Execution: it’s not as popular as you might think

Mr Pastry says:

07:49am | 21/08/09

Life is cheap and the death sentence is not too bad a way to go, fairly quick and better than Parkinsons, Motor Neurone etc.  If we were so shocked by unfair death, ban cars but that would impact us directly and taking a moral high ground is always at no cost to us. 
Shame Lucy has to experience emotion/revulsion by proxy through the eyes of a cinema screen.  Please remember - it is a film and not subject to vigorous investigation, it is meant to entertain and play with your emotions.  I hope you enjoyed the popcorn.

Ben says:

09:16am | 21/08/09

I fear you are a little misguided Mr Pastry. Yes, a car accident may cause an “unfair death”. I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is that’s manslaughter, and no one has ever been put to death for it. Deliberately taking a life is murder. Not exactly the same thing.

I don’t advocate capital punishment. To take the life of someone who takes a life seems hypocritical and lowers us to their level. When a judge says “life sentence” though, it should mean exactly that.

Steve says:

09:50am | 21/08/09

Two points

The question is really between the death penalty and life in prison without the possibility of parole. From societies point of view the major feature of these two is essentially the same, the convict never walks in the community again and dies behind bars. The cost of keeping someone behind bars for the rest of their natural life may be large but in my mind this is like the political donations issue. A fair judicial system, like a strong democratic system, is worth paying for. We have sufficient funds to pay for it, and as such we have a morale obligation to do so.

Also, in my mind, “beyond reasonable doubt” is not a strong enough burden of proof to allow the use of the death penalty. It is for incarceration, where (except for the passage of time) errors can be corrected, but the finality of the death penalty ensures that if that “unreasonable doubt” contained the truth no recourse is available to the convicted. If the death penalty was to be reintroduced into Australia then a higher burden would need to be applied. This would represent a substantial divergence from precedent, determining punishment based on the ‘probability’ of guilt. Perhaps some system where the prosecution determined the standard they wish to peruse, and a not-guilty verdict brought down if the evidence did not meet that standard would work.

All in all it’s really more trouble than it is worth

iansand says:

09:57am | 21/08/09

My limited experience of talking to murderers reveals that they fall into a couple of broad categories.  Those that do not expect to be apprehended, and those who are in such a disturbed mental state at the time of their homicide that no thought of punishment would change their course. The planning to avoid apprehension does not imply a plan to kill.  The majority of murders are in fact the result of an unplanned escalation in the seriousness of some other crime.  In neither case does fear of punishment enter into the equation.

The vast majority of people do not eschew crime because of fear of punishment, but because they conform to society’s norms.

So the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.  However, its existence has a negative effect on society by legitimising unnatural killing.  We demonstrate society’s abhorrence of someone killing another person by doing exactly the act that we regard as so abhorrent.  That doesn’t make much sense, does it?

By the way - the killer I found most disturbing had been acquitted before I met him.

Angela says:

09:58am | 21/08/09

I find it fascinating that the ones who are so opposed to the execution of criminals are generally strongly in favour of abortion.  And those who are strongly opposed to the execution of babies for the crime of being unwanted are often in favour of capital punishment.

Stone Rhino says:

10:46am | 21/08/09

@ Angela
“I find it fascinating that the ones who are so opposed to the execution of criminals are generally strongly in favour of abortion.”

This would generally be the female demographic as a male does not have the lawful freedom of choice when it comes to the birth of his own child. Another observation is, how many males contact female prisoners and hope to marry them upon release because they see the “good” in them - not many. However more females generally make contact with male prisoners (maybe women really do like bad boys!).

“...those who are strongly opposed to the execution of babies for the crime of being unwanted are often in favour of capital punishment.”

This would be the religious “fundamentalists”. Gods justice at the hands (and will) of man. The “innocent” shall be permitted to live (supposedly happily) in an adversarial world, but the guilty can die and be judged by their maker!

Life is meant to be a contradiction. Biology assures this (as decay is universal) as what once worked previously is not going to work next.

It’s like when people say “I am not I violent person, but…..”

Each to there own!

Kelly says:

10:56am | 21/08/09

A life in prison is surely a much harsher punishment for people who have committed horrible crimes. Maybe if they started handing out more life sentences instead of 10-20 year punishments for awful crimes there would be an actual deterrent for criminals.

Krystian says:

11:02am | 21/08/09

I’m against both capital punishment and abortion, I think you can’t oppose one and support another as it is simply a contradiction. That’s why I think the “consistent life ethic” put forward by Joseph Cardinal Bernardin is a very coherent approach to these sorts of issues.

I think on some issues such as the topic of this blog post, we can’t look to public opinion to guide us - Otherwise we fall into the trap of moral relativism, which has been responsible for some of the most awful atrocities in history.

KB says:

11:29am | 21/08/09

Beyond reasonable doubt and life sentences are things that are meaningless today.  Why was it necessary to have trials for Martin Bryant or Julian Knight?  There was no doubt in these cases and in neither was there any real justification for (imho) wasting valuable tax dollars in keeping them alive.  Why not implement transportation to, say, Heard Island.  Just drop them there, alone and let them fend for themselves.  Little cost involved and isolation assured.  If they survive, fine, if they don’t, who would really care?
We are a species that looks for revenge, regardless of what those claiming the high moral ground would have you believe (why else is the court system clogged with litigants?).  Our society today demands some kind of retribution for the truly revolting things that occur yet shys away from any real justice when a violent, heinous crime is committed. 
When a crime truly is beyond reasonable doubt, when proof is positive why not remove the malignancy from society in a sharp and decisive manner?

Stone Rhino says:

11:38am | 21/08/09

@Kelly “Maybe if they started handing out more life sentences instead of 10-20 year punishments for awful crimes there would be an actual deterrent for criminals.”

This is a novel idea, however point one is that deterrents have little impact on whether a crime takes place – common sense is not a strong human trait. If a person was in a situation where they were faced with unlawfully killing someone (for example whether it be driving a vehicle recklessly without regard, or in the commission of an armed robbery), I believe that in most cases the thing that runs though the offenders mind is not “if I do this and get caught I am going to prison for ….. years”!

Second point is if you increase imprisonment terms you had better be willing to pay for it. Prison population will increase ten fold. You only need to look at the United States of Freedom – it imprisons more people per capita that any other nation on earth.

It you take point one that deterrents have minimal effect on influence crime (economic factors have a far greater influence on crime, however politicians like being elected for saying they are tough on crime) and that prison populations will increase substantially with no real economic, therefore social benefit to society.

If society locks up an offender for 7 years or 10 years, I don’t think the extra three years will have any substantial impact to the prisoner, but society like to think that it does!

Kate says:

11:47am | 21/08/09

The drop in the approval rating from 89 per cent of Americans to 79 per cent is a positive sign. The US has been examining its high wrongful conviction rate for more than a decade. As for your question about whether a death penalty acts as detriment - absolutely not. An act of murder is so extreme. People are driven by powerful forces such as mental illness, an acute loss of control, perversion, greed, lust, passion - whatever. Such people are not in a fit state to stop and contemplate the consequences of their actions. If only.

Anne Wright says:

11:50am | 21/08/09

Capital Punishment harms the State/polity that permits it, and the people who live in that state. A sentance of execution requires a procecution demanding it, a judge to sentance someone to death, and then a penal system that carries it out. In the USA, if a death penalty is imposed, then mandatory appeals machinery kicks in, which includes more employees for the state being required to barrack for someone’s death. The whole system also requires that the other citizens of the polity accept it, witness it, validate it, and report on it, depending on their role in that state.

In other words, every one in that state is conspiring to commit murder, or is an accessory before, during or after the fact.  How on earth can that NOT harm all those people? ! Capital Punishment is terrible because it’s us all participating in murder - because we all agree that murder is the worst of crimes. Murder should be a terrible act commited by criminals ipso facto - not by the State.

Society should be protected from dangerous people. Those people should remain locked up until they cease to be a danger.

Gillian says:

12:44pm | 21/08/09

I do not believe in capital punishment purely for the fact that the courts may get it wrong. However, I do believe in life time sentences that remain a life time sentence. In a way, I think capital punishment is quite an easy way out for criminals rather than imprisonment where they have a long and painful death and have a lot of time to think about their actions.

http://www.30isthenewblack.com

Razor says:

01:38pm | 21/08/09

Bring back the Death Penalty.

Stone Rhino says:

01:54pm | 21/08/09

@Razor

“Bring back the Death Penalty.”

Since you seem so eager to start offing people, if the death penalty should be re-introduced as you wish, you may just find yourself on death row! You have got to love irony!

Bill Steamshovel says:

02:08pm | 21/08/09

@Stone Rhino “If society locks up an offender for 7 years or 10 years, I don’t think the extra three years will have any substantial impact to the prisoner, but society like to think that it does!”

I agree that the extra three years will not have any substantial impact on the decision to perform the crime in the first place, but society is correct that it will have a substantial impact on the prisoner. For those hypothetical extra three years, the likelihood of the offender robbing any banks or driving cars will be significantly reduced.

It you take point one that deterrents have minimal effect on influence crime (economic factors have a far greater influence on crime, however politicians like being elected for saying they are tough on crime) and that prison populations will increase substantially with no real economic, therefore social benefit to society.

stephen says:

02:28pm | 21/08/09

Yesterday a Scottish Court freed one of the Lockerbie bombers on compassionate grounds. He is directly responsible for 259 deaths, and some of you boof-heads are trying to tell me that you wouldn’t flick the switch, given half the chance ?...No ?  Well let me do it then, and one of youse’ can kick that scottish judge up the arse who let him go.

p.s. Some of you folk in the suburbs wanna’ get out a bit more.

Stone Rhino says:

03:06pm | 21/08/09

@ Bill Steamshovel

“For those hypothetical extra three years, the likelihood of the offender robbing any banks or driving cars will be significantly reduced.”

Agreed however it cost on average $50 000 per year to contain one full-time prisoner. If you keep that person in prison for three more years it will cost an extra $150 000. The cost of maintaining a single prisoner per year is just below the average annual gross earnings of the average Australian. Every man, woman and child pays over $50 per year to maintain the level of imprisonment that Australia currently has. If you convert Australia to the US Justice system it would increase to over $350 per man, woman and child per year. This kind of investment does not have a very good return. Also the US has a greater offender rate than Australia. Something to think about!

The point you make that longer you hold an offender the less the likelihood of them committing an offence is true, however it cannot be a point in an argument unless you are arguing that all violent crime or crime resulting in fear or apprehension in, or damage to the community and public order and safety should be punished by lengthy or indefinite imprisonment or via or execution.

Razor says:

03:41pm | 21/08/09

In Perth this week a serial pedophile who had twice had a judge mark his file as NEVER TO BE RELEASED was released.  We do not have a Justice system, we have a legal system.  Criminals and Defence Lawyers thumb their noses at society.

Stone Rhino - if someone ever did anything to my loved ones that I thought deserved the Death Penalty I would have no compunction in making sure that happened anyway I could.

Jono says:

03:51pm | 21/08/09

I dont think anyone can argue that capital punishment OR life incarceration acts as a deterrent when the vast majority of those commiting heinous acts requiring such punishment are deranged or mentally unstable and therefore largely incognisant of the consequences of their actions.  I think we are all searching for what we feel is an acceptable punishment for their actions.  I cannot claim to understand the grief and feelings of the families of the victims of terrorism or murder, i can only afford the following view.
The world on the whole is a fantastic place to live and the greatest punishment i can think of is not the cessation of existance but rather to exist in a world that i can no longer appreciate what it has to offer.
Take away my ability to hear, see, smell, taste and feel for the rest of my life would hurt me more than a bullet, an injection or a noose.

Jason says:

04:53pm | 21/08/09

I don’t think any living adult today could agree that a death for a death solves anything.  If an eye for an eye was a solution or deterrent then the Israel-Palestine conflict would have been settled long ago but instead each group feels wronged EVERY TIME.  and so the cycle continues.

Dan says:

11:46pm | 21/08/09

KB, the reason we have trials is that we believe in justice. If we didn’t have trials, and didn’t have the rule of law, there would be chaos. If you think that saving tax dollars is more important than making sure justice is served, what does it say about your prioritites. What you propose, and the language you use, is IMO barbaric, and is IMO as far away from justice as one can get.

Stephen, if you think that those who oppose capital punishment should get out more, are you suggesting that only those in suburbs are opposed to murder?

Angela, one can be in favour of abortion (or more accurately the right of a woman to choose) and be against the death punishment, if one does not regard a foetus as life.

Marxis minus says:

02:12am | 22/08/09

@stephen “...some of you boof-heads are trying to tell me that you wouldn’t flick the switch, given half the chance ?...No ?  Well let me do it then….”

You are totally permitted to “flick” the switch (so to speak). You are “free” to go and find those responsible for your loss and flick that switch. No one is stoping you - except for you!

Voxpop says:

10:34am | 22/08/09

I’m really surprised that no-one has brought up the Ronald Ryan hanging - the last death penalty in Australia.  This is exactly why we should never go back to capital punishment - innocent people are murdered by the state in our name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Ryan
He was a small time robber, only starting up in his 30’s after heavy gambling to provide for his family.  While escaping prison with another inmate a guard was shot dead.  It’s been shown since his death that the evidence was flimsy and manipulated with no real proof.  In fact the accepted cause was that another guard shot his workmate by accident.

The American system shows that many innocent people are put to death - mostly low socio-economic due to discrimination and lack of aid.  China is simply scary in it’s application of the death penalty and govt corruption.

Yes there are names we can trot out to support death penalties the Anita Cobby case and Martin Bryant specifically.  But to get that small handful where there is a real and definite certianty will mean the death of many more that should not take place and we cannot allow that.  We look at China and USA among others and see how barbaric their death penalty system is.  Thankfully we as a society have matured beyond this - and it looks like the USA may be on the road to change as well.

It’s completely fair and justifiable to to express anger and want the worst criminals to pay.  But fixing societal problems and our legal system are the best way forward rather than going backward.

Anne Wright says:

02:28pm | 22/08/09

To me, imprisonment in a prison is the last ditch approach to protect society from a dangerous person. There are lots of other sentencing options which should be canvassed, ie home detention, before prison. Basically because people rarely come out of prison better than they went in.

Any pro death penalty discussion which wanders into the “we should kill them because it’s cheaper” domain is problematic in my view.

Freddy says:

06:39pm | 22/08/09

I’m in and out of the courts every day as part of my job. If you saw some of the worthless parastites I see appearing again and again you’d offer join with me in strangling them with their bare hands. Bring back the death penalty, but make it arbitrary and instant.

Australian Coalition Against Death Penalty (ACADP) says:

10:59am | 28/08/09

To add further information regarding the execution of Ronald Ryan (last legalised killing in Australia - February 3, 1967). Ryan was convicted and sentenced to death for the shooting death of a prison officer while escaping from Pentridge Prison. Ryan was convicted of murder based solely on eyewitnesses evidence and alleged verbals, because the police and the prosecution failed to conduct forensic and scientific testing. The fact is that there was no scientific proof that Ryan had fired a shot. But Ryan was executed a year later, despite total lack of forensic evidence, missing pieces of vital evidence including the missing fatal bullet and missing spent cartridge,  the inconsistencies of each of the fourteen eyewitnesses evidence, only one single shot was heard by all persons (prison officer Paterson testified he fired a shot), and scientific evidence indicating that the fatal bullet was shot from a distance at a downward trajectory angle (impossible for Ryan to have fired).  Ryan maintained his innocence to the end by writing on toilet paper inside his cell. For some unknown reason Ryan was not given the opportunity to make a final statement before witnesses to his execution. The hangman wasted no time pulling the lever and Ryan fell to his death. There has of recent been attempts to cover-up this wrongful conviction by suggesting that Ryan verbally confessed to the prison governor. However,  there are no records anywhere, which confirm this verbal allegation.