-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
rosy23 said:
True, and if they have stronger evidence, they can appeal.
I'm just talking about who deserves the death sentence.
Appeal and re-trials can be made before any execution takes place. Some convicted serve years in prison before being executed. IMO, murderous types like Julian Knight, Martin Bryant, Anders Breivik and other lone wolf psychos such as Man Haron Monis (if he wasn't shot) all deserve the death penalty.rosy23 said:
TigerForce said:
You say you understand and then you give examples which show that you do not understand. I guess we'll have to agree that you don't understand.
And all those who are verballed or are convicted on the basis of an eye-witness, then it's "reviewed" to use your term, and their appeals fail and their time runs out and they are executed, and then the witness recants post execution?
This has happened many times in the US by the way.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent
4% of all those executed were innocent. Oops.
I guess these guys didn't feel too bad about being executed even though they were innocent, because hey, *smile* happens and at least it took some time and their cases were "reviewed".
rosy23 said:
I suppose in our modern society, it seems barbaric, but if you put yourself in victim's families shoes, you'd feel for vengeance. If someone killed your kid at will, how would you feel? Do they deserve a 2nd chance to live?
Probably the better way to make criminals suffer would be to place them in old, rotten jail cells from the Ned Kelly years, but we don't use those anymore. In fact, some who have served their time in jail come out and continue from where they left off.
Julian Knight cell looks more comfortable than anyone living on the street.
TigerForce said:
I don't think Ant was generalising, I've heard that figure before. On vengeance I have explained that I don't think it is okay for the State to be vengeful. The thoughtfulness I was talking about is not in the trial, but in the way the state legislates. The death penalty should not be on the table if you really think about it. That can't be the "best" way to deal with violence. Too much reliance on reactionary, political appeals to base emotions rather than what might be best for everyone. Whether there can be "reform" if dealt with empirically? Should there be? Does there need to be some balance between punishment and rehabilitation? Should our justice system be all stick and no carrot?
The problem those arguing against your stance have is the imperfect nature of what passes for "evidence" in a court and how it is used to convict. Facts in court don't seem to stand or fall on their own merits but on the ability of the barrister and the ability of jury. Would you want your life to hang on these flimsy grounds?
Here's my take on the Bali 9 executions. Basically, any time that idiot of a PM of ours opened his mouth regarding the matter, he put another nail in their coffins. We have a foreign minister who should be handling this. It also should have been done behind closed doors, not in public. I can see how Indonesia might see themselves as 'losing face' if they backed down because of the public campaign. Besides, I wouldn't back down to our sniveling little *smile* of a PM either. He should have kept his mouth shut.
This isn't about whether or not they should be executed, it's about bad politics. Abbott should just *smile* off and leave the job to someone capable.
This isn't about whether or not they should be executed, it's about bad politics. Abbott should just *smile* off and leave the job to someone capable.
tigertim said:
No, but you do it with quiet diplomacy, not grandstanding publically and linking our aid to Indonesia for the tsunami to the situation of the death row prisoners and whether clemency would be granted.
If Abbott hadn't played to the domestic political audience on that the boys might still have been executed, but after he did that their chances of survival dropped to zero.
That's boneheaded politics brother.
tigertim said:
I think you are right to question the link. I don't think anything the PM said was going to change the mind of JokoWi. Politics certainly plays a part though and the new leader in Indonesia was not going to start off his new year and first year in the big chair by appearing to be soft on crime, that is bad politics. That said our PM was stupid to comment the way he did. He wasn't going to affect change so he should have hit his talking points and built up his foreign minister and diplomats and stayed out of it. His bravado just gets a hold of him and he turns into John Wayne and thinks he can speak off-the-cuff, how he can still think this after so many public gaffs is beyond me?
tigertim said:
it is bad politics when the PM insults, threatens and preaches to the Indonesian president - no problems with a PM build a public case and push hard on an issue - but not when you are using a sledge hammer to deliver your message