David Garrett on why he is against the death penalty
November 13th, 2009 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarDavid Garrett has a blog I have discovered, and his latest entry is on why he is against the death penalty:
Having lived in a country where the death penalty remains on the books as a discretionary sentence for murder, I can say with some certainty that one of the results of having a capital sentence even as an option is what lawyers call “perverse verdicts” by juries unwilling to convict because they know or believe the person concerned will be executed, and they cannot cope with that on their collective conscience.
I suspect Garrett is right – more killers might be found not guilty, due to juror reluctance to return a verdict which can result in execution.
I have also come to believe that Life Without Parole (LWOP) which is available as sentence in many American States – and soon will be here – IS actually probably a worse punishment than the 20 or so seconds of terror prior to instant death by judicial hanging as was practiced here and in England.
The downsides of LWOP of course include the cost, and as Burton has demonstrated (he will never leave prison alive and he knows it), someone serving LWOP can kill again with impunity – there are guards as well as prisoners in jail – and there is nothing more the state can do.
I have different reasons for being against the death penalty. I just do not like the idea of giving the state the power to execute its own citizens – even the killers. Plus the chance of killing an innocent person.
Related posts:
- Juvenile Death Penalty struck down
- David Garrett on Three Strikes law
- Death Penalty for blogging in Iran
- The Death Penalty
November 13th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Here’s an old idea but one worth debating: why not reverse the role of judge & jury? Have a judge (or a panel of them) hear the evidence and arguments and assess guilt or innocence (which based on their experience and training, they are far better qualified to do than the average juror), then, if guilty, have a jury decide on a sentence.
If the death penalty was on the books, and a jury of peers felt the crime warranted it, they would have that option.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
OK, that’s Garret off my Christmas card list. Poncy wet liberal.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Nah, not a problem at all. The death penalty should be avaialble for the obviously guilty and evil ( Weatherston ), and the jury should have the option of giving them prison instead if they think it’s a borderline case. The appeals process should be time-limited to say, two or three years, with the cases being given priority in the courts to get them started as soon as possible, to avoid the ridiculous U.S. situation of prisioners on death row for twenty plus years. If you have a problem with the state pulling the switch on someone, you should also be against the state putting people in prison, because you can’t give someone back time any more than you can give them back life.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
hopefully burton kills a few more piece of shit inmates. its not like he will be hanging out in the minimum security wing.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
My argument for a death penalty is a little less convoluted and theoretical it goes like this…
Paul Joseph Dally
Clayton Robert Weatherston
Graeme Burton
Dean Stewart Cameron
Paul David Bailey
Theres more but when you can convince me that these guys have a right to continue to breath then you can tell me why we should pay for that to happen.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I think that if we are not going to execute these people, then their upkeep (food, heating, clothes etc) should be paid by public donation. Those who want to pay for them to eat can do so – and keep their consciences clear. If no-one does, they starve. In fact extend it to all prisoners. The State provides the walls and guards – the families and any other well-wisher pays for everything else.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I am against the death penalty because if killing is wrong for a murderer it is equally wrong for the state. Besides what of the people who do the executing? No one should be asked to do it and if anyone volunteers I would be highly suspicious of them.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Sorry DPF, some crimes are so abhorrent that the only suitable punishment for offenders is death.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
DPF
faulty logic here. “more killers might be found not guilty, due to juror reluctance to return a verdict which can result in execution”.
1st question to ask a prospective jury is “can you give someone a death sentence”?
If they answer no then they are off that jury as they can’t fulfill the statute available to them.
It doesn’t mean that they can’t be on a jury just one where the death penalty is an option.
We give the state the power, not the state giving it’s self the power as I understand it, or does the anti smacking law mark a turning point
I’m with PIA & Murray on this one and agree with Garret, LWOP is inhuman both to inmates and to guards.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I volunteer.
As long as there is no shadow of doubt.
So be suspicious of me then.
They will be dead and never do crime again ever.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I’m torn on the matter. One one hand, I find it perverse that we can defend the principle that “murder is wrong” by…murdering. It weakens the original principle we are supposed to be upholding, and in turn makes the death penalty even less appropriate.
On the other hand, there is something logical and satisfying about the “eye for an eye” school of thought.
Because I don’t really have a philosophical stand, I’d support it if it was proven that it actually reduces the crime rate for which it is a punishment, and that it was 100% certain an innocent person would never be in danger of being executed. I’m not sure either of these things are true, so I tend to side against it.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Sounds like you’d be happy to nail someone to a cross Mike.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
No Pete – I don’t think he sounded like he was wanting to torture people. He said he would be willing to act as executioner.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
On a lighter note…
Blackadder; Pigeon murderer, Court Marshall and Firing Squad.
The second clip is hilarious!
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“its not like he will be hanging out in the minimum security wing.”… pity that he is not hanging.Graeme Burton is a justifiable case for the death penalty.As was pointed out,the man has nothing to lose and has ~30 years or more to plan an attack…and going by previous record..
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Redbaiter:OK, that’s Garret off my Christmas card list. Poncy wet liberal.
Santa
Vote:Former Vice President Cheney
Patrick SwayzeLee Kuan Yew
Katy Perry
Sarah Palin and Family
David GarrettNovember 13th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Bob @ 1.23 is right – if it’s wrong for an individual to kill it’s wrong for the state to kill.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Except that under law, an execution is just that – it is not murder. Just like killing in self-defence is not murder, nor is killing an enemy soldier in war in the heat of battle.
The Germans didn’t murder my uncle Stan when he was killed in WWII in Egypt, but they did murder my English cousin Sidney when he was machine gunned against a barn wall in France by the SS in 1940 after he surrendered.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Redbaiter, how does the same mind that objects to taxation on the grounds that it is theft by the state decide that it is OK for the state to commit murder?
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Pete
I don’t remember listing crucifixion as one of the ways of topping them
Whilst like you I do have compassion for people, like many people I see that the death penalty is the right and ultimate sanction for the ultimate crime.
Again must be clear and clean.
As for state murder, if one is taking that line then logically the state has no business waging war on our behalf either?
Vote:Again it is not the state for we are the state, they are our agents.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Bob and homepaddock,
Playing devil’s advocate for a second,
Why if it’s wrong for the state to take away Life, do we let them take away Liberty and Property.
Why is it ok for the state to lock people up, when it’s not ok for an individual?
Why is it ok for the state to take your money, when it’s not ok for an individual?
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Make that the certainty of killing an innocent person.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
The villains on Murray’s list would be on anyones…and I can add a similar number of “criminals no reasonable person would mind seeing dead” to that list. But as I said in my original post on my own blog, I am aware that in Tonga there were no murder convictions for 20 years after the last executions in that country in 1982. (The murderers in question were undoubtedly guilty of a particularly nasty murder, and they lost their appeals).
There were of course several murders in Tonga between 1982 and 2002, but in several cases the juries returned verdicts of manslaughter which were clearly perverse verdicts.
As someone has noted above, there are ways around that problem including close questioning of jurors’ attitudes to capital punishment, and whether they would be willing to return a guilty verdict. That doesn’t stop jurors who find CP inherently immoral from lying, and getting on a jury so they can “save” a life by holding out for a not guilty verdict.
Probably the best system is that adopted by some US states which have death as a discretionary sentence, and where the Judge is solely responsible for the sentence. Jurors can then rationalise that they have simply returned the correct verdict; the decision on whether death is the appropriate punishment has been left to someone else.
However the political reality – for the reasons DPF has stated and for other reasons – I cannot see any possibility of the death penalty being restored here.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Easily fixed – do like they do in th US have a sentencing phase after the jury has entered a conviction for capital murder where the jury decides whether or not the ultimate sanction should apply.
Like many I am conflicted over this – on one hand God is the ultimate judge and we should leave it in his hands, on the other what do we do with a mad dog like Burton who as likely as not will kill again and with nothing to lose by doing so
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I’ll hold the ladder for Mike and take the hammer when he gets tired. some of you are just plain too bloody soft to do what needs to be done.
Nobody said it was nice. If you’re not prepared to anything to portect youselves don’t be shocked when you get some attention from people who do actually like hurting other people.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
What mind?
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Brian:
Self-defence is just that, defending your own life (or someone else’s) by taking another, and war is just a large-scale variation of that (think about it).
Executions are planned, detailed and clear-eyed. There is a world of difference. It is murder, just murder by the state, and murder of a less-than-honourable person.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
That doesn’t stop jurors who find CP inherently immoral from lying, and getting on a jury so they can “save” a life by holding out for a not guilty verdict.
Or changing their minds when they’re actually confronted with the very real prospect that a death penalty will result.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
David Garrett
“However the political reality – for the reasons DPF has stated and for other reasons – I cannot see any possibility of the death penalty being restored here.”
What a pity the words “death penalty” can be substituted for “welfare reform” “lower tax’s” and “one rule for all”.
Keep the pressure on the gutless Nat’s David, keep fighting for what is right and not for what is politically astute.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Easy. You lock him and all the other mad dogs up in a highly secure facility, do weekly aerial drops for food and let them fight for survival. The Auckland Islands springs to mind as a perfect place for such a facility.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Why don’t we set up a prison on Pitt Island or Auckland Island. Being surrounded and Isolated by rough waters, escape will be difficult. Maybe some freedom to exist with nature may take some of the pressure off being locked up for life. Furthermore, being isolated all their criminal associates cannot congregate nearby and supply them with drugs and other contraband. If the treehuggers complain, well just tell them to put it to the nation in a referendum.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I agree with Garrett that life without parole may be a worse punishment. But perhaps a Government to Government deal with China to take the lifers and they can go there to be forgotten.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Re Garrett’s reason, I have seen the opposite argued: after excluding potential jurors who have a problem with the death penalty, you actually end up with a jury that is more likely to convict. But I don’t know what would happen in practice.
I’m not in favour of the death penalty in general, but there are exceptional circumstances e.g.
Vote:1) People like Burton who commit crimes while in prison. If putting him in prison is not sufficient to keep others safe then we can consider doing more.
2) Where victims will always be in fear as long as the person is alive. Someone like Saddam Hussein for instance where some future regime change could see him freed and seeking retribution from those who opposed him.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Better than the death penalty for the likes of Weatherston is a lifetime of being bent over and done like a dog by other bigger and stronger prisoners.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
re the Burton case .. now I’m not one for getting stuck into our fantastic Police Force but what on gods name were they doing when they caught this shit head .. they shot him in the leg .. HELLO
Vote:rattatatatatatatatat etc .. stop when the magazine is empty.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
That is the reality here, there appears to be no likelihood of it changing and I’m happy to accept that.
If you can kill someone remotely from the safety of your keyboard you might be tough. Fronting up and doing it in person in this day and media age may be a tad more challenging.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Lets kill in the cases where evidence is unmistakeable. eg, the claytons/ burtons etc. Also, we’d need degrees of murder and only the top degree murder would be applicable for consideration of the death penalty.
If the evidence is somewhat circumstantial then the death penalty cannot be applied, even if found guilty. Under those criteria, Bain would not have been given the death penalty.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Life without parole is a great idea. The cost of having people out of prison can outstrip the cost of keeping them in. Regarding people having impunity to kill again with life without parole, thats crap, people always have something left to lose whilst they have a miniscule amount of freedom. 23 hours a day in a 2 by 4 room solitary with no windows will be worse than death without any chance to kill again.
Its also crap the idea that prison needs to cost $70,000 a year. There is no reason this could be cut back to $10000 a year at most, just make prison harsher with armed guards and 24 hour surveillance.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Incidentally, and fwiw, the Washington sniper murderer, who kept the area in fear for 20 days or so, has just been executed here in the States, with very little publicity (I saw it briefly mentioned in one opinion piece). Is that a bad thing…?
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I mentioned that yesterday Sam, it made me think. I have never liked the idea of executions, but it was tempting to back that one.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
God Pete you are so all over the place.
What is it you stand for on this issue?
Will he ever murder people ever again?
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Do you like the idea of young girls being raped and murdered Pete?
Being squeamish is no excuse for being soft.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I thought we only convicted in cases where the evidence is unmistakable..
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Well Mike, in a cool considered state I am happy to be against the death penalty, it’s an easy stand for me to take.
But I know that in the right circumstances I could probably support it. I also suspect I could execute if it came to the crunch and I believed it was justified, but I would hate to have to do it. I know I’m capable of it because I have knocked off quite a few animals.
So yeah, I am squeamish, but when necessary I know I’m not soft.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I think that people like Burton, Weatherstone, etc, should be housed in cells that are supplied with strong rope, sturdy hooks on the ceiling and wobbly stools. Along with copious supplies of sleeping pills.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Grizz @November 13th, 2009 at 2:25 pm – They’ll escape on a raft! Every 7th wave is a big one. Just ask Henri Charrière.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I’m against it simply because sooner or later we’ll kill someone innocent… Don’t want it to be me..!
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
“Juries unwilling to convict because they know or believe the person concerned will be executed, and they cannot cope with that on their collective conscience.”
Give the Jury the right to impose the death penalty, or as QUEENST. FARMER suggests have a complete roll reversal, the Judge with his University upbringing deciding if a case was established and a jury of the defendant’s peers deciding the penalty.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
“I’m against it simply because sooner or later we’ll kill someone innocent… Don’t want it to be me..!”
So how many innocents do you want to see die because of the failure of governments to enforce law? You might even be one of them.
Idiots who say there is no such thing as a 100% safe conviction need to suffer a bit of grevious bodily harm at the hands of a few vicious criminals just to set their damn thinking straight. Its these kind of doped up wet liberal wimps who share a large part of the blame for crime rates being so much higher over the last few decades than they’ve ever been.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
“However the political reality – for the reasons DPF has stated and for other reasons – I cannot see any possibility of the death penalty being restored here.”
See. That’s what happens. We elect a real person, and they go to Wellington, and fall in with the natives.
Mr. Garret, maybe you should think again about the advice and views you get from detached from reality Wellington liberals, balding four eyed academics, assorted overpaid shiny arsed bureaucrats and weaseling progressives posing as “Journalists”, and instead focus on what real NZers want.
You might be surprised at the level of support for the death penalty.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
You’re absolutely right. If there’s one thing that contradicts the laws of physics and probability and that shores up the justice system to ensure that all convictions are always 100% safe, it’s being subject to physical violence.
Thank you for your insight. I’m just going round to my neighbour to kick his head in on the grounds that if I don’t do that, more people will get away with more crimes.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Pete
sadly that is just why you would fail as a back up in an alleyway.
If you haven’t thought through and been persuaded/decided in your mind what you stand for and will stand for then you are iffy and I wouldn’t want you guarding my back metaphorically.
RB
I think you may be on to something there.
Chris C
Vote:well done we have been talking about where we know 100% that that person did it like weatherspoon/burton etc etc
Duh!
November 13th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I’m also losing my hair at the back. If I stab his dog in the eyes will that grow back?
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Ok let me get the liberal argument straight just so we can add some perspective to this discussion
So The Death penalty is Bad…somehow….liberals have decided that is is inherently evil to kill a prisoner by the state even though they may be the most vile person on earth, for instance Clayton Weatherson.
and on the other hand….
Abortion is a-OK because it is only a foetus, kinda like cancer and should be scraped out and done away with at the whim of the woman who is pregnant.
Right! So this is why liberals make me sick. Either it is ok to kill someone or it isn’t.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
If you want to increase violent crime in New Zealand then bring back the death penalty, every nutter with means will make sure they take 6 people before they die
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Life without parole.
Death sentence.
In both cases you go into prison and come out dead.
The only difference is time.
If LWOP is introduced I hope they have a clause allowing those so sentenced to commit suicide at their discretion.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
“every nutter with means will make sure they take 6 people before they die”
You mean like they did before the death penalty was abolished Inky?? Maybe you can give me the figures on how many times your predicted event occurred in NZ’s history. Of the 85 people who were executed prior to the death penalty’s abolition in 1989, how many “took six people with them?”
Here’s a list of the executions. You can read for yourself and then get back with the answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_New_Zealand
Gawd leftists are morons. Always always always.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Perhaps only folks in favour of the death penalty should be allowed on juries.
For that matter also allowed to vote.
And be an MP.
uh oh – -I guess all this would just support what I contend is the majority, democratic position of the population at large.
Referendum John?
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
The death Penalty for murder was abolished in New Zealand in 1961 (1989 removed death penalty for treason and some military convictions).
There is no evidence that a death penalty reduces murder rates. Yes we have a more violent society now than in anytime in the last 50 or 60 years. However murder rates are lower than in the late 19th century.
Maybe there are lower murder rates in counties with the death penalty like Iran, Saudi Arabia and China. I do know that the US has a higher murder rate than NZ and Finland a lower. That of course doesn’t prove anything. If Finland had the death penalty maybe their murder rate would fall.
It doesn’t sit comfortably with me to give the state (or a mob) the right to end someones life. I am not convince that all convicted murders are guilty (David Tamihere conviction makes my stomach uneasy) or that all those found not guilty are innocent.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Every individual has the right to freedom and the ultimate denial of freedom is murder which should result in the ultimate punishment of death for the murderer. It is the ability to be 100% sure that stops me from supporting the death sentence.
So I would work to stop the increase in violence that leads to the murders. Reform in our Drug policy, mental health treatment and welfare system would reduce crime by 10% to 30% at least.
This way there will be space and money to jail for life those that are truly evil
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Sorry Inky, can’t see the answer to my question in all that.
I asked you what was the basis for your claim that reinstitution of the death penalty would result in murderers “taking six people with them”.
I’ll ask again. Could you please point out how many times this happened before the death penalty was abolished?
If you cannot do that, I suggest you admit your claim was emotive crap. Irrational rubbish of the kind Progressives and liberals always resort to when discussing the death penalty.
“There is no evidence that a death penalty reduces murder rates.”
More worthless crap. There is a tonne of evidence.
What is more one only needs to look at the graph on this page-
http://www.safenz.org.nz/statsgraph.htm
and think about the fact that crime in NZ was a straight line for decades but started to climb not long after the last murderer was executed.
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
“It is the ability to be 100% sure that stops me from supporting the death sentence.”
So what is the chance Clayton Weatherston was not guilty?
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Why would I answer your question? When NZ had had the death penalty we had 2 million (?) people and no automatic weapons so the situation was not like today. How many did Minnie Dean kill? Several other on the list killed more
The US funded SST data goes back to the 1950s, I said 50-60 years which is the 1950s. The 1950s was the lowest point of murder in this countries history. Capital punishment was abolished 1935-1950 as well
Vote:November 13th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Sorry missed 3 words
Why would I answer your question? When NZ had had the death penalty we had 2 million (?) people and no automatic weapons so the situation was not like today. How many did Minnie Dean kill? Several other on the list killed more than one person.
The US funded SST data goes back to the 1950s, I said 50-60 years which is the 1950s. The 1950s was the lowest point of murder in this countries history. Capital punishment was abolished 1935-1950 as well.
Vote:November 14th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Wouldn’t that be evidence of the lack of a deterrent effect?
We abolished the death penalty quite some time after the last person was executed, but even the existence of the death penalty in that time (and the fact of an actual death under the death penalty) the murder rate still trended upward.
Vote:November 14th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Do you have a law just for the weatherstons?
Also did the crime increase because the death sentence was dropped, DPB introduced or cannabis was made illegal? or was it a increase in unemployment, TV or change in schooling?
Could it have been the beatles or Led Zep?
Vote:November 14th, 2009 at 12:02 am
“Why would I answer your question?”
Yes indeed, why would you. There is nothing exerting any pressure on you to do so, other than your own morality.
“When NZ had had the death penalty we had 2 million (?) people and no automatic weapons so the situation was not like today.”
I see, so its really the growth in population and the availability of automatic weapons in NZ that will allow murderers to “take six with them”. Good grief, to think you actually have the vote.
“The 1950s was the lowest point of murder in this countries history.”
What Sensibles Sentencing graphs really show is the Progressive’s steady Gramascian style undermining of NZ’s moral base. For if you’re going to institute socialism, you cannot have a moral citizenry. Blurring the line between right and wrong is what its all about, and that is another reason the death penalty, that plain and simple marker of evil, had to go.
Vote:November 14th, 2009 at 12:08 am
“We abolished the death penalty quite some time after the last person was executed,”
Not that long. Inky is right in that it was abolished for murder in 1961, a few years after the last execution in 1957. Have another look at when the crime graph starts to climb.
Vote:November 14th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Why doesn’t the SST graph go back to 1935, the year the death penalty was abolished (the first time)? I’m guessing the answer is that the evidence doesn’t suit them.
Vote:November 14th, 2009 at 12:19 am
For those liberals who make the weak claim that there is no evidence the death penalty is a deterrent-
http://www.wesleylowe.com/deter.html
Vote:November 14th, 2009 at 7:42 am
That’s the end of the usefulness of D.Garrett isn’t it?
Okay, lets take one step back and say, no death penalty but our most serious offenders in NZ are shipped off to Mainland China for punishment, Chinese style. Contract out the most serious offenders to a country that takes no prisoners.
Would cost a fraction of that $10,000 per year and the chances of them coming back to NZ are minimal. Panders to the sooky liberals who do not wish Murray’s list to go to the gallows, while at the same time satisfying their need that revenge is a dish best served cold. And they don’t come much colder than a Chinese prison.
Vote:November 14th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Great idea Cactus and maybe the liberal drop kicks can buy body parts from the kiwi’s in Chinese jails. It’s a win win Mr Parrot, mind you a Burton heart would be rather cold and costly. What a sick world.
Vote:November 14th, 2009 at 9:24 am
No to the death penalty, for the reasons DPF shows and because of a few more.
Vote:November 14th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
An interesting suggestion from an American: the Lethal Injection College Fund.
Vote:November 15th, 2009 at 10:11 am
ACT is supposed to be the liberal party, and one of his reasons for a opposing the death penalty is
‘I have also come to believe that Life Without Parole (LWOP) which is available as sentence in many American States – and soon will be here – IS actually probably a worse punishment than the 20 or so seconds of terror prior to instant death by judicial hanging as was practiced here and in England’
This guy is not a liberal
Vote: