Dear Banjo Paterson,

«Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, neither more nor less.»

Thus defined, the laws of nature already guarantee that there is no possibility for justice to fail, so any attempt to enhance justice using artificial human intervention, is absolutely silly.

«It will be a long time before mentalities change in order for justice to be seen simply as the rightful enforcement of the terms and conditions of the social contract to which we all voluntarily subscribe through the democratic process, and not just some cruel form of punishment.»

You are entitled to your view regarding capital punishment (or whatever else you like to call that practice), but you may not use some non-existent contract as an excuse.

The barbary of capital punishment
Banjo Paterson,
Cut the Barbary of capital punishment when criminals cut the Barbary of crime !

Indy,

You make assertions about me that are totally wrong. I believe in justice not simply punishment. You say; "I (Indy) believe in responsibility to society for individuals & you (Paul) believe in society being responsible for individuals!" We are all subjected to a social contract and that entails acting in certain ways towards society, so I do not believe the state is totally responsible for the individual, and therefore the individual carries no personal responsibility.

You emphasis punishment as a deterrent to serious crime, there is absolutely no evidence to support that. Those committing the types of crimes we are talking about, terrorism, serial killings, horrendous murders, are in a dark mental state where the thought of punishment (which I doubt they would even consider) is not relevant as a deterrent to their crimes.

You continue with your hobby-horse of 'national service', again there is no evidence that a regimentation of society in that way would have any effect on future crime. The vast majority of crime, fortunately mostly petty crime, is caused by social disadvantage and a dysfunctional environment , something your national service would not solve.

Those demanding punishment in the form of state sanctioned murder are most likely looking for self satisfaction than any notion of deterrent, put simply you have outraged me, so die as a consequence. I said capital punishment is used as a political weapon, therefore it has nothing to do with justice, and punishment for criminal actions should be all about justice.

Paul1405,
Your above post is mere common academic-type ramble with zero evidence supporting your claims.
National service is not a hobby to me, it's a proven necessity. As for punishment not being a deterrent is utterly baseless as you have absolutely no evidence of any punishment as such carried out. All you know of is mere incarceration with no actual punishment.
National Service has produced citizens who worked for the common good & you et al have been ungrateful beneficiaries of those peoples' discipline & commitment. i don't think future generations will be able to make such a claim about your generation !

Indy,

The only 'western' country that imposes the death penalty regularly is USA, which executes about 20 persons a year. America has a very high homicide rate at the same time, about 6.5/100,000, unlike Australia with no death penalty and a homicide rate of less than 1, even Canada is low at about 1.5. America has far great social problems and inequality in its society than both Australia and Canada. America also has a much higher rate of militarism among young people than us.

Please explain.

National service helps produce a regimented society. Individuals who are used to do things on command. It takes time to produce a competent soldier. The battlefield is an unforgiving place. Make a mistake there and you're liable to be dead. Professional soldiers are less liable to make such a mistake. Supposedly the first US soldier killed in the Korean War was a man who stood up to take a look around. It was his last look.

A well trained soldier will be able to take command when all who are above him in rank are out of action. A well trained soldier is worth more in combat than a number of half trained conscripts.

A citizen in a democratic society must question. He or she must ask if those above are competent. He or she must not automatically accept what a person in authority says but must ask whether a leader is fit to be a leader. If not the enlightened citizen must vote against authority. A soldier who questions authority except in unusual circumstances is not a good soldier.

A democratic society is best preserved and defended by a professional military and an enlightened citizenry.