Does anyone believe we should revisit the death penalty?

I believe that for the most horrific crime of child rape and murder ..it is the only punishment appropriate.

These 'evils' are let back into communities knowing full well they intend to offend asap.

The law affords them far more rights than it does the innocents in our society who are the victims of these vile creatures..

I know all the arguements of how 'death is so final' and 'proven innocent after they are dead'.. these veiws will surface..

Like it or not..death is sometimes the only punishment appropriate for those who choose to destroy the lives of innocents and yet dont learn from a mistake only looking for more victims.

Yes I agree Ozgirl that the death penalty should be applied in certain cases of rape and or murder. It should not be handed out without proper consideration for the particular case and circumstances though or if the evidence of guilt has been a bit lacking.

By not having the death penalty you are saying to somebody who may be inclined to commit murder. Well you can go ahead and commit murder and your life will be protected. Why should these people be able to make some sort of life for themselves in prison, reading books, watching television having some contact with their outside family or loved ones . Their victim can never do that again.

They may also get to see their grandchildren someday (if they have children) which is
Something their victims family can never do.

The only thing that may be a problem though is someone who commits rape against a child may actually rationalize that they might as well kill the child as well if they are going to get the death penalty if caught anyway. Maybe the death penalty should only be applied to murder.

Hi OZGIRL, you have picked a very good topic to discuss.

You are right to say that our judicial system is inadequate.
It’s tragic that a nation is so inadequate at dealing with crimes and security issues that it would have to resort to capital punishment- the most primitive, immoral and barbaric ‘solution’ anyone could think of.

I also think that it glorifies violence and is unnecessary.
It is not logical to fight violence with violence to show people how wrong violence is.

I agree with Sharkfin that "someone who commits rape against a child may actually rationalize that they might as well kill the child as well if they are going to get the death penalty if caught anyway."
But I obviously don't agree that "the death penalty should only be applied to murder."
I would like to see capital punishment disappear globally.

Don't forget that even if there are no surviving victims, any witnesses may also be in much danger.

There are more reasons why I am against the death penalty, but I may discuss these later.

The best thing in my view is to work towards an improved judicial system, not towards reinstalling the death penalty.

Celivia hi..

I think ,as I said, that the system has let innocent babies and children down, when the rights of peadophiles take precedence over the rights of children.

I dont know if a couple of years back now you saw that very obviously mentally disturbed man put back into a neighborhood that repelled and hated him..

He had no remorse about what he'd done and intended to feoffend..
So if he'd served his time and was still a danger to the most defenceless in our society..what then?

I believe in some pples mind they would feel compelled to take the law into their own hands..

I dont normally believe in the death penalty either Celivia..it is most extreme...and yes it is in some pples mind barbaric and violent..but I think its understood that barbaric ,cruel ,dangerous ,and life destroying are the very words the onlt terms one could use to describe these vile pple.

The punishment should fit the crime and in our judicial system does not fit this particular crime.

I beleive the death penalty for drug traffiking is way out of kilter..but this is the most extreme crime in any society.
Your point is well made and well considered.

Once a life sentence meant exactly that, now it means maybe ten years but the criminal can get parole after four years or so. And that four years is not the most comfortable but neither is the most uncomfortable.
Paedophiles if proven should be castrated . No appeal. If that person reoffends, then finish him off or lock him up until he is very old. He will then become simply a drain on the tax payer and be of no use to the society he offended against.
Drug smugglers and dealers deal in death for profit. Their main victims are our youth who will be robbed of their future. Take away the dealers future to save more of our young.
It is so simple.

Yes Mickjo I guess castration would be a good option as well..I think theres a case of guy here years ago who was castrated..but is it legal and is it an option...if it is why I wonder is it not being applied as a first line of defense?

Drug trafficking is bad but not nearly as bad as child rape and murder..

For one the majority of suppliers sell to young adults who do have some degree of control over their own fate in that they choose to purchase the drug or not..not saying that they have the wisdom and experience that a mature adult does but they have the advantage of being physically strong and able to simply walk away from danger.

Children and babies do not..its that simple.The creeps who prey on these vulnerable, innocent children deserve no 2nd chance.

In part I believe in the death penalty especially for crimes against innocent children. There is absolutely no excuse, ever to hurt a child and these people need to punished for their crime. It may make people think twice about committing the crime if they know that the death penalty is attached. These days it is very rare that the wrong person is arrested and charged with a crime, there is too much technology to proove things and also to proove the person may be innocent. I also agree that when they sentence people to a "Death Penalty" it is a bit of a joke when you look at how long it actually is before the actual "Death" is implemented. Having said all this I also believe in rehabilitation and believe that some people can be cured of their sickness. I do not believe in chance after chance for repeat offenders and it is these people that deserve a harsher sentence.

Sharkfin..as you pointed out and Celivia picked up on..there could be that danger of kill the child anyway if the death penalty applied for being caught..Mickijo mentioned castration..Im not sure that its actually applied anymore..I would love to know however..as it would be something that could be lobbyed for as a first line of defence..Im not speaking of chemical castration, im speaking of surgical.

So you do have a very strong point there Sharkfin..

I do however believe there is a case for repeat offenders of violent crimes against children in this area.

Deborah,
Yes some criminals have been on death row for about 20 years- it has happened that people were found innocent while on death row. But you are correct that with all the DNA testing etc, mistakes are not so common. Still, I am against death penalty- I’ll explain further in a moment. Your rehabilitation point is worthwhile discussing further (but I’m lacking time right now, we should keep this in mind, though.)

OZGIRL
…when the rights of peadophiles take precedence over the rights of children.”
Good point, I agree, and that’s why I really think that the system is inadequate and should be updated.

Like Mickijo says, it would be a good thing is ‘life’ actually means ‘for the rest of the prisoner’s life until he naturally dies’.
Some criminals should have no right to walk free- not ever! I would like to see them rot in jail and/or get the chopping board out!

But because I highly value civil liberty I simply cannot agree in priciple to bringing back the death penalty not even in extreme cases.
I think that Australia should move forward, not backward.
I agree that the punishment should fit the crime, and that can only happen when our judicial system gets a make-over.
I also don’t believe that the death penalty deters others from committing the crime. And the only example it sets is that it is OK to kill some people in some cases.

Continued

It is already bad enough that we have a legal system that is inadequate, and I believe that adding the death penalty to this the system would make it even more retarded.
The only wise option would be to make real improvements and corrections to the failing system.

Another reason why I find capital punishment immoral is because I strongly believe that the severity of a crime does not necessarily determine who gets executed- race and money come into the picture as well. It is the wealthy, influential or powerful white men who will be given more lenient sentences than the poor black fellows. For the same crime, one may walk again, the other may be put to death.

Mickijo, I agree that prisoners are a drain on the tax payer, but did you know that the death penalty is more costly? I once read an article in where it was explained that it costs at least triple to execute someone than to lock up that person for life. I wish I had kept that article.

If all the money we ‘saved’ by locking someone up for life was spent wisely, for example on prevention of crime, more education for legislators and on improving the system, our system would not be as disgraceful as it is now!

I agree that killing a criminal will not deter others from commiting the same crime, but somehow we have to be able to stop crimes against children. Yes I too agree that keeping them in jail for "LIFE" without the option of parole would be punishment enough for some. That would have to mean though that they never ever ever walk free again. Yes the death penalty would retard us but sometimes there just seems to be no other option.

i DO NOT belive in the death penalty for two reasons

1: it cost more to kill some1 then it is to keep them in prison 4 life

2: nothing is worth taking a life 4

keep them in 4 life if need b but dont kill them

Yes, Rizz,
I suggest that Life without Parole should be the highest punishment- there would not be a need for the death penalty.

OZGIRL
I also just thought about the families of the victims.
If this murderer would have to serve Life without parole ('rot in jail') then the family of the victim could be sure that this monster would not be allowed to walk free ever again.

If the murderer got the death penalty, then there would be many costly appeals for many years. This places a lot of uncertainty and stress on the family of the victim- they cannot be certain that one of the appeals will be successful.

Really, I strongly believe that life without parole (till they die) is the highest option in where we do not have to be ashamed of the Australian system.

i agree just look at that guy from americe. he murdered sum1 but then he changed his life n made a difference but he was sentenced to death even though people protsted against it, even the murdered peoples families

No Way, Jose. Ronald Ryan would likely be found not guilty if he was tried today, considering the evidence gathered AFTER he was hanged. Does the name Lindy Chamberlain ring a bell? She was crucified before she first set foot in the courtroom. I don't know if she is guilty or not, but a dingo or pigdogs gone feral took a dog of mine, about the size of a baby, from a campsite one night. I didn't hear a sound, just saw some blood on the ground next a.m. Makes ya wonder

I think the death peanalty would be a detterrent to peadophiles..as Deborah said these days its rare mistakes are made and with DNA matching etc there would not be the worry of executing the wrong person..

Yes that was a real concern in the past, but not now.

Celivia, when I have more time I will address some of your points more fully.

Rachel, have you found evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to pedophiles?
I’ve searched but I’ve only found evidence that the death penalty does not deter others from killing people, but nothing yet about how it deters pedophiles.

In fact countries without the death penalty have lower murder rates.
I don’t think that the states in say the USA have lower child molestation or murder rates than states or countries that do not have death penalty.

Don’t you think that if there’s death penalty for pedophiles that it will increase the possibility that the pedophile will also kill the child?
What does the pedophile have to lose by killing the child if he’s already sexually abused it? On both sexual abuse and murder would be the same penalty.
Killing the kid would mean the pedophile has killed the victim who’s a danger to the pedo if s/he ‘turns him in’.

Through out my life since the age of 11 (i'm now 16) I have been raped many times by many people, one lasting 4 years (the abuse) but still I do not want them to die, I don’t want them killed, I just want them to go to prison and get help. I would not like them or any other person put to death.

Rizz

As is often the case I have mixed views on this topic.

The most pressing reason I can see for the death penalty is to protect others from an individual who continues to be a danger.

The realities of lifetime incarceration mean that prisoners will get opportunities to harm other prisoners and guards, they may get the opportunity to escape.
With a prisoner who continues to be an ongoing risk we end up with one of three options
- We place others at risk of harm - do we dislike the death penalty so much that we are willing to allow less serious offenders to be subject to rape, bashings etc as part of their incarceration or prison guards to be assualted intheir work?
- We keep the prisoner in inhumane conditions, welded into a cage and never let out for medical treatment or some something else secure enough to ensure that they can never hurt another human being.
- We execute them

No perfect answers in whatever we do but I struggle to see why others should continue to be placed at risk at the hands of repeat abusers.

R0bert

GUILTY VERDICTS.
One more thing I forgot to say before about guilty verdicts: even though I agreed that with all the new DNA testing mistakes are not common, last year or so there was an article about forensic scientists in USA crime labs who were caught falsifying lab tests to prove a defendant guilty. This happened in several states and was not a one-incident corruption thing.
Point is that even with our near-perfect technology, we need to take human error, corruption, bribery and fraud into consideration.

I also want to repeat that I am very concerned that racism and wealth may play a role in sentencing people to death.

Rizz,
I’m sorry to hear that you have been to hell and back. I hope you have found help.
You sound like an amazing and compassionate person, I hope things will work out for you.

continued

RObert,
You're too bright so early in the morning! Good points; I considered them. I do understand your struggle; I'm struggling with some values as well. I do see your points but I've tried to make a few comments to support my view against the death penalty.

“The realities of lifetime incarceration mean that prisoners will get opportunities to harm other prisoners and guards…”
The death penalty can also be a motive to murder. Prisoners have been committing murder inside the prison with the intent of being executed. http://www.fadp.org/killfordeath.html Without possibility of the death penalty there would be no motive to kill for those prisoners who want to cop-out life in prison.

“ We place others at risk of harm - do we dislike the death penalty so much that we are willing to allow less serious offenders to be subject to rape, bashings etc as part of their incarceration or prison guards to be assualted in their work?”
Prisoners on death row spend many years, even 20 years, waiting for execution or may die before it’s their time to be killed.
It’s not like they’re being sentenced to death and executed the week after. I believe that people on death row are just as likely as any other prisoners to harm or rape others, or escape.
Increasing security may reduce this risk.

We don’t need to keep prisoners in inhumane conditions- I believe in treating all prisoners in a civil way.

Yes, dangerous prisoners need to be kept away from others in a high security prison- but still need humane conditions. Just the basics but no luxuries: like a clean environment and hygienic toilet facilities, nutricious meals but no treats etc.

Robert..I agree with you wholeheartedly, thereis no perfect answer to this problem. I guess the best way I can put it is that laws have to be put in place to best serve the needs of the greater good.

Sometimes we avoid the hard decisions, yes sure death seems like a repelling option for some, but to be honest I would not all that saddened if I knew a child murderer and rapist were being executed on any given day.

Yes Celivia..you are right.. there is room for error and corruption but still and even so this decision to implement the death penalty would take into account those very real variables..that is human nature.

Lets say for instance that given your scenario of a evidence tampering, that yes we know that these corruptions take place and in a very small percentage of cases some one was wrongfully executed , this would still not negate the very real fact that overall and for the good of communities ,we would have a much safer enviroment for our children.

As Robert says no one option is the ideal..this question is fraught with moral dilemmas but we must keep in mind that the rights and safety of the most vulnerable in our community is ultimately what we are striving for.

I think the option of surgical castration as mandatory is a good option and far less controversial.

Taurus (and others)
I agree with castration for pedosexuals.
They still got their hands though!
Perhaps chop these off as well (LOL).

But seriously
Yes I do agree with you and RObert that there is no perfect answer or solution to this problem. Whatever decision we make, there are positive and negative sides about the solution. All we can do is try to choose the least imperfect solution to match our values.
We all agreed that murderers, esp murderers of children should never again be in the position of re-offending.
We agreed that they must be kept away from communities for the rest of their lives.
I agree with you that the rights and safety of the most vulnerable in our community is what we should be striving for.
I think that from there our views start to diverge.

I believe that life in prison without parole would be the least imperfect option because this would be sufficient enough to protect vulnerable people (children) in our community.
If there have been mistakes, corruption, racism or power and wealth factors involved in reaching the verdict and this is revealed laterat least the prisoner is still alive to be set free.

If the only reason for people to believe in death penalty is that this option is not safe enough because these murderers can still kill in jail or can escape, I think they should think of solutions to those problems.
First of all, as I said, a prisoner on death row can kill or escape as well, given the length of time they spend on death row.
Also, prisoners who have been convicted of murder could be microchipped so they can be easily tracked when they escape.

Some people want ‘an eye for an eye’, but I don’t agree that emotions and revenge should be part of a legal system. We don’t rape rapists, or inject drug dealers with heroine, and neither should we kill a killer.

BTW I just received an email that it’s World day against the death penalty tomorrow! http://www.amnesty.org.au/Act_now/campaigns/adp/features/world_day_against_the_death_penalt

I think Celivia..as much as we dont want to believe it the 'eye for an eye' mentality is probabilty the correct one..

When we commit an offence that heinous against children we come to believe that society is based upon certain set of laws and expectations..that we all live by the same code..that society does not tolerate certain behaviours and each violation, according to its severity will be dealt with under the rule of law set down.

Why should we allow these 'pple' to be locked up, 'rehabilitated' and be given any form of 2nd chance or respect afforded them as a small baby or childs small lifeless cold body lies rotting in a grave courtesy of that poor misguided soul?
He turned out the lights of a child forever and now the taxpayer and society has to pay for him and even be afraid that somehow thru a legal loophole, or escaping, or overcrowded prisons,he may become a real threat to our children again and will in most cases commit exactly the same crime.

An eye for an eye..the only way to go.

We should save our indignation and sympathy for those who deserve it..

taurus29, I have a few main concerns with the use of an eye for an eye approach.

- Our legal systems do get corrupted. Innocent people do get convicted. A death penalty once carried out is very hard to overturn.
- Regular use of the death penalty seems to have a history of moving along class or racial lines. Societies seem to be better at executing people who are different than ones just like ourselves who have done wrong. Poor people or coloured people are easier to execute that good local boys.
- I suspect that societies which use an eye for an eye are hardened by it. That it's not just the guilty who are harmed by the process. I don't have hard evidence to back up that viewpoint and may be wrong but it's a factor for me.

Celivia, I do think that keeping a person alive in prison for the term of their natural life is an inhumane punishment. The person with a "never to be released" stamp should have the option of ending it earlier in a painless manner if they choose. The same for the person facing a death sentence.

Likewise keeping someone on death row for years seems cruel. What I don't know is how much of that is necessary. Is the appeals process more complex than it needs to be when that occurs? Is there a better balance between that and the convicted and executed the same day approach?

Any thoughts on how to safely confine a person in a humane manner without placing others at risk? It's not something I've seen any satisfactory answers for.

R0bert

Taurus,
I have a problem with ‘an eye for an eye’. We cannot bring a murdered person back to life by killing the murderer.
When we talk about protecting ‘the vulnerable’ in our communities, we spoke about our children. But the vulnerable are also the underprivileged.
The more resources the defendant can afford the better his/her chance to escape death penalty.
It’s a civil rights issue. It’s about dignity of a whole nation. Retribution should not be the standard of a modern society.
As I pointed out, and RObert hi-lited in the post after yours, our legal systems do get corrupted.

RObert,
Good point about the hardened societies.
Yes, I agree that life in prison without parole is also inhumane. Even though I still think it’s the least imperfect option (the other option being the death penalty), I have been thinking about what you said with regard to an option for a person ‘never to be released’.

I’ve always been pro voluntary euthanasia in cases of incurable physical disease- and perhaps I have to try to look at it from the same angle as I look at euthanasia.

I am not 100% convinced, but I can discuss this for the sake of exploring the topic because you made an interesting point; not to be disgarded.

Imagine that if voluntary euthanasia would be seen as ‘moral’ by the vast majority of Australians- because it is inhumane to let an incurable person suffer never-ending, unstoppable pain until s/he dies a natural death…

...then perhaps it can also be seen as moral to give a person convicted of life in prison this choice as well, on grounds that s/he is socially (instead of physically)ill and incurable and will keep suffering ‘killing attacks’ that will also cause him pain- and will cause society terrible loss and pain as well.

I am talking about serial killers like child molesters who kill their victims- the people that are obviously going to remain repeat offenders when set free.
They could possibly have the option of requesting euthanasia.

continued

RObert, you have created a new option. Perhaps this is the least imperfect and most humane option?

There will probably be a reduction in suicides in prisons as well.

It doesn’t sound too bad to me. I’ll give it some more consideration.
What do others think? Are there more options?

About your question how to safely confine a person in a humane manner without placing others at risk, I don’t have an answer for this problem. I think that whenever there are a bunch of prisoners together, there will be always the risk of fights amongst them and against prison wards.
Improving on security, the installment of camera’s etc might reduce the risk.
Also, reduction of boredom will help.

President Bush taking away the life sentenced prisoners' art supplies and making life worse for them in general was an incentive for some to kill others to 'pass' for the death penalty.

Like it or not our world leaders believe in 'retribution'..retribution is the cause for all our wars, perceived or real , take 911 as the most recent example.The whole of Iraq was torn down, bombed and burned due to retribution and the fact that Iraq never bombed the Twin Towers was not even taken into account.Is our wisdom any more valid than world leaders who have vast experience in the validity of this question?
Retribution is a natural human instinct and i cant stress too strongly enough that no matter how civilised we think we are, we are in actual fact just animals and animals deal in retribution.

I see your point about the forgiving sinners and when you say that killing a murderer will not bring back a dead child, no, your right..but that person can never kill another child, the whole point here surely.

Still think that theres something very perverse about asking taxpayers to support child rapists and killers..the death row option..well swifter bearucratic responses should come into play

With DNA testing etc I fell there is very little room for error..it is unlikely, as opposed to the old days that the wrong person could be executed.,and even if the rich and privelidged do extort the legal process that still does not invalidate the use of the death penalty as a effective tool.
As for humane life sentences?Why should they be humane?What human feeling and compassion did he show to the child he murdered?

Surgical castration removes sexual drive in men..you mentioned that we do not remove the hands though..if Im not properly interpeting your meaning I apolagise..but castration would take away the desire to recommit an offense unless he was also a serial murderer and thats a different story.

OK..I want to ask the question Robert and Celivia, why do you say that they should have a choice?

I need you to answer that for me before I can go on to answer properly to your posts..I can try second guess your reasoning but I dont want to presume I am that privvy to the workings of your mind.

Why should society give these'pple' a choice?

taurus29, I tend to think that the retribution approach is tied in with a significant proportion of human conflict. To show some of my cultural bias I think that the more advanced societies tend to move away from justice based on retribution.

I see the purpose of our justice system being to protect society from those who won't abide by it's rules not to get revenge on those who have done wrong.

I don't much like seeing my taxes used to feed and house those who have chosen to reject societies rules either. As I said earlier I don't have a lot of confidence in our legal system not to get corrupted. I wonder if in the future we will learn some things we don't know now which might provide other options.

As to why they should get a choice, if your aim is retribution then it does not make sense, maximising the suffering of the offender becomes a priority.

For those who see the justice system as being there to protect society then we need to look at what produces the best outcomes for society. That includes prison conditions that provide a balance between discouragement to commit crimes and rehabilitation. It also means a desire for the sciety we want protected to behave better than those we regard as criminals. If we behave as badly as the criminals then it is might makes right not justice.

If we condone making people suffer for retributions sake then it's not a big step to add in torture, once we've reached that point we are just haggling over the price.

I don't want innocents executed nor do I wish to see the suffering of the guilty drawn out unnecessarily just because we can. We gain nothing and probably harm ourselves and others when we take that approach.

R0bert

Hi All,

Challenging topic and good comments from all.

Although I am not a great fan of the death penalty, I can't help
but thinking of it in some obvious cases like repeat murderers, rapists and above all serial drug smugglers.

These particular examples I believe its only fair to the victims.

FH, welcome to the discussion.

taurus29, something I missed out in my earlier response. Whilst I'm opposed to retribution I do support restitution.

We should do what we can to ensure that criminals when caught put right whatever can be put right of the harm they've done. Seizing of assets to compensate victims and whatever other means which might help undo the harm done. Maybe a fund could be set up out of the assets of convicted criminals to help compensate victims of crime.

We could also impose a higher tax rate for a period on a convicted criminals earnings. Other idea's welcome.

R0bert

Taurus,
I agree with your view on castration. If this takes away all interest of pedosexuals in kids, then the problem would be solved. Perhaps this could be their choice.

Not ALL world leaders believe in retribution.
Look at Mandela- who kept focusing on reconciliation rather than retribution.
And what about the Dalai Lama? His religion is simply: Kindness.

“Retribution is a natural human instinct and I cant stress too strongly enough that no matter how civilised we think we are, we are in actual fact just animals and animals deal in retribution.”
Animals, in fact, do not deal in retribution. That’s something humans do. We- the most evolved species!
Have you ever seen an army of mice attacking a cat because the cat ate their Gran?
If people were more like animals, there wouldn’t be retribution or wars; people would only take what they needed to survive.
So I think that humans are not as civilized as they think they are ;)

“As for humane life sentences? Why should they be humane? What human feeling and compassion did he show to the child he murdered?”
The emotions of a psychopath have nothing to do with how our legal systems are supposed to operate or the quality of these systems. Our systems’ standards should be of high quality, not based on emotions of psychopaths or social misfits.
We can aim to improve, we can aim to behave more kindly, more peacefully, and more respectfully towards other human beings, no matter what emotional state they are in, or what kind of mental problems they have.

If some people cannot do that because there is something wrong with them, either physically, mentally or socially, then we do not have to lower ourselves to their level- we can choose to set an example of how we would like the human race to behave. If some people are beyond help we will have to protect other humans from them, and we can do that in a way that is as humane as possible. How else are things going to improve?

continued

“Still think that theres something very perverse about asking taxpayers to support child rapists and killers” I agree; I’d rather see my money go to other things. I also rather not pay taxes to support wars, Howard’s payrises etc.
I don’t know if you’ve read all of the previous posts, but the fact is that it costs, overall, about 3 times as much when sentencing people to death than it does to keep them in jail for life.

“With DNA testing etc I fell there is very little room for error”
I agree- a death penalty system will be enhanced by DNA testing. However, DNA testing is only as good as the people who carry them out. Corruption is happening everywhere- there is no reason to believe why it wouldn't happen in DNA testings.
But I am not only concerned only about DNA testing- not everyone (my point about the wealthy and the poor and the resources they have access to) has equal access to quality or choice of defence. I worry about racism as well, as I said in a previous post.

“why do you say that they should have a choice?”
I’m still not 100% convinced that they should have a choice. I said I need to give it some more consideration, but atm giving them a choice doesn’t look too bad. My answer atm would be: We give them a choice because that is the most humane thing to do.