Capital PunishmentEssay Preview: Capital PunishmentReport this essayCapital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much cheaper and safer for the rest of us than long term. It is self evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or being released from it. Another argument for the death penalty is the cost factor. The state may very well better spend our resources on the old, the young and the sick rather than the long-term imprisonment of murderers, rapists, etc. Execution is a very real punishment rather than some form of treatment. The criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the offence. Although whether there is a place in a modern society, is a matter of personal opinion. Many as an acceptable reason for the death penalty see Justice.
The most important one is the virtual certainty that genuinely innocent people will be executed and that there is no possible way of compensating them for this miscarriage of justice. There is also another significant danger here. The person convicted of the murder may have actually killed the victim and may even admit having done so but does not agree that the killing was murder. Often the only people who know what really happened are the accused and the deceased. It then comes down to the skill of the prosecution and defence lawyers as to whether there will be a conviction for murder or for manslaughter. It is thus highly probable that people are convicted of murder when they should really have only been convicted of manslaughter.
Australia has a long-standing principled opposition to capital punishment. The death penalty has been abolished in Australia. Australia works with the UN Human Rights Commission that calls for all nations to abolish the death penalty. However, over the last few years Australian politicians, both government and opposition have weakened this stance. Australias position now seems to be that Australians should not be executed but other people can be. Australia has traditionally taken a strong principled stand against capital punishment. Prime Minister Howard is on the record as an opponent of the death penalty. Since the Bali bombing in October 2002, an event that deeply moved the Prime Minister, Mr Howards position on the death penalty has shifted. It would appear that, with respect to terrorism at least, he is willing to remain silent while another nation executes a fellow human being.
The Abbott government’s opposition to the death penalty is a stark contrast to the Coalition government’s stance on sentencing. Mr Abbott is now in government, and he has continued to support capital punishment. Mr Abbott once said, after a lengthy debate, that ‘this is not the time to debate politics’. It should be noted that this is not an example of the prime minister’s opposition to capital punishment. He once indicated that it would be a good idea for the Australian government to have a debate about capital punishment whether they like or not. It is true that the Abbott Government may have expressed a willingness to continue with capital punishment, but in the light of recent developments and the changes they have proposed to capital punishment, as well as their political commitments to reform, the approach that the Abbott government has taken over the last few years, it is understandable and sensible for the Abbott government to be willing to continue capital punishment. It appears that the Abbott government and, to a lesser extent, Mr Turnbull, were more committed to the death penalty than, if not their prime ministerial opponents, government and opposition, in recent years. The Abbott government may also be less committed than their party colleagues and more focused on the more contentious issues. It is in this environment that Mr Turnbull’s position is more clear; Abbott Government position is clear. In 2013, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said at the UN General Assembly: “We welcome the resumption of executions. The fact that we’ve been able to get this done in Australia allows us to move decisively on addressing the very real challenges facing the country, particularly women and girls. I can’t remember a more pressing and important issue that has been addressed to the United Nations.” He also remarked to The Independent by email, “I’m still committed to this proposal but I can’t remember a time or date when I felt more committed to the issue of capital punishment.” The Abbott Government has repeatedly expressed its opposition to the death penalty to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In 2003, when Tony Abbott was a prime minister, Abbott told The Independent, “We need to make sure if it gets passed the Convention will stay where it’s staying. We will have to protect our men and women in uniform.” This is a clear declaration of position, since no one ever said that in a foreign policy statement. The Abbott government has repeatedly made clear it does not support the death penalty. In 2000, when Labor was in opposition, the Prime Minister told the Senate Human Rights Committee, “The people can decide for themselves whether or not they can live a double life.” He was repeating the same speech in 2003, but without a clear commitment to ending the punishment. The Abbott government appears to have made their position clear throughout this period. Even so, it remains to be seen if the Abbott Government has been more supportive of capital punishment outside of this context and if that has been the case. Malcolm Turnbull and other party leaders appear to have indicated that they would like to use an international criminal framework to enforce capital punishment. This could be the first time that the Abbott Government has proposed such an approach. I think it may be possible that even if the Senate Human Rights committee has heard Australia oppose capital punishment, a similar approach would be considered. I am not clear on the relationship between parliamentary and State Parliament. For instance, in a 2011 debate on the legislation in relation to capital punishment, Opposition Leader Joe Hockey questioned whether Labor was advocating a new approach to the issue as a result of political considerations. He pointed out that “it’s a debate that is, at its core, being about public policy and that is where we have our political leaders in the
The Abbott government’s opposition to the death penalty is a stark contrast to the Coalition government’s stance on sentencing. Mr Abbott is now in government, and he has continued to support capital punishment. Mr Abbott once said, after a lengthy debate, that ‘this is not the time to debate politics’. It should be noted that this is not an example of the prime minister’s opposition to capital punishment. He once indicated that it would be a good idea for the Australian government to have a debate about capital punishment whether they like or not. It is true that the Abbott Government may have expressed a willingness to continue with capital punishment, but in the light of recent developments and the changes they have proposed to capital punishment, as well as their political commitments to reform, the approach that the Abbott government has taken over the last few years, it is understandable and sensible for the Abbott government to be willing to continue capital punishment. It appears that the Abbott government and, to a lesser extent, Mr Turnbull, were more committed to the death penalty than, if not their prime ministerial opponents, government and opposition, in recent years. The Abbott government may also be less committed than their party colleagues and more focused on the more contentious issues. It is in this environment that Mr Turnbull’s position is more clear; Abbott Government position is clear. In 2013, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said at the UN General Assembly: “We welcome the resumption of executions. The fact that we’ve been able to get this done in Australia allows us to move decisively on addressing the very real challenges facing the country, particularly women and girls. I can’t remember a more pressing and important issue that has been addressed to the United Nations.” He also remarked to The Independent by email, “I’m still committed to this proposal but I can’t remember a time or date when I felt more committed to the issue of capital punishment.” The Abbott Government has repeatedly expressed its opposition to the death penalty to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In 2003, when Tony Abbott was a prime minister, Abbott told The Independent, “We need to make sure if it gets passed the Convention will stay where it’s staying. We will have to protect our men and women in uniform.” This is a clear declaration of position, since no one ever said that in a foreign policy statement. The Abbott government has repeatedly made clear it does not support the death penalty. In 2000, when Labor was in opposition, the Prime Minister told the Senate Human Rights Committee, “The people can decide for themselves whether or not they can live a double life.” He was repeating the same speech in 2003, but without a clear commitment to ending the punishment. The Abbott government appears to have made their position clear throughout this period. Even so, it remains to be seen if the Abbott Government has been more supportive of capital punishment outside of this context and if that has been the case. Malcolm Turnbull and other party leaders appear to have indicated that they would like to use an international criminal framework to enforce capital punishment. This could be the first time that the Abbott Government has proposed such an approach. I think it may be possible that even if the Senate Human Rights committee has heard Australia oppose capital punishment, a similar approach would be considered. I am not clear on the relationship between parliamentary and State Parliament. For instance, in a 2011 debate on the legislation in relation to capital punishment, Opposition Leader Joe Hockey questioned whether Labor was advocating a new approach to the issue as a result of political considerations. He pointed out that “it’s a debate that is, at its core, being about public policy and that is where we have our political leaders in the