With respect Folks, the death penalty in this case is NOT MEANT as a DETERRENT ! It's meant as a PUNISHMENT. Apparently there's an abundance of empirical evidence suggesting capital punishment doesn't deter most crooks committing crimes that may attract the death penalty, so why bother ?

The reason is clear, it's to PUNISH the offender, as FOXY alluded to earlier. It's retribution by the community and/or the victims of that crime. Therefore, the question is, Is the death penalty a suitable or appropriate punishment for some very serious offences ?

In my opinion only, no I don't see a case for capital punishment - ever ! Other than as I've previously stated, executing a terrorist (ISAL, ISAT) contemporaneously with having been caught in the act !

next myth we will be told is that corporal punishment was not a deterrent for lawlessness. The evidence stares people in the face but they want to believe their flawed little dogmas. Total disrespect for authority, rape, murder, break ins, bashing of oldies etc etc. Oh thats right one use to be able to leave cars unlocked and houses unlocked and women by and large could walk the streets safely. It does not fit the lefty narrative that teaching kids respect through corporal punishment might just have had a little influence. And don't mention Singapore.

Dear Is Mise,

You said of Foxy “Don't get it do you?”

You then asked “would the death penalty deter you from an illegal action?”

Well let's see if you get it.

I'm not sure of the price of heroin at the time of the Bali 9 arrests but but a kilo of cocaine that could be purchased for $30,000 in the US was fetching $190,000 in Australia.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/cocaine-drug-lords-hit-australia/story-e6freuy9-1225809970028

While the likes of Foxy would of course be deterred by the death penalty for an illegal action, in this sense it is an inane question as Foxy, we would hope, would never contemplate smuggling cocaine.

However if you owed a dealer $10,000 for drugs and physical threats were being made and you were offered a chance not only to clear the debt but make an extra $10,000 dollars would you?

Knowing that less than 5% of the drugs entering this country are detected would you roll the dice for a 20 to 1 chance to dramatically improve your circumstances against a very slim possibility of doing serious time in an American or Australian prison? You would probably consider it.

Instead of cocaine from the US let's say it is heroin through Bali.

What does putting the death penalty into the mix look like? You might indeed have second thoughts at $10,000.

However this time you owe the dealer $30,000 and threats are not only being made toward you but also your family and instead of $10,000 you are promised $30,000. the same odds of detection apply. You want out of the hole you have dug for yourself and you want to protect your family and yourself from harm. Anybody in that situation would consider it.

My argument is that in reality, within the context of the drug trade, the death penalty serves only to raise the reward of smuggling. There will always be people desperate enough to risk getting caught if that price is right and the harder it is to get drugs into a country the higher the price. These are the people you want to murder?

Dear ConservativeHippie,

You wrote;

“Is the death penalty a deterrent? Back in the 70's Iran announced plans to shoot drug smugglers at the border; the trafficking stopped very soon after a handful of foreigners were shot.”

Don't know where you plucked that one from but here is today's reality.

“Anti-narcotics and medical officials say more than 2.2 million of Iran's 80 million citizens already are addicted to illegal drugs, including 1.3 million on registered treatment programs. They say the numbers keep rising annually, even though use of the death penalty against convicted smugglers has increased, too, and now accounts for more than nine of every 10 executions.”

That's right 9 out of ever 10 executions being for drug smuggling alone. How has it protected its population? Well it hasn't. 2.2 million addicts is insane.

http://news.yahoo.com/drug-abuse-iran-rising-despite-executions-police-raids-152534464.html

STEELEREDUX...

On this particular issue I'd agree with you. State initiated punitive measures, rarely have any consequences of foreboding on the thinking of crooks. It's the question of 'illicit value', that ultimately figures as an integral component of the overall equation ?

Of course I'm basing my premise on the judicial climate that's currently prevailing here in Oz ? Whether the death penalty if it was still contained within our statutes, would make much difference, I'd suggest probably not ?

No doubt it might deter a few ? However providing the rewards are sufficiently attractive, many would still give it their best shot ? Interestingly, most intractable crooks are inveterate gamblers !

Banning a substance that many people want does not work. A post earlier mentioned that the addictive substances such as tobacco cause great damage and are sold legally.

IMHO they would cause more damage and lead to more crime if they were banned. The US in 1919 banned alcohol. It led to crime, corruption and an increase in alcoholism. In 1933 the Volstead amendment which banned alcohol was repealed. There is less alcoholism and corruption than there was during prohibition. The sensible thing to do is to legalise drugs. Then, like alcoholic beverages and tobacco, it would be under control, be a source of revenue and be less damaging.