The Death Penalty: Do/would you support it?

[explod]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

The serial rapist murderer repeat offender, who broke into your house, tied you up, and forced you to watch him repeatedly violently rape and then murder your 12 year old daughter should die.

Obvioulsy there's variations on this story, but you get my point. Some people do not deserve to be using our vital oxygen. And we shouldn't be spending milions of dollars to lock them up in a holiday camp with bars.

Two issues; ..... taking a life for a life lowers us to the level of the life taker/or destroyer in the case of rape. A dog eat dog idea will destroy society.

If someone did that to my Daughter I would want him to live as long as possible in the worst misery we could bestow on him. Killing the culprit gets him off the hook.

A third idea is that someone who could do that already has a destroyed and tortured mind. He did not create that mind, society did.

Agression will not tame the world. The learned say that in evolution it was the female instinct to protect her young that tamed the male. Interesting at Spider level the female kills the male after copulating because I suppose she knows we males are a waste of time.

On world standards (some may disagree, but generally) we are relatively less violent than most. One of the reasons I feel is because we dont' have the death penalty and two, we dont allow firearms.

 

[disarray]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

2020 the thread necromancer weaves his magic yet again :

yes to the death penalty (with incontravertible proof + DNA). yes to corporal punishment - eg. rape = 5 years + 25 lashes, 5 per year on the date the original offence took place. people without emotional control need to be taught that there is a higher authority than themselves.

Two issues; ..... taking a life for a life lowers us to the level of the life taker/or destroyer in the case of rape. A dog eat dog idea will destroy society.

totally disagree. it is perfectly possible to execute a criminal while maintaining a higher standard of logic, emotional control and morality.

If someone did that to my Daughter I would want him to live as long as possible in the worst misery we could bestow on him. Killing the culprit gets him off the hook.

now THAT attitude lowers society to the level of the offender.

A third idea is that someone who could do that already has a destroyed and tortured mind. He did not create that mind, society did.

yes blame society, never the individual. its always someone elses fault. wasn't there a blame thread doing the rounds here?

Agression will not tame the world. The learned say that in evolution it was the female instinct to protect her young that tamed the male.

aggression is a part of our species programming and has been instrumental to our survival as a species. i don't know what learned you refer to but humans aren't tame - civilisation is a thin veneer over an animals soul and if you want to see how quickly it can all be stripped away look to the aftermath of hurricane katrina. humans under stress will revert to primal urges and instincts remarkably quickly.

Interesting at Spider level the female kills the male after copulating because I suppose she knows we males are a waste of time.

what you mean "we" paleface?

On world standards (some may disagree, but generally) we are relatively less violent than most. One of the reasons I feel is because we dont' have the death penalty and two, we dont allow firearms.

we are less violent because we are comfortable. we are fed, clothed, and sheltered. take those away (to mirror conditions in many parts of the third world) and see how violent we really are.

 

[moXJO]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

The majority here http://www.mako.org.au/auschildkill.html would make good fertilizer IMO.At the very least they should be made to enter the general pop in the prisons and not protected

 

[Happy]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Killing the culprit gets him off the hook.

I have no arguments, if that person pays for the use of land and all the other expenses of keeping that person alive on the hook.

With global warming, ageing population and diminishing resources we should not be too generous and every person should have paramount obligations to be at least not destructive to the society.

Next time we have referendum on the issue I know what I'll do.

 

[explod]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

I have no arguments, if that person pays for the use of land and all the other expenses of keeping that person alive on the hook.

With global warming, ageing population and diminishing resources we should not be too generous and every person should have paramount obligations to be at least not destructive to the society.

Next time we have referendum on the issue I know what I'll do.

In fact in some countries a life term of hard labour is used to earn money for the state. Of course this competes with the idea of private enterprise though I think some multinationals profit from such labour when they deal with third world countries.

Arrhh Happy, the world would be so much better if we were in charge.

 

[wildkactus]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

The death penalty, yes I support it 100%, we should have this as part of our justice system but when the verdict is read, it's not back to a cell for an appeal to be lodged or the doogooders to protest, it's straight off to a public execution
either a hanging or firering squad. See how this would changes thing here.

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

2020 the thread necromancer weaves his magic yet again

disarray..
wowo - word de jour.... "necromancer" - big word and all !!.
I always thought that was a refernce to Dracula.

Needless to say, I disagree with most of your post - btw it wasn't me that introduced the topic of justice, capital punishment etc - it was a former chief justice of the Aust high court, Sir Gerard Brennan (and of course you disgaree with him as well ).

Incidentally, he introduces many more topics than simple capital punishment, and in many respects it would have made sense to start a new thread.

- applicable to the election for instance. I'll probably post it there as well - unless someone else has already done so - and unless you object of course, lol.


PS I add a definition of "necromancer" (which I had to look up), conveniently expressed in terms of thread and chat-forums etc.
I will plead innocent to most of this definition.

bring long-dead forum discussion threads back to life.

Long dead topics?
not that long really - and it's neater to continue an old one that start a new.

but if you prefer we can start a new one.

and disarray - speaking of long dead topics ...
(apart from the fact that we'll all be long dead one day)...
what's your opinion of the way the fed police handled Scott Rush's case?

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/necromancer.htm

Necromancer has a supernatural ability to bring long-dead forum discussion threads back to life. After having been flogged to death the thread may have been deceased for many years, and bringing it back may have scant relevance to the current topic, yet Necromancer will unexpectedly exhume the thread’s rotting corpse, and strike horror in the forum as its grotesque form lurches into the discussion. The monster, instantly recognized by all who knew it in life, seems at first to breathe and have a pulse, but, alas, it is beyond Necromancer’s skill to fully restore the thread’s original vitality. The hideous apparition may frighten away some of the weaker Warriors or Warriors badly wounded in former battles, but the thread is only a shadow of its former self and very quickly expires.

Unlike Archivist, Necromancer compulsively saves every forum message in carefully preserved archives for future use in battle, while Necromancer collects departed threads merely for the thrill of resurrecting them. Some say he performs this unnatural act out of malice, others say he can’t help himself, but no one really knows.

 

[Ageo]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

On world standards (some may disagree, but generally) we are relatively less violent than most. One of the reasons I feel is because we dont' have the death penalty and two, we dont allow firearms.

hehe explod although i understand where your coming from i cant understand why you would think such a thing regarding your firearms statement. I dont wanna go off topic but instead of thinking about firearms and amercia all the time, have a look at a more usefull system.

Switzerland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

Tools arnt the problem, its the culture thats associated with those tools.

In terms of the death penalty, if they were made to suffer then i would agree but i see too many of them complaining about inhumane treatment then the greens step in and its all over, they start having rights etc..

Look at ivan milat, he looks like hes having a ball (not compared to David Hicks treatment which is what they should get). I have no love loss for them.

 

[explod]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

"hehe explod although i understand where your coming from i cant understand why you would think such a thing regarding your firearms statement. I dont wanna go off topic but instead of thinking about firearms and amercia all the time, have a look at a more usefull system.

Switzerland" [un quote]

Agree, did that area and Scanadanavia in my youth. As a result of my mix, the ideal humanist is the only way. However, because there are no dollars attached we are destined for the gurglar.

I would gladly support a movement that sees a way out.

Time to party.

 

[Whiskers]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

The death penalty, yes I support it 100%, we should have this as part of our justice system but when the verdict is read, it's not back to a cell for an appeal to be lodged or the doogooders to protest, it's straight off to a public execution
either a hanging or firering squad. See how this would changes thing here.

Well you certainly are a wild west cactus...

Haven't you seen any of numerous reports in the US where innocent people on death row have later been exonerated, largely by DNA?

 

[IFocus]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

The death penalty makes no sense to me unless maybe accepted as a primitive act of revenge driven by anger. If thats the case then lets get really primitive like in Kennas example castration with a blunt rock would surely be more beneficial method of revenge.

The US uses capital punishment more and has a higher incarnation rate than any other Western Country. Guess what death row isn't getting any shorter any where and has no effect on basic crime rates. And yes they do kill innocents fairly regularly.

Since we are so hell bent on being like the US maybe having the death penalty could be our crowning glory after becoming the 50 something state.

In the US the average time to get some one to the chair was around ten years at a cost greater than serving life it makes no sense.

I just cannot equate the death penalty and the progressive growth of our culture as being comparable.

The subject always draws on strong emotions, when deciding to kill some one from your own community emotional input is the last thing needed a bit like trading...........

Focus

 

[Purple XS2]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Death to the worst offenders?
Emotionally I support it, but not intellectually.
The arguments against which persuade me:
1. There's always going to be the cases the law gets wrong. One per decade is too many. A lifer being released 10, 15, 20 years later is better than the grotesque charade of a posthumous pardon.

2. Running a penal system is hard enough without running a gallows as well. Applies to the gaol as to the society as a whole.

3. (Re)-Introducing the death penalty would clash with retaining the jury system (and that's a whole different kettle of worms), but assuming the jury stays, it's a very different thing for a jury to UNANIMOUSLY say 'guilty' when the probable outcome is a life sentence than it is when that guy sitting over there is going to die. In other words, we could expect to see MORE creeps get off if the death penalty is on the cards. Many a juror could consider themselves steely enough to take their place at the start of a trial and find when it comes to the crunch, they just don't find themselves able to get over that tiny tiny (un)reasonable doubt. Defence lawyers would just love it to bits.

The great failure of the anti-death penalty lobby is their common failure to insist on what a capital offence should be punished with. Life should mean life, no parole, no sanctimonius psuedo-scientific claptrap about rehabilitation. Life. In prison.

If a bridge builder builds a bridge that collapses in a storm because it just wasn't well-designed or constructed, they get sued. If a judicial officer or parole-board member lets out a creep who recommits a henious crime, is that not a professional failure calling for the accountability of the professional concerned? I see these questions as more germane to the question of justice than the gallows.

Just my

Purple XS2, B.A./L.L.B. (Melb), Dip. Comp. Sci (La Trobe)

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Robespierre had thousands beheaded - and in the end - he himself was beheaded
- still it was a fashionable way to go...

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/french/french.html

The French Revolution is clearly one of the central events in Western civilization - a period of history whose characters and events have always fascinated me. The more moderate American Revolution, in comparison, was much less influential upon the world of its time - even if it was more successful and less bloody. I would argue it was more successful precisely because it was more moderate and less murderous than the French Revolution.
But the French Revolution ironically was a failed revolution: Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité quickly descended to the towering figure of Robespierre and his Reign of Terror as the revolution spun out control and began to murder itself.

First the royalists were beheaded, next the moderate girondists, and by then the violence and suspicion was totally out of hand as the revolution devoured itself. In my opinion, after they started beheading the moderate Girondists it was only a matter of time before everyone else went to the guillotine. 26 years after the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" was written up, a Bourbon once more sat on the throne as the King of France - that is what I mean by "failed" Revolution. Since 1793, France has had no less than 11 subsequent constitutions (while the United States still uses their first). This is what I mean about moderation and political stability. It is the legacy of those revolutions so different in style, substance, and in legacy.

During one rapacious stretch of mindless revolutionary paranoia, 1,376 individuals were guillotined in only 47 days. The moderate girondist Mme. Jeanne Roland de la Platiere's last words before her death on the guillotine were: "O liberty! how they have played with you." She put it well, in my opinion.

Or Camille Desmoulins, writing to his wife from prison, claiming, "J'avais rêvé une république que tout le monde eût adorée. Je n'ai pu croire que les hommes fussent si féroces et si injustes." I always much preferred the moderate Montesqieu and Lafayette to Robespierre and his fellow radicals. Not surprisingly, they did not do so well in the French Revolution which is a prime example of Gresham's law of political morality: the bad drives out the good as everyone becomes corrupted while political life becomes not unlike the Hobbesian war of all against all in "a perpetual and restless desire for power, that ceaseth only in death."

....
Wordsworth came to suffer the disillusion of young revolutionaries in all ages who discover that in shedding an ocean of blood they have more often than not done more harm than good. If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." His call for the "sovereign" to force men to be free if necessary in the interests of the "General Will" harks back to the Lycurgus of Sparta instead of to the pluralism of Athens; the legacy of Rousseau is Robespierre and the radical Jacobins of the Terror who followed and worshipped him passionately. In the 20th century, his influence is further felt by tyrants who would arouse the egalitarian passions of the masses not so much in the interests of social justice as social control. Let us take Rousseau for the literary genius he was and appreciate his contribution to history; let us look at his political philosophy with great skepticism.

.........For Napoleon was only the seed which was to bloom widely in the bloody 20th century in dynamic dictators like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. "Nobody can rule guiltlessly," claimed Saint-Just. This may be true, but political violence is the worst evil of this century of spectacular crimes and Robespierre, to my knowledge, was the first European intellectual to put forth this absurd idea that terror is the best and most effective manner for bringing about "justice."

The French Revolution was the deserving death knell for the old system of monarchy in Europe. Unfortunately, in too many places the governments which replaced ancient regimes was as bad or worse than those which preceeded them (from Napoleon on up to Lenin and the fascists). The chaos and violence which Napoleon helped bring about has (let us hope) only in the last fifty years been succesfully worked out of the European system. Let us learn from the past, so that we may not repeat its errors. Let the 20th century (and the Jacobin Terror) be a warning!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


The mysterious and menacing figure of Maximillien Robespierre;
"The government of liberty is the despotism of liberty against tyranny."
Robespierre's legacy of "despotism" was not to bloom fully until the pogroms of the 20th century.
Of course, Robespierre himself was guillotined during the Terror.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robespierre's Malevolent Legacy:
Terror as "Justice"
"Terror is nought but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is less a particular principle than a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to the most pressing needs of the fatherland."
Maximillien Marie Isidore de Robespierre
Address, National Convention, 1794


"Robespierre, with his cruel moral relativism,
embodied the cardinal sin of all revolution, the hearlessness of ideas."
Paul Johnson
"The Spectator"

"He [the revolutionary] is damned always to do that which is most repugnant to him: to become a slaughterer, to sacrifice lambs so that no more lambs may be slaughtered, to whip people with knouts so that they may learn not to let themselves by whipped, to strip himself of every scruple in the name of a higher scrupulousness, and to challenge the hatred of mankind because of his love for it - an abstract and geometric love."
Arthur Koestler
"Darkness at Noon"

 

[disarray]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Death to the worst offenders?
Emotionally I support it, but not intellectually.

i'm the complete opposite intellectually it makes a great deal of sense to remove dangerous and demented individuals from society, emotionally it gets mired in rights, morals and other emotive subjects.

The great failure of the anti-death penalty lobby is their common failure to insist on what a capital offence should be punished with. Life should mean life, no parole, no sanctimonius psuedo-scientific claptrap about rehabilitation. Life. In prison.

good point. we'd have to debate the conditions of incarceration though

and 2020, the necromancer quip was just that, apologies if i offended you

regarding scott rush, he is an idiot. individuals are responsible for their own actions and its not the job of the feds to prevent people from doing stupid things.

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

regarding scott rush, he is an idiot. individuals are responsible for their own actions and its not the job of the feds to prevent people from doing stupid things.

gee - where's weird when you need him lol

"to forgive is civilised ? divine ? "- something like that anyways

I assume you know that there were 12 hours approx that the fed police had the opportunity to intercede (as requested by a tax paying aussie, as in Mr (Lee) Rush senior)

 

[misterS]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

It is interesting to see the expression "an eye for an eye" so widely understood to be some sort of incitement to wreak revenge.

Its original employment was as an argument to moderate the scale of revenge - to stop slaughtering whole villages or families by way of revenge for a death or killing people in revenge for a less than fatal injury.

Rather, it was argued, it should only be "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".

Taken literally today, I suppose it would mean the State should start raping and torturing the convicted, as well as putting them to death. We should also execute those convicted of manslaughter and of culpable driving.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, it's partly the certainty of guilt in each case, compounded by the unreliability and periodic corruption of the state and its organs that is one of the problems - as well as the range of offences to which such a penalty might apply.

It is also questionable whether this is ultimately a satisfactory result for everyone affected by some of these atrocious crimes. I can't imagine anything is really much solace, and certainly not any sort of recompense.

It is also a quite brutalising process for those people who must kill for the state - the details of hangings and the effect on those carrying them out makes sobering reading.

It is a fair point that it does achieve revenge, and removes the person permanently from society - but so does a true life sentence - something we rarely practice.

Life really is quite short and people do change, so with the lengthy period of incarceration before execution, it is often a quite different person being executed than the one who committed in some cases a murderous "crime of passion".

That said, some people are so evil, dangerous and untouched by remorse, that their permanent removal one way or another seems an attractive solution.

There are few things, if anything, more infuriating than when someone is assaulted or has their life taken by some previously incarcerated but incorrigible sociopath. And the actual things some of these people do is so horrible that discussions of the general argument relating to capital punishment must seem terribly misguided to anyone who has been touched by, or even been confronted on a jury with the details of what some of these people have done.

However, having rid ourselves of it, and having alternatives, on balance, there is little to seriously recommend the return of the death penalty, except as far as it satisfies the immediate visceral feeling that some people really should be executed for their terrible crimes.

Gee, ASF threads don't shy from the tough questions do they?

 

[disarray]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

yes i do, and i still think the onus was on scott rush NOT to strap heroin to his body while walking through the customs area of a country that quite clearly and succinctly states "WE EXECUTE DRUG RUNNERS".

the federal police can't go running around interceding on behalf of every parent who thinks their child is going to do something stupid.

It is a fair point that it does achieve revenge, and removes the person permanently from society - but so does a true life sentence - something we rarely practice.

life sentences do not remove the person from society. they still must be maintained, the cost paid by society (including the victims / families).

Taken literally today, I suppose it would mean the State should start raping and torturing the convicted, as well as putting them to death. We should also execute those convicted of manslaughter and of culpable driving.

well not really, raping and torturing would only be done to satisfy an emotional need. capital punishment must be a detached, logical response to heinous crimes. when a dog mauls a child we don't torture it, blame it or try to reason with it, we just calmly and methodically terminate it so the threat is removed. good post btw.

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Death to the worst offenders?
Emotionally I support it, but not intellectually.

Intellectually, nobody supports it purple.
In primitive barbarian mode, sure a few do.

 

[ithatheekret]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

The justice system is far to open to abuse , they do say that power breeds corruption , so a death penalty which is the omega to any legal arguement is a very unhealthy situation ....... especially if you tread on the wrong persons toes . To give license to it could only be hysteria , to believe that DNA wonderfully given to us by science , is infallable , is sheer lunacy .
To entrust it to our wonderful police and courts is suicidal !

 

[Happy]

Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?

Well you certainly are a wild west cactus...

Haven't you seen any of numerous reports in the US where innocent people on death row have later been exonerated, largely by DNA?

Since we can have DNA checks, we won’t need to exonerate anybody, as they will never be sentenced to death in a first place.

We are so hung up against death penalty while thousands of innocent lives are snuffed out in road fatalities and we live with it, just bad luck.


Going back to death penalty, I assume that we would do everything we can to make sure that no innocent life is taken.

When guilt is not clear no death sentence, but when more than clear then no long term accommodation just exit.

Of course even with all the safeguards somebody is innocently executed, well tough luck, that person can always be exonerated.