thinking that most people consider the death sentence to have a moral justification. I do too, to a certain extent. But, unlike all other crimes, murder, willfully killing someone, is definitive. The victim cannot be resuscitated. The “wrong” cannot be reversed. The damage to humanity can neither be repaired nor compensated. The individual is lost forever and irreplaceable.

Underneath the “man-made” concept of morality which we have grafted on human conduct, lies a much more profound and powerful current imposed on us by nature : the instinct of survival. Murder, the deliberate and ruthless elimination of the living cells (individuals) of society must, imperatively, be avoided .

Hence, my metaphor of a virus in a computer. In addition to the moral overtones of capital punishment (which I do not deny), it is in my view, more importantly, a question of survival - survival of the individual - as well as a question of the preservation of society in its integrity.
.

You surmise :

« Banjo, I take it that this thought bubble comes from the Joseph Goebbels School of Genetics »

I understand and sympathise with your reaction, but hasten to reassure you that Goebbels School of Genetics is light years from my personal philosophy.

Perhaps if you reread my previous post (on page 5) of this thread, hopefully, you will be reassured on this point :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6557#196701

.

Good afternoon to you SONOFGLOIN...

Thank you for qualifying your question, I understand exactly what you now mean.

Earlier on I spoke of the necessary 'proofs' or elements that detectives MUST establish before getting up on Murder. I'll not waste your time or anyone else's, by reiterating them. Simply, it goes to 'motive' or the 'mens rea' of the crime.

Terrorists have this insatiable lust to exterminate or annihilate all infidels, all the unbelievers, anybody guilty of Islamic apostasy. Whether 'the guilty' are a man, a woman or a child, even a baby. It matters not. All that matters is; they exist, and should be destroyed, nothing more.

Whereas, a murderer must have a motive, otherwise he can't be cited 'a murderer' in our legal system. There are many degrees of unlawful killing within our statutes, and non of them need be murder ?

I will agree with you SONOFGLOIN, the unlawful killing of another is still a killing. Whether the killer is a terrorists or someone else entirely ?

You've put a perfectly legitimate question to me, therefore I'm bound to answer it. For example, if a terrorist were apprehended today after having just exploded a bomb, here in Sydney which killed half a dozen people. That terrorists would be treated just like any other individual, he would be charged with murder. It is at this point that I most vehemently and sincerely disagree !

Please understand, it's my 'own personal view' on how terrorists should be treated. And that particular view, carries no weight whatsoever in law. It's my own firmly held argument - a terrorist is quite different to that of an ordinary criminal who'd been convicted of a murder, for the reasons that I've already articulated several times within this topic. I do hope this explanation goes in some way in answering your question SONOFGLOIN ?

.

Dear sonofgloin,

.

Perhaps I should add, to be complete, that, in my view, convicted murderers should not be released from prison - by application of the principle (of the metaphor I indicated) that it is imprudent to release a virus from quarantine in a computer.

I likewise advocate that they should not remain in prison any longer than whatever time is necessary for them to exhaust all possible avenues of recourse and appeal within the judicial process. Confinement in prison is a form of torture. While I advocate capital punishment, I firmly oppose inflicting any form of physical or psychological pain, suffering or torture on convicted murderers.

The “punishment” must be strictly limited to terminating the murderer’s life and, under no circumstances, should it extend to include any other form of punishment such as pain, stress, suffering, moral reproach, disparaging remarks or attitudes, impoliteness, or lack of respect.

I see no reason why there should be any difference of treatment between somebody who freely decides to terminate his own life in the best possible conditions of comfort and security that modern state of the art science can allow and somebody who has been condemned to death by a court of justice. In the first case, it is the person himself who takes the decision. In the second case, it is a court of justice which takes it, on behalf of society. There should be no other difference.

By the same token, I consider that perpetrators of “atrocious crimes” should all be treated on an equal footing. This includes child murder, serial killing, torture murder, rape murder, mass murder, terrorism and premeditated murder that is carefully planned and executed.

.

If we as a society want to assure a reasonable existence we must agree that criminals have instantly forfeited their standard human rights. This nonsense of spending my tax dollar to defend a criminal against me, the victim, has to stop.
This when most problems start when criminals are protected &assisted whilst the victim has to fight & fund with bound hands to defend himself in court of Law.
Do-gooders should be made to contribute to costs for defending criminals, taxpayers should fund the victim.
Perhaps we wouldn't need to discuss capital punishment if we had some punishment in the first place.

"...but Judicial Murder is not the same as Legal Execution."

Only to the extent that Judicial Execution is not the same as Legal Murder, but maybe the confusion is with the concept of extra-judicial execution?

"I do wish that we'd all start using common English."

Or correct English, Is Mise.

OK, WmTrevor, we'll use correct English and in that language there cannot be legal murder because by definition murder is not legal.

I do wish that we'd all start using correct English.

O sung wu>>It's my own firmly held argument - a terrorist is quite different to that of an ordinary criminal who'd been convicted of a murder, I do hope this explanation goes in some way in answering your question SONOFGLOIN ?<<

Yes OSW I understand...as I mentioned your moral compass does accommodate State executions.....my compass has been redirected....but not because I hold any social value to their lives, rather because we have seen regimes like Soviet Russia use the judicial system to get rid of enemies of the administration...a trial then legally shot.

OSW I have never read any dark undertones in any of your posts, and I don’t believe your stance on terrorists is a floor in an otherwise humanist persona, I understand why the issue emotes you...I have a cast of thousands who I believe should have died for their actions.......but not at the hands of the State.

Banjo Patterson>> under no circumstances, should it extend to include any other form of punishment such as pain, stress, suffering, moral reproach, disparaging remarks or attitudes, impoliteness, or lack of respect.<<

Banjo I read your page 5 post and yes we are generally in unison...but as I posted to OSW it is about who has the right to wilfully take a life that drive my stance. The way I see it the only person who legally has a right to kill is a person defending themselves from life threatening attack.

But I would not blink to see repeat offenders of heinous crimes work 12 hours a day every day of their imprisoned lives then die.

Individual>> This when most problems start when criminals are protected &assisted whilst the victim has to fight & fund with bound hands to defend himself in court of Law.<<

Indy the pendulum was swung by 1970’s lawyers who became advocates for the “found guilty.” Do you remember the avalanche of inmates suing us for everything from falling off their bunks to deprivation of their humanity....most won...they still do.

Good evening SONOFGLOIN...

Thank you for your response. You're quite correct with your assumption that I DO NOT support Capital Punishment under any circumstances. Save for terrorists. By executing them, I see more as ridding the world of an awful disease, rather than applying some form of normal criminal justice punishment, per se.

Of course you're right ? On one hand I totally abhor any notion of re-introducing Capital Punishment ! Yet on the other hand, with terrorists, I would seek to have them executed immediately ! Much like a 'Pest Controller' ridding an ordinary suburban residence, of some menacing infestation of pestilence ?

Again, thank you for qualifying your comments.

.

Dear sonofgloin,

.

You wrote :

« The way I see it the only person who legally has a right to kill is a person defending themselves from life threatening attack »
.

You obviously had Australia in mind when you made that statement.

We are all held to respect the laws of the country in which we live at any particular point of time. They are called “positive” or “man-made” laws (as opposed to the laws of nature).

In those countries where capital punishment is the law, the State also has the legal right to kill people.

Though many countries have abolished or suspended capital punishment, according to Amnesty International, the United States, the Philippines, Japan, Botswana, Gambia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia Kuwait, Nigeria and Vietnam, all resumed practice once again at some point of time. More than 60% of the world’s population live in countries where capital punishment continues to be practiced.

“Positive” laws are promulgated by the political regimes which control them. In a tribal society, it is the will of the elders, the wise men of the tribe who impose law based on tribal customs and traditions. In a monarchy, it is the monarch and his courtesans who hold the reins of power and impose their will. In a theocratic political regime, it is the will of the supreme religious leaders that prevails. Totalitarian regimes, imposed by charismatic leaders or military juntas, dictate their law. In democracies, it is majority rule which prevails, with laws voted by the elected representatives of the people.

But, as I mentioned previously, whatever the political regime may happen to be, we are not only subject to “positive” law, we are also subject to the laws of nature. We always have been and there is no sign of change in sight.

Individually and collectively, we are still driven by the instinct of survival. Part of our problem is that the two sets of laws, are often in opposition, with devastating effects on certain individuals and communities, frequently resulting in the destruction and disorganisation of whole segments of society.

.

Banjo Patterson>> Part of our problem is that the two sets of laws, are often in opposition,<<

How true Banjo.....what is "right" is subjective....I think that why the Greeks started philosophising.