Crimes that deserve the death penalty?

[David]

^ I think we're all in agreement on that. That is, yes, he should.

[think positive]

[think positive]

^ Broadly agree, Wokko, but why restrain this to child murder ? What makes the murder of a 20 year-old or a 50 year-old substantially less damaging ?

I think we have become creepingly lenient on the matter of murder. It is the ultimate act of negation, depriving the victim and their family of every hope. 15 years followed by a residual lifetime of sunsets and autumns and football games etc for the perpetrator seems to me disproportionately low unless there were serious mitigating factors. I could do with fewer prison sentences for minor violence if we were to look again at 25 year minimum terms for murder.

On the subject of prisons, yes, for most crimes, good prison conditions are probably conducive to rehab, which is a proper goal.

Great post. Every time I see the sentence in a case of vehicular homicide, reckless driving where someone, whole families are killed, and they get just a couple of years, my blood boils. Getting out for good behaviour after brutally mutprdering someone in cold blood just because they got a bit angry one day. A minimum should be just that the absolute minimum. Give them thirty and let them earn 5 off.
Would separating the real hard core from the tax evaders help too? I know they have min and max prisons, but is it enough?

I still think prisoners should work for their good conditions though, no matter what. I'd be all for time of sentence for contributing to a better society, trying to atone for what they have done, rather than just "keeping their nose clean" good behaviour.

And this guy, this guy should be like the port Arthur guy, locked in a small cell on his own forever. An hour a day of sunlight, so he knows what he's missing. No TV. Unless it's stuck on abc.

[David]

And this guy, this guy should be like the port Arthur guy, locked in a small cell on his own forever. An hour a day of sunlight, so he knows what he's missing. No TV. Unless it's stuck on abc.

Lol! If you're going down this path, you need to learn from Orwell and Room 101. Everyone's worst nightmare is different. For me, it'd be Channel 9 on full blast. Or one of the American 'entertainment' channels on Foxtel.

On the other hand, I'd willingly commit crimes to get some good ABC reception.

[HAL]

Which show? Groovy. I like watching Star Trek.

[David]

[HAL]

Would you like to be a liberal Trump has pardoned a despicable racist a man who spent decades casually violating the civil liberties of Latinos ?

[Mugwump]

^ assuming it is true, and that Sheriff Arpaio knew of and/or condoned these things, then yes, indeed, Mr Arpaio should spend many years in jail. It is indeed reminiscent of Soviet treatment of political prisoners in the gulags, or the holocaust, or Khmer Rouge, and this is not surprising ; such human beings exist in all cultures, sadly, and it is uniquely horrible when they can attach themselves to the law. Perhaps Arpaio could share a cell with the Donald one day.

On prison conditions, I suspect the key issue is the environment within the prison, not the amenities provided. A liberal prison regime, such as we have in the U.K., which results in the especially thuggish being given freedom to trade in drugs, abuse other inmates, and generally pursue criminality in a different setting, is probably just as disastrous (especially for the frightened, weak or vulnerable prisoner) as a "conservative" (it's not really) climate of ruthless retribution.

Norway is an unusual country. It used to have a fairly homogenous population acclimatised to an orderly culture, though this is breaking down as immigration takes its toll, and crime is rising sharply in Oslo as a result (see Wikipedia et al). 38% of Norways prisoners are foreigners, which may go a long way to explaining why they do not reoffend - in Norway. Funny things, numbers. It also has a blazingly generous social welfare system underpinned by vast oil exports relative to a small population. So I see lots of ways in which Norway is a doubtful point of comparison..

The trouble is that I don't think our nice liberals have any real idea how to make our prisoners into nice people in our nice prisons, and at least in Britain, they are often stewarding places that rival Dante's Inferno for vulnerable prisoners as a result. This is a shocking betrayal of geruinely reformist goals. Austere, safe prisons, governed with stern authority is probably best for all concerned. We used to have these to a greater extent, as far as I can tell.

[think positive]

It all sounds far to bizarre to be true, but then so does hitlers reign of terror. And I just spent 15 min trying to find out if Steven Segal really killed the puppy. I'm still not sure. How can that happen? Who voted?

[ronrat]

Pol Pot and Hitler were a million times worse than this bozo. For starters he never had his minions smash infants against a tree to save bullets. He never allowed twin children to be tortured seperately for experimentation.

It does however show a glaring hole in a justice system that allows someone to pardon another for poltical reasons rather than some other more merciful reason such as an abused spouse or a molested child. Or lack of evidence.

It is also a glowing rrason why democracy is not always the answer. Why turn important and crucial jobs into a popularity contest. You elect the those to make the decisions. How many people in Australia know the name of the local Police boss. Or fire brigade chief.

[David]

[stui magpie]

[Tannin]

Well said Stui.

David's point is insane. I don't say that to exaggerate or make a point. It is quite literally insane: i.e., "an action that is stupid and likely to have extremely bad results".

To put it another way, insanity is the inability to conceptualise and respond to the world is a rational way such that survival prospects are unreasonably diminished. This bizarre notion that the worst and most selfish evildoers are somehow equal to their victims is ... here is that word again ... literally insane.

No-one is born evil. They started out equal to their victims, they started out as deserving of our sympathy and respect and compassion as anyone else. But, by their actions, they forfeited all that. They choose to do evil things, they choose to inflict harm on other people. They spent their right to respect and sympathy.

We should still treat such people with humanity, but not for their benefit. (Screw them, the worst of them deserve nothing.) No, we do it for our own benefit: it is imperative that we maintain our humanity even when (perhaps especially when) it is difficult to do so.

[David]

[Mugwump]

^ i think you are mixing things up here, David. All human lives may be complex and intelligent compared to a fruit fly, but so what ? Some human lives are practically cruel and brutish, and very few human lives are better or more important than any truly great work of art.

They do not have to be any of the things you suggest, however, to be in receipt of rights - rights which we posit and accept because they are useful for a good civilization to work, and they issue from some essential moral consciousness that most humans have. That is what really matters, here. That, and where the limits of those rights expire. The right to a fair trial, for instance, is inviolable. The right not to be tortured seems to me similarly inviolable.

Someone who maliciously takes the life of another, conscious of a statute that prescribes execution as the punishment for that crime, seems to be a more questionable state of right. They have, after all, in effect contracted away their own life. Whether we should enforce that contract is another question, but I don't think it has to do with how complex or intelligent or precious they are.