I don't think so.

No.

Did you catch the debale within Labor over this? One of Rudd's ministers announced a policy to pursue, in cooperation with other countries, an end to capital punishment within Asia. Unfortunately he released it close to the eve of the Bali bombings. Howard stepped in and said it was disresepectful to the families of the victims to suggest we shouldn't kill the perpetrators. Does this mean Howard supports the death penalty for people like the bloke from Tassie who shot up a restaurant?

Anyway, Rudd quickly put an end to it all and the minister in question may lose his portfolio when Labor wins the election.

Personally, I think we can do without it, as can other countries like Japan and the US. Indonesia I'm not too sure about. Where life is cheap, it may be a necessary option. We certainly shouldn't allow our federal police to assist Indonesian authorities to arrest Aussie drug traffickers to save the cost of a fairer trial.

Apparently it is every expensive to hang someone. have to allow all sorts of legal appeals etc etc.
Also, surprisingly enough does not seem to be a deterrant to that crime by other people.


Even though some crimes are really off, I don't feel we have the "right" to kill someone.
It's a toughie.  What if we just locked them up, leaving accessable some cyanide for them to take themselves if they so wish ?

I think we should lock them up and leave "Parliament Question Time" on indefinitely in a TV in the corner of theyre cell ,never being able to change the channel---

Oh no the pain!!!!--it would  be the perfect incentive to pick up that cyanide .

I dont believe in legalised killing- sexual crimes against children being the only exception.

Now thats good creative thinking oceans :-)

I hear you about the "exceptions" to the case for banning capital punishment.
Some murders I feel the same way also.
But has to be no exceptions, a blanket rule.

Just lock them up forever.  In a way, that could be worse to them than executing them.

Absolutely,
Shoot that Dante Arthurs cu*t, he is guilty as sin and does not deserve to live.
Shoot that cu*t who drove his car into the water and drowned his own children, he is wasting valuable oxygen that would be more beneficial feuling a fire.
Child tamps need a bullet, fu*k them.
Some people will never be "rehabilitated" SHOOT THEM.
Political correctness and human rights should only be given as a privilege to those who possess and demonstrate such traits.
A bullet is much cheaper than life in prison........besides, we need some population control, nature can't keep up with demand, and a few dead scumbags will only be missed by the people who have no choice but to love them.
I think a child tamps family grieving their loss is much less distressing than the child who's only crime was being a child, and so what if they can be rehabilitad, these crimes are unforgivable and should not be tolerated.

merou wrote on Oct 12^th, 2007 at 11:16pm:

Absolutely, Shoot that Dante Arthurs cu*t, he is guilty as sin and does not deserve to live. Shoot that cu*t who drove his car into the water and drowned his own children, he is wasting valuable oxygen that would be more beneficial feuling a fire. Child tamps need a bullet, fu*k them. Some people will never be "rehabilitated" SHOOT THEM. Political correctness and human rights should only be given as a privilege to those who possess and demonstrate such traits. A bullet is much cheaper than life in prison........besides, we need some population control, nature can't keep up with demand, and a few dead scumbags will only be missed by the people who have no choice but to love them. I think a child tamps family grieving their loss is much less distressing than the child who's only crime was being a child, and so what if they can be rehabilitad, these crimes are unforgivable and should not be tolerated.

Sexual rapist and murderes of children are the most heinous of crimes.

I think the guy who drove his boys into a dam (to get back at his wife  )- yes I would seriosly consider him for execution.

But I guess its a slippery slope when we go down that path.

I would have a special exception  for the child sex crimes though!!

If society doesnt protect its innocents (the children)- who does?

I am all for the death penalty in cases where there is absolute proof that the person did actually commit the crime. Lindy Chamberlain springs to mind as the community is still divided to this day over her guilt.

What useful purpose Martin Bryant serves on earth after the shootings in Tasmania. His life should have been snuffed out like those he took.

repetition of my post-soz.

i honestly believe if you take another life, taking someones right to live, you revoke your own.
Although capital punishment should only be used in cases where it is absolutely certain that the person is guilty.
But it should only be used for the most terrible of crimes, like the Port Arthur massicre, otherwise life sentences are suitable.
I completely dissagree with many Asian countries to hang people on crimes which do not seem to justify such a punishement, or for crimes that are based upon religion, not common rationality and morality.

This thing about 'absolute proof' keeps coming up. Obviously people don't trust the standard of proof we accept for regular criminal trials, when the death penalty is on the table. In America capital punishment is criticised as being very expensive. Setting up an additional legal test would add to this cost. And what if a person was found guilty, but ot guilty enough to be hanged? Would that mean they should have been found innocent? Shouldn't the same burden of prrof be expected for life in prison as is expected for death?

Tanwin wrote on Oct 13^th, 2007 at 4:05am:

I am all for the death penalty in cases where there is absolute proof that the person did actually commit the crime. Lindy Chamberlain springs to mind as the community is still divided to this day over her guilt. What useful purpose Martin Bryant serves on earth after the shootings in Tasmania. His life should have been snuffed out like those he took.

I agree mate.

Also Termite is an awesome name! 8-)

No one should ever be killed if possible.

No human has the right to kill another no matter how bad that person is, end of story.

It is the same as abortion and euthanasia, there is never a good reason to kill someone.

Quote:

i honestly believe if you take another life, taking someones right to live, you revoke your own.

Problem is Thomas that manslaughter becomes a grey area in 'taking a life'. It must be cold blooded murder alone.

I stood (as a paying visitor) on the gallows at the old Adelaide jail and said to a former stepson 'this is where you will end up if you don't change your ways'. He is currently locked up in Juvenile Hall in the USA and well on his way to becoming a career crim. But to me being older (and hopefully somewhat wiser) it was an eerie feeling to have stood where others have met their end and to have tinkered with the lever that dispatched them.

Clear as mud?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/ALP-wouldnt-save-death-row-terrorists/2007/10/15/1192300639998.html

A Labor government would never intervene to save terrorists on death row overseas, federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has said, after chiding one of his frontbenchers for pushing for an end to the death penalty.

Labor's foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland last week apologised to the victims of the Bali bombings for arguing for an end to the death penalty just days before the fifth anniversary of the deadly Bali bombings.

Mr Rudd blasted his colleague for the ill-timed comments and was subsequently accused by the coalition of a lack of courage for not backing the key frontbencher.

The Labor leader on Monday defended his comments.

"The statements I made were absolutely consistent with where I have been and where we have been, as a party, on the death penalty from the beginning," Mr Rudd told ABC radio.

He said the Labor party opposed the death penalty and would fight for Australians on death row overseas.

But, he said, Labor would not intervene to save terrorists convicted overseas.

"The other problem with the statements made last week was it left open the possible interpretation that interventions would be made on behalf of (convicted Bali bomber) Amrozi and that was not our policy," he said.