The death penalty has been abolished in all Australian jurisdictions. The last person to be executed in Australia was Ronald Ryan in 1967. Our governments’ abolitionist position, however, is somewhat at odds with opinion polls which consistently show considerable support for the death penalty. According to a poll conducted by Newspoll in August 2003, 56% of respondents supported the reintroduction of the death penalty for “major acts of terrorism”; only 36% voted against; the rest were uncommitted. An ANU survey from 2003, which asked if the death penalty should be reintroduced for murder generally, found that only 33.6% were opposed. The president of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission lamented in 2006 that “there are concerning signs that public support for the death penalty is growing.”
Yet, debate on this issue has been scarce. Why have we – or more accurately our governments – decided that it is always wrong to execute criminals, regardless of the crime or the strength of the evidence? Indeed, what is so taboo about executing people like Ali Amrozi or Josef Fritzl? Why do people who protect them believe they are more civilised than people who demand justice for their victims?
The reason I support the reintroduction of the death penalty for murder is that I don’t think the life of the murderer is more valuable than the life of the victim. If the victim has been deprived of the opportunity to live – often brutally – why should the murderer be automatically entitled to a lighter consequence? It may sound unsophisticated, but I am yet to hear a convincing counterargument. John Lewthwaite killed five-year-old Nicole Hanns in 1974. In 1999 he was released and given an opportunity to start a new life. Is Nicole’s life only worth 25 years of Lewthwaite’s life? Will Nicole get to start afresh? Whence comes this privilege, this gift of life (that Lewthwaite denied another and not for any crime)? How is this brand new life to be justified to Nicole’s family? It’s more like adding insult to injury.
In fact, even if Lewthwaite hadn’t been released, he’d still get the better of Nicole because he would live for a long time. As for those who say that life in prison is worse than death, I am not persuaded. If they really believe prisoners would rather be executed, why do they oppose the death penalty on humane grounds? Why not support the compassionate state that euthanises life prisoners dying to die? Why do people on death row clog the system with desperate, last-minute appeals? They do so because life is apparently such a good thing that even people in prison want to hold on to it for as long as possible.
Abolitionists say that the death penalty should be abolished because it’s inhumane and uncivilised. I have always found this argument to be circular. Why is it inhumane or uncivilised? Isn’t that what abolitionists need to prove? One can’t avoid it by including the conclusion in the premise. Besides, a lot of people don’t find the death penalty inhumane or uncivilised so it is far from a foregone conclusion that need not be substantiated.
One abolitionist argument which does have merit is that the death penalty is irreversible. There is almost a risk, however small, that an innocent person might be executed. While I readily concede that this is an inconvenient likelihood for my cause, it is important to compare this likelihood with the inconvenient likelihoods arising from the abolition of the death penalty.
Firstly, I can cite at least 12 research papers to the effect that each execution, by way of deterrence, saves the lives of between fifteen to eighteen innocent people. In fact, I can cite much higher figures but I choose to be conservative in my assertion. To my knowledge, it has never been suggested, let alone established, that there are fifteen to eighteen wrongful executions for each warranted execution. Hence, the innocents among us have less to fear from the death penalty than the abolition thereof.
Secondly, even if you don’t grant the deterrent effect, there is another inconvenient likelihood that is impossible not to grant. As we have seen with Lewthwaite, murderers are often released. There is no certainty that people who have murdered before will not re-offend. This is not a theoretical argument. Danny R. Rouse of Kansas was convicted of child murder in 1979, served 26 years, was released in 2006 and in the same year murdered a sixteen-year-old (a killing to which he confessed). While abolitionists struggle to conclusively prove that innocent people have been executed in the modern age and speak of likelihoods, here we have a real innocent person who would have been alive now had Rouse gotten his just deserts. Stephanie F. Wagner is a conclusive victim of abolitionism. Unfortunately, she is not the only one. Consider this from Telegraph.co.uk (21/1/07):
“Nearly 30 convicted killers released from jail over the past 10 years have gone on to kill again, according to Home Office figures released yesterday.”
This is all the more tragic because it could have so easily and sensibly been prevented.
Sadly, even leaving murderers to languish in prison doesn’t solve the problem of recidivism. Timothy Hancock of Ohio, having been sentenced to life in 1990, murdered his cellmate in 2000.
What is the re-offending rate of executed murderers?
While the irreversibility argument has merit, it is outweighed by its implications. The best way to protect the innocent is to execute those who murder the innocent. The death penalty is thus warranted morally as well as pragmatically. The death penalty saves lives.
*I am greatly indebted to Professor John Lott’s book Freedomnomics
I believe that everyone deserves a second chance. No one is without fault. John Lewthwaite is actually an example of successful rehabilitation. He has been hounded by radio shock jocks and the police who arrested him for a minor breach of his parole conditions and locked him up. Coincidentally, it happened just before a state election.
Joshua, I’m afraid I can’t be as forgiving as you are. Will Lewthwaite’s 5-year-old victim, Nicole Hanns, get a second chance? Why is Lewthwaite so irrevocably entitled to something he denied a defenceless 5-year-old girl? I agree that no one is without fault and indeed we all must bear the consequences of our faults. At the very least Lewthwaite should spend the rest of his life behind bars.
As for rehabilitation, it is immaterial when a person should never be released.
I believe that only God has the right to take a human life.
Murderers can be successfully rehabilitated. There is no need to kill them or even jail them for life.
Some are rehabilitated; others aren’t and end up killing more people. At any rate, why does it matter that some murderers can be rehabilitated? Rehabilitation is for people who are expected to rejoin society.
The goals of the justice system are punishment, deterrence and reform.
And in that order.
Reform is not a means of avoiding punishment: it follows punishment. If reform compromises punishment, deterrence will be undermined as well.
I agree that murderers should be in prison for life but I don’t support capital punishment. It’s outdated and barbaric.
Liron, you and your hang em high crowd are too soft. We shouldn’t just execute murderers (that’s not punishment enough) but flog and torture them too! Then we can hang, draw and quarter them in the public square, stone what’s left of them for good measure and impale their heads on a spikes to be displayed on the Harbour Bridge. That’ll teach the bastards a lesson!
All civilised countries have come to the conclusion that the death penalty is an unnecessary piece of savagery. Modern justice should not be based on revenge.
The criminal justice system, indeed any disciplinary apparatus from parents to the AFL judiciary, is based on punishment for wrongs committed. If you believe that this fundamental principle is nothing but ’savagery’ or ‘revenge’, then I’m sorry inform you that modern justice, as well as any other form of enforcement or discipline, are based on what you call revenge.
In my opinion, the difference between proper punishment and revenge is that the former is dispensed in a cool, orderly and just manner, whereas revenge implies impulsive behaviour leading to lawless justice and immoderate consequences (especially when meted out directly by the victim or the victim’s relatives). When a defendant is found guilty of murder by a properly constituted court or jury, and in accordance with all the laws and conventions is sentenced to death, it is punishment, not revenge.
By the way, I appreciate the humour.
Click here to read the open letter written by John Lewthwaite in December 2006, now posted on the website of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties.
Its quite interesting that no one has mentioned the economic disadvantages of not reinstating the death penalty. Feeding a man who is to spend the rest of his life in jail can be quite a cost for taxpayers.
Also, according to who is the death penalty the most extreme penalty we can dish out to man (besides torture)? If a man rapes a child, he will given life imprisonment. While in prison, he will turn to shit. Felons treat pedophiles and child molesters worse than Saudis treat their women. The media will completely destroy him. He will never be able to get another job. He will be under constant surveillance in his neighborhood when he gets out of jail. To me, living with these things is a lot worse than a painless death. In this situation, death is the easy way out.
Also, what about the number of incorrect convictions? Surely the accidental death of innocents has to have some effect on the decision.
No human has the right to take the life of another. So even if someone has murdered, be it killing a man, woman or child, how does that give someone else the right to take the murderer’s life? It doesn’t, even though that murderer had no right in the first place to take a life. As bad, horrible and as plain evil as the crime of murder is, if the death penalty is reinstated, is the person who takes the life of the convicted person any less of a murderer? Of course not, even if “the law’s” way of killing criminals if less brutal.
The answer to this? Well as far as I’m concerned, 25 years is not a life sentence. Murderers should be put away until they die, no questions asked. If do become truly sorry for their crime, then they will get to suffer for the rest of their life behind bars. A just punishment I believe. If they never show any remorse, then what “great” life they are living behind bars. Again, just punishment as they would never be released.
The death penalty is wrong and there are better ways to deal with murderers. Apologies for the length of this post.
No need to apologise, Georgios. Thanks for commenting.
I guess I disagree with the sweeping nature of your premise (”No human has the right to take the life of another”). There are some situations where it is permissible - or at least widely regarded as so - to take the life of another like self-defence and war. I don’t believe that to execute a guilty murderer is the same as murdering an innocent person. It’s a bit like saying that fining a person amounts to theft. Punishment usually involves acts that would be illegitimate otherwise. But I respectfully accept that we have an ideological disagreement as to whether our right to justly punish extends to taking a person’s life.
Call me an extremist if you wish, but i strongly believe an execution wouldn’t be severe enough for those people who truly deserve it.
From my point of view, a “candidate” for the death penalty should not be the guy who killed someone in a robbery or even the husband who murdered his wife - those criminals should be punished in the way Georgios suggested - a literal LIFE sentence, to the day the die.
On the other hand, i a more concerned about the sadistic criminals - the rapists, child molesters or any crime that involved intended and malicious torture.
From my point of view, to execute a person who has kidnapped a woman, tortured and raped her would be an inadequate punishment. The mental and physical pain those criminals cause to their victims should be inflicted tenfold on themselves by the court of justice - in the most savage and ruthless way possible.
I strongly believe that for some crimes, you should not get a second chance, nor a single moment of piece and quiet. A rapists should be tortured continuously and relentlessly in the most cruel and gruesome of methods, in a way where for every single remaining moment of his miserable life he should regret his offense like nothing he has regretted before.
ABC reports (29/7/08) that lawyers for the Bali bombers plan to appeal against the mode of their imminent execution on the ground that being executed by firing squad might involve “pain” and “amount to torture”.
Two wrongs dont make a right. We should not put gods work into our own hands, being imprisoned for the rest of your life is enough punishment for murder.
I believe that the death penalty should never be placed in the hands of the state. I do however believe in the death penalty in theory, and I believe that this punishment should be based upon the choice of the victims family, be that they choose execution, blood money, gaol time or even forgive the murderer.
However I assert that the death penalty should not be a function of the state, as the state gets things wrong, often. And rather a guilty man serve a little less time than an innocent man is wrongly executed! I am taking it that no one on this forum has ever been to gaol? I’ve got to say that I honestly don’t believe it is very pleasant. Who are we to say that killing the person involved is the most just thing to do? Especially if one does not believe in judgement after death…
Also re. the Bali bombers, I believe they should be subject to a trial under a Shafii judge in a sharia court! See how far their pleas of the ‘unnecessary pain’ of a firing squad lasts when the victims families decide their fate.
@Liron,
Cite your 12 research papers here. And then demonstrate exclusively that there are no papers that prove the opposite. Then we’ll talk. Don’t hint that it is possible, that’s adds a completely false authority to your argument.
Citing statistics that Australians are racist doesn’t help the matter. When they think that foreigners will be executed, it’s going to be biased. Look at non-racist statistics, when it comes to topics where they think they might know someone that might be killed. Biased statistics add to your dodgy argument.
30 out of how many murderer released killed again? out of 100,000, 10 Million? Misleading statistics.
You provided no moral argument, and your pragmatic argument is faulty. I haven’t taken a side on this argument, but it seems that you have, and have provided no reason for doing so.
“Cite your 12 research papers here. And then demonstrate exclusively that there are no papers that prove the opposite.Then we’ll talk.”
I don’t take orders from some dude called phraedus. Change your tone, then we’ll talk.
I am more than happy to cite the 12 research papers but I will not be bullied into doing so. The first civilised request will prove it.
Your criticism of my argument is such that I don’t feel I need to defend myself. Your comprehension skills, on the other hand, may need defending.
I think that killing someone for killing someone else opens up a whole bunch more questions. For example, if someone bullies you, does that give you the RIGHT to bully them back? if you are insulted, or hurt, or ignored, does that give you the right to reciprocate?
Definitely the scale of the offenses are different, but its the same principle: an eye for an eye, etc. And if thats the case, then where do we stop? where do we say someone is wrong, rather than something is our RIGHT?
Melanie,
You make a good point. We don’t usually rape rapists, do we?
However, we must also bear in mind that a very important punitive principle is proportionality. That is, the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. This works both ways: the punishment should not exceed the gravity of crime, but nor should it underestimate the crime.
We usually try to account for the gravity of a certain crime by adjusting the term of imprisonment (or amount of the fine) accordingly. With murder, however, this is not possible - unless you are willing to belittle the crime. Even if we always impose a real life sentence on convicted murderers (which is a far cry from today’s justice system), the punishment will always be too lenient. That’s why there is a difference between murder and other offences. That’s my view, anyway.
As for the right to reciprocate, I think that an element of reciprocation is inherent in the notion of punishment. We punish people for something, don’t we? The reciprocal act may not always take the same form as the original act but punishment is always reciprocal in nature (unless it is arbitrary and unjust).
I am not averse to the notion that there are other crimes for which imprisonment, however long, is insufficient. Cases where a person imprisons and sadistically tortures another for years on end come to mind. My above argument, however, relates to murder.
As for your comment that some things are just wrong in themselves, please refer to my reply to Georgios above.
I think the death penalty is ironic….everyone is going to die anyway. Every single person has a natural death penalty; and for a court to decree someone’s death, i just find it ironic that whilst judges and juries plan, debate and argue over whether someone will die or not - eventually, the culprit will die and so will the judge, jury and executioner. In this way I think capital punishment is circular and a waste of time - but appealing to “justice” against capital punishment is fairly dubious (whose justice?) and stating that “all civilized countries” have rejected capital punishment borders on either colonialism or a moral superiority complex.
Gonna quote a hero of mine - the recently reconstructed batman when Raaz questioned why he couldn’t “do what is necessary to uphold justice” and kill that random thief, Bruce replies (along the lines of) “compassion is what separates us from them”
If we kill people as punishment for killing others, what message are we portraying to the world - that killing is bad? Governmental law cannot simply adopt a strong authoritative command, it must be based on sound principles and reason.
Doron (the extremist),
That’s heavy opinion there and I disagree completely.
We can broaden this topic up to punishment vs. rehabilitation. Punishment does not achieve anything - it just reinforces peoples’ cruel nature to enjoy the sight of others’ suffering.
rehabilitation - on the other hand may not work at all for the crazier criminals. At best, it may let the criminal know that they did something that is not beneficial or essential, and they will die with regret. But most importantly, rehabilitation tells the wider community that violence, revenge and suffering have no rightful in society and offers a much healthier alternative.
I think we have overlooked the concept of punishment. What is punishment, and what is it’s purpose? In my opinion, it is to show a person that what they have done is unacceptable, to try and prevent them from doing it again. You punish a child that has deliberately smashed a vase (yes it happens) because they simply shouldn’t do it. You punish a criminal for a similar purpose.
Putting a criminal in jail is, albeit, a slightly different matter, it is intended to keep them from society so they do not get the opportunity to re-offend, and perhaps lead towards rehabilitation. I agree that there are some people for which rehabilitation will not work, however how do we know unless we try?
Finally, even if jail does nothing to change the wants of a convicted criminal, is it really our place to decide that they will never change? God loves each and every one of us, can we honestly make the decision that someone’s life is of no future value or merit? Personally, I don’t think so.
The death penalty is actually not much of a deterrant. That is one of the reasons why it’s no longer in operation.
Crimes that were covered under death penalties, such as murder, are mostly not pre-meditated. Even if they are, most people would most likely not stop planning murders. People don’t commit crimes with the intention of getting caught!
A telling statistic is that society was never as murderous as it was in 1901, Australia’s first year. That was the peak, even though the death penalty was common.
Liron,
Just commenting on your response to my ealier comment, I too accept our ideological disagreement. However, I do agree about the cases of war and to a slightly lesser extent self defence. I’m sure most people would agree that war should only be a last resort and as far as self defence goes, while killing an attacker may be the only option, I’m sure it would be better to try and subdue them without taking their life, though I do admit that it is quite difficult to control thingd in the heat of the moment.
I’m a firm believer in the death penalty and it being reinstated in Australia.
Three reasons arise in support of the death penalty, being that firstly it acts as the strongest form of deterrent to others wishing to engage in similar acts which would result in the death penalty, it acts as a form of guarantee to public safety from specific criminals.As we are well aware that in Australia very few actual “life sentences” are handed down, therefore giving some of the countries most notorious criminals the chance to rejoin society. Finally the concept of rehabilitation is a term to often tossed around by the courts and the wider criminal justice with very little regard. Australia’s criminal justice system tends to view rehabilitation as a right rather than a privilage, therefore being a prisoner and being deemed “rehabilitated” is becoming easier due to the Australian Criminal Justice Systems standards.
“It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life.” (Edward Koch).
Hear, hear!
Well said, Andrew.
I agree with what you said, one question though.
“As we are well aware that in Australia very few actual “life sentences” are handed down, therefore giving some of the countries most notorious criminals the chance to rejoin society.”
If few life sentences are handed down, how many death penalties would be? Surely the number would be less, seeing as that a life sentence is one less then death? At least…that’s what I think.
Bethany,
You asked
“If few life sentences are handed down, how many death penalties would be? Surely the number would be less, seeing as that a life sentence is one less then death?
You are right saying that the number would be less than the life sentences handed down, as current statistics show that in the United States where the death penalty is still used in I believe 38 states, that over roughly a 30 year period of 1967-1996 there have only been 358 executions out of approximately 560 000 murders, ((FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR) & Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). )) which clearly shows how many would have been given life sentences, as opposed to being issued the death penalty.
Although you make a valid point as to what the frequency of its use will really be if it were ever to be reinstated, I try to avoid viewing the issue as numbers justifying its worthiness rather what interests me is the concept of deterrence.
Many sceptics and those generally against the death penalty believe that the most dangerous criminals simply do not consider consequences and are unafraid to face death themselves, this is clearly untrue as police officers in their day to day duties manage to arrest criminals without actually killing them. WHY? Because when a criminal is held at gun point for the majority of cases they will submit. WHY? Because they ‘FEAR’ the power of the gun being held to them.
No human being is subject from the feeling of fear, and the more we are scared of something, the more we will steer clear of that thing, that’s basic human instinct. Thus when an individual is faced with reality of lethal force and having their life at stake, this will certainly spark the notion of fear within others.
Lets look at it from another angle, an innocent man sentenced to death, he does not get a chance to be free if evidence turns up after his murder.
From an cold hearted point of view, the compensation claims would be huge (assuming that this happened in Australia with reintroduced death penalties).
A look from the family of the man will suffer anguish pain and suffering at the unnecessary death. The victim or their families will suffer as well because an innocent man was killed in their name.
The sad thing is cases like these do occur in the US and in other countries that do have the death penalty. I don’t support the Death Penalty, Life Imprisonment is a much more humane and if the murderer is not ill, a more torturous form of punishment.
Vish,
I have dealt with the risk of executing an innocent person at some length in my opening post. If you want more innocent people to live, you should support the death penalty. In addition to the two arguments regarding innocent people in my opening post, let me offer a third argument:
Many socially beneficial activities involve the risk of injury or even death and we have no problems with that. The use of motor vehicles causes a large number of injuries and fatalities on a regular basis – and driving is not even a matter of justice or community protection, it’s just convenience or efficiency. Society also foots the compensation bill through insurance premiums. And yet, nobody proposes we abolish driving. Yes, there is a risk of injury and death but the benefits outweigh the costs. As I explained above, this is the case with the death penalty.
To complain that the death penalty is unacceptable because there is a small risk that an innocent person will die is strange when we mindlessly embrace cars, electricity and the like, activities whose risk is much greater and which kill people all the time. This complaint reminds me of Joseph Stalin’s observation that “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic”. Evidently, our minds really do work like that sometimes.
As for compensation claims, if we consider that we must also take into account the staggering cost of keeping murderers in prison for life – and here we don’t only count those who are innocent.
You say: “A look from the family of the man will suffer anguish pain and suffering at the unnecessary death. The victim or their families will suffer as well because an innocent man was killed in their name.”
Mate, victims of convicted but unexecuted murderers who kill again also suffer. Ask the families of Stephanie F. Wagner, Jason Wagner (identical surnames are a coincidence) and the families of 30 victims of released murderers in the UK. These are confirmed and conclusive victims of abolitionism. Again, for the innocence calculus, see my opening post.
You say: “I don’t support the Death Penalty, Life Imprisonment is a much more humane and if the murderer is not ill, a more torturous form of punishment.”
Even if we ignore all these last-minute appeals by people on death row who apparently don’t understand that it is better to die than serve a life sentence, can I ask, out of curiosity, if life imprisonment is “more torturous” than the death penalty, how is your position more “humane” than mine? According to you, I’m the nice guy, am I not?
Excellent article by Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun, 12/11/08) on the Goverment’s campaign to abolish the death penalty worldwide in the wake of the execution of the Bali bombers.
i agree with Michelle at the beginning of the argument, but not in a humourous way.
I have a question for the community. Most lead providers get their leads from online quote request and then they resell them like 4 or 5 times. I’ve been burned like this a few times already so my question is, how about telemarketing to generate insurance leads? I’ve heard good and bad things so if anyone has any feedback please let me know your thoughts before I spend even more money testing things out.
