Abolishment of the Death Penalty

[Sethy]

Should the death penalty be abolished, or should it remain as it is? Remember to debate rationally.
Refer to: Only the registered members can see the link.


I'm going to be on the pro side of this debate. I believe that the death penalty is immoral and just a contradiction of the law, as it is just a more revised form of murder.

To start, two wrongs do not make a right. The latter is a very famous saying, and it has a very good say here. Say the defendant is a serial killer. Granted, they're not the best of men/women, but does that mean they deserve to be killed? How would killing him/her justify the life/lives of his or her victims? It doesn't. Killing the defendant would be just as low as killing his/her victims. To sum that up, putting one to death for their crimes in no way justifies their crimes.



Also, what's done is done. You can't take back the crime that has been so severe it is even considered to put the offender to death. The only thing left to do is make sure that the crime does not occur once more. To do so, life without parole would be just as effective as taking ones life. Being stuck in jail is a punishment itself, and prevents the duplication of the offense.

We're human, mistakes happen, right? Many people are killed by the death penalty after being falsely accused. When it comes to making a mistake, I can't think of any one worse than this. Abolishing the death penalty could stop such cruel happenings. Mistakingly being tried and murdered for something you didn't do is just... wrong.

Though I do think with the abolishment of Death Penalty, the application of Euthanasia should take it's place. If the offender doesn't want to go to jail for life and would prefer death, and the prosecutor would like for the offender to be put to death, that's perfectly fine. The help of a physician is legal under certain circumstances, and it should be stretched from having certain time left in life, to an offender capable of being put to death choosing so.

Summarizing it all up, you can't find good out of murdering someone, it doesn't help the victims, and it is possible for the offender to have been mistakingly accused when put to death. Though Euthanasia should be applicable if the offender says so.

Looking forward to your rebuttals or backup!

[J i m b o]

I say that the death penalty is a necessary evil, because if a murderer gets caught do you really think he deserves to live after he thinks it's ok to take someones life? Do unto others as you would yourself.
Also I think just giving them life without parole would be a waste, I mean take up the tax payers money just to let someone rot in prison? No thank you.

EDIT: You do make a valid point but that's my opinion.

[Hutch]

Everytime I hear someone is getting death row I think - How is that even far too the people he/she affected. I'd rather have the death penalty instead of having 25 years in jail, just for the obvious reasons. The death penalty should be abolished, by doing so you won't be letting the criminals off scotch free, they will get what they deserve in prison.

I know this won't sound right but I THINK the punishment should fit the crime. You put someone through torcher, you deserve too be torcher.

[Sethy]

I say that the death penalty is a necessary evil, because if a murderer gets caught do you really think he deserves to live after he thinks it's ok to take someones life? Do unto others as you would yourself.
Also I think just giving them life without parole would be a waste, I mean take up the tax payers money just to let someone rot in prison? No thank you.

EDIT: You do make a valid point but that's my opinion.

But it's just that, an evil. Murder is cruel, and wrong in general. How does murdering someone through what could be said to be justice suddenly change that? It can't. Sure he/she took their lives, but that doesn't mean, even if it's deserved, that he should face the same crime, does it?

Also I was going to add that point into the original post. You shouldn't kill someone to save money. That'd be like a school having too many students and just bombing a few classrooms so they wouldn't have to pay as many teachers.



Everytime I hear someone is getting death row I think - How is that even far too the people he/she affected. I'd rather have the death penalty instead of having 25 years in jail, just for the obvious reasons. The death penalty should be abolished, by doing so you won't be letting the criminals off scotch free, they will get what they deserve in prison.

I know this won't sound right but I THINK the punishment should fit the crime. You put someone through torcher, you deserve too be torcher.

I do agree that while life in prison may be the tougher punishment, death is much harder a choice. I'd prefer to live my life even in prison, honestly, than to just end it all, especially not believing in an afterlife. :p
And no, I don't really think it sounds wrong. Punishment fitting the crime makes sense, you should do something as you would want done to you, no? Although justice doesn't create an exception to the law.

[Twisted]

I agree with the death penalty, sorry..
But on levels.
If a person kills 1 other person, no.
If a person like, carl panzram, he seriously needed to die.

He wouldn't stop killing, even in prison.
The death penatly should only be for people like that, MASS-Serial killers, John Wayne Gracy etc.

[Sethy]

I agree with the death penalty, sorry..
But on levels.
If a person kills 1 other person, no.
If a person like, carl panzram, he seriously needed to die.

He wouldn't stop killing, even in prison.
The death penatly should only be for people like that, MASS-Serial killers, John Wayne Gracy etc.

Care to elaborate on WHY you think so?

[samuraiblood2]

I believe there should be a hierarchy of sorts when dealing with murder. Punishment in this hierarchy would depend on the state of the victims bodies, and the number of victims (more criteria could obviously be added). If one person is murdered through some civil dispute (say a husband caught his wife cheating) then he could get 15-25~ years in jail. If say its a massacre of some sort, where the bodies are hardly describable, I would imagine the perpetrator be put to death. Although going back on your idea of giving people a choice, perhaps the rougher levels of punishment could be life in prison or (obviously) death. I do however think the death penalty is not only a form of punishment, but also a psychological deterrent, whereas it defines that if you go beyond a certain point, you will die.

[Twisted]

Care to elaborate on WHY you think so?

Cause 1 person who is NOT going to stop killing people, sure someone who will stop and can be rehabilitated doesn't deserve to die.
Carl panzram, like many others, just would not stop. Anyone who said anything to him he would kill.

Can you explain to me WHY he deserves to live after he has killed human life.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but 20+ wrongs make a wrong worth dieing.

[Twisted]

I believe there should be a hierarchy of sorts when dealing with murder. Punishment in this hierarchy would depend on the state of the victims bodies, and the number of victims (more criteria could obviously be added). If one person is murdered through some civil dispute (say a husband caught his wife cheating) then he could get 15-25~ years in jail. If say its a massacre of some sort, where the bodies are hardly describable, I would imagine the perpetrator be put to death. Although going back on your idea of giving people a choice, perhaps the rougher levels of punishment could be life in prison or (obviously) death. I do however think the death penalty is not only a form of punishment, but also a psychological deterrent, whereas it defines that if you go beyond a certain point, you will die.

This man speaks truth.

[Surreal]

A life for a life.
1 human takes another humans life. It is only fair that they also die.
Death is the most harsh thing for any living being. Therefore when a man kills a man he should acknowledge what he has done and in return die.

[Toxic ™]

Not trying to sound like a jerk or anything but if someone were to kill a school bus full of children would you rather them be killed (easy choice) or suffer in jail for life (hard choice) I dunno but I think it'd be better if they were to suffer.

[Twisted]

Not trying to sound like a jerk or anything but if someone were to kill a school bus full of children would you rather them be killed (easy choice) or suffer in jail for life (hard choice) I dunno but I think it'd be better if they were to suffer.

Awesome, instead of killing them we are going to make them suffer until they die.

[tedhead2]

I think the death penalty should stay.

Do unto others as you would have done to yourself(i know i said it wrong)
eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth
life for a life

[Mish]

Death penalty shoulden't be abolished. I live in UK anyway death penalty isnt even here lolz (i think)

[Surreal]

Prison is not it's big bad self it use to be.
In New Zealand prisoner's get under-floor heating and premium meals.
The death penalty here was abolished years ago...
Also many of you are not yet tax payers but once you are you will start to realise where your money is going. I will bet you that a good percent of tax goes to prisons.
Therefore the death penalty should NOT be abolished.


I think the death penalty should stay.

Do unto others as you would have done to yourself(i know i said it wrong)
eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth
life for a life

I hope you know that the quote that you got an eye for an eye is actually original from gandhi:
"an eye for an eye and the whole world is blind."
or in the case you put it in
"life for a life and the whole world is dead"

[Sethy]

I believe there should be a hierarchy of sorts when dealing with murder. Punishment in this hierarchy would depend on the state of the victims bodies, and the number of victims (more criteria could obviously be added). If one person is murdered through some civil dispute (say a husband caught his wife cheating) then he could get 15-25~ years in jail. If say its a massacre of some sort, where the bodies are hardly describable, I would imagine the perpetrator be put to death. Although going back on your idea of giving people a choice, perhaps the rougher levels of punishment could be life in prison or (obviously) death. I do however think the death penalty is not only a form of punishment, but also a psychological deterrent, whereas it defines that if you go beyond a certain point, you will die.

I do agree that if the death penalty remained, that it would be great going by what you've said. However what's the difference of killing someone through such a civil dispute as opposed to a massacre with the mutilation? The only difference I see is that you did more to the victims of the latter than to the single victim of the civil dispute. Either way, it ended it death, just more deaths on the massacre, obviously. So by your saying, why would you put him to death for the massacre but not the single victim murder?

Also, yes, the death penalty is a very large threat that has likely stopped terrible events. However, though, life in prison carries almost a just as threatening deterrent, does it not?



Cause 1 person who is NOT going to stop killing people, sure someone who will stop and can be rehabilitated doesn't deserve to die.
Carl panzram, like many others, just would not stop. Anyone who said anything to him he would kill.

Can you explain to me WHY he deserves to live after he has killed human life.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but 20+ wrongs make a wrong worth dieing.

You can stop that one person from killing, though. You can simply have him monitored. Check him for weapons. Leave guards near the psychopath. Why would that be so hard?
He deserves to live because it's our birth right. Nobody has the right to take a life, not even the life that has taken numerous others. Oh, and you just completely went against the concept of that saying. It's basic meaning is that just because someone has done wrong, or in your case wrongs, you can't make that right by doing something that shouldn't be done. You have to be the better.



A life for a life.
1 human takes another humans life. It is only fair that they also die.
Death is the most harsh thing for any living being. Therefore when a man kills a man he should acknowledge what he has done and in return die.

A life for a life, or an eye for an eye? You sound like you're sacrificing or raising dead or something. Just because someone takes someones life, which is a terrible crime, doesn't mean that the crime should be repented unto them? You'd be no better than the perpetrator, as you, also, are committing the cruel crime of taking ones life. And death is hardly as harsh as life in prison. Once death has occurred, it's done. That's that. Life in prison isn't a very good life, and it last for years, usually decades, as compared to a few minutes that the death takes. In prison is where the perpetrator shall acknowledge his doings, though he shouldn't pay for them with his own life(referring to all my previous arguments).



Not trying to sound like a jerk or anything but if someone were to kill a school bus full of children would you rather them be killed (easy choice) or suffer in jail for life (hard choice) I dunno but I think it'd be better if they were to suffer.


Honestly if it were my child on that bus, at first I'd want them dead. I'd always want them dead. However, I don't think death would be as hard on them as in prison. As I've said, death is the end. There's nothing more to it, so once he dies, he's dead. Spending his life in a place like prison would be a much more justifying act without the committing of murder.



I think the death penalty should stay.

Do unto others as you would have done to yourself(i know i said it wrong)
eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth
life for a life

Hmm? That's exactly the point. Someone who murders someone wouldn't do it to themselves. That saying only goes toward the encouragement of not committing the wrongs, not to justify them once done. It has no say in any other form. Also, as for your little statement, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi. That quote is a huge bonus to the debaters of the pro side of the argument as the relevance is exact. When Gandhi had said that, he meant that when you are so consumed in hatred, and you feel as if you need revenge for whoever has done the wrong, then you need to see that you must forgive. You have to get over it, otherwise you'd be blind. So rather than committing the same crime, you'd need a less severe punishment.



Death penalty shoulden't be abolished. I live in UK anyway death penalty isnt even here lolz (i think)


It's not in the UK, I believe anyway, heh. Would you elaborate, though, on why it shouldn't be abolished?



Prison is not it's big bad self it use to be.
In New Zealand prisoner's get under-floor heating and premium meals.
The death penalty here was abolished years ago...
Also many of you are not yet tax payers but once you are you will start to realise where your money is going. I will bet you that a good percent of tax goes to prisons.
Therefore the death penalty should NOT be abolished.


Of course prison isn't cruel, that'd be torture, and torture is worth than death. The prisoners should get some form of heat and air, some at least half decent food. Also as to paying the taxes, do you suppose we shouldn't and just let the prisoners rot in prison until dying of the weather or starvation? Or do you suppose we should just have them all killed?

[riches321]

Meh, Prision in america seems quite fun if you look at all the film's, they always have black people playing basketball.

[Slik]

I'm going to be on the pro side of this debate. I believe that the death penalty is immoral and just a contradiction of the law, as it is just a more revised form of murder.


For the sake of the debate, I'll debate the con side however I may switch later on depending on which side is losing.



To start, two wrongs do not make a right. The latter is a very famous saying, and it has a very good say here. Say the defendant is a serial killer. Granted, they're not the best of men/women, but does that mean they deserve to be killed? How would killing him/her justify the life/lives of his or her victims? It doesn't. Killing the defendant would be just as low as killing his/her victims. To sum that up, putting one to death for their crimes in no way justifies their crimes.[/LIST]


Two wrongs do not make a right, but removing a wrong from the equation solves the problem. Removing the root of the problem, the killer actually benefits the system. There is a relief in cost, and in space for people who are likely to reform. Sometimes in life we must be cruel to be kind. While killing a convict doesn't compensate a victim or their family it does give them the peace of mind knowing the convict won't be able to commit the same crime to someone else, surely that is the least the justice system can do.



Also, what's done is done. You can't take back the crime that has been so severe it is even considered to put the offender to death. The only thing left to do is make sure that the crime does not occur once more. To do so, life without parole would be just as effective as taking ones life. Being stuck in jail is a punishment itself, and prevents the duplication of the offense.


I couldn't disagree more. People make out that prison life is hard and prison life is extreamly difficult to cope with, generally this isn't the case atleast not in England and in the United States. Many homeless people try to get themselves arrested just so they are garenteed 3 meals and a bed to sleep in. It was documented that many prisons have better meals being served than what is served to children in schools.As far as nuterious food I believe it.
Only the registered members can see the link.

The facilities prisoners get is quiet ridiculous actually. Some prisons allow immates to have internet access which is monitored, but quiet idotic. Most prisons have tvs for immates to watch in recreational rooms, which also include other things such as pool tables and table tennis (ping pong) tables. Are prisoners there to be deprived of freedom or to be entertained? If you actually look at prisons in asia or pretty much every other country, they make ours look like hotels.

Spending life in prison doesn't justify their crimes.



We're human, mistakes happen, right? Many people are killed by the death penalty after being falsely accused. When it comes to making a mistake, I can't think of any one worse than this. Abolishing the death penalty could stop such cruel happenings. Mistakingly being tried and murdered for something you didn't do is just... wrong.


It wouldn't make sense to abolish the death sentence just because someone may mistakenly be killed. Someone may mistakenly be placed in prison for life without a chance for parole, why not get rid of prisons altogether under the same thinking? Mistakes will happen, instead of removing the death sentence more time and effort should be dedicated to ensure the minimal amount of cases happen, which respectively should be 0.



Though I do think with the abolishment of Death Penalty, the application of Euthanasia should take it's place. If the offender doesn't want to go to jail for life and would prefer death, and the prosecutor would like for the offender to be put to death, that's perfectly fine. The help of a physician is legal under certain circumstances, and it should be stretched from having certain time left in life, to an offender capable of being put to death choosing so.


Realistically the number of people who would prefer to die than face their time in jail is very, very slim. Not many people will die in prison, and one would think they would be the only people to take up the option to end their life now. If you consider what you are proposing with the abolishment is basically recylcing offenders back into the population where the likelyhood for them to commit the same or similar crime is extreamly high.



Summarizing it all up, you can't find good out of murdering someone, it doesn't help the victims, and it is possible for the offender to have been mistakingly accused when put to death. Though Euthanasia should be applicable if the offender says so.

Looking forward to your rebuttals or backup!

The only time I agree that the death penalty should not be applicable for criminals is when crimes are committed that are so severe that I feel the death penalty isn't sufficient enough. Instead criminals should face years of torture before their life is ended, since that would give the victims and their family some form of justice, however it is likely you will call this vengence. A child molester should not face the death penalty, violating the innocence of a child is a crime so severe the only retibution I agree with is years of torture.


As it stands the death sentence serves a use more than simply killing an offender, it is something to fear. You can't put a figure on the number of people who don't commit severe crimes out of fear they may get the death penalty. Removing the fear factor the death sentence holds will only increase the number of crimes. This said it is important to note that some people will always disregard the fear factor, perhaps out of ignorance or maybe even under the illusion they are above the law or won't get caught. None the less, preventing crime altogether is a more effective means to deal with crime then resolving it.

I would also like to point out that prisons are a burden to the taxation systems. Part of our tax is spent to safely hold criminals, so technically we pay for prisoner's food, for their entertainment and for their security. A person commits a crime and then we pay for them to eat better meals than children get in their schools. For small offenders or offenders that are likely to reform, prison is a sufficient means of reabilitation. Some people are beyond help, therefore it is acceptable for those people to be murdered. Whether we find it morally acceptable shouldn't be in comparasion to the peace of a country, the safety and security of the public and the value that person adds to society. If a person doesn't contribute to society, I believe it to be fair for them to be removed from society.

I'll look forward to your response.

[samuraiblood2]

I do agree that if the death penalty remained, that it would be great going by what you've said. However what's the difference of killing someone through such a civil dispute as opposed to a massacre with the mutilation? The only difference I see is that you did more to the victims of the latter than to the single victim of the civil dispute. Either way, it ended it death, just more deaths on the massacre, obviously. So by your saying, why would you put him to death for the massacre but not the single victim murder?The point I was trying to make was that the punishment would fit the crime as closely as possible. The half-baked situations I used as examples might not have accurately portrayed my idea, but basically yes. If the situation is understandable (such as with the husband killing his wife and/or wifes lover) then the punishment would be much less severe as opposed to that of a psychopath creating some kind of massacre.


Also, yes, the death penalty is a very large threat that has likely stopped terrible events. However, though, life in prison carries almost a just as threatening deterrent, does it not?
I think that may be up to perspective. To some, having their life literally taken away from them can be much worse then a life in prison. While on the other hand, some may realize how horrible prison can be (such as a former convict), and would rather prefer death. Although both will probably deter the average sane citizen from committing some hanus crime(s).

[Brayden]

I believe there should be a hierarchy of sorts when dealing with murder. Punishment in this hierarchy would depend on the state of the victims bodies, and the number of victims (more criteria could obviously be added). If one person is murdered through some civil dispute (say a husband caught his wife cheating) then he could get 15-25~ years in jail. If say its a massacre of some sort, where the bodies are hardly describable, I would imagine the perpetrator be put to death. Although going back on your idea of giving people a choice, perhaps the rougher levels of punishment could be life in prison or (obviously) death. I do however think the death penalty is not only a form of punishment, but also a psychological deterrent, whereas it defines that if you go beyond a certain point, you will die.

Your point has a problem, a VERY large percentage of the people who are doing this actually have very little fear of dying, it doesn't cross their minds, they just don't care it would seem because they are, well, 'messed up' I don't see your point being effective in the psychological sense according to your hierarchy.

[samuraiblood2]

Your point has a problem, a VERY large percentage of the people who are doing this actually have very little fear of dying, it doesn't cross their minds, they just don't care it would seem because they are, well, 'messed up' I don't see your point being effective in the psychological sense according to your hierarchy.
I was referring to the average person. Not someone with a preexisting psychological condition. It also wasn't apart of the hierarchy; I was just stating an added benefit of having it.

[yaminub]

In my opinion, all life sentences should be changed to death penalties. I dont want to pay my taxes to give food to somebody that will set in prison for dozens of years.

[Zykev2]

In my opinion, all life sentences should be changed to death penalties. I dont want to pay my taxes to give food to somebody that will set in prison for dozens of years.

Well I doubt you're old enough to pay taxes, but your point is still valid. Depending on where in the United States the person is housed at the cost of housing, and feeding an inmate can range up to $10,000-$25,000 a year multiply that by however long they're on death row which is usually over 10 years, and Tax payers have already spent $100,000 on 1 person.

[Acrylix]

An eye for an eye.

[Smudge]

An eye for an eye.

.. Makes the whole world blind. As Ghandi would say.

[Acrylix]

Its the only way if a guy kills thousands of people then only gets sent to jail...

[Zykev2]

Its the only way if a guy kills thousands of people then only gets sent to jail...

Link to this article?

[Acrylix]

Only the registered members can see the link. metaphor

[Zykev2]

Only the registered members can see the link. metaphor

Debating using Metaphors and exaggerations usually don't mix when trying to get your point across, try backing up your arguments with actual facts and articles of real events instead of just exaggerating and thinking off the top of your head.

[Acrylix]

metaphors are fine when used in context.

[2kbarrows]

I believe more cases should be taken into consideration of the death penalty.
Remove the X years in prison and add it into community service for crimes such as small thefts, although murder should be taken to the chair, or whatever each state has.

[Acrylix]

^ Agreed

[Zykev2]

metaphors are fine when used in context.

No they're not, you're not debating you're just talking out of your ass.

[mursanari]

I say that the death penalty is a necessary evil, because if a murderer gets caught do you really think he deserves to live after he thinks it's ok to take someones life? Do unto others as you would yourself.
Also I think just giving them life without parole would be a waste, I mean take up the tax payers money just to let someone rot in prison? No thank you.

EDIT: You do make a valid point but that's my opinion.
Lol, @do unto others as you would yourself, does that mean that the exocutioner needs to be killed aswell?
Life emprisonment is a far more harsh punishment, imagine being killed, then imagine living your life in a room the size of the bathroom and that smells of fart and week old potato, wouldnt that be a worse punishment then being killed?
And what if the person didnt do it, then they have been killed for no reason.

You really need to think about these things.

[Acrylix]

Dude i'm sure someone has murdered a father if the fathers children know that the murderer is only imprisoned they'll be pretty pissed...

[mursanari]

Dude i'm sure someone has murdered a father if the fathers children know that the murderer is only imprisoned they'll be pretty pissed...

so your saying you would rather spend your whole life in jail instead of being killed?

[Slik]

so your saying you would rather spend your whole life in jail instead of being killed?

A life sentence typicially isn't a person's whole life, in fact in the UK it averages at around 13 years.

Only the registered members can see the link.

[mursanari]

A life sentence typicially isn't a person's whole life, in fact in the UK it averages at around 13 years.

Only the registered members can see the link.

yeah but thats UK, in Australia you kill someone and get 20 or so years in jail, if you kill multiple people you get like a shitload ammount of years wich will surpass your age expectency so thats why its called life imprisonment.

Edit: My dick averages at about 13 inches :L thought i might just add that in too lighten up the mood... yeah.... i dont think it worked...

[2kbarrows]

yeah but thats UK, in Australia you kill someone and get 20 or so years in jail, if you kill multiple people you get like a shitload ammount of years wich will surpass your age expectency so thats why its called life imprisonment.

Edit: My dick averages at about 13 inches :L thought i might just add that in too lighten up the mood... yeah.... i dont think it worked...

Nobody cares about your 2 inch...
I find it absurd, that in Brazil, there is nor a life sentence or a death penalty, like i said, small cases such as theft, should be punished by community service, and maybe a fine.
As to the bigger cases, such as killing sprees, robbing the goverment, and just killing one person, should be taken to the death center.

[Slik]

yeah but thats UK, in Australia you kill someone and get 20 or so years in jail, if you kill multiple people you get like a shitload ammount of years wich will surpass your age expectency so thats why its called life imprisonment.

Edit: My dick averages at about 13 inches :L thought i might just add that in too lighten up the mood... yeah.... i dont think it worked...

I suggest you use facts and not estimates when debating.

"How long is a life sentence likely to be? This Trends and Issues
suggests that the average term of incarceration of lifers in Australia is
about 13 years."

Only the registered members can see the link.

Australia's legal and justice system is based of the UK's legal and justice system.

For specifics you can see this: Only the registered members can see the link.

Paul Denyer is serving a minimum sentence of 30 years, a far cry from life for him.

Only the registered members can see the link.

[Slik]

Nobody cares about your 2 inch...
I find it absurd, that in Brazil, there is nor a life sentence or a death penalty, like i said, small cases such as theft, should be punished by community service, and maybe a fine.
As to the bigger cases, such as killing sprees, robbing the goverment, and just killing one person, should be taken to the death center.

According to article 84; paragraph 19 of the brazilian constitution, there is allowance for both life sentences (longer than the 30 year limit) and the death sentence.

[2kbarrows]

According to article 84; paragraph 19 of the brazilian constitution, there is allowance for both life sentences (longer than the 30 year limit) and the death sentence.

Hmmm, oops, forgot bout the life sentence, but in my state, death penalty does not occur.

[mursanari]

I suggest you use facts and not estimates when debating.

"How long is a life sentence likely to be? This Trends and Issues
suggests that the average term of incarceration of lifers in Australia is
about 13 years."

Only the registered members can see the link.

Australia's legal and justice system is based of the UK's legal and justice system.

For specifics you can see this: Only the registered members can see the link.

Paul Denyer is serving a minimum sentence of 30 years, a far cry from life for him.

Only the registered members can see the link.

lol dude, i live in Australia and the Legal system is far better then the USA's 'legal system'.
I got my facts correct, just because you read something from some random article doesn't make it real.

[Trey]

lol dude, i live in Australia and the Legal system is far better then the USA's 'legal system'.
I got my facts correct, just because you read something from some random article doesn't make it real.

Unfortunately, living in Australia doesn't make you a reliable source of information for your country's legal system, sorry.

[Slik]

lol dude, i live in Australia and the Legal system is far better then the USA's 'legal system'.
I got my facts correct, just because you read something from some random article doesn't make it real.

What? Who even mentioned the US's legal system? I said your legal system is based off the UK's legal system, for obvious reasons. You don't have your facts correct, those are not random articles. You see the '.gov.au'? Those articles are published and approved by the Australian government, and lastly you are correct reading something from an article doesn't make it real, reading something from this particular article would make it correct.

By the clear ignorance you have displayed I would be much happier depending on my knowledge of law and not your speculation. Trey puts it well.

[riches321]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Slik]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Removing the initial wrong from the equation solves the problem though.

[Clayd]

I think the death penalty should be used more. Maybe then people would think twice about their actions before doing them.