Talking Politics

[RemoteTiger]

Good on him.

We wouldn't like another country trying to tell us how we should and shouldn't penalise people here.

In a civilized country the State would not have the right to take a person's life - no matter how heinous the crime that person committed.

This is about man as a race maturing. Yes this is about humanity.

I cannot and will not defend the crime these two committed but I find it appalling that a great country like Indonesia can lower itself back to the dark and dismal times where capital punishment was rife.

What is the difference between this act of execution of 6 to 8 people at a time by firing squad and the execution of people under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? Both are/were executions for crimes against the then law of the country. Whilst Pol Pot law was fundamentally wrong and Indonesian Drug law is aimed at fighting a very difficult and arguably un-winnable fight - the resultant execution of human beings is wrong and lowers those States back to tribal law days.

It is only 50 years since Australia dropped Capital Punishment - and in that 50 years there has been heinous crimes arguably worthy of a hanging or electric chair (Sadly Anita Cobby comes to mind) . But we as a race as a country are striving to be civilized and humane.

Time for our country's north western neighbours to do the same. IMO

 

[tigertim]

In a civilized country the State would not have the right to take a person's life - no matter how heinous the crime that person committed.

This is about man as a race maturing. Yes this is about humanity.

I cannot and will not defend the crime these two committed but I find it appalling that a great country like Indonesia can lower itself back to the dark and dismal times where capital punishment was rife.

What is the difference between this act of execution of 6 to 8 people at a time by firing squad and the execution of people under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? Both are/were executions for crimes against the then law of the country. Whilst Pol Pot law was fundamentally wrong and Indonesian Drug law is aimed at fighting a very difficult and arguably un-winnable fight - the resultant execution of human beings is wrong and lowers those States back to tribal law days.

It is only 50 years since Australia dropped Capital Punishment - and in that 50 years there has been heinous crimes arguably worthy of a hanging or electric chair (Sadly Anita Cobby comes to mind) . But we as a race as a country are striving to be civilized and humane.

Time for our country's north western neighbours to do the same. IMO

Well said RT

 

[TigerForce]

It is only 50 years since Australia dropped Capital Punishment - and in that 50 years there has been heinous crimes arguably worthy of a hanging or electric chair (Sadly Anita Cobby comes to mind) . But we as a race as a country are striving to be civilized and humane.

Time for our country's north western neighbours to do the same. IMO

You said it there Remote. Capital punishment for drug smuggling might be exaggerated, but not for murder.

As for those 2 facing execution, the laws are clear and yet we still have morons smuggling drugs into those countries.

 

[RemoteTiger]

You said it there Remote. Capital punishment for drug smuggling might be exaggerated, but not for murder.

As for those 2 facing execution, the laws are clear and yet we still have morons smuggling drugs into those countries.

Your second point is the proof that capital punishment does not work - it is not a deterrent for drug smugglers.

The capital punishment for murder is a fine line to walk too - I disagree on capital punishment fullstop. Because there have been too many times where an individual has been found guilty and sentenced to life - only to have new evidence arise through a witness or through better forensics to realise that the person is in fact not guilty - The Colin Winchester murder is a classic example. 20 years later the "guilty" verdict for David Eastman has been quashed due to new forensic technologies and thus certain witnesses being wrong - proving he could not have done it.

Had we hung the wrong man David Eastman 19 years ago - the whole proof of the new forensics and witnesses being incorrect would have been merely a mute point.

My opinion only.......RT

 

[TigerForce]

Your second point is the proof that capital punishment does not work - it is not a deterrent for drug smugglers.

The capital punishment for murder is a fine line to walk too - I disagree on capital punishment fullstop. Because there have been too many times where an individual has been found guilty and sentenced to life - only to have new evidence arise through a witness or through better forensics to realise that the person is in fact not guilty - The Colin Winchester murder is a classic example. 20 years later the "guilty" verdict for David Eastman has been quashed due to new forensic technologies and thus certain witnesses being wrong - proving he could not have done it.

Had we hung the wrong man David Eastman 19 years ago - the whole proof of the new forensics and witnesses being incorrect would have been merely a mute point.

My opinion only.......RT

True, not every murder case has to be followed with capital punishment but it shouldn't be a problem for those who plead guilty or are clearly witnessed in committing it. All would depend on the facts in court.

 

[AngryAnt]

True, not every murder case has to be followed with capital punishment but it shouldn't be a problem for those who plead guilty or are clearly witnessed in committing it. All would depend on the facts in court.

Watch The Thin Blue Line to find out what's wrong with that argument.

 

[TigerForce]

Watch The Thin Blue Line to find out what's wrong with that argument.

I'm talking more about Julian Knight, Martin Bryant, Anders Breivik and other lone wolf psychos. As I said 'clearly witnessed in committing it'.

 

[AngryAnt]

I'm talking more about Julian Knight, Martin Bryant, Anders Breivik and other lone wolf psychos. As I said 'clearly witnessed in committing it'.

So you are saying that some findings of "Guilty" are more "Guilty" than others.

There's a whole heap of issues with that.

 

[TigerForce]

So you are saying that some findings of "Guilty" are more "Guilty" than others.

There's a whole heap of issues with that.

Of course there are. All depends on the case. It can be a grey area, but mass killers should be executed and not rehabilitated.

What's jail like these days? Better than a 2 star hotel?

What about Adrian Bayley?

 

[AngryAnt]

You miss the point TF. An alleged murderer is guilty or not guilty. A judge or jury looks at the evidence and makes that determination, beyond reasonable doubt. Whether 20 witnesses saw it or one saw it is irrelevant once the guilty verdict is pronounced.

You want a new category - "especially guilty because 200 people saw you do it". Does that make the person who murdered 20 people less guilty because only one person saw them?

Guilty/not guilty is a binary. Yes or no.

Or do you want a new category of crime - murder of more than X number of people gets the death penalty?

 

[TigerForce]

You miss the point TF. An alleged murderer is guilty or not guilty. A judge or jury looks at the evidence and makes that determination, beyond reasonable doubt. Whether 20 witnesses saw it or one saw it is irrelevant once the guilty verdict is pronounced.

You want a new category - "especially guilty because 200 people saw you do it". Does that make the person who murdered 20 people less guilty because only one person saw them?

Guilty/not guilty is a binary. Yes or no.

Or do you want a new category of crime - murder of more than X number of people gets the death penalty?

Well isn't that part of how the sentence is defined? Compare Adrian Bayley with Julian Knight. Who deserves execution?

I know this seems too archaic in the 21st century, but I don't think families of the dead victims would care.

 

[AngryAnt]

Now you are talking about sentencing - before you were talking about different "certainties" of guilt. Which is it?

 

[TigerForce]

Now you are talking about sentencing - before you were talking about different "certainties" of guilt. Which is it?

I'm just saying that whatever the degree of guilt a judge decides, the sentence would vary from X years in prison to death sentence all depending on law.

 

[AngryAnt]

I'm just saying that whatever the degree of guilt a judge decides, the sentence would vary from X years in prison to death sentence all depending on law.

There is no degree of guilt. You are guilty or not guilty. It's binary. One or the other. The judge might take extenuating or exacerbating circumstances into consideration when sentencing.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I'm just saying that whatever the degree of guilt a judge decides, the sentence would vary from X years in prison to death sentence all depending on law.

I can't see why any person should have the "right" to kill any other person. I can understand, but don't condone, so called "crimes of passion". But I can't accept that upon thought and consideration you can come to the conclusion that another person has to die. And state sanctioned murder is just a way of distancing yourself from the horrible act. But at brass tacks level it is still one person killing another. I wonder how many judges, lawyers, legislators, bloggers could actually pull the trigger themselves?

 

[TigerForce]

I can't see why any person should have the "right" to kill any other person. I can understand, but don't condone, so called "crimes of passion". But I can't accept that upon thought and consideration you can come to the conclusion that another person has to die. And state sanctioned murder is just a way of distancing yourself from the horrible act. But at brass tacks level it is still one person killing another. I wonder how many judges, lawyers, legislators, bloggers could actually pull the trigger themselves?

Paying the price for someone else's life (or other people's lives). What 'thought and consideration' should be given to someone who kills others at will? I'm sure any relative of the deceased victim(s) would be happy to pull the trigger.

 

[AngryAnt]

Paying the price for someone else's life (or other people's lives). What 'thought and consideration' should be given to someone who kills others at will? I'm sure any relative of the deceased victim(s) would be happy to pull the trigger.

That's a big assumption. Many people who have lost relatives to murder are still anti-capital punishment.

Not everyone is motivated by revenge.

 

[TigerForce]

Looks like Blue Tie Tone would need to grasp himself for Spill II coming soon.

 

[poppa x]

The Murderr rate in the USA is much higher than here.
And they have Capital punishment in many States.
If Capital punishment is a deterrent then it's not working for the Septics.

I'm against it as IMO it's legalised murder by the State.
And I'm black and white on this.
Any murder is wrong.
Two wrongs don't make right. Corny but true.

 

[Rosy]

With you 100% poppa.