Society & Culture Death Penalty

[jo172]

I am for the death penalty. After watching Crime Australia on the television the other night they previewed a couple that murdered woman in the eighties. Namely the Burnies. Now these pair of animals should have been hung. Altho David Burnie hung himself in his cell the government should have been given that task along time ago.

A fairly good argument against the death penalty is you don't give credibility to those who want to hang people after watching things on television.

 

[Beckers]

A fairly good argument against the death penalty is you don't give credibility to those who want to hang people after watching things on television.

So you actually have to be present at a murder to determine the barbarity of a murderer? How many murders have you witnessed?

 

[jo172]

So you actually have to be present at a murder to determine the barbarity of a murderer? How many murders have you witnessed?

And you believe everything you see on TV?

 

[BarneyBent]

It seems to me that death penalty advocates rely almost solely on the argument that people re-offend (as deterrent arguments are basically non-conclusive either way). That's not an argument for the death penalty, it's an argument against lenient sentencing. I am totally against the death penalty, but would welcome some stricter sentencing on murder. A cold-blooded murderer either deserves LWOP, or parole but with far more strict conditions.

Killing people is sometimes necessary. Killing a gunman who is running rampant is necessary. Killing a person who is captive and under complete control is not. He or she is removed from society and poses no danger. If they must be locked up for the rest of their life, fine, but there is no need to kill them.

 

[J_Moore]

I enjoy that this thread managed to almost turn into debates on abortion and on whether Martin Bryant really killed people.

On deterrence, which managed to become the main discussion point for a few posters, I'd say this: Whether or not the death penalty is an effective deterrent isn't the deciding factor over whether we should implement it.

I'm sure applying the death penalty to minor assaults an theft could have a deterrent effect as well, but we don't do that.

EDIT: Just further on efficacy - do proponents of the death penalty really believe it would be an effective deterrent for the type of criminals that are regularly cited as 'not worthy of life' - your psychopaths, violent child sex offenders, and so on? Personally, I'd reckon these type of offences to be outside the realm of 'deterrable'. I'd imagine it might go someway to reducing murders associated with crime, domestic disputes and the like. But "a poor black kid who shoots someone in a dispute over drug turf" is probably a less effective rhetorical device than "a child-molesting cannibal".

 

[Beckers]

I enjoy that this thread managed to almost turn into debates on abortion and on whether Martin Bryant really killed people.

On deterrence, which managed to become the main discussion point for a few posters, I'd say this: Whether or not the death penalty is an effective deterrent isn't the deciding factor over whether we should implement it.

I'm sure applying the death penalty to minor assaults an theft could have a deterrent effect as well, but we don't do that.

EDIT: Just further on efficacy - do proponents of the death penalty really believe it would be an effective deterrent for the type of criminals that are regularly cited as 'not worthy of life' - your psychopaths, violent child sex offenders, and so on? Personally, I'd reckon these type of offences to be outside the realm of 'deterrable'. I'd imagine it might go someway to reducing murders associated with crime, domestic disputes and the like. But "a poor black kid who shoots someone in a dispute over drug turf" is probably a less effective rhetorical device than "a child-molesting cannibal".

No, but if it stops the thief from killing a witness who might identify him isn't it worth it?. If it saves 1 innocent person from being murdered isnt it worth it?
Why are you siding with these animals that take innocent lives?

 

[jo172]

No, but if it stops the thief from killing a witness who might identify him isn't it worth it?. If it saves 1 innocent person from being murdered isnt it worth it?:

Despite it resulting in the killing of many other innocent people?

And the idea that the death penalty would stop that relative to mandatory life sentencing is absurd.

Why are you siding with these animals that take innocent lives?

It's a question of right and wrong, not taking sides.

 

[J_Moore]

No, but if it stops the thief from killing a witness who might identify him isn't it worth it?. If it saves 1 innocent person from being murdered isnt it worth it?
Why are you siding with these animals that take innocent lives?

I'll begin with your last point: that's stupid and childish. I think you can do better than that.

But dealing with your first questions - they are valid questions. I'd say a few things 1) I'd doubt (but this is just speculation) that any deterrent effect would be big enough to offset the damage capital punishment causes (the deaths of innocent people - minor, sure, but a big ****ing deal for those it effects - and the legitimising of violence.
2) In terms of retributive justice, I think life imprisonment is an adequate enough punishment
3) I think killing people is wrong.

I'd be curious to know which crimes you considered worthy of capital sentences, and why?

 

[Caesar]

Why are you siding with these animals that take innocent lives?

Hey, it's Bill O'Reilly!

 

[Beckers]

I'll begin with your last point: that's stupid and childish. I think you can do better than that.

But dealing with your first questions - they are valid questions. I'd say a few things 1) I'd doubt (but this is just speculation) that any deterrent effect would be big enough to offset the damage capital punishment causes (the deaths of innocent people - minor, sure, but a big ****ing deal for those it effects - and the legitimising of violence.
2) In terms of retributive justice, I think life imprisonment is an adequate enough punishment
3) I think killing people is wrong.

I'd be curious to know which crimes you considered worthy of capital sentences, and why?

Answers:
(2) Tracy Greenbury might disagree with you. Leigh Robinson was on death row before being overturned to a life sentence. He was subsequently released and went on to kill again. The Greenbury family and her friends have to live with the consequences. I'm sure the board that overturned his original dealth sentence are sleeping well at night.

As a footnote: The jury did not know that Robinson was sentenced to hang for the murder of former girlfriend Valerie Ethel Dunn, 17, at her Chadstone home in 1968.

Our legal system even trys to cover up the fact that he had killed previously.

http://www.news.com.au/national/lei...um/story-e6frfkvr-1225780856668#ixzz0sOWruQpg

(3) I'd say any cold blooded murder that can be proven without doubt has to be hight on the list. For example Julian Knight or Martin Bryant. Knight is still a pain in the taxpayes a*se and should have been exterminated years ago.
Career hit men like Christopher Dale Flannery or Benji Venuman have to be considered even if their cases are hard to prove beyond doubt.
Drug lords like Carl Williams who contract hit men also need to be considered.

 

[Perry Pie]

I am against. I was for when I was younger, but have changed my mind. Why?
1. Mistakes happen. Innocent people get hanged for murders they did not commit.
2. It does not stop evil ***kers killing innocent people.
3. Who gets the death penalty - who does not is "random" in all places where the penalty is practiced. It is as if killing some people is more evil than killing others - it is not, killing someone is evil. Grading criminal killing is wrong.

I am also against state sponsored assasination & murder, terrorism and any form of political or religiously inspired murder. Throw away the key when you get a murderer - it is enough and it demonstrates a civilised society.

 

[Beckers]

I am against. I was for when I was younger, but have changed my mind. Why?
1. Mistakes happen. Innocent people get hanged for murders they did not commit.
2. It does not stop evil ***kers killing innocent people.
3. Who gets the death penalty - who does not is "random" in all places where the penalty is practiced. It is as if killing some people is more evil than killing others - it is not, killing someone is evil. Grading criminal killing is wrong.

I am also against state sponsored assasination & murder, terrorism and any form of political or religiously inspired murder. Throw away the key when you get a murderer - it is enough and it demonstrates a civilised society.

It doesn't You must have missed my post above yours!

Just to refresh your memory:

Answers:
(2) Tracy Greenbury might disagree with you. Leigh Robinson was on death row before being overturned to a life sentence. He was subsequently released and went on to kill again. The Greenbury family and her friends have to live with the consequences. I'm sure the board that overturned his original dealth sentence are sleeping well at night.

 

[jo172]

It doesn't You must have missed my post above yours!

Just to refresh your memory:

Answers:
(2) Tracy Greenbury might disagree with you. Leigh Robinson was on death row before being overturned to a life sentence. He was subsequently released and went on to kill again. The Greenbury family and her friends have to live with the consequences. I'm sure the board that overturned his original dealth sentence are sleeping well at night.

The problem there is clearly the killer being released rather than the lack of death penalty.

 

[BarneyBent]

It doesn't You must have missed my post above yours!

Just to refresh your memory:

Answers:
(2) Tracy Greenbury might disagree with you. Leigh Robinson was on death row before being overturned to a life sentence. He was subsequently released and went on to kill again. The Greenbury family and her friends have to live with the consequences. I'm sure the board that overturned his original dealth sentence are sleeping well at night.

The issue there is that he was released, not that he wasn't given the death penalty. If he was given life without parole, would he have killed again?