SA Footy

Couldnt see a thread for this, so i thought i would start one on the basis of this article i read in the guardian this morning.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... n-inhumane

I thought it was a very thought provoking article about the merits of the death penalty, and specifically what happens.

For those that might not realise, when he mentions untried and untested drugs or something along those lines, the major pharmaceutical company that used to provide one of the key drugs in the lethal injection process decided that they would stop supplying the United States with that drug. (I think they were a danish company, and the drug is also used for euthanising dogs, but they deduced that the US was using it almost exclusively for executions so they stopped selling it to them, and as such, the US had to come up with a new drug combinaiton)

Im not a christian, so my reasoning for not having the death penalty doesnt quite align with the author, but it just seems to be a barbaric practice.

would much prefer them to just be locked up for life. As heinous a crime that someone can commit, i dont think killing them as retribution is the right answer.


Having said all of that, i respect the right of other countries to enforce it - i.e i have no sympathy for people that get caught trying to smuggle drugs into the asian countries where they have the death penalty for such crimes.

A part of me thinks it a good idea, but the other part of me is that deat is quick and over, being put in a cell for the rest of there life with minimal supllies is much worse!!!
However i'd like to see Pedophiles do there time in in the public population in prision... They should be castrated!!! And are notified to the public...

woodublieve12 wrote:A part of me thinks it a good idea, but the other part of me is that deat is quick and over, being put in a cell for the rest of there life with minimal supllies is much worse!!!
However i'd like to see Pedophiles do there time in in the public population in prision... They should be castrated!!! And are notified to the public...

its really tough. you cant just give them a death sentence by proxy by letting them into the normal prison population. but then again i wouldnt bat an eyelid if something like this happened.

if someone in my family was murdered, i doubt i would be grieving any less if the person that did it to them was dead or alive. i would certainly care if they were released back into the public though.

its hard to say though since ive never been in the situation, there is a fair chance i would change my tune.

This is a topic, that Im sure if thete was a referendum, it would pass, so the public's view is different to politicians/the Govt.

Not that Im saying thats a good or bad thing necessarily.

My personal opinion - I would be for it, but only in the most exceptional cases. The burden of proof, and appeals process, do add to the complexities of the issue though however.

Technology is now sufficient enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and it should only be where such circumstances have been proven that it apply.

Should apply to murders and kiddy fiddlers (where rape kit can prove molestation)

I personally don't want my hard earned tax dollars spent on keeping these leeches of society alive for the rest of their natural lives.

Convicted criminals not born in Australia should be deported on being found guilty of any crime if they are not Australian citizens. This will also help overcrowding in our gaols.

Prisons should be returned to places of punishment and hard laboor, not lavish cells with computer games and tellies in their rooms. Prisoners have too many rights.

I would like to see common usage of GPS technology for convicted/strongly suspected arsonists, as well as paedophiles.

Laws should also be changed so that theres a presumption against bail for certain offences, and there should be restrictions on, and better guidelines for issuing suspended sentences.

GWW wrote:I would like to see common usage of GPS technology for convicted/strongly suspected arsonists, as well as paedophiles.

as an alternative to jail? i.e instead of getting 10 years you might get 5 years then 15 years of wearing the bracelet? wouldnt mind it, if it is shown to work, not sure if it is or not tbh.

GWW wrote:Laws should also be changed so that theres a presumption against bail for certain offences, and there should be restrictions on, and better guidelines for issuing suspended sentences.

for most serious crimes or for repeat offenders it would be pretty hard to get bail as it is i would think, some people might know more about that than me though. i dont have an issue with suspended sentences, provided it is for low level first time offending, but it does seem that some people can still get a suspended sentence even though it is their 95234523rd drink driving charge, which is wrong

yeah but drink drivers also have their licences supsended for 12 months/2 years/whatever.

DO you think that stops them from driving?

People don't register their cars. People drive without licences - the fine for driving unregistered is more than the fine for driving unlicensed.


Whaddya do?

jail them!

for a short period of time. if the other methods dont seem to be working.

dont wanna derail this thread though

The death penalty, if proven beyond ANY doubt, should be allowed imo.
However, the trial should be by a panel of big wigs, not just 1, so the burden of giving the sentence is not on 1 person.
If crime is proven beyond doubt,e.g confession, video evidence etc then no right of appeal. Otherwise they live 10 years or more on death row. Ridiculous !!
What happened to bloody hard labour?
I do like the gps idea for tracking these types of criminals. Great idea!

bennymacca wrote:jail them!

for a short period of time. if the other methods dont seem to be working.

dont wanna derail this thread though

our gaols are already overcrowded - why suffocate them even more with minor offenders?

Very divisive topic this one, much like politics and religion. (Well, sort of, politics is real.....joking folks!!)

I'm very much divided in my own thoughts on this. There are crimes committed that make me think the convicted should not be allowed to continue to live, but I would not want to be on the jury deciding someones fate.

It also concerns me that good citizens ( like, I believe, most of us on here are ) work from 16-17>65-67 years of age and much of the money we pay in taxes keep these people housed, safely, somewhat ironic hey? When we could much better use the money on health, education etc.

So death might seem harsh at times, but keeping them alive a burden to great to bare by society.

I don't think I could vote "Yes" to the death penalty.

Absolutely not, it's barbaric and isn't a deterrent.

Booney wrote:Very divisive topic this one, much like politics and religion. (Well, sort of, politics is real.....joking folks!!)

I'm very much divided in my own thoughts on this. There are crimes committed that make me think the convicted should not be allowed to continue to live, but I would not want to be on the jury deciding someones fate.

It also concerns me that good citizens ( like, I believe, most of us on here are ) work from 16-17>65-67 years of age and much of the money we pay in taxes keep these people housed, safely, somewhat ironic hey? When we could much better use the money on health, education etc.

So death might seem harsh at times, but keeping them alive a burden to great to bare by society.

I don't think I could vote "Yes" to the death penalty.

these are pretty much my thoughts. these people dont deserve to live, but that doesnt mean we have the right to kill them. and jails are expensive but probably the least bad of the options (with the options being jail, death, letting them out earlier to reduce costs)

I'm about 70/30 on this. In extreme circumstances i think we do have the right to hand down a death sentence. Not an easy call though.
But why should the taxpayer fund these sub-humans?
The money to house an inmate is massive!!
I'd rather it spent on sick children.

tigerpie wrote:I'm about 70/30 on this. In extreme circumstances i think we do have the right to hand down a death sentence. Not an easy call though.
But why should the taxpayer fund these sub-humans?
The money to house an inmate is massive!!
I'd rather it spent on sick children.

by that last argument though, we would spend all our money on sick children and nothing on anything else, i.e roads, telecomms, public transport etc.

jails are way way down on the list of priorities but still important

i also read somewhere that it is actually more expensive to kill a prisoner, because of all of the legal avenues of appeal that happen, will have to try and find the article.

bennymacca wrote:
by that last argument though, we would spend all our money on sick children .

and counselling for newly weds

bennymacca wrote:

tigerpie wrote:I'm about 70/30 on this. In extreme circumstances i think we do have the right to hand down a death sentence. Not an easy call though.
But why should the taxpayer fund these sub-humans?
The money to house an inmate is massive!!
I'd rather it spent on sick children.

by that last argument though, we would spend all our money on sick children and nothing on anything else, i.e roads, telecomms, public transport etc.

jails are way way down on the list of priorities but still important

i also read somewhere that it is actually more expensive to kill a prisoner, because of all of the legal avenues of appeal that happen, will have to try and find the article.

this prision has it right

http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/

I think I've seen that place on Americas hardest Prisons. Great show!

Sounds he might be on a power trip, but in terms of the tent jails got no problem with that