Should the Death Penalty Be Used as a Deterrent?

In the heart of Australia where the vast open landscapes of the Northern Territory meet the stark realities of crime and justice, the question of whether the death penalty should be reinstated as a deterrent is more than an abstract legal or moral debate, it is a pressing issue of social order, governance, and the balance between individual rights and collective security. The modern criminal justice system has often leaned toward rehabilitation rather than retribution, but there comes a point when society must ask whether leniency has emboldened criminality rather than curtailed it.

The Northern Territory, and particularly Darwin, has witnessed crime rates that far exceed national averages, with violent offenses, home invasions, and repeat offending among the highest in the country. The idea that all offenders can be reformed through community programs and therapeutic justice rings hollow in the face of rising lawlessness. While policy discussions often revolve around the rehabilitation of criminals, the victims of these crimes, those whose lives are shattered, whose security is forever compromised, are frequently left as an afterthought in the equation.

Crime, particularly violent crime, is a function of incentives. If the risks of committing a heinous act are outweighed by the benefits or if the consequences are deemed trivial, deterrence fails. In a region where youth offenders reoffend within hours of being released, where entire communities live in fear of their streets after dark, and where policing resources are stretched thin, the discussion on harsher punishments, including the death penalty, becomes not just philosophical but practical.

Deterrence operates on the principle that punishment should be severe enough to dissuade future offenses. The most effective deterrents are those that impose irreversible and uncompromising consequences. While critics argue that the death penalty has not definitively been proven to reduce crime, the logic remains self-evident, a criminal who has been executed will never reoffend, and the psychological effect of such a sentence on potential offenders cannot be ignored.

The fundamental question is whether an individual weighing the risks of committing a capital offense, murder, aggravated rape, acts of terror, would reconsider if they knew the consequence was execution rather than a life sentence with the possibility of parole. The argument that criminals do not think of consequences when committing a crime ignores the vast body of research that demonstrates how incentives shape human behaviour.

Australia has long embraced policies focused on rehabilitation over punitive justice. The results, particularly in places like the Northern Territory, are evident in recidivism rates that hover well above the national average. Offenders cycle through the legal system with minimal consequences, emboldened by lenient sentencing and weak deterrents. The Territories reluctance to impose firm and severe punishment has created an environment where lawlessness is tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged.

For many repeat violent offenders, prison is a temporary inconvenience rather than a serious punishment. With the absence of severe consequences, deterrence is lost. The revolving-door justice system not only fails to protect innocent citizens but actively incentivizes further criminality. This is particularly true for career criminals and those who see the justice system as a game to be played rather than a force to be feared.

Opponents of capital punishment often claim that it violates human rights or that the risk of wrongful convictions outweighs its benefits. But this argument, while emotionally compelling, ignores the fundamental duty of government, which is to protect the law-abiding from the lawless.

The idea that the state should not have the power to take a life is contradicted by the reality that criminals exercise this power without restraint. If a murderer or rapist is willing to extinguish the life of an innocent, what moral authority dictates that society cannot enforce a proportional response? This is not about vengeance, it is about ensuring that those who pose the greatest threat to civil order are permanently removed from society.

The notion that wrongful convictions render the death penalty unviable is similarly flawed. Modern forensic science, advances in DNA testing, and rigorous legal safeguards significantly reduce the risk of erroneous execution. Further, the argument against capital punishment on the grounds of wrongful conviction can be extended to any punitive system, should we eliminate incarceration altogether because of the possibility of mistakes? No serious society would take that proposition seriously.

For the death penalty to serve as an effective deterrent, it must be applied with consistency and swiftness. The key failure of past capital punishment policies has been the excessive delays, appeals, and bureaucratic entanglements that make execution seem like a distant and unlikely consequence rather than an imminent reality.

In practical terms, a death penalty framework in the Northern Territory could be narrowly applied to specific crimes, premeditated murder, acts of terror, serial sexual violence, where evidence is irrefutable and the threat to society is undeniable. A streamlined process, with built-in safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions while ensuring that justice is not delayed indefinitely, would be essential.

Public support for harsher sentencing is evident. Communities are growing increasingly frustrated with a legal system that prioritizes the rights of offenders over victims. While moral debates around the death penalty will always persist, governance is not about utopian ideals, it is about ensuring that citizens can live their lives free from the constant threat of violence and crime.

The broader issue at hand is not just the efficacy of the death penalty but the erosion of law and order. A society that refuses to punish its worst criminals with the severity they deserve signals weakness. It emboldens those who see the state as incapable of enforcing consequences. My personal Christian beliefs emphasise redemption, forgiveness, and the sanctity of life, principles that stand in direct opposition to the irreversible nature of the death penalty. My own personal argument is that no human institution, especially a government prone to corruption and error, should wield the power to take a life. History also reveals that governments, when granted absolute authority, abuse it every single time, executing the innocent or using capital punishment as a tool of oppression. Trusting fallible institutions with such power contradicts both biblical teachings on mercy and historical lessons on government overreach.  I believe justice must be firm, however, it should never preclude the possibility of redemption.

Yet, Darwin, like many parts of the Western world, is experiencing the consequences of permissive criminal justice policies that have prioritised leniency over deterrence. The question is not whether the death penalty alone will solve crime, I know it will not. The question is whether we are willing to accept that some criminals will never be rehabilitated, that some acts of evil warrant permanent removal, and that failing to enforce strict punishments contributes to lawlessness rather than prevents it. The reality is, whilst both sides of government are actively trying to curtail and censor the speech of citizens and introducing the most bizarre and repugnant hate speech laws they can. The average Australian is quite rightly experiencing the devastation of ignorant immigration policies, our government is sending money to internationally identified Terrorist organisations that kidnapped, raped and brutalised jews and discussion, discourse and debate on a range of these issues is being suppressed. I’ve made my personal position clear, I work in frontline services and this issue is being discussed openly by members of the public.  It should be discussed openly by the mainstream media as well, if they want to retain or regain any credibility.  Why? Because regardless of which side of the debate you are on, this expression will relieve pressure and resentment that is building up in the community and society. The studies are clear, Vigilantes are influenced by trends and if the public discourse is so widely out of sync with the government and media, then people will die and the government will face a very angry public, if they try to hold those considered justified to account.

A government’s duty is to its people, not to those who choose to live outside the bounds of civil society. The rights of victims must outweigh the rights of criminals. If the prospect of capital punishment causes even a fraction of would-be offenders to reconsider their actions, it may be said it served its purpose. In a time when violent crime is rising and public trust in the justice system is eroding, if not completely gone, refusing to even consider capital punishment as a deterrent is not just naïve—it is reckless.

Society must decide whether it values justice or merely the illusion of it. The time for moral grandstanding is over. The time for real consequences has arrived. If we don’t get ahead of this discussion now, the public may decide to take matters into its own hands. From the author.

The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security Consultant with 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organizations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.