|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Jan 7, 2012 7:47:52 GMT -6
The death penalty has been buried forever after Federal Parliament passed laws ensuring it can't be reinstated in any jurisdiction.
While no Australian state or territory uses the death penalty, the laws were needed to ensure the situation could never be reintroduced.
Both sides of politics supported the move which is largely seen as symbolic.
ACT Liberal senator Gary Humphries said the abolition of the death penalty was a "hallmark of a civilised society".
Not since the execution in 1967 of Ronald Ryan - found guilty of shooting and killing prison officer George Hodson while escaping from Pentridge Prison - had the death penalty been applied in Australian law, Senator Humphries said.
It was worth noting, however, that the death penalty had been used throughout Australia's history, he said.
"The first use of the death penalty occurred only a few days after the First Fleet arrived in Sydney in 1788."
"It is to me a matter of great satisfaction that today the federal parliament on behalf of all Australian jurisdictions is in the position to close the door finally and I think irrevocably on this particular, rather dreary aspect of the Australian criminal justice system."
Fellow Liberal George Brandis said it was an appropriate measure for the commonwealth to legislate.
"And of course it is hardly necessary to add that it is many years since any of the states or territories had the death penalty," Senator Brandis told the Senate.
"Given that torture and the death penalty are already prohibited the effect of the bill is therefore in this respect largely symbolic."
The new laws also replace the existing offence of torture in a 1988 act with a new offence in the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill 2009 passed the Senate without amendments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2012 10:17:17 GMT -6
This is old news.
Australian constitutional law is different to the USA.
The Federal Govt has no right to police or prosecute criminal acts unless they relate to areas they have specific responsibility.
Eg. Drug importation as it relates to a violation of the borders.
In general they have no right to tell a state how to punish a criminal. How ever as Australia has agreed internationally to not use Capital Punishment the law was enacted under the constitutional power of the Federal Govt to ensure aust complies with international treaties.
The law can be repealed
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 7, 2012 18:56:45 GMT -6
The death penalty has been buried forever after Federal Parliament passed laws ensuring it can't be reinstated in any jurisdiction. While no Australian state or territory uses the death penalty, the laws were needed to ensure the situation could never be reintroduced. Both sides of politics supported the move which is largely seen as symbolic. ACT Liberal senator Gary Humphries said the abolition of the death penalty was a "hallmark of a civilised society". One of the most important hallmarks of a civilized society is ther pursuit of justice. Without the death penalty, the pursuit of justice for murder victims is severely crippled. Crippling the pursuit of justice is not a hallmark of a civilized society.
|
|
|
Post by reapwysow on Jan 16, 2012 17:17:06 GMT -6
It's thier country, More power to them.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 21, 2012 17:52:57 GMT -6
I believe we should have the death penalty in Australia. What's more I believe it should be re-introduced retrospectively, so that those nasties who have taken advantage of the "no death penalty" situation would have a rude awakening! The likes of Milat, Travers, baby killers, child rapists, etc. would be summarily put to death. There is no deterrent in Australia for every loonie and their dog to commit attrocities. We put down animals and the likes of these (similarly to your Briley Piper/ELijah Page, Eric Nenno, untold others) are no better than animals. It's humane and if the perpetrator has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt (such as DNA or eye-witness testimony) - then there should be no appeals (barring mitigation, of course) - just execute them 3 days after being found guilty, like in 1800s Australia and England.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Feb 21, 2012 17:55:21 GMT -6
I'm sure that the Europeans are just jumping for joy right now.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 21, 2012 18:12:44 GMT -6
Pardon me, Pixie person? Was that comment guided toward me, sir/madam? If so, me no comprende? If not, I'll just sit over here and whistle embarrassingly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 19:42:36 GMT -6
Pardon me, Pixie person? Was that comment guided toward me, sir/madam? If so, me no comprende? If not, I'll just sit over here and whistle embarrassingly. Don't worry about him. I think he is mixing up Australia with Austria.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 19:47:12 GMT -6
Pardon me, Pixie person? Was that comment guided toward me, sir/madam? If so, me no comprende? If not, I'll just sit over here and whistle embarrassingly. Pixie is in fact a teenage girl and is occasionally a little over exuberant. Europe is politically anti-dp. In fact one of conditions of EU membership is to abolish the death penalty
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 21, 2012 20:07:32 GMT -6
Cheers, Ms Cyclone. Methinks that if EU had the death penalty then perhaps they wouldnt be in the economic predicament they are currently experiencing? The difference between Austria and Australia is that one was the birthplace of Hitler and the other is run by a red-headed communist, so its quite easy to confuse the two. I dont think Europe would be badly off with the death penalty. From what I gather, the Balkan states, Scandinavia and evrywhere surrounding the Meditteranean could do with a bit of a cull. Not meaning to be facetious but I cannot find many reasons in today's society where the Death Penalty would be detrimental. The main problem with the death penalty in the US is that it takes too long and (as a result) costs too much. For example, why should we have to pay to keep someone like Richard Ramirez alive - cant they just put something in his porridge?
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Mar 3, 2012 15:33:22 GMT -6
"cant they just put something in his porridge?"
Good christ man you cant do that to a condemned inmate! Have some respect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2012 19:21:30 GMT -6
"cant they just put something in his porridge?" Good christ man you cant do that to a condemned inmate! Have some respect. What you found someone a little extreme for you!
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Mar 4, 2012 3:39:23 GMT -6
"cant they just put something in his porridge?" Good christ man you cant do that to a condemned inmate! Have some respect. What you found someone a little extreme for you! I was kidding. I guess it doesn't translate over the interwebz.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2012 3:41:16 GMT -6
What you found someone a little extreme for you! I was kidding. I guess it doesn't translate over the interwebz. Yeah I was wondering.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Mar 4, 2012 5:20:00 GMT -6
Snidery makes a good point actually regarding Ramirez. Why IS he still alive?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2012 5:30:47 GMT -6
Snidery makes a good point actually regarding Ramirez. Why IS he still alive? California.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Mar 4, 2012 5:34:30 GMT -6
Snidery makes a good point actually regarding Ramirez. Why IS he still alive? California. Ah I see now. Makes a mockery of the DP really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2012 6:12:56 GMT -6
Ah I see now. Makes a mockery of the DP really. What makes a mockery is when capital defendants refuse plea bargains because they know they are unlikely to be executed and conditions on dr are better then general population
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2012 9:36:25 GMT -6
That is why I would advocate a reintroduction of corporal punishment as a possible alternative to execution. Match their brutality. Especially if carried out on a regular basis throughout their term of imprisonment. Given that, they might just prefer a sentence of capital punishment to be passed..and thankfull for it!
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Mar 4, 2012 10:08:38 GMT -6
California DP Repeal InitiativeMarch 2, 2012 9:01 AM | Posted by CJLF Staff As noted in yesterday's News Scan, the anti-death-penalty advocates held press conferences yesterday announcing they had the signatures to put their repeal initiative on the ballot. This is no surprise, as it was widely known they had the signatures. Sam Stanton has this article in the Sacramento Bee, an expanded version of the one linked yesterday, including a photo array of the 13 murderers whose usual appeals have been completed. Kent Scheidegger, legal director for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, said settling that issue could help executions resume. "The opposition makes much of the fact that only 13 death sentences have been carried out, but about that many have reached the end of the pipeline and are now ready to be carried out, blocked only by the unnecessary and pointless lethal injection litigation," he wrote in an email. Other states have changed procedures and moved forward with executions, but California has not put anyone to death since 2006 because of the legal battle. Scheidegger added that the cost savings cited by death penalty opponents are inaccurate. "I hope the voters reject it," he said, noting that the costs of caring for death-penalty inmates for the rest of their lives "escalate dramatically with age." A Field Poll issued in September found most Californians - 68 percent - still support capital punishment. Bob Egelko has this article in the San Francisco Chronicle. Accompanying an article is an online poll. Although online polls don't mean much due to the self-selection of respondent, it wouldn't hurt to take a minute to vote "no" on repeal.
Howard Mintz has this article in the San Jose Mercury-News:
"If the death penalty is retained, it is now likely that most sentences will be carried out," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a leading advocacy group for the death penalty.
The reason for that prediction is the Supreme Court's crackdown on the Ninth Circuit last term in three important decisions: Walker v. Martin, Harrington v. Richter, and Cullen v. Pinholster.
www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2012/03/california-dp-repeal-initiativ.html
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 4, 2012 16:47:54 GMT -6
That is why I would advocate a reintroduction of corporal punishment as a possible alternative to execution. Match their brutality. Especially if carried out on a regular basis throughout their term of imprisonment. Given that, they might just prefer a sentence of capital punishment to be passed..and thankfull for it! The only way to match the brutality of the likes of Milat, Travers, Bryant, the Snowtown mob, etc. is to humanely dispatch them - ASAP. They are not worthy of our forgiveness nor our dollars by which they eke out their putrid existence. Oh, I'm sorry, I seem to have let a tinge of emotion into the debate - I hope it went unrecognised...
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 4, 2012 18:08:20 GMT -6
The only way to match the brutality of the likes of Milat, Travers, Bryant, the Snowtown mob, etc. is to humanely dispatch them - ASAP. No match. But it is better than making the friends and family of their victims pay for the upkeep of the murderers.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Mar 5, 2012 3:21:21 GMT -6
California better not repeal the death penalty. That fancy new death chamber that they built will go to waste and I refuse to see that happen.
|
|