Posted on 02/20/2010 4:14:33 PM PST by myknowledge
THE Rudd government has restated its opposition to the death penalty, after Tony Abbott said it could be justified in some cases.
The opposition leader said execution was the only fitting sentence for some mass murderers, like terrorists, but had no plans to reintroduce the death penalty.
"I have always been against the death penalty," Mr Abbott said.
"(But) There are some crimes so horrific that maybe that's the only way to adequately convey the horror of what's been done," he said, adding that any policy change would happen with a conscience vote.
The Rudd government says it has no plans to change its policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
I'd wished Australia reinstated the death penalty, and New South Wales would be the first state to do so, after a 55 year absence.
It will not apply to murders committed prior to the death penalty's reinstatement.
What do you think?
I think that as long as a terrorist is alive his buddies will try to winkle him out, by any method ranging from a direct full frontal assault on the facility holding him, to taking over a daycare center and rolling one child’s head out into the street every hour on the hour until he is released.
Chose wisely Australia.
I’d be all for it. Wasn’t there an Australian murderer that was sentenced to death, but had his sentence commuted as hanging was abolished, and then about 20 years later after he had been released, went on to kill again?
I’m certainly in favour, but only for certain categories of murder (and probably for rape as well). Multiple murder, murder committed in the course of another crime, premeditated murder, murder of a child, and murder of a person for whom the murderer had a duty of care, murder of a law enforcement officer or corrective services personnel.
I wouldn’t apply the death penalty in cases where a person is under 21 at the time they committed the crime. I believe that a person should be executed within three years of conviction provided a robust appeals process that can operate in that time exists. If there is still enough doubt after three years for the appeals process to still be underway, I think commutation is justified - again, provided the process does work quickly enough to justify it. Back when Australia had the death penalty, it did.
Yes - Leigh Robinson, who was this year sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for his second murder of an ex-girlfriend in 2008.
He was sentenced to death in 1968 for the murder of another girlfriend, and his sentence was commuted - the death penalty wasn’t officially abolished yet, but all death sentences after 1966 were commuted for various reasons even prior to abolition. After commutation, he was meant to serve 30 years but wound up being released after 15 at which time he became an habitual offender - besides the second murder, he also has convictions for burglary, assault, and rape.
For example: No death penalty for a convict who was under 18 at the commission of his/her crimes, regardless of the severity.
An 18 year old limit really makes no sense.
If we’re sparing young people because we regard them as too immature to be fully responsible for their actions, the latest research indicates that most will not reach an adult level of mental maturity until at least their early 20s - more likely around the age of 25. This is especially true of those most likely to get in trouble with the law.
We’ve wound up with an 18 year old age of ‘adulthood’ for historical reasons - it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Australian law, generally speaking, already treats those under 21 as ‘young offenders’, for this reason. It would be odd if that age limit was not applied in the case of capital crimes.
I think if you are going to put these restrictions you might add the caveat that the police or prison officer's murder must be related to their jobs in some way. I don't see how if my mum got stabbed to death in the street I ought to watch her killer get 15 years in Gaol whilst someone who kills someone who happens to be an off-duty police officer wandering off to the shops to get a pint of milk gets hanged. I can appreciate that assaulting or killing a police officer doing their job warrants a harsher punishment, but outside of that, they don't deserve to be treated as a higher life form than any other member of the public...
That's because during the Vietnam War, the 'adulthood' age was lowered to 18 because it was believed for servicemen to be old enough to die for their country.
Australian law, generally speaking, already treats those under 21 as ‘young offenders’, for this reason. It would be odd if that age limit was not applied in the case of capital crimes.
I'll be 20 in April, and according to Australian law, I'm still a 'young offender'?
Sure - I’ve no problem with the idea that there needs to be a link to their actual employment, not just because they happen to hold these positions.
In that situation, I’d also probably apply to other emergency services as well though - we’ve had a spate here recently of firefighters and paramedics being attacked while doing their job - no fatalities, thankfully. But those who work to protect others and who have their lives taken while trying to do so are I believe entitled to have that crime treated with the utmost severity.
When it comes to corrective services personnel, I am mindful that the last execution in Australia, that of Robert Ryan in 1967 was for the murder of a prison guard during the course of an escape. Ryan had already been imprisoned in the highest security prison available at the time, and he took the actions he had because he believed he had nothing to lose. He didn’t plan to kill anyone, but it was pretty clear he could not be contained by the prison system. He was the first man actually executed in this state for 16 years, about 60 sentences had been commuted - the big difference was that nobody could pretend that locking him up for life was guaranteed to protect the public. He’d already escaped that and killed doing it.
Not really. 18 year olds had been allowed to serve in Australian forces overseas for year. I joined the Royal Australian Navy myself around my 16th birthday during the Vietnam War. That was 1972.
I didn't become a legal adult until 1976 when I turned 21, by which time Vietnam was well and truly over (in my state, the age of majority was lowered to 18 in 1977).
The reason it was done, more than anything else, was because the Labor party (the Whitlam era Labor party) believed 18-21 year olds would vote for them.
*ducking and running for cover*
What state are you in?
It differs from state to state, but, yes, if you committed a crime, while it wouldn't be automatic, there's a good chance the courts would treat you as a young offender.
Classic leftist MO of expanding the voter base.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.