Re: The Death Penalty. Do/would you support it?
Prospector said:
Well, if you reread your original post you didnt write it like that. You wrote it as though you were in the middle of a terrible incident and had to do what you could (ie kill the person) in order to be alive yourself (and you family).
Surely I am not insulting anyone's intelligence by suggesting that there is an issue with legally sanctifying the killing of another person. I also do not believe that the threat of death is an actual deterrent, otherwise there would be no murders in the US state of Texas. Murders are committed for a number of reasons - eg Crimes of passion, in which case the threat of death is certainly no deterrent, crimes of madness, in which case there is no deterrent, and crimes of opportunity (in which case the death threat MAY be a deterrent).
The evidence did not show that Abu Baka Bashir masterminded the Bali bombings, although I do understand the anger that has resulted from his release.
And yes, I think there are clearly some people who are not fit to walk upon this earth, but why should I be the judge of that? I dont think I am that clever. And by what definition do you determine 'fit'? Some people would say I was not fit to walk upon this earth because I am not religious! Certianly the muslin community would think I was not worthy of breath, and probably fundamentalist Christians too!
I didnt 'cry' when the drug smuggler in Singapore was executed and I did get angry with all the attention it received. But the KNOWN threat of death in Singapore for such crimes didnt stop him doing it in the first place, did it?
I also resent the money that has paid for the prison system, but not enough to sanction the death penalty.
I really, really, see your point. I just cannot see that the death penalty is the answer.
Prospector
I respectfully suggest that it's you, not I, who should reread my post. If you do so you'll see that I did not mention the hypothetical home invasion incident in isolation.
I mentioned that in that situation you'd be justified in killing the offender to save your innocent family from harm or death. Then in the very next paragraph I drew the parallel between this situation and the situation where a drug smuggler or terrorist is executed as a way or preventing him from committing further killings.
You stated that the death penalty is no deterrent. To support your view you've mentioned the fact that there are still murders in Texas which has the death penalty for murder.
This doesn't mean that the penalty is no deterrent, it simply shows that no matter how tough the penalties, there will always be some crime.
Take Singapore for example....the country still has crime, are you therefore suggesting that the penalties they have are no deterrent? They have the lowest crime rate in the world.....from where I'm standing it sure looks like they're effectively deterring most people from committing crimes.
We have rapes in Australia.....does that mean that the penalty for rape (5 to 50 years in jail) is no deterrent? Try removing the penalty altogether, now there are no deterrents at all, a man can rape whomever he wants. The number of rapes would immediately spiral out of control.
There is no complete answer to crime, no single penalty that will ensure zero crime levels, not even the death penalty. But that doesn't mean that deterrents do not deter.
Again, I refer you to the Singapore example....they have the toughest penalties, and consequently the lowest crime rate, of any country in the world.
True enough, in the case of drug smuggler Van Ngyuen, the threat of death didn't stop him from committing the crime. But by hell it's stopped plenty of other people from committing crimes in Singapore, and this fact is reflected in Singapores extremely low crime rate not just for drug trafficking, but for all other crimes as well.
The Singapore government are not kidding themselves they can wipe out crime altogether, but they're fully aware that the harsher their penalties, the less crime they'll have to endure. And they have the track record to prove it.
My information is that the evidence did show that Bakar Bashir masterminded the Bali bombings. And whether he did or didn't, if he was involved with it in any way, then he should now be a dead man.
You don't think you're fit to judge others? Why not? You're a decent person aren't you? If decent people like you and me can't judge others, then who can?
Are you suggesting that we abandon our legal system on the basis that jurors and magistrates and judges, (who afterall are just ordinary people like you and me) are not fit to judge anyone either?
If you resent the money being poured into the prison system, then perhaps you should change your view that rapists of little kids, and terrorist and drug smugglers and other mass murders, should be given free food, accommodation, clothes, medical care and so on for the rest of their lives.
These people are scum, and should be eliminated.
If a savage dog attacked your child, the dog would be destroyed and both you and I every other clear thinking person would support its destruction. But the dog didn't kill anyone did it....only attacked and bit the child.
Yet if a drug smuggler or terrorist kills dozens of kids, not just bites them or hurts them, KILLS THEM, your policy is that we should not kill him, we should look after him for the rest of his life and give him everything he needs.
Sorry Prospector, but with all due respect you're not making a lot of sense.
Bunyip