Do you support death sentances for arsonist, rapist?

[Pseudo]

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.

Apart from the fact that a crim might top (or rape, or burn, as per the thread title) one of his block-mates while in the clink, consider that Life doesn't always mean Life.

This is all interesting debate, but I'm going to bed now...

[Psyber]

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

I'm with you bayman.

What is proven beyond doubt?

henious crimes

I'm never sure anything is beyond any doubt. Even confessions can be false or deluded...
However I am for stronger penalties for serious offences.

[Q.]

Shrek is spot on.

The State sets the example for it's citizens and State-sanctioned murder purveys the belief that killing can be justified.

It's easy to let emotions overcome rational thought in these situations.

Homicides actually increased with the abolition of the death penalty.
It was only the "insanity pleas" that decreased.
Does that suggest that the weak ba$tards that find the courage to kill someone are too scared to die themselves by pleading insanity?

Sorry smithy, but you're wrong.

On a per capita basis the incidences of homicides has been relatively constant in Australia. Weighted against an increasing population, the rate actually fell between 1965-84, not long after capital punishment was abolished.

[Dirko]

So with the arsonist (s), going to face Murder / Manslaughter charges when caught what do people think is a just sentence ?

Me, I'd love to burn them at the stake, but as that won't happen, lock them up for LIFE. LIFE means exactly that. They do not
ever get out. EVER. Incarcerate them and throw away the key.

When caught these people do not deserve a second chance of ever setting foot outside Her Majesty's finest again.

[Q.]

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.

So the argument for it is as a type of social cleansing. What if recidivism is directly due to the nature of justice and the prison system. That because the State couldn't provide proper recourse for rehabilitation we just kill those people instead?

I acknowledge your point regarding emotion and that the argument for may not necessarily be clouded by emotion.

[smithy]

I'm never sure anything is beyond any doubt. Even confessions can be false or deluded...
However I am for stronger penalties for serious offences.

DNA doesn't lie Psyber

[smithy]

Shrek is spot on.

The State sets the example for it's citizens and State-sanctioned murder purveys the belief that killing can be justified.

It's easy to let emotions overcome rational thought in these situations.

Homicides actually increased with the abolition of the death penalty.
It was only the "insanity pleas" that decreased.
Does that suggest that the weak ba$tards that find the courage to kill someone are too scared to die themselves by pleading insanity?

Sorry smithy, but you're wrong.

On a per capita basis the incidences of homicides has been relatively constant in Australia. Weighted against an increasing population, the rate actually fell between 1965-84, not long after capital punishment was abolished.

The % of population vs homicides may of stayed steady or declined a little, but the amount of homicides did increase.
Amount of homicides


Homicides vs % population

[The Big Shrek]

Smithy, are you trying to say that the increase in number of homicides was due to the abolition of capital punishment rather than the increase in population? I hope you are not trying to say that because it would be a little silly.

[Snaggletooth Tiger]

Do you support death sentances for arsonist, rapist?

No, but I do support public flogging for posting too many stupid polls, not to mention the bad spelling!

[mick]

Something along the lines pictured here would be suitable. In public of course so at least the tourism industry would benefit.

[Dogwatcher]

That's not an execution, just another example of German sado masochism.

That bloke's just lucky there was no movement in the Warsaw Pact at that time!

[Psyber]

Although I have reservations about the death penalty at all, mainly on the grounds that innocent people do sometimes get convicted, I have some sympathy with it's application for those that fit the US "three time loser" concept. Early and adequate first time intervention may help prevent recurrent offences, but I am not aware of any adequate trials of it as a solution. Cost has probably inhibited trials.

In tribal regions of Zimbabwe, a colleague who worked there told me, repeat offenders or the dangerously, to others, mentally disturbed tend to disappear. "The lions got him." is the usual explanation.

[Psyber]

I'm never sure anything is beyond any doubt. Even confessions can be false or deluded...
However I am for stronger penalties for serious offences.

DNA doesn't lie Psyber

While I agree DNA analysis is pretty reliable, it may not be absolutely so, depending on the technique of the laboratory staff.
And of course, it can be planted, or get there innocently because someone handled a gun someone else handled as well, and nobody looked for two lots of DNA.
In the case of rape allegations, the presence of DNA only indicates intercourse took place, not what the circumstances were.
So, while it may not lie if laboratory technique is good, it may not tell the whole truth.

[Dog_ger]

I voted other.

Death to those that murder.

[TroyGFC]

Do you support death sentances for arsonist, rapist?

No, but I do support public flogging for posting too many stupid polls, not to mention the bad spelling!

If you dont like polls why do you open it up to read? 4 pages worth of post says its a valid topic! And who the **** cares about spelling anyway FFS!!!!

[Snaggletooth Tiger]

Use the right bait & just reel em in!

[Leaping Lindner]

Although I have reservations about the death penalty at all, mainly on the grounds that innocent people do sometimes get convicted, I have some sympathy with it's application for those that fit the US "three time loser" concept. Early and adequate first time intervention may help prevent recurrent offences, but I am not aware of any adequate trials of it as a solution. Cost has probably inhibited trials.

In tribal regions of Zimbabwe, a colleague who worked there told me, repeat offenders or the dangerously, to others, mentally disturbed tend to disappear. "The lions got him." is the usual explanation.

Unfortunately the lions have missed the biggest idiot in that country.

[Leaping Lindner]

I'm never sure anything is beyond any doubt. Even confessions can be false or deluded...
However I am for stronger penalties for serious offences.

DNA doesn't lie Psyber

Yes. But it does get tainted, "lost", swapped over and more importantly planted at crime scenes.

[Mr66]

You're onto something there LL.
The only time I would support a death penalty is to get rid of politicians.
I'm old enough to remember Ceacescu getting it in Romania in 1989.
He was caught, tried, found guilty and executed all in the space of about 15 minutes. Hilarious!!!

[Hondo]

The death penalty is not not a deterrent for murder, it's just about giving victims and society a sense of justice being served. Most murders would be mostly:

- predemitated by people who don't think they'll be caught anyway
- crimes of passion committed by people caught up in the heat of the moment and not thinking about the consequences
- committed by the insane who, again, are not thinking of the consequences if they get caught

If life in prison isn't enough to deter someone, then neither will a death penalty. Otherwise, why were there any murders when the death penalty was in?

It's state sponsored murder based on a potentially fallible system of justice. Best left in the past IMO.

As for rapists I am not sure why this was raised as a capital punishment offence? If it were, there'd be 100s of men put to death every year In fact, it's a classic case of why not to have a death penalty because there is a very fine line between rape and consent which many men cross and not many get charged. The AFL would be short a few players if this was brought in