Do you support death sentances for arsonist, rapist?

[Dirko]

Nol, Im a strong believer of giving people 2nd chances

Although I think the death penalty should be used for certain cases, I certainly don't believe anyone guilty of heinous crimes like arson which caused these fires, deserves a second chance.

What chance did the victims have ? What chance did the householders have of saving property or belongings ? What chance of livestock & domestic pets ?

Answer - NIL. So why would anyone who did this deserve a second chance when the victims don't get one ?

Find the bastard(s) and lock them up, and throw away the key. May they rot in hell and NEVER get a second chance to EVER set foot outside of captivity again.

[rod_rooster]

Realistically the death penalty will never come in again in Australia, basically because the major political parties are against it.

What i'd like to see are things like:

- no non parole periods for the most serious crimes eg premeditated murder
- a presumption AGAINST bail for most serious crimes. For less serious crimes, only 1 chance at bail given, if an offender breaches bail conditions once, must be extraordinary circumstances to be granted it again.
- minimum sentences for certain offences - no point putting maximum sentences of 25 years on the books if judges consistently only give 4 or 5 years sentences
- penalties for graffiti vandals significantly increased, hit them early in their criminal careers
- remove domestic violence crime as an offence itself ie. treat it as an assault as if it were against any other member of society
- bring down the age in which young people can be tried as an adult - bring it down to 14.
- greatly increased sentences for animal cruelty
- judges held accountable for manifestly inadequate sentences

Great post, particularly the one i have put in bold. There is no way known animal cruelty is dealt with properly. This is also a forgotten aspect of the bushfires. We hear of the human death toll but the loss of livestock, native animals and domestic pets would be so much greater.

[Mr66]

I watched most of the newscasts but had to turn away when I saw dead/suffering animals.
I'm with you RR.

[Pseudo]

And as for people admitting guilt, all I can say is Timothy John Evans.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

Well he certainly slaughtered a few Bays teams over the years. A few SANFL clubs' trophy cabinets might have been slightly fuller if Tim Evans had been put to death after his first massacre.

Oh, Timothy John Evans... forget everything I just said

[Pseudo]

Studies suggest that the death penalty has a brutalising effect on society and increases the occurrence of violent crime.

Balanced by the fact that the death penalty significantly lowers the rate of recidivism.

[Pseudo]

when proven beyond doubt yes i'm for the death penalty

I'm with you bayman.

What is proven beyond doubt?

Harry Callahan: Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.
The Mayor: Intent? How did you establish that?
Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross!
[walks out of the room]
The Mayor: He's got a point.

[Pseudo]

I'm open to the idea (ie. I accept that this point of view presents itself) that some people feel the need to satisfy their anger or hatred in seeking 'eye for eye' revenge, however, the facts are that State-sanctioned murder has a negative effect on society and I personally don't think we need to lower the standard of living in this country simply to satisfy this irrational desire.

Housing a serious offender for the rest of his (her) natural life will cost the state a mint. If a particular serious crim has zero chance of rehabilitation - and has demonstrated as much through recidivism, for example - and is killed by the state, does any negative effect on society outweigh the definite positive effect of the saving of Thousands of Our Tax Dollars?

I make the above argument simply to demonstrate that calling for a death penalty is not necessarily due to any emotional or irrational desires. One could form many rational arguments in favour of it, as well as against. To suggest otherwise is to allow irrationality to undermine your own argument.

(edit) Incidentally I think the best - and indeed the only sufficient - argument against a death penalty is the fact that if one later determines innocence of the deceased, one can't simply resurrect him/her, brush him off and apologise; the penalty is permanent.

[Pseudo]

And finally: I don't think that a murder charge would stick to our arsonist friend, unless you could prove beyond reasonable doubt that he (they arrested a bloke, did they not?) was intending to kill people with his actions.

At best he'll get manslaughter - and hopefully will "fall down the stairs" a few times in the lockup.

IMHO of course.

[panther]

I find an Arsonist hard to understand.
Most crimes have motive
Rapists have sexual motives
Murderers have reasons whether its personal or not
Robbers have monetary motives
Drug traffickers and couriers mostly financial
And there are other crimes etc etc

Point being most crimes there is a reason or purpose from the perspective of the individual /individuals, however most law abiding citizens have a different mindset and will not agree with crimes

However most arsonists must be intellectually impaired as what has the arsonist got to gain ?
Perhaps it can be argued insurance fraud is a motive, but bushfires I imagine would be started by impaired people.

Why do they start these fires?

[GWW]

Its a complicated issue, but its basically a fascination with fire.

[The Big Shrek]

Studies suggest that the death penalty has a brutalising effect on society and increases the occurrence of violent crime.

Balanced by the fact that the death penalty significantly lowers the rate of recidivism.

Where do you get that from?

[The Big Shrek]

And finally: I don't think that a murder charge would stick to our arsonist friend, unless you could prove beyond reasonable doubt that he (they arrested a bloke, did they not?) was intending to kill people with his actions.

At best he'll get manslaughter - and hopefully will "fall down the stairs" a few times in the lockup.

IMHO of course.

Don't know about Vic but in SA you just need to prove recklessness not intent, so they might get them on that.

[JAS]

I find an Arsonist hard to understand.
Most crimes have motive
Rapists have sexual motives
Murderers have reasons whether its personal or not
Robbers have monetary motives
Drug traffickers and couriers mostly financial
And there are other crimes etc etc

Point being most crimes there is a reason or purpose from the perspective of the individual /individuals, however most law abiding citizens have a different mindset and will not agree with crimes

However most arsonists must be intellectually impaired as what has the arsonist got to gain ?
Perhaps it can be argued insurance fraud is a motive, but bushfires I imagine would be started by impaired people.

Why do they start these fires?

I always thought that arsonists are the ones that start fires for profit or revenge but the others are pyromaniacsbut apparently pyromania is very rare. You might find some info here...the second is a link from the first...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyromania

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/bfab/bfab009.html

Regards
JAS

[Pseudo]

Studies suggest that the death penalty has a brutalising effect on society and increases the occurrence of violent crime.

Balanced by the fact that the death penalty significantly lowers the rate of recidivism.

Where do you get that from?

It's a bit hard to repeat the crime if you were put to death for it the first time!

[Leaping Lindner]

I'm open to the idea (ie. I accept that this point of view presents itself) that some people feel the need to satisfy their anger or hatred in seeking 'eye for eye' revenge, however, the facts are that State-sanctioned murder has a negative effect on society and I personally don't think we need to lower the standard of living in this country simply to satisfy this irrational desire.

Housing a serious offender for the rest of his (her) natural life will cost the state a mint. If a particular serious crim has zero chance of rehabilitation - and has demonstrated as much through recidivism, for example - and is killed by the state, does any negative effect on society outweigh the definite positive effect of the saving of Thousands of Our Tax Dollars?

I make the above argument simply to demonstrate that calling for a death penalty is not necessarily due to any emotional or irrational desires. One could form many rational arguments in favour of it, as well as against. To suggest otherwise is to allow irrationality to undermine your own argument.

(edit) Incidentally I think the best - and indeed the only sufficient - argument against a death penalty is the fact that if one later determines innocence of the deceased, one can't simply resurrect him/her, brush him off and apologise; the penalty is permanent.

Pseudo the economic argument doesn't hold true.

These stats are from the Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice

* “The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”
* Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.
* The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.
* The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.
* The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

[Pseudo]

And finally: I don't think that a murder charge would stick to our arsonist friend, unless you could prove beyond reasonable doubt that he (they arrested a bloke, did they not?) was intending to kill people with his actions.

At best he'll get manslaughter - and hopefully will "fall down the stairs" a few times in the lockup.

IMHO of course.

Don't know about Vic but in SA you just need to prove recklessness not intent, so they might get them on that.

Fair enough. I won't pretend to be versed in the finer points of the law. Either way I guess he'll get what's coming to him in the prison shower block.

[The Big Shrek]

Studies suggest that the death penalty has a brutalising effect on society and increases the occurrence of violent crime.

Balanced by the fact that the death penalty significantly lowers the rate of recidivism.

Where do you get that from?

It's a bit hard to repeat the crime if you were put to death for it the first time!

Pseudo, I assume that people who would have got the death penalty would be locked up for life anyway so it does not affect the recidivism rate one iota.

[rod_rooster]

On the legal debate, the correct term used is as far as i am aware:

'beyond reasonable doubt"

That is a big difference to beyond all doubt etc.

Regardless no person has the right to determine who or lives or dies. Just because someone else makes that choice doesn't give anyone else the right to play god. I appreciate that what i just said is an easy thing to say for me given i haven't lost anyone as a direct result of others actions and i can very much appreciate and understand the feelings of those that have.

[The Big Shrek]

Rooster, I think what bayman was suggesting is that when the death penalty is given a higher standard of proof i.e. 'beyond all doubt' is required rather than the usual 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

[Pseudo]

Pseudo the economic argument doesn't hold true.

These stats are from the Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice

* “The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”
* Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.
* The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.
* The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.
* The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Well and good, assuming that once somebody is sentenced to death then a lengthy stay on death row is necessary before the mandated punishment can actually be meted out.

Consider that a bloke could rape and murder a 12 year old girl, be caught in the act by multiple credible witnesses before her corpse has cooled, have samples of his DNA retrieved from every orifice of her body, such that his guilt of murder is clear-cut. Yet this scumbag could prolong his life for decades by having his lawyers continually seek injunctions to the process, claiming mental incompetence, claiming that evidence was not properly considered, appealing to persons of power, etc, thereby costing the state an absolute packet; much more than would have been necessary if the turd had simply been dragged out the back of the courtroom and held face-down in a barrel of water. This to me is repellent, and an indictment of the way the death penalty is handled.

The economic argument might work against the system of putting someone to death, as it currently stands, but not the principle.

The "whoops, wrong bloke" argument is the only one which works against the death penalty, I reckon. IF this argument could be dispensed with (a big IF, I concede) then do away with the death row thing and simply hang the buggers come sundown.