a few months ago, i raised the inconsistency that australian media and public has over their stance on death penalty, and i quote me (for full article, you can click here):
I do not want to argue about her innocence. this is not what this post is about. it is more about the hype that Australian media has tried to generate over the entire case. Especially over the ‘death penalty’ issue. I, myself, do not believe in death penalty, whatever the case is. But it seems to me that Australian public in general, agree and disagree with capital punishment according to their convenience. In this case, they feel that death penalty is immoral, tragic and unwarranted. Few recall the strong stance of Australian public in supporting the death penalty during the trials of Bali bombing. How ironic? It seems to me that it’s ok for indonesians who committed a crime that carries capital punishment to receive death penalty, but its not ok for Australians.
How about being consistent for a change?
Now, the Australian public is going through the same thing with Nguyen’s imminent death sentence in Singapore. I must reiterate, that i do not believe in capital punishment. I think no government has the right to take the life of another, especially using it as a punishment mechanism.
Nothing can summed up my feeling on this better than Tim Lindsey:
“John Howard’s position lacks consistency. We are unconcerned when the death penalty is applied to non-Australian citizens. Yet it is an act of barbarism when it is applied to Australians. Now, the death penalty is either right or wrong. It can’t be right or wrong according to the citizenship of the person. There is a moral and political decision for Australia to take and, so far, we are trying to ignore it.”
Finally…. Paul Kelly has the nerve to bring it out open… kudo to you mate! I cannot concur more than what you have put in your article!
Capital punishment is not “barbaric.” What is barbaric is to place into a cell a person who is never to be released, who often cannot even be convinced that having taken an innocent life is wrong. What is barbaric is to have extremely lengthy appeal after appeal when the issue is not if the person is guilty or innocent, but if one word or another was used in a trial proceeding.
In the USA, there are states with the death penalty where you are far more likely to die of old age than to actually have the State put you to death. That is barbaric.
If there is a wild animal that will attack and kill given the chance, would you put it into a place where it may well be able to escape and threaten more innocent lives, or put it down for the safety and good of all. Many murderers are such sociopaths that they are little better than such animals, despite the veneer of humanity.
What I find unacceptable is those who oppose the death penalty and consider themselves oh-so-civilized because they do not have to live in circumstances where they may be at risk.
For me, if someone tries to harm me or my family, the death penalty will be carried out, immediately if possible, before a judge can release the criminal to attempt to harm others.