Thread: With DNA positive ID bring back the Death Penalty

It all depends on how and where you kill someone. Intent is a big part as are reasons behind the killing. Negligence is completely different to willfull murder as is murder under duress. Blatant sadistic murderers, paedophiles, rapists etc should be done away with.
Car accidents etc may be in another field as usually there is not the intent.

Originally Posted by Relay

I'm not sure. It's a bit close to home, but then...where's the line drawn that says murder or not. My brother's an idiot that killed someone. Accident's a great word, but it was his fault. He's gonna pay the consequences and be stuck somewhere for a while. I'm learning to live with that.

On that hand, putting some idiots away for good doesn't make them sorry at all. Serial offenders dont give a sh*t and just take up time and money. But when you can figure out who's the serial offender and who's not with 100% assurity then I suppose that you can impose the death penalty. Before that (no matter how overwhelming the evidence is) I think everyone deserves a chance. A year ago, I wouldn't have had that oppinion...(my how things change).

If u deliberately go outof your way to plan a murder and do evidently kill some poor bugger then u desrve to swing, granted there are times when death is purely accidental but death is still death, they can do alot in this world but they still cant bring a dead human back to life

Rapists, sex offenders off any kind should not be tolerated by society at all, even people who lose the plot mentally should still be held fully responsible for there actions, a ****ed driver who kills people in a car crash, same deal for him.

DNA evidence is fairly conclusive these days, the yanks convict on it alone and nothing else, to say taking the life of a killer is barbaric I say ask the victims left behind after they have lost a wife or husband or child to a killer orin some other situation where a life is taken I reckon they would say swing him,

U would really have to have some pretty strong beliefs and convictions of your own to be able to say I forgive the person and they shouldnt be executed for there crimes. This will always be a hot topic to discuss

Originally Posted by landyfromanuthaland

If u deliberately go outof your way to plan a murder and do evidently kill some poor bugger then u desrve to swing, granted there are times when death is purely accidental but death is still death, they can do alot in this world but they still cant bring a dead human back to life

Rapists, sex offenders off any kind should not be tolerated by society at all, even people who lose the plot mentally should still be held fully responsible for there actions, a ****ed driver who kills people in a car crash, same deal for him.

DNA evidence is fairly conclusive these days, the yanks convict on it alone and nothing else, to say taking the life of a killer is barbaric I say ask the victims left behind after they have lost a wife or husband or child to a killer orin some other situation where a life is taken I reckon they would say swing him,

U would really have to have some pretty strong beliefs and convictions of your own to be able to say I forgive the person and they shouldnt be executed for there crimes. This will always be a hot topic to discuss

There are at least three questions to be asked.

1. Is the person being tried really the right one? And all DNA evidence does is establish someone's identity - it is only one link in the chain of evidence. I really doubt if even the yanks convict on it alone! (As an example, someone's DNA is on the murder weapon - but did they use it or did they just pick it up when they found it?)

2. Do you really believe that you should risk killing the wrong person just make sure someone is killed for the crime?

3. Even if it is a crime against your family - do you really want to lower yourself to the same level as the criminal?

As I commented earlier, since you invoke the US experience - with a murder rate nearly ten times that here, they amply demonstrate that capital punishment as a means of reducing crime simply does not work.

As an aside - did anyone else notice the statistics published a few days ago that about two thirds of murder victims are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. No similar figures are available for murderers, as you don't have the tissue samples available at the time of the murder for the murderer, but I suggest that the figures would probably be similar if not higher.

A local news item - yesterday in the Dubbo court a man was remanded in custody for killing his brother with an axe. Where would the family's sympathies be here? surely it would depend on circumstances?

John

John,
just some other points to your points.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

There are at least three questions to be asked.

1. Is the person being tried really the right one? And all DNA evidence does is establish someone's identity - it is only one link in the chain of evidence. I really doubt if even the yanks convict on it alone! (As an example, someone's DNA is on the murder weapon - but did they use it or did they just pick it up when they found it?) No not dna alone, but why would your dna be on a murder weapon? If you just found it then you probablly have an alibi anyway.

2. Do you really believe that you should risk killing the wrong person just make sure someone is killed for the crime? Must be irrefutable proof.

3. Even if it is a crime against your family - do you really want to lower yourself to the same level as the criminal? You bet ya. Would at the very least stop them doing it again. Not for negligent homicide, but for horrific pre-meditated crimes, my oath.

As I commented earlier, since you invoke the US experience - with a murder rate nearly ten times that here, they amply demonstrate that capital punishment as a means of reducing crime simply does not work.
Higher population at 301,139,947 (15 times our population and only 10 times the murders, shows their rate is actually less than ours so must be working) and widespread poverty mean more crime. Having less severe penalties definately does not deter either and in fact encourages as most in the US know the death penalty generally takes 10 years minimum to invoke.

As an aside - did anyone else notice the statistics published a few days ago that about two thirds of murder victims are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. No similar figures are available for murderers, as you don't have the tissue samples available at the time of the murder for the murderer, but I suggest that the figures would probably be similar if not higher.

A local news item - yesterday in the Dubbo court a man was remanded in custody for killing his brother with an axe. Where would the family's sympathies be here? surely it would depend on circumstances?

John

Originally Posted by CraigE

John,
just some other points to your points.

The murder RATE is what I quoted, not the number of murders. United States - 5.9, Australia 1.29 per year per 100,000 population (United nations figures). OK, its not ten times, I was going on memory, its four times. Of course, this also points out that murder is very unlikely to happen to you anyway, compared to, for example, dying in your Landrover.

This figure alone is enough to condemn capital punishment as a deterrent. If you go into state by state figures in the US it is higher in those states which have capital punishment.

John

Originally Posted by CraigE

It all depends on how and where you kill someone. Intent is a big part as are reasons behind the killing. Negligence is completely different to willfull murder as is murder under duress. Blatant sadistic murderers, paedophiles, rapists etc should be done away with.
Car accidents etc may be in another field as usually there is not the intent.

Then where should drink driving fall?

I think the death penalty works great, in a black and white world. Sadly ours aint one of those.

Originally Posted by Relay

Then where should drink driving fall?

I think the death penalty works great, in a black and white world. Sadly ours aint one of those.

Do it once and kill someone the punishment you inflict upon yourself daily should be enough....but do it twice, three times..
Eg Truck driver in my street is banned for 10yrs for a road rage incident where he rammed a car off the road..every morning he gets in the rig and drives..no extraordinary license....obviously not a death penalty but a typical flouting of the law....People are in two catergories Good and bad and the latter really don't give a ****..unfortunately 99% of forums like this are in the good so our arguments are one sided.
Death penalty with the Aid of positive DNA ID , irrefutable evidence..Death by lethal injection I say.. free up some O2 so it can be good for the environment aswell, No prison expenditure for the deceased and NO RE offending Do the Crime Do the time.

So before the crime is committed if they know they can be caught and face death it has to be a deterrent even to the thickest drug dependent low life.

its not the evidence or the science I dont trust, it's the people handling it.... Here's just one example...

http://www.scientific.org/archive/Su...%20Release.htm