Anita Cobby

[Alec. J. Hidell]

So its wrong to kill, but right to kill?

[stui magpie]

Nice one Frank.

I actually do support capital punsishment, but only in limited extreme situations.

To kill is wrong. But some people, by their actions, forfeit their right to live.
Just my opinion.

[David]

I'm a fence-sitter when it comes to capital punishment.

Removes the ability for rehabilitation, but then again so does life imprisonment (which is the feasible alternative). You wouldn't think anyone who committed a crime so heinous as to attract the death penalty, if it existed in Australia, would be walking out in 10 years time under our judicial system.

To me, life imprisonment is a virtual death sentence anyhow.

But that's just my take on it.

[stui magpie]

Rehabilitation is a secondary issue really. the primary reason for imprisonment is punishment via deprivation of liberty.

Both work in lots of cases, and in an increasing number, neither work.

I believe that placing a (couple of examples) serial murderer; violent rapist; child molester/murderer in Gaol for 15 years isn't punishment enough.

How many people are released from Gaol and re offend partly because they can't cope outside the structure of the prison?

One of the primary cries against capital punishment is that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to die. I can relate to that so, in Stui world, I'd introduce a new standard of proof for extreme situations only. "Beyond Doubt".

The DPP could choose whether to have an extreme case heard before a judge and jury with the standard of proof being "beyond reasonable doubt" and capital punishment not being an option or they could have it heard before a selected panel of judges rather than a jury with the standard of proof being "beyond doubt" and the only choices being:
Guilty = death
Innocent = freedom.

That would mean that only a tiny minority of cases would ever go to that judiciary, but those that did would be deserving of capital punishment.

Watching some of these assholes spend 20 years being mollycoddled; milking the system and costing taxpayers shitpiles of money with no prospect of rehabilitation shits me to no end.

I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me, but that's fine. they have their opinion, I have mine.

[David]

From memory, there's 4 reasons for punishment of criminals:

deterrence
protection for the rest of society
retribution
rehabilitation

I'd almost discount the third one (pretty much, revenge, in other words), as I don't believe in people 'deserving' consequences of their actions. But that's another discussion for another time.

I think priority number 1 has to be protection... in other words, keeping criminals in jail until you are certain they pose no more threat to the rest of society.

Then comes deterrence - prevention of crimes by the severity of sentences.

And lastly, but also importantly, there has to be a chance for the offender to be 'rehabilitated'. However, this has to be taken seriously, not just some mickey mouse examination by some psychologist... as we often see, this theory can be applied too liberally, which is when you get repeat child sex offenders, for example.

The death penalty and life in jail both provide the same amount of protection for society, you'd have to say, but the death penalty might prove to be more of a deterrent (although this is often debated). Of course, the death penalty removes the ability for rehabilitation, but then so does a life sentence, unless there is ability for parole.

So, that's kind of where I stand on the death penalty debate. Life in jail is only marginally better than a death penalty (I'd choose the former for myself, but only just. They're almost equally as severe in my view.) Which could really be used as an argument for or against the death penalty, when you think about it.

[HAL]

What makes life in jail is marginally better than a death penalty he or she'd choose the former for him or herself but ?

[stui magpie]

Nice textbook answer. I'm told I'm way too cerebral and not in touch with my emotions enough, but this is one topic I get a tad emotional about.

Say for example, a serial rapist beaks into your house at night and rapes and mutilates your youngest sibling.

Sfter they catch him, it's proved that he's done it before. Psych tests show that there's no prospects of rehabilitation, this guy is a hard wired psychopath.

Bugger deterance. People who do things like that don't think about the consequences or don't have consciences. (symptom of a psychopath)

Retribution? maybe.

Protection for the rest of society? Well, you could keep him on ice for the rest of his lfe, which protects society yes. But Society also has to pay for that protection. I read somewhere it costs about $100,000 per year to keep a prisoner in Gaol. Maybe more.

My thought is, remove the cancer from society the way you'd cut out a tumour. Don't wrap it up or isolate it, cut it out and remove it. ie, capital punishment.

If some people are deterred from doing the same thing, bonus.

The point is, the cancer has been removed and ongoing maintenence is no longer required.

[bazdaddy]

If one intentionally takes a life, there's then should be taken, and it should be painful.

[Dale61]

[~Madness~]

The whole lot of these CA shows were on the crime channel on fox Dale. I've seen all the one's they are advertising. The only one I could not watch was the body in the barrel murders. I can generally watch any of these things, but that program was gross and I had to turn it off...

[Joel]

So what Dale? Does it matter?

I watched the show last night. Poor girl, I couldn't imagine much worse. They should have been hung.

[pica]

[Syd_Magpies_Girl]

I think Dale was just trying to say it wasn't a new tv show and it has been shown before, for those who have already seen it on FOXTEL, to not get excited perhaps? Because that did apply to me. I've seen it twice. I was intrigued about it all more than anything, yet disgusted as well.

Get off Dale's back

Body in Barrell murders was really far fetched, I couldn't watch it.

As for the death penalty, I don't agree with it, as much as I wish sometimes these people would not be able to breathe on this earth.

[The Prototype]

I guess it is a new show for us that don't have Foxtel, not that it's the point, there are a lot of these crime shows that have been repeated at one time or another.

I really like watching The First 48 Hours on Seven (Southern Cross Tas.)

[Syd_Magpies_Girl]

Yeah I agree with you, I'm just trying to let the other guys know what Dale was getting at, not trying to assume here though that everyone here can afford subscription tv