# Quebec Tory Senator:  Give murderers rope for their cells



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2012)

Interesting idea - methinks someone from PMO may want to discuss this behind closed doors with the Senator (in a Sgt-Maj sort of "counseling" way?)....


> A Conservative senator in Ottawa has an unconventional proposal for cutting down prison costs: Give murder convicts a rope in their prison cell, and let them decide whether to hang themselves.
> 
> "Basically, every killer should (have) the right to his own rope in his cell. They can decide whether to live," Sen. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu told reporters Wednesday.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 1 Feb 12

CBC French's version of the story, and YouTube video of the statement (or the 9 seconds of sizzle, anyway)


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Feb 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting idea - methinks someone from PMO may want to discuss this behind closed doors with the Senator (in a Sgt-Maj sort of "counseling" way?)....The Canadian Press, 1 Feb 12
> 
> CBC French's version of the story, and YouTube video of the statement (or the 9 seconds of sizzle, anyway)


Can't say I disagree with most of his thoughts.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Feb 2012)

The only factual error I could find in that story is that Canada did *not* eliminate the death penalty in 1976.  It was in the scale of punishments in the National Defence Act until 1999, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## jeffb (1 Feb 2012)

It's not very PC obviously but I think he does have a point. However, the argument shouldn't be a financial one. It doesn't matter how much we have to spend to keep serial killers behind bars, either the death penalty is morally right - and Canada has decided that it is not- or it isn't. There is never a time when ethics and morality should be balanced against cost to society. Now, I don't have a problem with offenders being forced to work while in a correction facility to pay back the cost of their incarceration but that's a whole other thread.


----------



## ballz (1 Feb 2012)

I don't disagree with him about much, but we can't even get assisted-suicide legislation for people that terminally ill. If heinous murderers get the "right to die" before the terminally ill, I might just lose my last couple marbles.


----------



## Remius (1 Feb 2012)

Hmn.  What about all those people who went to jail for murdering their children because of an incompetent coroner's testimony.  Those people lost everything.  One woman had her kids put up for adoption another's family still won't talk to him, even after having been proven innocent...

Your life is gone, you're accused of murdering the most precious thing in your life (let alone grieving over the loss of a child), you face years if not your whole life in a prison...that rope would be very tempting with all those ingredients.

Irresponsible statement in my view regardless of how valid it may seem.


----------



## dogger1936 (1 Feb 2012)

Two words:

Gluag Nunavut.


----------



## Remius (1 Feb 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Two words:
> 
> Gluag Nunavut.



I see one word there.  At least only one that I recognise... ;D


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2012)

Can't say that I disagree with many of his thoughts either.

However, I'd love to see the DP brought back for cases of rapist murderers of children where clear DNA evidence of guilt exists; I'd even offer up my free services as "hatch-lever puller" and am quite certain that I'd sleep well at night. Alas ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Can't say that I disagree with many of his thoughts either.
> 
> However, I'd love to see the DP brought back for cases of rapist murderers of children where clear DNA evidence of guilt exists; I'd even offer up my free services as "hatch-lever puller" and am quite certain that I'd sleep well at night. Alas ...


Hell has indeed frozen over, I'm agreeing with Vern.   >


----------



## mariomike (1 Feb 2012)

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." 

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence


----------



## Remius (1 Feb 2012)

While I disagree with the way he said it he does have a point about certain criminals like Picton, Olsen et al.  i don't even see it as a deterence vs rehabilitation issue.  It is more like getting rid of vermin or a disease.

I can also sympathise with the senator his own daughter was raped and killed.


----------



## dogger1936 (1 Feb 2012)

His daughter was raped and killed for perspective...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1124663--give-murderers-rope-inside-their-prison-cells-tory-senator-says


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2012)

Following up....


> Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu has backtracked from controversial comments he made Wednesday about having ropes in the jail cells of convicted killers that prompted an accusation that the Quebec senator broke the law.
> 
> His office issued a statement Wednesday afternoon that said a comment he made earlier in the day to reporters was "inappropriate" and that he regrets not clarifying his views on repeat criminals.
> 
> ...


CBC.ca, 1 Feb 12


----------



## GAP (1 Feb 2012)

Change is nice.....he proposed a viable change.....give it a try...........


----------



## canada94 (1 Feb 2012)

Weird how terminally ill people don't have a "right to die" but criminals would through this, I am sure the "Euthanasia" movement would be absolutely shocked if this were to actually become law... the Conservatives would be doing a blatant hypocrisy.

Although I am actually open to the idea, the thought that someone with Cancer who would rather end their own life maybe sometime before the "going gets bad" can't legally but a skum-bag murderer can after killing someone "erks" me.

Also the thought of even one "wrongly accused" person actually killing themselves through the system would send shock-waves through Canada..


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Feb 2012)

The death penalty is, if nothing else, specific deterrence, and that is a sufficient reason to apply it to serial murderers.  There is no moral objection which can be mustered given current circumstances: if it is OK to send our armed forces abroad and risk killing innocents not subject to our laws, it is OK to deliberately kill guilty people subject to our laws. The sufficient counterargument is the lack of certainty of guilt - we have no technology for undoing execution.


----------



## exabedtech (2 Feb 2012)

To agree with the death penalty is to have complete and total believe in the utter infallibility of our justice system.  I'm not prepared to go that far, but give them a rope and let them decide???  They already have bed sheets and can easily figure it all out if they're of that mind.  What i'd like to see abolished is the 'protective custody' for clowns like Russell Williams.  Why go out of our way to prevent it???  It the person is mentally ill, we have other facilities.  But for the Russell Williams of this world, please do us all a favour and let him die if he's willing to do us all that favour.


----------



## armyvern (2 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> To agree with the death penalty is to have complete and total believe in the utter infallibility of our justice system.



B.S.

Scroll down and read my post. I'm all for bringing back the DP. We have a thing called DNA since the DP was last used (I won't say, "since it was outlawed" ... as DNA did indeed exist and was widely utilized in courts when the last holdout DP actually disappeared from the legal drawer of penalties [the Canadian Forces]).

I often have issues with our Justice system (it's too f'n lax being the big one, criminals having more rights than victims following in close second place), but I have no issues with DNA.


----------



## exabedtech (2 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> B.S.
> 
> Scroll down and read my post. I'm all for bringing back the DP. We have a thing called DNA since the DP was last used (I won't say, "since it was outlawed" ... as DNA did indeed exist and was widely utilized in courts when the last holdout DP actually disappeared from the legal drawer of penalties [the Canadian Forces]).
> 
> I often have issues with our Justice system (it's too f'n lax being the big one, criminals having more rights than victims following in close second place), but I have no issues with DNA.



Yes, DNA is awesome.  I'd agree.  I just don't know that our justice system is absolutely 100% reliable in every case as it would need to be before we justify killing someone.  How was the DNA obtained? Where was it obtained?  Was it transferred inadvertently?  Was it mixed up in a lab? Was someone set up by a cop convinced of a persons guilt but unable to prove it?  I could post dozens of links like : 

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Error-prone-death-penalty-system-ensnares-innocent-1582882.php

In the end, we all want vengeance and we all abhor the idea of paying a bunch of bastards like the Shafia's (who really should be deported), but civilized societies rarely choose to place enough authority in the state to kill its own citizens.  Thank god for that.


----------



## buck13 (2 Feb 2012)

I am more than ok with this idea. I think that the Canadian prison system has moved away from the three pronged approach prison was originally intended to have. Prison is meant to a) be a bad place to be for the individual, b) keep individuals out of general society and, c) be a place where people can undergo some form of rehabilitation. I think that Canadian prisons are seriously dropping the ball with regards to prison being a terrible place which people desperately want to avoid. Maybe this would help. It's brutal but it might act as a scared straight kind of tactic.


----------



## captloadie (2 Feb 2012)

I think that prison should be a punishment first, with rehabilitation being offered to those individuals who it is likely to do good. I don't agree with the Senator, because this isn't capital punishment, it is letting a criminal get away with his crimes without paying his debt to society. We don't give criminals the option of where and when they go to jail (normally), nor should we give them control on when or how or if they die. My personal opinion is that prison, for the most heinous of criminals, should be like Dante's inferno.

As for the DP, I'm on the fence. I don't believe it is much of a deterant for the worst of offenders: the serial killers, the psychopaths, the drug induced crazies. Therefore, its real purpose is either a means of punishment, or to stop recidivism. For the first, as stated above, I think death is too good for them. For the second, I'd have to be convinced that there have been significantly more victims killed by repeat offenders than there have been innocent people wrongly accused.


----------



## armyvern (2 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Yes, DNA is awesome.  I'd agree.  I just don't know that our justice system is absolutely 100% reliable in every case as it would need to be before we justify killing someone.  How was the DNA obtained? Where was it obtained?  Was it transferred inadvertently?  Was it mixed up in a lab? Was someone set up by a cop convinced of a persons guilt but unable to prove it?  I could post dozens of links like :
> 
> http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Error-prone-death-penalty-system-ensnares-innocent-1582882.php
> 
> In the end, we all want vengeance and we all abhor the idea of paying a bunch of bastards like the Shafia's (who really should be deported), but civilized societies rarely choose to place enough authority in the state to kill its own citizens.  Thank god for that.



In my original post, I also say who/circumstances I'd be OK with bringing the DP back for. You should read it.

Wow. You certainly make it seem like police officers "setting up" people is the normal and is to be expected. That's so far gone that I won't even bother to address it suffice to say, if that were normal, why are there thousands of "cold & unsolved" cases to our Southern border when those 'corrupt' /'set-up the boys we don't like in our little backwoods-town as a habit' police could have just done so? Because it isn't normal. It's extremely, extremely rare. BTW, your questions are usually asked of every jury by the defense having the prosecution show the chain of custody etc.

Yes, you probably could post dozens of links anti-DP up there. And for every one of those links, I could link you to a pro-DP site or to a serial killer or child sexual predator profile site where innocents/kids ended up dead because "civilized society" didn't deal with "possibly-innocent (my ass)" murderer the first time around.

I do NOT relish vengeance. I relish *justice* for real victims (not criminals) and *deterrence* for the worst of the worst who pray upon our helpless and there is a big difference between the two. I am far from "uncivilized". I am actually quite the average Canadian and the are many more out there who think just like me!! Thank god.

Oh yes, civilized people can and do advocate killing our own "citizens", our opposite viewpoint from yours does NOT make us uncivilized. While we are on that word "citizen", I'd like to state that I am also of the opinion that these now-society-coddled criminals once again lose their right to vote while behind bars.


----------



## lethalLemon (2 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Yes, DNA is awesome.  I'd agree.  I just don't know that our justice system is absolutely 100% reliable in every case as it would need to be before we justify killing someone.  How was the DNA obtained? Where was it obtained?  Was it transferred inadvertently?  Was it mixed up in a lab? Was someone set up by a cop convinced of a persons guilt but unable to prove it?  I could post dozens of links like :
> 
> http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Error-prone-death-penalty-system-ensnares-innocent-1582882.php
> 
> In the end, we all want vengeance and we all abhor the idea of paying a bunch of bastards like the Shafia's (who really should be deported), but civilized societies rarely choose to place enough authority in the state to kill its own citizens.  Thank god for that.



Except if they were to be deported, they've be welcomed back as heroes and would live magnanimous life with servants and whatnot - because "honour killings" are a culturally excepted practice in their homeland. They deserve to rot in our prison, not to go back home.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Feb 2012)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> They deserve to rot in our prison, not to go back home.


Nope. Dirtnap.


----------



## exabedtech (2 Feb 2012)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> Except if they were to be deported, they've be welcomed back as heroes and would live magnanimous life with servants and whatnot - because "honour killings" are a culturally excepted practice in their homeland. They deserve to rot in our prison, not to go back home.


Read an article about deporting them... says they need to serve out there sentence here first  :nod:  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> In my original post, I also say who/circumstances I'd be OK with bringing the DP back for. You should read it.
> 
> Wow. You certainly make it seem like police officers "setting up" people is the normal and is to be expected. That's so far gone that I won't even bother to address it suffice to say, if that were normal, why are there thousands of "cold & unsolved" cases to our Southern border when those 'corrupt' /'set-up the boys we don't like in our little backwoods-town as a habit' police could have just done so? Because it isn't normal. It's extremely, extremely rare. BTW, your questions are usually asked of every jury by the defense having the prosecution show the chain of custody etc.
> 
> ...


Never suggested for a moment that screw ups are the norm.  Only that they can and do occur.  I'm ok with a death penalty where we are 100% accurate each and every time.  You seem to be ok with one where we are accurate most of the time.  That's the difference.  If the system were infallible, there would be no such thing as innocent persons be found no guilty years later.  It isn't infallible.
As for the 'deterrence' factor.  There isn't one.  Death penalty states in the US do not enjoy lower rates of violent crime compared to non-death penalty states.  It really is simply vengence and like I say, i'm fine with that as long as the system is 100% perfect.
I'd imagine most of us in this forum either are or have worked for the government.  Any out there agree that the government is completely infallible?  Didn't think so.


----------



## armyvern (3 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Read an article about deporting them... says they need to serve out there sentence here first  :nod:
> Never suggested for a moment that screw ups are the norm.  Only that they can and do occur.  I'm ok with a death penalty where we are 100% accurate each and every time.  You seem to be ok with one where we are accurate most of the time.  That's the difference.  If the system were infallible, there would be no such thing as innocent persons be found no guilty years later.  It isn't infallible.
> As for the 'deterrence' factor.  There isn't one.  Death penalty states in the US do not enjoy lower rates of violent crime compared to non-death penalty states.  It really is simply vengence and like I say, i'm fine with that as long as the system is 100% perfect.
> I'd imagine most of us in this forum either are or have worked for the government.  Any out there agree that the government is completely infallible?  Didn't think so.



No. I'm not "OK with one where we are accurate most of the time."

I am awesome with death sentences for rapist murderers of children where DNA evidence exists."

And, I'd probably be quite fine with DP for any other murderous types where DNA also existed if the trail / Chain of Custody was shown to be sound during the trial.

I'm a huge advocate of DNA evidence. So no, I'd not go for a sentence of the DP (rather LWOP) for a child rapist-murderer if no DNA proof existed, but would till be fine with that guy sitting in jail for life. DNA exists?? Let 'em swing.

And, there's craploads of those boys where DNA exists proving they did these heinous crimes ... still out there breathing our oxygen. You may be OK with that; I am not ... especially when Life doesn't mean life.


Meanwhile, just found out that Loren Herzog (another convicted serial killer released because he didn't get the DP) ended up committing suicide at his home past fall. By hanging himself. What a shame; guess he didn't like the fact that his accomplice (Shermantine, who did get the DP) was giving up the location of the remains of his unfound victims.

Then, of course, we got boys like Westley Allan Dodd who'll flat out tell you that the only way to stop them is death. Really? Come on over then and allow us to oblige you.

In short, that's what the myriad of appeals process' are for; the way you seem to hold is that even after all that DNA (which must be there for a DP I'd support), trial and appeals, that "far too many innocent convicts" make it through to the DP being carried out. 

Well, for me, every single murder victim was innocent and had their DP carried out by their killer without the right of evidence/appeal after appeal ... so I guess it all works out in the end. 

Call me vindictive if you must, but I cashed my reality check years ago.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Death penalty states in the US do not enjoy lower rates of violent crime compared to non-death penalty states.



For every murder put to death there are untold victims who live.
For every meal they eat is one less meal for the homeless sick and ill.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Feb 2012)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> For every murder put to death there are untold victims who live.
> For every meal they eat is one less meal for the homeless sick and ill.



Well said. 

To add, out here we have what we would term a "colourful" Member of Parliament who loves to Tweet obscenities about Conservatives and their mis steps. Pat Martin is his name.

Pat Martin objected to the opening of a teen drop in centre in the downtown core run by a Christian organization on the basis that the Christians would try to convert or recruit teens to their cause. I wanted to ask him, maybe the Hells Angels could open a club house there instead? Or Islamic Jihad more to your liking Pat?

Pat is a douche.


----------



## Danjanou (3 Feb 2012)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> Except if they were to be deported, they've be welcomed back as heroes and would live magnanimous life with servants and whatnot - because "honour killings" are a culturally excepted practice in their homeland. They deserve to rot in our prison, not to go back home.



We do have weekly flights to their home country, and nobody said anything about the plane actually landing before they..... ahem got off it. >


----------



## ballz (3 Feb 2012)

On the death penalty / DNA evidence:

I remember well a post made by TV a while back about the death penalty for heinous crimes and hanging. I was and still am sold by it.

When it comes to DNA evidence being the required proof, I remember reading an article about lawyers talking about the "CSI-factor" they are witnessing in courtrooms. A jury is told the victim had the accused semen or blood on them, and now they are all convinced he must be guilty because DNA evidence must be bulletproof. I would be a bit worried about that. I'm especially sketchy on rape, because semen in a woman's vagina =/= rape, and there are some pretty sketchy cases that use DNA to evidence to prove that victim/accused definitely had sex... but all speculation/witnesses/circumstances to prove it was rape. The same goes with murder... DNA is often used to prove the accused was there "at some point" (like the accused's hair was found on the victim's clothes) etc.

Which brings me to the heinous criminal thing... A lot of these are slam dunks, even without any DNA evidence... Is there any DNA evidence involved in the case of Anders Behring Breivik? The Columbine shooters? Virginia Tech? Could we put him/them to death under this "DNA clause?" So these completely heinous, slam dunk cases, in which I think the convicted should definitely be put to death, they probably wouldn't be if it required DNA evidence. Some sketchy, one-time rape/murder case, could potentially put an innocent person to death based on DNA evidence.

So I will say there should be multiple victims or crimes involved (making it fairly more heinous). Because getting falsely convicted of one murder or rape, it's possible, statistically improbable, but possible.... But getting falsely convicted of 2 or 3? or 10? Statistically impossible*

*not literally impossible... but I mean much less than .0001% chance of a false conviction.... I could live with putting people to death at those kinda of odds.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Feb 2012)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/02/03/boisvenu-death-penalty-complaint.html



> A Quebec man has filed a criminal complaint against Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu for a comment he believes could incite suicide.
> 
> The complaint comes after the Conservative senator said this week that he was against the death penalty, but not opposed to ropes being left in the cells of serial killers who have no chance of rehabilitation. He said they should have the option of taking their own life.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (3 Feb 2012)

I'll bet the Libs or Dippers had to work hard to find someone.....


----------



## aesop081 (3 Feb 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> I'll bet the Libs or Dippers had to work hard to find someone.....



Nah....i point the finger at the CBC..........


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Feb 2012)

I feel artisitic today, time for a demotivational saying, and hoping one of you can turn this into a poster:

"The CBC - undermining the criminal justice system for 40 years!"


----------



## Robert0288 (3 Feb 2012)

kind of like that other thread. Here's one for you that may need condensing.

CBC - government news agency suing the government to keep it's budget a secret from the people.


----------



## exabedtech (3 Feb 2012)

Defining who should and who shouldn't receive the death penalty is easy if I simply ask "Should Bernardo get the death penalty".  I'd love the opportunity to shoot him, and i'm sure i'd have to take a number if the opportunity arose.

Of course that isn't the way it works.  We would have to define the parameters in legislation and then apply those parameters to the individual case.  At that point,  things get murkier.  After a while it may be tempting to change the parameters a bit after a high profile sadistic murderer escapes this penalty since his particular case does not, for whatever reason apply.  In any case, what exactly should those parameters be?  DNA found at the scene that matches?  I'm in and out of different homes all the time.  i'd have to work in a hazmat suit from now on to avoid leaving a hair in a home where someone may be murdered in the future.

I really am a big fan of DNA evidence, but then again, what does it really prove?  It proves a person's DNA made it to the scene where it was found.  It doesn't say when or how it managed to get there.  A few years ago, I had to change a tire on a country road near St Albert AB.  As it turns out, A military mechanic had dumped his wife's body within 50m of where i'd pulled over just the day before. She wasn't found until he led police to her some while later on, but I easily could have left DNA evidence as well as evidence of having pulled over in a truck at that very scene.

It is an extremely rare event for an innocent man to be convicted of a capital crime, but it does happen and still happens.  Imagine your own child being wrongfully put to death over a set of bizarre coincidences.  When debating the death penalty, you cannot consider the criminals we already know about, you can only consider the set of criteria under which you would judge defendants in the future.


----------



## brihard (3 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Defining who should and who shouldn't receive the death penalty is easy if I simply ask "Should Bernardo get the death penalty".  I'd love the opportunity to shoot him, and i'm sure i'd have to take a number if the opportunity arose.
> 
> Of course that isn't the way it works.  We would have to define the parameters in legislation and then apply those parameters to the individual case.  At that point,  things get murkier.  After a while it may be tempting to change the parameters a bit after a high profile sadistic murderer escapes this penalty since his particular case does not, for whatever reason apply.  In any case, what exactly should those parameters be?  DNA found at the scene that matches?  I'm in and out of different homes all the time.  i'd have to work in a hazmat suit from now on to avoid leaving a hair in home where someone may be murdered in the future.
> 
> ...



The Innocence Project in the U.S. has achieved something like 200 exonerations of individuals who had already been convicted and sentenced to death.

I have no *philosophical* objection to capital punishment. Many do not deserve to live. But I simply do not trust the state to be competent to do this one most irreversible thing. The state is just too fallible to chance it. And besides that, it's more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life, when all is said and done.

I've always found it odd that many of those who are in favour of capital punishment are disproportionately opposed to and skeptical of state authority in other matters. Doe snot computer to me. We can't un-kill someone...

We sure as hell need a real life without parole though. Go to jail and stay there til you die.


----------



## Robert0288 (3 Feb 2012)

back to original topic


> Go to jail and stay there til you die.


Then what about giving the person in jail the ability to say when provided there are steps and mandated wait times to ensure it wasn't a rash decision?


----------



## Container (3 Feb 2012)

The reliability of DNA and fingerprint evidence, when weighed objectively, is so dependable- it cannot be reasonably objected to- the standards are much higher than the United STates and their statistics have no place in our discussion- our DNA standard is thousands of time more reliable.

I would have no problem with death sentences in those cases.

Where the evidence isnt as cut and dry sure life in prison.


----------



## armyvern (3 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Defining who should and who shouldn't receive the death penalty is easy if I simply ask "Should Bernardo get the death penalty".  I'd love the opportunity to shoot him, and i'm sure i'd have to take a number if the opportunity arose.
> 
> Of course that isn't the way it works.  We would have to define the parameters in legislation and then apply those parameters to the individual case.  At that point,  things get murkier.  After a while it may be tempting to change the parameters a bit after a high profile sadistic murderer escapes this penalty since his particular case does not, for whatever reason apply.  In any case, what exactly should those parameters be?  DNA found at the scene that matches?  I'm in and out of different homes all the time.  i'd have to work in a hazmat suit from now on to avoid leaving a hair in home where someone may be murdered in the future.
> 
> ...



Keep trying, but you will not change my mind. 

*Column A:                                                                         Column B:*
Murder Victims (millions of 'em);                      Convicted murders (craploads of 'em);        
No Trial;                                                       Trial(s) with presentation of evidence;
No DNA showing guilt;                                    Evidence of Guilt that is subject to their scrutiny and questioning;
No Statement;                                               Lawyers (usually paid for by taxpayer) opening and closing
No Opportunity to Defend Themself;                 Can testify if they choose;
No Appeals;                                                  Endless Appeals again paid for by taxpayer;
DP carried out anyway;                                   _I wish!!_;
Every one of that 100% is innocent;                  99.99999% of them _*not*_ innocent;
Lefties ignore them for Column B's rights.          Lefties fight for these guys' rights over everyone else's.


Eerily, arguing about their 'rights' in Column B won't be winning my conversion to your (their) cause anytime soon.

You argue for every opportunity that we DO give them and pay for, but NONE of which 'rights' they felt their victims deserved.

Yep, I'm all about 100% certainty ... and only one column has that number. See, it evens out in the end.


----------



## exabedtech (3 Feb 2012)

Container said:
			
		

> The reliability of DNA and fingerprint evidence, when weighed objectively, is so dependable- it cannot be reasonably objected to- the standards are much higher than the United STates and their statistics have no place in our discussion- our DNA standard is thousands of time more reliable.



Yes, i'd agree that if they find your DNA at a scene.  Yes, they can determine very satisfactorily that it is in fact your DNA.  What is less certain is how and when it got there.  Again, simply saying 'go ahead and kill that one' because his DNA was at the scene may be pushing it just a bit.


----------



## exabedtech (3 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Keep trying, but you will not change my mind.
> 
> *Column A:                                                                         Column B:*
> Murder Victims (millions of 'em);                      Convicted murders (craploads of 'em);
> ...



Hey, I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind.  Just debating a point.  Thank god we don't all have the same opinions, or debating would suck.


----------



## Container (3 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Yes, i'd agree that if they find your DNA at a scene.  Yes, they can determine very satisfactorily that it is in fact your DNA.  What is less certain is how and when it got there.  Again, simply saying 'go ahead and kill that one' because his DNA was at the scene may be pushing it just a bit.



Well I worked in forensics and in major cases management with DNA evidence on murder- I can tell you that your scenario that somebody would get the death penalty based off DNA at the scene haphazardly is laughable. I am intimately familiar with the protocols and methodology and I can say with certainty where the steps are taken to procure evidence properly your position is  "boogeyman" at best.

Canada is not the United States and their issues with regards to how they secure their samples are being addressed by adopting our protocols. Not the other way around.


----------



## QORvanweert (3 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Keep trying, but you will not change my mind.
> 
> *Column A:                                                                         Column B:*
> Murder Victims (millions of 'em);                      Convicted murders (craploads of 'em);
> ...



I agree wholeheartedly with you.


----------



## brihard (3 Feb 2012)

Container said:
			
		

> Well I worked in forensics and in major cases management with DNA evidence on murder- I can tell you that your scenario that somebody would get the death penalty based off DNA at the scene haphazardly is laughable. I am intimately familiar with the protocols and methodology and I can say with certainty where the steps are taken to procure evidence properly your position is  "boogeyman" at best.
> 
> Canada is not the United States and their issues with regards to how they secure their samples are being addressed by adopting our protocols. Not the other way around.



And yet, if an error is made - for the system can be no more perfect than the least perfect component thereof - then potentially a completely innocent man has been killed by the state when true life without parole would have been just as effective in every principle of sentencing. This isn't an issue of the 'rights of murderers', but of the rights of innocents who are falsely convicted.

I simply do not, cannot, and will not trust the state we all criticize so heavily as being capable of being *that* perfectly, flawlessly infallible in this singular instance where our emotions are most engaged and our sensibilities run most rampant.  The crime of murder stems from the tragedy of the unjust early taking of an innocent life. How can even a risk of same be deemed an acceptable consequences?

Throw someone in jail for life with no hope of freedom and their life is just as effectively taken, but with the critically necessary provision made for the correction of error. And if they want to die, you bet your ass they'l find a way.

The only argument that favours capital punishment is that of pure revenge by society. I cannot deem that sufficient to overrule the inherent risk in deciding that we will make it the state's business to execute.


----------



## armyvern (3 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Yes, i'd agree that if they find your DNA at a scene.  Yes, they can determine very satisfactorily that it is in fact your DNA.  *What is less certain is how and when it got there.*  Again, simply saying 'go ahead and kill that one' because his DNA was at the scene may be pushing it just a bit.



But that's exactly why they get a right to defense and a trial ... and appeal ... and appeal ... so go ahead and argue it then. Present your side and your exculpatory evidence, and your defense experts etc etc etc ...

At the end of the day, the jury believes you or they don't. Then all your appeals kick in. Years worth. Paid for using taxpayers money (some of which taxes are paid by the real victims' survivors).

Fair, impartial jury and trial. Right to appeal if you lose that trial. 

Still lose? Sorry, but your victim lost years ago. It sure as hell is not "pushing it a bit" ... it's years later and you've had your trial, your appeals, your experts, testimony, yadda yadda yadda ...

NO ONE - despite what you keep arguing just goes "his hair is there, let 'em swing".  :


----------



## armyvern (3 Feb 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> And yet, if an error is made - for the system can be no more perfect than the least perfect component thereof - then potentially a completely innocent man has been killed by the state when true life without parole would have been just as effective in every principle of sentencing. This isn't an issue of the 'rights of murderers', but of the rights of innocents who are falsely convicted.
> 
> I simply do not, cannot, and will not trust the state we all criticize so heavily as being capable of being *that* perfectly, flawlessly infallible in this singular instance where our emotions are most engaged and our sensibilities run most rampant.  The crime of murder stems from the tragedy of the unjust early taking of an innocent life. How can even a risk of same be deemed an acceptable consequences?
> _
> ...



I will, again, call bullshit on the yellow bit.  :

Oh, and as for the yellow italics ... word up: If life without parole actually meant LWOP, then not a single one of them would have the slightest interest in partaking in "the necessary correction of error" ... because they'd never get out to put it into practice!! Hell, they don't care about it now when they do know they'll get out again. Again, I cashed my reality check years ago.

Freed to kill again. Westley Allan Dodd would flat-out tell you the only way to stop him (a serial killer) is by killing him. He's certainly not the only one to state exactly that. I'll take their for it that you can't rehabilitate them precisely because they are the experts.


----------



## ballz (3 Feb 2012)

No, they don't do that Vern, but sometimes DNA is *small* part of the evidence, and others it is a *large* part of the evidence. I don't think simply having some sort of DNA evidence automatically should qualify you for the death penalty. Sometimes it proves a lot, sometimes it doesn't, but it's still part of the evidence presented, because it's part of the overall case.

As far I'm concerned, the jury declaring you guilty is the important part, not the evidence used (video, audio, DNA, etc). I think saying that "DNA evidence is the requirement for the death penalty" is basically the same thing as saying "if you are ABSOLUTELY positive he is guilty..." which we all know is a bad argument because you're always supposed to be ABSOLUTELY positive. I think it's the same argument because saying that a crime that doesn't have DNA evidence hasn't met the requirement for the death penalty, is basically saying that you aren't "absolutely positive" you didn't convict an innocent person when you didn't have DNA evidence, so you're just going to "play it safe" by not putting him/her to death.... just in case you were wrong, you know?

I'll reiterate, I think the the multiple crimes is a bigger factor than DNA evidence. If there's a .01% chance (hypothetical number, it's probably less) of being wrongfully convicted for murder, than there is a .0001% chance of being wrongfully convicted of TWO murders, and .000001% of three etc....

To me, if you can prove someone killed X amount of people, it doesn't matter what evidence you used, it's pretty much impossible it was a wrongful conviction. Close enough to impossible that I could sleep at night, anyway.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Feb 2012)

If an enemy grenade lands in the middle of the CP or casualty collection point and someone jumps on the grenade (committing suicide) they'll be lauded as a hero.

Flight of the intruder.  One of the pilots is surrounded by the enemy. He's pretty sure he's dying. He calls an airstrike down on himself (committing suicide). If anyone did that in real life we would call them a hero. 

If I cross the road and I push a child out of the way of a bus knowing it's going to smite me, I'd be called a hero.

Is it such an evil notion, giving a serial rapist-murderer a rope and giving them a choice to hang themselves?
I'm not gonna call them a hero but it WOULD in all likely hood save some lives.

Sure sitting in jail the rest of their life is a good punishment, kinda, but if you're willing to forgo that bit of punishment and giving them an easy out  it means that they are off the streets permanently and money is going elsewhere than keeping them alive fed clothed cared for medically, educationally etc..


----------



## armyvern (3 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> No, they don't do that Vern, but sometimes DNA is *small* part of the evidence, and others it is a *large* part of the evidence. I don't think simply having some sort of DNA evidence automatically should qualify you for the death penalty. Sometimes it proves a lot, sometimes it doesn't, but it's still part of the evidence presented, because it's part of the overall case.
> 
> As far I'm concerned, the jury declaring you guilty is the important part, not the evidence used (video, audio, DNA, etc). I think saying that "DNA evidence is the requirement for the death penalty" is basically the same thing as saying "if you are ABSOLUTELY positive he is guilty..." which we all know is a bad argument because you're always supposed to be ABSOLUTELY positive. I think it's the same argument because saying that a crime that doesn't have DNA evidence hasn't met the requirement for the death penalty, is basically saying that you aren't "absolutely positive" you didn't convict an innocent person when you didn't have DNA evidence, so you're just going to "play it safe" by not putting him/her to death.... just in case you were wrong, you know?
> ....



Perhaps you've missed all times where I've mentioned trial, presenting your evidence etc  ... IE Jury. 

You must have also missed the part where I said I'm good with the DP only IF there IS DNA evidence --- I never said "to the exclusion of all other evidence". (And I even said for murders of children ... [not ALL murders -- which would REALLY be just "vengeful" of me]). Yes, thanks, I do know how it works and that it is all "part of the evidence".  :

I sleep well at night thanks; I'd sleep better if we brought back the DP. Don't like that factoid? Oh well.


----------



## brihard (3 Feb 2012)

> Oh, and as for the yellow italics ... word up: If life without parole actually meant LWOP, then not a single one of them would have the slightest interest in partaking in "the necessary correction of error" ... because they'd never get out to put it into practice!! Hell, they don't care about it now when they do know they'll get out again. Again, I cashed my reality check years ago.



You're talking circles around yourself. The obvious answer here is that if they actually get a life without parole sentence- then don't waste any time or money on rehabilitative programming. Save it for those who WILL release- which is the vast majority of offenders, because we're talking about a new true life without parole as akin to what would be considered capital crimes. At the same time, take the current 'life sentence', rename it to the reality of '25 years', and preserve it for most of the serious crimes. I have no real problem with most people convicted of most crimes being released at some point- take a guy who murders at the age of 22, and he gets out at 47- I'm not too terribly bothered by that in many instances so long as proper risk assessments are done. 

Rehabilitative programs are offered on the principle of risk/need/responsivity- an offender must be medium to high risk of reoffense without targeted treatment; they must have medium to high treatment needs in order to effect change; and the treatment must be delivered in a format that the offender will likely respond to. Someone who will be in jail for the rest of their natural life doesn't fit this, so you don't waste the time. Institute a new sentence of natural life without parole for some of the most heinous offences, and every effect we would wish to achieve with the death penalty would be achieved- and if we f*** it up, we can let the guy out. You can dig a dead dude up too, I suppose, but it gets you nowhere.



> Freed to kill again. Westley Allan Dodd would flat-out tell you the only way to stop him (a serial killer) is by killing him. He's certainly not the only one to state exactly that. I'll take their for it that you can't rehabilitate them precisely because they are the experts.



Serial killers are also exceedingly rare. You don't formulate broad-based policy based on a very rare handful of exceptional cases at one far end of the bell curve. You'll recall that I said earlier I have no *philosophical* objection to capital punishment; some people simply deserve one round in the head and our species is better for it. But our system and government manage to screw everything else up on occasion. I can't accept that the difference between a true life without parole and execution (after a decade and millions of dollars of appeals) is worth the chance that we might someday execute an innocent man.  Someone spending the rest of their natural life in prison in segregation won't be out on the streets to murder again.


----------



## ballz (4 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Perhaps you've missed all times where I've mentioned trial, presenting your evidence etc  ... IE Jury.



No I haven't missed that point, but then why is DNA evidence the crown jewel that you're worried about? If they're guilty, then it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, whether it was DNA evidence, video evidence, audio evidence, witness testiomy, etc., should be irrelevant... unless you're thinking along these lines

"that a crime that doesn't have DNA evidence hasn't met the requirement for the death penalty, is basically saying that you aren't "absolutely positive" you didn't convict an innocent person when you didn't have DNA evidence, so you're just going to "play it safe" by not putting him/her to death.... just in case you were wrong, you know?"



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You must have also missed the part where I said I'm good with the DP only IF there IS DNA evidence



No, I didn't miss that part, that's the part I don't agree with. DNA evidence is a type of evidence, it is not a "higher form" of evidence.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I sleep well at night thanks; I'd sleep better if we brought back the DP. Don't like that factoid? Oh well.



I guess you missed the part where I've continually said we should bring back the DP then... that's the part I agree with you on.


----------



## armyvern (4 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> No I haven't missed that point, but then why is DNA evidence the crown jewel that you're worried about? If they're guilty, then it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, whether it was DNA evidence, video evidence, audio evidence, witness testiomy, etc., should be irrelevant... unless you're thinking along these lines
> 
> "that a crime that doesn't have DNA evidence hasn't met the requirement for the death penalty, is basically saying that you aren't "absolutely positive" you didn't convict an innocent person when you didn't have DNA evidence, so you're just going to "play it safe" by not putting him/her to death.... just in case you were wrong, you know?"
> 
> ...



Because it is one of those things that I'd need a finding of to go DP; as well as a finding that it was a child who was murdered.

Things like this are NORMAL.

Don't think so? Look south --- not all murders in Texas, California are DP eligible. And, I'm OK with that. I'd just have a couple more ticks that would have to be in that box too.

Sorry, but finding X's DNA in a raped & murdered child certainly IS a higher form of evidence than buddy's fingerprint on a glass in the room. Why, it's almost as good as having videotaped it to play for the eventual jury by this 'lil red-headed girls standards.


----------



## armyvern (4 Feb 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> You're talking circles around yourself. The obvious answer here is that if they actually get a life without parole sentence- then don't waste any time or money on rehabilitative programming. Save it for those who WILL release- which is the vast majority of offenders, because we're talking about a new true life without parole as akin to what would be considered capital crimes. At the same time, take the current 'life sentence', rename it to the reality of '25 years', and preserve it for most of the serious crimes. I have no real problem with most people convicted of most crimes being released at some point- take a guy who murders at the age of 22, and he gets out at 47- I'm not too terribly bothered by that in many instances so long as proper risk assessments are done.
> 
> Rehabilitative programs are offered on the principle of risk/need/responsivity- an offender must be medium to high risk of reoffense without targeted treatment; they must have medium to high treatment needs in order to effect change; and the treatment must be delivered in a format that the offender will likely respond to. Someone who will be in jail for the rest of their natural life doesn't fit this, so you don't waste the time. Institute a new sentence of natural life without parole for some of the most heinous offences, and every effect we would wish to achieve with the death penalty would be achieved- and if we f*** it up, we can let the guy out. You can dig a dead dude up too, I suppose, but it gets you nowhere.
> 
> Serial killers are also exceedingly rare. You don't formulate broad-based policy based on a very rare handful of exceptional cases at one far end of the bell curve. You'll recall that I said earlier I have no *philosophical* objection to capital punishment; some people simply deserve one round in the head and our species is better for it. But our system and government manage to screw everything else up on occasion. I can't accept that the difference between a true life without parole and execution (after a decade and millions of dollars of appeals) is worth the chance that we might someday execute an innocent man.  Someone spending the rest of their natural life in prison in segregation won't be out on the streets to murder again.



No, kill 'em. Killing them costs more? These tards are appealing these things continuously _*anyway*_ and you are paying for those lawyers, meals etc as they spend their entire time behind bars appealing / filing this / filing that / getting uni degree this / degree that. Even without a DP. No, I do not believe it "saves" money giving them LWOP.

Oh, and you obviously don't read very well either ... I never advocated "broad-based policy based on a select group applied to everyone"; I stated that I am all for DP for child-murders when DNA also exists. A possible sentence for an especially heinous group. That's it, that's all.


----------



## ballz (4 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Because it is one of those things that I'd need a finding of to go DP; as well as a finding that it was a child who was murdered.
> 
> Things like this are NORMAL.



And I understand where you are coming from, but what you are asking (as a requirement) just brings in waaaay too many shades of grey.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Sorry, but finding X's DNA in a raped & murdered child certainly IS a higher form of evidence than buddy's fingerprint on a glass in the room. Why, it's almost as good as having videotaped it to play for the eventual jury by this 'lil red-headed girls standards.



But, according to your "ticks in the box," finding buddy's fingerprint on a glass in the room (along with rest of the evidence proving him guilty) would be enough to qualify for the DP. All you are asking for is that there is DNA evidence *somewhere* on the evidence list that proves them guilty, not "a certain degree of DNA evidence." And of course, "a certain degree" would bring in even more grey...

More to the point, what if 10 people witness a heinous a crime but there is no DNA evidence? This guy doesn't qualify for the death penalty, but someone with no witnesses does because there was DNA involved? Okay, but wait, maybe you think 10 witnesses is "as good as" semen in a vagina.... what about 5? What about 2? Where do you draw all these lines? You can't, it's too grey.

This is why sentenced are based on whether or not you are guilty (black and white), and mitigating / aggravating circumstances. They are not based on "what degree/type of evidence" was used to prosecute you. If you are guilty, it doesn't matter what they used to prove it. 

You will never hear a judge rule "you have been proven guilty, but I'm not sure the witness testimony is credible so I'll give you a lighter sentence," for the same reasons you will never hear "you have been proven guilty, and since the witness testimony was pretty convincing, I'm going to give you a harsher sentence."

EDIT: Oh sorry, let me change that out from "a fingerprint on a glass" to "buddy's hair was on the cupboard," just to make it clear that we're talking about DNA...


----------



## armyvern (4 Feb 2012)

You'd better read it again.  :

I stated exactly where the DNA was, and the finger print and that doesn't mean there wouldn't be "other evidence" ... those two were specifically brought up in ref to your "DNA is just more evidence, it isn't higher."

It sure as hell can be!! It can be just like Mr Murderer was nice enough to videotape his crime ... and the jury will decide ... that's why they exist.

And to your query? Was it a kid the 10 witnessed murdered? Then you know my answer!! And, if out of 10 witnesses, at least one couldn't tell authorities where dude touched the kid, where the kid touched the due etc ... they ain't very good eyes-on witnesses!! DNA does not have to be the offenders, most people kick and scream and leave their DNA on offenders as evidence too despite gloves/condoms etc.

This scenario should never happen of course. 10 people sitting back and watching a kid get killed? They should be glad I'm not the Crown Prosecution ... or I'd charge them too!!

I am OK with that. Still. Just as I was yesterday and just as I will be tomorrow, next week etc.

You kids have a good night.  


OH PS: Many judges have over-ruled (set aside) juries`verdicts of guilty. They can not, by law, set aside a juries finding of `not guilty`however.


----------



## YBN3A (4 Feb 2012)

It is not a question of finance, neither is it a question of morality. nobody is going to execute them nobody is going to tie them to a bed with "humane killing" (whats so humane about killing i will never understand) never the less a person who was born to this world have many choices and some people make very bad ones. there should be no second chance for rehab of convicted rapists/pedos/and murderers, they have made their choice be it of capital gain, or "personal pleasure", regardless these people made their choice and by giving them another choice we are allowing them to live as prisoners and scum as they are, or kill themselves understanding that they deserve it. there should be no halfway homes, nor paroles, nor second chances. these people did not give their victims a second chance, they did not show mercy. we do by not offing them right there and then. financially what the cost of housing them and feeding them will never come close to the profit CORCAN makes. Soviet labor camps made a profit of their prisoners. i am not saying we need to make goolags in Canada and treat them like slaves. but they as prisoners and still citizens of this nation need and must contribute to our society like everyone else. and if they choose not to, there will be a nice silky rope waiting for them at their cell, a home they made the choice to live in.
also reuse the ropes so to cut expenses. morally there is nothing wrong with taking your own life, after all it is your own, millions do it by eating garbage junk food every single day, clogging their fat hearts and die on a toilet,and yet McDonalds  is not outlawed?! let them have a choice between contribution and death. and enough of these halfway houses, and 20 year sentencing with parole after 5.


----------



## ekpiper (4 Feb 2012)

We are straying into a very deep moral issues with this thread.  Most people believe that democracy is at least in part defined by the freedoms with which we are given.  Why is it that we would stop someone from making the choice of death.  After having seen 3 uncles die from cancer, each of whom had at least a year of the downwards spiral, gradually losing bits of their dignity, I know for a fact I wouldn't want to go through that, nor would I want to subject my family to having to deal with seeing me deteriorate and require constant care.  As a result, I am a firm believer in euthanasia.  I suppose that it would be prudent to ensure that, in cases other than terminal illness, the person is mentally stable.

With regards to the death penalty, I do agree with it, but there must be some way to stipulate a more absolute certainty.  For instance, if one is convicted with all jurors in agreement, then during sentencing, he would be eligible to receive the death penalty.  Perhaps not that, but some legal mechanism which states that it is, in effect, as plain as day, we've got a confession or undeniable or incontrovertible proof that this one is guilty.  As Brad Swallows rightly pointed out, if we are able to go into another country and cause innocents to potentially die through some fault of our own while taking out a big bad guy, and accept it as the reality of war, then why is it so very different to have a similar risk here at home to protect the vast majority of people.  Where do we draw the distinction?

I wouldn't draw the line at child rape/murder, but rather any heinous crime.  For instance, the case referenced in the below link, or any case where an utter lack of humanity is present.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1116081--neighbours-haunted-by-toronto-man-s-torture-in-their-midst

I also strongly agree that prison should be nothing short of hell, or at least maximum security prisons.  In order to be an effective deterrent, one must be deterred from the punishment.  The luxurious rights should be taken away, still having food and shelter and protection from other inmates, but no more than the are minimum.  A healthy diet, sanitary conditions.  That's it.


----------



## brihard (4 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No, kill 'em. Killing them costs more? These tards are appealing these things continuously _*anyway*_ and you are paying for those lawyers, meals etc as they spend their entire time behind bars appealing / filing this / filing that / getting uni degree this / degree that. Even without a DP. No, I do not believe it "saves" money giving them LWOP.



You don't see in the context of this debate how arguing for *reducing* the appeals process for those sentenced to die is problematic? Even the current system allows for wrongful convictions. One need only look at the U.S. for ample precedent of men sentenced to die and later exonerated. Granted, most of those cases are somewhat dated and the exonerations have been because of evidentiary techniques now available at the initial investigation and trial- but errors are still made. I'm not arguing here that someone sentenced for a capital crime should get a paid education behind bard, or should be given vocational training. But to deny appeal that any other criminal gets? Utterly unconscionable. 

A person who we decide the state will kill on our behalf in a judicial setting must get _every_ opportunity to try to demonstrate their evidence. How the hell can it be otherwise? You. Can't. Take. Back. Execution. If there are points of law to be argued, evidence to be disputed- then it must be! In ANY case, never mind when a person's life is at stake! The small number of such cases makes the cost of such appeals a pittance in the grand scheme- and what dollar value are *you* going to place on determining whether we will execute a criminal or murder an innocent man? *Who* would you make throw that switch on someone who it turns out later has not done a crime because you consider it _burdensome_ to allow them every opportunity to appeal their conviction and demonstrate their innocence?

You take these same pieces of shit, put them in jail until they die and provide them with only what they need to live and everything we could possibly legitimately need from a criminal justice system is served, but if we later find out the state was in error at least some remedy exists- you can let him out.



> Oh, and you obviously don't read very well either ... I never advocated "broad-based policy based on a select group applied to everyone"; I stated that I am all for DP for child-murders when DNA also exists. A possible sentence for an especially heinous group. That's it, that's all.



When has a law, once written by the state, *not* faced attempts to slowly, incrementally extend it? How do you tell the parents of one murdered child that the murderer of *their* child doesn't get executed because the evidence just didn't quite hit the standard, when two months prior someone else was executed based on utterly sound evidence? How do you keep the politicians from screwing the whole thing up out of populist BS intended to get votes?

At the end of the day there is not an infallible system in human creation for determining guilt. Until a criminal justice system exists which has the ability to make that determination flawlessly, it is unjustifiable to risk murdering an innocent man because our bloodlust dictates that letting them die in prison is not enough. Everything we want to and need to see cna be accomplished by locking the son of a bitch away and throwing away the key.

Now, if a prisoner wishes to die? Let 'em. I support the right to die if one wishes. It's an inseparable part of having ultimate liberty over oneself as an individual. By all means give 'em the rope.


----------



## ballz (4 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You'd better read it again.  :
> 
> I stated exactly where the DNA was, and the finger print and that doesn't mean there wouldn't be "other evidence" ... those two were specifically brought up in ref to your "DNA is just more evidence, it isn't higher."
> 
> ...



You're working way too hard to ignore my point of "guilty vs not guilty" as opposed to "degree of evidence." Or in other words, shades of grey vs black and white.

I notice you are happy to answer about 10 witnesses (of course I know what you're answer would be), but not if there were only 5, 3 (now I don't know) or just 1 (now I really, really don't know). You just ignored the point of shades of grey vs black and white, and instead went on a completely irrelevant rant about charging the 10 witnesses for not intervening.

There is not "higher forms" of evidence. Higher forms of credibility, sure, but not a higher form of evidence. In some cases, key witnesses are the main factor, in others it is DNA, and in some it is a video tape, and in some it is a confession.  Either there is enough evidence of various kinds to prosecute someone, or there is not. Two people that commit the exact same crime under the exact same circumstances are just as guilty as the other one, one is not "more" guilty because of the type of evidence used to prosecute him, and therefore one shouldn't be subject to a harsher penalty. 

This becomes an even more important principal of justice when you are talking about the death penalty.


----------



## exabedtech (4 Feb 2012)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> If an enemy grenade lands in the middle of the CP or casualty collection point and someone jumps on the grenade (committing suicide) they'll be lauded as a hero.
> 
> Flight of the intruder.  One of the pilots is surrounded by the enemy. He's pretty sure he's dying. He calls an airstrike down on himself (committing suicide). If anyone did that in real life we would call them a hero.
> 
> ...



Can't "give him a rope".  Assisting suicide is a crime in this country.  When you can't legally help a loved one who is begging you to help them die, helping the criminals to commit suicide isn't going to fly.  Yes, i'd love to see a guy like Russell Williams kill himself and do us all a favour, but we're VERY far away from legally being allowed to assist him.
The argument against assisted suicide often comes down to the risk of escalation. The Dutch program is a good example of a program initially intended only for the most extreme cases, but is now allow to be applied in all manner of circumstances.

Advocates against assisted suicide would likely point to the Nazi T4 euthanasia program.  My own opinion is that there are cases where it should be allowed, but there would need to be some serious controls.  On some level I can sympathize with Robert Latimer, but did his daughter really want to die?  At what point do we argue that the disabled are incapable of making their own decision.  Should someone be allowed to make that decision for them?  In Robert Latimer's case, it was simple murder but the way our assisted suicide laws are drawn up, simply advocating that a person should end their life is a crime whether that person actually succeeds or not.


----------



## armyvern (4 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> You're working way too hard to ignore my point of "guilty vs not guilty" as opposed to "degree of evidence." Or in other words, shades of grey vs black and white.
> 
> I notice you are happy to answer about 10 witnesses (of course I know what you're answer would be), but not if there were only 5, 3 (now I don't know) or just 1 (now I really, really don't know). You just ignored the point of shades of grey vs black and white, and instead went on a completely irrelevant rant about charging the 10 witnesses for not intervening.
> 
> ...



I didn`t ignore shit. I already answered it earlier.

Quite commonly 2 people can murder people. 1 can be eligible for the death sentence while the other is not. I`m good with that. That`s not shades of grey; rather it is considered as `special circumstances`in order to be eligible for sentence X. Must meet ticks in boxes to be eligible. Those are my ticks. 

We also have those ticks for a myriad of lesser offenses in this country. With a weapon? Longer sentence. Prior conviction? Longer sentence? Involve a child? Longer sentence.

No shades of grey there for me. You meet the ticks: Bye, bye.


----------



## ballz (4 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We also have those ticks for a myriad of lesser offenses in this country. With a weapon? Longer sentence. Prior conviction? Longer sentence? Involve a child? Longer sentence.
> 
> No shades of grey there for me. You meet the ticks: Bye, bye.



And how do any of those things involve basing the length of the sentence on evidence? Your examples are not even relevant.

You said it yourself "lesser offenses" not "lesser evidence."

How you can suggest that two people committing the same crime under the same circumstances, and getting a different sentence is in anyway "justice," is beyond me.


----------



## armyvern (4 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> And how do any of those things involve basing the length of the sentence on evidence? Your examples are not even relevant.
> 
> You said it yourself "lesser offenses" not "lesser evidence."
> 
> How you can suggest that two people committing the same crime under the same circumstances, and getting a different sentence is in anyway "justice," is beyond me.



No sentence length; dead. Clear enough for you?

Meet the special circumstances and that`s it. It may be beyond you, but is absolutely 100% normal in places currently having the DP as a possibility provided that the accused is found guilty by their jury and that the jury finds those special circumstances as having been met.

Normal; not rocket science.

As to your quoting my `lesser offences` (ie: lesser offenses than MURDER) without quoting the samples of those ... We do NOT send a guy who commits an assault to jail for life. We may commit a guy who commits an assault with a weapon to jail for life. WE, Canada, already apply `special circumstances` to these myriad of lesser (than murder) offenses, so what is so wrong with doing that for murderers of children? Nothing. 

So, if you want to keep insisting that doing such `creates shades of grey`, how do you justify the fact that we already do so in this nation normally and routinely?


----------



## ballz (4 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No sentence length; dead. Clear enough for you?
> 
> Meet the special circumstances and that`s it. It may be beyond you, but is absolutely 100% normal in places currently having the DP as a possibility provided that the accused is found guilty by their jury and that the jury finds those special circumstances as having been met.
> 
> Normal; not rocket science.



I would be interested in seeing those requirements in other jurisdictions you are talking about. I doubt they are requirements of a certain kind of evidence.

For Texas, the "ticks in the box" I found on wiki are here:



> Since the re-introduction of the death penalty, Texas has always required the jury to decide whether to impose the death penalty in a specific case. However, Texas did not adopt the "aggravating factor" approach outlined in the Model Penal Code. Instead, once each side has pleaded its case, the jury must answer two questions (three, if the person was convicted as a party) to determine whether a person will or will not be sentenced to death:
> 
> The first question is whether there exists a probability the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a "continuing threat to society". "Society" in this instance includes both inside and outside of prison; thus, a defendant who would constitute a threat to people inside of prison, such as correctional officers or other inmates, is eligible for the death penalty.
> 
> ...



None of those are based on a type of evidence.


----------



## ballz (4 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We do NOT send a guy who commits an assault to jail for life. We may commit a guy who commits an assault with a weapon to jail for life. WE, Canada, already apply `special circumstances` to these myriad of lesser (than murder) offenses, so what is so wrong with doing that for murderers of children? Nothing.
> 
> So, if you want to keep insisting that doing such `creates shades of grey`, how do you justify the fact that we already do so in this nation normally and routinely?



That's not giving a harsher sentence based on EVIDENCE.... How can I make that more clear?

Assault and assault with a weapon are two different offences. It is giving a harsher sentence based on the fact that you did something considered worse than just assaulting someone with your bare hands.


----------



## armyvern (4 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> That's not giving a harsher sentence based on EVIDENCE.... How can I make that more clear?
> 
> Assault and assault with a weapon are two different offences. It is giving a harsher sentence based on the fact that you did something considered worse than just assaulting someone with your bare hands.



A murder of an adult and a murder of a child are both murder.

I`m OK with giving one of them a much harsher sentence. Evidence showed the fact that one was an absolutely defenseless child, which for me, makes it a worse crime. Can I make that more clear?

That would be one of my special circumstances. You don`t have to like them; that doesn`t make it wrong. My opinion is just as valid as yours and, quite frankly, neither are worth much in this too-PC country.


----------



## ballz (4 Feb 2012)

Vern, I have no problem with requiring special circumstances, or "ticks in the box." I agree with bringing back the DP, and I agree with requiring special circumstances to make you eligible.

The only thing I disagree on is having "DNA (or any other specific kind of) evidence was used to prove the defendant guilty" as one of those "ticks in the box."



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> A murder of an adult and a murder of a child are both murder.
> 
> I`m OK with giving one of them a much harsher sentence. Evidence showed one was a child. Can I make that more clear?



Yes, that's fine if you are arguing that the required "tick in the box" be "the victim was under the age of 12" or something. Fine and dandy.

But you were advocating that one of the ticks in the box be "DNA evidence was presented." That's what I don't think is fine and dandy. That specific requirement.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That would be one of my special circumstances. You don`t have to like them; that doesn`t make it wrong. My opinion is just as valid as yours and, quite frankly, neither are worth much in this too-PC country.



I think your DNA evidence requirement would not be in the spirit of "justice," which is why I think it is wrong. That said, you are right, at this moment in Canada, our nitpicking is really much ado about nothing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Feb 2012)

Unlike what someone else wrote above, I *would* like to change minds rather than just debate the point.  That said...

I can only conceive of three courses of action to deal with the people who are truly dangerous to society:
1) Kill them
2) Warehouse them
3) Export them

I object to (1) on the grounds of fallibility.  Yes, I recognize the accuracy of DNA identification; however, I do not recognize the accuracy of how DNA comes to be present in some circumstances.  Many victims of crime are victims of people who are acquaintances or closer; there are a lot of ways another person's DNA can come to be present on an object, at a location, or indeed on a person.  (And yes, when it comes to "on a person" there are many fewer mitigating circumstances.)

(2) Must be done humanely.

(3) No-one else is likely to accept our dangerous people.

There is, I suppose, a compromise between (2) and (3): a colony on our own sovereign soil.  Think "Escape From New York".

The problem with penal institutions is that they are not run like a service detention barracks - I envision an austere place, with an extremely busy schedule of mandated activities designed to leave prisoners with no energy or opportunity to abuse each other, and with opportunities to earn privileges but no inhumane punishments.  For example, I can tolerate the notion of weeks on end on Punishment Diet #1 (does such a thing really exist?) with no privileges bar those deemed medically necessary, but not solitary confinement.  And such a regimen has to start with juvenile offenders: they really, really need to want to avoid going back into such a place, ever.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2012)

There is a fourth option Brad.  Lobotomize them.  They won't hurt anyone again that way.


----------



## mariomike (11 Feb 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> For example, I can tolerate the notion of weeks on end on Punishment Diet #1 (does such a thing really exist?)



I believe something similar to it does:
"Restricted diet
55(1) A restricted diet may only be imposed on an inmate with the consent of an institution’s physician.
(2) A restricted diet is to consist of not less than 1100 calories per day.
(3) A restricted diet may be imposed for not more than 3 days.":
http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=726
"COMPENDIUM OF FEDERAL & PROVINCIAL CORRECTIONS LAW"
page 31.

Edit to add. Some discussion of Canadian military punishment diets here:
http://canadianprovostcorps.ca/dentbks-00.htm


----------



## brihard (11 Feb 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> There is a fourth option Brad.  Lobotomize them.  They won't hurt anyone again that way.



Nope, fails the revocability test.

Out of curiosity, have you seen A Clockwork Orange?


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Nope, fails the revocability test.
> 
> Out of curiosity, have you seen A Clockwork Orange?


Yes I have.  One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest too (so I've seen Jack's version of post op glee).  Tough shit about the revocability test.  If they're that dangerous they don't deserve a chance to hurt anyone else again.  You're not killing them, cause that's taboo  :  and makes hearts everywhere bleed profusely.   F'em society's welfare comes first.


----------



## brihard (11 Feb 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes I have.  One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest too (so I've seen Jack's version of post op glee).  Tough crap about the revocability test.  If they're that dangerous they don't deserve a chance to hurt anyone else again.  You're not killing them, cause that's taboo  :  and makes hearts everywhere bleed profusely.   F'em society's welfare comes first.



There is nothing inherently desirable or justifiable to society that execution or causing brain damage can accomplish that a true life sentence without parole and in isolation cannot. I don't give much of a shit for those who are guilty- my concenr is solely with the fact that the state is most certainly going to get it wrong from time to time, and such consequences as are imposed must be at least to an extend revocable when we discover that the justice system failed to exceed the competence of the weakest link in the chain at some point in a case.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2012)

Then we shall have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> There is nothing inherently desirable or justifiable to society that execution or causing brain damage can accomplish that a true life sentence without parole and in isolation cannot. I don't give much of a shit for those who are guilty- my concenr is solely with the fact that the state is most certainly going to get it wrong from time to time, and such consequences as are imposed must be at least to an extend revocable when we discover that the justice system failed to exceed the competence of the weakest link in the chain at some point in a case.



Is the death of one man by error of the state worth the lives of 10, 100 or 1000 innocent victims whom said reoccurring offender may kill once they are let out of jail?
Life in prison isn't a good option as far as I'm concerned- too expensive.  How many lives could be saved if you took the cost of 12 "inmates for life" and turned that over into food and medicine?

We may take someones life by accident, but how many lives did we (Canada) take by accident overseas. Hundreds? I wouldn't be surprised if it was over 1000.   
That was in the name of the war which we went to in order to protect Canada from attack.

As far as I'm concerned putting a serial murderer to death is protecting Canada from attack just as well.


----------



## brihard (11 Feb 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Then we shall have to agree to disagree.



Doesn't mean I have to shut up about it. It stuns me that so many people who are so readily critical of the state and its propensity to screw everything else up are willing to extend to it the blind trust to kill someone when it does not uniquely serve a need, or in this instance to cut part of someone's brain out.

When we achieve a government and justice system that can flawlessly establish truth I'll happily see us bring in the death penalty for some crimes. But it isn't, and probably won't be, and I'll not have the state possibly murder an innocent person because we *don't like* the thought of merely locking them away in solitary for the rest of their natural life.

[Quote author=Grimaldus]Is the death of one man by error of the state worth the lives of 10, 100 or 1000 innocent victims whom said reoccurring offender may kill once they are let out of jail?
Life in prison isn't a good option as far as I'm concerned- too expensive.  How many lives could be saved if you took the cost of 12 "inmates for life" and turned that over into food and medicine?

We may take someones life by accident, but how many lives did we (Canada) take by accident overseas. Hundreds? I wouldn't be surprised if it was over 1000.   
That was in the name of the war which we went to in order to protect Canada from attack.

As far as I'm concerned putting a serial murderer to death is protecting Canada from attack just as well.[/quote]

The necessary corollary of my position is we *must* have a method to completely isolate a criminal from society from the point of arrest until they're dead. That serves the same ends, but can be reversed when on the rare occasion we discover we screwed up.

There cannot be an analogy between accidental deaths in war and execution of an innocent. Every wartime accidental death either comes from malfeasance (which should be investigated and, if appropriate, treated as a crime) or from error made in good faith where that individual genuinely felt themselves or others at risk and had to act. You know this as well as I do; I know how damned close I came a couple of times to making that 'good faith' error. In war the normal peace has already broken down, and stability has to be restored before we have the luxury of taking many months or years to determine truth. A criminal justice system *does* have the luxury of as much time is needed, and the means do exist to prevent anyone from possibly victimizing others in that time.

As for life imprisonment costing more than execution- absolute bunk. A death sentence *must* carry with it every avenue of appeal, and even there errors are *still* made. It costs far more to run through all the legal avenues and then kill a man (plus to operate a special, small, segregated death row to hold these few) than to keep someone in jail for life. Only if we seek efficiency of scale and start executing wholesale like China can the death penalty be made cheaper, and that's obviously not an acceptable way to go about it.


----------



## ballz (11 Feb 2012)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Life in prison isn't a good option as far as I'm concerned- too expensive.  How many lives could be saved if you took the cost of 12 "inmates for life" and turned that over into food and medicine?



I'm on the pro-capital punishment side but expenses aren't a great argument. It's pretty damn expensive to execute someone, and it's not near as expensive "per prisoner" as the books say (just like it's not near as expensive to fly a plane per hour as the books say).



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Nope, fails the revocability test.



That's fine if that's where your comfort level falls. Personally, I am not convinced by about this revocability standard. As long as we've made it statistically impossible for the state to screw it up (by having the requirements I outlined before), your concern that the state will do something irrevocable based on a false-conviction is IMO not relevant.

In what I've proposed, the only way they could falsely put someone to death is if they had 2 or 3 false-convictions on the same damn person, do you really think it's remotely possible that the state could manage that?

On another not about vengeance and justice... I don't think there's anything wrong or unjust with a bit of vengeance on someone that rapes and murders a pair of children. I would sleep soundly at night, but maybe I am just a bitter person.


----------



## ballz (11 Feb 2012)

Oh yes, and proportionality, and important factor of justice, just came to my mind.

As the crime gets worse, the punishment is supposed to get worse. Except, a second-degree murder gets one life in prison. There are crimes far far far worse than a second-degree murder. There has to be a punishment that is far worse.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Feb 2012)

Just to throw a slightly different perspective into the mix....


			
				Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Is the death of one man by error of the state worth the lives of 10, 100 or 1000 innocent victims whom said reoccurring offender may kill once they are let out of jail?


I'm a supporter of capital punishment.  That said, one has to be careful when making "better one innocent one die than one guilty one get loose" argument.

How would one feel if _they_ were the innocent mistake on death row?  Willing to sit there thinking, "hey, better me getting the needle to make sure nobody who's killed ever gets back into the street"?  And if one really thinks this, how would their family feel?


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2012)

I'm not sold on the thought that it costs more to put someone to death than keep them in jail the rest of their lives.
Perhaps were that actually the case we would look at shortening the lengthily process of putting someone to death.

Because really if Mr Anderson has served 2 sentences for violent rapes and he is let out and caught standing in a pool of blood, knife in hand and a dead woman at his feet and his defense is that he was jogging and seen the body so he stopped to help-every piece of evidence is pointing to the fact that it was him except theres no witnesses I'm okay with the 1% fudge factor.

Maybe it does cost more but to me that means we need to chance the process and stop letting these guys and girls appeal shit for 12 years. The system needs to change.

No one likes to place a monetary value on someones life.


Milnews agreed that's always a tricky slope. I'm obviously not saying this in a prison cell with a noose around my neck.

I'm not sure why people are so afraid to support inhumane treatment for lack of a better phrase of these hardcore life destroying criminals.  Maybe being a parent has changed my perspective but I'd really be happy to see a lot of these monsters hurt in very bad ways.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Doesn't mean I have to shut up about it.


I did not ask you to.  I just won't agree with you in your beliefs on this subject.


			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> It stuns me


You're free to be as stunned as you like as well.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Feb 2012)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why people are so afraid to support inhumane treatment for lack of a better phrase of these hardcore life destroying criminals.  Maybe being a parent has changed my perspective but I'd really be happy to see a lot of these monsters hurt in very bad ways.


You're not the only parent I've heard sound off as strongly as you do (_especially_ when talking about sex offenders with young victims), so you're in good company.

These guys were inhuman to someone else, so should all Canadians (the state) stoop to their level?  I'm OK with spartan, minimalist and out of the way, but I'm guessing most people won't be for dungeons, even for these very, very, very bad folks.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2012)

Dungeons with all the accessories will be just fine for the likes of Picton, Bernardo et al.  I'll even volunteer to be part of the staff...  >


----------



## GK .Dundas (11 Feb 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Dungeons with all the accessories will be just fine for the likes of Picton, Bernardo et al.  I'll even volunteer to be part of the staff...  >


 Just leave all the cute leather outfits at home .It's not considered professional if you've having too much fun! :nod:


----------



## brihard (11 Feb 2012)

Definitely the concept of what is 'humane' treatment has been stretched too far in some instances. While I will never, ever countenance torture or mistreatment, prison *should* be a hard place. It should be a place you never want to go. It should be as safe as we can make it, but other than that damned near intolerable. 'Spartan and minimalist' are both good terms for what I'm thinking on this.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2012)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Just leave all the cute leather outfits at home .It's not considered professional if you've having too much fun! :nod:


Find a job you love any you'll never work another day in your life.   ;D


----------



## ballz (11 Feb 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> These guys were inhuman to someone else, so should all Canadians (the state) stoop to their level?  I'm OK with spartan, minimalist and out of the way, but I'm guessing most people won't be for dungeons, even for these very, very, very bad folks.



I don't think wrapping a rope around their neck and letting them drop 15 feet is anywhere near their level, their victims would probably wish to trade places. I assume this is what you meant by spartan and minimalist? Quick, clean, and done?


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Feb 2012)

I've been hovering over this issue for quite some time.

For the initial post, the suggestion to give convicted murderers the rope to decide their own fate is an abhorrent way to treat those for whom we are responsible, irrespective of the crimes they have committed.  If we as a society want them dead, then we as a society must make that decision, consciously.  We cannot pretend to absolve ourselves of the responsibility by simply making the means available.  

For the suggestion that DNA be the deciding factor, it's only one piece of evidence, and it only proves that a person's DNA is somewhere.  It does not mean that the person was there.  DNA can travel over space and time to end up somewhere by almost any means.  

If we kill someone out of vengeance as a society, then we are killing someone for the wrong reason.  If we are killing them as punishment "pour encourager les autres", well, maybe.  But if we do decide to do so, then we ought not to pretend that we are acting in a humane manner with "lethal injections".  No.  We as a society must be uncomfortable with each and every killing we commit.  Hang the convicted person by the neck until dead.  And we as a society must be forced to watch, lest we think of something as simply "going away".  We cannot allow a convicted person to simply "pass away in the night" in some far off cell.  We must witness it, so that we never forget how painful of a decision it is to kill another human being.


----------



## brihard (11 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I've been hovering over this issue for quite some time.
> 
> For the initial post, the suggestion to give convicted murderers the rope to decide their own fate is an abhorrent way to treat those for whom we are responsible, irrespective of the crimes they have committed.  If we as a society want them dead, then we as a society must make that decision, consciously.  We cannot pretend to absolve ourselves of the responsibility by simply making the means available.
> 
> ...



Very, very well put.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> We cannot allow a convicted person to simply "pass away in the night" in some far off cell.  We must witness it, so that we never forget how painful of a decision it is to kill another human being.



Awesome.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't think wrapping a rope around their neck and letting them drop 15 feet is anywhere near their level, their victims would probably wish to trade places. I assume this is what you meant by spartan and minimalist? Quick, clean, and done?


Should have been clearer - I was thinking in terms of confinement conditions, not execution.


----------



## exabedtech (11 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I've been hovering over this issue for quite some time.
> 
> For the initial post, the suggestion to give convicted murderers the rope to decide their own fate is an abhorrent way to treat those for whom we are responsible, irrespective of the crimes they have committed.  If we as a society want them dead, then we as a society must make that decision, consciously.  We cannot pretend to absolve ourselves of the responsibility by simply making the means available.
> 
> ...



Couldn't agree more.  If execution is what society wants, we should be witness to it.  There is nothing humane about killing someone who doesn't want to die, so drop the pretense and hang them in the town square.  Free admission, and no restrictions for the press.  Want to show how the head ripped off the body on the front page?  Go for it!  If we as a people choose this manner of punishment, we should be confronted with its truth.  
If its deterrence we are after, maybe leave them to hang for a month or two as a reminder to those who may have been of like mind as the poor guilty bastard.  Few issues in this world are black and white, but certainly death is one of them.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> We must witness it, so that we never forget how painful of a decision it is to kill another human being.


I think it would be quite painless to sentence the truly dangerous to death as was earlier suggested, before it got derailed to include the run of the mill murderer by some here.  Except for the die hard bleeding faint of heart I don't think you'd find too much sympathy among the Canadian populous for the likes Bernardo, Pickton, Olson et al getting their necks adjusted.  And some, like me would be happy for them to be fed into a wood chipper, feet first.  And as for cost, the sooner after the sentence the cheaper the cost to the state.  The truly dangerous offenders out there will not be safely readmitted into society, nor I suggest will they find any worthwhile remorse of their crimes during a lengthy incarceration.  So, what's the point/benefit of incarceration for these creatures?


----------



## exabedtech (11 Feb 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I think it would be quite painless to sentence the truly dangerous to death as was earlier suggested, before it got derailed to include the run of the mill murderer by some here.  Except for the die hard bleeding faint of heart I don't think you'd find too much sympathy among the Canadian populous for the likes Bernardo, Pickton, Olson et al getting their necks adjusted.  And some, like me would be happy for them to be fed into a wood chipper, feet first.  And as for cost, the sooner after the sentence the cheaper the cost to the state.  The truly dangerous offenders out there will not be safely readmitted into society, nor I suggest will they find any worthwhile remorse of their crimes during a lengthy incarceration.  So, what's the point/benefit of incarceration for these creatures?


There are cases like Bernardo and that jackass ex-colonel where the woodchipper would be the preferred option.  Where the 'run of the mill' murderer gets involved is in the cut off.  Which cases exactly should be capital ones and how certain should you be of guilt.  In our system, guilty is guilty whether it were a tough and close decision or a slam dunk.  It is nice when the idiot chooses to videotape everything, but not all of them are so stupid.  We're all aware of high profile  murder cases where the 'guilty' party spend years in jail before being found innocent.  Olsen and Guy-Paul Morin would be judged equally if we choose the sexual exploitation and murder of children as our litmus test for execution.  Russel Williams and David Milgaard would both be judged the same if it were to be sexual deviants who kill their victims.

Yes, there are plenty of wonderful places that choose to execute...North Korea, Cuba, China, United States (some), Uganda, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of others.  Missing from this list would be the majority of countries most like our own.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Feb 2012)

One name for you then... Allan Legere.  Nuff said. :rage:


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2012)

Which clearly proves the point- murders should be allowed to hang themselves


----------



## larry Strong (11 Feb 2012)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Which clearly proves the point- murders should be allowed to hang themselves



However I have serious doubts that with them being the cowards that they are, that most of them would have the intestinal fortitude to follow through with hanging themselves.


----------



## GAP (11 Feb 2012)

Oh I hate indecision.....we could help them.....


----------



## armyvern (11 Feb 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> One name for you then... Allan Legere.  Nuff said. :rage:



Ahhh, yet another name from my past being the Miramichi girl that I am.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> ...
> For the suggestion that DNA be the deciding factor, it's only one piece of evidence, and it only proves that a person's DNA is somewhere.  It does not mean that the person was there.  DNA can travel over space and time to end up somewhere by almost any means.
> ...



I'll be very clear here (not necessarily to you) because it seems that some people in this thread have gotten stuck on my mention of DNA. I have never stated that DNA is the only, or the deciding factor, of evidence. But, like it or not, DNA IS indeed the gold standard of such at this point in time scientifically. 

For those that keep arguing that DNA can come about to be "in the crime scene" in a variety of manners ... "Duhhhh, I know that!!" BUT, that is what we have trials and defense for in my mind. If you are innocent and there is an innocent explanation for your DNA being on child-rape and murder victim and you find yourself charged and at trial fro such, you get your opportunity to present your dissenting/exonerating evidence; it's not like society would just string you up upon the tree. Jury of your peers and a trial; your chance and opportunity to testify etc. I'm quite OK with that. And, all that is followed by a myriad of appeals before any death sentence would be carried out. I'm quite OK with that too. I'm NOT OK with myself paying to upkeep your murderous child-raping ass after that process has occured. Bye, Bye.

And, being related to one of the co-criminals in Alan Legere's original conviction for the murder and rape/attempted murder in Black River Bridge, having actually drank beers with Alan at the local watering holes, and having actually had a Glendenning directly descended from his original murder victim as my 1st year University room-mate (what are the odds??) and being on post-deployment leave from Namibia in '89 sitting at the farm while the RCMP and military and dogs went through the hunting camps located on grandpie's land after his escape and midst-murder-spree searching for this fucker ... I'd string him up too; myself. And, would sleep soundly each night.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, being related to one of the co-criminals in Alan Legere's original conviction for the murder and rape/attempted murder in Black River Bridge, having actually drank beers with Alan at the local watering holes, and having actually had a Glendenning directly descended from his original murder victim as my 1st year University room-mate (what are the odds??) and being on post-deployment leave from Namibia in '89 sitting at the farm while the RCMP and military and dogs went through the hunting camps located on grandpie's land after his escape and midst-murder-spree searching for this fucker ... I'd string him up too; myself. And, would sleep soundly each night.


Wow....that's quite the history there.  But, such is life in the Mirimichi.  I was in Gagetown when all that was happening up there.  It's all we heard about.  I recall it vividly (though not as vividly as I imagine you do!!!!)


----------



## armyvern (11 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> ... Olsen and *Guy-Paul Morin* would be judged equally if we choose the sexual exploitation and murder of children as our litmus test for execution.  Russel Williams and *David Milgaard* would both be judged the same if it were to be sexual deviants who kill their victims.
> ...


Hmmmmm, both of whom were exonerated by ... *DNA*. 'Nuff said about that gold standard that_* now*_ exists.  :


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hmmmmm, both of whom were exonerated by ... *DNA*. 'Nuff said about that gold standard that_* now*_ exists.  :


Very good point.  It can be the "linch pin" that clears the air.  

(I was thinking of it tying people TO the crime, not clearing them of it.  Your post sets me straight on that, and NOW I get it)


----------



## armyvern (11 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Wow....that's quite the history there.  But, such is life in the Mirimichi.  I was in Gagetown when all that was happening up there.  It's all we heard about.  I recall it vividly (though not as vividly as I imagine you do!!!!)



Between that and this guy, I could write a book on my family, but it's been done already.


----------

