Loss Of Life by Killing ..

 This is a difficult topic - especially considering that the last act by U S forces in Afghanistan was a drone attack that killed 10 innocent victims.

Our NZDF deployed in Afghanistan sadly suffered 10 deaths while there .. and I consider that they would have caused many more casualties than that figure in their firefights with "insurgents" while successfully engaged there ..

So we may have a situation here that our Nuclear Free New Zealand Government approves and authorizes killings by our DEFENCE FORCES -  and other related loss of lives - for political purposes in foreign lands but this same administration has abolished the DEATH PENALTY for those violent murderers who take innocent life here in New Zealand. 

We are being quoted vastly increased use of guns by the NZ GANGS who - as expected ignore all laws and will use anything as a weapon when ever they feel the need. This .. again as expected - demonstrates the complete failure of punitive firearms laws to reduce violence here - but it these regulations will of-course make it nearly impossible for the law abiding to legally own or use a firearm for sport and hunting.

Consider that BRENTON TARRANT who planned & slaughtered 51 innocents in Christchurch. - Our deluded Politicians will argue that he deserves to live.

It is quite clear from the government records that both here in NZ since 1961, and in the United Kingdom - that following the abolition of the Death Penalty - the murder rate has increased by MORE than two or three hundred percent.

The NZ figures 

Annual murder rate per million people (WITH the Death Penalty)
1926-1970: 6 

Death Penalty ABOLISHED IN 1961.

1985-1992: 21 
1994-1998: 15 
1999-2003: 14 
2004-2008: 12

I think that is very clear ..

https://flicense.blogspot.com/2018/12/homicide-rates-since-abolition-of-death.html

Nobody can claim that our government is against 'killing' on ethical-moral grounds - as they hand-out medals, including the NZ VICTORIA CROSS to their own professionally trained military killers.

Nobody can deny that abolition of the death penalty has resulted in much increased loss of defenseless & innocent lives in New Zealand.

An absolute minimum change must be a return to the DEATH PENALTY for the murder of  Police Officers and multiple terror killings of innocents.

Sadly there are some 65 MILLION DEATHS worldwide EVERY YEAR from all causes. - Adding a few vicious killers to that number will hardly change the statistics but will make our law-abiding families somewhat safer.

One Of These Reasons (- the Second) - Is True

Killers don't have much to lose now .. if they get away with it they just carry-on - and if they get caught and locked-up - they are banged-up with all their mates .. and fed three times a day with plenty of TV to watch.

For how much longer can our political charlatans deny the facts & continue to ignore the real issues? 

Marty K.

Hi Marty

I am all in favour of the Death penalty with one proviso; the penalty can only be administered (with appropriate facilities provided by the state, ie: gallows, lethal injection, etc) by the victim or victim's immediate family. The Death penalty can only be given in circumstances where there is clear and irrefutable evidence of guilt, and not available for convictions based on circumstantial evidence. If the victim cannot do the deed then life imprisonment shall be given. The State should never have the power of execution except in the case of Treason, subject to the same conditions of conviction.

Conveniently, Helen Clark's government abolished treason as an offence - probably too many Labour MP's in danger of it!

Cheers, Rod

Hi  Rod, How are you doing/?

I certainly note  & respect your opinion .. and I would concur that the bereaved family could well have the RIGHT to be the activator of the termination .. BUT for example what about an orphan having been killed  - or any other victim whose total family were killed by the perp at the same time (or earlier)?

I don't understand your view that THE STATE should not have "power of execution" .. how does this align with the state having three or four military branches specifically trained, armed and used to kill  - not to mention NUCLEAR WEAPONS, nerve agents, high explosives  etc ??

The detail of the method is certainly open to debate .. personally I'd suggest a sleeping gas followed by CO2 in a closed but comfortable cell .. but I expect that there might be some who might prefer gradual crushing starting from the feet while applying hot pokers.

Marty K