I respect your opinion and your truthfullness here, but I see what I consider ignorance in the mild anti-Americanism post here. I'll try to take it apart one at a time.
Honestly, not at all. Like many Australians in the political centre, there's a love-hate relationship with America. It's a country that established much of what we hold dear - individual human rights, the separation of church and state, opportunity at the core of social policy and a norms-based approach to foreign policy - and then threw it all away, a little bit at a time. But I don't blame all Americans. Just the post-Nixon Republicans.
I'm not going to pretend I know much about the Australian justice system, but if it is anything like the American, I do think these sub-humans should be given a fair trial, in which case any right-minded juror would convict them.
Listen to yourself. "A fair trial, in which case any right-minded juror would convict them". For "sub-humans". I don't think you belong on that jury. Your mind is made up. For future reference, a fair trial requires an open-minded jury. One that has to be convinced of guilt, not of innocence. This is the American system as well.
I do not think that the death penatly is supported by everyone in the United States, and I am sure you would find many people throughout Europe and Australia who are fine with it. We dont "put people down like cats and dogs," only people who commit terrible crimes. I see it as pointless, but not morally wrong, as life in prison would be a worse punishment in my opinion.
On average, somebody on death row is found to be either innocent, or the victim of flaws in the legal process, every 58 days. Tragically, that doesn't always happen
before somebody is murdered by the state. That's why it's morally wrong.
To be honest, I don't care who did it, because it is clear this stems from mental illness (though hardly an excuse, or no one would be responsible for their actions).
Well, first of all, sometimes mental illness *is* an excuse. It goes back to those fair trials that you were talking about. To convict somebody under the law, there has to be both a criminal act *and* a capacity to comprehend the criminality of that act. In the absence of the latter, a conviction is illegal. Second, you don't know that there is a mental illness involved. I'm not sure that you really even understand what mental illness is.
Inevitable future crimes (though I know you don't beleive the will happen) should be prevented when they can, and these are the people who will commit them.
Empty, silly posturing. So we are now locking people away for crimes they might commit in the future? Fair trials... ah, forget it.
I may aquire more knowlege in my later years, but what I consider common sense will hopefully stay with me.
Certainly. Except the bits that are based on ignorance and knee-jerk emotion.
Seems to be working good (though I don't think we "forget about em" as you say.) Their are plenty of rehabilitation centers in America for people with addictions and such, which is great, but you cannot cure a lack of a soul and a need to inflict pain.
"Lack of a soul". I think we're getting closer to where this world-view on crime and punishment comes from. It's not the temporal sphere, is it? That's fine, if so, just understand that there's supposed to be a separation between private belief and public justice.
Not really, people with mental conditions who commit CRIMES end up in prison, though there are a growing number of centers to help people with treatable mental diseases.
Crime and mental illness are related. Sick people commit crimes that they would not have done had they been well. Where this is the case, nothing is served by putting them in prison, which is well established to be one of the worst possible environments for the mentally ill.
I'd like to see those statistics (not that I doubt, just curious.) I think strict justice for crimes is completely reasonable. Taking it to the extremes of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia of course is not what I have in mind, but criminals, like these individuals should be prosectues.
Zooplantman's article should give you all the corroboration of my point that you require.
Nobody is saying that these individuals, when caught, should not be prosecuted. Only that people shouldn't be spouting nonsense about their guilt or innocence before they're even identified! Surely not a controversial point.
I highly doubt either of our opinions will be changed, and that is fine. Your opinion is a respectable one here, though I think mine is correct.
I respect your right to your opinion (after all, as noted above I have quite an attachment to 'made in America' principles like free speech), but not the opinion itself. I respect opinions based on evidence and critical reasoning, which I don't see here. Sorry.
For this reason, I am scared of telling visitors they are doing the wrong thing. A-holes come in all shapes and sizes, from kids, to defensive parents, to teens, to adults - but most of them are bigger than me. 
