I’m opposed to the death penalty, on the grounds that it does more harm than good in the circumstances of a modern society, but I don’t feel any particular repugnance at the execution of someone who has had a fair trial and is obviously guilty of murder. This, however, seems like something out of the Middle Ages.
Update Some more gruesome details have just emerged about the chemical execution process.
John Quiggin 
The death sentence? Where is this, some place where Mad Mullah’s rule?
The case … involved Regina McKnight, who was described in court documents as having low intelligence and who was helped with her everyday needs by her mother until 1998. Her lawyers said that after her mother was killed in a hit-and-run accident, Ms. McKNight “quickly spiraled downward, becoming homeless, addicted to cocaine and marijuana ÷ and pregnant.” After she delivered a stillborn female, nurses took samples from her and the baby and sent them to the authorities under a procedure put in place by the state. Both tested positive for cocaine.
Sheesh!
God bless America
I found Justice Kirby’s comments on the death penalty to be silly in the extreme. There is a good rational case for opposing the use of the death penalty under ‘normal’ circumstances like your everyday homicide – because error is unavoidable and when one multiplies even a very small error rate over many homicides a year then one ends up with a non-trivial number of innocent people executed unless we are willing to pour more resources into reducing the error rate to zero. Paradoxically the net effect may be to reduce the deterrent effect of punishment for the most serious crimes which have been selected for the death penalty if instead of tolerating a non-trivial number of erroneous executions we choose this alternative b/c people may then be reluctant to convict in case the person is not guilty. Death penalty for extraordinary crimes like terrorism is arguably of a different category because though the error rate is also not zero, the number of such cases is smaller so the number of erroneous executions can be reduced to close to zero via appropriate resourcing. In other words, the death penalty is alright if we are prepared to be damned careful we kill the right people. However J Kirby seems to think that the mere fact that the State kills demeans us all. This is reminiscent of the person who eats meat and can’t bear to see a slaughterhouse. The force of the State and in fact its utility to us is derived precisely from the threat to kill, to imprison – when the State sends people to war it is actively engaged in killing. Why the sudden cringe just because it’s more visible? Indeed why doesn’t J Kirby then go all the way that the State also demeans us all when it is engaged in imprisoning people which implicitly involves using the threat of force against them? Isn’t it also demeaning that the State has to, for our sake, use force against our fellows? Or isn’t that just a fact of life. This sort of aesthetic argument against the death penalty invites the response ‘grow up’
A person who kills an innocent person for no reason where there is no ambiguity ( eg Martin Bryant) should be the recipient of capital punishment.
Society cannot afford people who have no respect for human life.
Homer has hit the nail right where it matters most.
Can’t say I’m in favour of the death penalty.
…although the prospect of frying a mass murderer like Martin Bryant or a mass terrorist is tempting. I guess the devil’s in the definitions and especially in the line that separates these from other nasty criminals.
The prospect of retaining a death penalty for some crimes leaves open the chance that it may be expanded to include other offences (child abuse perhaps?)
As far as I’m aware, the death penalty has never been established as an effective deterrent to crime, and it’s also much more expensive than life imprisonment (believe it or not) … so I don’t get it … is this about one’s personal sense of vengeance? It’s problematic at that level in my book also, as death might be a soft way out of life behind bars. But, even if you think in those old testament ways, is that really a healthy mature outlook on life? I have other objections to the death penalty, but these always strike me as sufficient.
I’d support the death penaly if they bought back public hangings – we might as well take tabloid public policy to it’s logical conclusion. And wouldn’t (eg) the Parrot look a picture of unambiguity resolutely pulling the lever.
Unfortunately, in terms of genuine utility it’s pretty well established that it’s pretty well useless. Most murders are within the confines of kith and kin where public law is rarely present and guilt is usually a woefully complex conundrum.
Public hangings!?!?
That gives new meaning to the slippery slope I was alluding to in my previous comment.
I never cease to be amazed at how people are unable to distinguish justice and vengeance in their minds. Vengeance ought not, IMO, be a motive for public policy
Most proponents of legal barbarism dress up this (evolutionarily programmed) urge in consequentialist arguments (deterrence, cost, removing possibility of further offence, etc), most of which are empirically dubious.
Homer, in which sense can a society “not afford people” like Martin Bryant? Can’t afford to leave them loose, agreed, but otherwise I don’t get you.
More than 30 years ago I did not like the SU because they had death penalty and Lysenko (or Lyssenko).
Why should I like the US is they have death penalty and creationism?
BTW how do any of you know the State is honest?
DSW