Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment is the lawful infliction of death as a punishment and since ancient times it has been used for a wide variety of offences. Capital punishment should remain outlawed in Australia. The following factors are discussed to support this statement. Firstly the history of the Australian laws regarding capital punishment and when it was abolished from Australian law. Secondly by discussing the United State's, England's and the Islamic laws regarding capital punishment and for what crimes they commit and how each country carry's out the death sentence. Thirdly the primary stakeholders, including the community, the government the defendant's families and also the jurors and how they will be affected socially, economically and politically will be discussed. Lastly, it will show of five innocent people's cases that were sentenced to death followed by a recommendation.

Australia should keep the capital punishment outlawed in Australia. Law breakers were harshly treated during the early parts of Australian history. Capital punishment was used for serious offences, including mass murder. Less serious offences were usually carried out by prison sentences. Many of the criminal offences were unified into one statute called the Crimes Act in 1900 in NSW. By this means, parliament could prescribe maximum penalties for each offence, allowing for uniform administration of justice. Parliament could also add new offences to this list. (Vijaya Nagarajan: 1989:29) It was only in 1973 that under the commonwealth law, that the death penalty was abolished. And while for the NSW, the death penalty is generally acknowledged to have been abolished in 1955. The death penalty for some unusual crimes, such as treason and piracy was not finally removed until 1985. (Ivan Poets and John Walker: 1993:45)

The United States of America stands in stark contrast to Australia. Since the mid 1970's, the constitutional objection that the death penalty was a 'cruel and unusual punishment' has been overcome. It now exists in 37 states, and between 1970's and the end of 1984, thirty two persons were executed. By March 1986, this figure had risen to fifty one and this number was steadily increased. There are now over 2000 prisoners on death row, awaiting appeals to higher courts, commutation of sentence, or execution. (Ivan Poets and John Walker: 1993:45) Electrocution was brought in as an effort to minimize the pain of execution. However, if something goes wrong for example the equipment was faulty or the executioner is inexperienced, the prisoner dies in agony. Death by electrocution, poisonous gasses and lethal injection are all used in the United States to this day, (Haye Healey: 1993:34) under the Moratorium Act of 2003. (www.usinfo.state.gov/topical/rights/hrpage/cp.htm.)

In England, as late as King Geo.Ш (1738-1820) there were about 200 offences punishable by death, among which were, cutting down a tree, robbing a rabbit warren, harboring an offender against the revenue acts, stealing in a dwelling house to the amount of forty shillings, or in a shop of goods to the amount of five shillings and counter feting the stamps that were used for the sale of perfumery and a lot more. (www, jubilee-newspaper.com/YAH/capitalpunishment.htm.)

Under the Islamic Laws, beheading is prescribed in five countries and stoning to death in seven. The Islamic Penal Code of Iran stipulates, "In the punishment of stoning to death, the stones should not be so large that the person dies on being hit by one or two of them. (Haye Healey: 1993:34) Another country that believes death by punishment should be slow and painful is Nigeria. Executions in Nigeria are usually by firing squad in public, it is the mandatory punishment for armed robbery. In July 1986, the military governor of Niger a state ordered that the people convicted of armed robbery should be executed slowly, by successive volleys of bullets, fired at intervals, starting with shots aimed at the ankles. (Haye Healey: 1993:34)

Capital punishment should remain outlawed in Australia. If it were to be reintroduced the primary stakeholders would be affected socially. Many people in Australia's society would be against the death penalty, and therefore would put a great amount of pressure on the Australian Government. They would also start riots and rallies outside the courts, pertisting against the courts if the verdict is guilty and they're going to execute the defendant. A second reason, that is often overlooked, is the hell the innocent family and friends go though in the time leading up to and during the execution and which will often cause them serious trauma for years afterwards. It is often very difficult for people to come to terms with the fact that their loved ones could be guilty of a serious crime and no doubt even come to terms with their death in this form. However strongly you may support capital punishment, two wrongs do not make a right. One cannot and should not deny the suffering of the victim's family in a murder case but the suffering of the murderer's family is surely equally valid. There may be a brutalizing effect upon society by carrying out executions. This was apparent in the UK during the 17th and 18th centuries when people turned out to enjoy the spectacle. http://www.Richard.clark32.btinternet,co,uk/contents.html.) There is going to be an obvious impact on society if capital punishment is reintroduced into Australia.

Reintroducing the death penalty in Australia is going to effect the government politically. The government would be under constant pressure from society from those who are against the death penalty. Local members of government would constantly be harassed, and this would have an enormous impact on the elections. The court system will also be affected as the court cases would take up a considerable amount of time as the juror's have to be one hundred percent sure that they're guilty.

If the death penalty was reintroduced into Australia, the government and family members of the defendant would be economically affected. It would cost a great amount of money to accommodate a jury whilst they determine a verdict. They're not exactly going to take a few hours to determine whether their going to be responsible for sending a person to there death bed. This decision can affect a person mentally. For example the case of Shumway, R . Mead in Nebrasca, Shumway was convicted of first degree murder of his employer's wife on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to death. One juror, the only one to hold out against the death penalty, told his friends he "had not slept well any night since the trail". He later left a note which expressed "great worry at the trial" and then killed himself. In 1910, the victim's husband confessed on his death bed that he had

...