# Capital Punishment



## JTLP (2 July 2010)

So after reading that Father John thread - and seeing other heinous crimes committed these days with a slap on the wrist - should Capital Punishment be brought back?


----------



## GumbyLearner (2 July 2010)

Refer here -> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19976


----------



## gooner (2 July 2010)

Seriously, if anyone thinks killing people is the way to go then just google "innocence project".

You can release innocent people from gaol, you can't release dead people


----------



## JTLP (3 July 2010)

gooner said:


> Seriously, if anyone thinks killing people is the way to go then just google "innocence project".
> 
> You can release innocent people from gaol, you can't release dead people




Gooner - look at this Father John. Ruined 100's of kids lives. Admits guilt. Is a disgrace. I'm not seeing an ounce of innocence. Just a man who has abused trust and will now waste OUR money in prison, rotting away. There are more pressing issues in society then keeping alive (more comfortably then low income families no doubt) a menace and disgrace to society until his dying days.


----------



## jbocker (3 July 2010)

I find it difficult to condone capital punishment, but at times I am very tempted to agree to having it, because of some of the hideous crimes committed.

What really annoys me though is the relative comfort these same criminals live, when as JTLP states, many more deserving members of society are unable to have the same conditions. It seems the only way to prevent them having this luxury is to kill them. I guess I may feel a little better if they were suffering  somewhat more.

I appreciate that losing your freedom is a BIG loss, but seems too readily this is granted back to the criminal.


----------



## newbie trader (3 July 2010)

JTLP said:


> Gooner - look at this Father John. Ruined 100's of kids lives. Admits guilt. Is a disgrace. I'm not seeing an ounce of innocence. Just a man who has abused trust and will now waste OUR money in prison, rotting away. There are more pressing issues in society then keeping alive (more comfortably then low income families no doubt) a menace and disgrace to society until his dying days.




Although from an emotional perspective in my mind pedophiles are the worst kind of criminals. Looking at it logically, you are saying that pedophiles should be [insert word here for however you want to label it]? Would that then mean that any equally or more serious crime is dealt with in the same way? I've never understood at a foundational level how we can justify 'killing' someone for killing someone. I agree with Gooner's comment.


----------



## Ageo (3 July 2010)

gooner said:


> Seriously, if anyone thinks killing people is the way to go then just google "innocence project".
> 
> You can release innocent people from gaol, you can't release dead people





In circumstances like this what would you suggest??? rehab?? 

Sometimes i wonder why our world is going the way it is.


----------



## Tink (3 July 2010)

No. 

As much as we can hate what someone does, I dont believe in Capital Punishment. I think I have mentioned this before in another thread.


----------



## Huitzii (3 July 2010)

If it is absolutely positively premeditated murder I don't have problem seeing the death penalty handed down.
As the murderer you need to weigh up if taking a life is worth giving your life in return...im sure there would be a decrease in premeditated murder scenarios.


----------



## Calliope (3 July 2010)

Tink said:


> No.
> 
> As much as we can hate what someone does, I dont believe in Capital Punishment. I think I have mentioned this before in another thread.




I agree. Even if it were adopted, there is absolutely no way it would ever be carried out in Australia.

Three weeks ago they executed a guy by firing squad in Utah USA. He had been on death row for 25 years having gone through umteen appeals. The whole process costs millions of dollars.

And we are definitely much softer touches than the Americans. Many people were up in arms that the prison authorities did not protect multiple murderer Cal Williams from copping his just desserts at the hands of another prisoner. 

It all boils down to the fact that someone has to finally sign the execution order. Henry Bolte, Victorian Premier, was reviled for signing off on Ronald Ryan, Australia's last murderer to be executed. 



> Melbourne newspapers The Age, The Herald and The Sun, ran campaigns opposing the hanging of Ryan, the papers traditionally supporters of the Bolte government, deserted him on the issue and ran a campaign of spirited opposition on the grounds that the death penalty was barbaric.[10]
> Churches, universities, unions and a large number of the public and legal professions opposed the death sentence. An estimated 18,000 people participated in street protests and 15,000 signed a petition against the hanging. The Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) suspended radio broadcasts for two minutes as a protest.



 Wikipedia


----------



## Julia (3 July 2010)

Huitzii said:


> If it is absolutely positively premeditated murder I don't have problem seeing the death penalty handed down.
> As the murderer you need to weigh up if taking a life is worth giving your life in return...im sure there would be a decrease in premeditated murder scenarios.



You'd think so, wouldn't you.  But apparently it's not so, going by the States in the US which have capital punishment.

I'm against it, though like others, feel sorely tempted to change that view when considering the really heinous crimes, especially against children and animals.

Given it's very unlikely to be introduced here, a good start toward improving the recidivism rate would be for the courts to hand down some genuinely serious sentences instead of the pathetic wrist slaps that occur at present.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 July 2010)

Huitzii said:


> As the murderer you need to weigh up if taking a life is worth giving your life in return...*im sure there would be a decrease in premeditated murder scenarios.*



As Julia noted, American killers don't contemplate the death penalty before committing the act. It is in their head to kill and evidently consequences are not a consideration during preparation. Is punishment for any crime discouraging? The problem exists within the perpetrator's mind which is a most faulty organ and while capital punishment is justice for the victims, it is only a cure and not a prevention.


----------



## Huitzii (3 July 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> As *Julia noted, American killers don't contemplate the death penalty before committing the act.* It is in their head to kill and evidently consequences are not a consideration during preparation. Is punishment for any crime discouraging? The problem exists within the perpetrator's mind which is a most faulty organ and while capital punishment is justice for the victims, it is only a cure and not a prevention.




Murdering another human in a fit of rage is a bit different that setting out in a dedicated, precision built plan to take a humans life.
If the latter was the perpetrators intent I would think that he/she would have had the thought at some point in the planing stage of the crime "I had better not get caught here or im in big sh*t".
This sort of person is a very calculated, cunning, sly individual trying to capture his prey and deserves to die for his/her actions IMHO


----------



## Calliope (3 July 2010)

What the pro-death people fail to realise is that no jury in Australia would convict any person on a capital offence if the punishment was likely to be execution.

Recently in Brisbane a jury acquitted a woman of the pre-meditated murder of her husband. Her boyfriend who supplied the gun (with silencer) to her, and  helped her dispose of the body, was much more harshly treated. He was given community service.

You may have seen her flogging her story on "A Current Affair"


----------



## Old Mate (3 July 2010)

I voted yes we should have capital punishment. Some people are not worth keeping alive and I can't stand the fact that my taxes are going towards providing TVs and such for them. I appreciate that mistakes are made and we don't want innocent people killed. But for those cold calculating murders and such, where the the offender has no reasonable provocation for the murder, and where there is absolutely no doubt they are guilty, kill them. 

Then you get into the weighing of crimes. Is raping two children worse than killing a 20 year old man? Do you only execute one of them, or both? It comes down to personal opinion and that's why it just won't happen.

For the record I think those clear cut murderers, serial rapists and anyone who tortures or causes terrible pain and suffering to any other human or animal should be killed.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 July 2010)

Huitzii said:


> Murdering another human in a fit of rage is a bit different that setting out in a dedicated, precision built plan to take a humans life.



Yes if we look at the description for manslaughter as opposed to murder there is a difference in state of mind and circumstance. I agree with you that cold and calculated should get the lethal injection punishment. Alternatively, let the victims kin/friends administer what they agree is appropriate. That is justice.


----------



## grants (3 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> Many people were up in arms that the prison authorities did not protect multiple murderer Cal Williams from copping his just desserts at the hands of another prisoner.




Was Carl Williams really murdered? Wasn't the body unrecognizable? The conspiracy theory goes that Carl has turned supergrass and the "murder" was a ploy by the authorities.

Who was charged with his "murder" and what penalty did they get?


----------



## pixel (3 July 2010)

JTLP said:


> Gooner - look at this Father John. Ruined 100's of kids lives. Admits guilt. Is a disgrace. I'm not seeing an ounce of innocence. Just a man who has abused trust and will now waste OUR money in prison, rotting away. There are more pressing issues in society then keeping alive (more comfortably then low income families no doubt) a menace and disgrace to society until his dying days.




"Rotting away"??? Not even that, more's the shame.
Have a look at today's prisons: all mod cons, Internet, free meals - those barstuds live better than old-age pensioners on welfare 

The anti-punishment brigade complain about that one in a Million that might be convicted and executed in spite being innocent. But they accept the uncounted additional lives ruined by repeat offenders, who would be spared their plight if we'd have the courage and cull those few career crims.

Of course, we could start by making prison life less desirable for a start. But that too will draw criticism from the do-goodie brigade who believe in more equal rights for the perpetrator than the victim.


----------



## JTLP (3 July 2010)

pixel said:


> "Rotting away"??? Not even that, more's the shame.
> Have a look at today's prisons: all mod cons, Internet, free meals - those barstuds live better than old-age pensioners on welfare
> 
> The anti-punishment brigade complain about that one in a Million that might be convicted and executed in spite being innocent. But they accept the uncounted additional lives ruined by repeat offenders, who would be spared their plight if we'd have the courage and cull those few career crims.
> ...




Exactly. There is a lot to be done before the death penalty...I'll grant that. But too many people want to be 'humane'. Let me give you a scenario:

A 60 year old pedophile gets caught and lets say he gets 20 years jail (more likely in this day from a judge it's 5 years and then home detention in a bloody school zone). Anyway...20 years takes him to 80. Average lifespan in Aus is somewhere between 75 - 85 right? So this person either dies in jail or gets out for 5 years before going under.

A - dies in jail = 75,000 x 15 years = $1,125,000 million smackos that could be researching diseases etc.

B - Gets out of jail = 75,000 x 20 years = $1.5m smackos same scenario. 

Thanks for ruining so many people's lives you sicko's and then having my taxes fund you up until a natural death. GTFO.


----------



## hmmm (3 July 2010)

Gaol is the biggest joke. It is the industry education facility for criminals, the university of crime. one criminal to another criminal. there is no rehabilitation in gaols. it lies with in the criminal as to whether they feel like changing their ways and gaol doesn't contribute towards this change, it only make them complacent towards 'the system'. it doesn't make them more contrite or remorseful fo their crimes.

Capital punishment should be imposed, but it could never be fairly imposed, just like the rest of the justice system isn't.


----------



## Julia (3 July 2010)

pixel said:


> "Rotting away"??? Not even that, more's the shame.
> Have a look at today's prisons: all mod cons, Internet, free meals - those barstuds live better than old-age pensioners on welfare



Not to mention immediate and ongoing medical, psychological and dental services.
In the meantime, many old people are forced to eat slop because they can't get dental care.


----------



## gooner (3 July 2010)

pixel said:


> "Rotting away"??? Not even that, more's the shame.
> Have a look at today's prisons: all mod cons, Internet, free meals - those barstuds live better than old-age pensioners on welfare
> 
> The anti-punishment brigade complain about that one in a Million that might be convicted and executed in spite being innocent. But they accept the uncounted additional lives ruined by repeat offenders, who would be spared their plight if we'd have the courage and cull those few career crims.
> ...




There is a lack of logic here.

- In the US, the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rate, it is not a deterrent

- In general, offenders who would otherwise be executed do not become repeat offenders, but simply stay in gaol until they die or are too old to do any more ham.

- Prison removes your freedom. Your freedom to see your mates, to see you wife, to go to the football, to go to the pub, to travel overseas, to take your kids to the park.  Access to the internet hardly offsets this loss of freedom.

- Have a look at the statistics on prisoners wrongly convicted. It is much more common than one in a million.  15 death row inmates have been exonerated in the US by DNA evidence since 1992.  Who knows how many have been wrongly executed. How would you feel if it was your son who was wrongly executed? At least with a prison sentence, justice may prevail.



JTLP said:


> Exactly. There is a lot to be done before the death penalty...I'll grant that. But too many people want to be 'humane'. Let me give you a scenario:
> 
> A 60 year old pedophile gets caught and lets say he gets 20 years jail (more likely in this day from a judge it's 5 years and then home detention in a bloody school zone). Anyway...20 years takes him to 80. Average lifespan in Aus is somewhere between 75 - 85 right? So this person either dies in jail or gets out for 5 years before going under.
> 
> ...




Even if the death penalty was introduced, pedophilia would never become a capital offence.  Even in America, I think only murder is a capital offence.  There is a very good reason for not making pedophilia a capital offence and it is called proportionality. If you made pedophilia a capital offence, many victims would also end up dead, as there is then less risk of the offender being caught and convicted - dead children can not testify.  You actually want pedophiles not to have an incentive to cross the line to murder.  As for the cost issue, the numbers you quote are small change compared to the cost of legal costs on both sides to the inevitable challenges to a death sentence.


----------



## son of baglimit (4 July 2010)

i began a thread on the following on 'that other forum', but go zero response.
so i'll try here now.

this is not a pro or anti capital punishment question - its more gaining a feeling of the population and if the scenario i suggest is possible, probable or fanciful.

*consider this please*...............

over the coming weeks a minor but long existing political party change their whole philosophy and concentrate on one subject - law & order.
they enter the coming election with the wish to have capital punishment reintroduced for all those crims who commit murder, rape, anything drug related (including use), weapon related robbery, repeat offenders of any crime etc etc.
they also advocate *reducing the age to be tried as an adult to 10*. they advocate no hiding the identity of anyone charged, no parole, no suspended sentences, no chances (jail for 1st offence) etc etc.
overall things that could be considered fairly extremist.

now the why.

this party believe they could gain support of all those in society who feel afraid these days - *the elderly, the lonely, migrants, parents of bullied school kids*. they know theyd unlikely gains representatives in the house of reps, so seek places in the senate, with the hope to gain some balance of power, and influence the major parties to have to seek support of this law & order party. the obvious trade off is to have some level of this new harder law & order policy introduced. this party acknowledge things they ultimately want may take time, and so are happy to take it step by step. but their ultimate goal is obvious.

in the current environment of fear, promoted by the media, is it possible for such a philosophy to gain sufficient acceptance and win some level of senate representation ?

AGAIN PLEASE THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT WHETHER THESE ISSUES ARE RIGHT OR WRONG - BUT IS IT A SCENARIO THAT COULD BECOME IMPORTANT IN THE COMING ELECTION.


----------



## JTLP (4 July 2010)

gooner said:


> There is a lack of logic here.
> 
> - In the US, the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rate, it is not a deterrent
> 
> ...




Hey Gooner...I used a pedophile as I was roughly using that sick excuse for a human; Father John. 

I apologize if my view seems extreme or harsh...today's law and justice system is too set on rehabilitation and soft punishments on offenders...rather than appropriately punishing them and locking them up for the time they deserve. And before I get the usual law rhetoric...I too have studied law during my double. 

PS saw a story the other night (ACA i think) where a kid was speeding...filming whilst driving doing like 160km/h or something and loses control...killing an innocent lady. Unfortunately I didn't see the punishment the kid got...most likely 500 hours community service or 2 years jail for TAKING SOMEONE'S LIFE and having her widow live without his soulmate for the rest of his days. Charming thought huh? Bet the widow wouldn't mind dishing out his own bit of punishment


----------



## pixel (4 July 2010)

JTLP said:


> Hey Gooner...I used a pedophile as I was roughly using that sick excuse for a human; Father John.
> 
> I apologize if my view seems extreme or harsh...today's law and justice system is too set on rehabilitation and soft punishments on offenders...rather than appropriately punishing them and locking them up for the time they deserve. And before I get the usual law rhetoric...I too have studied law during my double.
> 
> PS saw a story the other night (ACA i think) where a kid was speeding...filming whilst driving doing like 160km/h or something and loses control...killing an innocent lady. Unfortunately I didn't see the punishment the kid got...most likely 500 hours community service or 2 years jail for TAKING SOMEONE'S LIFE and having her widow live without his soulmate for the rest of his days. Charming thought huh? Bet the widow wouldn't mind dishing out his own bit of punishment




No need to be apologetic, JTLP;
our legal system is a joke - but sadly, it's a trend across the "free world", which means we have Buckley's to bring Law back closer to Justice. It's all good and gives people a warm fuzzy feeling that we are now "civilised" and "tolerant" and treat everybody in our community "humanely" and "with dignity". Not so! The "dignity" goes out the window for victims just like it doesn't apply to innocent sufferers of terminal illness.

General tolerance works reasonably well when everybody in our community adheres to those same standards of decency and tolerance. But that kid you mentioned, filming his drug-crazed rampage and killing spree had not the slightest inclination to behave decently and respectfully of others' right to happiness. It's the same with terrorists: With our tolerance and decency and respect for human life and dignity, we're a soft target for those murderous mongrels, who seek to take as many decent innocent people as they can because some low-life misanthropist promised them an eternal supply of virgins in a hypothetical afterlife. How pathetic can you get: affording them respect and tolerance is suicidal!

As regards the argument that one or two or even fifteen in a Million may die innocently, so we mustn't try to rid ourselves of these scurges:
The road toll in WA stands at around 200 per annum, out of a population of 2 Million; not counting the paraplegics, quadruplegics, brain-damaged and other sufferers from traffic accidents. Following that logic, we'd have to ban all road traffic to save all those innocent lives. Yet somehow, as a society we accept the risk of such a high percentage of death and ruined lives, so the rest of us can move in greater comfort and speed from place A to B. 

I'm not advocating that we do wind the clocks back and stop driving; that example is simply meant to highlight the irrational argument against acceptance of a few casualties in exchange for a wider benefit.
To my way of thinking, the right of every decent member of society to a life free from fear of being mugged in their own home, the right to enjoy a night out without fear of being stabbed, glassed, or robbed, must at least have the same importance as the implied right to drive to work, for a quick visit to Margaret River, or to the airport for a holiday in Broome or Bali. If that can be achieved by culling the indecent, intolerant scurges who have no intention of respecting others - and I contend culling will have that effect - then a small risk of getting it wrong on rare occasion looks somewhat more acceptable too.

Sadly, the do-gooders, religious missionaries, media ... will run amuck and prevent anything like that to take hold. So we'll have to continue fortifying our homes, stay indoors, and fiddle - just like Nero, while Rome was burning.


----------



## Ageo (4 July 2010)

Not sure why there is even a debate on this. Its quite simple, if you commit crimes that are not severe (robbery etc..) then corporal punishment (public even better) should be a start. Now if the person admits and there is more than enough evidence to show of a killing/raping etc.. someone for no apparent reason then its simple, execute him and move on.

I see no purpose on wasting precious time and money on people that are a pure waste of sperm.


----------



## gooner (4 July 2010)

JTLP said:


> PS saw a story the other night (ACA i think) where a kid was speeding...filming whilst driving doing like 160km/h or something and loses control...killing an innocent lady. Unfortunately I didn't see the punishment the kid got...most likely 500 hours community service or 2 years jail for TAKING SOMEONE'S LIFE and having her widow live without his soulmate for the rest of his days. Charming thought huh? Bet the widow wouldn't mind dishing out his own bit of punishment




He got 6 years with a minimum of 3 years.. He was not named as he was a child when the offence was committed.  

Children do stupid things and take risks. I agree the outcome was tragic. I also think the sentence was slightly on the light side.  But it was not pre-meditated murder.  What sentence do you think is right for someone, speeding, texting etc that kills someone?  Or someone distracted by screaming children in the back of the car



pixel said:


> As regards the argument that one or two or even fifteen in a Million may die innocently, so we mustn't try to rid ourselves of these scurges:
> The road toll in WA stands at around 200 per annum, out of a population of 2 Million; not counting the paraplegics, quadruplegics, brain-damaged and other sufferers from traffic accidents. Following that logic, we'd have to ban all road traffic to save all those innocent lives. Yet somehow, as a society we accept the risk of such a high percentage of death and ruined lives, so the rest of us can move in greater comfort and speed from place A to B.
> 
> I'm not advocating that we do wind the clocks back and stop driving; that example is simply meant to highlight the irrational argument against acceptance of a few casualties in exchange for a wider benefit.
> ...




But research shows no deterrent effect and most prisoners who would have been executed die in gaol or are released when they are old and no longer a danger.  So how will capital punishment mean you no longer need to fortify your home, stay indoors etc?  Apart from the retribution impact, where is the benefit? Apart from a steel front door and a burglar alarm, my house is hardly fortified and I do not feel unsafe going out.  People should not feel unsafe going out as crime rates in Australia are very low.

And given the low number of actual executions in the USA and the number released when on death row and the unknown number of executed innocents, the error rate is more likely 1 in 10 to 1 in 100, nowhere near the one in a million that you quote


----------



## JTLP (4 July 2010)

gooner said:


> He got 6 years with a minimum of 3 years.. He was not named as he was a child when the offence was committed.
> 
> Children do stupid things and take risks. I agree the outcome was tragic. I also think the sentence was slightly on the light side.  But it was not pre-meditated murder.  What sentence do you think is right for someone, speeding, texting etc that kills someone?  Or someone distracted by screaming children in the back of the car
> 
> ...




Gooner - RE: The Child offence.

A minor? Even better. 6 years with minimum of 3? Why do we even have bloody minimums. They should just give you a straight slap and in you go. None of this wig wearing, thought provoking nonsense. The child speeding gets a maximum 6 years whilst the widow gets the rest of his life without his soul mate? Oh justice prevails big time in this case. The widow gets a LIFE SENTENCE because he spends the rest of his life without somebody he loved. Your other scenario is being circumstantial, and I can appreciate that, but just look at what this kid was doing and has now done. 

We need tougher sentencing. We need to hold people accountable for their wrongdoings. Should we introduce a 3 strikes law? Who knows? It certainly won't ease the financial drain that prisoners create. But maybe it would deter some disgraces to society - deviants et al - to think before ruining lives and watching Just Shoot Me on TV1 at Barwon Prison


----------



## Calliope (4 July 2010)

JTLP said:


> We need tougher sentencing. We need to hold people accountable for their wrongdoings. Should we introduce a 3 strikes law? Who knows? It certainly won't ease the financial drain that prisoners create. But maybe it would deter some disgraces to society - deviants et al - to think before ruining lives and watching Just Shoot Me on TV1 at Barwon Prison




The "tougher sentencing" has been done to death on other threads. It's not going to happen. Our judges and magistrates are just reflecting community standards of a softening attitude to all forms of punishment from spanking naughty children to prison sentencing.

This case last year illustrates the point;



> THE family of an American woman who died while scuba diving on her honeymoon still believe she was murdered, even after prosecutors accepted her killer's plea of manslaughter.
> David Gabriel Watson, 32, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years' jail today after pleading guilty in the Supreme Court in Brisbane to killing his new wife, Christina (Tina) while scuba diving in north Queensland in October 2003.
> 
> He had been charged with murder, to which he pleaded not guilty, but Crown prosecutors accepted the plea to the lesser charge.




In his home state of Alabama, he would have been charged with premeditated murder and probably sentenced to death.


----------



## Julia (4 July 2010)

son of baglimit said:


> i began a thread on the following on 'that other forum', but go zero response.
> so i'll try here now.
> 
> this is not a pro or anti capital punishment question - its more gaining a feeling of the population and if the scenario i suggest is possible, probable or fanciful.



Is this a genuine account of the proposals of a real political party?

If taking the stand of all the penalties you describe on all the offences, I can't see many people voting for them.  I wouldn't.  They are being too extreme.
If they were a bit less unrealistic, I expect they'd get more votes, but I don't actually think it's a topic all that high in the priorities of the average voter.

Sure, we all bemoan the soft sentences imposed, but unless we have a personal stake in this, I doubt any party promising tougher penalties on a wider range of offences would attract much attention.
After all, all politicians promise this all the time.  Makes no difference.

Most people are more interested in how much tax they'll pay, what promises are being made to improve health and education etc.


----------



## hmmm (4 July 2010)

JTLP said:


> We need tougher sentencing. We need to hold people accountable for their wrongdoings. Should we introduce a 3 strikes law? Who knows? It certainly won't ease the financial drain that prisoners create. But maybe it would deter some disgraces to society - deviants et al - to think before ruining lives and watching Just Shoot Me on TV1 at Barwon Prison




The problem we face is that there is not a general consensus on appropriate sentencing, and that is no more evident than in the incredibly wide variation of sentences handed down by different judges for similar crimes. i do not agree with your statement on tougher sentencing, to me it sounds like you have not experienced any of these punishments to warrant an opinion like that, your opinion comes for the media, politicians and your self imposed fear of crime. i think there should be more consistent sentencing and more research into alternative punishment than gaol. 

just out of curiosity, where do you draw the line on sentencing? do you believe that going to maximum security gaol for being caught driving while disqualified is too low of a sentence? do you believe that it places too much burden and costs on society that it should be punishable by gaol? or do you think that by going to gaol and the costs that imposes on society is greater? do you believe that driving offences that do not include human injury or death should be punishable by heavier gaol sentences? Do you think that someone charged with approx. $18million worth (inflated police figures) of marijuana should receive 1/5th of the sentence of someone importing approx. $18million (inflated police figures) worth of MDMA?


----------



## JTLP (4 July 2010)

hmmm said:


> The problem we face is that there is not a general consensus on appropriate sentencing, and that is no more evident than in the incredibly wide variation of sentences handed down by different judges for similar crimes. i do not agree with your statement on tougher sentencing, to me it sounds like you have not experienced any of these punishments to warrant an opinion like that, your opinion comes for the media, politicians and your self imposed fear of crime. i think there should be more consistent sentencing and more research into alternative punishment than gaol.
> 
> just out of curiosity, where do you draw the line on sentencing? do you believe that going to maximum security gaol for being caught driving while disqualified is too low of a sentence? do you believe that it places too much burden and costs on society that it should be punishable by gaol? or do you think that by going to gaol and the costs that imposes on society is greater? do you believe that driving offences that do not include human injury or death should be punishable by heavier gaol sentences? Do you think that someone charged with approx. $18million worth (inflated police figures) of marijuana should receive 1/5th of the sentence of someone importing approx. $18million (inflated police figures) worth of MDMA?




Number 1 - Don't tell me where my opinions are formulated. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that you know best or can draw conclusions based on a keyboard rant. Grow up.

Number 2 - Alternative punishments? Oh great just what we need. I think that would be scoffed at by quite a wide breadth of the community. Can I now do a you 'hmmm' and state that you are a tree hugging hippie? No I can't. That's not fair and judging you from behind a computer screen 

Number 3 - You've thrown about 4,000 questions into my paragraph that would take too long to answer. I'll state what I think here:
- pre-meditated murder/rape/etc - life (not 25 years but life) to death penalty
- other sentencing (for the interim I can't be bothered writing out a full thesis) - harsher penalties with all crimes having NO PAROLE WHATSOEVER.

That would certainly add a bit of thought process to the crime before you committed it.

Actually I have a great alternative. Whilst in jail - crims should be made to work for free scrubbing graffiti; picking up rubbish etc etc. Much like the States where you work to pay off your debt to society - not sit in a cell...kicking back watching the big screen.


----------



## Happy (4 July 2010)

gooner said:


> ...
> 
> You can release innocent people from gaol, you can't release dead people





I don't have problem if with all care we kill an innocent person.

A number of innocent people dies and we have to live with that too.

Chance is that some of them will deserve it and this is what is desperately needed NOW!


----------



## son of baglimit (4 July 2010)

Julia said:


> Is this a genuine account of the proposals of a real political party?
> 
> If taking the stand of all the penalties you describe on all the offences, I can't see many people voting for them.  I wouldn't.  They are being too extreme.
> If they were a bit less unrealistic, I expect they'd get more votes, but I don't actually think it's a topic all that high in the priorities of the average voter.
> ...




firstly julia NO - or not to my knowledge anyway.

as i said, its a scenario - im just trying to find out if the lonely, vulnerable, frightened out there, who no doubt number in the tens of thousands, could be attracted to such a political view - remember hanson for the rednecks.

so again its not necessarily what YOU think personally for your personal situation, but could you envisage SOME people in society driven to vote for such people, and if in sufficient numbers, to gain senate seats.

maybe theres no thoughts on the subject, considering the lack of responses.
or ive worded my request for responses badly.


----------



## Julia (4 July 2010)

hmmm said:


> i do not agree with your statement on tougher sentencing, to me it sounds like you have not experienced any of these punishments to warrant an opinion like that, your opinion comes for the media, politicians and your self imposed fear of crime.



I don't think you need to have experienced being in jail to have a view about it as a punishment.  Would you apply the same reasoning to everything on which we form opinions?



> i think there should be more consistent sentencing and more research into alternative punishment than gaol.



Agree about more consistent sentencing.

Perhaps you could outline what you have in mind as 'alternative punishment"?


----------



## newbie trader (4 July 2010)

A tricky question to answer and judging from some of the replies, mine included it may seem that a fully developed opinion may only evolve once a person has had some kind of experience with a serious crime. It's easy for me to sit here (detached from the victims and offenders) and say that I am not an advocate for the death penalty when I have had no experience to really justify that stance. If a loved one was murdered i'm sure my response would be radically different. My stance is based solely upon a culmination of what I have read, heard, watched, my beliefs and values rather than actual experienced.


----------



## hmmm (4 July 2010)

Yes! lets play the number game...


#1. I didn't tell you where your opinions are formulated, i mentioned that to me it sounded like thats where they come from. Many people probably agree with me and many more probably don't, but hey, I don't really care for many people. Yes i do hope that i never stop growing up, thanks for your concern.

#2. Ah alternative punishments. Yes the wider community doesn't like change and they would find it difficult to handle alternative punishments. It's not a question about what the wider community can handle now though is it? It's a question of what works... do you really think that gaol is actually working when 55% of prisoners have been in prison at least once before in their life... a 55% failure rate is, ah, rather up there i think. Another point i'll quickly make is that if 55% of prisoners have been in gaol before, then that leaves 45% who are in gaol for the first time, and based on that previous note it can be expected that 55% of the 45% will go to gaol again in the future. May i be so bold as to say that to 77% of prisoners gaol was not a deterrent? (yes asking your permission) so clearly it doesn't add any thought process to the criminal before they commit the crime. To you and me it sure does cross our minds but not everyone thinks the same.

#3. No i didn't throw 4000 questions, only 6. For the main they were yes/no questions except the first.

#4. I totally agree with you on the NO PAROLE WHATSOEVER, to a point. parole is meant to assist with reintegrating an inmate back into society. At which the department of corrective services fails miserably. With the current system in place it is no wonder the recidivism rate is so high. For what it's worth parole handball the inmate to centrelink to go (in most cases, back) on the dole (newstart) which requires them to look for work and it handles their very small amount of money that every tax payer contributes to. parole mainly concerns themselves with prescribing rehabilitation courses if it has been recommended from assessments inside the gaol and setting limitations on activities and movement. The 'to a point' part lies withh inmates that serve long sentences which after many years, despite some gaols having t.v's and some inmate access to newspapers and magazines, they just simply lose touch with society. It is such a foreign place.

#5. Ah finally you made it onto a great point of work whilst in gaol. Congratulations you are many years behind the 8 ball. Compulsory work in some gaols has been in place for many years. MNCCC (NSW) is an example of that and is currently the model 'way forward gaol' that DOCS will be imprinting onto the rest of the gaols in NSW (however they have been very slow, 6 years, in even starting this process). In fact prisoners can actually earn money in gaol. Shock Horror! they can be paid to be in prison!  in fact every prisoner receives a centrelink payment whilst in gaol. It's $13 or there abouts per week, which they don't have to work for (some gaols don't have compulsory work). the most any prisoner can be paid whilst being detained in maximum security prison is approx $75 a week, minimum work release prisoners (C3 classification) who obtain employment in the wider community can earn up to however much their employer see fit. Your point about  scrubbing graffiti and picking up rubbish is valid (whilst there are a lot more productive jobs that inmates currently perform, ie. assemble fibre optic connections that will be used for the up coming NBN) and this actually happens, but only minimum security inmates with a C2 or C3 classification are allowed outside the walls of the prison, with the C2 inmates requiring supervision, the C3 no supervision.

#6. The screen size of any t.v. allowed in the property of inmates is limited to 34cm. 

That is all.



JTLP said:


> Number 1 - Don't tell me where my opinions are formulated. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that you know best or can draw conclusions based on a keyboard rant. Grow up.
> 
> Number 2 - Alternative punishments? Oh great just what we need. I think that would be scoffed at by quite a wide breadth of the community. Can I now do a you 'hmmm' and state that you are a tree hugging hippie? No I can't. That's not fair and judging you from behind a computer screen
> 
> ...


----------



## pixel (4 July 2010)

gooner said:


> But research shows no deterrent effect and most prisoners who would have been executed die in gaol or are released when they are old and no longer a danger.  So how will capital punishment mean you no longer need to fortify your home, stay indoors etc?  Apart from the retribution impact, where is the benefit? Apart from a steel front door and a burglar alarm, my house is hardly fortified and I do not feel unsafe going out.  People should not feel unsafe going out as crime rates in Australia are very low.
> 
> And given the low number of actual executions in the USA and the number released when on death row and the unknown number of executed innocents, the error rate is more likely 1 in 10 to 1 in 100, nowhere near the one in a million that you quote




Gooner, I understand your premise that a justice system should be a deterrent. I don't completely disagree with that aim, but I maintain it is not the only goal. There is the retribution aspect, providing victimes with a sense of "closure"; IMHO that must be given at least the same consideration as the noble hope of reforming a criminal - which rarely succeeds anyway.

A lot of criminals may feel they're not good at anything else, some may even commit a crime to be looked after in jail. They may actually prefer being executed because then they don't have to make an effort to deal with their failure. For them, that other thread, "Voluntary Euthanasia", may offer a solution? As well, of course, the suggestion of corporal punishment while in gaol - simply removing the incentive of committing a crime as a ticket to an all-expenses-paid, no-worry holiday...


----------



## hmmm (5 July 2010)

I guess that i can say from my experiences is that i form my opinions based on other opinions in the absence of experience. Until i have experience on a subject as much as i try not to form opinions, i would have to say that i am swayed more so than i care to admit. It's not until anyone experiences the subject that i think they can really have a personal perspective on the matter, because isn't it just a recycled version of other's. No i do not think that experiencing gaol is necessary to draw an opinion on the matter, but i think a broader knowledge and experience of the corrective system and it's processes is probably helpful. i drew the conclusion that JTLP's opinion was not based on experience, rather other's opinions based on my experience of the corrective system and it's processes. i wonder what extent JTLP's experience in dealing with corrective services is?

Alternative punishment? Well i find that one of my flaws/strong points is the ability i have to find fault with other's, i am not so good in creating ways in which to solve these points...  haha i am reminded what seems like daily of this, feel free to point it out again JTLP, But here are a few points that may help. 

Greater intake assessments including psychological assessments by a board of psychologists over a set period that group inmates into categories, of which one should be along the lines of 'no chance of rehabilitation' for which the more severe crimes should warrant capital punishment (just to keep it on topic), which would save many dollars to cover the costs of the increase in providing the service. other categories should be devoted to getting people into education facilities and out of gaols so if they are deemed suitable they can focus on creating a future and finding a constructive place in society. i think education is the key to it all. I strongly believe that the reason 24% of prisoners are aboriginal where as only 2% of the total population of Australia is aboriginal is because of the poor education rates among that community. prevention is better than cure, unfortunately i don't have a suitable cure to this problem I am mainly saying that the current system is not so great, rather fundamentally flawed.






Julia said:


> I don't think you need to have experienced being in jail to have a view about it as a punishment.  Would you apply the same reasoning to everything on which we form opinions?
> 
> 
> Agree about more consistent sentencing.
> ...


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2010)

hmmm said:


> Well i find that one of my flaws/strong points is the ability i have to find fault with other's, i am not so good in creating ways in which to solve these points.




That sums you up nicely.


----------



## hmmm (5 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> That sums you up nicely.




It sure does and i'm well aware of it


----------



## Happy (5 July 2010)

Murderers at the moment are the only ones to have right to execute at their whim, (almost funny, ai?)

58% for YES at the moment says something.

Of course, small sample and maybe not representative of an average view.

Also like with everything else, we seem to make changes when things get out of control.

With all that democracy, we seem to have changed the natural rules that, stronger kills but the way it goes now, brutal and ugly rules seem the have crawled back into our life.

Maybe it will have to be that way?


----------



## Chris45 (6 July 2010)

I find it very strange that our society (outside this forum), on the one hand, is so strongly opposed to the execution of human beings who have committed heinous crimes but, on the other hand, supports the execution of young human beings whose only ‘crime’ is to have been conceived at an inconvenient time.


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 July 2010)

hmmm said:


> It sure does and i'm well aware of it




Finding fault with others doesn't make you all that smart really. Being smug about it lowers your quality of being to even lower lows. Maybe your transformation from mule to good human being is incomplete?


----------



## hmmm (9 July 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Finding fault with others doesn't make you all that smart really. Being smug about it lowers your quality of being to even lower lows. Maybe your transformation from mule to good human being is incomplete?




I never for once admit to being smart, smarter or even the smartest. I'm sure we both agree on that one. I find it fairly hypocritical that you have chastised me and about being derogatory then proceeded with a derogatory, smart, smug, rhetoric question. Lol


----------



## pixel (9 July 2010)

Chris45 said:


> I find it very strange that our society (outside this forum), on the one hand, is so strongly opposed to the execution of human beings who have committed heinous crimes but, on the other hand, supports the execution of young human beings whose only ‘crime’ is to have been conceived at an inconvenient time.




Very good point, Chris,

I for one have long suspected that permission to have an abortion ought to be extended to about 50 years after conception._ In utero,_ it's so much harder to figure out whether the fetus has some unacceptable "genetic" flaws. Why not adopt the principles of "Quality Control" from other production areas, and cull the failures before they can irreparably damage the human gene pool...


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 July 2010)

hmmm said:


> I never for once admit to being smart, smarter or even the smartest. I'm sure we both agree on that one. I find it fairly hypocritical that you have chastised me and about being derogatory then proceeded with a derogatory, smart, smug, rhetoric question. Lol




I have reviewed my post from a third person perspective. That is, not from Me,  I,  or You, but an imagined perception. From this 'perspective', the third person agrees his comments expose imperfections of mind that need addressing. A proverb well known should suffice. “Don't be too sweet lest you be eaten up; don't be too bitter lest you be spewed out.”


----------



## noirua (15 November 2022)

__





						The killer king: How many people did Henry VIII execute?
					

During his 36 years of rule, it is estimated Henry VIII executed up to 57,000 people




					www.history.co.uk


----------

