Why Do You Think Human Life Is So Precious?

An odd query, I think, Mr. Onelongsong. It has a tone of boredom to it.

In my own history in this country I'm well aware of the death penalty in a chronological sort of way beginning with seeing Truman Capote's In Cold Blood on TV as a nine-year-old. A few years later Gary Gilmore gave up the ghost by firing squad in Utah as the first man executed in America in something like 10 years. Since capital punishment was reinstated in the US in 1977, or so... more than 200 DEATH ROW inmates have had convictions overturned. Most of these have come in the last 10 years through the technological advance of DNA evidence.

Here's an interesting link concerning the history of capital punishment in America.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=15&did=410#TheDeathPenaltyinAmerica

Britain influenced America's use of the death penalty more than any other country. When European settlers came to the new world, they brought the practice of capital punishment. The first recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain. In 1612, Virginia Governor Sir Thomas Dale enacted the Divine, Moral and Martial Laws, which provided the death penalty for even minor offenses such as stealing grapes, killing chickens, and trading with Indians.

Laws regarding the death penalty varied from colony to colony. The Massachusetts Bay Colony held its first execution in 1630, even though the Capital Laws of New England did not go into effect until years later. The New York Colony instituted the Duke's Laws of 1665. Under these laws, offenses such as striking one's mother or father, or denying the "true God," were punishable by death...

Jeanie wrote:

Thanks but I'm not really trying to convince anybody else or argue with them or for my point of view. It's really just my take on the matter and could be the worst kind of thinking. I'm really not sure. My views on the death penalty have changed over the years and it's a really difficult issue to negotiate in my mind. I think because much of what we think about it is so emotionally based. I can see that my reasoning is flawed. If I'm so against state sanctioned killing why is it that I would want Martin Bryant to suffer slowly going insane? It's probably not a great way to look at it but if I'm honest I do want him to have to think about what he did. I don't think he can be rehabilitated, I think death is too easy a release for him and I don't think he can redeem himself. I can't imagine that there is ANYTHING that he could do that would make up or change the horrific nature of his crimes. And his strange and tragic childhood really doesn't cut any slack with me either. Me wanting him to suffer mental and emotional torture for the rest of his natural life, well that's probably equally as bad as people that would support the death penalty. So I don't know.

i don't think he can be rehabilitated either jeanie. besides, he killed 35 people and injured 37, he does not deserve to be rehabilitated ever. why should he have even the slightest bit of enjoyment/comfort with the life he has left.

it may seem harsh to some, but for me, any slight bit of sympathy for him goes out the window when i think of him hunting down alannah and madeline mikac and their mom and the 32 other people he killed that day

I think this article relates to the topic of killers...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-killers-who-walk-among-us/2007/12/01/1196394682242.html

More than 50 killers have been released from NSW jails this year. Last week a man was allegedly shot dead by his neighbour, who had previously served time for manslaughter. Matthew Benns and Eamonn Duff investigate calls for the establishment of a register of released killers.

A FATAL shooting, allegedly by a man who had been jailed for manslaughter, has led to calls for a register of all convicted killers living in the community. On average, 50 people a year leave NSW jails after completing sentences for murder or manslaughter.

Last week one of those freed killers, Stanley Maguire, allegedly shot dead father-of-four Stephen Holmes after he knocked on the convicted killer's door and asked him to turn down his music.

Now the son of Maguire's first victim has joined a call by a victims' support group for the names of all convicted killers released back into the community to be placed on a public register.

"It just might stop this kind of thing happening again," said David Vickers, whose father John, was struck by a car driven by Maguire, and then shot, after an argument in an RSL club bar.

"Detectives told us back in 1994 that when the day eventually arrived and Maguire was set free, our family would be notified. That never happened. The first we knew of his release was when we learned he had killed again."

Maguire, who is still on the run, hit Mr Vickers with a truck outside Doyalson RSL on the Central Coast in 1993 and then shot him while he lay on the ground. He was jailed for manslaughter, after the jury debated whether the gun fired accidentally, and released in 2002.

"There should be a register of convicted murderers," Mr Vickers said. "But I want measures that go even further than that. If a convicted murderer, someone that dangerous, has moved in next door, it should be the Government's responsibility to inform neighbours. If a system like that had been in place, [Stephen Holmes] might still be alive. I'm sick of hearing people say that when you've served your sentence for murder, that's it. Because clearly it's not."

Peter Rolfe, president of the Homicide Survivors Support After Murder Group, said his members were unanimously in favour of a register.

He said it should be a family's "basic right" to know if a convicted murderer was living nearby. "It is an absolute disgrace that nearly all of the 27 murderers convicted in 1997 are now back on the streets," he said.

The mother of a 13-year-old boy who was killed in 1979 backed calls for a register. But Nola Fisher said it would not alter the fact that her son's killer, Stephen Bush, who bashed the boy with a piece of concrete, was allowed to live just 300 metres from her home in country NSW.

"I see Darren's killer on the street at least once a fortnight. I've even stepped aside so he can pass me on a pedestrian crossing and it's wrong. I shouldn't have to live like this," she said. "Murder should mean life in jail. I got life when he murdered my boy. Yet he gets to stroll round town and nobody's any wiser to the fact he's a convicted child killer."

But NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy said those who had finished their sentences were entitled to a fresh start.

He said a register would not have prevented a killer like Stanley Maguire striking again. "These are cases where something has happened on the spur of the moment, so even if there is a register in place there is nothing you can do to stop a random act."

Mr Murphy also warned that a register might encourage unwanted vigilante-style justice. "Look at the UK, where a newspaper printed a list of known pedophiles and a mob attacked and killed an innocent man," he said.

Figures from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics show about 50 people are jailed for murder or manslaughter each year. The average manslaughter sentence is four to five years. For murder, the average sentence is 10 to 15 years.

The statistics show that most of the 27 people jailed for murder in 1997 are now back living in the community. Many of the 23 people jailed for manslaughter in 2003 are now free.

As part of the 1990 truth-in-sentencing legislation, those jailed for life stay inside forever. But four killers have been released on permanent parole. These include John Lewthwaite, who served 25 years in prison for the 1974 murder of five-year-old Nicole Hanns, and who has been hounded since his release.

The others on lifetime parole are Alan Robinson, who killed Caroline Horton and her son Frank in 1980; Paul Fenech, brother of boxer Jeff, who killed Anthony Robertson in 1986; and Victorian Glenn Butcher.

Pj_Gurl wrote:

i don't think he can be rehabilitated either jeanie. besides, he killed 35 people and injured 37, he does not deserve to be rehabilitated ever. why should he have even the slightest bit of enjoyment/comfort with the life he has left.

it may seem harsh to some, but for me, any slight bit of sympathy for him goes out the window when i think of him hunting down alannah and madeline mikac and their mom and the 32 other people he killed that day

That's it isn't it? I've tried to come to some kind of consensus and clear thought in my head about him and his actions and I simply cannot.
I don't like to think that anyone is beyond redeeming themselves but the truth of it is that some people simply are not. Their brains work very differently to the general population. So where that is not a danger to the rest of us, then I figure who am I to judge? But as in Bryant's case, I simply cannot see at this point in time that there will ever be anyway that he could redeem himself for hunting down those little girls and killing them and all the others that he murdered on that day and probably those that he quite possibly killed before that day. I get no inkling that he is remorseful other than he wants to die because he keeps attempting it, and I cannot know whether that is because what he did haunts him or if it's simply that he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life in confinement. I've pretty much left it up to the universe to decide his fate. He should NEVER be released and I'm certain that the Australian population will make sure that never happens. EVEN if he does live to a ripe old age, I'm sure there are people, I would be one of them if I'm still around, that will make sure that he dies in prison. But should he manage to take himself out OR if someone in the general population manages to take him out, it's probably not very charitable of me and does feed into that whole mentality, BUT I would not be sad to see him die. I just don't want to see him be exectuted by the state. I want him to live, caged and alone. Endless life in a box. Even that to me doesn't seem enough.

But I must acknowledge that my thinking on this is flawed. There shouldn't be one set of rules and punishments for one and not others because then we get into a whole other can of worms. I really think Bryant is the most difficult of offenders to view objectively and probably the only other that I can think of that fits that mold here in Australia is Milat.

NoK wrote:

I feel he commits suicide because he was mentally fucked up to begin with and locking him up in a cage is getting to him. It's not the guilt of the murders.

Did you read the article I posted how the average person convicted of manslaughter gets parole in 6 years and the one of murder gets parole by 10 years.. now thats what i call pathetic.

Edit: Just re-read it.. its not even parole its the average full sentence

Well I'm not inside his head so I can't know for sure. That's why I make allowances for either possibility. Most of what I've read about him tends to indicate that he doesn't feel any remorse, but then one would have to ask the question if he isn't capable of the usual thoughts and feelings of a human being why is that AND how did it slip past people prior to the Port Arthur Massacre AND more importantly how do we as a society recognize this type of mental process BEFORE it is able to be manifested? It's well documented that he had "issues" prior to what he did. And nobody seemed to do much about it. Not that I'm blaming anyone. But we as a society keep seeing this stuff go on and I think we all want it to stop, the system that we have now doesn't seem to be doing that.

And yes, I did read the article, thanks Nok. I'm still having a think about what I think about it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=maARKptAHKo

i don't. i think LIFE is precious, but not specifically human life. now this is not to say that i don't kill, b/c i do.....inadvertently by purchasing food/clothing made from animals for consumption. i think of it all as the cycle of life and what have you. there is purpose to it. however, i am against killing for the sake of killing...and while a criminal may do so, doesnt' mean the rest of the sane individuals out there should do the same in turn. so thus why i am against the death penalty, i see no purpose in killing someone, even for crimes commited, even if they cnnot 'rejoin society' etc. i don't think it's my call to make. i also don't hold a criminal's life about anyone else...i really don't hold ANYone's life above another's except of course for the selfish reason of those nearest and dearest to me.

onelongsong wrote:

the death penalty was a great deterrant until executions became private. i'm FOR the death penalty but i'm also FOR public executions. until this last century; all countries held public executions. the sight of someone kicking at the end of a rope DID IN FACT deterr criminals.

you can believe hollywood about the american "wild" west; but the truth is; crime was low. most of our history was taken from "dime store novels" as they were called. the truth has been revield and history is being rewritten to depict what really happened.

...
Wow.

onelongsong wrote:

but scott; neither you nor anyone else decides who must die; except the criminal. he/she knows the punishment and when they murder innocent people; they agree to accept that punishment. if i steal a car; i accept that if caught; my punishment will be 5 to 10 years. if you swim in the reef; you accept that you may be killed by a shark; or other venomous creatures.

sharks eat you cause they think you're food. venomous creatures sting you cause they are being defensive. Man kills man for what reason?