Life for a Life ? - Page 2

302 XC · 01-06-2012, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pottery beige

instead of protecting the kiddy fiddlers throw them in general population and let the law of the jungle sort them out...

The worse part of this,is many who have been fiddled with think it is the lay of the land, and when older they offend,thinking that they are doin no wrong
Even in this day and age of nearly every paper or news bulliten mentioning on goins, it still happens
It has happened since moses built the ark,its more in the open now
But,
A child has right of mention its the accused who has to prove innocence,id hate to be wromngly accused of such a crime

Eye for an eye,if proven beyond reasonable doubt or proven with the new high tech gear,sure lethal injection,that should stop maybe it happening as frequent as it does,someone beaten half to death, how does the punishment fit that crime ???, some dons a baliclava and beats the accused half to death ???
We do need to get a tad tuff on such harsh crimes,but the dogooders in the world will never let death for death pass, but hey its never their families that get effected, maybe when it does they mite hand in their goodie goodies clothes and take a tuffer stand on such crimes

Ducati888 · 01-06-2012, 02:10 PM

It's interesting how many posts have referred to cost. Cost seems to be underpinning everything in our society these days, and it needs to be removed as the main concern governing most major social issues if we are to progress as a society. Health, education, public safety and infrastructure. All have a cost, but should not be driven by it. That's why we pay taxes, and there is a reasonable expectation that we have a basic level of all of these things.

Cost - it gets the biggest crims the best lawyers in the business. Is that justice?
Cost - it's been known for people to 'take the fall' for other criminals, and hence serve time for a fee. Is that justice?
Crooked cops that cover up for their bent mates, or their colleagues. Is that justice?
Hell, who knows if magistrates are even sober for their afternoon hearings?

There needs to be a fundamental shift in how justice works, from top to bottom, if we want to re-visit the capital punishment theme. It can't work with the current system, because every single issue around it needs reform as well.

Windsor342ci · 01-06-2012, 02:19 PM

IMO, eye for an eye. No question in my mind. If there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then yes. If someone hurt a loved one of mine, to the point of no return, taking matters into ones hands is the only logical solution, regardless of the consquences that await. This is the only answer. There is no other option.....
Simple

Ducati888 · 01-06-2012, 02:27 PM

So you are quite happy to be potentially put to death if you take revenge on (and possibly kill, intentionally or otherwise) someone who hurt you?

What a pointless waste. What do you think your victim would get out of that 'lesson'?

That's what happens in Africa, and just look at most of its society. No-one has anything there except the very rich.

el_wagon · 01-06-2012, 02:36 PM

I agree, an eye for an eye. If putting a murderer to death can save an innocent persons life, then do it.

Ducati888 · 01-06-2012, 02:39 PM

If they are a murderer, then by definition they have already taken a life. Do they always take an 'innocent' life? Who's to say? There's no guarantee they would ever take another either.

Would you say that underworld murderers and hitmen go after random innocent people or other scumbags who have offended society in some way?

**Polyal** · 01-06-2012, 02:41 PM

I have this argument, I mean discussion, with my wife whenever something like this comes up.

When its 100%, and I mean 100% whether that be through admission or rock hard evidence then I dont understand what putting someone away for life actually achieves. You let someone rot in prison and cost no doubt alot of money and how does this benefit society?

Now the grey area is how do you make sure its 100%? I could think of nothing worse than giving someone the death penalty only to find later that it was not them..so thats the catch for me.

But as above, when it is far and above proven then these people just dont deserve to live. They make decisions leading up to the event, and not just the murder itself, to follow through with such an act and have such disregard for another life then what gives them the right to continue theirs.

Fact of life is that there are scum out there who get away with far to much, they wont change, rehabilitation will work up util the point in which they are released and it happens all over again.

el_wagon · 01-06-2012, 02:43 PM

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226323626613 I would have no hesitation in putting those 3 offenders to death.

RedHotGT · 01-06-2012, 02:46 PM

I always thought that the punishment for the crime was supposed to fit the crime, and act as a deterent to the rest of the world when the 'consider' breaking that law.

So - how is the death penalty a punishment or a deterant for someone who has no consideration for life (someone elses or their own)?

**Polyal** · 01-06-2012, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el_wagon

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226323626613 I would have no hesitation in putting those 3 offenders to death.

I can see your point, but maybe one of those idiots was in it for the cash and had no intention of killing anyone. If it was just one of them that killed the cop then yes I dont see how locking him up for ever will help anything. The other two should get very long sentences.

Ill admit I dont know much about that case, just my opinion an face value of that article.

If the other two pinned the cop down and one shot then they are all accountable for the death 100%.

Nothing is ever clear cut unfortunately.

el_wagon · 01-06-2012, 02:53 PM

Locking criminals up or putting them to death is not only a punishment, it's also for the safety of the rest of the community.

Ducati888 · 01-06-2012, 02:55 PM

...and as we move on, lets clear society first of murderers. They serve no purpose and cost money to keep. Then, um, how about the mentally ill? They can't work and are a financial burden. Lets sweep them under the rug and forget about them. Now, who's next? Oh, disabled people. They cost us lots of money because of those expensive chairs and ramps. Time for them to go. The unemployed? They don't pay tax. They take welfare payements. How much to they cost us? They have to go too.

Now that we have a perfect society of fit, employed, taxpaying productive people, um hangon a minute. That guy over there cut me off. Death! He's got to go. Then blonde people. I hate blonde people. Don't even get me started on them. They have to go too. They serve no useful purpose and make everyone else jealous with their look and long legs. I find that offensive because I don't look like that. Gone. They're gone.

Kids. They are unproductive and certainly cost a bomb to raise. School fees, braces, clothes. And what to they contribute? Nothing! Gone! Worthless freeloaders.

Hangon, I'm perfect. They'll never get me, what have I ever done to offend society? Oops. Just crossed the road with the red man flashing. Death!

**Polyal** · 01-06-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducati888

...and as we move on, lets clear society first of murderers. They serve no purpose and cost money to keep. Then, um, how about the mentally ill? They can't work and are a financial burden. Lets sweep them under the rug and forget about them. Now, who's next? Oh, disabled people. They cost us lots of money because of those expensive chairs and ramps. Time for them to go. The unemployed? They don't pay tax. They take welfare payements. How much to they cost us? They have to go too.

Now that we have a perfect society of fit, employed, taxpaying productive people, um hangon a minute. That guy over there cut me off. Death! He's got to go. Then blonde people. I hate blonde people. Don't even get me started on them. They have to go too. They serve no useful purpose and make everyone else jealous with their look and long legs. I find that offensive because I don't look like that. Gone. They're gone.

Kids. They are unproductive and certainly cost a bomb to raise. School fees, braces, clothes. And what to they contribute? Nothing! Gone! Worthless freeloaders.

Hangon, I'm perfect. They'll never get me, what have I ever done to offend society? Oops. Just crossed the road with the red man flashing. Death!

And this is why you cant have a discussion because people have to try and prove a point by going to the extreme.

Are you seriously putting disabled people into the same category as a proven killer? Please dont use the excuse of the killer being temporarily insane/disabled either.

And while you are trying to prove a point about about making a suggestion as to what would be an appropriate course of action for people who are proven beyond doubt to have committed a murder?

Ducati888 · 01-06-2012, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polyal

And this is why you cant have a discussion because people have to try and prove a point by going to the extreme.

Are you seriously putting disabled people into the same category as a proven killer? Please dont use the excuse of the killer being temporarily insane/disabled either.

And while you are trying to prove a point about about making a suggestion as to what would be an appropriate course of action for people who are proven beyond doubt to have committed a murder?

No, you are completely wrong about my point. Read it again.

My point is that if we make it "OK" to put murderers to death because society sees no value in keeping them in custody, what next?

I certainly was not comparing, nor did I imply, that the mentally ill, the unemployed, children and blonde people are comparable to murderers. I am testing the value society places on various tiers. I ask that you learn to interpret the written word, before you insult me with your vastly inaccurate interpretations of what I wrote.

FG_Frodza · 01-06-2012, 03:11 PM

If someone was definitely going to be locked up and never going to see the light of day again for a crime that was so heinous that they never have a chance of parole, then the death penalty should apply if for no other reason than it costs around $95k per year to keep someone locked up.

el_wagon · 01-06-2012, 03:11 PM

It's not that they have no value, it's that they are a danger to society if they are ever released or escape.

RedHotGT · 01-06-2012, 03:14 PM

Is one life worth the same as another?

With humans? Is it? Really? Or are some people's lives worth more than others?

How about animals? What's their life worth?

I'm always confused by people's moral calculators when it comes to death. It seems that some deaths are okay - and some that aren't? Which is ironic - because the only single thing we ALL have 100% in common - is the fact that we're going to die.

We're all different from the moment that we're conceived - but every single one of us is heading for the same ending. Death.

Maybe that is why it is so polarising?

**Polyal** · 01-06-2012, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducati888

No, you are completely wrong about my point. Read it again.

My point is that if we make it "OK" to put murderers to death because society sees no value in keeping them in custody, what next?

I certainly was not comparing, nor did I imply, that the mentally ill, the unemployed, children and blonde people are comparable to murderers. I am testing the value society places on various tiers. I ask that you learn to interpret the written word, before you insult me with your vastly inaccurate interpretations of what I wrote.

Settle down, your post is nothing but sensationalistic. Why go to that effort just say what you want to say.

You really think that if we make it ok for murders to be put to death that it will spread to other offenses? oh noooo..kill all the kids stealing candy..please.

The difference is that murders make a clear and conscious choice on what they do. They chose to kill, no one makes them, they decide that someone else does not deserve to live.

For the bold, there are no tiers, a murders background, mental state or hair colour obviously makes no difference.

So what was your option then for someone who is found guilt, beyond all doubt of murder? Its ok to be against the dealth penalty, but come up with a solution because the current system obviously is not effective.

Im also not silly enough to think that capital punishment will actually eradicate all murders, but if that isnt a deterrent then what else can you do? A bit of therapy I guess....

Ducati888 · 01-06-2012, 03:30 PM

No. Just keep them locked up forever. Society as a whole never knows the full story nor have they the complete perspective on anything. Therefore, a referendum on it is scarily like watching A Current Affair.

Who are we to judge? $100K per year per murderer? There's that cost thing again. Everything is measured in dollars and value is appointed on that basis. Just lock them up. To hell with the expense.

Who hasn't made really stupid decisions in their formative years that could have gone very pear shaped and ended badly? Let's assume they had gone badly. Are you the same person now that you were then? If that decision had gone so wildly pear shaped that you winded up killing someone, would you have been satisfied to be put to death? Whilst rehabilitation may not work for some, should we rob the opportunity from people who, through their social environment and often their upbringing have a different perspective on things, especially when they are very young?

Yes, the system is far from perfect, but as I stated earlier, it's not sick because of the murderers alone. It's sick because of the whole justice system and its junkets and gravy trains and politics. Policing is about getting the easy, lowest hanging fruit, Law is about profile and money. Politics is at the top of it all, being seen to be doing something rather than actually doing something, so that the drones who watch channel 10 & listen to triple M will shift their superficial vote to the government of the day.

It's a big problem, and I doubt anyone will have the balls to fix it, ever.

el_wagon · 01-06-2012, 03:44 PM

I'm not happy to pay for these criminals or accept the risk they pose if they escape.

I reckon · 01-06-2012, 04:01 PM

hang the POS! why should us tax payers pay for his new life in jail .

**** if that was my daughter id be waiting for that **** the day he gets out.

Ducati888 · 01-06-2012, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el_wagon

I'm not happy to pay for these criminals or accept the risk they pose if they escape.

You don't get to choose how tax dollars are spent. Those in charge do, rightly or wrongly.

The problem is, as I see it, is that there is a distinct lack of real leadership at the top, whether it be politics or private business. No-one strong and enigmatic enough to make the wholesale changes to society that are needed.

There's many things we as individuals may not wish our taxes spent on, but that's how society works. You want its perks you have to put up with its downsides too.

el_wagon · 01-06-2012, 04:29 PM

I pay taxes and I vote. Any politician that brings in the death penalty gets my vote. So I kind of do get to choose how tax dollars are spent (even if it a very limited choice).

GTP owner · 01-06-2012, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el_wagon

I agree, an eye for an eye. If putting a murderer to death can save an innocent persons life, then do it.

? You are assuming that they will offend again, which is a big call

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhiaEB

You do realise how much it costs to lock up someone for over 25yrs? The death penility would be a far greater solution than life. Saves the taxpayer and rids the world of some of the scum of the earth!

Costs more to go through all the hoops to delete someone. It's cheaper to keep them in jail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rag top

But then there has been cases of those convicted and given the death penalty, only to find out years later that they were innocent. Does that mean the persons who convicted them should get the death penalty??? As in a life for a life???

Using the logic of this thread, the answer must be yes. The victim has not "wronged" the executioner, therefore the executioner deserves to die.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

Seems to work well as a deterrent in the USA.

No it doesn't. Their murder rate is many times higher than ours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

i am for capital punishment with abit of torture and beating before hand just to make sure they feel abit of pain however this would never happen so my second opinion is to make prison harder as above no tv no radio forced classes for whateva some skill dont go to class no food you choose not to eat you die ect. ect.

So you think that torture is OK? I think you are in the wrong century - the crusades were long ago. And who does the torture? Once again - there would be someone other than the victim doing this. Who would do this? Would not torturing them be as bad as what they actually did to someone else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 66FAIRLANE

It's not about revenge, it's not even about deterrent. It's about ridding society of low life scum bags that don't deserve to be on this planet. I am not talking about self defence murder or two blokes having a fight and one hits his head and dies. I am talking crimes against the defenceless, children the elderly etc. People that commit these heinous crimes should have their organs harvested (except the brain) and the rest I don't care. And as for a mental condition rendering someone not guilty..well don't get me started on that.

It doesn't deter anyone. As for organ harvesting - maybe we could encourage people to commit murder to solve the lack of current donors...

Quote:

Originally Posted by XD 351 Ute

The world is getting full, time to weed a few out I think.....

Those that have been proven beyond all doubt - see ya.
Those that haven't, start fixing the place.

Ed

Big judgement call. I thought that these kind of decisions are best left out of the hands of Man - we tend to stuff up these kind of things fairly badly. Any kind of genocide could be used to refute this argument

el_wagon · 01-06-2012, 04:40 PM

Yes I am making an educated guess that they will kill again, who can tell me they won't? does depend on the circumstances quite alot though. Like if it was self defence or an accident, but that would be a manslaughter charge and is a different story.

GTP owner · 01-06-2012, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el_wagon

Yes I am making an educated guess that they will kill again, who can tell me they won't? does depend on the circumstances quite alot though. Like if it was self defence or an accident, but that would be a manslaughter charge and is a different story.

Using the same logic, if you have had an accident and you were at fault, you will crash again, so we should not let you drive.
And it is not a very educated guess, because those who commit murder very rarely do so again, unless it is sanctioned murder such as that found in regional conflicts (see Syria for the latest example)

el_wagon · 01-06-2012, 04:53 PM

Most people do repeat what they do. Did you check the link of the 3 armed bandits that shot and killed the police officer? They are career criminals.
I do agree that people that cause accidents causing a death should never drive again. We all have a right to feel safe on the roads and in our own house.

Geez Louise · 01-06-2012, 05:02 PM

This is a topic that gets revisited every few years by politicians in all countries all over the world. If the death penalty in countries really was a deteriant, why are murders still being committed in those countries??

It is more complex than you may think. Sure you can argue, this person killed someone so they deserve to be killed, but as someone else has already said, how many times has someone been proven guilty by a jury and then DNA cleared them?

And what about the people that confess to murder? There have been cases where people confess just to get their names in the paper...but what about the really guilty ones? Is it better to have them live their life racked with guilt? Slowly letting the guilt eat at them...or should their life be ended?

There are many arguements for and many against. I don't think Australia will see the death penalty ever bought back in. There are too many variables/opposing views on what is the right thing to do...

Cheers
Col

bingoTE50 · 01-06-2012, 05:29 PM

Capital Punishment is dead , pardon the pun. Way to much red tape and civil libertarians for it to be re-introduced.
Realistically , in some cases , the guilty welcome death ,particularly if they are not of a Christian faith . Incarceration and shame on the family may be a better sentence .
But still , if was my family member , revenge would be very hard to ignore !

GTP owner · 01-06-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geez Louise

This is a topic that gets revisited every few years by politicians in all countries all over the world. If the death penalty in countries really was a deteriant, why are murders still being committed in those countries??

It is more complex than you may think. Sure you can argue, this person killed someone so they deserve to be killed, but as someone else has already said, how many times has someone been proven guilty by a jury and then DNA cleared them?

And what about the people that confess to murder? There have been cases where people confess just to get their names in the paper...but what about the really guilty ones? Is it better to have them live their life racked with guilt? Slowly letting the guilt eat at them...or should their life be ended?

There are many arguements for and many against. I don't think Australia will see the death penalty ever bought back in. There are too many variables/opposing views on what is the right thing to do...

Cheers
Col

You hit the nail on the head. It doesn't work as a deterrent.
How many innocent people wrongly convicted need to be executed to appease the revenge emotion? One innocent is too many for my conscience.