Death Penalty Poll

August 18th, 2013 at 11:55 am by David Farrar

Front Page report:

More than a third of New Zealander’s would support the reintroduction of the .

 In a Curia poll  for TV3’s “ ”  of  624 respondents, 38 per cent were in favour of the death penalty, 55 per cent were against it, and 7 per cent were undecided.

35 per cent of Labour voters favoured the death penalty and National voters polled at 44 per cent. Least likely to be in favour were Green Party voters at 19 per cent, but the most in favour of capital punishment were New Zealand First voters at 84 per cent.

An interesting difference by party support.

Tags: , ,

136 Responses to “Death Penalty Poll”

  1. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    It cant come back soon enough. Our country is a violent cesspit.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. thedavincimode (6,590 comments) says:

    I acknowledge that I’ve been very critical of Dunne in the wake of Regogate, Vancegate and Ongoingspingate, but I don’t believe that the death penalty is warranted in his case.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. iMP (2,344 comments) says:

    Totally opposed. Be interested, though, in the breakdown between

    • Pro-Death Penalty
    • Pro-Euthanasia.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    One ought to be blind to deny some animals cannot be rehabilitated and the death penalty is society’s best option. Of course, a myriad of do-gooders, tree-huggers and (il)liberals will disagree.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Brian Harmer (686 comments) says:

    So tell me again how much the murder rate in death penalty states is less than other states.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. thedavincimode (6,590 comments) says:

    Brian Harmer

    Quite obviously, there are no repeat offenders.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. iMP (2,344 comments) says:

    Three names from three countries…. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, Lyndy Chamberlain, Arthur Allen Thomas.

    And we think we should have the power to execute people?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,329 comments) says:

    I think some are deserving of lifetime (or potentially lifetime) incarceration, but the death penalty doesn’t belong in a modern civil society.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. TimG_Oz (924 comments) says:

    It’s interesting. The Greens are incredibly vocal opponents of the death penalty in the West.

    When it comes to death penalty inside theocratical dictatorships, they are surprisingly tolerant!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Three names from one country

    Graham Burton

    William Bell

    Bruce Howse

    All 100% guilty and worthy of the rope.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. hj (6,738 comments) says:

    I would argue for the death penalty for extreme cases serial killers (psychopaths) and because it recognises that living is a privilege not an absolute right. It wouldn’t hurt for people to stop thinking of themselves as sacred/bees knees rather than (possibly) didymo. Arguments about mistakes or behaviour being the result of miss treatment are valid, but I don’t see why we can’t execute extreme cases. A prohibition on a death penalty is moral cowardice (I think?). It means we couldn’t execute Pol pot, Hitler, Nazi War criminals.
    ……..
    have to wonder about the 84% for NZ First. What if people in charge of these polls had an agenda (not that John Campbell etc…)?
    and funny how they poll their popular topics but not attitudes to immigration population? In fact it “leaked out” that Maori were most opposed to immigration.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. alex (301 comments) says:

    TimG – On the contrary, the reason many Greens are against the death penalty is because they subscribe to the Amnesty International influenced idea that the state should not have the power to kill. I think you will find that Greens who are against the death penalty here are also against the USA, Iran, China and North Korea using it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    liarbors a joke (789) Says:
    August 18th, 2013 at 11:58 am
    It cant come back soon enough. Our country is a violent cesspit.

    Yeah we should kill people to show how non violent we are !

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hj (6,738 comments) says:

    pete George says:

    but the death penalty doesn’t belong in a modern civil society.
    ………
    the old safe circular argument: “it’s barbarian”.
    Should we forbid suicide (self execution)?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    This is interesting…. if this poll is properly done, support for CP (Capital Punishment) has fallen sharply in the last 15 years. In 1999, when my book came out, TV One comissioned a proper poll on the issue (i.e. with a proper random sample, and not some write in bullshit one) and from memory the support for CP for our worst murders where there was near absolute certainty was over 60%…it was certainly very close to that.

    As regular readers will know, my view has changed somewhat since I wrote the book, largely because of my experience in Tonga. CP remains on the books as a discretionary sentence up there, but has not been used for 30 years. For twenty years after that, there were no murder convictions in Tonga – plenty of murders, but no convictions. Put very simply, the reason was the influence of the churches. Even in my time there, a number of ridiculous manslaughter verdicts were returned where the crime was clearly murder.

    For the same kind of reasons – although for “churches” read “youthful idealism and the Green Party” – I believe all introducing CP here would do is hugely increase what lawyers call “perverse verdicts” – verdicts of manslaughter when murder has clearly been committed.

    Also, I have come to realise that LWOP – which is now available as a sentence here – is in fact a much more onerous punishment than the 20 seconds or so of terror which preceded painless death by hanging as practised by the Brits – and less expertly, by us. Now all we have to do is appoint some Judges unafraid to give Non Parole Periods of 30 years or more, and LWOP in the most brutal of cases.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. flipper (3,846 comments) says:

    A interesting analysis DPF.

    Almost every one of those voting for the D Pen have no idea what they are wishing for, do they?

    I have been on a visit to death row at San Quentin, CA and seen those waiting.

    If it were not for the politics, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan (Robert Kennedy’s assassin) would have followed Cheesman and others.
    Sirhan was reading in his cell when when I (and two others) passed and looked in at him. (I haven’t bothered checking, but to the best of my knowledge he is still there, on death row.) The escorted walk through the place was enough to convince me that NZ, under the astute leadership of Ralph Hanan, made the correct decision.

    En passant, for those that wish for a return to earlier days, there is a major legal impediment – NZ has signed up to the International Convention outlawing capital punishment. Revocation of that would have major diplomatic repercussions that D Pen advocates and their followers do not understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    This PDF gives some incarceration rates. The country where the death penalty still stands in most states, has the highest rate, indicating that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

    http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Newsletter_PDF/Issue_101/Reducing_Imprisonment.pdf

    P.S. Strongly opposed to the death penalty for many reasons, primarily because punishing someone for killing, by killing them puts us both on the same level IMO. And of course our shocking ability to get it wrong, there is no coming back from death.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. TimG_Oz (924 comments) says:

    Come on alex, have a look at how often the Greens actually criticise Iran or China or Hamas for executing people.

    Lets just say it is disproportionate, at best. I have seen any number of justifications or denials from people like Keith Locke that Hamas even do it. They are legitimate colleagues!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. hj (6,738 comments) says:

    Given the low number of NZ First supporters in the poll isn’t it problematic to extrapolate 84%?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. adze (2,003 comments) says:

    hj

    Who says living is a privilege, or a right for that matter?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Andrew (82 comments) says:

    hj – presumably significance testing shows NZ First support being higher. The formula for testing includes the sample size.

    With a difference that extreme, I’d expect it to be significant even if the NZ First sample is very small.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Redbaiter (8,022 comments) says:

    As usual, all the pain in the arse libs writing here with their magnificent compassion for the offenders and none for the victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I love the way the resident god botherers cry rivers of crocodile tears over aborting bags of cells, but are all for killing actual living people.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. flipper (3,846 comments) says:

    *** “As usual, all the pain in the arse libs writing here with their magnificent compassion for the offenders and none for the victims. ***

    That’s right Red…
    Talking thru YOUR arse as usual.

    When your plea of NOT guilty to a murder that you did NOT commit is ignored by a bamboozled jury, and a corrupt prosecution wins, I look forward to your departure from this world. May it be painless.

    Good bye, silly bugger.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pete George (23,329 comments) says:

    Should we forbid suicide (self execution)?

    Why? That’s quite different – it’s a personal choice compared to state inflicted death. And it’s a bit difficult to punish suiciders anyway even if you did forbid it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    “Yeah we should kill people to show how non violent we are !”

    Sure. The death penalty is violent. But you cant sit around on your hands either looking at your naval.

    The time has come. We need to start dispatching some of those who are too far gone…and again I mention candidates Burton , Bell and Howse.

    Absolute scum of the scum.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. hj (6,738 comments) says:

    flipper says:

    En passant, for those that wish for a return to earlier days, there is a major legal impediment – NZ has signed up to the International Convention outlawing capital punishment. Revocation of that would have major diplomatic repercussions that D Pen advocates and their followers do not understand.
    ………..
    Have to say I get sick of the NZ chap signing things “on our behalf” and the “severe repercussions”… “on behalf” of all the offended peoples of the other nations represented (no doubt)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. MT_Tinman (3,045 comments) says:

    I’m against the state killing people – except of course for slow inconsiderate drivers and roadlice where mandatory capital punishment should be preceded only by corporal punishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Redbaiter (8,022 comments) says:

    Flip and the rest, using the patently absurd argument that uncertain cases mean the death penalty should be disallowed.

    Fine. Only use it in cases of certainty.

    Examples-John Lennon’s murderer.

    Reagan’s attempted murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. flipper (3,846 comments) says:

    hj

    Another demonstration that you are uninformed.
    NZ signs ONLY with the formal approval of the Cabinet – acting on multi-level advice.

    BUT you do have a point.
    I believe all such signatures should be contingent upon a two thirds majority of The Parliament – NOT the Executive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    “Three names from three countries…. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, Lyndy Chamberlain, Arthur Allen Thomas.”

    Rubin Carter was as guilty as sin.
    http://members.shaw.ca/cartermyths/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Red,Another good candidate for the death penalty is that cop who gunned down a courier driver for having the wrong skin tone. No uncertainty there.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. flipper (3,846 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (4,177) Says:

    August 18th, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    Flip and the rest, using the patently absurd argument that uncertain cases mean the death penalty should be disallowed.

    Fine. Only use it in cases of certainty.
    ****

    What is “certainty”?
    Two trials? Three?
    A “confession” ?
    The most unreliable of all witnesses – the eye witness ?
    An analysis of the strands by Fisher or McDonald?

    There is only, ever, “the balance of probabilities” (aka beyond a reasonable doubt), which for any civilised person is insufficient.
    Grow a brain, dear child..

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. LabourDoesntWork (286 comments) says:

    It’s funny how knuckle-dragging secular materialists (bags of cells) don’t see the consistency in defending the innocent with punishing the guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. tvb (4,255 comments) says:

    It is fine in theory but will it work in practice. It could be tolerated in cases where ID is certain. I can think of someone like Richard Weatherstone. But then locking him in a cage for the rest of his natural life might seem just. Those with a violent past with a first strike will not get parole. So those ones will stay locked up until they are geriatrics. Fair enough too. But cases where ID is not certain are problematic. David Bain??? The hope and Smart murderer Scott Watson?? Tamahwre?? Is it just that they should live but not Weatherstone.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    LabourDoesntWork thinks killing people shows how sacred life is. Should you not be off sacrificing a Goat or something today ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. V (694 comments) says:

    I agree with red in alot of cases but not on this one, humans are just too falliable to be put in charge of a life/death judgement system, that should belong only to ones maker (and hey I’m not religious).
    You say only use it in cases that are certain, but in those cases (say a blatant execution killing witnesses by everybody) you probably find they are prepared to die, and with lethal injection it is the easy way out.
    A life sentence of really hard labour would be more punishing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. peterwn (3,213 comments) says:

    Trying to do a cost-benefit study for death penalty v life without parole would be useful. It needs to far deeper than custody and food costs. If it shows that the death penalty is uneconomic or only marginally economic this is a persuasive reason not to have it, but not the converse. Also in the case of murder, it is likely in a portion of cases (eg provocation, self defence with excessive force, etc), the offender is extremely unlikely to re-offend – death penalty would not be appropriate in such cases. Also for the death penalty to be ‘engaged’ a higher standard of proof than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ would need to be adopted.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Questions for the key board warriors.

    1. How many here are capable of pulling the handle themselves? Seriously think about ending a life and then answer, even if he is a shit bag.

    2. How many would prefer that the nasty killing bit is done by a third party, (much like society uses the police to actually deal with these shit bags )and the key board warriors can just sit back and say ” that prick deserved it’.

    3. Last question, how many people here are capable of walking into a room and committing an act of violence on a total stranger on the say so of a third party.

    I would imagine for the majority on here the last time they were involved in an act of violence was in the school yard.

    There is a huge gap between public outrage and then at a later date commit an act of violence absolutely dispassionatly.

    I have lots of experience dealing with every type of animal that exists in this fair country of ours and I am totally opposed to the death penalty. The most compelling reason I feel this way is that the majority of you would want some other poor bastard to do the executing to make you feel good

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. LabourDoesntWork (286 comments) says:

    The poll only gauges people support for the IDEA of the death penalty. Not some particular implementation of it. Myself, I support it on principle, but I certainly don’t support it as applied in the North Korean or Saudi Arabian justice systems. The problem is in implementation: 1) what crimes it is for? 2) is the justice system perfect?
    The possibility of executing an innocent man (2)) applies to any justice system I know of, and is the only possible reason (and valid at that) I see for opposing the death penalty IN PRACTISE for the most heinous of crimes, such as the rape and murder of a mother and burning to death of her children. In GODLESS Ann Coulter talks about the Willie Horton case to argue for the death penalty and against weak-kneed left-wing leniency by the same “compassionate” people who support partial-birth abortion and can’t get enough taxpayer funding to pay for abortions, especially of non-white women …thanks to scum like Helen Clark.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. LabourDoesntWork (286 comments) says:

    Poor Kea hasn’t figured out that some crimes are so serious that they are deserving of death.

    Personally, I’m yet to see any evidence that this love for the lives of the worst criminals translates into a society that is safer or any more respectful of life in general, or that the love for the taking of unborn life has done anything to reduce the cases of child abuse, or reduced the numbers of uncared-for children.

    Somehow I don’t think there’s going to be much substance added to the discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. adaman (38 comments) says:

    I’m completely opposed to the death penalty as I don’t believe the state should have the power to take the life of any individual, no matter how wicked they are. The state will only pursue its own survival and increase in power and by allowing it to take the life of its citizens, it will open the state to abuse its powers. Besides, CP is not worth one innocent life dying in turn for a hundred guilty ones.

    But here’s a thought. If CP is bought back, every time a case appears where CP is the option, we should do a referendum to see who agrees that person X should die. This way in the case it turns out person X was innocent, then all those who believed person X should die, should now face CP.

    If you believe in CP and believe someone is guilty and they should die and it turns out they were innocent, I think you should be next on the block. Eye for an eye in a way.

    Obvious technical issues here, but hey, if your belief in someone being guilty is strong at the time of sentencing and thus face CP, then only fair you face the consequences of your beliefs in the case you’re wrong.

    This is just an idea for thought provoking reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. OneTrack (2,818 comments) says:

    Tvb – “Is it just that they should live but not Weatherstone.”

    Yes?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. gravedodger (1,528 comments) says:

    Totally opposed.
    Neither do gooder, tree hugger, liberal scum or any other of the traits deemed necessary.
    Oh yes when discussing Bell, Weatherston, and even the scumbag Parker last week, it is just so simple but who decides the douche bag is sufficiently guilty.
    Not juries, as getting a conviction for a Weatherston by 12 citizens who are in effect taking the life of another on conviction and rest assured the lawyer charged with “defending” it, will not hesitate to ensure those 12 will have to wrestle with that and knowing it would only require one juror to be unable to have even a bastard as bad as him killed in the cold light of emotionless reasoning would rarely be possible.
    What about the prison staff who are required to carry out the task, sure there are any number of brave souls here, hiding behind a nom d plume who shill about a 20 cent solution, it would cost so many eye watering dollars of process, years of appeals and at the end of it all there might just be another A A Thomas involved.

    Then just for a moment think of the reaction if the condemned person was a close relative or friend and you knew for absolently no doubt, certain and unquestioningly that person was not guilty but the system with all the inherent failures we are all aware of, had got it wrong.
    Would sitting outside the prison with its death house while the judicial killing was happening be sufficient comfort that it was all for the common good, sort of collateral damage.

    As for the clincher, for me, would a swift painful end possibly for an unrepentent and arrogant nut job be more satisfying as a penalty or would incarceration until death from the prisoners own hand, natural death, or being in constant fear of imminent attack from a fellow inmate be the more Justice laden outcome for all those who everyone considers a candidate for capital sanction.

    Have sentences that consign these rejects of society to a cell with minimal comforts is the solution I favour until they start to decompose.

    I know my superficially compassionate opposition is probably no less sick than those rabid souls calling for judicial killing but I have one thing in my favour, my solution can be reversed however unlikely or unimportant that fact may be.

    Disclaimer, I have in moments of passion and rage advocated the provision in a cell, of a stout hook, a short rope and a rickety stool but doubt when push came to shove I would provide them if it was my call.

    My vote is an unequivical no.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    LabourDoesntWork , no I actually do not think that.

    In order to support the death penalty requires a faith in our system that I think is misguided and rather alarming. We have an ok legal system, but it is not that good. Some people on here have a subservience to authority that is approaching a fetish.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    “………I believe all introducing CP here would do is hugely increase what lawyers call “perverse verdicts” – verdicts of manslaughter when murder has clearly been committed…….”

    FFS Garrett lawyers arn’t the beholders of all wisdom: :cool:

    Jurors only need to be explained to by judges that: Justice is far different than compassion, and misguided compassion is not justice.

    Mussolini, hanged from a lamppost in 1945, died so disgracefully that his own fascists never made him a martyr, and the Nazis hanged in Nuremberg in 1946 never got to rally the faithful again in beer halls or Argentinian cafes. If only we could have hanged Hitler, too, for the shaming example.

    Let such monsters live and you may come to regret it – for few grow into saints.

    How ‘perverse’ is it that kiwis can’t walk the streets at night around gang HQ’s in fear of getting a ‘life threatening bashing’ in the neighbourhoods that they ‘rally the faithful’ from?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. OneTrack (2,818 comments) says:

    V – “A life sentence of really hard labour would be more punishing.”

    The problem is we don’t do either of them – life sentence or hard labour.

    If you did have both then there would be less demand for capital punishment. But, as it is now, the perception is that you can kill someone, be back out in a fairly short time (parole, remission, he’s a good boy really,…..) and kill someone else -Graeme Burton springs to mind. And if prison was such a bad place to go to you wouldn’t get so many people who really aren’t worried about being sent there.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. artemisia (225 comments) says:

    I am agin CP. While living, there is the possibility of redemption.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Harriet

    How ‘perverse’ is it that kiwis can’t walk the streets at night around gang HQ’s in fear of getting a ‘life threatening bashing’ in the neighbourhoods that they ‘rally the faithful’ from?

    Could you please give me these gang HQ addresses that you know of please so I don’t walk around them at night or are you just spouting emotional bullshit as per normal and should be ignored.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. tvb (4,255 comments) says:

    Had Weatherstone been facing the death penalty would the jury have convicted him of murder and not manslaughter. It is just possible a jury especially on these figures may have convicted him of manslaughter. That is less likely now that the provocation defence is removed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. cha (3,856 comments) says:

    And once again the stupid piece of shit harry-it passes off another writer’s words as it’s own. Today it’s Andrew Bolt’s work.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/dead-monsters-hatch-no-plans/story-e6frf7jo-1111118008895

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    cha#

    I got those 2 paragraphs out of the 6 I posted from another site – but yeah you are right – they arn’t discredited! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    Having had contact with people who have lost loved ones to murder and manslaughter, the spread would be relatively even. Some say the death penalty for the killer, whilst others argue that is too easy, and make them live behind bars without freedom knowing what they have done. A quick easy painless death is too good for them, and in most cases it was not what they offered their victims.

    I have even had one family say that the person should be imprisoned but encouraged to get their life together, so that they can make it count, in memory of the victim. Rather a mature and awfully forgiving nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    “……Could you please give me these gang HQ addresses that you know of please so I don’t walk around them at night or are you just spouting emotional bullshit as per normal and should be ignored…..”

    Fine, I’ll change the geography to the entire fucken country then.

    Now give us court records that DON’T show that gang members and their associates arn’t the most violent sub culture in NZ. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. kowtow (7,949 comments) says:

    I am for CP.While living there’s a possibility of re offending.

    In fact it happens all too often.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. nasska (10,910 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay at 1.16 makes a bloody good point. If anyone feels that the death penalty is such a good idea they need to be totally certain in their own minds that they could fire the bullet, flick the switch or operate the trapdoor that ends another human being’s life.

    I may be a cynic but I’ve met a couple of people who talk tough but hand them a knife & ask them to kill a dog tucker ram & they’ll walk away. Most of us could kill an adversary in the heat of the moment but you need to be nearly psychopathic to kill in cold blood.

    Execution is just that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Tookinator (216 comments) says:

    CP for those who wear sunglasses on their heads at night time…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    nasska, you make another good point. You would have to be a bit of a sicko to do the job.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Chris2 (768 comments) says:

    I’m in the USA presently and I asked a retired Texas Deputy Police Chief his opinon on this.

    He’s against it for only one reason – cost. He said inmates could be on Death Row for years and years, decades even. and the cost to the State of all the lawyers defending the inmate up to the Texas Supreme Court made execution more expensive than keeping the inmate locked up for the rest of his life.

    I have little doubt the same thing would happen in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. nasska (10,910 comments) says:

    It goes further than that Kea. Doubtlessly someone would put their hand up to do the job but effectively they would only be the accomplice of the crowd who knitted in front of the guillotine or raved on a blog.

    Most on here screaming for the death penalty would end up petitioning for clemency when push came to shove.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. thedavincimode (6,590 comments) says:

    You would have to be a bit of a sicko to do the job.

    It seems that the phoney Christian is volunteering. Oh, but …

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Reid (16,111 comments) says:

    Most of us could kill an adversary in the heat of the moment but you need to be nearly psychopathic to kill in cold blood. Execution is just that.

    Muldoon in his young turk book described how when the death penalty repeal was under debate I think Holland gave all the young parliamentarians the opportunity to visit with the state executioner and he said after that visit, none of them were in favour of it.

    This is probably why in military firing squads they often have only one real bullet and the rest are blanks but no-one knows who got the real one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    Now we have Nasska and Kea – and Paul of Easy Bum – to scared to underpin the Sanctity of Life.

    But that’s the progs for you: appeasers of child murderers.

    Reality is a bit too confronting for these three – that’s why they go on and on and on about God. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. kowtow (7,949 comments) says:

    chris2

    No cost if done quickly.Cost of life incarceration very high. Cost of a murderer released after 10 and then murdering again,simply too high.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. nasska (10,910 comments) says:

    Good that you are here to share with us Harriet. How do you fancy yourself in the role of state executioner…..checking the knots, weighing the prisoner, hoping that you get it right this time & it doesn’t take five minutes for him to choke to death.

    And of course having your worthless Bible open at the right page so you can mumble some sanctimonious crap about God’s love & mercy for souls.

    Sure you’d be up to it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. thedavincimode (6,590 comments) says:

    Thou shalt not kill.

    Pahh. Just some old wives’ homily found on a papyrus kebab wrapper blowing around in the desert. Probably ripped off from a Chinese fortune cookie.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. smarsh (6 comments) says:

    AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY.
    1. What if they are actually innocent?
    2. If they committed the crime, they should live a long and slow life behind bars.

    Judith, I agree with you in one sense but strongly disagree on the other hand. The death penalty is an easy way out and if one is guilty of taking anothers life then they should be a victim to a long and painful life.

    When I first heard of this case of US woman, Jodi Adrias killing her boyfriend, I couldn’t help but think, if Adrias wanted to die, she shouldn’t have the privilege. If you take someones life, you should rot in jail for a lifetime.. Getting ‘put out of your misery’ by a death sentence, just seems like the easy option out.

    But to say “the person should be imprisoned but encouraged to get their life together, so that they can make it count, in memory of the victim” – I cannot disagree with this more. to live a better life because the victim can’t? In my eyes; Once a killer, always a prisoner.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Colville (2,190 comments) says:

    Chris2 @ 2.50.
    Spot on.
    Lock em up and throw away the key.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. thedavincimode (6,590 comments) says:

    I guess on the plus side we wouldn’t have all this silly nonsense about compensation at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Harriet (2,227) Says:
    August 18th, 2013 at 2:55 pm
    Now we have Nasska and Kea – and Paul of Easy Bum – to scared to underpin the Sanctity of Life.

    But that’s the progs for you: appeasers of child murderers.

    Are you out with unwanted cell bags being aborted ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. thedavincimode (6,590 comments) says:

    Only use it in cases of certainty.

    We need to be able to distinguish between the guilty, who should be incarcerated, and the really, really guilty who can go off for the chopper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. wally (63 comments) says:

    “Tookinator (176) Says:
    August 18th, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    CP for those who wear sunglasses on their heads at night time…”

    And people who speed up in passing lanes….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. nasska (10,910 comments) says:

    But Davinci…..who amongst us would be privy to such information? Who could be absolutely certain to get it right every time?

    Probably only God & those he talks to but where would we find such mortals?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Chris R (65 comments) says:

    We do have the death penalty: John Key dished it up to TV3′s vile gnome last Wednesday.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    Harriet: You really are a very stupid woman aren’t you? How the F did you get that I thought LAWYERS were fonts of all wisdom from what I said at 12.35 ? It is a JURY who decides whether the man is guilty or not, not lawyers..not even the Judge.

    Here’s a real life example from Tonga…soldier thinks his wife is having an affair (tragically she wasnt, which made what happened that much worse.) He drives to the army barracks and checks out a firearm on false pretext. He then drives to his wife’s workplace where he holds her hostage for several hours, and tries to get her to confess to her (non-existent) infidelity. Eventually he shoots her in the head, killing her instantly. That’s about as clear a case of premeditated murder as one could imagine. No insanity defence was offered, just lack of intent and provocation.

    Jury verdict – guilty of manslaughter (defined as killing by an unlawful act, such as assault, where there is no intent to kill). Reason for verdict: Clergymen – who have massive influence in Tonga – telling their congregations that if they found the man guilty he would hang (not true, the sentence there is discretionary) and that they would go to hell for causing his death. The JURY made that decision…can you follow that Harriet?

    If we had CP, the very same thing would happen here, albeit for different reasons. You will have vegetarians/pacifists/animal rights fanatics/Green Party members all solemnly swearing they could bring in a guilty verdict even though the sentence might be death…and often many of them would be lying. Result: a plethora of perverse verdicts and hung juries.

    PEB: Just for the record, Yes, I could push the lever (it was pushed not pulled) on a William Bell or Graeme Burton…I had to answer that very question for myself before I wrote a book advocating CP. I am pretty damn sure I wouldn’t enjoy it, but yes, I could do it. That is not the reason I have changed my view. Those who have no real idea what is involved should rent the movie “Pierrepoint”…completely historically and technically accurate…right down to Pierrepoint hanging a casual acquaintance whose real name he only learned hours before the executed him.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    smarsh (2) Says:
    August 18th, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    …But to say “the person should be imprisoned but encouraged to get their life together, so that they can make it count, in memory of the victim” – I cannot disagree with this more. to live a better life because the victim can’t? In my eyes; Once a killer, always a prisoner.

    Those weren’t my opinions Smarsh, my previous employment bought me into contact with the family of victims of murder, I was making comment on the many things I had been told regarding the death penalty by those people.

    I do not believe in the death penalty. Whilst I accept that some people would be better off dead, I do not think killing people is the answer, I always believe that the legal process should never be finite. As we have seen with cases where technology has improved and people who were incarcerated as guilty, have been proved to be innocent (and vice versa).

    I do think our legislation needs an overhaul regarding sentencing and the prison system needs similar. But I do not believe in a civilised society, the killing of anyone should be considered as an option.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. nickb (3,675 comments) says:

    Reagan’s attempted murder.

    David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    “……Jury verdict – guilty of manslaughter (defined as killing by an unlawful act, such as assault, where there is no intent to kill). Reason for verdict: Clergymen – who have massive influence in Tonga – telling their congregations that if they found the man guilty he would hang (not true, the sentence there is discretionary) and that they would go to hell for causing his death. The JURY made that decision…can you follow that Harriet?…..”

    Yep.

    The ‘clergymen’ arn’t following scripture – we ARE allowed to kill for the right reasons – to UPHOLD the sanctity of life.

    “…..If we had CP, the very same thing would happen here, albeit for different reasons…..”

    I don’t think so – what about saving the ‘truely innocent’ from death – the NEXT child and adult victims? or don’t you think that hanging would reduce the number of killings?

    What about underpinning the sanctity of life – by placing innocent lives above all else? Do you think that the courts shouldn’t put that above all else?

    So what ‘educational speeches’ are the legal fraternity giving in Tonga – and NZ ? – Sounds like fucken none!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Akaroa (552 comments) says:

    As David Garret pointed out at 1235, in States where capital punishment is in force, there is a tendency for Courts/juries not to convict for a capital offence but rather convict for a lesser level of offending – manslaughter – for which the death penalty is not imposed.

    The reason for this – to me at least – is simple and clear. Ask yourself, if you were on a jury trying a capital case how comfortable would you be to subscribe to a verdict that imposed the death penalty on another person?

    If people are honest, i believe that many of us would be distinctly UNcomfortable to be responsible in part for the termination of the life of another human being.

    If any adjustment in this area is actually warranted, then IMHO it should be in the direction of ensuring a life sentence is just that – a sentence for the natural lifetime of the offender.

    However, even that solution is not perfect. Why? Well how are you going to control the behaviour and conduct in prison of an individual who has no opportunity to earn any remission for good behaviour? Remission is the carrot by which the – comparatively – good behaviour of prisoners can be encouraged.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    Twenty years ago Teina Pora would have hung for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett. At the time of his trial, but not at the time of his arrest, the belief that the perpetrator was a serial rapist had been set aside, although that has been denied by police and the DSIR who said the methods of the time were very slow to enable the DNA gathered from 3 rapes to be analysed in good time. Whichever is the case, 4 to 5 years after Pora would have been executed by the state, Malcom Rewa would have been arrested for the 3 rapes and over a dozen more.

    The truth about the Rewa case, that of David Bain and others will continue to reveal itself. I know the police ‘worked hard’ to secure a 2nd conviction for Thomas, in the Pora case they worked in such a way that whether they could plainly see it or not, to ensure that Rewa would not be convicted of Burdett’s murder, or that it was highly unlikely because they ‘stuck with’ the need to still have Pora present during Rewa’s rape of Burdett which he explain was not a rape at all but some kind of affair. In fact police were trying to prove the investigation and conviction which followed for Pora was legitimate, maybe somebody might think the same wouldn’t have applied if the DP was on the statutes but I doubt it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    Never thought I’d agree with David Garrett. Either he has matured or I have. Well said, David.

    Apart from David’s very sensible view I am opposed because the DP IS barbaric. It cheapens life and encourages others to kill. There is no evidence it is a deterrent. And, of course there is a danger of killing an innocent party.

    Support for executions are a fad. When a really nasty murder is committed supports rockets. Then, after a few days, it dies down again.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. smarsh (6 comments) says:

    Judith – the family of murdered victims that you have come across in the past, did they feel that if the murderer made better of their life, then they are respecting the memory of who they killed? This is a bizarre concept to me, though of course everyone forgives in different ways and I honestly don’t think I could fully have a legitimate opinion on this without living it myself.

    I’m not religious though I cannot agree more with the commandment “Thou Shall Not Kill”

    Nobody should have the right to take ones life, and a following the comment of adaman at 1:29pm – If the state is given the power to end ones life because they ‘deserve’ to die, I can only imagine how this power will expand. If we don’t have a basic right to LIFE, what do we have?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    DG

    Pierrepont even changed his view on CP mind you it took 435 executions to do it but none the less.

    You are not normal if you can carry out that much death.

    Nosty twenty years ago Pora wouldnt have been the only one hung would he?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    “…..Harriet: You really are a very stupid woman aren’t you? How the F did you get that I thought LAWYERS were fonts of all wisdom from what I said at 12.35 ? It is a JURY who decides whether the man is guilty or not, not lawyers..not even the Judge….”

    Here’s what you wrote:

    “…..I believe all introducing CP here would do is hugely increase what lawyers call “perverse verdicts” – verdicts of manslaughter when murder has clearly been committed…..”

    To have come to an educated decision about such a serious matter – then you would be armed with the opinions/evidence/wisdom of people who are either lawyers or are educated to a higher degree in law ect to declare ‘what lawyers call “perverse verdicts”…..’.

    It looks somewhat like the preconceived opinions or ideals of those who are educated in the law far outweigh a public education drive as to why CP should be used. In other words Garrett – you’re giving in. You went out and educated the public on 3S but when it comes to CP – you don’t seem to want to.

    As I said: “…..Jurors only need to be explained to by judges that: Justice is far different than compassion, and misguided compassion is not justice…..”

    Here’s what a few other educated people are saying:

    “No matter what can be said for abolition of the death penalty, it will be perceived symbolically as a loss of nerve: social authority no longer is willing to pass an irrevocable judgment on anyone. Murder is no longer thought grave enough to take the murderer’s life, no longer horrendous enough to deserve so fearfully irrevocable a punishment. When murder no longer forfeits the murderer’s life (though it will interfere with his freedom), respect for life itself is diminished, as the price for taking it is. Life becomes cheaper as we become kinder to those who wantonly take it.”

    “Requiring the death penalty for murder upholds rather than denigrates the importance of life. If life is so unimportant that one can snuff it out with only minimal punishment, life is trivialized. However, if the criminal’s life is taken when he kills someone, the seriousness of the crime and the importance of the life are underscored……….It is the dignity of man which is actually elevated with the death penalty. It takes seriously both the dignity of man and those who would seek to deprive an innocent person of his life. As Walter Berns put it, capital punishment “serves to remind us of the majesty of the moral order that is embodied in our law and of the terrible consequences of its breach.”

    “Capital punishment cannot and never will be able to deter all murderers. But this does not mean for a moment that it won’t deter any murderers. When the criminal, particularly the murderer who premeditates his crime (the same murderer against whom most of the state capital murder statutes have been drawn)[US] has an opportunity to weigh cost versus gain, cause and effect, he may well think twice if he knows that he will, in all likelihood, be put to death for his actions.”

    “Threats of punishment cannot and are not meant to deter everybody all of the time. They are meant to deter most people most of the time. If sizable and credible, they do. . . . Thus in considering a legal threat, the basic question is not ‘Will it deter everybody?’ but rather ‘Will it deter enough additional crimes, compared to a milder threat, to warrant the additional severity?’”

    “If the evidence is ultimately inconclusive, one cannot expect to prove the rightness or wrongness of capital punishment based on the deterrence issue. We do not think this matters, because we believe capital punishment can be justified on other grounds.”

    It’s morally right to hang muderers. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    It’s morally right to hang muderers

    Fuck wit extremis.

    plus there are alot worse people in our society than the odd murderer. There are people out there who are plain fucking evil, who will destroy life after life committing crimes that are not even elibible for life imprisonment let alone death.

    Most killings are as a result of a brain fart , by a person incapable of problem solving without reverting to extreme violence – but to premeditae the physical destruction of a child is far more deserving of the chop , the Capels of this world are the ones who should be dancing with their feet off the ground if the state were to legalise the killing of prisoners.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    @ smarsh

    The family that made that comment were not religious. But they clearly did not want the person responsible for killing their daughter put to death either. The offender was young, and their victim impact statement was critical of him and the really bad choices he made. They stated that if he was genuine in his apology for the crime, whilst in prison and when he eventually got out he would do everything he could to make up for his mistakes and be the very best he could to show that his remorse was genuine, that he owed it to his victim to make something of his life and learn from what had happened and do everything possible to change the type of person he was, into someone that would show he had some honour for their daughter’s memory.

    I understood what they were trying to say was that if he came out of prison and continued along the same lines, then there was nothing for them to hope for, but if he came out and worked hard and learned to control his violence, then at least there daughters death would have had meaning, in that it had made him turn his life around. I though it was a very mature comment and something I’m not sure I would have had the grace to offer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    “…..Fuck wit extremis.
    plus there are alot worse people in our society than the odd murderer. There are people out there who are plan fucking evil who will destroy life after life committing crimes that are not even elibible for life imprisonment let alone death….”

    There really is no comparison. Yes of course some child abusers should be shot -but- the case we are talking here is about murderers – those who take Life.

    As Walter Berns put it, capital punishment “serves to remind us of the majesty of the moral order that is embodied in our law and of the terrible consequences of its breach.”

    Society has almost given up on protecting life by treating muderers with more and more ‘compassion’, so of course the punishment for ‘lessor’ crimes will be lessor again – leading to more and more people committing those types of horrendous crimes.

    “If justice is applied unequally, then we should work to assure that it is applied equally, not abolish justice altogether. The same thing holds true for capital punishment. We do not argue that all medical treatment should be abolished until everyone has it equally, even though more poor and minority people will die from lack of treatment than others. Why then should capital punishment be abolished until equal percentages of all races are executed?”

    Go to a court and hear all the crap that defense lawyers spout about their ‘poor client’ so that the sentance is reduced.

    Why on earth PEB would you undermine the Sanctity of Life by comparing it to lessor crimes than the ‘taking of life’?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    Jesus H Christ…as the yanks used to say…Why the hell did I engage with such an idiot as that woman?

    PEB: An interesting coda to Pierrepoint’s story is that towards the end of his life he changed his mind again. When he wrote his autobiography in 1974, the profile of murder and murderers in Britain wasnt a lot different from when he had been at his most active in the 1930′s and 40′s. As you know very well, right into the 80′s the majority of murders were domestic in nature, or at least where the murderer and victim were known to one another…neighbours or workmates, if not lovers or spouses.

    By the 80′s though, things began to change, and by the late 80′s Miller says that in 40% of cases the murderer was unknown to his victim…contract and drug related killings began to be, if not common, then not unknown. Late in his life Pierrepoint said that when he had said what he did in 1974, he was referring to the pointlessness of the executions he had carrried out, almost all of them sad sordid little stories involving love, hate, and betrayal. By the time he was an old man, things were very different in Britain, as indeed they were here.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    “…..Jesus H Christ…as the yanks used to say…Why the hell did I engage with such an idiot as that woman?….”

    I think we could both agree that NZers can be educated as for the need to have capital punishment.

    Well you did educate them for the need of 3S didn’t you?

    I don’t see any reason why we should ‘piss about’ further with murderers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Well Harriet it’s like this, when Mr Harriet has a total ring full of attempting anything like a sensible yarn with you and instead just looses it in the kitchen and ventilates you several hundred times , I can understand that. He probably shouldn’t have aerated you but I can understand it , in the heat of moment he does something morally and legally wrong.

    I also understand the hypocritcalness and criminal offending of a Graham Capel , but the way I think however is that Mr or Mrs Harriet just fucked up and had a bad day whereas Capel planned lied and connived ,so bugger him and the horse he rode in on, ergo his offemding is to the power of ten worse than that of the Harriet slayer.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    PEB: That’s a new keyboard I’ll need…spluttered zero coke all over it…

    Have you read Peirrepoint’s autobiography? Well worth getting from the library…I think Timothy Spall portrays him brilliantly in the movie…a fundamentally very decent and compassionate man, but with a distinct oddness about him…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. capitald (72 comments) says:

    I’m actually not against it – wouldn’t spend my career campaigning for it however. I support capital punishment in circumstances where there is absolute certainty about who did the murder. It would be an even higher standard than beyond reasonable doubt.

    There is an argument that some killers get a thrill knowing that they might get the death penalty for what they are doing. Personally, I think the political will isn’t there on this issue, and likely won’t be in New Zealand.

    Liam Reed, Weatherston, Burton etc are people that I would love to see put to sleep should the law come in.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. capitald (72 comments) says:

    Does anyone know what the research is on the motivations for murder? – Jealousy, sexual motivation, Gain… revenge…

    I remember talking with Greg King a month before he died…. I asked him what was remarkable about the people who he represented who had been charged with murder. He replied “how normal they are to talk to” – he added that there were basically some people who are incredibly disturbed, but that many are normal people who got angry and made a mistake.

    That said – I am by no means saying that what they did is ok, or that they should get light treatment – quite the opposite – it is just that we can’t prevent these kinds of things from happening unless we understand them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    capitald: Well said…CP will never return to NZ…not in my lifetime at least – and I hope that will be a while yet – and probably not in my childrens’ either. I have it on very good authority that if a CIR returned a vote of 100% in favour of reintroduction – even in closely defined circumstances – no political party would support it. I haven’t asked Colin Craig, but I very much doubt he would either.

    There are many more candidates one could add who richly deserve “putting to sleep”..William Bell, Paul Dally, Paul Bailey…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    Capitald: (again) From my reading, and pretty varied life experience, I believe almost all of us are capable of killing, given the right circumstances, and the right stressors. Sophie Elliot’s father is the most mild mannered and gentle of men…imagine what he would or could have done had he been there, and managed to bash the door in to find what Weatherston had done? Or Christie Marceau’s father or brother? Or any of us who are the parents of children…

    What Greg King said is exactly the same as what Mike Bungay said 25 years ago…the most distiguishing feature of most murderers is their utter ordinariness …. and then you get the exceptions like Burton, who has killed twice, years apart, Dally who was more depraved than most people can imagine, and Bell…a psycopathic killer who clearly got off on inflicting extreme pain and harm.

    But as I have said, even if a referendum supported CP for those I have named and others like them by a massive margin, no NZ political party would support it. And I do not believe that is going to change.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. kowtow (7,949 comments) says:

    So what’s the point of a House of “Representatives”?

    If that’s the case then they’re really there to represent their own interests ,not that of the the electorate.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    That’s what I thought too kowtow.

    Yet they’ll all defend abortion under ‘women’s rights’ never mind the absolute truthful fact it is ‘individual rights of an unborn human’ and ‘reproductive rights’ which includes the father.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. capitald (72 comments) says:

    Thank you for those helpful comments David Garrett. Nigel Latta has done a great service with his documentaries on murderers – and understanding how those people developed the warped view of the world they did. I can understand most criminal behavior – except for crimes against children. I actually feel more strongly about CP for all crimes against children than murder against adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    Capitald: Nigel Latta is a good guy…and a very insightful one. Without revealing confidences, I can say that he concurs with the view that some of the people we have been discussing are just “bad bastards”…and nothing in their background or makeup can explain what they did. And there is nothing we can do to change them either.

    One recently deceased example is Peter Fulcher, enforcer for Terry Clark’s drug dealing gang from the 70′s. Peter Williams QC – that great champion of human rights for criminals – says if only Fulcher had had more understanding from “the authorities” when he was a child, things could have been very different for him. Bollocks.

    A long deceased dear friend of mine taught Fulcher as a child in Taranaki after the war. She – as experienced and insightful teachers can – had identified Fulcher as a vicious little bastard by age 7. Apparently his upbringing was unremarkable for the time – except that his Dad was a petty crook into receiving stolen goods.

    Same with Terry Sinclair aka Clark himself….his contemporaries from Central School in Gisborne recall a cold eyed vicious little bastard who never stopped when the other guy went down, which was the code at the time. Clark’s ordinary working class background gives no clue to what he became.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    The death penalty in NZ and Australia had been revoked by the time Clarke and Fulcher were young adults.

    Except for the ones they dished out.

    I wonder what Latta would say about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Engineer (67 comments) says:

    I’m absolutely opposed to the death penalty in all cases.

    It’s not that I think that our worst killers and child rapists do not deserve death. They deserve that and more.
    It’s not that I think that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent – it may or it may not.

    I oppose the death penalty because a line has to drawn between civilization and barbarism. And the state must take the side of civilization. Civilization means that our natural impulses, such as meting out violence to violent offenders, must sometimes be curbed – not that those impulses do not exist.

    If we can respect the lives of the very worst among us, the scummiest most low life criminal, then that acts as some sort of ‘buffer’. If society can respect even the lives of a Graham Burton, a William Bell, and a Bruce Howse, then how much even more are the lives of ordinary law abiding citizens respected.

    That of course does not mean that morally speaking, the aforementioned ‘gentleman’ do not deserve the rope and even worse. And if an ordinary citizen took things into their own hands, I’d have no moral problem with that (although of course there would be a legal one).

    Note that our violent crime rate is at its lowest in a very long time – this without the need for the death penalty, or even excessively long prison sentences.

    And the violent crime rate in civilized countries such as Norway and Sweden are even lower – in spite of what would be perceived by some as a justice system that almost indulges criminals.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. MT_Tinman (3,045 comments) says:

    Kea (6,800) Says:
    August 18th, 2013 at 2:39 pm
    nasska, you make another good point. You would have to be a bit of a sicko to do the job.

    I disagree.

    I don’t believe in any “sanctity of life” nor that humans are other than another animal on this planet and I’ve killed that sheep Nasska, and fed the fucking dogs and family with it.

    So to answer the question posed earlier, I will. I disagree with the death penalty but if you want an executioner, pick me.

    I’ll do it!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. hj (6,738 comments) says:

    Engineer (18) Says:

    I oppose the death penalty because a line has to drawn between civilization and barbarism. And the state must take the side of civilization. Civilization means that our natural impulses, such as meting out violence to violent offenders, must sometimes be curbed – not that those impulses do not exist.
    …….
    I agree with the more obvious reasons but not one that holds that sacredness of the life of a human above all else, when we are just a part of a wider eco system.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Ross Miller (1,681 comments) says:

    Pretty much an ‘academic’ discussion only as it’s never going to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    Ross: Correct. Certainly not the in the lifetime of anyone writing here…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Could some one help me understand, why it is Barbarianism to support the death penalty for mass murderers, yet a sign of intellectual enlightenment to favour the killing of innocent unborn babes?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    @ Reg

    Because those babies do not have the ability to live independently, that is they would not survive if they were removed from their environment, therefore they are not viable beings.

    As they have yet to live, they cannot pass any test of innocence or guilt.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    I am for it-so is God – so it is the right thing. Also the murder rate would plummet in NZ and there would be no recidivism.

    I am always intrigued by liberals-they hate executing murderers.

    But they are perfectly comfortable with abortion and euthanasia. So it is ok when we kill unborn children and old aged pensioners that are innocent of any crime. But say William Bell who is definitely guilty of murders it would be barbaric for us to execute?

    Human nature and human reasoning without the knowledge of God is a funny thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    @ scott

    whilst there would be no recidivist murders, it is unlikely the murder rate would alter significantly. Capital punishment has not dropped murder rates in those countries that still have the sentence. It is not effective as a deterrent.

    I thought God said thou shalt not kill? You’re not suggesting he is a hypocrite, are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I am for it-so is God – so it is the right thing.

    Scott, God is also for killing naughty kids, people who work on Sunday, and stoning to death non virgin brides on their dads doorstep. I will assume you are for all that too.

    As and atheist [with no morals] I am against all those things.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Kea-when you are prepared to discuss things like a sensible person I will answer your questions.You were sensible the other day,is it something about Sundays that upsets you?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Judith- good point-it is generally understood as “thou shalt not murder”. Because in the Old Testament God clearly does mandate capital punishment.

    And even in the New Testament where the authorities carry the sword is understood as a reference to capital punishment.

    The quote is thus- Romans 13:4
    New International Version (NIV)
    4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Thanks Judith for at least trying to explain the Liberal thought process.
    Your defence of aborting babies is that they “do not have the ability to live independently, that is they would not survive if they were removed from their environment, therefore they are not viable beings”.
    This could equally apply to new born babes and dementia patients.
    As for the “yet to live” test. Why is it a crime to cause injury to an unborn child?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Scott, I gave you facts from the bible. I know that makes you Christians very uncomfortable, which is why you resort to personal attacks.

    You said if it is ok with God it is ok with you. One of the Ten Commandments is not to work on Sundays. It carries the death penalty. Do you reject this demand from God or not ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

    Like, Kim Jong-un, [the Catholic] Hitler and Idi Amin ? All “God’s servants”. You have just attempted to give moral authority to every mass murdering tyrant in history, using your blood soaked bible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Kea-thanks for making your points.However do not clog up this blog with hating on God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    “…..I don’t believe in any “sanctity of life” nor that humans are other than another animal on this planet and I’ve killed that sheep Nasska, and fed the fucking dogs and family with it…..”

    We are not ‘just another animal’ – abortion is just one thing that proves that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Good point Reg-in fact women are having late term abortions and the baby is surviving the initial “procedure” and so is a viable human being. But then the abortionist kills the child anyway- Kermit Gosnell was a practicioner of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    Engineer: Our violent crime rate is lower than it was 10 years ago…that is not saying much. It is still about 100 times what it was 50 years ago. That we are not QUITE as violent a society as we were at our soft c..k liberal worst is no cause for celebration. It took us more than a generation to get where we were in the early 2000′s – it will take more than a generation – assuming we don’t go soft again, to get back to somewhere where we were in the memory of those writing here who are under 50.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Scott (1,439) Says:
    August 18th, 2013 at 8:43 pm
    Kea-thanks for making your points. However do not clog up this blog with hating on God.

    You claimed to support the death penalty because “I am for it-so is God – so it is the right thing.” You used your imaginary being as an excuse to kill people. Now you are flip flopping all over the place trying to set up Strawmen and Red Herrings.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    Righto…we have moved from New Zealanders’ attitudes to the death penalty to which part of the Christians’ Book of Fables is the most persuasive….so it’s good night from me…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Engineer (67 comments) says:

    David Garrett:
    Our violent crime rate is lower than it was 10 years ago…that is not saying much. It is still about 100 times what it was 50 years ago.

    To assume that the abolition of capital punishment is the sole reason for higher rates of crime today than 50 years ago is rather simplistic. There have been a whole host of social and economic changes since that time that have contributed to a more lawless society today – among them less economic security, the breakdown of the family (people seem to have ‘partners’ now, not husbands or wives – something I find quite disconcerting), an in increase in the general disrespect and distrust of authority brought on by the counterculture of the 1960s, and yes, a decline in belief in God. All these may or may not have led to increasing rates of crime (although the belief in God bit, I admit is a bit tenuous – the most law abiding societies in the world today are the most atheistic – Japan, Sweden, Norway etc).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    However, our murder rate is currently d less than it was at various stages prior to the abolition of the death penalty as the chart on page 3 of this PDF shows.

    http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Newsletter_PDF/Issue_101/Reducing_Imprisonment.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    @ Engineer

    To assume that the abolition of capital punishment is the sole reason for higher rates of crime today than 50 years ago is rather simplistic.

    Whilst at times the rate has been higher that before the death penalty was abolished, it currently is below that level, which as the document I linked to above demonstrates, there are, as you say, many contributing factors to the crime rate, and the death penalty appears to have little significance in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Yes Scott, I am at a loss to understand. I am a Babarian, because I support the Death Penalty being available to the judiciary where there is proven, intentional murder. Yet it is to be regarded as an example of Liberal enlightenment to reduce precious unborn life to a “bag of cells” and terminate the existance of this cellular bundle for reasons of expediency.
    Judith and Kea were once defenceless dependent, innocent, unborn babes, whose mothers may or may not have supported the Death sentence for murderers, but they- in at least one instance -decided to give their “bag of cells” the dignity of a live birth.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    My understanding Engineer is that up till the end of the 1950′s a policeman would be able to count off the number of murders committed each year in NZ on his fingers. The murder rate was very low. It is true that other crime was very low-a fraction of today’s. However once Labour got rid of the death penalty then the murder rate shot up (pardon the pun).

    I would expect that if capital punishment was reintroduced then the murder rate would drop dramatically which would be a very good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Reg, Another way to reduce crime is to encourage the removal of unwanted cell bags from women who don’t want kids and have no means to support them.

    Scott, You conclude that killing is ok, so maybe we should do away with the crime of murder and really reduce the murder rate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Judith-looking at your graph it appears that the murder rate was very low,especially around 1950 and that since then we have a statistical mountain of murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Kea, wouldn’t it be better to encourage them to adopt their unwanted child to a childless couple who could raise it as an asset to society? Or is it better to kill the innocent unborn in case they turn into murderers that we can’t touch.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    Well put Reg.

    No further DNA is added to the feotus after conception. That is the beginning of an individuals life. The womb is where it is nurtured. The mother is accepted as the natural and legal guardian.

    The mother should not be a state sponsered executioner, executing individuals if she finds that they don’t suit ‘her’ wants.

    Pre-conception contraception is provided to avoid such situations. All medicine has side effects and risks, executing an individual simply because medicine fails to work is outragously immoral. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Bogusnews (461 comments) says:

    I think the point of the death penalty is often missed. Generally people will ask “does it reduce crime rates?” which is a valid question, but only one part of the puzzle.

    The most important part I think is pure justice. I think it can be questioned as to whether in NZ’s case, it is satisfactory justice to send a murderer away for 12 years (out in 8) when they murder someone. Is that suitable justice?

    Regarding convicting the wrong person, I’ve always thought if it was reserved for particularly obvious cases (like Bell) or for repeat offenders then it could work. If a low life has been convicted say, three times for serious, violent offences and finally he kills someone etc. You’d have to be pretty damn unlucky to be convicted wrong three times.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Scott1 (481 comments) says:

    I suggest 4 things to consider below

    Deterance :
    The average criminal thinks about the law as something that will catch him or not catch him, he doesn’t really do the calculation regarding what the police will do to him if they catch him. This means that the level of punishment doesn’t strongly effect the rate of crime – what effects the rate of crime is having more policemen on the streets and catching people for small crimes to show them they will also get caught for big ones.

    So I don’t think the death penalty is a good deterant.

    Prevention :
    The question I suppose is to a large extent resolved by preventative detention.
    If the person is a problem you just keep them in jail forever and if you are allowed to keep them in solitary and you deal with them very carefully then they cant hurt any new people.

    Cost:
    What then remains is that that we are spending $100,000 a year of whatever it takes to manage such a person and we save on having to go through the court cases to get him executed.

    But interestingly this is, in a way, an argument FOR the death penalty on fairness grounds – because the wrongful conviction rate on non death penalty cases must be far higher due to the great amount less that we spend on them (unless this spending is just wasted, in which case we should fix that).

    Perception of Justice:
    The other factor in this is the effect on the general law abiding public. I probably tend towards them being bad in a sort of devaluing of life sense. I mean it is a bit morbid to get excited about killing someone regardless of what he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Scottt says
    My understanding Engineer is that up till the end of the 1950′s a policeman would be able to count off the number of murders committed each year in NZ on his fingers.

    remembering the population was only about 1 million it’s now 4.5 mill, the growth of population is never factored into the numbers

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    Labour/Green would be against reintroduction as the majority of the offenders support them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. RRM (9,662 comments) says:

    I don’t trust the state to spend my tax dollars in the most efficient, worthwhile way possible.

    But I am completely happy with the state’s processes for identifying who is a criminal that deserves to be killed.

    After all, THAT particular arm of the state is infallible, oh yes…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Charlie-Mills (7 comments) says:

    @Judith
    I can understand where your coming from when saying that “I though it was a very mature comment and something I’m not sure I would have had the grace to offer”. I believe their comment was very mature and tried to make a meaning come out of their daughters death, however I do not believe if I was by any chance in that situation, that, that comment would leave my mouth. I would want the killer to suffer, like I would be and I would want the worst punishment possible. So I believe that I am 50/50 when considering the death penalty. No, I do not believe that someone should have the easier way out. And I also think it would be a hard penalty to monitor, because putting people in charge of another’s life is difficult and can be used recklessly. Yet I also agree with @smarsh, many innocent individuals have been placed in the prison system, if the death penalty was issued, this cannot be retracted.

    But I also think yes, considering the amount of repeat offenders. Many prisoners have been granted probation and offended again, showing signs that they will never stop offending. I think with these people, we are left with little options. How long shall the taxpayer continue to pay for ones life when their offending will never cease?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.