Death Penalty?

[1061]

Lately we have a few die during their own murderous madness's.

The Lindt Seige and Luke Batty's dad both died and frankly I shed no tears.

But Darcy's dad didn't jump off the bridge to his own death and he lives on in Jail, the father of the 3 Farquharson boys swan to the bank lives on as well as does Bryant and the Hoddle st shooter and so on.

Personally I don't think they deserve to live on in the same society as me. They maybe in Jail but they breath the same air as I do.

Should we bring it >the Death Penalty< back for these cut and dry cases?

I know it will happen but it would sadden me if this becomes the usual spank the monkey type of thread for the usual suspects because IMO it's a simple question and it is MY POLL, not yours to play with OK.

[sixpoints]

No.
We outlawed it for good reasons many decades ago.
There is no reason to bring it back.
State sanction violence does nothing to stop violent crimes.
It may make some feel better, thinking that 'justice' has been served. But a life in gaol is justice served too.
But if killing makes you feel better I pity you.

[think positive]

Yes, open and shit cases, like both those 'fathers" and the mass killers.

Edit, shut but shit fits too

[Culprit]

In two minds on this. People say the death penalty is a deterrent and that's the biggest load of bullshit that the pro DP movement push. It clearly doesn't. Now in saying that some people don't deserve to live. To me, killing them offers the easy way out. What we need is Life in Prison to mean just that, none of this getting out in 20 years. Life should be just that, you die in Prison. Yes it costs the taxpayer money but the animals are caged for life.

[think positive]

No animal should be caged, ever; mere humans with evil on their mind, another matter.

[Bruce Gonsalves]

[Wokko]

If there is any issue that you don't trust the government on, then ask yourself, do you trust them not to ever make a mistake with your life or the lives of your loved ones?

I don't think there would be a society on Earth in recorded history that has had the death penalty and never executed an innocent man or woman. That alone is reason to not have it, no matter the righteousness and justice in killing some obvious criminals. If there is the remotest possibility of an innocent being executed then there is zero justification for the State to murder its own citizens.

[think positive]

How about others citizens?

[David]

What are you suggesting? Their lives are not worth as much?

I'm against the death penalty in general. It serves no positive purpose other than to satisfy the murderous fantasies of barbarians and sadists.

[Dave The Man]

Only in the most Extreme Cases like Child Killers

[1061]

[think positive]

[Jezza]

In the past, I've pushed more for the argument of the return of capital punishment but after doing more research on the issue and weighing up the pros and cons of the issue, I've come to the conclusion that capital punishment does not serve as a deterrant as an offender.

The most likely reason for this is offenders see capital punishment as an 'easy way' out of the punishment, whereas a jail sentence would mean that they are exposed to the prison system and they are not free to do what they want and they are surrounded by other offenders who are just as dangerous as them.

However, it is a known fact that some of the most serious offenders are still in prison at the hands of the taxpayer. Some argue that taxpayers are wasting their money in keeping serious offenders in jails whereas it would be better to ultimately remove them from society altogether, but unfortunately capital punishment will not deter the crime, even though I wouldn't necessarily be against it in some of the most serious and extreme cases such Martin Bryant, Julian Knight and Peter Dupas for example who are the most serious offenders that the state of Victoria has ever seen.

If it's about reciprocal justice only then capital punishment seems quite straight forward and simple to explain and analyse but for deterrence purposes it's proven not to have worked anywhere where it is has been implemented from what I can gather.

I lean towards the 'no' category but I still put myself into the 'not sure' category personally as there are strong arguments favouring the advocators of no capital punishment but I'm not entirely convinced that the current system in Australia is entirely effective due to our soft and lenient sentencing process.

I'd be interested to continue reading up on this seeing the arguments for and against such a process.

[David]

It's interesting to see people oppose the death penalty on pragmatic grounds (it doesn't work as a deterrent) or because of the risk an innocent person might be executed, but what about a more fundamental human rights perspective? That even if a person has committed an atrocity and there is 100% certainty, it is still wrong to take their life? Is that such a radical position to take?

My view is that criminals are still members of society. Unlike many, I don't see that that membership expires once they break the social contract. They're still human beings, every bit as much as you or I, and they do not deserve to be subjected to gratuitous punishment beyond what is necessary to keep others safe. To argue otherwise is, I think, profoundly anti-humanist.

The irony is, I think most people actually agree with me in theory, because most people oppose torture or starving prisoners or using them for scientific experimentation. If you really believed criminals deserved no rights, you would have no issue with any of those things taking place.

[Brenny]

I tend to agree with David on this one. Regardless, I do not think anybody should be put to death, regardless what they may have done.