Capital Punishment

[Cerise]

I'm participating in a debate next Sunday, and it's on the topic of capital punishment. I'm proposing the motion that Ireland should reintroduce the death penalty. I've been doing a bit of research and I have a few strong arguments but I got curious as to what peoples views are on the topic.

I used to be very much anti death penalty, but after the speeches I've been reading and the research I've been doing I have actually changed my mind - First of all, some opposers tell us that '... killing the criminal will not reverse the crime carried out by them.', which is actually complete crap. Imprisoning is not going to reverse the crime either, so why not abolish the jails? Locking someone up wont bring the dead person back to life or whatever. The Death Penalty will ensure that this person can hurt no more people. Wouldn't that give a tremendous peace of mind to the victims family?

Another argument... '... but convicted murderers will end up in jail and serve life. They won't be able to harm any innocent person in there.' Okay. First of all, the murderer will still be out there, will still haunt the dreams of people. Not all murderers get imprisoned for life sentence. There's been reported cases of escapes. And most likely they'll grow old in prison and perhaps die painfully or as a very sick person. It's not a life worth living, really, is it? The death penalty is performed quick and easily, you are injected with a chemical and it slowly stops your heartbeat. No pain, an awful lot of gain.

[Slade]

This is a difficult one. I can totally understand why people are for capital punishment. One of your reasons highlights the difficulties we face at the moment with overcrowded prisons and the fact that the taxpayer has to basically fork out to actually keep these people in behind bars for decades and this does concern me. Another thing that concerns me is the fact that when people are convicted of murder and they get a mandatory life sentence they could be out in about 15 years. So if someone kills a person in cold blood when they are 20 they could be out by their mid thirties - Enough time to start a family and a new life – Not really fair on the victims.

However I’m personally against it. Firstly I was brought up in a Christian family and because of this I’ve had it instilled into me that it is fundamentally wrong to kill someone - yes the murderer has killed someone - but two wrongs don’t make a right and executing the murderer makes you just as bad as they are. That was the idea. However since I’ve gotten older I have actually started to deviate from this. The main issue I have which in practical terms would be more important is if they convict the wrong person (I’m waiting for the DNA argument to prop up) and it has happened several times in the past before – Birmingham six, Guilford Four and even Barry George as a most recent case.

In regards to my statement above although I was brought up to believe that killing is wrong I have slightly changed my views as mentioned. I would advocate killing someone in self-defense as you would have no choice in a situation like that. I would also advocate killing as a preventative measure. And by this I’m not talking about criminals that have been remanded in custody at her majesty’s pleasure but for instance the way Israel assassinated some of the leaders of the Islamic militant group Hamas (sorry to digress) because they thought they were behind various suicide bombings. So without sounding too hypocritical I’m not against killing as such but more against the idea of capital punishment. I hope this makes sense, as this I feel is an extremely difficult topic of discussion as there are no total black and white areas as such.

[Cal]

To be honest, I'm not a fan of it. And bringing it back into this country would throw us back when we need to be moving forward.

I think killing the person makes you just as bad, even if it is painless and fast. If, lets say, my friend was murdered and the murderer got sent to jail... I'd probably feel better that they are serving time in a run-down, damp, cold, terrifying prison rather than them being killed and not living with the consequences of their actions. You may say that being killed is paying for what they have done... and I can see why people think that. But at the same time, you should serve a sentence. You should feel like crap. You should feel horrible. Because that's what the families of the victims feel like every day of their lives.

[Alexei]

Try some research on the number of prisoners released from death row in the USA due to advanced DNA techniques.

"...... killing the criminal will not reverse the crime carried out by them..."

Nor can their killing (murder by the state?) be reversed if they are subsequently found to have been innocent which has happened on many occasions.

"...better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

State-sactioned murder is revenge not justice and there is no place for it in a civilised society.

Now here's a fine example of capital punishment:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rape-vict...5560735918.html

You're either for it or you're against it: you can't straddle the fence.

[Alexei]

Here's another example of capital punishment:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77340

It doesn't about the barbarism of this example just because it's Iran or wherever. You can't condemn or support capital punishment unless you condemn or support every instance of it everywhere or else you're a hypocrite.

[KaitieL]

I can see both sides, but I think I'm against it. I'd rather see someone locked up for their crimes and having them live with it for the rest of their lives, then dying and not dealing with any consequences. And as someone pointed out, what happens if an innocent person is executed? I know it doesn't happen as often as it used to, but it still does. What about those families who lost a loved one that was wrongly accused?

Having said that, I think we need a new prision/justice system. Criminals are way to comfortable these days, they get three square meals, exercise and paid for the jobs they do in prision. Meanwhile there's starving children in Africa who have done nothing wrong. It makes me sick how these people can commit such heinous crimes and be better off then what they might have been on the outside. My uncle used to be a cook at the prision and you know they get a full on proper Christmas lunch.

I don't know which one cost more, executing or keeping a prisioner. Maybe they should cut back on some of the 'luxuries' that criminals seem get in prision. Make it a feared place like it used to be. And when they are imprisioned for life, make sure that it is life, not bloody 20 years. Stuff human rights, they give that up when they kill/torture/rape etc someone. Why should their life be treated with any respect?

[defying_gravity]

This is a report I did for legal studies last year...it may be useful the topic was whether SA should reinstate capital punishment for heinous crimes when a lack of remorse is shown.

In March 2002 Janelle Patton was murdered on Norfolk Island. The victim was found with 64 stab wounds to her body as well as a fractured skull, a broken pelvis and a broken ankle. On July 25th 2007 Glenn McNeill was sentenced to 24 years imprisonment with an 18 years non-parole period . The Coroner in this case, Mr. Ron Cahill had earlier found that the attack was “frenetic and vicious” and the worst he had seen in 30 years. There was a public uproar at the leniency of the sentence, and this has led many to question whether capital punishment should be reinstated for vicious crimes of murder. As the sentencing process as a part of criminal law remains a residual power of the states, the question is: Should South Australia reinstate capital punishment for vicious crimes involving extreme violence where a lack of remorse is shown on the part of the murderer.

The term capital punishment originated from the Latin word caput, which means head, and initially referred to decapitation . However in more recent times offenders sentenced to capital punishment have been executed by hanging, lethal injection or electrocution. South Australia abolished capital punishment in 1976, with the last execution occurring in 1964. Currently the maximum sentence in all states Australia is life imprisonment.

The arguments for and against capital punishment might read as follows:

The Argument for Capital Punishment

Offenders cannot re-offend:

There is frequently a public uproar when a murderer is not given a life sentence, as the community are fearful that when they are released from prison that they will re-offend. It can be argued that Capital punishment removes the worst criminals from society, ensuring that the community will be safe. Even though people who have committed murder involving extreme violence are sentenced to life imprisonment, it does not a guarantee that they will be in prison for life, given our current parole system. There is also every chance for the offender to appeal the sentence, and in extreme cases they could even escape from prison. For example, Bradley John Murdoch had previous convictions for causing death by dangerous driving and for shooting at people during a football celebration where he served a 15 month prison sentence. Even though he had already spent time in prison, he obviously was unremorseful for what he had done. However he has since been convicted for the murder of British backpacker Peter Falconio, where he supposedly shot dead Falconio and assaulted his girlfriend Joanne Lees. The earlier 15 month sentence that Murdoch served evidently did not rehabilitate him as he allegedly committed murder. In this case capital punishment could seem to be the only viable option, as Murdoch had already served a prison sentence, yet he failed to show remorse and then went on to commit another more serious crime. Capital punishment is the only way to guarantee that the offender will not recommit that crime again. For example, the Janelle Patton case occurred in the small island community of Norfolk Island. Glenn McNeill could be released back from prison in as little time as 18 years, which could be frightening for the Norfolk Island community, as they know that he is capable of murder, and in their minds there is every chance that he could recommit.

Victims:

The families of the victims of crime are the most severely affected by the actions of the offender, particularly in the cases of vicious crimes, for example murders involving extreme violence. These victims are often psychologically scarred by the heinous crimes these persons have committed. The victims of crime often want to see justice prevail, to make up for the harm that these people have caused their families. The victims of crime do not want to be scared of these people being released back into society, when their sentence is completed, especially since the likelihood of them being rehabilitated is slim. Member of the Legislative Council for the Liberal party and QC The Honorable Mr. Robert Lawson believes that “Nobody is so naïve as to believe that mere imprisonment “rehabilitates” offenders.” According to these ___ capital punishment is a feasible option to look at, as our prison system cannot rehabilitate offenders.

Cost:

It costs taxpayers *thousands of dollars every year to keep people in prison. Capital punishment is a more viable option for persons who have committed vicious crimes and have shown no remorse, as they are unlikely to be rehabilitated. This money could be spent elsewhere, for example, hospitals, education and the elderly. It is unfair that people have to see their hard earned money spent on people who have committed vicious crimes and are not penitent for the crime/s they committed. Mr. Paul Gross, a specialist investigator for the South Australian Coroners Office has seen the extent of victims of murder and in his view, “tax payers [should not have to] spend money on housing or feeding these “animals”, when the outcome, as stated by the court, is that they will die in prison”.

However, there are also:

Arguments Against Capital Punishment

Wrongful Convictions:

Every criminal justice system is fallible. Therefore there is always the possibility of innocent people being executed by mistake. Capital punishment is irreversible, thus if new evidence shows that a person is not guilty the system has killed an innocent person. In an interview with ex criminal lawyer, Michelle Arthur she expressed her view, “The death penalty is so final and does not allow for new evidence to be found. There have been cases where years after a person has been executed, new evidence has been found, and the person executed was not guilty. That is the legal perspective of why capital punishment was abolished, as the criminal justice system cannot execute a person who could be found not guilty further down the track” . In addition, the standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt; this does not guarantee that the offender is guilty. To avoid wrongful executions absolute proof would be required. Moreover, as technology and forensic science is becoming more advanced it is becoming easier to find new evidence from old cases. An example of this is that new laws allow the DNA and finger prints of convicted criminals to be stored on a data base, to fast track the investigation process, if a serious crime has been committed. This DNA database in time will help to solve old cases.

Human Rights:

A common argument for the capital punishment debate is that the death penalty is a violation of every person’s right to life. Australia has ratified a treaty called the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty . This is because the states parties believe that that “abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.” Another violation of human rights associated with capital punishment is that it is inhumane, and can even be a form of torture. This is not only opposing a right to life but is also contrary to a right to be free from torture and inhumane treatment. Forms of capital punishment such as electrocution can produce great pain to the victim. The purpose of capital punishment is to remove that person from society, not to invoke great harm on to them. This suggests that the prison system is a better option, as it offers a more humane option of punishment towards offenders.

Rehabilitation:

The purpose of our current prison system is so that convicted criminals can be rehabilitated and be allowed back into society as reformed people. Even though many convicted criminals can show no remorse, there is always the possibility that they will rehabilitate, and feel regret for the crimes they committed.

Sentencing Reforms

In a survey conducted 57% of the people surveyed disagreed with the hypothetical question of whether South Australia should reinstate capital punishment for vicious crimes. In this survey 37% agreed with the concept of reinstating capital punishment and 6% were undecided. This result shows that generally people are not in favour of capital punishment. However the results of this survey show that 67% of people would like to have sentencing reforms. The main reform being suggested was “no parole, and longer maximum sentences”. Another suggestion was to have more focus on rehabilitation of convicted criminals, so that when they are released they can ease back into society and live safe lives.

Recommendations:

Following the survey which was conducted, plus the opinions of Mr. Paul Gross, a coronial investigator and Mrs. Michelle Arthur, an ex criminal lawyer, it would seem that there is no definite view on whether the death penalty should be reinstated in South Australia. With the results from survey slightly in favour of not reinstating it, it would be recommended that the South Australian government would review the current sentencing system. Any reintroduction would need to be very carefully drafted legislation which would need to outline the exact crimes of murder which would require capital punishment, alongside considerable factors such as remorse and the possibility of rehabilitation. A compromise would be to have life sentences imposed on murders if they fail to show remorse. The issue of whether South Australia should reinstate capital punishment for vicious crimes involving extreme violence, where a lack of remorse is shown on the part of the murderer would need to be investigated further before a decision was made. As this is a conscientious issue with many religious and moral elements attached. A public referendum could be held to clearly ascertain the public’s feeling on the subject.

[Lise]

To be honest, I'm not a fan of it. And bringing it back into this country would throw us back when we need to be moving forward.

I think killing the person makes you just as bad, even if it is painless and fast. If, lets say, my friend was murdered and the murderer got sent to jail... I'd probably feel better that they are serving time in a run-down, damp, cold, terrifying prison rather than them being killed and not living with the consequences of their actions. You may say that being killed is paying for what they have done... and I can see why people think that. But at the same time, you should serve a sentence. You should feel like crap. You should feel horrible. Because that's what the families of the victims feel like every day of their lives.

Cal, you just said everything that I was thinking but could never actually put into words.

[~Lynd~]

I can see both sides, but I think I'm against it. I'd rather see someone locked up for their crimes and having them live with it for the rest of their lives, then dying and not dealing with any consequences. And as someone pointed out, what happens if an innocent person is executed? I know it doesn't happen as often as it used to, but it still does. What about those families who lost a loved one that was wrongly accused?

Having said that, I think we need a new prision/justice system. Criminals are way to comfortable these days, they get three square meals, exercise and paid for the jobs they do in prision. Meanwhile there's starving children in Africa who have done nothing wrong. It makes me sick how these people can commit such heinous crimes and be better off then what they might have been on the outside. My uncle used to be a cook at the prision and you know they get a full on proper Christmas lunch.

I don't know which one cost more, executing or keeping a prisioner. Maybe they should cut back on some of the 'luxuries' that criminals seem get in prision. Make it a feared place like it used to be. And when they are imprisioned for life, make sure that it is life, not bloody 20 years. Stuff human rights, they give that up when they kill/torture/rape etc someone. Why should their life be treated with any respect?

I completely agree with you.

[emmasi]

Read Starship Troopers by Robert E. Heinlein. It's set in a militaristic future where corporal punishment reigns supreme. There's much discussion in it about how our generation (well, earlier than ours, really, but it still applies) believed the "myth" of human rights, and how appealing to a person's "better nature" instead of punishing them is pointless, because without being punished for doing the wrong thing in the first place, people can't learn that their actions have consequences so they do what they want and never develop a better nature. I don't think I agree with that argument, I like to believe in the "myth" of human rights and better natures, but it's an interesting book. I think you'd find it helpful in a debate on the subject