Do You Support the Death Penalty? (3 Viewers)

[ASNSWR127]

NO

Rather then immatuere tit for tat of killing someone for a crime why not rehabilitate them?

They do it in sweden and they have the lowest crime rate in the world...

Plus taking someones life in any circumstance (apart form euthanasia, anyone that wants to argue that pick nursing and do a week prac in a pallative care ward) is a horrendous act.

 

[Ezzzgi]

NO

Rather then immatuere tit for tat of killing someone for a crime why not rehabilitate them?

They do it in sweden and they have the lowest crime rate in the world...

Plus taking someones life in any circumstance (apart form euthanasia, anyone that wants to argue that pick nursing and do a week prac in a pallative care ward) is a horrendous act.

Agreed.

And even if rehabilitation doesn't work, then jail them for life. Besides, that way they have to spend the rest of their life cooped up "thinking over their actions". Or in any case, living, but not enjoying it.

And now people are gonna complain about wasting space in jails or something, eh?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

So neb, i'm assuming you would also support the torture of criminals as well, given that might act as a deterrent, and would certainly be a form of revenge.

I find it less objectionable than the death penalty, so indeed.

The State should not have the power to decide on the path of a person's life.

I don't see why, in the particular case of murderers, that this should hold.

Also, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...935546580.html

Yes I think this is certainly a good thing. Like I've been saying the whole time, while I support the idea in theory it's far too difficult to pull off in practise. When you have a neighbour like Indonesia who practises capital punishment willy nilly then I think it's important to have a highly consistent stance.

No, it's that logically if you believe that a life needs to be ceased due to them taking the life of another then you have to enact the process to remove that life. By the own recursive logic of the situation you, as a member of the state, have murdered and thus by your own moral compass deserve death.

Murder is the wrong word to use, Erwin. Finnegan beginagain.
But I see how your argument works. However, I advocated capital punishment only for cases where one has unfairly taken a life, as we see here:

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=3744962&postcount=499

I place a distinction between the life of a murderer and the life on an innocent, and value the lives accordingly.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Also, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/push-for-clear-line-on-death-penalty/2008/09/22/1221935546580.html

Yes I think this is certainly a good thing. Like I've been saying the whole time, while I support the idea in theory it's far too difficult to pull off in practise. When you have a neighbour like Indonesia who practises capital punishment willy nilly then I think it's important to have a highly consistent stance.

But that's so stupid. Does interference by a foreign state against a state's stance on death penalty have any effect? I think it usually just simply annoys them. It's the exact same situation as the American states that have capital punishment and the ones that don't. The ones that do defend it to eternity, and the ones that don't antagonise them.

It'll just make foreign relations worse, so I have no idea why people press for it; let alone why it's being brought up now.

I agree we should have a consistent stance on it (which I thought we did?), but there's no point wasting resources trying to get insane states to change their minds.

The current legal position means states and territories could reintroduce it, should they wish.

Fucking lol. Hoorah for understanding things once again, SMH!

 

[katie tully]

TBH, I had no idea the death penalty could legally be reinstated in Aus till I saw it on Sunrise.

And TBH, I doubt most Australians knew either. No idea why bring it up now though, was it necessary?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

But that's so stupid. Does interference by a foreign state against a state's stance on death penalty have any effect? I think it usually just simply annoys them. It's the exact same situation as the American states that have capital punishment and the ones that don't. The ones that do defend it to eternity, and the ones that don't antagonise them.

It'll just make foreign relations worse, so I have no idea why people press for it; let alone why it's being brought up now.

I agree we should have a consistent stance on it (which I thought we did?), but there's no point wasting resources trying to get insane states to change their minds.

Well it seems to work with Vietnam, no? I mean if we had capital punishment or we actively advocated drug executions in Indonesia then I really don't think Vietnam would be so eager to spare lives of Australians.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Well it seems to work with Vietnam, no? I mean if we had capital punishment or we actively advocated drug executions in Indonesia then I really don't think Vietnam would be so eager to spare lives of Australians.

Tbh I don't follow you. Vietnam still enforces capital punishment, as far as I'm aware.

 

[katie tully]

When was Vietnam eager to spare the lives of Australian drug mules?

lawlwot?

 

[xeuyrawp]

When was Vietnam eager to spare the lives of Australian drug mules?

lawlwot?

Yeah I really don't follow him. =/

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Vietnam consistently demotes death penalties imposed on Australians to life imprisonment.

 

[townie]

I find it less objectionable than the death penalty, so indeed.

you sir, are a terrible human being then


Pwar, whilst i think the internal position on the death penalty has been consisent, our representations on others executions hasnt exactly been, when we're simultaneously trying to get australians off death row in other countires, but welcomming the execution of terrorists and saddam hussein.

 

[katie tully]

Vietnam consistently demotes death penalties imposed on Australians to life imprisonment.

Ok but how would us changing our mind over the DP change the way Vietnam treated our drug mules?

I DON'T SEE THE CORRELATION

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

S1: Australia has death penalty. Vietnam executes Australians
S2: Australia doesn't have death penalty but doesn't care about what others do and hasn't signed any treaties. Vietnam probably executes Australians (and indeed, they have in the past).
S3: Australia doesn't have the death penalty and argues sometimes for it to be abolished yada yada. Vietnam currently doesn't execute Australians.

ERGO: WE EXTEND THIS THEN MEBBE OTHER COUNTRIES FOLLOW SUIT?
CAN'T HURT TO TRY!

fucking dud

 

[katie tully]

Has Vietnam said its leniency towards Australians is due to our stance on the Death Penalty?

 

[Iron]

Oh Wont SOMEbody think of the drug muuelz!!

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Oh Wont SOMEbody think of the drug muuelz!!

But what's the pope's Position!?

 

[Iron]

I would reiterate that the ends of justice in today’s world seem better served by not resorting to the death penalty. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform. While civil societies have a duty to be just, they also have an obligation to be merciful.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Poetry

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Has Vietnam said its leniency towards Australians is due to our stance on the Death Penalty?

Nah mang I bet it's cuz of our obsession with their cuisine.

 

[Tully B.]

Even if there was a crime that could possible justify killing a human being in itself, what would give any single person (or any single group of peoples) the right to kill the human?