Banjo Paterson has as always given us a great deal
to think about. I remember reading about cases
like Charles Manson and Ivan Milat - and I have to confess
that I question keeping people like that alive.
And there's quite a few of those people out there.People
who are not capable of remorse and will most likely
re-commit crimes. I struggle with crimes against children,
the elderly, the vulnerable, against torture.

Those among you who condone capital punishment seem to be of the opinion that it is not right for a person to kill another person but it is alright for you to kill another person through the agency of the State thus absolving you of criminal action. As an individual, what gives you the right to decide who lives or dies? Remember the old adage 'Two wrongs don't make a right.'

Yes Belly, still so much to enjoy. I have had great pleasure from the reappearance of the wrens this year, they are still attacking the glass door into my open front fernery, & even a blue one yesterday.

A couple of days ago there were at least 2 dozen similar size to the wrens at the bird bath, & in the hibiscus around it. They must be migratory, as I have not seen them before in 27 years, & they were gone in an hour or so.

Walk out my front door & you are likely to have a couple or more magpies come flying in, not to attack, but to land at your feet demanding some pet mince. You'll have the lorikeets in the hibiscus demanding some diced fruit, & the topknot pidgins after bread crumbs.

In a tough year like this, the driest in this district since 1881 many need some help to make it through, & I'm happy to help. Without some help this year could be the death sentence for much of our wildlife friends.

Thank you very much indeed, HASBEEN & BELLY, for clarifying your precise situation(s) with your ongoing difficulties with pain, 'the Black Dog,' and your mobility. I reckon Depression is often a sequela to long-term pain.

To me, you're both among the real stalwarts on this Forum, and the notion, that one day, either one or both of you, won't be here through some precipitated action! I must say, it would utterly devastate me.

As a minor contributor to this Site, I read every Post you've both submitted. Because I believe you're (despite your politics BELLY), pragmatic, and not among those faceless academics who seek to chart and alter our society, not through the eyes of pragmatism, but academia alone.

Eg, the ability to alter your gender with the stroke of a pen! Utter bloody madness! Damn any government who allows it!

It's your views and opinions that I value most. As such, I use both of you, as a yardstick for my thoughts; because your submissions are generally consistently scholarly, practical, and no-nonsense.

As an aside, I'm confined to a wheelchair whenever I go out. My wife assists me with showering and drying myself. I've been on Ordine 5 and Kapanol 50mg (Morphine), for over twenty years. I've Chronic pain through physical injuries sustained, during my 32 years as a copper. I'm also in possession of a 100% war pension (DVA Gold Card) - For PTSD and an injury while on active service abroad. Accordingly, I understand, absolutely, what you're both going through. Take it easy, HASBEEN & BELLY, I need you both.

Hi (again) BANJO PATTERSON...

You mentioned a well-used phrase, 'cold blooded' murder. Murder is murder, whether it's premeditated, or committed in a fit of anger. The accused has unlawfully taken human life. The distinction of whether or not it's planned, or done during a fit of rage, broadly falls within the dominion of the penalty phase of the trial. Any extenuating circumstance, like provocation or misadventure et al.

Don't be confused with any extraneous considerations. The Criminal proofs for the charge of murder, are among the easiest of all crimes to establish; as there're only two. (i) The presence of a deceased person & (ii) the person responsible for that death, harboured 'malice aforethought' towards the victim, at the time the crime was committed. Police must prove, (i) 'the actus reus' (the criminal 'act'), and 'the mens rea.' (the criminal 'intent') in order to prosecute the accused.

Having regard to the above, what moral, legal, or secular right, has any individual to take a human life in such circumstances? If it's unlawful for one person to take the life of a human being; then why is it entirely lawful for another to do so? Save for accident, misadventure, instances of War, self-defence et al.? With respect, to argue that euthanasia is the right, even humane way of despatching these evil ne're do wells is appropriate, I will still have to disagree with you Rodney, I'm sorry

The ghastly injustice of the Pell case, with a near enough reversal of reasonable doubt, should be enough to warn people off the death penalty. You can release innocent people from jail - even after 20 years as occurred recently in South Australia when a wrong conviction was overturned - but you can't bring people back from the dead.