# The Capital Punishment Debate



## Michael Dorosh (13 Dec 2005)

Surprised no one mentioned the execution last night.  Interesting to see Schwarzenegger now has the power of life and death over people, literally.  Reading some of his clemency documenation in this and other cases shows ho much thought is given by the governor in these cases.

On another note, still waiting for the update to this site:

http://www.deadmaneating.com/dmearch.html

Really kind of eye opening, reading the "facts" behind each case and some of the depraved acts committed.  Why people would go and protest the deaths of some of these guys is beyond me - like the guy who stabbed his wife to death with a screwdriver through the window of her car - while their 10 year old son sat in the passenger seat - because she asked for a divorce.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2005)

:-*


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2005)

If I had a dollar for every time someone on death row or a life sentence "found god".....




> Why people would go and protest the deaths of some of these guys is beyond me - like the guy who stabbed his wife to death with a screwdriver through the window of her car - while their 10 year old son sat in the passenger seat - because she asked for a divorce.



Yup. Idiots.   People will crusade anything. 

Justice 1    Murderers 0
Better luck next time    :blotto:


----------



## Infanteer (13 Dec 2005)

Just in case anybody missed the story:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/13/williams.execution/index.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2005)

> *Death did not come quickly for Stanley Tookie Williams*, the co-founder of the violent Crips street gang who was executed by lethal injection early Tuesday for the 1979 robbery murders of four people in Los Angeles.
> 
> Witnesses and prison officials said Williams appeared to grow impatient as prison staffers searched for several minutes for a vein in his muscular left arm.



No it didn't. It should have came 26 years ago.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (13 Dec 2005)

I find it interesting, that he continued to deny his guilt right up to the day of his execution.


----------



## GO!!! (13 Dec 2005)

Now if only Canada would bring back the noose for our criminal elite.

have a nice drop Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olsen et al!


----------



## kcdist (13 Dec 2005)

To anyone reading this thread, I think it would be appropriate to take a moment of silence to reflect......




.....on how wonderful it would be if Canada still had the death penalty as an option.



Remember the innocent victims!


----------



## kincanucks (13 Dec 2005)

Sh0rtbUs said:
			
		

> I find it interesting, that he continued to deny his guilt right up to the day of his execution.



Yes, you would expect to him to suddenly confess at the end. :rofl:


----------



## rifleman (13 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Now if only Canada would bring back the noose for our criminal elite.
> 
> have a nice drop Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olsen et al!



Yeah, Good Idea. we wouldn't have had to pay off David Milguard either.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (13 Dec 2005)

I especially liked how the media listed all the celebrities and fans trying to save tookie but strangely no one took the opinions of the familly and friends of his victims. Or the news clip of the lady calling Arnold a killer. I believe the only killer involved was the one going for a dirt nap.

 And as a side note, why do they sterilize the needles used for lethal injection?Worried about a law suit?


----------



## TCBF (13 Dec 2005)

And hey, where were all of those anti-death penalty activists when Timothy McVeigh was executed?

 ;D

All executions are equal, but some executions are more equal than others?

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (13 Dec 2005)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Yeah, Good Idea. we wouldn't have had to pay off David Milguard either.



Yeah, killing him and Guy Paul Morin would have saved us so much trouble. Too bad we don't have the death penalty and an expeditious system, or they'd have got them and these guys too: 

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/cruz.htm

 Guilty, innocent, bah - we should be teaching our citizens, by killing them, that it's wrong to kill. Draco would be proud. Then we can engage in unprotected sex with our teenage population to show them, once and for all, that safe-sex is the way to go. After that, we'll forcefully abort a bunch of pregnancies to show all the women out there that pro-life is the proper choice. As for punishment, we should deal drugs to drug dealers and sell our bodies to prostitutes... or something along those lines.   

Astounding reasoning, truly.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (13 Dec 2005)

Simple mathmatics, what does a criminal fear a)incarceration
                                                               b)monetary fines
                                                               c)community service
                                                               d)their own death


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (13 Dec 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Yes, you would expect to him to suddenly confess at the end. :rofl:



Not quite what i meant, but sure.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Dec 2005)

I support the death penalty if there is clear-cut guilt (ie: Bernardo).  No use keeping this garbage around.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Dec 2005)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> Simple mathmatics, what does a criminal fear a)incarceration
> b)monetary fines
> c)community service
> d)their own death



None of the above; the death penalty isn't a deterrent.


----------



## Steve031 (13 Dec 2005)

The needle is sterilized in case of a last minute reprieve.   It has happened where the needle was in the criminal's arm and the execution has been stayed.   They pulled out the needle and sent him back to prison.   It only makes sense to avoid an infection that would cost taxpayers money in these cases by paying for the modest expense of a sterile iv needle.   Besides which, I don't think you can buy iv needles any other way.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> None of the above; the death penalty isn't a deterrent.



A deterrent is a society which espouses, down to the individual citizen, the responsibilty and duty to be capable of repelling threats to their well being.  The death penalty, or any punishment, shouldn't serve primarily as a deterrent, it should serve as retribution from society.  If someone has committed acts so heinous that they are to be kept out of society for the rest of their lives, perhaps the gallows is a fitting end for them.

They shoot rabid dogs, don't they?


----------



## Roy Harding (13 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> None of the above; the death penalty isn't a deterrent.



You are right - the death penalty is NOT a deterrent.  

It does, however, eliminate the possibility of repeated offences - without the need to feed, clothe, house, educate, and amuse these idiots for the rest of their natural lives.


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The death penalty, or any punishment, shouldn't serve primarily as a deterrent, it should serve as retribution from society.   If someone has committed acts so heinous that they are to be kept out of society for the rest of their lives, perhaps the gallows is a fitting end for them.
> 
> They shoot rabid dogs, don't they?



What purpose does the retribution serve? What exactly are we supposed to gain, as a society, from executions? It won't fix what was done and it doesn't serve as a deterrent. 

As for the rabid dogs analogy - we also put down animals that we can't find homes for, should we be doing the same with children that no one adopts? Should we execute the mentally ill because they may pose a danger to society the same way a rabid dog does?


----------



## Steve031 (14 Dec 2005)

From a purely economic standpoint, it is actually cheaper to incarcerate criminals than execute them.  The reason for this is the lengthy process of appeals that are mandatory in order to carry out a death sentence.  So if the death penalty is not deterring anyone, and if it costs more than putting them in jail for life, then why have it?

The answer is revenge, and our justice system is not founded on that emotion.  It exists as a means of enforcing the social contract, specifically by inflicting punishment on people who break that contract.


----------



## Roy Harding (14 Dec 2005)

Steve031 said:
			
		

> From a purely economic standpoint, it is actually cheaper to incarcerate criminals than execute them.  The reason for this is the lengthy process of appeals that are mandatory in order to carry out a death sentence.  So if the death penalty is not deterring anyone, and if it costs more than putting them in jail for life, then why have it?
> 
> The answer is revenge, and our justice system is not founded on that emotion.  It exists as a means of enforcing the social contract, specifically by inflicting punishment on people who break that contract.



Excuse me, but we don't HAVE capital punishment, therefore there _ARE_ no "appeals that are mandatory".

Your argument is specious.


----------



## old medic (14 Dec 2005)

Steve031 said:
			
		

> From a purely economic standpoint, it is actually cheaper to incarcerate criminals than execute them.  The reason for this is the lengthy process of appeals that are mandatory in order to carry out a death sentence.  So if the death penalty is not deterring anyone, and if it costs more than putting them in jail for life, then why have it?



I disagree completely. Executions happened in Canada until the 1950's.  Usually the trial would last a month, if convicted, there would be a single automatic appeal that would be held within four to six months.  If the conviction stood, they would be hung within another month or two.


----------



## Acorn (14 Dec 2005)

They would be "hanged." "Hung" has an entirely different meaning.

The fact is that our justice system is imperfect. Capital punishment must require a level of perfect justice. If it were a deterrent it may be worth the occasional innocent victim, but it doesn't deter, so the retribution must derive from a perfect system.

It'll never happen. We can solve the recidevist problem by ensuring that "life" means "life" in prison.


----------



## career_radio-checker (14 Dec 2005)

old medic said:
			
		

> Usually the trial would last a month, if convicted, there would be a single automatic appeal that would be held within four to six months.   If the conviction stood, they would be hung within another month or two.



And for that shred of evidence found a couple of years after the crime, that could have proved the condemned man/woman innocent..

I support the death penalty. All those who say it doesn't deter other murders from happening obviously don't understand the concept of justice. If we wanted a deterant, an execution would entail sticking the bas-turds head on a pike in public view.   Now that's a good ol' medieval deterant. Of course that's not done anymore. Instead executions are not public and are professionally(i.e. death with least amount of suffering) done. And ya it does prevent repeat offenses

That said, the condemned must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt he/she is guilty. Thus the 15-20 year appeal process, and don't go whining about cost effectiveness. You don't put a cost on people's lives whether considering the victim or the condemned.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Dec 2005)

> What purpose does the retribution serve? What exactly are we supposed to gain, as a society, from executions? It won't fix what was done and it doesn't serve as a deterrent.




How about taking murderers off the streets and not letting them live off society for 26 or 50 years?  Roof over their head and 3 meals a day. Sure prison life is hard, try living on the streets.
How much does it take to house an inmate per year. Times that by 50 years. If someone has wiped out a family and theres pretty good reason to believe he runs the risk of doing it again, wouldn't that money be better spent on

health care
education
policing
disease research (cancer aids etc.)
feeding the homeless
helping out 3rd world nations

I can think of quite a few things *I* would rather spend my money on that giving a murderer 3 meals a day until he dies of old age.

The examples of having unprotected sex to prove a point or some such sounds like an argument from a highschool debate club. I'm sure you can come up with a better example or comparison when your talking about people who have 
"unprotected sex" with little girls and boys then cut their faces off and leave them to die.

Apples and oranges.


----------



## TCBF (14 Dec 2005)

Funny we hear statistics on how much it costs to warehouse a Puke in prison per year, but never how much  economic and emotional (which is eventually economic) damage it costs to allow them to roam free each year.

Add up the security, healthcare, legal and insurance costs.  Impressed?

I'm not.

Lock'em up or eliminate them.  Younger the better.

Tom


----------



## Michael Dorosh (14 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> How about taking murderers off the streets and not letting them live off society for 26 or 50 years?  Roof over their head and 3 meals a day. Sure prison life is hard, try living on the streets.
> How much does it take to house an inmate per year. Times that by 50 years. If someone has wiped out a family and theres pretty good reason to believe he runs the risk of doing it again,



Who cares if he runs the risk of doing it again, really?  Is that really the fear?  Most murders are between people who know each other.  If a guy kills his wife in a crime of passion - he's not likely to reoffend.  But that's not really the point, is it.  

Deterrence isn't just about repeat offenders, but new offenders as well.  But the DP isn't about deterence.  Justice and proportionality I think are the ingredients here.


----------



## Joe Blow (14 Dec 2005)

> Why people would go and protest the deaths of some of these guys is beyond me - like the guy who stabbed his wife to death with a screwdriver through the window of her car - while their 10 year old son sat in the passenger seat - because she asked for a divorce.



OK, I'm honestly conflicted about the issue but I'll take a stab at that.  I think the basic idea (emotion?) is that all life is beautiful and all death is heinous.  I don't mean to be glib or poetic.  I just think that an argument against capital punishment comes down to that basic sentiment, which is prior to considerations about the nature of the crime and cost associated with housing the offender, and even prior to considerations about whether or not one death is more just than another.   

I think it's fundamentally a religious question before it's a political one.  Maybe the question to ask first is: 'Is there a beauty to life (regardless of how it is lived) that trumps all other concerns?'

Anyway, Roy Harding's post resonates for me too.


> It does, however, eliminate the possibility of repeated offences


----------



## TCBF (14 Dec 2005)

"Justice and proportionality I think are the ingredients here."

Our points exactly.   If you murder - you can die.

That is just.

That is proportionate.

I also believe in multiple executions for a single murder.   You launch a hit on your ex-wife for example, you and the hit man both get the noose.   The getaway car driver?   The noose.

Watch how the death penulty becomes a deterent when those who don't pull the trigger but were accessories ALSO have to face it.

That would cut down on gangs.

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> How about taking murderers off the streets and not letting them live off society for 26 or 50 years?   Roof over their head and 3 meals a day. Sure prison life is hard, try living on the streets.
> How much does it take to house an inmate per year. Times that by 50 years. If someone has wiped out a family and theres pretty good reason to believe he runs the risk of doing it again, wouldn't that money be better spent on
> 
> health care
> ...



If we had the death penalty, we would undoubtedly have as lengthy a process as the US given our left-leaning justice system. It costs more to imprison someone on death row and execute them than it does to imprison them in general population for life. Your support for the death penalty is actually support for wasting more money, not saving it. 



> The examples of having unprotected sex to prove a point or some such sounds like an argument from a highschool debate club. I'm sure you can come up with a better example or comparison when your talking about people who have
> "unprotected sex" with little girls and boys then cut their faces off and leave them to die.
> 
> Apples and oranges.



Not at all - the examples were there to point out the idiocy and self-contradictory nature of 'killing killers because killing is wrong'. It's like screwing for virginity or having a "war on war" or saying "don't hit people" and then smacking your kid. The reason my examples sounded so stupid is because they're exactly that - stupid - as is the death penalty. 



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> "Justice and proportionality I think are the ingredients here."
> 
> Our points exactly.  If you murder - you can die.



See above. 



> That is just.



Not by our society's standards and not by the standards of the overwhelming majority of the Western world. 



> That is proportionate.



So "an eye for an eye" should be the basis of our entire justice system? 



> I also believe in multiple executions for a single murder.  You launch a hit on your ex-wife for example, you and the hit man both get the noose.  The getaway car driver?  The noose.
> 
> Watch how the death penulty becomes a deterent when those who don't pull the trigger but were accessories ALSO have to face it.
> 
> ...



I seriously doubt it. Do you really think that the lack of deterrence in the death penalty is because accomplices aren't being executed?


----------



## TCBF (14 Dec 2005)

"If we had the death penalty, we would undoubtedly have as lengthy a process as the US given our left-leaning justice system. It costs more to imprison someone on death row and execute them than it does to imprison them in general population for life. Your support for the death penalty is actually support for wasting more money, not saving it."

Not at all.  Just take the money wasted on the gun registry and put it into death sentences.

"So "an eye for an eye" should be the basis of our entire justice system? "

Isn't it now? If not - remove the threat - permanently.

"I seriously doubt it. Do you really think that the lack of deterrence in the death penalty is because accomplices aren't being executed? "

I believe the data on deterence is flawed.  The death penalty deters less than it could because very few convicted killers ever are put to death ANYWHERE (USA, China, Japan).

As well, I think the death penalty for serious asault - where lack of timely medical intervension would have resulted in death - as well as attempted murder is correct.

What criminals fear is death - at the time of the crime and at the hands of their victim mostly, as a result of a long legal process eventually.

As for repeat offenders - yes, some do kill again.  No sucessful lawsuits against their parole boards so far, unfortunately.

Tom


----------



## winchable (14 Dec 2005)

I'd like to see some actual statistics that murder rates have dropped since the introduction of the death penalty.
And if they have I'd still seriously question that was a result of the death penalty, correlation is not causation.

Personally I don't agree with the death penalty, that's just me though, for a number of reasons I really don't feel like debating.



On the topic though, could the anti-death penalty protestors have POSSIBLY picked a worse example as the face of their cause???????
Tookie Williams, founder of the crips, socio-path, all around Mr. BadNasty.
Good God, the media will eat anything you feed them, they're like dogs or crack addicts.


----------



## kcdist (14 Dec 2005)

Here's a thought:

How many drug smuggler's are contemplating vying their trade in Singapore these days?

Whether the death penalty is a deterrent or not is a mute point. I believe it is not where a crime of passion is concerned, however, I do believe it is for pre-meditated murder. (See Toronto this year)

As a point of principle, I believe the death penalty should be mandatory in the the murder of a Peace Officer, as well as any pre-meditated, 1st degree convictions. The rest would be negotiable.

As for all the naysayers....how would you react to the murderer of your mother being released after a mere 15 years in prison (less actually, after receiving double time served for pre-trial custody). That's the litmus test. 

Che asks if the murder rate would lower after the introduction of the death penalty? I ask "does it matter?"

If it was my family member who was the victim, the death of the murderer would go a long way in helping to put closure on the issue.

Not every member of our society is salvageable. Some simply deserve to die.


----------



## winchable (14 Dec 2005)

> As for all the naysayers....how would you react to the murderer of your mother being released after a mere 15 years in prison



Does this need to be addressed via the death penalty?
Put them away for an actual life sentence instead, that can be addressed with tougher and logical sentencing.

A friend of mine was murdered in August of this year near where I live (Jonathan Reader for anyone from Halifax who might remember) if they catch the murder (when, hopefully) I don't want to think they'll die for it and neither do his parents. They don't want more death, after experiencing the death of someone first hand none of us do really, we want the cycle to end at Jon.
I do, however, want them locked up for life regardless of whether it is second or first degree, and I mean life with no chance for parole.
And I'll probably never see either option happening.



> I ask "does it matter?"



Yes, if it serves no useful purpose beyond "revenge" then why not just cut out the middleman and say that if someone murders your brother you have a right to kill him.
I'd be happier with that, it gives families and people the right to decide rather than a faceless bureaucracy that supposedly knows what it's doing, no seriously I really would rather have that.

I disagree with the idea that the government executing someone is somehow so different from someone else killing someone in revenge.

If it doesn't act as an actual proven deterrent to violent crimes all it does is serves peoples desire for revenge, and I reiterate, why not just cut out the middle man?
I want less government, not more, giving the government a mandate to decide if someone lives or dies is one step over the line for me.

To a certain extent I suppose I do agree with you in that some people in society are unsalvageable and do deserve to die, I just don't think that the government should decide.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> What purpose does the retribution serve? What exactly are we supposed to gain, as a society, from executions? It won't fix what was done and it doesn't serve as a deterrent.



Retribution serves to appeal to our most basic instinct of _lex talionis_.  You say that justice isn't about retribution; what it is about then?  We fear the fickle nature of vigilantism and people taking "justice into their own hands" so we create a system at the communal level that is perceived to be fair and consistent; this doesn't change the nature of why we have the system.  Justice is the communities retaliation for transgressions against its norms and rules.

I support the death penalty because it is the most simple and efficient way of dealing with the most serious criminal offenders.  The community grants the state the right to use violence when the situation warrants it - military action, police conducting there duties, etc.  Impostion of capital punishment is another circumstance where I can see this as justified.  Of course, an alternative like banishment to a penal colony in the high arctic is another possibility.  The bottom line is if you rape and murder 40-some-odd women and feed them to your pigs, I don't want you in my society; not even writing books in a public-provided facility.



> As for the rabid dogs analogy - we also put down animals that we can't find homes for, should we be doing the same with children that no one adopts? Should we execute the mentally ill because they may pose a danger to society the same way a rabid dog does?



We put down homeless animals for different reasons then we put rabid dogs, so that analogy sucks.  As well, the death penalty is given for a crime committed, not on the basis of danger posed, so don't attempt to throw this off topic.  If an inbred, violent dog rips the face off of a 4 year old, we don't give it 25 years with chance of parole for a reason.


----------



## dutchie (14 Dec 2005)

I disagree with the death penalty for several reasons:

1-It is not proven to be a credible deterrant.
2-The chance of executing an innocent person is too high
3-I don't believe the State has a moral right to kill (outside of national defence of course)
4-I have a moral objection to killing when other means are available. The whole "Thou shall not kill" thing.
5-It seems that a major argument FOR the death penalty is to somehow make amends to the victims family, to make them feel better. Not only is the victims families feelings largely irrelavant in the discussion of someone's right to live, I don't believe that killing the murderer will make them feel better. You always here quotes like, "That was too good for him," or "I'm glad he's dead now, but it won't bring him back." And even if it did make them feel better, killing someone to make another person feel better is barbaric. Revenge is a knee jerk reaction borne not of reason, but of emotion. 
6-There is a real alternative: life in prison. 

You want to eliminate the chance of re-offence (which as has been pointed out is not really an issue anyway) - LIFE in prison, no option. 


edited to add # 6.


----------



## Steve031 (14 Dec 2005)

The last execution in Canada occurred in 1962, but the law remained on the books until 1976.  Are you telling me that nobody was sentenced to death during that time period?  Canada had an appeals process that took more than a couple months.  Two of the more famous executions in the 1950s (as part of the Albert Guay affair) took 2 years to carry out.  And that was in the '50s, a time period when the nature of justic was different than it is today.

The opinions expressed by anti-death penalty views on this forum parallel those expressed by parliament when capital punishment was abolished and that decision reaffirmed later (both in free votes).


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Dec 2005)

> If we had the death penalty, we would undoubtedly have as lengthy a process as the US given our left-leaning justice system. It costs more to imprison someone on death row and execute them than it does to imprison them in general population for life. Your support for the death penalty is actually support for wasting more money, not saving it.



Why does it cost more to imprison them on death row than just in prison them for like? because of the appeal process? Don't people imprisoned for life (which in Canada is what, 25 years? dumb) still get to do the appeal thing?
If it's true then that's a good point. We really need to speed up the process and not play around with this appeal for 20 years bullshit.  Give them a year to come up with something. Even then it's 365 more days than they gave their victim.

I don't really care whether or not the death penalty is a deterant though..


> How many drug smuggler's are contemplating vying their trade in Singapore these days?


Is a great point.

Might be a little graphic.
I read an article once about a guy who , if memory serves me right, raped and killed a mother while the daughter was forced to watch. Then took the daughter and made her crawl through a barbwire fence, put a shotgun up between her legs, fired, and waited and watched for 15 minutes while she died.
I don't want these people in my society.

I agree with infanteer. The death penalty is given for a crime committed, not on the basis of danger posed.

Justice IS about retribution.
A criminal takes something away from society so society takes something away from them.  takes away their money, privileges, freedom and in extreme cases their life.


----------



## kincanucks (14 Dec 2005)

_parallel those expressed by parliament when capital punishment was abolished and that decision reaffirmed later (both in free votes)._

Please don't equate a vote in Parliament as either a 'free vote' or a true expression of what Canadians want as a whole.  Perhaps the decision of whether Canada should bring back Capital Punishment should be made by a Canada-wide referendum in which all Canadians could be heard.


----------



## dutchie (14 Dec 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> _parallel those expressed by parliament when capital punishment was abolished and that decision reaffirmed later (both in free votes)._
> 
> Please don't equate a vote in Parliament as either a 'free vote' or a true expression of what Canadians want as a whole.   Perhaps the decision of whether Canada should bring back Capital Punishment should be made by a Canada-wide referendum in which all Canadians could be heard.



Agreed, that was a poor comparison. However, if a referendum were held, I'll betcha it would be something like 85% against the death penalty, IMHO.


----------



## Steve031 (14 Dec 2005)

They were free votes, as in members of parliament were allowed to vote however they wanted (without influence from their party).  That is the definition of a free vote, and that is what occurred.  So it would be more than appropriate to "equate a vote in Parliament" to a free vote if it was one.

Nor did I say that this necessarily reflected Canadian's opinions as a whole.  I simply said that the concerns raised in the debate leading to the abolition of capital punishment were the same as the concerns being raised here.

If you honestly don't believe that the decision to eliminate capital punishment was fairly decided and represented the will of the people then you have a problem with our system of democracy.  If the Canadian people truly wanted capital punishment they would vote accordingly.

i don't understand how there was a poor comparison.  It was factually accurate.


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "If we had the death penalty, we would undoubtedly have as lengthy a process as the US given our left-leaning justice system. It costs more to imprison someone on death row and execute them than it does to imprison them in general population for life. Your support for the death penalty is actually support for wasting more money, not saving it."
> 
> Not at all.   Just take the money wasted on the gun registry and put it into death sentences.



Whether you're wasting money that would have been wasted elsewhere or wasting fresh money that wasn't budgeted for something else, you're still wasting money. 



> "So "an eye for an eye" should be the basis of our entire justice system? "
> 
> Isn't it now? If not - remove the threat - permanently.



No, it's not. We stopped living by Hammurabi's code quite some time ago. We don't use the "two wrongs make a right" principle to govern a system of law which regulates 35 million people. As for the threat, you can remove the threat just as easily by sticking it in prison. There is absolutely no necessity or call for killing. 

Killing, in Canada at least, is something reserved as a last option - like when a guy pulls a gun on a cop or Canadian Forces troops are at war. We don't arrest people, imprison them (thus removing their threat to society) and then kill them when there's no cause. That's sadistic and sick - it's killing for the sake of killing, not for any legitimate purpose. 



> "I seriously doubt it. Do you really think that the lack of deterrence in the death penalty is because accomplices aren't being executed? "
> 
> I believe the data on deterence is flawed.   The death penalty deters less than it could because very few convicted killers ever are put to death ANYWHERE (USA, China, Japan).




Ah, so it's an issue of volume. We're not killing enough people to generate deterrence? Texas executes three times more people than any other state but has a higher murder rate than the national average. More police officers are killed in Florida, Texas, and California than any other state and all of them have the death penalty. The south, which accounts for 80% of all executions, has the highest murder rate. The Northeast, which accounts for roughly 1% of executions, has a lower murder rate (the lowest in 2001). Canada's murder rate is three times lower than that of the US and doesn't execute anyone. 

Take a look: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167



> As well, I think the death penalty for serious asault - where lack of timely medical intervension would have resulted in death - as well as attempted murder is correct.



That's a pretty vague basis on which to execute people. Establishing that "lack of timely medical intervension would have resulted in death", legally, would be difficult. Why don't we just execute people for every felony? Tax evasion - kill them, drug trafficking - kill them, armed robbery - kill them. It's draconian to say the least. 



> What criminals fear is death - at the time of the crime and at the hands of their victim mostly, as a result of a long legal process eventually.



Apparently not, judging by the data. 



> As for repeat offenders - yes, some do kill again.   No sucessful lawsuits against their parole boards so far, unfortunately.



What this argues for is enforcement of life sentences, not execution. 



			
				kcdist said:
			
		

> As for all the naysayers....how would you react to the murderer of your mother being released after a mere 15 years in prison (less actually, after receiving double time served for pre-trial custody). That's the litmus test.



Not really - there's a reason we use a dispassionate justice system for trying, convicting, and punishing offenders. We shouldn't rely on "how would you feel" as the basis for determining the legitimacy or length of punishment. Regardless, what you're arguing is for longer sentences/no parole, not executions. 



> Some simply deserve to die.



Yes, well I guess this is really a normative point that no one can effectively argue either way. Whether or not someone "deserves to die" is a subjective judgement.




			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Retribution serves to appeal to our most basic instinct of _lex talionis_.   You say that justice isn't about retribution; what it is about then?   We fear the fickle nature of vigilantism and people taking "justice into their own hands" so we create a system at the communal level that is perceived to be fair and consistent; this doesn't change the nature of why we have the system.   Justice is the communities retaliation for transgressions against its norms and rules.



I think our justice system is geared more towards punishment (in a deterrent capacity) and behaviour correction (hence "Correctional Services Canada")than retribution. Revenge rarely serves any useful function, regardless of whether it feels good or not. There is, undoubtedly, a "payment of debt" aspect to sentencing but I don't think that really establishes a case for the death penalty nor should it be the primary concern of our justice system. 



> I support the death penalty because it is the most simple and efficient way of dealing with the most serious criminal offenders.



Not really - it costs more. As for simplicity, I'm hesitant to use the KISS principle when considering someone's life. 



> The community grants the state the right to use violence when the situation warrants it - military action, police conducting there duties, etc.



Yes, and our society views killing as something done in self-defence or defence of others where a threat is imminent or during times of war. Executing criminals fits neither - the murderer has been arrested, is incarcerated, and thus there is no imminent threat. The murderer is not a combatant and we are not at war. Even if he was a combatant, his disarmed and incarcerated status would make killing him a chargeable offence by our rules of war. 



> Impostion of capital punishment is another circumstance where I can see this as justified.   Of course, an alternative like banishment to a penal colony in the high arctic is another possibility.   The bottom line is if you rape and murder 40-some-odd women and feed them to your pigs, I don't want you in my society; not even writing books in a public-provided facility.



Yes, well we're don't really have a very strong Gulag tradition and incarceration, for all intents and purposes, effectively removes the person from society (as it is one of its purposes). 



> We put down homeless animals for different reasons then we put rabid dogs, so that analogy sucks.   As well, the death penalty is given for a crime committed, not on the basis of danger posed, so don't attempt to throw this off topic.   If an inbred, violent dog rips the face off of a 4 year old, we don't give it 25 years with chance of parole for a reason.



We don't treat people as animals, that was my point, so such analogies suck. 



			
				Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Why does it cost more to imprison them on death row than just in prison them for like? because of the appeal process? Don't people imprisoned for life (which in Canada is what, 25 years? dumb) still get to do the appeal thing?



The appeals process for capital crimes and regular crimes is different - there are special appeals processes. The cost of death row itself is also higher - the extremely high segregation and security levels in death row are more expensive than general population. 



> If it's true then that's a good point. We really need to speed up the process and not play around with this appeal for 20 years bullshit.   Give them a year to come up with something. Even then it's 365 more days than they gave their victim.



Given the burden on the courts, it takes far longer than a year to expend the proper avenues of appeal. Heck, it often takes 6 months just to get to trial, and that's in Canada. 



> I don't really care whether or not the death penalty is a deterant though



Well, some people do. Again, I guess it's a normative thing and people will feel how they feel. 



> Might be a little graphic.
> I read an article once about a guy who , if memory serves me right, raped and killed a mother while the daughter was forced to watch. Then took the daughter and made her crawl through a barbwire fence, put a shotgun up between her legs, fired, and waited and watched for 15 minutes while she died.
> I don't want these people in my society.



That's fine, but it hardly substantiates an argument for the death penalty as it operates completely on subjective, normative feelings. 



> Justice IS about retribution.
> A criminal takes something away from society so society takes something away from them.   takes away their money, privileges, freedom and in extreme cases their life.



We don't do the "eye for an eye" thing in Canada - rapists aren't raped, etc. It only serves to lower the society in which it is practiced. There exists a necessity for punishment and security for society - incarceration meets that necessity. 





			
				kincanucks said:
			
		

> _parallel those expressed by parliament when capital punishment was abolished and that decision reaffirmed later (both in free votes)._
> 
> Please don't equate a vote in Parliament as either a 'free vote' or a true expression of what Canadians want as a whole.   Perhaps the decision of whether Canada should bring back Capital Punishment should be made by a Canada-wide referendum in which all Canadians could be heard.



There's a consultation of the public at least every 5 years (often sooner) and the fact that the death penalty has been a generally non-existent issue would suggest that Canadians are happy with our abstention from its use.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I disagree with the death penalty for several reasons:
> 
> 1-It is not proven to be a credible deterrant.



Thats only because of the lengthy appeals process that is inlvolved in the west (US).   It would have a deterrant value (for premeditated crimes) if it did not take 20 odd years to execute someone.   I don't have the exact stats (saw them in one of my classes), but in middle eastern and asian countries that use the death penalty and do not have lengthy appeals, the occurances of premeditated DP crimes is very low, specifically because the certainty of punishment and the speed of which it is carried out.



> 2-The chance of executing an innocent person is too high



With the advances in forensic technology that have been made in the past 20-30 years that is not very likely anymore.   DNA has assured the convictions of many perps (while exonerating others).



> 3-I don't believe the State has a moral right to kill (outside of national defence of course)



You can't have it both ways, either the state has the right to kill or it does not.



> 4-I have a moral objection to killing when other means are available. The whole "Thou shall not kill" thing.


   If you have a moral objection to killing why are you a soldier?   If you are throwing out a relegious reference then you should know that line of the commandmants has been misconstrued.   It is "Thou Shalt not MURDER" not "Thou Shalt not KILL" big difference.   The bible has many instances were killing shown as justifiable, hell the big man wipes out the entire planet, just cause he is a little pissed with everyone.



> 5-It seems that a major argument FOR the death penalty is to somehow make amends to the victims family, to make them feel better. Not only is the victims families feelings largely irrelavant in the discussion of someone's right to live, I don't believe that killing the murderer will make them feel better. You always here quotes like, "That was too good for him," or "I'm glad he's dead now, but it won't bring him back." And even if it did make them feel better, killing someone to make another person feel better is barbaric. Revenge is a knee jerk reaction borne not of reason, but of emotion.



Are you kidding, the victims families feelings are irrelavant?   So if you had a daughter and she was raped and killed, you would have no problem if the prosecutor decided that perp should be pled out and only serve 5 years, with time credit for pretrail custody.   Killing someone to make a person feel may be barbaric, but thats only your opinion.   You can gussy up the justice system all you want and use big fancy words to describe the reasons for existence, but it is about revenge when you boil it down.   Someone wronged you in some manner and you want to see them pay for it.   That is revenge.



> 6-There is a real alternative: life in prison.



And life does not always mean life, and if you are truly religous then you also believe in Hell, and the punishments you recieve there far outwiegh anything that could be done up here.   And in my view the quicker they get there the better.



> You want to eliminate the chance of re-offence (which as has been pointed out is not really an issue anyway) - LIFE in prison, no option.



They can't reoffend if their dead.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> That's a pretty vague basis on which to execute people. Establishing that "lack of timely medical intervension would have resulted in death", legally, would be difficult. Why don't we just execute people for every felony? Tax evasion - kill them, drug trafficking - kill them, armed robbery - kill them. It's draconian to say the least.



Actually there are jurisdictions in the states (and other countries) where premediated murder is not the only capital crime.  Some examples are Drug Traffic, Armed Robbery, Kidknapping of a minor, Sexual assualt, Sexual Assualt of a minor.

Also if Tookie and other were not afraid of death, why do we see these last minute public appeals (especially in Tookies case) using high profile people including celeberities touting the scums merit and why they should live?  Why, because they are at the end of the road, death is finally at their doorstep and not years away.  They have had years in most case to go for these stay of executions, but they wait till the last minute cause they are sh-iting bricks with realization that they are going to die.


----------



## kincanucks (14 Dec 2005)

_There's a consultation of the public at least every 5 years (often sooner) and the fact that the death penalty has been a generally non-existent issue would suggest that Canadians are happy with our abstention from its use. _ 

Really and where does one view these _public consultations_ and who conducts them?

I did a quick search on public opinion about capital punishment and came up with:

http://www.cpa.ca/ogloff.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut3.htm

_Public approval of the death penalty is currently about 70%. Public support is essentially the same in Canada, a country which abandoned capital punishment._

http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php

While this arctile shows a decrease in support for capital   punishment there are still more people that support it then who don't.


----------



## dutchie (14 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Thats only because of the lengthy appeals process that is inlvolved in the west (US).   It would have a deterrant value (for premeditated crimes) if it did not take 20 odd years to execute someone.


Do you think our ability to expediate an execution in Canada would be better than the US'?


			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I don't have the exact stats (saw them in one of my classes), but in middle eastern and asian countries that use the death penalty and do not have lengthy appeals,



Shall we model our criminal justice system after the middle east/asia? I suggest not.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> With the advances in forensic technology that have been made in the past 20-30 years that is not very likely anymore.    DNA has assured the convictions of many perps (while exonerating others).



No-one has suggested a higher burden of proof be required for death penalty cases (say, with DNA/videotape evidence). Based on the current system, you could convict and execute a person on circumstantial evidence. Not acceptable to me.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You can't have it both ways, either the state has the right to kill or it does not.



Wrong. The State does have the right to kill to defend   it's national interests/security, but it does not have the right to kill to defend the Criminal Code. If the rule is: "you have the right to kill, or you do not." then I guess they have the right to kill in defense of any Criminal Code violation, or any other violation of Government laws/decrees? I think not.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> If you have a moral objection to killing why are you a soldier?



I said it has no right to kill when other alternatives are available. As far as soldiering goes, not only is it a completely different discussion (above), but in theory, soldiers go to war as a last resort, when all reasonable avenues have been exhausted. My assertion is that there is a reasonable alternative (prison), and that execution is voluntary killing, which I am against. But I can't stess enough - soldiering is completely different, and is not part of the discussion.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> If you are throwing out a relegious reference then you should know that line of the commandmants has been misconstrued.    It is "Thou Shalt not MURDER" not "Thou Shalt not KILL" big difference.    The bible has many instances were killing shown as justifiable, hell the big man wipes out the entire planet, just cause he is a little pissed with everyone.



I wasn't really meaning from a religious perspective, more that as a rule, you should not kill when it's avoidable. Having said that, yes, from a religious perspective, I do have an issue with unnecessary killing, but I am leaving my personal religious beliefs out of this political discussion.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Are you kidding, the victims families feelings are irrelavant?



What bearing does a third party, no matter who they are, have on the guilt or innocence of an accused? Should the guy who murders a homeless man with no friends or family get an easier sentence? Are not all lives of equal value?



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> So if you had a daughter and she was raped and killed, you would have no problem if the prosecutor decided that perp should be pled out and only serve 5 years, with time credit for pretrail custody.


First of all, there is a reason family members of the victim cannot serve on the jury - their personal feelings, while valid, real and understandable, will colour their judgement and true objectivity, a requirement of justice, is impossible. But of course, if someone did something to any member of my family, I would want them strung from the highest pole. 

Second, I am not advocating for 'pled out and only serve 5 years, with time credit for pretrail custody. ' - I'm not sure where you got that. 

Finally, keep in mind that in a criminal trial, there is no 'victim', only 'witnesses'. The crime was committed against the Crown, not the person. For instance, a rape victim is refered to as the 'witness'. He/She has the same status, in theory, of that of an eye-witness. 



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Killing someone to make a person feel may be barbaric, but thats only your opinion.



Of course it is, but I thought that was assumed. Shall I preface everything I post with 'IMHO'? If my posts are my opnion, what are yours? Gospel?



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You can gussy up the justice system all you want and use big fancy words to describe the reasons for existence, but it is about revenge when you boil it down.    Someone wronged you in some manner and you want to see them pay for it.    That is revenge.



No, it's about crime and punishment. It's supposed to be cold and objective, fair and firm. It has to be applied equally to all. That goes right from the police, to the courts, to the prison system. Ever notice the symbol of Justice? I don't know the name of it, but it's the blindfolded lady with the scales of justice....she is   carrying a scale, not a shotgun and a noose.


----------



## Gramps (14 Dec 2005)

Caesar 

Very well put. I agree with your statements %100. I am now and always have been against capital (and corporal) punishment. It serves no-one any justice and I for one am glad I live in a country without capital punishment. Sure there may be a lot of flaws with the legal, penal and law enforcement systems but as far as I am concerned it is the best one going. I would suggest to anyone who thinks life in a federal prison is a cake walk to go and talk to someone who has actually done time in a maximum or a medium security establishment, don't judge the person (a jury or a qualified judge has already done that) for why they may have been there but just listen to their stories, you may find it both interesting and disturbing at the same time. As for the deterrent value of the death penalty, I think that is BS, many states and the federal government in the US (for example) have capital punishment as an option but why then are their prisons so over crowded. Do you think Tookie was thinking about lethal injection when he committed his crimes, or how about people like John Gotti or Sammy "The Bull" Gravano,  were they worried about a possible death sentence? If it worked as a deterrant there would not be as many serious crimes committed don't you think?


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Do you think our ability to expediate an execution in Canada would be better than the US'?


Maybe, maybe not, we won't know till we try.



> Shall we model our criminal justice system after the middle east/asia? I suggest not.


   Why not? What makes our so perfect.   They have lower instances of crime in many categories, why is that?   Its not because they give group hugs and therapy to offenders.



> No-one has suggested a higher burden of proof be required for death penalty cases (say, with DNA/videotape evidence). Based on the current system, you could convict and execute a person on circumstantial evidence. Not acceptable to me.


   Then maybe we should, if thats what would be required to get the Death penalty back, then I am for it.



> Wrong. The State does have the right to kill to defend   it's national interests/security, but it does not have the right to kill to defend the Criminal Code. If the rule is: "you have the right to kill, or you do not." then I guess they have the right to kill in defense of any Criminal Code violation, or any other violation of Government laws/decrees? I think not.


   Like I mentioned, murder is not the only capital crime in many jurisdictions.



> I said it has no right to kill when other alternatives are available. As far as soldiering goes, not only is it a completely different discussion (above), but in theory, soldiers go to war as a last resort, when all reasonable avenues have been exhausted. My assertion is that there is a reasonable alternative (prison), and that execution is voluntary killing, which I am against. But I can't stess enough - soldiering is completely different, and is not part of the discussion.


   There is an alternative to war, appeasement.   War is voluntary state sanctioned killing to protect national interests (whatever they may be), Execution is voluntary state sanctied killing to protect, local/state/national interests (whatever they may be).



> What bearing does a third party, no matter who they are, have on the guilt or innocence of an accused? Should the guy who murders a homeless man with no friends or family get an easier sentence? Are not all lives of equal value?
> First of all, there is a reason family members of the victim cannot serve on the jury - their personal feelings, while valid, real and understandable, will colour their judgement and true objectivity, a requirement of justice, is impossible. But of course, if someone did something to any member of my family, I would want them strung from the highest pole.


   Third parties are involved in deciding guilt or innocence all the time (investigating officers, expert witnesses, character witnessess).   We are not talking about guilt or innoncence, we are talking about sentences which means the person has already been found guilty.   And in the determination of sentences victims definately do have a say (Victim Impact Statements), as they should. 



> Second, I am not advocating for 'pled out and only serve 5 years, with time credit for pretrail custody. ' - I'm not sure where you got that.


I used that as a hypothetical example to gauge how your would feel if that was the sentence handed to a perp who had raped and killed your daughter, seeing as how your of the mind that what the victims feel should happen is irrelevant.



> Finally, keep in mind that in a criminal trial, there is no 'victim', only 'witnesses'. The crime was committed against the Crown, not the person. For instance, a rape victim is refered to as the 'witness'. He/She has the same status, in theory, of that of an eye-witness.


[/quote]

You sure about that?   I have been to a few criminal trials, and the crown reffered to the victim as the victim (usually prefaced with alleged).



> Of course it is, but I thought that was assumed. Shall I preface everything I post with 'IMHO'? If my posts are my opnion, what are yours? Gospel?



If you could please, and yes from now on you may refer to me as the Reverend Father Hatchet Man   



> No, it's about crime and punishment. It's supposed to be cold and objective, fair and firm. It has to be applied equally to all. That goes right from the police, to the courts, to the prison system. Ever notice the symbol of Justice? I don't know the name of it, but it's the blindfolded lady with the scales of justice....she is   carrying a scale, not a shotgun and a noose.


I stand by my original statement.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (14 Dec 2005)

How many thousands and thousands of taxpayers dollars does it cost to keep maniac criminals behind bars, guys like bernardo?

I wonder how many canadians would rather keep their money, and just have the guy shot in the back of the head? Im going to guess almost all of them.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Dec 2005)

Gramps said:
			
		

> Do you think Tookie was thinking about lethal injection when he committed his crimes, or how about people like John Gotti or Sammy "The Bull" Gravano,   were they worried about a possible death sentence? If it worked as a deterrant there would not be as many serious crimes committed don't you think?



Tookie may not have been thinking about lethal injection when he committed his crimes but that is more likely due to the fact he probably didn't think he would be caught, that he woulb be punished, or that if he was punished it would happen quickly.   For any punshiment (fines, incarceration, execution) to have a deterrent value, there must be a certainty of getting caught in the first place (which is hard since most criminals don't think they will get caught, if they did they wouldn't commit crimes in the first place), certainity that when caught, events will happen quickly (which doesn't happen now), and certainty of punishment (ie no plea bargaining and reducing sentences).   I believe (someone can correct me if I am wrong), but when Sammy and Gotti committed thier crimes New York was a non-death penalty state.   So those examples have no bearing on this discussion.


----------



## dutchie (14 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Why not? What makes our so perfect.   They have lower instances of crime in many categories, why is that?



Because, to put it bluntly, they have a less developed justice system, with barbarism and religious zealotry in place of restraint, secularism, and fairness. If you are suggesting that the Saudi system, for instance, is superior, to Canada's, go live there. Piss someone off and see how fair the system is. Better yet, ask William Sampson how fair it is.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Its not because they give group hugs and therapy to offenders.



I am against capital punishment AND group hugs. I would like to see life imprisonment for murder, and make it hard time. Not nintendo, smokes, and porno movies.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> There is an alternative to war, appeasement.    War is voluntary state sanctioned killing to protect national interests (whatever they may be), Execution is voluntary state sanctied killing to protect, local/state/national interests (whatever they may be).



There is a difference. In war, there is no other means of achieving the goal - whatever that goal is. In capital punishment there is - life imprisonment. It's not like we'd just let them go without the death penalty.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Third parties are involved in deciding guilt or innocence all the time (investigating officers, expert witnesses, character witnessess).



Right, but we are not concerned with trying to make those people ( investigating officers, expert witnesses, character witnessess) feel better. We are intersted in obtaining factual information from them to assist the judge/jury in deciding whether or not the accused commited the crime. Justice has nothing to do with making someone feel better - it's about forcing someone to pay for their crime by revoking their liberty, protecting society from their criminal activity, and thirdly, act as a deterent to would-be criminals. 



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> We are not talking about guilt or innoncence, we are talking about sentences which means the person has already been found guilty.    And in the determination of sentences victims definately do have a say (Victim Impact Statements), as they should.



I also disagree with these statements, and in my perception, they have little or no bearing on the sentence. I volunteered for several years in Victim Services, and I can tell you that very few in the 'system' (cops, the Crown, or judges) put much stake into victim impact statements. They are largely viewed as a nice gesture to the families, but are really just a show with no real merit in determining sentences. 



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You sure about that?    I have been to a few criminal trials, and the crown reffered to the victim as the victim (usually prefaced with alleged).



Of course they did. Their job is to win the case. One of the ways they do that is to try and paint a picture of 'victim vs. perpetrator'. However, officially, the victim is a witness. In fact, if anything, our system is set up that the Crown is the victim, as the crime was committed against it, not the actual victim.



BTW, you didn't asnwer my questions:

1-Does the murderer of a man with no family or friends deserve a lesser sentence?

2-If yes, are not all lives of equal value?


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Dec 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> BTW, you didn't asnwer my questions:
> 
> 1-Does the murderer of a man with no family or friends deserve a lesser sentence?
> 
> 2-If yes, are not all lives of equal value?



No he doesn't, all murderers should be executed.  However, despite what we think not all life is of equal value (not that i think thats right or wrong).   Example killing a cop is automatically 1st Degree Murder in this country (with very very few rare exceptions,  Like Bill Hancox, he was undercover and had not identified himself as a cop when he has stabbed to death, so the perps were charged with 2nd Degree Murder).  We also place a high value on celebrities, politicians, military etc.


----------



## dutchie (14 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> No he doesn't, all murderers should be executed.



Ok, fine. Then don't use 'appeasing the families feelings' as a justification if you'd execute the guy anyhow. If the absence of a grieving family won't save someone from the chair, then the presence of a grieving family shouldn't condem one to it.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> However, despite what we think not all life is of equal value (not that i think thats right or wrong).    Example killing a cop is automatically 1st Degree Murder in this country (with very very few rare exceptions,   Like Bill Hancox, he was undercover and had not identified himself as a cop when he has stabbed to death, so the perps were charged with 2nd Degree Murder).   We also place a high value on celebrities, politicians, military etc.



Agree with you there.


----------



## Gramps (14 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> when Sammy and Gotti committed their crimes New York was a non-death penalty state.   So those examples have no bearing on this discussion.



They were charged under the RICO laws and I am pretty sure it was the fed who finally caught them if I remember correctly and I could be wrong here too but the Federal government in the United States has the power to use the death penalty regardless of state law. As I said, I could be wrong. By the way as a side note New York state has the death penalty once again (I cant remember though when they brought it back).


----------



## brin11 (14 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Who cares if he runs the risk of doing it again, really?   Is that really the fear?   Most murders are between people who know each other.   If a guy kills his wife in a crime of passion - he's not likely to reoffend.   But that's not really the point, is it.



I care.  My cousin was brutally murdered in 1983 by a pair of brothers who had been released from prison while the justice system hoped they wouldn't do it again.  One is set to be released in the next 1 1/2 years (the other is dead already).  If he was dead there would be no reason to worry that he would reoffend.  



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> . Not only is the victims families feelings largely irrelavant in the discussion of someone's right to live, I don't believe that killing the murderer will make them feel better. You always here quotes like, "That was too good for him," or "I'm glad he's dead now, but it won't bring him back." And even if it did make them feel better, killing someone to make another person feel better is barbaric. Revenge is a knee jerk reaction borne not of reason, but of emotion.



Well, here's one family member that would feel tons better if the thing described above was dead.  Revenge, they say, is best served cold.  What's wrong with taking action that is based on emotion?  We do many things, good things, because of emotion.  To me capital punishment is two things:  1.  a punishment of the offender for committing a heinous crime.  2.  The ability of society to ensure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the offender will not reoffend.  I just can't wrap my head around the idea that these offenders actually have rights after committing some of the crimes they do.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Dec 2005)

Gramps said:
			
		

> They were charged under the RICO laws and I am pretty sure it was the fed who finally caught them if I remember correctly and I could be wrong here too but the Federal government in the United States has the power to use the death penalty regardless of state law. As I said, I could be wrong. By the way as a side note New York state has the death penalty once again (I cant remember though when they brought it back).



If that is the case (being charged federally vs state) then I stand corrected.  However Sammy did sing like a bird when he was caught, maybe the DP played a part?  He hasn't killed any one since then.  As well I was aware that New York brough back the Death Penalty (95 I believe), which was after the trails of Gotti et al., however it has once again been suspended as of about a year or two ago (I watch too much law and order) pending a review by the supreme court.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (14 Dec 2005)

brin11 said:
			
		

> I care.  My cousin was brutally murdered in 1983 by a pair of brothers who had been released from prison while the justice system hoped they wouldn't do it again.  One is set to be released in the next 1 1/2 years (the other is dead already).  If he was dead there would be no reason to worry that he would reoffend.



You can't execute people based on what they MIGHT do.  You can't even execute people on what they PROBABLY will do.  DP is not, say again "not",  a deterrent, it's a judicial response to a crime already commited.  I wouldn't want to live in a state where people were punished for what they "might" do.


----------



## Jungle (14 Dec 2005)

Gramps said:
			
		

> I would suggest to anyone who thinks life in a federal prison is a cake walk to go and talk to someone who has actually done time in a maximum or a medium security establishment...


If it is so rough, why are 30% of inmates in our detention centers there for the tenth time or more ?? It has become a lifestyle for a number of people; instead of spending the winter on a park bench, they go to prison at taxpayers expense. There they get 3 hot meals, a roof over their heads, TV, pool tables, friends...


----------



## brin11 (14 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> You can't execute people based on what they MIGHT do.   You can't even execute people on what they PROBABLY will do.   DP is not, say again "not",   a deterrent, it's a judicial response to a crime already commited.   I wouldn't want to live in a state where people were punished for what they "might" do.



Of course not.   They should have been executed for what they did before.   Whether it is a deterrent is not an issue to me.   See my post above for the reasons I believe CP is viable and necessary.   It is a punishment.   It is revenge; I just don't see what's wrong with revenge.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Dec 2005)

brin11 said:
			
		

> Of course not.   They should have been executed for what they did before.   Whether it is a deterrent is not an issue to me.   See my post above for the reasons I believe CP is viable and necessary.   It is a punishment.   It is revenge; I just don't see what's wrong with revenge.



Because in this PC world of ours, we are to ignore our base more primal instincts because they are "bruttish" and "uncivilized", in favour of "rehabilitating" these pukes.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2005)

I am somewhat conflicted here. On the one hand, people like "Tookie" are vicious criminals and a nice clean death is probably too good for them (He didn't have anywhere near the consideration for the people he gunned down as the State did for his welfare right up to the end).

On the other hand, the only place where criminals always get nailed is "CSI". Mistakes get made, the finger is pointed at the wrong person and then someone is wrongly convicted. Death is a pretty hard mistake to undo. Sadly the biggest problem is the number of crimes which are unsolved, which is where I would be putting resources and attention towards rather than the sterile "its a deterrent/no its not" arguments. I am happy enough that people like Paul Bernardo are going to spend the rest of their lives in a box. Karla may reoffend, in which case she will go in the box as well, cold comfort and none at all for the next victim's family, but this is the world we have to live in.

No one knows for certain where their breakig point is, the person who stabbed his wife to death with a screwdriver when she asked for a divorce probalby wasn't sitting there planning to do this (but since only God has perfect knowledge even this is only a guess). Bottom line, we have plenty of isolated locations and enough resources to make as many super max prisons as we like and house these people forever in case there was a mistake. It doesn't even have to have all the amenities that prisoners in Gitmo (who may also be there for all their natural lives) have, special meals, prayer mats and their own personal Korans are simply not nesessary for these people.


----------



## GO!!! (15 Dec 2005)

I believe that we should allow capital punishment, if for no other reason than a simple cost saving measure.

It costs something like 80K a year to keep a killer behind bars. I'd rather see two killers executed and another doctor hired than keep those worthless human beings alive.

And I fully agree with an earlier post about the recidivism rate. Prisoners now get three squares a day, cable TV, education, immediate medical care and free prescriptions, gyms, counselling and my personal pet peeve - free tattoos.

No Canadian soldier is entitled to all of these benefits, and we serve our country. Why are prisoners treated better than we are? 

The people that are not hung should encounter conditions so horrible that the mere thought of re - offending creates a Clockwork Orange - style adverse mental reaction.

The measuring stick of the prison's success would be the vigor with which Amnesty international et al condemned it.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I think our justice system is geared more towards punishment (in a deterrent capacity) and behaviour correction (hence "Correctional Services Canada")than retribution. Revenge rarely serves any useful function, regardless of whether it feels good or not. There is, undoubtedly, a "payment of debt" aspect to sentencing but I don't think that really establishes a case for the death penalty nor should it be the primary concern of our justice system.



Well, that's probably why it isn't doing so hot - what good is a justice system based on deterrent punishment when it seems to be the general concenus that penalties don't serve as a deterent value?  No point trying to affect the behaviour of somebody you would just stick behind bars for life anyways; save that idea for lessor offences.

Revenge serves a useful function; it ensures the "golden rule" is fulfilled.  If someone commits depraved criminal acts, I have no problem with seeing the community lay vengence upon them.



> Not really - it costs more. As for simplicity, I'm hesitant to use the KISS principle when considering someone's life.



Not if you do it right - I'm all for it in the right circumstances; I'd have no hesitation in marching Paul Bernardo to the gallows; hell, I'd even kick the chair out.



> Yes, and our society views killing as something done in self-defence or defence of others where a threat is imminent or during times of war. Executing criminals fits neither - the murderer has been arrested, is incarcerated, and thus there is no imminent threat. The murderer is not a combatant and we are not at war. Even if he was a combatant, his disarmed and incarcerated status would make killing him a chargeable offence by our rules of war.



If society has the power to lock somebody up for the rest of their natural life, then I see no difference then allowing someone to hang from the neck - it's all a matter of time and space.



> Yes, well we're don't really have a very strong Gulag tradition and incarceration, for all intents and purposes, effectively removes the person from society (as it is one of its purposes).



Well, maybe we should invest in one; I like the sounds of it.  It'd be a good place for Clifford Olson to work on his book about raping little boys....



> We don't treat people as animals, that was my point, so such analogies suck.



Well, some people are animals, so it isn't an issue, is it?


----------



## kcdist (15 Dec 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> As a point of principle, I believe the death penalty should be mandatory in the the murder of a Peace Officer, as well as any pre-meditated, 1st degree convictions. The rest would be negotiable.



Sad....

As we're conducting an academic discussion on the pros and cons of the death penalty, yet another Canadian Peace Officer was murdered just yesterday. From the initial reports, it seems as if the shooter was waiting in ambush. 

Could have the existence of the death penalty for the murder of Peace Officers maybe.....just maybe.....made this cowardly gunman think twice before he pulled the trigger? I think the answer is yes, but then again, I'm relying on a subjective feeling and not a university published research paper.

Fortunately in Canada, murder is not commonplace (certain parts of Toronto excepted). I believe the existence of the Death Penalty would make it less so.

My only experience with actual murder is having arrested a coward by the name of Ian Gordon in Calgary in the 90's. At the time of his arrest, following his 911 call, he had just taken an axe and smashed in the heads of his two daughters and his common law wife. He had made a pathetic attempt to cut his wrists, and when he realized he may have actually hurt himself, he called 911 for assistance. This weak, sick and twisted individual was more concerned about his own welfare than the fact that he has just splattered the brains of his two children throughout the house. 

His crime was indeed pre-meditated, as he murdered his first child, went to school to pick up his second child, brought her home and then murdered her. He killed his wife last...

Motive? His wife was leaving him and he was mad....Punishment? Eight years per life taken, for a total of 24 years, less time served. 

Would the Death Penalty have made this coward think twice? After talking to him while his children's bodies were still in the adjacent rooms........I think maybe it would have. As mentioned, his overriding concern appeared to be his own welfare.

Therefore, one can trot out all the academic studies that exist, and my mind will never change. As they say for the gun registry - 'it's all worth it if it saves just one life'.....I say the same for the Death Penalty - 'It is worth it if it saves just one INNOCENT life'


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Actually there are jurisdictions in the states (and other countries) where premediated murder is not the only capital crime.   Some examples are Drug Traffic, Armed Robbery, Kidknapping of a minor, Sexual assualt, Sexual Assualt of a minor.



Great - there are jurisdictions in the US with laws as idiotic as those in Greece circa 620 BC. 



> Also if Tookie and other were not afraid of death, why do we see these last minute public appeals (especially in Tookies case) using high profile people including celeberities touting the scums merit and why they should live?



   The issue isn't whether criminals fear death, it's whether that fear translates into a deterrent to crime, which it doesn't. 



> Why, because they are at the end of the road, death is finally at their doorstep and not years away.   They have had years in most case to go for these stay of executions, but they wait till the last minute cause they are sh-iting bricks with realization that they are going to die.



You also have people who don't bother with the appeals process and go to their deaths confidently and quietly. Regardless, postulating as to the mindset of a death row inmate at the time of death is pointless and speculative at best. How this translates into a deterrent capacity for the death penalty is beyond me. Do you really believe that it's the appeals process that undermines the deterrent capacity of capital punishment? If so, you've only demonstrated that the institution of the death penalty in Canada would be useless as we're guaranteed to have a lengthy appeals process and thus the DP would serve no deterrent use. That's not to say I agree with you on the length of process and deterrent value (I disagree), but by your own standards, the DP is useless in Canada. 




			
				kincanucks said:
			
		

> _There's a consultation of the public at least every 5 years (often sooner) and the fact that the death penalty has been a generally non-existent issue would suggest that Canadians are happy with our abstention from its use. _
> 
> Really and where does one view these _public consultations_ and who conducts them?



I was referring to elections. 



> I did a quick search on public opinion about capital punishment and came up with:
> 
> http://www.cpa.ca/ogloff.htm
> 
> ...



An Ipsos-Reid poll in 2001 found that only 52% of those polled supported the death penalty. That's down from 61% in 1995 and 73% in 1987. Support for the death penalty would appear to be decreasing steadily. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, that's probably why it isn't doing so hot - what good is a justice system based on deterrent punishment when it seems to be the general concenus that penalties don't serve as a deterent value?   No point trying to affect the behaviour of somebody you would just stick behind bars for life anyways; save that idea for lessor offences.



It's apparently doing hotter than the southern states which use the death penalty and the US in general. As I pointed out previously, the Northeast US (with 1% of executions) has a lower murder rate (the lowest rate of any region in 2001) than the Southern US (which has the highest murder rate) which accounts for 80% of executions. 



> Revenge serves a useful function; it ensures the "golden rule" is fulfilled.   If someone commits depraved criminal acts, I have no problem with seeing the community lay vengence upon them.



The community gets its vengeance with incarceration and there's no risk of executing the innocent. 



> Not if you do it right - I'm all for it in the right circumstances; I'd have no hesitation in marching Paul Bernardo to the gallows; hell, I'd even kick the chair out.



While I share your disdain for Paul Bernardo, I think "doing it right" is impossible as doing it at all is pointless. How do we "do it right"? No appeals? March them from the court to the gallows?



> If society has the power to lock somebody up for the rest of their natural life, then I see no difference then allowing someone to hang from the neck - it's all a matter of time and space.



I see a very big difference. The right to life and the sanctity thereof is supposed to be utmost in our system. We already went over the times in which it's justified to take a life and the DP fulfills neither. The only appeal or argument left for the death penalty is the sick, sadistic "satisfaction" argument which hinges on normative grounds. 



> Well, maybe we should invest in one; I like the sounds of it.   It'd be a good place for Clifford Olson to work on his book about raping little boys....



Yes, then we can join the ranks of the former Soviet Union, China, and a host of other countries whose treatment of their citizenry is despicable (by our standards) to say the least. 



> Well, some people are animals, so it isn't an issue, is it?



I'm not even going to bother with that one.   ;D


Instead of looking at new and pointless punishments for criminals, we might do better to take a look at the factors which cause crime. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Instead of looking at new and pointless punishments for criminals, we might do better to take a look at the factors which cause crime. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.



Yeah, but once we're considering the death penalty (or life in Infanteer Gulag) then the horse has alread left the stables.  This debate is on what to do when prevention fails.


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yeah, but once we're considering the death penalty (or life in Infanteer Gulag) then the horse has alread left the stables.   This debate is on what to do when prevention fails.



Granted, but it's unlikely to be very productive as this limits the debate on the death penalty to its retributive value, which is an inherently normative topic. 

That being said, the value of debate (especially here) is more often a function of the debate itself than the products thereof.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Dec 2005)

_Quote from: Hatchet Man on Yesterday at 17:04:40
Actually there are jurisdictions in the states (and other countries) where premediated murder is not the only capital crime.  Some examples are Drug Traffic, Armed Robbery, Kidknapping of a minor, Sexual assualt, Sexual Assualt of a minor.
Quote from Glorified Ape,
Great - there are jurisdictions in the US with laws as idiotic as those in Greece circa 620 BC. _ 

Yes, and my list of "capital punishment" crimes would even be longer........and I was against it 17 years ago when I started working in Corrections, and there are a lot worse in the system than the ones I've dealt with.

So tell me GA, have you ever spent time inside?


----------



## TCBF (15 Dec 2005)

"Instead of looking at new and pointless punishments for criminals, we might do better to take a look at the factors which cause crime. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

- Well, the double envelopment has always appealed to me:

Let's do BOTH.

Let's test young offenders, track their treatment, adjust it as needed, and assess their ability to function in society.   This is a medical problem, so we apply a medical solution to all offenders (young and old) who test as possible to re-offend, as if they carried some new, contagious disease: we isolate them in secure hospitals - sanitariums - until a cure is found.

It isn't punishment - it's treatment.   

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Dec 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> _Quote from: Hatchet Man on Yesterday at 17:04:40
> Actually there are jurisdictions in the states (and other countries) where premediated murder is not the only capital crime.   Some examples are Drug Traffic, Armed Robbery, Kidknapping of a minor, Sexual assualt, Sexual Assualt of a minor.
> Quote from Glorified Ape,
> Great - there are jurisdictions in the US with laws as idiotic as those in Greece circa 620 BC. _
> ...



God no - the closest I ever came was a holding cell after a weapons/mischief arrest and those few times I went to visit my former friend at the Toronto West Detention Centre, Millhaven, and Bath. I have no doubt that there are some extremely unpalatable characters in the prison system - my former best friend (and sister's ex-boyfriend) was an ex-junkie/crackhead/cokehead/pothead, ex-enforcer for the Satan's Choice, car thief, burglar, drug dealer, etc. and spent about 7-10 years in prison (total, not all at once), some of which were during his relationship with my sister. He had no shortage of experiences with sickies (and arguably was one himself), usually violent, while he was in the clink and the few people I met which he knew from prison were unappealing, to say the least. 

You may have run into him at some point during your career - last name Graham, about 5'10, 225 lbs, usually with a shaved head, from Toronto. Quite a smart guy, but very screwed up. He'd be about 37 now.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Dec 2005)

> And I fully agree with an earlier post about the recidivism rate. Prisoners now get three squares a day, cable TV, education, immediate medical care and free prescriptions, gyms, counselling and my personal pet peeve - free tattoos.
> 
> No Canadian soldier is entitled to all of these benefits, and we serve our country. Why are prisoners treated better than we are?



Great point.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Dec 2005)

>You are right - the death penalty is NOT a deterrent.

There is general deterrence and there is specific deterrence.   The death penalty is specific deterrence.   So is natural life imprisonment (ie. irrevocable loss of freedom).   The problem with natural life imprisonment is that there's not much to deter the convict from killing inmates, guards, or anyone else he can get his hands on while incarcerated (not to mention if he escapes).   Here's a question: is there some fixed number of additional killings a convicted murderer could make before he was executed, or would every convicted murderer imprisoned with no prospect of release essentially have a lifetime of no bag limit?   IOW, draw the full sentence for the first one and you've already paid for all the rest.   Maybe the solution is simply to make the death penalty an option for #2 and all thereafter.   I believe that protecting prospective future victims is a rational and legitimate purpose, although it's *secondary to the crime which has already been committed*. Those of you who believe no amount of money is too large to spend or no amount of guns too many to confiscate to save even one life can ponder what you're willing to do what it takes to save those lives, but don't lose sight of the fact it isn't punishment on the basis of what might be done: it's sentence rendered for what *was* done.

Of course, nothing says life in prison has to be more than a mattress on the floor of a concrete cell with a hole in the floor punctuated by long days of exhausting physical labour.   The prospect of a lifetime of that might be a general deterrent.

>I don't believe the State has a moral right to kill (outside of national defence of course)

I find that belief odd to say the least.   It amounts to saying that we are willing to risk killing innocents abroad (we could, for example, send our F-18s to bomb Serbians in pursuit of some political goal), but we recoil in horror at the thought of cleaning up our own trash at home.   The life of a law-abiding not-Canadian who has the misfortune to be in a target area is worth less than that of a Canadian convicted of murder.

States go to war - kill people - for security reasons.   You're jerking yourself off if you think someone who kills for the sake of pleasure or financial gain isn't a security risk.

Depending on the standard of evidence required to apply the death penalty, the probability of executing an innocent can range down to a very close approximation of zero.   Nowhere is it written that the death penalty has to be an option for a guy convicted chiefly on the basis of motive, opportunity, and because his prints were found at the murder scene.


----------



## TCBF (16 Dec 2005)

While we are at it, there is no reason to limit the death penalty simply for cases where a death results, is there?  I like the ChiComs approach on this - who says we can't learn from the 'Middle Kingdom' (Britney, you reading this?).

Tom


----------



## rifleman (16 Dec 2005)

I would apply it to those people who unplug a block heater in the middle of the night in Winnipeg on a cold cold night


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Dec 2005)

> >I don't believe the State has a moral right to kill (outside of national defence of course)
> 
> I find that belief odd to say the least.  It amounts to saying that we are willing to risk killing innocents abroad (we could, for example, send our F-18s to bomb Serbians in pursuit of some political goal), but we recoil in horror at the thought of cleaning up our own trash at home.  The life of a law-abiding not-Canadian who has the misfortune to be in a target area is worth less than that of a Canadian convicted of murder.



Awesome.


----------



## midgetcop (16 Dec 2005)

Back to the issue of Tookie....

Although I don't agree with capital punishment in principle, I have no idea why clemency should have even been considered in this particular case. Unless there's some new evidence introduced that brings his guilt into question, then what makes this guy's life more valuable than any other prisoner on death row? Because he has a bunch of Hollywood celebrities clamouring for his case? Because he wrote a few children's books? 

Gimme a break.


----------



## TCBF (16 Dec 2005)

" Re: Dead Man Eating - bye bye Tookie 
 « Reply #11 on: December 13, 2005, 20:12:29  »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And hey, where were all of those anti-death penalty activists when Timothy McVeigh was executed?
All executions are equal, but some executions are more equal than others?

Tom"

Yup.  The Hollywood elite was just not there for Tim. Why not?

Hippocrites.

Tom


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Dec 2005)

Someone once said "the only people that truely feel better from charity are the ones who are giving it".  There are too many people out there that have some cage full of crap in their attics that need to push their huggy feely on everyone.  There does not need to be a big moral hang up over the death penalty.  It is a good idea from every practical standpoint.  More cost efficient, flawless results.  You should see the recidivism rates for executed criminals.  They never commit another crime!  That is proof enough that it works.  
Yes, people will throw themselves all over the floor screaming and whining "but an innocent could be killed".  There is that risk.  But if anyone is involved with the legal system, you know that criminals have every possible advantage these days.  Coupled with cutting edge DNA techniques, there are plenty of slam dunk murder cases in Canada.  The problem now is that if you can handle three squares a day, go to the gym, get all the free university courses you can handle for 10 years, you might as well pick someone and kill them.  Then, when you get to court, plead guilty to manslaughter and say that "I'm a desperate crackhead, he tried to kill me for my last rock, I'm so sorry and I need help".  The judge will let out an audible "aaawww" and lob you in, leaving the chance of early parole open wide open due to your demonstrated show of remorse.  
Why do we get hung up on this concept of "human life is precious"?  Says who?  Any of you that have been on taskings around the world could definately say that not everyone thinks that way.  Wouldn't it be nice if you had to re-apply for your Life Licence every year.  You go into a booth in a mall, type in "what I contributed to the betterment of the world" and a desicion is made.  All of a sudden, the crystal in the palm of your hand goes red, and you are taken away by the Sandmen to go to Carosel.  Or something like that.  A police state to be sure, but what a fun, safe environment for the kids!!


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Dec 2005)

2 wks ago yesterday, in Singapore they hung an Aussie citizen (Vietnamese born) for having almost 500g of heroin on him. Talk about a whinging public (minority only), even some state parliments gave him a minutes silence (this caused an outrage for the majority), which personally I find offensive, thats reserved for 11 Nov, 25 Apr, and similar things not gutless foreign DRUG TRAFFICKERS, who only want to be Aussie when it suits them. Do a search for 'australian hanged singapore' for more info if you want it).

Good on Singapore for having such harsh penalties, he knew the risk, he knew the outcome and paid the piper for his sins. They say the drugs on him would have made almost 30,000 hits for users on our streets, and we all know how many lives are ruined by these drugs every year (victims of crime and murder involving robbery etc by desperate druggies trying to feed their sickly habits for example).

As for Tookie, I heard he only had a glass of milk, and no food, but as if I care, again think of the victims of his crime, they have a life sentance. Think of Tookie when you flush the toilet today.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## GO!!! (16 Dec 2005)

Like I said earlier,

Make prison horrible (burlap clothes, wool blankets on a concrete floor, IMPs three meals a day) and PUBLIC. How many swaggering asian gang members would re-offend if they were chained to light posts and forced to scrub gum and spit from public sidewalks with a toothbrush?

More difficult prisoners could be sent north to clear a path through muskeg and tundra for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, or chisel mountains for railway lines in BC. We are under-utilising a great resource here - free manpower, and the ability to shame, not just lock up these people.

I have no problem with murderers living and working in a northern gulag for the remainder of their natural lives, and medium security prisoners picking up garbage and cutting the grass in the highway medians.

Thoughts?


----------



## DSB (16 Dec 2005)

I like the idea of putting cons to work.  Cheap labour to benifit the masses.


----------



## rifleman (16 Dec 2005)

If prison is such a great place to be, there would be alot of outstanding citizens choosing gaol over working, cause it would just be so logical


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Like I said earlier,
> 
> Make prison horrible (burlap clothes, wool blankets on a concrete floor, IMPs three meals a day) and PUBLIC. How many swaggering asian gang members would re-offend if they were chained to light posts and forced to scrub gum and spit from public sidewalks with a toothbrush?
> 
> ...



Honestly?  Surely to God there are thousands of people who have benefited from a kinder, gentler prison system.  The press focuses on the scum and unrepentant, but is there not something to be said for rehabilitation, where possible?


----------



## GO!!! (16 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Honestly?   Surely to God there are thousands of people who have benefited from a kinder, gentler prison system.   The press focuses on the scum and unrepentant, but is there not something to be said for rehabilitation, where possible?



Absolutely. 

But I believe that rehabilitation and penance go hand in hand. Since recidivism rates are so high amongst some groups of people, a year or two of hard labour for the benefit of the crown in conjunction with rehab would be a good idea. 

This way, the guilty can repay the public purse for the costs associated with their trial, room, board, incarceration, and rehabilitation. The public has already borne the cost of their crimes, we should not bear the costs of their punishment too.


----------



## TCBF (16 Dec 2005)

" the crystal in the palm of your hand goes red, and you are taken away by the Sandmen to go to Carosel.  Or something like that."

- Like the movie 'A Boy and His Dog':  

(forgive inaccuracies in the quotes below - my memory fails me).

Helene Winston: "Lack of respect, wrong attitude, failure to obey authority."
Jason Robards:  "Any warnings?"
H: "Three"
J: "Any reason for mercy?"
H: "Not particularly."
J: "The farm. Now, what's this one going to be?"
H: "The last one was a heart attack, lets make this one a machinery accident."
J: (to the accused) "And may God have mercy on your souls.."

Tom


----------



## McD (16 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> None of the above; the death penalty isn't a deterrent.



This is my first post so I want to be careful and not step on anyones toes here, but I think the death penalty serves more as a final justice or punishment for a crime already committed, moreover than a deterrent to a violent crime. If someone is going to, or capable of, carrying out such crimes they are going to do it unyieldingly to the law, and the repercussions. Unless they think its perfectly okay to blow someones head off?


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Dec 2005)

McD said:
			
		

> This is my first post so I want to be careful and not step on anyones toes here, but I think the death penalty serves more as a final justice or punishment for a crime already committed, moreover than a deterrent to a violent crime. If someone is going to, or capable of, carrying out such crimes they are going to do it unyieldingly to the law, and the repercussions. Unless they think its perfectly okay to blow someones head off?



It tells me that (IMHO):

a) when released (and they do), this person will NOT re-offfend and KILL anyone outside the wire

b) stops a needless waste of tax dollars in looking after the coward, and that adds up over the years; and

c) although many victim's families want their muderers to rot behind bars, many also find closure with the execution, and as said above 'final justice'.

Arsehole crims strung out on drugs, etc when committing an offense always seem to never think they'll get caught (or dont care), so I don't think its much of a deterrent either.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Dec 2005)

There are stats galore that will point to the fact that deterence is not served by the death penalty.  The vast majority of murders are committed as crimes of passion (so you are not thinking) or drug involved (so you are not thinking).  That isn't the point.  Should the guy who comes home and finds his best friend and wife balls deep who snaps and takes a pick axe to them be executed.  Probably not.  He is a "one time loser" and will likely never do anything wrong again the rest of his life.  But you should be judged on your record and how you have conducted yourself.  If you could see the criminal records of these people, it almost always follows the same pattern:  convictions for theft and mischief, fail to comply with orders or fail to attend, resist arrest and/or assault PC, more theft but now up to B&E's, more breaches, drug possessions pled down from drug trafficking, maybe some stolen cars and pursuits, batches of theft convictions in groups of four and up, more B&E's, actual convitions for trafficking, assault with weapon, agg assault and on it goes.  And you still see the sentances no higher than two years less a day.  Jail only serves to help criminals refine their skills.  
Take the crap bag in Laval.  Does he deserve to get three squares, free gym and movies, and all the free education he wants at your expense?
Some people just do not deserve to be stealing our oxygen any longer.


----------



## TCBF (19 Dec 2005)

I agree with your ideas.

But, as far as this statement goes:

"There are stats galore that will point to the fact that deterence is not served by the death penalty.  The vast majority of murders are committed as crimes of passion (so you are not thinking) or drug involved (so you are not thinking). "

The stats are fudged and misquoted, and 'drug involved' is a defence lawyers SOP to try and reduce the perp's responsibility for his actions.

Your conclusion however - kill 'em all - is correct.

Tom


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Dec 2005)

My point about the stats is to not get hung up on worrying if deterence is served or not.  Who cares.  I have also spoken to a lot of people who support the return of corporal punishment (because we all know what sedicious buggers you corporals are  ;D).
If a an A$$hat gets grabbed, sure maybe he only does a week in jail, if that is what society wants.  But if he also is minus about a square foot of skin from his back or legs, that would leave a lasting impression.


----------



## TCBF (19 Dec 2005)

When Clinton was President, he staged a contest between three organizations.   He had a rabbit dumped in a woods and then told the CIA to find it.   The CIA got the NRO to back them and they did everything: Satellite, SR-71 overflights, co-opt the other animals in the forest and get them on the payroll as spies, and overthrew the animal government - replacing it with one they owned and could move drugs through.   But still - no rabbit.   So they paid the RAND Corporation millions of dollars to write a secret report saying that rabbits don't exist, and their legend is a communist plot.

Then the FBI was called in.   They got the BATF to back them up, and they tapped all of the animal's phones.   They targetted the ones who went to church and owned guns, then, when that harrassment did not result in any arrested rabbits, they set fire to the woods and machine-gunned all of the animals as they ran out.   They reported the rabbit as dying from self inflicted smoke inhalation caused by it setting it's own hole on fire, but they produced no rabbit body.

Then the LAPD went in.   There was much noise, screaming and yelling, and out of the woods covered in cops comes a bear.

It is a black bear.

It has been cuffed, beaten, tasered and maced, in that order.   As it is dragged from the woods, you can here it beg "Awright! Awright! I confess! I confess!   I AM A RABBIT!   ! AM A RABBIT!"

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2005)

I don't know why people are hung up on capital punishment being a deterent.  Who cares if it is or not?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2005)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Some people just do not deserve to be stealing our oxygen any longer.



Told you you'd like it here ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Dec 2005)

Baby, I think Im home


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Dec 2005)

Controversial topic for sure and one I doubt we will ever see again but what do you think?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2005)

Works for me.


----------



## Long in the tooth (21 Dec 2005)

Capital punishment should remain on the books.  It would be an extraordinary sentence that would have to be approved by parliament; that is, it could not be automatically or subjectively administered as a 'technicality'.

I have no problems with the ilk of Clifford Olson being put to death.  On the other hand, Illinois issued a picture of 75 people who had been on death row and subsequently found 'not guilty' by DNA or other evidence.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> I have no problems with the ilk of Clifford Olson being put to death.   On the other hand, Illinois issued a picture of 75 people who had been on death row and subsequently found 'not guilty' by DNA or other evidence.



Too true; for me to support it, there would need to be a hard defintion into how it can be used.  Grevious offences against society in general where the evidence is overwhelming (ie: DNA evidence, Bernardo's movies, etc, etc).


----------



## Danjanou (21 Dec 2005)

No problems here. The advances made in DNA and Forensics etc pratically ensure relatively little chance of another Donald Marshall, Morin or Millgard.


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> I have no problems with the ilk of Clifford Olson being put to death.  On the other hand, Illinois issued a picture of 75 people who had been on death row and subsequently found 'not guilty' by DNA or other evidence.



That's the whole point of death row, it gives the system plenty of time to ensure they're not executing an innocent person.  Even if your number weren't overinflated, all it would prove is that the system is working properly


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2005)

> I have no problems with the ilk of Clifford Olson being put to death.  On the other hand, Illinois issued a picture of 75 people who had been on death row and subsequently found 'not guilty' by DNA or other evidence.



Lets not forget to take into consider when these innocent people were convicted. 

It's great that those 75 people were found not guilty due to DNA. This is an excellent argument FOR capital punishment. 
DNA evidence makes "convicting the wrong man" a hell of a lot harder.  One of the biggest arguments against the death penalty, the chance of killing an innocent person, becomes smaller and smaller.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (21 Dec 2005)

Makes you wonder what would happen if the minds of the world united and perfected the lie detector. You could clear up court backlogs, find terrorists and most importantly screen the politicians before they are ever put in power.


----------



## Armymedic (21 Dec 2005)

I believe that the Death Penalty should be brought back, and used in these ways:

1. Murder of a Police Officer
2. Murder of an Judge
3. Murder of two or more persons, and
3. Causing the death (murder or manslaughter) of another person while commiting another serious crime (rape), or in commision of a crime involving a firearm.

I am not a lawyer, so forgive my lack of legalese.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Dec 2005)

I think the rape and/or murder of a child should warrant the death penalty as well.


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I think the rape and/or murder of a child should warrant the death penalty as well.



death penalty for rape?  you'd be setting the justice system back a few thousand years.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

I think he meant rape of a child.


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

I know what he meant but that's still rather extreme.  Remember the who eye-for-an-eye thing?  I'm not a big fan of changing it to eye-for-an-eye-except-when-it's-a-child.  Rape is rape, wether it occurs to a child or an adult is a minor detail.  Either way the guy's sick and needs to be punished, but executing him would be a bit extreme.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Dec 2005)

You wouldn't be saying that if you knew a child who had been raped and how much its destroyed them as a person.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2005)

I guess the Death Penalty will never come back, due to the fact that there are too many 'Bleeding Heart Liberals' to allow it.


----------



## Dog (21 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Lets not forget to take into consider when these innocent people were convicted.
> 
> It's great that those 75 people were found not guilty due to DNA. This is an excellent argument FOR capital punishment.
> DNA evidence makes "convicting the wrong man" a hell of a lot harder.  One of the biggest arguments against the death penalty, the chance of killing an innocent person, becomes smaller and smaller.



DNA evidence is not the be all and end all of the justice system, and I don't think that the argument of "the chances are pretty slim we'll kill an innocent man" holds water unless those chances are 100%. Until we gain the power to grant life to those who deserve it, we should not execise the power to execute those who we think deserve death.

I feel obligated to clarify that this opinion only applies to the justice system, and is completely seperate of my view in regards to the military and it's operations.

HOWEVER, I do think that we should have a single prison population, and that people like Bernardo and Olson should be left to their own devices amongst the rest of the prison population.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I know what he meant but that's still rather extreme.   Remember the who eye-for-an-eye thing?   I'm not a big fan of changing it to eye-for-an-eye-except-when-it's-a-child.   Rape is rape, wether it occurs to a child or an adult is a minor detail.   Either way the guy's sick and needs to be punished, but executing him would be a bit extreme.



Okay.   Your argument makes sense.   However, I think raping a child represents an abnormal crime - rape is one thing (it is not as uncommon and abnormal as it appears; see Ghiglieri's Dark Side of Man for an interesting look at rape as an evolutionary trait), but targeting children deserves special attention from the justice system.   When we see these pedophiles with 47 counts against them, you know that they've:

A) Destroyed many children's lives
B) Will do it again

To me, that warrants the noose, or at least long-time banishment to the Infanteer Gulag....


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

As an aside, as a suitable alternative to the death penalty I like the idea of an island where those charged with life imprisonment with no chance of parole are merely dumped off and completely forgotten - I think there was a movie about that once....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Dec 2005)

We could make Hans Island our version of Devils Island..


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You wouldn't be saying that if you knew a child who had been raped and how much its destroyed them as a person.



actualy I know several, and they're all doing just fine.

you can base laws on age, but I think that's pretty silly.  one persons definition of a child is not the same as anothers, and different children mature at different speeds.  if you want to see just how dumb some of these laws are, take a look at the discrepancy in age laws around the world.  you've got age of consent ranging from 13 to 18.  legal drinking age from none, to 16 to 21.  there's no logical way to set a standard, because there's nothing logical about age-based laws.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Dec 2005)

I shake my head at people like you 48...I really do....you see nothing wrong with mj or dismiss raping of children as not as major as it is. You have to get a head on your shoudlers dude and figure out your priorities in life.


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Okay.  Your argument makes sense.  However, I think raping a child represents an abnormal crime - rape is one thing (it is not as uncommon and abnormal as it appears; see Ghiglieri's Dark Side of Man for an interesting look at rape as an evolutionary trait), but targeting children deserves special attention from the justice system.  When we see these pedophiles with 47 counts against them, you know that they've:
> 
> A) Destroyed many children's lives
> B) Will do it again
> ...





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> As an aside, as a suitable alternative to the death penalty I like the idea of an island where those charged with life imprisonment with no chance of parole are merely dumped off and completely forgotten - I think there was a movie about that once....



Agreed, repeat crimes of any sort really should require some sort of different treatment.  If you have 100 assault charges and each time you've spent a week in jail, obviously it's not working.  I'd have no problem with, say, doubling the sentence on each recurrence of a crime.  You rob a store, you get two years.  You get out and do it again, you get 4 years.

Or just dump 'em on an island  ;D


----------



## Manimal (21 Dec 2005)

"Recent studies support the view that the death penalty does not have any deterrent effect. Rather, these studies found support for the theory that the death penalty has a brutalizing effect.

A report released in September 2000 by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates that states with the death penalty. The Times reports that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty. 

Furthermore, FBI data showed that ten of the twelve states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with capital punishment have homicide rates above. Based on the data in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, average of murder rates among death penalty states in 2001 was 5.2 per 100,000 population in contrast to 2.9 among states without death penalty. 

Comparing homicide rates in the United States and Canada and Europe additionally supports the fact that the death penalty does not have any deterrent effect. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 population, while in Canada, which abolished the death penalty in 1976, the rate was only 1.8. Likewise, data released by the British Home Office reveals that the United States has a murder rate that is more that three times that of many of European countries that have banned capital punishment."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/dp200310_4.html


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I shake my head at people like you 48...I really do....you see nothing wrong with mj or dismiss raping of children as not as major as it is. You have to get a head on your shoudlers dude and figure out your priorities in life.



I see.  So, if someone rapes a 15 year old, they should get the death penalty.  But if he waits untill she's 16, it's ok, just give him a few years in jail.

Yeah, I'm totaly with you on this one man  :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Dec 2005)

Yeah I am in a morbid mood today.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I see.   So, if someone rapes a 15 year old, they should get the death penalty.   But if he waits untill she's 16, it's ok, just give him a few years in jail.
> 
> Yeah, I'm totaly with you on this one man   :


Actually, in Canada the age of consent is 14.


----------



## kincanucks (21 Dec 2005)

I like flaying but slowly over a couple of days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaying


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Dec 2005)

Consent? Then it would not be rape........


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, in Canada the age of consent is 14.



Yes, I know, but he was talking about raping a child vs raping an adult, which has nothing to do with age of consent since it's not consensual.  So what's the age of majority?  I know you're legaly allowed to move away from your parents at 16, so that's why I went with that number.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2005)

> DNA evidence is not the be all and end all of the justice system, and I don't think that the argument of "the chances are pretty slim we'll kill an innocent man" holds water unless those chances are 100%. Until we gain the power to grant life to those who deserve it, we should not execise the power to execute those who we think deserve death.
> 
> I feel obligated to clarify that this opinion only applies to the justice system, and is completely seperate of my view in regards to the military and it's operations.



Using a previous argument- The death penalty for a criminal convicted of mass murder, raping children, throwing puppies in the river whatever is bad. They *might* be innocent, albeit with todays technology and CSI super cops and DNA a very very slim chance.

But, innocent civilians killed during wartime is an unfortinuate by product of a better world?

I'll pass on that one 

The argument about child mollestation and the death penalty is a tricky one. As much as I'd love to see those monsters set on fire I think the death penalty should only be used for people conviced of 1st degree murder.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2005)

Age of Majority is 14, isn't it?

Pedophiles need to be dealt with severely.  Raping a child under the age of 14....10....6....4....is definitely a problem.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (21 Dec 2005)

READY, AIM (for the groin) FIRE!!!


----------



## Dog (21 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Using a previous argument- The death penalty for a criminal convicted of mass murder, raping children, throwing puppies in the river whatever is bad. They *might* be innocent, albeit with todays technology and CSI super cops and DNA a very very slim chance.
> 
> But, innocent civilians killed during wartime is an unfortinuate by product of a better world?
> 
> ...



Not what I meant, I was referring to the killing of terrorists/badguys by the military, while engaged in conflict. I think that in that case it would be justified, no?

And yes, they *might* be innocent.... and until we come up with a foolproof method of determining, definitively the guilt or innocence of someone, then I say we can't, in good conscience, put people to death, as there is a risk that you may be killing the wrong man.


----------



## AoD71 (22 Dec 2005)

I once read a newspaper article about Bernardo, a few months ago. The journalist was visiting his cell for an interview. He described the cell: It was in a separate section in the prison, for the f***ed up people like him. His cell had clear plastic walls covering the it, because the other inmates would throw their shit at his cell, and piss on it too. IF there isn't ever going to be a death penalty for people like him, I'd alteast like it if that plastic shield would go.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Dec 2005)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> Makes you wonder what would happen if the minds of the world united and perfected the lie detector ... most importantly screen the politicians before they are ever put in power.



That's pretty simplistic; I suspect (not having been a politician myself) that telling untruths is part of the game. Everybody tells white lies at work.  It's how societies work.  "No, you don't look fat in those pants."  "Yes, I sent the cheque yesterday."

No?


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Dec 2005)

My deterrent to "do these pants make me look fat?"  "No, your arse makes you look fat"   >


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Dec 2005)

Hanging! Cheap and effective.

The Old Bytown Jail in Ottawa (now a hostle and museum) still has it's gallows.  It's right across the street from NDHQ, three people were executed there, the tour of death row is very creepy.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Dec 2005)

A touch of the old William Wallace sentence might be applicable in certain (coff*Bernardo*cof) instances.  And, as a bonus,  if he can yell "freedom!" at the end, let him go..... >


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Dec 2005)

Ever see those big hopper devices that vibrate at very high speeds and turn big boulders into sand over time?  Wonder how and A$$hat *cough*Karla*cough* would make out? ;D


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Dec 2005)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Ever see those big hopper devices that vibrate at very high speeds and turn big boulders into sand over time?  Wonder how and A$$hat *cough*Karla*cough* would make out? ;D


'

So the state should turn into torturers?

What does that prove?  

The justice system prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment".  Even for a Karla Homolka.  Why turn them into martyrs, or even worse, sympathetic figures?  And why promote the idea that killing can be satisfying?

A sedative, followed by a lethal injection, followed by a burial according to the deceased's religious faith, would be in keeping with the tenets of our judicial system and our society.  The rest of the trash talk here is just that, in my opinion.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Dec 2005)

AoD71 said:
			
		

> I once read a newspaper article about Bernardo, a few months ago. The journalist was visiting his cell for an interview. He described the cell: It was in a separate section in the prison, for the f***ed up people like him. His cell had clear plastic walls covering the it, because the other inmates would throw their shit at his cell, and piss on it too. IF there isn't ever going to be a death penalty for people like him, I'd alteast like it if that plastic shield would go.



Just make it simple:  A big yard.  Thats it.  You would have about thirty huge sociopaths that would crush and rape the newbies, especially pretty ones like Bernardo.  What dink would risk going into that?  Make that prison the "third strike" destination and let Darwinism take its course.
Human rights blah, blah, blah.  This is a fantasy train of thought, since we know the death penalty really will never be back regardless of what we want.


----------



## R0B (22 Dec 2005)

I think we should execute everyone found guilty of first degree murder, or multiple counts of second degree murder, as well as everyone who would be found guilty of homicide or sexual assault as a result of mental insanity.

Criminologists have offered many arguments for and against the death penalty, so there's really futile to argue one against another. I don't support the death penalty due to the results of some study, I support it because I think capital punishment is morally right, and because I think keeping people imprisoned for life is a waste of money.



			
				Manimal said:
			
		

> "Recent studies support the view that the death penalty does not have any deterrent effect. Rather, these studies found support for the theory that the death penalty has a brutalizing effect.
> 
> A report released in September 2000 by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates that states with the death penalty. The Times reports that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.
> 
> Furthermore, FBI data showed that ten of the twelve states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with capital punishment have homicide rates above. Based on the data in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, average of murder rates among death penalty states in 2001 was 5.2 per 100,000 population in contrast to 2.9 among states without death penalty.



There is no good evidence to support the concept of the brutalization effect, it's all mostly tautological. There's also much evidence to refute it, for one, Detroit and D.C., the most dangerous cities in the United States, are both free from the death penalty. All American states used to have capital punishment; those which abandoned it were those with low crime rates. Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin don't have the death penalty. With exception to Massachusetts and Michigan, you're left with mostly small states without any major cities, so it's no wonder that they have homicide rates below the national average. 



			
				Manimal said:
			
		

> Comparing homicide rates in the United States and Canada and Europe additionally supports the fact that the death penalty does not have any deterrent effect. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 population, while in Canada, which abolished the death penalty in 1976, the rate was only 1.8. Likewise, data released by the British Home Office reveals that the United States has a murder rate that is more that three times that of many of European countries that have banned capital punishment."
> 
> http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/dp200310_4.html



You can't compare America's homicide rates to those of European countries and Canada and then infer from them that the death penalty does not have a deterrent effect. The deterrent effect most certainly does exist, trouble is, those who are not deterred from a life sentence usually don't care if the penalty were upgraded to execution. Also, America's homicide rate was higher than that of Canada and many European countries a century ago when they all had the death penalty, suggesting that the correlation that has been implied is not as a result of the death penalty.







Canada carried out its last execution in 1962. Since then, the homicide rate has been going up. Despite a recent decrease, it's still higher than it was before.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> '
> 
> So the state should turn into torturers?
> 
> ...



Wow, Corp Wet Blanket.  Lighten up, Francis and have some fun with the dark side.  Jeez :-*


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2005)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37646.0.html



> Not what I meant, I was referring to the killing of terrorists/badguys by the military, while engaged in conflict. I think that in that case it would be justified, no?
> 
> And yes, they *might* be innocent.... and until we come up with a foolproof method of determining, definitively the guilt or innocence of someone, then I say we can't, in good conscience, put people to death, as there is a risk that you may be killing the wrong man.



That stat is 30'000. Some sources have said it could be as much as 4 of 5 times that number. (of civilian deaths)

My point is that it's acceptable to kill "innocent" civilians while were targeting terrorists and insurgents BUT we can't sentence a mass murderer to death because of the tiny chance that he or she might be innocent? Regardless of the amount of evidence including DNA and video tapes of yes, them killing someone?

If were willing to accept civilian deaths of the people in countries we are trying to liberate and free, why can't we accept civilian deaths here at home?


----------



## Baloo (22 Dec 2005)

Nothing says "oh, baby" like breaking someone on the wheel. 

Or drawing and quartering. 

Or heads on pikes, throughout the land.


----------



## kincanucks (22 Dec 2005)

Vlad the Impaler had the right idea too.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Dec 2005)

Dont get sucked into the alure of statistics.  They could not be easier to manipulate.  Those states without the death penalty might be the larger, richer states who have a solid economic base and better health care, hence better hospitals, better treatment, less people dying.  If you dont die, you dont contribute to the homicide rate.  Its like everyone got excited when they heard that teen pregnancy was down by around 23% a couple of years back.  Great until you find out its because more girls are giving oral and anal.  GULP!!  Watch yer girls, daddies!
Just because EMS response and training is better than ever doesnt mean things arent getting more violent.  You have to roll in all of the person offences ie) assault lvl 1,2 and 3, threats, murder 1 and 2, manslaughter, crim neg causing harm and death, impaired causing bod harm and death and so on.  If someone put that together, we might see some interesting stats.
Over to you, graph-boy


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Partial edit for content
> So the state should turn into torturers?
> 
> What does that prove?
> ...



Michael,

Was it not you who started this thread?



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Really kind of eye opening, reading the "facts" behind each case and some of the depraved acts committed.   Why people would go and protest the deaths of some of these guys is beyond me - like the guy who stabbed his wife to death with a screwdriver through the window of her car - while their 10 year old son sat in the passenger seat - because she asked for a divorce.



You call them depraved but would wish them a peaceful death, free of pain and sufferring?   Sorry don't follow, nor buy that....

dileas

tess


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2005)

> A sedative, followed by a lethal injection, followed by a burial according to the deceased's religious faith, would be in keeping with the tenets of our judicial system and our society.  The rest of the trash talk here is just that, in my opinion.



I like this idea too.

No big bang, no fan fair, no cruel and unusual punishment. Nice and quiet. Deny them any sembelence of going out with a bang.  Your a loser and your gonna die in a pathetic way. Someone sticking a needle in your arm and you going to sleep - like a sick animal.

I'm afraid the content of this thread and many peoples views on how she should die serve nothing other than to give her fans some sort of moral boost.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Dec 2005)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Michael,
> 
> Was it not you who started this thread?
> 
> ...



What part don't you get?

Criminals inflict pain and suffering on others.  The state doesn't have sanction to do that.  

Torturing criminals just turns them into martyrs and sympathetic figures.  How is this not obvious?

What purpose does it serve to torture people to death?  No good purpose, and a whole lot of negatives attached to it.  I should have thought it obvious. Seriously, what part don't you understand?  Are you proposing in earnest that criminals deserve to be tortured?  If so, why?


----------



## GLOCK 31 (22 Dec 2005)

Personally, I am more partial to Seppuku and the beliefs behind it.  Depending on the crime.  Giving them a choice to admit their shame, and take the appropriate action.  If they chose not to, then just something basic, cheap, and effective.  Anyone who does crimes like these people should not have the choice and just be executed.  (ie. Paul Bernardo, Ted Bundy, Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, Albert Fish, etc. could list hundreds like them)  They should not want to live if they had any honour.  So your just doing what they won't do, because they have no honour.  Beheading, hanging, drowning, burning, doesn't matter since I see the point as to get rid of them, rather than keeping them around till they die of old age, have a second chance at life, or giving them a chance to re-commit.  If they want something more painless, let them pay $$ for it.

Rehabilitation, I don't believe in.  They can change, but should they get a second chance at life when their victims don't?  Where's the justice in that?

Robert

In case any don't know,
Link to Suppuku  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku 
Link to Jeffery Dahmer  http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/dahmer/index.html 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffery_dahmer 
Link to Albert Fish  http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/fish/index.html 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish 

In case any ones interested, here's a Crime Library, we had to use it in College (Police Foundations)
http://www.crimelibrary.com/


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2005)

I'm inclined to agree with R0B on 1st degree murder, multiple second degree counts, and mentally dangerous rapists and murders (the rabid dog thing).  Treason seems worth it as well due to the very serious implications it carries.  Of course, capital punishment must also be a case-by-case thing; each case has unique circumstances which provide reasons to reduce or increase punishment (ie: what to do with guys who torture but not kill their rape victims?)

I don't think rape deserves capital punishment - my understanding of it and the principle of _lex talionis_ (which I believe is a morally justified principle) doesn't seem to justify it.  48th Highlander brings up an interesting point with the real subjectivity of ages.  If one was to use capital punishment on a person who specifically targets children, you would run into problems in trying to sort this out.  We point to age to underline the increased danger and psychopathy that an offender may have, but it doesn't always work this way as age may be an irrelevant coincidence in the case.  Do we put a rapist to death for raping a 15 year old girl when you consider that most 15 year old girls look like 21 year olds with the way they dress these days?  I highly doubt that alot of rapists consider age when they commit the offence.  A sharp dividing line on age is useless in determining the nature of the offence.  It's easy to use the serial rapists/murders as examples - but what about a drunken guy who doesn't take no for an answer?  Clearly that moment of extremely poor judgement doesn't warrant the noose.  Infact, I don't even think "rape" exists anymore - there are varying degrees of sexual assault, no?

As for the guys who specifically go for the young ones (say - 12 and under) and have reams of pictures and what not to show for it - the pedophiles and what not; I can think of interesting things for them on the Infanteer Gulag; save the death penalty for the cases where it truly serves _lex talionis_.

...of course, a society of citizens properly armed and mentally prepared to undertake the responsibility of defending themselves can save us from having to argue over what to do with this trash.  ^-^


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2005)

Geez Ex-Dragoon, you are on a roll today.  

I'm prone to hanging.  Michael is right; we do nothing by violating our own decency and torturing guys.  However, the chair or injection seems to clean and sterile.  Something about the gallows seems to make a public statement and acts as a symbol of the ultimate form of retributive justice.  I say make it public as well; Canadian should be able to see justice carried out (and know what is being done on their behalf).


----------



## Britney Spears (22 Dec 2005)

> Its like everyone got excited when they heard that teen pregnancy was down by around 23% a couple of years back.  Great until you find out its because more girls are giving oral and anal.  GULP!!  Watch yer girls, daddies!



I don't understand what you are getting at. Are you saying you'd rather your teenage daughter have an unwanted pregnancy than GULP! engage in oral sex? Are you aware that there are methods of birth control other than oral or anal sex available? 

Seems like YOU'RE the one who's twisting statistics here.....or was that your point all along?


----------



## GLOCK 31 (22 Dec 2005)

Just posted something on this topic on another thread.   I agree with it for certain crimes like Murder, Rape, Child Molestors, Pedophilia, etc.

As for DNA proving their innocence later on.   It would be a shame, and their name should be cleared, but the penalty would of been carried out with all the information and evidence available at the time.   I'm sure it wouldn't of been carried out if it was based on circumstantial evidence, or not absolutely sure at the time.   It would have to be concrete evidence at the time, like life sentence's.

Robert


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2005)

Nah - justice is as much about how it is carried out as in what is carried out.  If we don't take responsibility for physically executing a condemned man, then how can we morally pronounce the sentance upon him?


----------



## Dog (22 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37646.0.html
> 
> That stat is 30'000. Some sources have said it could be as much as 4 of 5 times that number. (of civilian deaths)
> 
> ...



I never said it was acceptable to kill civilians.... but it does happen. I'm pretty sure that efforts are made to avoid the mass killing of civilians. 

But you are comparing apples and oranges; the intentional execution of a criminal, and the accidental death of a civilian in a warzone are completely different worlds...


----------



## Slim (22 Dec 2005)

I belive that it should be brought back. But...Its not the only change we need in Canada to the justice system.


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm prone to hanging.   Michael is right; we do nothing by violating our own decency and torturing guys.   However, the chair or injection seems to clean and sterile.   Something about the gallows seems to make a public statement and acts as a symbol of the ultimate form of retributive justice.   I say make it public as well; Canadian should be able to see justice carried out (and know what is being done on their behalf).



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## ChopperHead (22 Dec 2005)

I totaly support bringing back the death penalty. But lets be honest here if it ever were to come back the only method that would be used is lethal injection. It is considered humane. In my own view I dont really think so and I would rather be shot but never the less that is the norm these days. I dont think any states still use the electric chair and im almost 100% sure none still use hanging. when was the last time you heard of someone being senteced to hang?


----------



## ChopperHead (22 Dec 2005)

sry to double post here but does anyone know what the US military policy is on executions?? like are they aloud to sentece someone to death?? Enemy spys, terrorists etc can they be executed on military authority alone?


----------



## The Gues-|- (22 Dec 2005)

Facts and Figures

Total Death Row Inmates: 8 (as of 4/29/05) RACE Black - 6 
White - 1 
Asian - 1  



GENDER Male - 8 
 United States Military Death Row Roster 
1. Kenneth Parker (B) 
2. Wade L. Walker (B) 
3. Jessie Quintanilla (A) 
4. James T. Murphy (B)* 
5. Ronald Gray (B) 
6. Dwight J. Loving (B) 
7. William Kreutzer (W)* 
8. Hasan Akbar (B)  
*Awaiting re-trial or re-sentencing. (Source: NAACP Legal Defense Fund) 


Number of Executions 
135 people have been executed by the Army since 1916 (Source: National Law Journal, 4/5/99) 
Date of last military execution 
On April 13, 1961, U.S. Army Private John A. Bennett was hanged after being convicted of rape and attempted murder. (R. Serrano, "Last Soldier to Die at Levenworth Hanged in an April Storm," Los Angeles Times, 7/12/94). 
Minimum Age to Receive the Death Penalty 
18 years 
Death Row Location 
U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 
Method of Execution 
Lethal Injection 
Date the Death Penalty Was Reenacted after Furman 
In 1983, the Armed Forces Court of Appeals held in U.S. v. Matthews, 16 M.J. 354, that military capital sentencing procedures were unconstitutional for failing to require a finding of individualized aggravating circumstances. In 1984, the death penalty was reinstated when President Ronald Reagan signed an executive order adopting detailed rules for capital courts-martial. Among the rules was a list of 11 aggravating factors that qualify defendants for death sentences. 
Life Without Parole 
A recent amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice offers a new alternative to the death penalty. For crimes that occurred on or after November 17, 1997, a sentence of life without the possibility of parole is now possible. Prior to this legislation, those servicemembers serving a life sentence would be eligible for parole after serving 10 years. 
Clemency Process 
The President has the power to commute a death sentence and no servicemember can be executed unless the President personally confirms the death penalty. 
Capital Offenses 
The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides the death penalty as a possible punishment for 15 offenses, many of which must occur during a time of war. All 7 men on the military's death row were convicted of premeditated murder or felony murder. 
Who Decides Sentence 
In a military capital case, the convening authority -- a high ranking commanding officer who decides to bring the case to a court martial -- decides if the death penalty will be sought. Once decided, the convening authority picks those servicemembers who will serve as panel members/jurors. One requirement for the panel is that if the accused so chooses, at least 1/3 of the panel must consist of enlisted personnel. 
The only other requirement of a panel is that it consist of at least five members. Therefore, the number of panelists in a military death penalty case can vary from case to case. Although no state provides for a panel of less than 12 jurors in a capital case, military appellate courts have rejected challenges to capital court-martialed panels with fewer than 12 members. (see, e.g., United States v. Curtins, 32 M.J. 252 (C.M.A.), cert denied, 502 U.S. 952 (1991)). 
(Unless otherwise noted, source: D. Sullivan, "A Matter of Life and Death: Examining the Military Death Penalty's Fairness," The Federal Lawyer, June 1998) 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview 

An excerpt from:

"A Matter of Life and Death: Examining the Military
Death Penalty's Fairness" by Dwight Sullivan (The Federal Lawyer, June 1998) (reprinted with permssion of author)

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 15 offenses can be punishable by death, though many of these crimes -- such as desertion or disobeying a superior commissioned officer's orders -- carry the death penalty only in time of war. 
The "convening authority" -- a high-ranking commanding officer who decides to bring the case to trial -- chooses whether the government will seek a death sentence. If the case is referred capitally, the defendant cannot choose a bench [judge only] trial; rather, the case must be tried before a panel of at least five military members. The Uniform Code of Military Justice also precludes the defendant in a capital case from pleading guilty. Thus, every military death penalty case is resolved by trial before a panel of servicemembers. 

A death penalty will be imposed only if the panel members reach unanimous agreement on four separate points. First, a military defendant cannot be sentenced to death absent a unanimous conviction of a death-eligible offense.... If the panel returns a unanimous conviction, the case then enters the sentencing phase.... The case's outcome will depend upon the [panel] members' resolution of three issues. First, they must determine whether the government has proven a specified aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt.... Most of these aggravating factors -- such as killing more than one person or being the triggerman in a felony murder -- are similar to those found in civilian capital punishment schemes. Other factors -- such as committing an offense with the intent to avoid hazardous duty or knowingly endangering a mission -- are unique to the military. 


[The panel] must then weigh all of the aggravating evidence in the case against any evidence in extenuation and mitigation. A death penalty may not be imposed unless the members unanimously conclude that the aggravating circumstances substantially outweigh the mitigating circumstances. 
Finally, even if every member agrees upon the existence of an aggravating factor and concludes that the evidence in aggravation outweighs the extenuating and mitigating evidence, any member is still free to choose a sentence other than death. Thus, members must unanimously conclude that death is an appropriate sentence. 
When a death sentence is imposed, the record is initially reviewed by the convening authority, who has the power to reduce sentences and to set aside guilty findings.... The convening authority can reduce the sentence, but cannot increase it. And this review is no mere rubberstamp. Several years ago, a Marine Corps general commuted an adjudged death sentence to imprisonment for life. If the convening authority approves the death sentence, the condemned servicemember will be moved to military death row.... 
The record of trial then goes before one of the military justice system's four intermediate appellate courts: the Army, Navy-Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals.... If the Court of Criminal Appeals affirms a death sentence, the case then goes before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, as the Court of Military Appeals was renamed in 1994. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is a five-member Article 1 court that sits atop the military justice system. Its judges are civilians appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate to serve 15-year terms. 
[If the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirms the sentence], the case is eligible for Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction over military justice cases... was enacted in 1983.... When the Supreme Court affirms [the sentence] or denies certiorari in a military capital case, the death sentence is then reviewed by the executive branch. If the President approves the death sentence, the condemned servicemember can seek habeas relief from the Article III judiciary. If the habeas petition is ultimately denied, the condemned servicemember will be led from death row down a flight of stairs to the USDB's death chamber. There he will be strapped to a gurney and executed by lethal injection. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Racial Disparity

There is racial disparity on the military's death row. Of those on the military death row today, five are African-American, one is a Pacific Islander, and only one is Caucasian. Whereas nationwide, about half of the 3,600 death row inmates are members of a minority, the military has an 86 percent minority death row population. 
According to Dwight Sullivan (see above), "While the number of servicemembers under death sentence is fairly small, the racial disparity in military death penalty cases has been distressingly persistent. During World War II, African-Americans accounted for less than 10 percent of the Army. Yet, of the 70 soldiers executed in Europe during the war, 55 [79%] were African-American. After President Truman ordered an end to the armed forces' segregation in 1948, this racial disparity actually increased. The military carried out 12 executions from 1954 until the most recent one in 1961. Eleven of the 12 executed servicemembers were African-American." 
"The death sentences adjudged since 1961 have continued to fall disproportionately on minority servicemembers. In 1983, when the Court of Military Appeals issued its Matthews opinion invalidating the military death penalty, seven servicemembers were on death row. Five were African-American, one was Latino, and one was Caucasian." 
In addition to the racial disparity among death row inmates, there is also racial disparity among victims. Each time an African American has been sent to the military's death row, the case has involved a white victim. (R. Serrano, "A Grim Life on Military Death Row," Los Angeles Times, 7/12/94). 
For more information about racial disparities, see DPIC's Race and the Death Penalty page. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

News and Developments (Prior to 2005)



 Military Death Sentence Vacated
An Army Court of Criminal Appeals has vacated the death sentence of William Kreutzer, a Fort Bragg soldier who was sent to the military's death row for killing a fellow soldier and wounding others in 1995. The Court cited a number of grounds for the ruling that opens the door for rehearings on some charges and the sentence. For example, Kreutzer's attorneys failed to adequately explain the significance of their client's mental health problems for the panel that determined his guilt and sentence. In the ruling, Col. James S. Currie noted, "Appellant's trial can be summed up in one sentence: Three defense counsel who lacked the ability and experience to defend this capital case were further hampered by the military judge's erroneous decision to deny them necessary expert assistance, thereby rendering the contested findings and the sentence unreliable." Court documents revealed that Kreutzer had considered suicide at age 16 and "fantasized out loud" about killing fellow soldiers after they teased him and played practical jokes on him. The Appeals Court criticized the trial judge for refusing to grant a defense request for a "mitigation specialist," who could explain how Kreutzer's mental health problems contributed to his actions. See Military Death Penalty. See also Representation.

 Pentagon List Gives Names of 169 Military Members Who Were Executed 
A list containing the names of 169 members of the U.S. military who were executed between 1942 and 1961 was recently discovered at the Pentagon. The list also contains a few dozen additional cases where persons were sentenced to death, but not executed, and the names of 7 German prisoners of war who were executed. The 1961 execution of Pvt. John Bennett, who was hung after convictions for rape and attempted murder, was the military's last execution. The ledger also includes the name of Pvt. Eddie Slovik, who is the only member of the U.S. military to be executed for desertion since the Civil War. The list was discovered by accident by Pentagon employees and was made public as the military prepares to try accused terrorists currently held at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The death penalty is a possible sentence in such military tribunals. (Associated Press, December 12, 2003) 


- http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=180&scid=32


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2005)

Whatever method it used, it should be done between periods and televised during Hockey Night in Canada.


----------



## The Gues-|- (22 Dec 2005)

The U.S. Military does not forbid the execution of the mentally retarded or juvenile offenders, though its admission policies make such executions very unlikely. The Military does have a sentence of life without parole.
Current Method - Lethal injection 

- http://teacher.deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/states/stats/usmilitary.htm


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Dec 2005)

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> The U.S. Military does not forbid the execution of the mentally retarded or juvenile offenders, though its admission policies make such executions very unlikely. The Military does have a sentence of life without parole.
> Current Method - Lethal injection
> 
> - http://teacher.deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/states/stats/usmilitary.htm



One would hope the US military does not enrole the mentaly retarded or juvenile offenders...


----------



## Danjanou (22 Dec 2005)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> One would hope the US military does not enrole the mentaly retarded or juvenile offenders...



Nope they're all too busy running for Liberal seats in the House of Commons up here. 8)


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Dec 2005)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Nope they're all too busy running for Liberal seats in the House of Commons up here. 8)



Indeed!


----------



## a_himself (22 Dec 2005)

I think the bottom line is, that if you want to consider yourselves a modern, progressive, civilized society, you can't sink to the level of killing people.  There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty, only emotional ones.  It doesn't deter crime, I don't think you really teach anyone a lesson by killing them etc. etc.  The only thing it does is offer a sense of satisfaction to the victims family, which is really just a kind of instinctive desire for revenge.

Plus we live in an imperfect justice system, I don't think you can justify executing even one innocent person so that you can feel good about yourself for killing a whole bunch of bad murderers.

Over a hundred people on death row in the states have been released after having their convictions overturned since the death penalty was reinstated.


----------



## winchable (22 Dec 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Execution_methods


For anyone looking for a morbid bit of fun around this festive time of year,

My favourite has to be the brazen bull.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2005)

a_himself said:
			
		

> I think the bottom line is, that if you want to consider yourselves a modern, progressive, civilized society, you can't sink to the level of killing people.



Define modern and progressive.  We're fairly modern and progressive, but that didn't stop us from dropping bombs on Sarajevo a few years ago.




> There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty, only emotional ones.   It doesn't deter crime, I don't think you really teach anyone a lesson by killing them etc. etc.   The only thing it does is offer a sense of satisfaction to the victims family, which is really just a kind of instinctive desire for revenge.



Read the thread on Capital punishment; there seems to be a perfectly logical reason for doing it, and it isn't deterrence.



> Plus we live in an imperfect justice system, I don't think you can justify executing even one innocent person so that you can feel good about yourself for killing a whole bunch of bad murderers.
> 
> Over a hundred people on death row in the states have been released after having their convictions overturned since the death penalty was reinstated.



I think those were addressed as well; no matter what kind of plea to imperfectability you make, it doesn't change the fact that Paul Bernardo best deserved the noose....


----------



## Shadowhawk (22 Dec 2005)

The death penalty should be used only if there is no doubt as to who committed the crime. (Bernardo, Homolka - They even taped their crimes - no one can argue with that evidence) I'm sure there are others who would fall into this category. 

If there is any question at all.... the chance that an Innocent may be put to death is a risk I don't think we should be willing to take.

Just MHO.


Edited for Spelin'


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Dec 2005)

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> I totaly support bringing back the death penalty. But lets be honest here if it ever were to come back the only method that would be used is lethal injection. It is considered humane. In my own view I dont really think so and I would rather be shot but never the less that is the norm these days. I dont think any states still use the electric chair and im almost 100% sure none still use hanging. when was the last time you heard of someone being senteced to hang?



Electric chair is still on the books in at least one state, but has not been used in many years, AIUI.


----------



## 48Highlander (22 Dec 2005)

Dog said:
			
		

> I never said it was acceptable to kill civilians.... but it does happen. I'm pretty sure that efforts are made to avoid the mass killing of civilians.
> 
> But you are comparing apples and oranges; the intentional execution of a criminal, and the accidental death of a civilian in a warzone are completely different worlds...





He must be getting pretty aggrivated with you by now, so I'll try to explain what he means:


One of the arguments against capital punishment is that we may "execute an innocent person".  The argument goes that, unless we can bring that person back to life, we shouldn't execute anyone.

Now, a similar analogy is one of war.  You could also say that we should never kill anyone in war because we may accidentaly kill an innocent civilian.  Therefore, unless we can bring that civilian back to life, we shouldn't be shooting at the enemy either.


In other words, neither position makes logical sense.  Or, I suppose to the really messed-up tree-huggers, BOTH make perfect sense.  Either way, you can't oppose the death penalty on those grounds, while supporting a nations right to go to war.


You get it now?


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2005)

> I never said it was acceptable to kill civilians.... but it does happen. I'm pretty sure that efforts are made to avoid the mass killing of civilians.


The same way efforts are made not to send innocent men to death row.    



> One of the arguments against capital punishment is that we may "execute an innocent person".   The argument goes that, unless we can bring that person back to life, we shouldn't execute anyone.
> 
> Now, a similar analogy is one of war.   You could also say that we should never kill anyone in war because we may accidentally kill an innocent civilian.   Therefore, unless we can bring that civilian back to life, we shouldn't be shooting at the enemy either.
> 
> ...



Thank you 48th Highlander. That's exactly what I was trying to say. (And I hope you don't mind me quoting that wording in the future?)

I support the war on terrorism which includes the unfortunate death of civilians. I also support the death penalty which includes the chance of killing an innocent man.
The latter sounds pretty heartless I know. It's a simple case of that quote kill one man and it's a tragedy, kill 100'000 and it's a statistic.

*IF* Your going to use the not killing an innocent man argument against capital punishment I find it hippocritical that you can turn around and support the war on terrorism which flat out DOES kill innocent men woman AND children.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Dec 2005)

To Ms. Spears:  my point about statistics is dont get to ramped up by a number.  The facts behind the numbers and the big picture often are quite opposite to the indicated stat.  NOT an endorsement of teen pregancy.

Ghost and Highlander are bang on.  These days, with the way the legal system is only the most slam dunk on video tape murders would even reasonably be seeking the death penalty.  And I also agree that the guy who snaps and kills his wife over whatever and has NO other criminality and was an otherwise okay guy, he probably will be rehabilitatetd.  I actually know a guy just like that.  He got in a bar fight with another guy, gave him a single punch in the yap.  The guy fell backwards, drilled the back of his skull against the corner of a brick plant box and died instantly.  Should he be put to death for a stupid bar fight, of course not.  Pre meditation, circumstance and record should always play a part in sentancing.  It would just be nice to have the night-night option for these g-balls that will serve no other purpose than to cook up tax revenue.  
Remeber Clifford Olsen?  He uses his time in jail to write letters to the families of the kids he killed and brags about how much pain he caused them.  You cant tell me he doesnt deserve to get waxed.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Dec 2005)

a_himself said:
			
		

> I think the bottom line is, that if you want to consider yourselves a modern, progressive, civilized society, you can't sink to the level of killing people.   There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty, only emotional ones.   It doesn't deter crime, I don't think you really teach anyone a lesson by killing them etc. etc.   The only thing it does is offer a sense of satisfaction to the victims family, which is really just a kind of instinctive desire for revenge.
> 
> Plus we live in an imperfect justice system, I don't think you can justify executing even one innocent person so that you can feel good about yourself for killing a whole bunch of bad murderers.
> 
> Over a hundred people on death row in the states have been released after having their convictions overturned since the death penalty was reinstated.



And why exactly are we hung up on being seen as a "modern, progressive, civilized society"?  Who gives a crap.  How about we be seen as a "brutal attrocity ridden police state that devestates offenders".  Are we that concerned that our ambassadors have some sort of bragging rights at some uptight UN cocktail party that we should forego what is right?

If you have seen the other posts, most of us agree that deterence is not the issue.  As for there being no logical reason, how about simple economics?  Why pay to have someone in jail for that long if they no longer serve a purpose?  And again, as mentioned previously "executed convicts have an extremely low recidivism rate".  And most would agree that dead people make a terrible class to present a lesson plan to.  
I think you should be forfeiting a little more than you personal convenience when you take anothers life.


----------



## Britney Spears (22 Dec 2005)

> To Ms. Spears:  my point about statistics is dont get to ramped up by a number.  The facts behind the numbers and the big picture often are quite opposite to the indicated stat.  NOT an endorsement of teen pregancy.



OK, so the stats indicate that teenage pregnancy rates are down, but what does that have to do with whether girls now engage in other forms of sexual behaviour? Does it matter whether teenagers are now more informed about safe sex, or whether they're just foregoing the activity all together and playing scrabble in their spare time? You've just brought up a completely irrelevent strawman to deflect attention from the fact (borne out by the statistic) that fewer teenagers are getting pregnant.  Your example proves exactly the opposite of your point: The numbers DON'T lie, only the people who mis-interprete them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Dec 2005)

>There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty

Dead people don't kill again.  Note that I assume you understand the difference between habitual killers and non-habitual ones.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Dec 2005)

Okay.  I dont know how to type slowly, so read slowly.

My point has NOTHING to do with kids and sex.  I was trying to illustrate that statistics do not always show an accurate reflection of what is going on and can be manipulated.  The only reason I brought up ANY statistic was because a bunch of death penalty stats were being lobbed around.  

If you have a burning need to bring up teens and sex, start your own thread.  This is supposed to be about the death penalty.

I hope we can get back to our regularly scheduled topic now.


----------



## 48Highlander (22 Dec 2005)

a_himself said:
			
		

> I think the bottom line is, that if you want to consider yourselves a modern, progressive, civilized society, you can't sink to the level of killing people.  There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty, only emotional ones.  It doesn't deter crime, I don't think you really teach anyone a lesson by killing them etc. etc.  The only thing it does is offer a sense of satisfaction to the victims family, which is really just a kind of instinctive desire for revenge.



You (unintentionaly) nailed it!  Think about it; why DOESN'T Canada have the death penalty?  Not because there's something wrong with it.  Not because it can be proven to be immoral, or damaging, or in any way "bad".  The only reason we don't have it is because so many of our people like to think of themselves ad "modern" and "progressive".  Just like the ass-hats who go protest in front of Moss Park armories - they don't really know anything about the issues, other than that "war is bad", and "progressive people don't do bad things".

I think the main reason we got rid of the death penalty was so we could feel superior to the US.


----------



## rabbit (22 Dec 2005)

i geuss so....


----------



## Britney Spears (22 Dec 2005)

> I was trying to illustrate that statistics do not always show an accurate reflection of what is going on and can be manipulated.



...by giving an example that proves exactly the opposite?  ???

Do you need me to draw you a picture? You made the assertion that A) Statisitics indicate that rates of teen pregnancy are going down. and then B) teenagers are more often engaging in sex other than vaginal intercourse. You then claimed that B somehow invalidated A, when anyone over the age of 14 would know that B in fact has NOTHING to do with A. The quoted statisitic is completely accurate and no one could possibly reach the same conclusion that you did.

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28fallacy%29>
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





</a>

Of course this is unrelated to the death penalty, but the very fact that you brought up such a ridiculous example begs a closer examination of your reasoning from now on.  



> If you have a burning need to bring up teens and sex, start your own thread.  This is supposed to be about the death penalty.



Indeed.  :



> Okay.  I dont know how to type slowly, so read slowly.



I concurr.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2005)

> >There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty
> 
> Dead people don't kill again.  Note that I assume you understand the difference between habitual killers and non-habitual ones.



Exactly
Whats so illogical about making sure a habitual killer does not kill more people.  Thats math. Can't get much more logical than math.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Exactly
> Whats so illogical about making sure a habitual killer does not kill more people.   Thats math. Can't get much more logical than math.



It is a leap of logic to suggest that there is such a thing as a "habitual killer', I would suppose.  How do you define such?  I don't doubt they exist but how do you prove their existence?  It's hard to "prove" future actions based solely on past actions - there is not a moral certainty on the same order as predicting that an object will fall to the earth if dropped...


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> It is a leap of logic to suggest that there is such a thing as a "habitual killer', I would suppose.   How do you define such?



They have lists and wear lipstick....


----------



## sdimock (22 Dec 2005)

Habitual Killer? Anyone who has a habit of killing people.

I have no doubt that Mr. Pickton would have continued his habit of killing people if he hadn't been caught.


----------



## GLOCK 31 (22 Dec 2005)

"I think the bottom line is, that if you want to consider yourselves a modern, progressive, civilized society, you can't sink to the level of killing people."

If we truly were a modern, progressive, civilized society, it would have to be society as a whole.  In other words we wouldn't need the death penalty, because in a civilized society, crimes that warrent the death penalty shouldn't happen.  Since those crimes do happen, it means that we are not completely modern, progressive, and civilized.  Though most of Canada is modern, progressive, civilized, it just means that we won't have the death penalty for lesser crimes like speeding, or theft.  The punishment has to fit the crime.  So in Canada, if you kill someone and get 25 years (or in Karla's case, 13 years), it means that the victims life is only worth that, as well as the suffering caused to their family, friends, and society at a whole.  

"There are no logical arguments for having a death penalty, only emotional ones."

Logically if something has been proven dangerous, you get rid of it, not lock it up for a short bit and release it again.  It would be like locking up a rabid dog, and releasing it again.  The logical thing is to get rid of it.

"It doesn't deter crime, I don't think you really teach anyone a lesson by killing them."

True, they wouldn't learn anything because they are dead.  Its about removing a danger from society, not about teaching a lesson.

"The only thing it does is offer a sense of satisfaction to the victims family, which is really just a kind of instinctive desire for revenge."

Is revenge ever satisfying?  If the man who killed Holly Jones was sentenced to death, and executed, would her parents, friends, and family feel satisfied.  It is only my belief that there is no satisfaction that can be had, for crimes that these people commit.  If my daughter (if I had one) had gone through that, or others (ie. Albert Fish), I would not feel any satisfaction with their death and would probably never be at rest again.  But at least I would feel some comfort that he wouldn't have another victim.  How can a civilized society, be civilized, if they release people who are dangerous back in to society (ie. Karla Homolka).  How do you see us as civilized if we had a chance to stop her from doing harm and did not.  If she were to re-commit.

Also for the victims who are dead, will never know what it is like to live a full life, and for some never know what its like to have kids of their own one day.  Then to release the ones who caused that to live the rest of their life, have kids, and all the freedoms that their victims should have enjoyed.  How is that civilized?  Just a thought, and MHO.


----------



## GLOCK 31 (22 Dec 2005)

Forgot something.

"Plus we live in an imperfect justice system, I don't think you can justify executing even one innocent person so that you can feel good about yourself for killing a whole bunch of bad murderers."

So in other words you can justify letting a whole bunch of bad murderers go, to save one innocent.  Then what if the whole bunch of bad murderers who you let go/live re-commit, and kill a whole bunch of innocent people.  You knew they were dangerous but did not take the steps needed to ensure peoples safety.  I for one would rather be that innocent person killed, rather than have one other innocent person killed because the whole bunch of bad murders were let go/live.  I could not live knowing that my life caused the death of others (innocent others, not bad murderers).  That to me would be unbarable.

Robert


----------



## TCBF (22 Dec 2005)

I type slowly.   Nice fish.

OK, so, a maximum of death for:

- All forms of murder and manslaughter.

- Accessories to the above.

t- Any assault resulting in an injury that may have resulted in death had timely medical intervension not been made.

- Torture.

- Capital corruption (corruption potentially damaging to our democratic culture).

- Massive fraud.

- Gross negligence.

- Accessories to the above.

No limit to the number of 'drops':   five guys and a girl go into a house party - five guys kill the girl - all five hang.

Any takers?

Actually, Britney, I have stated before that I do like the Chinese take on this.   I wish Canada would show similar maturity.

Tom


----------



## visitor (22 Dec 2005)

What is also unbearable is the thought of many children with psychiatric or severe learning problems who grow up to be criminals, cause a lot of pain, heartache  and tragedy and then  are  either incarcerated their whole lives or killed by capital punishment.

 Nobody wins.  These are  complex, multi-layer problems that are not solved by execution.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Dec 2005)

First, +1 to TCBF, I concur whole heartedly.



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> ...by giving an example that proves exactly the opposite?   ???
> 
> Do you need me to draw you a picture? You made the assertion that A) Statisitics indicate that rates of teen pregnancy are going down. and then B) teenagers are more often engaging in sex other than vaginal intercourse. You then claimed that B somehow invalidated A, when anyone over the age of 14 would know that B in fact has NOTHING to do with A. The quoted statisitic is completely accurate and no one could possibly reach the same conclusion that you did.



Seriously, this level of not paying attention to what I am trying to say is usually reserved for my wife.  I mentioned a statistic.  Then I explained the background behind it.  People who read the statistic on its own may have though "that is great".  When they heard the reason for it, they may have not thought that it was so great after all.  Thats why if you read a statistic saying that the homicide rate is down, don't get too excited because there are other reasons for it other than a decrease in violence.  If you still don't get my point, then I give up, you win.   
And yes, lovely fish.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Dec 2005)

I think Ghost may have been referring to "habitual offenders", not killers.   

Glock drilled it on the head.   Not much else to say.

"Nobody wins.   These are   complex, multi-layer problems that are not solved by execution"--someone else can come up with a way to repair society.   In the mean time, if we cut out and discard the cancerous elements in our communities, how does that do anything but help everyone?


----------



## Old Ranger (22 Dec 2005)

With the amount of evidence to convict a killer, and with absolute certainty to the criminals guilt.

Strap them down and let the family of the victims have first crack at it.

Death Penalty....Yes!  and not this 20 year waiting game, Save the money and do it sooner.

The money saved could go to forensic labs and techs to ensure guilt or innocence.

Merry Christmas!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2005)

Britney, you are normally not this thick.........


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Dec 2005)

I offer this link as a final thought:

http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

I cant imagine a more comprehensive pro-death penalty site.  Its got something for everyone!!


----------



## GLOCK 31 (23 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> One of the arguments against capital punishment is that we may "execute an innocent person".   The argument goes that, unless we can bring that person back to life, we shouldn't execute anyone.




To add to what 48Highlander had said, I would add.

Letting a whole bunch of murderers go, to save one innocent.   Then what if the whole bunch of murderers who were let go/live, goes and kills again.   Then a whole bunch of innocent people were killed instead of the one.   We knew they were dangerous but did not take the steps needed to ensure peoples safety.   I for one would rather be that one innocent person killed, rather than have one other innocent person killed because the whole bunch of bad murders were let go/live.   I could not live knowing that my life caused the death of others (innocent others, not murderers).   That to me would be unbarable.   No one wants to see, or have, someone die or put to death.   But I bet you would not want other innocent people to die instead.   A life sentence, and the death penalty is the same.   Except the death penalty is quicker, and makes 100% sure they can't harm anyone else.   It is also a whole lot cheaper if done right.

What logic is there in letting people like this being left alive.   This list is only for examples of crimes, not the people them selves since some were executed, and few, if any, were done in Canada.   But right now, if people like them were to commit crimes similar to them in Canada, they would be left alive, and for what reason?   

Albert Fish, Jeffery Dahmer, Andrei Chikatilo (was executed in 1992 with a bullet to the back of the head, but I included him because of his crime, if it was in Canada he would still be alive), Nikolai Dzhurmongaliev, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Eddie Gein, David Berkowitz, Albert De Salvob, Jerry Brudos, Dennis Rader, John Wayne Gacy, H. H. Holmes, Edmund Kemper, Pedro Lopez, Anatoly Onoprienko, Dr. Harold Shipman.   A list of a few, of many that have no logical reason for people like them to be kept alive.   There are many, many more that could of been listed.   All the information I found during college, because we had to study them in our course.   The source is Court TV's website   http://www.crimelibrary.com/ .   All their stories and details, for people with a strong stomach, are on the site.   A warning, some information on the site is quite disturbing, just to warn ahead of time.   Not specifically the people them selves, but just some of the crimes that are committed in this world today, and if it were to happen in Canada, those kinda people deserve the death penalty.   My post was much longer as I gave a brief description of what each did, but removed it because I think it would be inappropriate to have incase kids come on this topic and read it.   So if you wanna know what they did, the whole stories, check out the site, because I won't list it.

Joseph Edward Duncan III is a prime example of why the death penalty should be implemented.   A small quote from the following site is "By August 27, 1997, Duncan had made his way to his half-sister's house in Kansas City, Missouri, where he was arrested for parole violations. He was returned to Washington and sent back to prison, but was released less than three years later. On July 21, 2000, Duncan moved to Fargo, North Dakota.

Realizing that they were dealing with a probable serial killer, the cops found themselves wondering why Duncan had ever been released from prison. He was clearly an example of a habitual offender who had managed to slip through the cracks of the system."

Here is the story of what happened,
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/joseph_duncan/index.html

Robert

Edit:  + 1 more to what TCBF said.  5 murderers = 5 executions


----------



## Britney Spears (23 Dec 2005)

> I mentioned a statistic.



That teen pregnancy was down, correct?



> Then I explained the background behind it.



That it was due to the prevalence of other-than-vaginal intercourse, correct? Of course this in it self is ridiculous, as if anal sex was the only method of birth control available today, but we'll run with it for the sake of argument.



> When they heard the reason for it, they may have not thought that it was so great after all.



Because most people would preferr more unwanted pregnancies to teenagers engaging in unorthrodox sexual activities? 

Your statement illustrates perfectly how statistics DON'T lie. If teen pregnancy is down, then it's down. If hommicide is down, then it's down. However, when someone tries to use a stat such as "teen pregnancies down" to prove something that it plainly doesn't ("teenagers are having less sex"), then it's dishonesty on the part of the presenter. I mean, I'm not claiming to be a SME here but I know I can have sex without (generally) also getting pregnant, so that example is pretty damn stupid.   

I know the zipperhead is too far into the argument to back down gracefully now, this isn't for his benefit, but I do hope that our readers here will apply a little more critical thinking in other (more interesting) discussions. 



> Britney, you are normally not this thick.........



Not normally? Well I'm glad I'm moving up in your world. Maybe I should apply to be a mod sometime soon?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Dec 2005)

"Because most people would preferr more unwanted pregnancies to teenagers engaging in unorthrodox sexual activities? "  No you tool, because most parents dont want to hear that their daughter is taking it in the back nine.  Geez, this is exhausting.

I will be thrilled to back out of this, because it is obvious that you are deliberately ignoring what I am trying to say.  Semantics for its own sake is a waste of time.

You win.  You are right.  You should believe every statistic you are ever presented with without question for the rest of your life.  Statistics are our friends.

Can we abandon this ridiculous off shoot and get back to the death penalty talk?


----------



## TCBF (23 Dec 2005)

"Correlation is not causation." -Stat 101?

Enough of this infighting.  Let's all go lynch some scrotes.

Figuratively speaking, of course.

Tom


----------



## visitor (23 Dec 2005)

Nobody knows if teen pregnancy is down because  lots of girls now know how to use  regular birth control pills as a morning after  pill; and so can take care of themselves, neatly sidestepping anybody who might want to count them.


----------



## visitor (23 Dec 2005)

The cost of klling versus  keeping an inmate:

"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )

"Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution."
(Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).

"Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000." 
(The Geography of Execution... The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America, Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood 1997 p.6)


----------



## visitor (23 Dec 2005)

If your concern is  punishment, change the parole  and sentencing laws to keep people in jail for life.  Find ways to punish them.

If your concern is to deter and prevent crime,  jail people and use the money saved  by not killing them for  research, programs, etc, to identify  at-risk people who might kill before they do so and  provide treatment programs,  etc.   as well as better policing.

The above  solutions will not  meet the public's need  for revenge and their own thirst for killing though.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2005)

visitor said:
			
		

> The above  solutions will not  meet the public's need  for revenge and their own thirst for killing though.



Put down the crackpeace pipe and get off your high horse.  If any of us were concerned with revenge, or felt a "thirst for killing", you'd be seeing vigilantism on a daily basis in every city.


----------



## TCBF (23 Dec 2005)

The cost comparisons are useles.  executions are in yesterday's dollars - incarceration costs will be subject to inflation and future crimes commited while incarcerated and their resulting medical and legal costs.

Japan has a healthy regard for the bottom line, and they still execute.

But, we don't want to do this because it is cheap, we want to do this because it is RIGHT.

Tom


----------



## GO!!! (24 Dec 2005)

visitor said:
			
		

> The cost of klling versusÂ  keeping an inmate:
> 
> "A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )
> 
> ...



And here is a study that claims the exact opposite of what you said

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/cap/pro5.htm


----------



## Roger (24 Dec 2005)

No state, government or person has the right to take a life; to kill someone is wrong period. There is no reason for it. And thank god we live in a country where the majority thinks that way. We can chat about studies till the cows come home; killing a human being whether state sponsored or not is wrong.

Yes there are people who should be put away to protect society, se we need to have a sentence like life with no possibility of parole.


----------



## 48Highlander (24 Dec 2005)

Chop said:
			
		

> No state, government or person has the right to take a life; to kill someone is wrong period.



In that case, please take the bulls**t out of your profile.  We generaly don't like it when people fake their credentials.


----------



## GLOCK 31 (24 Dec 2005)

visitor said:
			
		

> It is a fallacy that capital punishment is cheaper than lifeÃ‚  imprisonment:
> 
> "A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )
> 
> ...



The reason it is more expensive to put someone to death by execution, over life in prison is simple.  Its because the total cost includes appeals.  Everytime they appeal the sentence, it costs tax payers money to pay for Judge, Lawyers, Jury, and everything else in an appeal.  So numerous appeals add up, and costs quite a bit.  But if they limited the time spent between trial and execution (eg. 12 months to 24 months), or limit the total number of appeals (three strikes and your out of luck, instead of the as many appeals as you can fit in till you die, as they have it now), it would be much cheaper to execute.  Multiple appeals are only to seek a merciful judge who will change plea to a lesser sentence, instead of death.  Most the time they are still guilty, just a lesser sentence.  Then there is the cost of executing humanely All the techs, and cost new needles every time, cost of whats in the three needles (forget whats inside, but know what they do), cost of facilities to hold them for a long period of time until their sentence is carried out (US has long waiting list), cost of food and all the other stuff during the wait, cost of the funeral to be humanitarians.  So all added up it will cost a whole lot.  But there is several steps, and tons of items that can be skipped.  So if its done right, it would be much cheaper.  But its not, they take a simple thing, and complicate it.  Also, did you happen to check how long they are kept on death row before executing?  That adds up to total cost.  Eliminate the wait and the cost would come down as well.

The way I figure it is if you have had three appeals, and your still convicted by a jury, and the judge still agrees with the death penalty, then in my books your already on the gallows, and are ready to drop.  :blotto:
If the government were to keep alive a murderer, and he is released or escaped, and killed someone else.  I would hold the government just as responsible as the murderer himself.  To truly be a civil society, we must do what is necessary to protect the citizens of the society, and not the criminals out to destroy it.  People that do crimes like the rest of them, deserve to have their funeral paid for, and carried out immediately.  Alive or dead, as long as their buried deep (be cheaper too, wouldn't even have to build a gallows, or buy a rope).    Only joking about the burring then alive thing.  After all it wouldn't be humane, after the murderer killed their victim humanely right?

Robert


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2005)

> to kill someone is wrong period. There is no reason for it. And thank god we live in a country where the majority thinks that way.



51 people over 11 who have taken this poll disagree with you.


----------



## Roger (24 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> In that case, please take the bulls**t out of your profile.Â  We generaly don't like it when people fake their credentials.



What do you meen by that?


----------



## Roger (24 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> 51 people over 11 who have taken this poll disagree with you.



This is a poll of people on this sights thought, in Canada we revoked the penalty because most Canadians are against it and thank god for that, almost all of the free countries in the world have repealed the death penalty. 

And shame on any country that does.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Dec 2005)

Chop said:
			
		

> This is a poll of people on this sights thought, *in Canada we revoked the penalty because most Canadians are against it * and thank god for that, almost all of the free countries in the world have repealed the death penalty.
> 
> And shame on any country that does.



No...most of the outspoken minority and the pandering politicos are against it. Like most everything else in this country, the silent majority do agree. It's a shame, they don't speak out, but that's it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Dec 2005)

Chop said:
			
		

> What do you meen by that?



He means that you claim to be an Infanteer. I'm sure you are. However, your stance as you stated earlier "to kill someone is wrong period. There is no reason for it. And thank god we live in a country where the majority thinks that way" puts you at odds with your raison d'être as an infanteer. You even expand it to say even state sanctioned killing is wrong and shouldn't happen, but you are sworn by oath to carry out these acts for your government should you be ordered. So what he's saying is you claim to be an infanteer, but if your beliefs won't allow you to do the job, your not and the info in your profile is false.

48H, did I get that right?


----------



## Roger (24 Dec 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He means that you claim to be an Infanteer. I'm sure you are. However, your stance as you stated earlier "to kill someone is wrong period. There is no reason for it. And thank god we live in a country where the majority thinks that way" puts you at odds with your raison d'être as an infanteer. You even expand it to say even state sanctioned killing is wrong and shouldn't happen, but you are sworn by oath to carry out these acts for your government should you be ordered. So what he's saying is you claim to be an infanteer, but if your beliefs won't allow you to do the job, your not and the info in your profile is false.
> 
> 48H, did I get that right?



I did not join the military to kill people, I joined the army to make a difference in the world and help all people in the world enjoy the freedoms we as Canadians have here in Canada. And its a shame I have to answer to my profile to put in my two cents in a forum.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Dec 2005)

Chop said:
			
		

> I did not join the military to kill people,



While no sane person joins for that reason, it is the infanteer's forte. I would hope you could see the dilemma you pose for yourself.


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Dec 2005)

Chop said:
			
		

> No state, government or person has the right to take a life; to kill someone is wrong period. There is no reason for it. And thank god we live in a country where the majority thinks that way. We can chat about studies till the cows come home; killing a human being whether state sponsored or not is wrong.
> 
> Yes there are people who should be put away to protect society, See we need to have a sentence like life with no possibility of parole.





			
				Chop said:
			
		

> And its a shame I have to answer to my profile to put in my two cents in a forum.



Chop,

You have made some valid posts regarding this subject, but, I am shocked how you would be surprised that you are questioned on your profile.  As your profile states, you have served in the infantry, I assume, and are a jumper.  These descriptions would offer any other member on this board that you would have a view that is a bit more, tough skinned if you will.  You state that taking a life is wrong, period.  True, but you must understand that with the little knowledge we have you and your life that you w ill have to expect someone questioning you.

So if you have a challenge with people questioning your profile, elaborate more, and we will know where you are coming from.

dileas

tess


----------



## Dog (24 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> He must be getting pretty aggrivated with you by now, so I'll try to explain what he means:
> 
> 
> One of the arguments against capital punishment is that we may "execute an innocent person".  The argument goes that, unless we can bring that person back to life, we shouldn't execute anyone.
> ...



  I'd be tempted to say that you've convinced me, as your argument seems to be pretty solid, and I can understand why you and others may be able to justify your opinons regarding this particular issue. And your confusion as to why I oppose your point of view is understandable in light of your reasons for support of the death penalty, especially since I've joined the CF as a member of the infantry and undoubtedly will be going to A'stan eventually.

  However..... 

  I, personally, believe that there is a much higher degree of difference between the situations of combat and execution. Just because they have a single factor in common with each other (death), doesn't necessarily make them all that closely related.

  In war, we use lethal force against those who would do the same to us. We do this because if we were to abandon our rifles and bombs, and instead adopt "less lethal" weapons, such as stun guns, our enemies aren't going to 'play fair' and lay down their rifles as well. The name of the game, so to speak, is Kill-or-be-Killed. As such, when civilians get caught in the crossfire, they get hurt, or killed.

  In the 'fog of war' it's difficult to avoid such situations, though every effort is made to do so. But the luxury of being able to take one's time, and deliberate, each and every individual action that may or may not result in a mistake, does not exist. It's war, and it's a terrible thing, and mistakes result in the deaths of either your fellow soldiers or civilians, inaction is not an option. Action that results in accidents is unavoidable. I believe we've taken the route that leads down the path of the lesser of 2 evils. I don't lust for war, but I understand it's neccessity, and I believe that it should only be used as a tool to acheive an objective after all other viable alternatives have been exhausted.

  Execution, on the other hand, is not a neccessity. We have viable alternatives, and the luxury of taking time and deliberating how much of what kind of time, with who may they interact/not interact with, in which kind of prison, and where. We aren't faced with the choice of 'kill or be killed.' If we deem them dangerous enough, we lock them away until the end of their natural lives, never to be free again (if you think men like Olson and Bernardo are ever going to be free, you're deluding yourself).

  I think the death penalty satisfies some sort of visceral need for revenge, and serves no other purpose than that, and as such is not a moral, or ethical action to consider. We live in a progressive, and civil society, and if we are to remain so, we must abide by the values that we have set for ourselves. No society can safely entrust the enforcement of its laws to torture, brutality, or killing. Such methods are inherently cruel and will always mock the attempt to claok them in justice. 

"The deliberate institutionalized taking of human life by the state is the greatest conceivable degradation to the dignity of the human personality." - American Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg


----------



## Dog (24 Dec 2005)

Opposition to the death penalty does not arise from misplaced sympathy for convicted murderers. On the contrary, murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life. For this very reason, murder is abhorrent, and any policy of state-authorized killings is immoral.

 Capital punishment denies due process of law. Its imposition is arbitrary and irrevocable. It forever deprives an individual of benefits of new evidence or new law that might warrant the reversal of a conviction or the setting aside of a death sentence.

 Executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect when it is useful to take it and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by pragmatic concerns.

 Reliance on the death penalty obscures the true causes of crime and distracts attention from the social measures that effectively contribute to its control. Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a weapon of crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to support anti-crime measures that will really work.

 Capital punishment wastes resources. It squanders the time and energy of courts, prosecuting attorneys, defense counsel, juries, and courtroom and correctional personnel. It unduly burdens the system of criminal justice, and it is therefore counterproductive as an instrument for society's control of violent crime. It epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality of the resort to violence rather than reason for the solution of difficult social problems.

 A decent and humane society does not deliberately kill human beings. An execution is a dramatic, public spectacle of official, violent homicide that teaches the permissibility of killing people to solve social problems -- the worst possible example to set for society. In this century, governments have too often attempted to justify their lethal fury by the benefits such killing would bring to the rest of society. The bloodshed is real and deeply destructive of the common decency of the community; the benefits are illusory.

- Hugo Adam Bedau

Food for thought, people.


----------



## Dog (24 Dec 2005)

A cut from a paper by the same man.... It's long, but I think it drives home the point. *Be warned: It's not pleasant, and if you have a weak constitution, you may wish to skip this particular post.*


In 1983, the electrocution of John Evans in Alabama was described by an eyewitness as follows: "At 8:30 p.m. the first jolt of 1900 volts of electricity passed through Mr. Evans' body. It lasted thirty seconds. Sparks and flames erupted ... from the electrode tied to Mr. Evans' left leg. His body slammed against the straps holding him in the electric chair and his fist clenched permanently. The electrode apparently burst from the strap holding it in place. A large puff of grayish smoke and sparks poured out from under the hood that covered Mr. Evans' face. An overpowering stench of burnt flesh and clothing began pervading the witness room. Two doctors examined Mr. Evans and declared that he was not dead.

"The electrode on the left leg was refastened.... Mr. Evans was administered a second thirty second jolt of electricity. The stench of burning flesh was nauseating. More smoke emanated from his leg and head. Again, the doctors examined Mr. Evans. [They] reported that his heart was still beating, and that he was still alive. At that time, I asked the prison commissioner, who was communicating on an open telephone line to Governor George Wallace, to grant clemency on the grounds that Mr. Evans was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The request ... was denied.

"At 8:40 p.m., a third charge of electricity, thirty seconds in duration, was passed through Mr. Evans' body. At 8:44, the doctors pronounced him dead. The execution of John Evans took fourteen minutes."(38) Afterwards, officials were embarrassed by what one observer called the "barbaric ritual." The prison spokesman remarked, "This was supposed to be a very clean manner of administering death."(39)

An attempt to improve on electrocution was the gas chamber. The prisoner is strapped into a chair, a container of sulfuric acid underneath. The chamber is sealed, and cyanide is dropped into the acid to form lethal gas. Here is an account of the 1992 execution in Arizona of Don Harding, as reported in the dissent by U. S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens:

"When the fumes enveloped Don's head he took a quick breath. A few seconds later he again looked in my direction. His face was red and contorted as if he were attempting to fight through tremendous pain. His mouth was pursed shut and his jaw was clenched tight. Don then look several more quick gulps of the fumes.

"At this point Don's body started convulsing violently....His face and body fumed a deep red and the veins in his temple and neck began to bulge until I thought they might explode.

"After about a minute Don's face leaned partially forward, but he was still conscious. Every few seconds he continued to gulp in. He was shuddering uncontrollably and his body was racked with spasms. His head continued to snap back. His hands were clenched.

"After several more manuals, the most violent of the convulsions subsided. At this time the muscles along Don's left arm and back began twitching in a wavelike motion under his skin. Spittle drooled from his mouth.

"Don did not stop moving for approximately eight minutes, and after that he continued to twitch and jerk for another minute. Approximately two minutes later, we were told by a prison official that the execution was complete.

"Don Harding took ten minutes and thirty one seconds to die." (Gomez v. U.S. District Court, 112 S.Ct. 1652)

The latest mode of inflicting the death penalty, enacted into law by nearly two dozen states, is lethal injection, first used in Texas in 1982. It is easy to overstate the humaneness and efficacy of this method. There is no way of knowing that it is really painless. As the U.S. Court of Appeals observed, there is "substantial and uncontroverted evidence ... that execution by lethal injection poses a serious risk of cruel, protracted death.... Even a slight error in dosage or administration can leave a prisoner conscious but paralyzed while dying, a sentient witness of his or her own asphyxiation." (Chaney v. Heckler, 718 F.2d 1174 [1983])


----------



## missing1 (24 Dec 2005)

If it were my daughter, son or wife that had been sodomized, beaten, raped held in squalor for days on end while all the aforementioned things had been done to them, the above instance would not have bothered me in the least.
 :bullet: cheaper and quicker.


----------



## COBRA-6 (24 Dec 2005)

+1 on what teufel said. No sympathy here...


----------



## 48Highlander (24 Dec 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He means that you claim to be an Infanteer. I'm sure you are. However, your stance as you stated earlier "to kill someone is wrong period. There is no reason for it. And thank god we live in a country where the majority thinks that way" puts you at odds with your raison d'être as an infanteer. You even expand it to say even state sanctioned killing is wrong and shouldn't happen, but you are sworn by oath to carry out these acts for your government should you be ordered. So what he's saying is you claim to be an infanteer, but if your beliefs won't allow you to do the job, your not and the info in your profile is false.
> 
> 48H, did I get that right?



You got the gyst of it, but not the details.  Not only does he use the infantry symbol as his avatar, his profile claims that he is a 50 year old male with 13 years in the airborne.  And that sort of misrepresentation realy makes me want to rearrange his kneecaps.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2005)

> And here is a study that claims the exact opposite of what you said


And thats why I never put much weight on studies, especially ones on the internet. Like Go proves, it's all too easy to find a study supporting your argument. Their biased.



> And its a shame I have to answer to my profile to put in my two cents in a forum.


You don't have to put anything in your profile to contribute to this site. Many don't.  

*IF* You put military credentials in there and other soldiers on this site get a little suspicious their going to call you on it. Why? It's how we stop posers and fakes from spreading bullshit here. If we're wrong we're wrong, don't take it personally.

I'm practically in the same boat as you. I believe all life is sacred and we should only take life with great reverence.  An Iraqi citizen is just as important to me as a Canadian or American one.  I think murderers should be executed only when it's apparent that they will continue to be a threat to society.   That said I still find your opinion on killing in society and how utterly wrong it is very weird taking into consideration your age and military service. Your comming across in a very funky way.




> I, personally, believe that there is a much higher degree of difference between the situations of combat and execution. Just because they have a single factor in common with each other (death), doesn't necessarily make them all that closely related.



Great argument Dog.  I don't agree with it but I do see what point your making.  We won't be able to agree because of the perspective we're looking at this.  I'm just much more comfortable with a convicted murderer (as proven by DNA and video tape) being put to death than a civilian by accident.  Yes the civilian was an accident and they were not intentionally targeted so maybe it's not even the same argument.  We kill a dog that's ripped a little girls face off, why we don't do the same for a human (who I hold to a much higher standard than a dog) I'll never understand.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2005)

Considering who the majority of posters on this site I don't think you'll find much sympathy for criminals and monsters.

You think articles are unpleasant?  Some of the BTDT types who post on this board have seen what those monsters can do in person.

I've only heard stories.  Still, no sympathy from me.

A few executions are a little more violent or painful than others. All I can say is this 

fuck em if they can't take a joke


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Dec 2005)

It only takes 6 mA of current across the heart to end a human life.  I do agree with capital punishment, but it is not required to make the offender jump around like a drop of water on a hot griddle.  I'm sure some genius could come up with a more effective, as well as cheaper in these days of soaring electric bills, form of electrocution.  As well, I don't agree with the need to make executions public, seems to be a dangerous return to the days of "bread and circuses" to me.  Just quietly end their lives, and don't give them the attention they seem to think they deserve.  Just take the trash out to the curb, don't make it a parade.  IM(usually wrong)HO...

Kat


----------



## old medic (24 Dec 2005)

Dog said:
			
		

> In 1983, the electrocution of John Evans in Alabama was described by an eyewitness as follows:
> "At 8:40 p.m., a third charge of electricity, thirty seconds in duration, was passed through Mr. Evans' body. At 8:44, the doctors pronounced him dead.......  The execution of John Evans took fourteen minutes......



Who?



> John Evans and fellow convict Wayne Ritter embarked on a two-month long crime spree involving, by Evans' own admission, over thirty armed robberies, nine kidnappings, and two extortion schemes across seven states. On January 5, 1977 he and Ritter robbed and killed Edward Nassar, a pawn shop owner in Mobile, Alabama while his two young daughters were in the store. The perpetrators fled, but were captured on March 7 by FBI agents in Little Rock, Arkansas. Among the evidence recovered was the gun used to shoot Nassar in the back, and another gun stolen from the pawn shop.
> During the trial, Evans again admitted his crime and stated that he did not feel remorse and that under the same circumstances he would kill again. Furthermore, he threatened that if the jury did not sentence him to death, he would escape and murder each of them.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Dec 2005)

So, in Brucie's perfect world, he would have suffered for a few hours more.............


----------



## GLOCK 31 (24 Dec 2005)

Theres a lot of talk about being humane and caring towards the worst people in our society.  Is there anyone here that wouldn't have killed Hitler before 1939 if they knew what was going to happen?  Well thats murder, but murder to save 6 million + people, and a war that engulfed the entire planet.  On a smaller scale, you hang a convicted child molestor, send him to jail, and when he gets out he does it again.  Now there is a second family, another little girl with her life ruined, and for what?  A convicted child molestor to have a second chance.  

If you wanna read a real example, heres Joseph Edward Duncan III is a prime example of why the death penalty should be implemented. A small quote from the following site is "By August 27, 1997, Duncan had made his way to his half-sister's house in Kansas City, Missouri, where he was arrested for parole violations. He was returned to Washington and sent back to prison, but was released less than three years later. On July 21, 2000, Duncan moved to Fargo, North Dakota.

Realizing that they were dealing with a probable serial killer, the cops found themselves wondering why Duncan had ever been released from prison. He was clearly an example of a habitual offender who had managed to slip through the cracks of the system."

Here is the story of what happened,
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/joseph_duncan/index.html

He was a convicted child molestor, was released because the law said he had to, and he destroyed another families entire life.  If you look through that site and read some of the other stories, like Albert Fish, who Hannibal was partly based on.  He lured little kids into his apartment and killed them by eating them.  Why should he be allowed to live in a civilized society, when his victims will never even know what its like to reach puberty, and have a family of their own.  But hey, a few years later he's ready to rejoin society, and try again.  But this time he may learn from his mistakes and not get caught again.  And if that wasn't bad enough, he wrote a letter to the children's mom, about how good her children tasted.  There are hundreds of other stories just as disgusting as that one.  

Albert Fish story  http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/fish/index.html
Crime Library site  http://www.crimelibrary.com/

Or think about Holly Jones family, and the little girl.  What should her killer get?  10 years in prison to further his education and come out better than before?  Sounds like justice?  Or he could get a Psychology degree like Karla Homolka did, and come out knowing how to manipulate peoples minds.  Since thats what she studied, she could be better at doing what she did now.  I bet their families feel a great justice has been done for the horrible and grotesque murders of their children.  

Police kill all the time.  Shoot a hostage taker when he has a gun to peoples heads.  That is technically murder.  Is there any thought in my mind that taking them out was a bad thing?  No, none what so ever.  The only thing complete pacifists have ever accomplished, is getting concured by those that don't share the same view on life.  Sometimes we have to do what is right, rather than what is easy.  Easy is locking them up for a few years, and when everyone forgets about what happened, let them go again.  Whats right, is executing them, so as to keep society safe.  Execution, because it is going against every moral fiber in ones body, but doing it because it has to be done.

IMHO

Robert

Dog, I have complete respect for your views. So please, don't take my post the wrong way.  I just have a differing point of view.  And both our view may be right, or both wrong, who knows?  I know I would love to live in a world where Capitol Punishment is not necessary.  But unfortunately there are people out there that give us no choice.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Dec 2005)

I couldnt tell if Dog's post about the descriptions of the executions was pro or against the DP?  To us supporters, that sounds like an event you would buy tickets for.
There are plenty of "nice" ways to snuff out someone.  If we got the DP back in Canada, Im sure it would be something like "hugging to death" or "talk to a Liberal until you take your own life".


----------



## visitor (24 Dec 2005)

The other topic is locked and I wanted to add the following:
I have never been in the "fog of war",  but I presume it to be messy, complicated,  high  emotion, fast, dangerous,  confusing, etc. Many soldiers do not  choose be in the "fog of war" yet it is where they find themselves. Sometimes they kill.

Many of our criminals are living with brains that leave them in the "fog of war" every day.  FAS, for example destroys a person's ability to consider consequences, to be impulsive and aggressive, to reason logically and to inhibit themselves before they act. Yet these people look normal in every way. 

Canada's resources to treat people with FAS and to monitor "at-risk" individuals: mostly nil.  

A culture hopefully  evolves  to be better than it was in the past. We gave up slavery, caste systems, witch burning, etc. each one popular in it's time and defended by the arguments of the day.  Capital punishment decisions should not be made by  popular vote.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Dec 2005)

Witch burning was a good thing, and should be reinstated, forthwith...fifthwith, even.... :warstory:


----------



## Infanteer (24 Dec 2005)

I don't understand how people come onto this issue swinging moral authority like a Baptist minister.  How is sentencing a man to a cage for the rest of his life any less ethical then hanging him by the neck?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Dec 2005)

Yes, and dont forget the other things in the past that we have given up on and "evolved" past:  common sense, personal accountability, community spirit.  Just because we don't do something any more doesnt mean that we shouldn't review it and reconsider it.  Learning from past mistakes and adapting is a desireable pursuit, is it not?  The US got rid of the death penalty, tried it for a while and then decided that it would bring it back.  (the US comment is not an attempt to spark off a debate on the plusses or minuses of the American system).  We had, it, and could bring it back.  
And if we have evolved past caste systems and the what not, how is it better for a very small group to decide that they are more enlightened than the unter-mench masses and decide that the majority should not be able to decide it's own path?


----------



## TCBF (24 Dec 2005)

"The other topic is locked and I wanted to add the following:
I have never been in the "fog of war",  but I presume it to be messy, complicated,  high  emotion, fast, dangerous,  confusing, etc. Many soldiers do not  choose be in the "fog of war" yet it is where they find themselves. Sometimes they kill.

Many of our criminals are living with brains that leave them in the "fog of war" every day.  FAS, for example destroys a person's ability to consider consequences, to be impulsive and aggressive, to reason logically and to inhibit themselves before they act. Yet these people look normal in every way. 

Canada's resources to treat people with FAS and to monitor "at-risk" individuals: mostly nil."

- Which makes it a medical issue.  In ye olde days, we used sanitariums to secure people who were a health risk to others from the general population.  We should do so now, and construct secure sanitariums to centralize the problems untill they can be cured of their psycopathic/sociopathic tendencies.  Just like TB in the old days - you stay in until you get better or die.

  

"A culture hopefully  evolves  to be better than it was in the past. We gave up slavery, caste systems, witch burning, etc. each one popular in it's time and defended by the arguments of the day.  Capital punishment decisions should not be made by  popular vote."


-Disagree, or you end up electing five-year dictatorships of a self perpetuating socialist intellectual elite.  Imagine the outcome of the 1930s had the German people had more of a direct voice in the outcome of major issues, rather than electing a dictator and leaving it at that.  

Also, common sense is destroyed by political and legalistic dogma, and so the direct voice of the people on major issues is needed to reign in the theorists.

If they trust us enough to put them in power, they should trust us enough to have a direct say in major issues.  After all, they work for US.  To have a voice is to be free, to delegate that voice in all matters is to be a slave.

Tom


----------



## Old Ranger (24 Dec 2005)

Dog said:
			
		

> "When the fumes enveloped Don's head he took a quick breath. A few seconds later he again looked in my direction. His face  was red and contorted as if he were attempting to fight through tremendous pain. His mouth was pursed shut and his jaw was clenched tight. Don then look several more quick gulps of the fumes.
> 
> "At this point Don's body started convulsing violently....His face  and body fumed a deep red and the veins in his temple and neck began to bulge until I thought they might explode.
> 
> ...



Are not Blind folds and hoods worn?  How could this writer see his face? :crybaby:


----------



## visitor (24 Dec 2005)

Germany evolved the way it did, in part because some members of society were deemed to be less than human and were the target of hate, blamed for the ills of society and scapegoated. Not unlike the view  today that criminals  are to be put to death. This is not to say that criminals are not to be  punished, etc, but  killing the guy that did it, leaves us with a false sense of security that we are dealing with crime.


----------



## visitor (24 Dec 2005)

BTW, for those of you who do support the death penalty for violation of our laws,  what is your opinion about the death penalty (stoning, shooting, etc,) in other countries for people who violate their laws or social mores?


----------



## old medic (24 Dec 2005)

That question is too vague and open ended.  You will need to specify which country, and which law and punishment.


----------



## TCBF (24 Dec 2005)

The death penulty has to reflect that nation's culture.  So the pistol shot to the back of the head - family pays for the bullet - works for the Chinese.  Other penulties should work as well.

Oh, and for the next obvious question - you commit a crime in another country - I think you should do the time and the punishment THERE, not here in Canada.  

Tom


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Dec 2005)

.....anyone who is against capital punishment just needs to spend more time with our inmate population.....trust me, you will be saved!!!!!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Dec 2005)

Well given 'Peace towards men' time of year and all that. I think we'll lock this up for a few days and enjoy the festivities.


----------



## Warthor (6 Jan 2006)

I dunno about this death penalty stuff, i mean ya some people flat out deserve it and hearing some stories just gets me angry but there has been times where they've givin someone the death penalty and they've been proven innocent later. People aren't always right, so i think that careful thought should be put into something like killing another human being.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Jan 2006)

Unlocked with the passing of the Christmas season.


----------



## Roger (6 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't understand how people come onto this issue swinging moral authority like a Baptist minister.  How is sentencing a man to a cage for the rest of his life any less ethical then hanging him by the neck?



Looks like the moral authority swings both way's.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jan 2006)

Chop said:
			
		

> Looks like the moral authority swings both way's.



You bet.


----------



## TCBF (6 Jan 2006)

"I don't understand how people come onto this issue swinging moral authority like a Baptist minister.  How is sentencing a man to a cage for the rest of his life any less ethical then hanging him by the neck?"

- Good point.  Let's do both.

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (6 Jan 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> No...most of the outspoken minority and the pandering politicos are against it. Like most everything else in this country, the silent majority do agree. It's a shame, they don't speak out, but that's it.



I'd hardly call 52% in 2001 a clear majority, especially since it was 73% in 1987 and if the trend has continued on the same lines, I'd wager support for the death penalty is below the 50% mark by now. 

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-625-3345/politics_economy/death_penalty/clip10


----------



## Jungle (6 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "I don't understand how people come onto this issue swinging moral authority like a Baptist minister.  How is sentencing a man to a cage for the rest of his life any less ethical then hanging him by the neck?"
> 
> - Good point.  Let's do both.
> 
> Tom


I agree; the rest of his life may last 30 years... or the 30 minutes needed to get the rope ready !!


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2006)

I rather wish we had kept capital punishment for some of the offences which appear (used to appear) at the beginning of Vol. II of QR&O: the ones which promised death or less punishment for officers who traitorously surrendered their commands.  I do not favour hanging/shooting cowards, treasonous ORs, people with twisted boot laces or those who absconded with the Sergeants’ Mess cash, although I might reconsider for gum chewing and hands in pockets.

If we are going to resurrect capital punishment for civilian crimes then we must, I think, if we are honest, use all of its deterrent value: do it in public, in the late afternoon, near our public schools where impressionable children will learn that (some) crimes don’t pay at all.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jan 2006)

Imprisonment is an infringement of mobility rights. Execution is an infringement of the right to life. Hierarchically, there is a difference; also, the former can be done for a span of time less than the life of the convict.

>I did not join the military to kill people

Very few join for that reason.  I'll go further and guess that efforts are made to prevent such people from joining.  The question to ask is: why did you join a profession in which it's nearly a certainty that your efforts will in some small way eventually contribute to the deaths of people whose only wrong decision was to be in a target area or present during a firefight.  Whether you pull the trigger, maintain the rifle, deliver the ammunition, or fill out the paperwork in an office in Ottawa is irrelevant to anything except your share of the guilt: that you share in the guilt is certain.  Any of us who is eligible to vote is not really any closer to the mechanistic procedure of executing a prisoner condemned by the government than he is to the mechanistic procedure of identifying, clearing, and air-delivering ordnance to a target where people might be killed in order to achieve a political aim deemed expedient by the government.  If you wish to believe that in the latter case chance is a factor, I will simply point out in advance that just as you can avoid wrongful execution by not having any, you can avoid collateral damage by not seeking to cause any primary damage.  In both cases you have positive control.


----------



## Prariedawg (6 Jan 2006)

I think one of the nastier ways to execute someone has to be the gas chamber,You have to actively participate in your own execution to avoid drawing it out and those who resisted the fumes have taken up to 18-20 mins to die sometimes in what appered to be brutal agony.With the other methods someone fires a bullet,throws a switch,opens a trapdoor or pushes a syringe and its game over.I imagine sitting in the chamber watching the mist rise(slowly) trying to decide either to start sucking it in or holding your breath must be one of the most horrible ways to go.


----------



## Dissident (6 Jan 2006)

Whatever. In most likelyness, you deserve to be in the gas chamber. I have no pity for the condemne.

I am in favor of the daeth penalty, and I don't believe it has to be humane. 

The electric chair apparently takes more than one jolts before the guy bites it. 

Im from the school of George Carlin[g] on this. Catapult a guy straight into a brick wall, or decapitate them with an olive fork. And no, I am not making light of the situation.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jan 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Imprisonment is an infringement of mobility rights. Execution is an infringement of the right to life. Hierarchically, there is a difference; also, the former can be done for a span of time less than the life of the convict.



Okay, so technically there is a difference in what right we are infringing upon; but if we are to lock Paul Bernardo up for life without the chance of parole, is it any better than simply sending him to the gallows?  Putting someone in a box for the rest of their natural life doesn't seem to be preserving much "right to life" - as Jungle says its only a difference between 30 years and 30 seconds, but the same effect is achieved (removing the offender from society for good).


----------



## Warthor (6 Jan 2006)

Some system has to be thought up of altogether, like from Johny English turn Britain into a huge prison. Joking, British people dont get angry at me. No but really all of the justice systems arent really that effecient, if someone killls someone and they quickly die chancesa re that there criminaly insane and dying is an easy way out. Jail also can be a bit too light also especially in Canada.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Jan 2006)

How about a truly Canadian execution.  Take them to the high arctic and simply dump them out on the glacier in January in shorts and a t-shirt?  From what I understand freezing to death isn't that bad.  You just get sleepy and then go away.  No big expensive injection rig, or gas chamber or power bill.  Leave the body for the polar bears.  (and  maybe by accident put them out near the polar bears before they get a chance to freeze).


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Jan 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Imprisonment is an infringement of mobility rights. Execution is an infringement of the right to life.



Isn't that kind of the point?  Some acts should forfeit your right to life.  And for that matter, why don't we make life a privilege?  That should clear up some of the red tape.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (7 Jan 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> How about a truly Canadian execution.  Take them to the high arctic and simply dump them out on the glacier in January in shorts and a t-shirt?  From what I understand freezing to death isn't that bad.  You just get sleepy and then go away.  No big expensive injection rig, or gas chamber or power bill.  Leave the body for the polar bears.  (and  maybe by accident put them out near the polar bears before they get a chance to freeze).



How would you recover the body to bury them according to their religion if its been eaten by polar bears?


----------



## Grunthor (7 Jan 2006)

i say do to them what they did to the victem(s), if they burnt the person to death, torch em, if they strangled the person to death, strangel em, if they btk'd btk them, etc.  those innocent victems never did anything, i think people are too concerned about the wellbeing of the killers, it's there own fault they're there in the first place, however there is always the whole wrongful conviction thing, and that wouldn't be good to burn the wrong person to death.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Jan 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> How would you recover the body to bury them according to their religion if its been eaten by polar bears?



Wait till the bear takes a dump, then turn it over to the family.


----------



## silverbach (7 Jan 2006)

All of these replies are truely interesting, but the question remains: why was capital punishment taken away from our criminal justice system ? One could respond: well, it's because of the human rights laws and the Charter of human rights in Canada. All right, well, the United States has the bill of rights and some States still has the death sentence...interesting point, especially when we consider that our Charter was inspired by that very same Bill of rights.

Isn't that a kind of fact that makes you go...hmmm !


----------



## missing1 (7 Jan 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Wait till the bear takes a dump, then turn it over to the family.


Vote  Zipperhead for Attorney General


----------



## Soon2binfantry (7 Jan 2006)

I say the injection cause it's the least painful, cause you always have to think what if the person getting executed is not guilty, and then dies a painful death.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (7 Jan 2006)

I say hanging. Simple and costless.


----------



## 48Highlander (7 Jan 2006)

silverbach said:
			
		

> All of these replies are truely interesting, but the question remains: why was capital punishment taken away from our criminal justice system ? One could respond: well, it's because of the human rights laws and the Charter of human rights in Canada.
> 
> All right, well, the United States has the bill of rights and some States still has the death sentence...interesting point, especially when we consider that our Charter was inspired by that very same Bill of rights.
> 
> Isn't that a kind of fact that makes you go...hmmm !



 :blotto:

Sure it is.

First of all, the charter has nothing to say on the matter of executions.  It does have the following to say about your right to life:



> 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.



Which basicaly means that everyone has the right to live, unless the justice system decides otherwise.  Executions of criminals don't violate "the principles of fundamental justice", therefore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not forbid it.

Want to see a case where Canadian Law blatantly IGNORES the charter?  Hate Speech laws.  The Charter clearly states that you have the right to:



> b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;



Therfore hate speech laws clearly violate that right.  Yet Canadians in general seem to think hate speech laws are a good thing.  THAT is what "makes you go...hmmmm".

As far as the US constitution goes, you're thinking of the Fith Amendment:



> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, *nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



Same idea but stated even more clearly than in our own poorly worded Charter.  You have the right to live and will not be deprived of that right _without due proccess of the law_.  That's the part that all the anti-death-penalty advocates always conviniently forget.


----------



## silverbach (7 Jan 2006)

I am quite sure that your opinion would be different if you would have read the Canadian Supreme Court's decision of Burns where this court refused to return a fugitive to his country of origin simply because he would receive the capital punishment, all of this through their interpretation of section 7 of the Charter.

Consequently, it seems that section 7 has something to do with executions. And considering that the supreme court came to that conclusion without even having to get to the second level of this section, being "the principles of fundamental justice", your assesment about this principle is equally wrong.

So, since our supreme court is the last appelate court in Canada, I think I will have to share the opinion of these 9 judges instead of yours.

As far as reproducing 2b) from the Charter, for the benefits of readers in here, you should have reproduced section 1 equally, not to  mention R. c. Keegstra, a major contribution from the supreme court on what you call hate speech laws...again, if the supreme court can live with hate speeches, so will I.

Ne mélangeons pas les pommes avec les oranges, si vous le voulez bien , monsieur Highlander !


----------



## 48Highlander (7 Jan 2006)

silverbach said:
			
		

> I am quite sure that your opinion would be different if you would have read the Canadian Supreme Court's decision of Burns where this court refused to return a fugitive to his country of origin simply because he would receive the capital punishment, all of this through their interpretation of section 7 of the Charter.



The fact that the supreme court would shelter a fugitive under any circumstances only goes to demonstrate just how gormless our justice system truly is.



			
				silverbach said:
			
		

> Consequently, it seems that section 7 has something to do with executions. And considering that the supreme court came to that conclusion without even having to get to the second level of this section, being "the principles of fundamental justice", your assesment about this principle is equally wrong.



As I have already stated, our judicial system already ignores the actual word and spirit of the Charter through it's endorsement of hate-speech laws.  The fact that the supreme court would further pervert the Charter by using their interpretation of it as a reason to avoid deporting a criminal....that doesn't surprise me in the least.



			
				silverbach said:
			
		

> As far as reproducing 2b) from the Charter, for the benefits of readers in here, you should have reproduced section 1 equally, not to  mention R. c. Keegstra, a major contribution from the supreme court on what you call hate speech laws...again, if the supreme court can live with hate speeches, so will I.



 ???

Ok, section 1 goes like this:



> 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.



In other words, if I'm reading that correctly, the law takes precedence over the Charter?  Is that why you wanted me to quote it?  If that's the case then ok, there you go.  I'll also point out that it states _"as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"_.  Restrictions on speech cannot be justified in a free society.  The death penalty on the other hand certainly can.


----------



## silverbach (7 Jan 2006)

Now, considering that I have made my point and corrected your thinking about section 7 of the Charter, let me ask you the following questions:

1) Since it seems you are an expert in constitutional law, would you be kind enough to tell all of us what is the actual word and spirit of the Charter ?

2) In relation to section 1, you said:

Restrictions on speech cannot be justified in a free society.  The death penalty on the other hand certainly can.

Now, considering that most faculty of laws in canadian university give a 45-hour course only on section 1 of the Charter, 

a) explain the Oakes criteria ?
b) please give us your application of Oakes relative to capital punishment...if you can...or was your one-liner simply an unfounded opinion on your part ?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jan 2006)

Quote from Silverbach,
_I am quite sure that your opinion would be different if you would have read the Canadian Supreme Court's decision of Burns where this court refused to return a fugitive to his country of origin simply because he would receive the capital punishment, all of this through their interpretation of section 7 of the Charter._

Yep, and there is why we need a whole different system, the law society mafia MAKING[ through their interpretation :] our laws instead of our duly-elected officials.....


----------



## silverbach (7 Jan 2006)

yep...but think of the last efforts (Meech) to modify the constitution...that wasn't successful at all, nobody seemed to agree...so everything stayed the way it is since 1982...bottom line is that the constitution itself make it almost impossible to change its sections...I believe some call it democracy !


----------



## Soon2binfantry (7 Jan 2006)

But in a way doesn't it seem a bit too old school?


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Jan 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from Silverbach,
> _I am quite sure that your opinion would be different if you would have read the Canadian Supreme Court's decision of Burns where this court refused to return a fugitive to his country of origin simply because he would receive the capital punishment, all of this through their interpretation of section 7 of the Charter._
> 
> Yep, and there is why we need a whole different system, the law society mafia MAKING[ through their interpretation :] our laws instead of our duly-elected officials.....



The SCC justices are appointed by the duly elected officials and I don't see a problem with judicial activism so long as it operates within the ideological framework of the society. I'd trust a judge to interpret the law and constitution far more than a political figure. 

As for freedom of speech vs. capital punishment - the hate speech laws are rationally related to stopping hate speech, are arguably minimal in their infringement on the rights of the populous, and the detriments (which seem largely overblown by every libertarian out there) can hardly be said to outweigh the benefits. Captial punishment has never been demonstrated effective or rational in anything but satiating peoples' need for revenge, is the most maximal infringement of a person's rights possible, and the detriments can logically be construed as far greater than the benefits since no demonstrable benefits have ever been gleaned from the death penalty. 

Our abstention from captial punishment is in accordance with the charter, our use thereof would not be. Hence why I trust judges, who have extensive knowledge and experience with the charter and our legal system, far more than I trust politicians held by the fickle sway of public opinion (which, incidentally, doesn't seem very supportive of the death penalty anyways) and more importantly, lobby groups (which have a disturbing habit of representing one side, often disproportionately to the facts).


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> The SCC justices are appointed by the duly elected officials and I don't see a problem with judicial activism so long as it operates within the ideological framework of the society. I'd trust a judge to interpret the law and constitution far more than a political figure.
> 
> As for freedom of speech vs. capital punishment - the hate speech laws are rationally related to stopping hate speech, are arguably minimal in their infringement on the rights of the populous, and the detriments (which seem largely overblown by every libertarian out there) can hardly be said to outweigh the benefits.



That's debatable.  Without a doubt, the biggest problem with hate speech laws is the precedent they set.  As currently implemented, they are only a problem for the small minority of our population who happen to be very vocal in their expression of racist beleifs.  However, by implementing these laws we are setting a precedent which basicaly states that it is permissable to prosecute and incarcerate individuals simply because we do not agree with what they have to say.  That sort of behaviour is anathema to everything we're supposed to stand for as a free, democratic country.  I'm sure you've seen this piece of literature before, but I can't resist quoting it as it is certainly very relevant to any discussion on laws which limit freedom of speech:



			
				Pastor Martin Niemöller said:
			
		

> First they came for the Jews
> and I did not speak out
> because I was not a Jew.
> Then they came for the Communists
> ...





			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Captial punishment has never been demonstrated effective or rational in anything but satiating peoples' need for revenge, is the most maximal infringement of a person's rights possible, and the detriments can logically be construed as far greater than the benefits since no demonstrable benefits have ever been gleaned from the death penalty.



That is also debatable.  I can best illustrate one clear benefit in the form of a question:  How many of the individuals who have been executed have managed to re-offend?



			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Our abstention from captial punishment is in accordance with the charter, our use thereof would not be.



I've yet to see any clear argument as to how the death penalty violates the Charter.  There is no specific prohibition of it.  If you were to make the case that the charter _implies_ that the death penalty is unconstitutional, then under the same logic you could make a good argument that imprisonment of any sort is also unconstitutional.


----------



## silverbach (8 Jan 2006)

In reality, you cannot compare death penalty and imprisonment since those two measures are concerned with different protections (death sentence = life; imprisonment = liberty) in the Charter, each of them being applied and interpreted completely in a different manner.

Consequently, Highlander's statement (If you were to make the case that the charter implies that the death penalty is unconstitutional, then under the same logic you could make a good argument that imprisonment of any sort is also unconstitutional) would be, once more, inaccurate.

As far as his statement _How many of the individuals who have been executed have managed to re-offend?_ is concerned, one has got to keep in mind that soldiers are trained, in part, to kill. No wonder why he puts a different value on lif ethan most Canadians.


----------



## silverbach (8 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape...I wanted to let you know that your last post was refreshing to read.


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jan 2006)

silverbach said:
			
		

> In reality, you cannot compare death penalty and imprisonment since those two measures are concerned with different protections (death sentence = life; imprisonment = liberty) in the Charter, each of them being applied and interpreted completely in a different manner.



Really.  Were you planing on showing some evidence of this, or are you going to continue speaking out of your posterior?



			
				silverbach said:
			
		

> As far as his statement _How many of the individuals who have been executed have managed to re-offend?_ is concerned, one has got to keep in mind that soldiers are trained, in part, to kill. No wonder why he puts a different value on lif ethan most Canadians.



Yes, I do assign a higher value to the lives of victims than I do to the lives of criminals.  If that makes me un-Canadian, so be it.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Jan 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from Silverbach,
> _I am quite sure that your opinion would be different if you would have read the Canadian Supreme Court's decision of Burns where this court refused to return a fugitive to his country of origin simply because he would receive the capital punishment, all of this through their interpretation of section 7 of the Charter._
> 
> Yep, and there is why we need a whole different system, the law society mafia MAKING[ through their interpretation :] our laws instead of our duly-elected officials.....



WTF? http://www.ccadp.org/charlesng.htm


----------



## silverbach (8 Jan 2006)

As I have said previously on a thread, there are some people in here who take pleasure in being hostile with other members, all of this behind a computer though, and at times, I wonder if this hostility and vulgarity is relevant or not.

Also, I found out recently from a member from the directing staff that some members here treat civilians differently mainly for the reason that they are not members of the CF. A behavior that is largely questionable, but hey, racism and discrimination is everywhere, no reason for these two phenomena to escape the Army. Of course, I have no idea if that’s the case of Highlander, but it is possible.

Now, in one of his more colorful replies, Highlander brings into the equation my gluteus maximus, suggesting that IT talks on my behalf.

Most of you know that I’m here mostly to find answers to some of my questions with regards to the recruiting process where I have applied for two positions: Lawyer and Infantry (officer).

After expressing a legally-based opinion, when I get replies such as the one of Highlander referring to my buttocks, really, there are two ways to reply: either I bite and write in a manner that will get me in trouble or I choose not to respond because I am dealing with an individual who’s sole motivation  in life has been to fire a C7 for the past 8 years.

I won’t reply to Highlander. If I was, I would feel like the President of the United States explaining to kids in a kindergarden the size of the oval office.

I will choose to keep having respect for all of you, even those who don’t care much about civilians, lawyers or me...but unless I get kicked out out of here by army.ca, mark my words when I tell you this...:I’M HERE TO STAY.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Jan 2006)

The fact that judges are appointed by politicians imports, by design , calculated political ideology into the judicial appointment system that is naturally influenced by factors that often include attaining irrational political objectives through the justice system. As a result, judges and politicians occasionally impose skewed, narrow special interest values by misapprehending the "rule of law" over the greater public interest.   

Other than the possibility of sentencing to death an innocent person [a very rare anomoly and nothing more than that], I have never seen a decent public interest argument against the death penalty.


----------



## silverbach (8 Jan 2006)

You know whiskey, many years ago when I was writing my thesis in anthropology, I remember a professor telling me that in science, questions will always be more interesting than the answers...may be we should look at capital punishment with the same perspective !


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Jan 2006)

silverbach said:
			
		

> Now, considering that I have made my point and corrected your thinking about section 7 of the Charter, let me ask you the following questions:
> 
> 1) Since it seems you are an expert in constitutional law, would you be kind enough to tell all of us what is the actual word and spirit of the Charter ?
> 
> ...





			
				silverbach said:
			
		

> As I have said previously on a thread, there are some people in here who take pleasure in being hostile with other members, all of this behind a computer though, and at times, I wonder if this hostility and vulgarity is relevant or not.
> 
> Also, I found out recently from a member from the directing staff that some members here treat civilians differently mainly for the reason that they are not members of the CF. A behavior that is largely questionable, but hey, racism and discrimination is everywhere, no reason for these two phenomena to escape the Army. Of course, I have no idea if that’s the case of Highlander, but it is possible.
> 
> ...


 :crybaby: :crybaby:

Im pretty sure you started being a dink first.  

If you want a simple example of suspension of personal rights for public benefit, I site the police ability to stop a car operating on a highway.  By its nature, stopping someone in motion and requiring them under pain of arrest to identify themselves would seem to violate the Charter.  But the Supreme Court decided that it was a reasonable suspension of rights given the benefit of getting drunk/suspended/unlicensed/uninsured drivers off the road.  
And I wouldn't mistake lack of constitutional reform since Meech as Canadians desire to see the status quo maintained.  Meech turned into a pathetic Quebec-fest, and now most Canadians are just happy to get by on their 48% tax and just feed their kids.  I don't see apathy as being the same as satisfaction.


----------



## silverbach (9 Jan 2006)

Guilty as charged, your honor...guilty as charged !


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> That's debatable.  Without a doubt, the biggest problem with hate speech laws is the precedent they set.  As currently implemented, they are only a problem for the small minority of our population who happen to be very vocal in their expression of racist beleifs.  However, by implementing these laws we are setting a precedent which basicaly states that it is permissable to prosecute and incarcerate individuals simply because we do not agree with what they have to say.  That sort of behaviour is anathema to everything we're supposed to stand for as a free, democratic country.  I'm sure you've seen this piece of literature before, but I can't resist quoting it as it is certainly very relevant to any discussion on laws which limit freedom of speech:



I can see why it's cause for some concern but one could view just about any limitations on rights to be a similar threat. Not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre could be viewed that way but I think it's a reasonable limitation. Similarly, you can own a rifle but you can't own RPG rounds and hand grenades - another reasonable limitation. You're right that hate speech laws are essentially society imprisoning someone because we don't like what they're saying but it's like any other criminal law that way - we imprison people for doing things we don't like all the time, and already had laws in place to imprison people for saying things we didn't like (IE death threats, inciting riots, etc.). Society gleans no benefit from having people spew hateful tripe about a group of people, be it religious, racial, or ethnic. 

As for the quote, yes I've heard it before. Keep in mind that if Germany had had hate speech legislation like ours, Mein Kampf and Hitler would have been relegated to the fringe. 



> That is also debatable.  I can best illustrate one clear benefit in the form of a question:  How many of the individuals who have been executed have managed to re-offend?



You have a point there but if life sentences were truly for life, we'd achieve the same end and expend far less money doing it. 



> I've yet to see any clear argument as to how the death penalty violates the Charter.  There is no specific prohibition of it.  If you were to make the case that the charter _implies_ that the death penalty is unconstitutional, then under the same logic you could make a good argument that imprisonment of any sort is also unconstitutional.



As you said, it's debatable - it depends on what your interpretation of "reasonable limitation" is. As Silverbach mentioned before, the death penalty would need to pass the Oakes test to be constitutional and I can't see that happening with the overwhelming lack of evidence as to its benefits. The minimal impairment criterion would undoubtedly dictate life sentencing over capital punishment since the former impairs the rights of the individual far less than the latter. There's something else I'm missing that's relevant in the Charter but I can't remember 90% of what I learned in Cdn Judicial Politics so I'll have to add it on later once I've remembered.


----------



## 48Highlander (9 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I can see why it's cause for some concern but one could view just about any limitations on rights to be a similar threat. Not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre could be viewed that way but I think it's a reasonable limitation.



The problem is that someone yelling "fire" is clearly commiting an act of mischief which is likely to place peoples lives in danger.  The part of the criminal code under which he can be charged are clear and dificult to misinterpret.  In contrast, look at the wording of our wondefrful hate-speech legislation:



> 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
> 
> (2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
> 
> ...




In other words, if you came on this board and for whatever reason decided to state that you support the war in Iraq because you think Muslims are a threat to us, you could theoreticaly be locked up for the next 5 years.  Your statement is encouraging other governments and their soldiers to "kill members of the group" where the group is a distinct religion and a distinct "ethnic origin".  And technicaly, that means that a good number of the members of this board are now criminals.  Wether we're convicted of it or not is immaterial; we HAVE violated this law.  Personaly, I don't like having to think of myself as a criminal.



			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> As for the quote, yes I've heard it before. Keep in mind that if Germany had had hate speech legislation like ours, Mein Kampf and Hitler would have been relegated to the fringe.



See, that's the misconception.  The government and the judges are the ones who set the standard.  If you want an example, think about our own society.  Could you imagine a black man being incarcarated for giving a speech in which he advocates killing or otherwise hurting white people?  It wouldn't happen.  Look at all the protests where supporters of Palestine advocate the destruction of Israel.  Are they prosecuted?  Ofcourse not!  As a society we tend to view racism as a one-way street - only the "majority" can discriminate against the "minorities".  Now what would happen if our government and judges underwent a massive reorganization?  All of a sudden we elect a white-power organization into government.  Well, you'd see the exact opposite.  Minorities would be charged for comiiting "hate crimes" against whites, while whites would have pretty much total impunity.  Hate-speech laws wouldn't have stopped Hitler, if anything they would have given him yet another tool to use against his people.



			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> You have a point there but if life sentences were truly for life, we'd achieve the same end and expend far less money doing it.



Well, there's always the possibility of escape.  However, you're right, if a life sentence were truly "for life" I wouldn't bother arguing for the death penalty.  Both achieve the same result more or less.  However, I don't see life imprisonment as any more moral than the death penalty.  And if I were falsly convicted of a crime, personaly, I'd rather be executed than spend the rest of my life in jail.



			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> As you said, it's debatable - it depends on what your interpretation of "reasonable limitation" is. As Silverbach mentioned before, the death penalty would need to pass the Oakes test to be constitutional and I can't see that happening with the overwhelming lack of evidence as to its benefits.



Wether it passes the oakes test or not is also a matter of opinion.  It's all subjective.  Our government and judicial system have determined that, in their opinion, the death penalty does not pass the Oakes test.  However, that's the same government that seems to have determined that having the average citizen spend 50% of their income on taxes is somehow beneficial to our society, so I certainly don't have much faith in their ability to weigh the benefits and detriments of the death penalty


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jan 2006)

The problem with hate speech laws is they are misused to censor expression that some people merely find objectionable.  It is best to simply confront bad ideas with good ones.  Hate speech laws are the legal equivalent of hecklers.  A heckler is merely a living ad hominem fallacy.


----------



## midgetcop (9 Jan 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The problem with hate speech laws is they are misused to censor expression that some people merely find objectionable.  It is best to simply confront bad ideas with good ones.  Hate speech laws are the legal equivalent of hecklers.  A heckler is merely a living ad hominem fallacy.



I'm sure you have an example of your above assertion. 

The forum is yours.........


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jan 2006)

I am not aware offhand of any convictions* which didn't involve outright exhortations to violence, so change "are misused" to "can be misused"; I am aware of attempts to use hate speech laws to pressure people to clam up.  Here is one example which was interesting for the direction of the ideological pressure:

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/con/2001/con_01-10-24.html

I am not merely interested in the selling points of a proposed law or program; I am equally interested in possible abuses and shortcomings.  If someone utters threats, we already have laws to cover that.  Laws with indistinct applicability and the potential to curtail basic freedoms are poor laws.

*Although it would be useful to know exactly what this fellow had written and distributed:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1405939/posts


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> The problem is that someone yelling "fire" is clearly commiting an act of mischief which is likely to place peoples lives in danger.  The part of the criminal code under which he can be charged are clear and dificult to misinterpret.  In contrast, look at the wording of our wondefrful hate-speech legislation:



The first section on genocide is taken straight from the UN. The second on hate speech I really don't see as problematic as it specifically states a breach of the peace. The same impetus is behind the law against yelling "fire" in a theatre. 

What you didn't include was: 



> (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
> 
> (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
> 
> ...





> In other words, if you came on this board and for whatever reason decided to state that you support the war in Iraq because you think Muslims are a threat to us, you could theoreticaly be locked up for the next 5 years.  Your statement is encouraging other governments and their soldiers to "kill members of the group" where the group is a distinct religion and a distinct "ethnic origin".  And technicaly, that means that a good number of the members of this board are now criminals.  Wether we're convicted of it or not is immaterial; we HAVE violated this law.  Personaly, I don't like having to think of myself as a criminal.



Firstly, it's ignorant to say "Muslims are a threat to us" as not all Muslims ARE a threat to us. It's equivalent to saying "Blacks are criminals" in its ignorance. As for its qualification as hate-speech, I'm not sure. It certainly intends to cast aspersions on an entire group of people based on their religious faith and is demonstrably untrue in its current form. A similar case is R v. Keegstra, it might give some insight: 

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/128mile.asp



> See, that's the misconception.  The government and the judges are the ones who set the standard.  If you want an example, think about our own society.  Could you imagine a black man being incarcarated for giving a speech in which he advocates killing or otherwise hurting white people?  It wouldn't happen.  Look at all the protests where supporters of Palestine advocate the destruction of Israel.  Are they prosecuted?  Ofcourse not!  As a society we tend to view racism as a one-way street - only the "majority" can discriminate against the "minorities".



Acutally, a Tanzanian feminist lesbian was charged with inciting hatred against Americans in 2003. I'm not sure if she was convicted. I agree with you that equal application of the law is essential and that often it's not achieved. It annoys me as much as it does you that not everyone is prosecuted equally for the same crime. 



> Now what would happen if our government and judges underwent a massive reorganization?  All of a sudden we elect a white-power organization into government.  Well, you'd see the exact opposite.  Minorities would be charged for comiiting "hate crimes" against whites, while whites would have pretty much total impunity.  Hate-speech laws wouldn't have stopped Hitler, if anything they would have given him yet another tool to use against his people.



I doubt it - were hate speech laws in place (hypothetically identical to ours) prior to his rise, Hitler wouldn't have made it past the Beerhall doors - he'd have been in prison. His statements were so far out there that there is no doubt of his guilt under the legislation. Mein Kampf would never have been sold commercially and anyone handing it out would have been arrested and charged. 



> Well, there's always the possibility of escape.  However, you're right, if a life sentence were truly "for life" I wouldn't bother arguing for the death penalty.  Both achieve the same result more or less.  However, I don't see life imprisonment as any more moral than the death penalty.  And if I were falsly convicted of a crime, personaly, I'd rather be executed than spend the rest of my life in jail.



Why? At least while you're sitting in jail there's the possibility of new evidence coming to light to free you, not to mention the appeals, investigations, etc. 



> Wether it passes the oakes test or not is also a matter of opinion.  It's all subjective.  Our government and judicial system have determined that, in their opinion, the death penalty does not pass the Oakes test.  However, that's the same government that seems to have determined that having the average citizen spend 50% of their income on taxes is somehow beneficial to our society, so I certainly don't have much faith in their ability to weigh the benefits and detriments of the death penalty



From your POV, I can see where you're coming from. As for the Oakes test, I can't see it passing with any kind of political climate. The benefits are just too minimal/vague and the infringement too maximal. Even if I were pro-CP, I'd still have to admit that killing someone is a greater infringement than imprisoning them. The benefits angle could be argued, but all the data from the US indicates that the death penalty really doesn't provide anything but a sense of revenge. The murder rate is higher in the south, which executes the overwhelming majority of all those executed in the country, than it is in the North which accounts for a fraction of the total executions.


----------



## TCBF (10 Jan 2006)

"The murder rate is higher in the south, which executes the overwhelming majority of all those executed in the country, than it is in the North which accounts for a fraction of the total executions."

- Correlation does not equal causation. There are many other cultural factors as well - the Reconstruction is not over yet.

In any case, the best and most efficient death penalty is often the one enacted by the intended victim - on the spot.  

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (10 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "The murder rate is higher in the south, which executes the overwhelming majority of all those executed in the country, than it is in the North which accounts for a fraction of the total executions."
> 
> - Correlation does not equal causation. There are many other cultural factors as well - the Reconstruction is not over yet.
> 
> ...



I'm not arguing FOR correlation, I'm arguing against it. There's no demonstrable correlation between capital punishment and crime rates. The fact that the South has a higher crime rate is, I would wager, a function of its poverty levels (dont quote me on it) than its sentencing practices.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Jan 2006)

teufel said:
			
		

> Vote  Zipperhead for Attorney General


Thanks, brother.  I imagine that my constant swipes at the Liberal Party wont help me get any patronage appointments any time soon.  But if I did get in.....boy howdy you would see some crazy stuff until I got recalled!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Jan 2006)

It looks like we may be getting hung up again on the idea of the death penalty serving some sort of deterrent value.  I believe there are plenty of stats to back that up...if someone is going to kill another person, they don't put a lot of thought on consequence due to a variety of factors.  
But who cares?  Should it not be sufficient that a deserving individual is taken out of the mix, permanently?  There will always be appeals, and outcry's, and much protesting, but why not have it as an option?  The public wants it but should not have to fight a straight vertical up fight to get it.  Bring it back and put sufficient parameters on it in order to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to make sure that mistakes don't happen.  
And why is a public sense of "vengeance" so patently wrong?  The public deserves to have a system that makes them feel safe and protected.  If they are so incensed by a killing that they are upset by the death of a stranger, should not a remedy be a public punishment that reassures the citizenry that "if you blow it, you will pay".  I think people are getting pretty sick of the total lack of personal accountability they see all around them everywhere.  When people see a$$hats getting caught and put in jail, they are always stoked.  Why do you think there are so many police shows on TV and in the theatres?  People want to see bad guys getting jammed.  The public want a sense of fairness to be shown.  When you do bad, you get bad.  It doesn't have to get all complicated for them.  
Seriously, don't get hung up on the "ooh, gawd, what if an innocent is killed".  The GUILTY don't get convicted of half the shit they do.  An innocent person will very rarely even be charged, let along be convicted *these days* (lets not march out the old, boring Morin cases and the whatnot).  The law is so unbelievably in favor of the criminal that if someone was convicted of first degree murder (and all pipe dreams aside, that's the best we can hope for to have the DP applied) and qualified for the DP, the case would likely be a "caught on tape" slam dunk.  And don't underestimate the leftist adgenda's of our socialist judges who would probably never actually use it as sentencing.  I would even be happy if a life sentence was that, life.  As it stands, 80% of offenders that apply under the ironically named "faint hope clause" are granted parole.  Not very faint.  (Semi unrelated:  last I saw the list, the John Howard Society charity that busts it's ass getting murderers out of jail is supported with your United Way dollars).
Better to have the tool and not use it, than need the tool and not be able to get it.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

"I'm not arguing FOR correlation, I'm arguing against it. There's no demonstrable correlation between capital punishment and crime rates. The fact that the South has a higher crime rate is, I would wager, a function of its poverty levels (dont quote me on it) than its sentencing practices"

I would say that capital punishment garuntees no second offense.

Higher crime rates are not so much a function of poverty as much as a loss of cultural discipline.  My forebares - and probably yours too - survived The Great Depression in rural Canada.  They were emaciated, on relief, and suffering from protein deficiency that affected their education - yet they did not steal.

I doubt, with even the social safety nets that exist in North America today, people are as short of food as our predecessors were in The Dirty Thirties.  

So - what is there to steal for?   No excuse.

To


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Jan 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> *Although it would be useful to know exactly what this fellow had written and distributed:
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1405939/posts



Most of it is reproduced at this link, scroll about halfway down: http://www.saskhrt.ca/forms/index/Descisions/050205.htm

AFIC, they're all a bunch of kooks.


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "I'm not arguing FOR correlation, I'm arguing against it. There's no demonstrable correlation between capital punishment and crime rates. The fact that the South has a higher crime rate is, I would wager, a function of its poverty levels (dont quote me on it) than its sentencing practices"
> 
> I would say that capital punishment garuntees no second offense.
> 
> ...



Crime rates during the Great Depression did increase. 

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/history/1920/index_e.shtml


----------



## TCBF (12 Jan 2006)

Coincidental with Prohibition or Poverty?

Tom


----------



## TCBF (12 Jan 2006)

"Wait till the bear takes a dump, then turn it over to the family."

It is times like these - worn out from a multi-thread, multi-faceted, dogmatic, running argument with our learned colleague Glorified Ape - that I need to read a refreshing line like the one above.  Restores my faith in Canada, it does.



Tom


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Jan 2006)

Thanks!  Pragmatic solutions are what I'm all about.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (12 Jan 2006)

There is much talk about deterrence, and about cost effectiveness of capital punishment, and I will leave those discussions to others.  While I do not say that executing a serial rapist/murderer will deter others from committing a like crime, and I cannot say it will be cheaper than imprisoning him indefinitely as a dangerous offender, I can absolutely guaranty that this particular criminal will never hurt anyone again.  There is no early release, no escape, no appeal from the grave; and thus a zero chance to re-offend.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Jan 2006)

+1 mainerjohnthomas.
Its just that simple


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Dec 2007)

I realize this is an old thread.

While wasting my time here, I've been listening to the radio.

CBC has just reported that Mr. Pickton has been determined by the jury to be Guilty of six counts of second degree murder.


----------



## eurowing (9 Dec 2007)

I'll pull the trigger!


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Dec 2007)

eurowing said:
			
		

> I'll pull the trigger!



Get in line - BEHIND me.

That being said - we don't have capital punishment here, from what I'm hearing on the radio, he'll be sentenced to a minimum of ten years, a maximum of 25 - such is the justice system we have.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (9 Dec 2007)

Hanging for sure.
And public at that.Nothing says a good family outing like some hot cocoa,a beaver tail and a public hanging to finish off the day.

Plus watching someone hang for crime would forever be etched into a child's mind making him less likely to do it.


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Dec 2007)

Gallows please! Traditional and proven!

Seen a recent Pommy movie on based on the 'hangman' during the 30's- 50's I think, seen it in Baghdad around time of that 'other' hanging, ha!

Anyways, this bloke could get a guy from the gallows door to swinging in just 8 seconds!! 

Now thats a record, he also did some hanging of Nazi war crims too.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Dec 2007)

Ah, warm fuzzy dreams of State sanctioned killing.  Sadly, never to be.   :crybaby:
What I don't understand is why this clown isn't looking at a dangerous offender status, unless that is in the works and hasn't made the press (or I'm just inattentive  )


----------



## Greymatters (9 Dec 2007)

What is ridiculous is that he should ever be considered a 'responsible citizen' at some point in the future.  There are some crimes and circumstances that can be forgiven and persons rehabilitated.  This isnt one of them.  What, I should give this guy a job when he gets out?  Screw that!  And they wonder why the youth of today have no fear of breaking the law.  No punishment results in no incentive to obey the system in place.


----------



## TCBF (10 Dec 2007)

- So.....

... is it safe to start eating pork again?

 :-[


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Dec 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> ... is it safe to start eating pork again?



Sure!  With a nice side of soyalent green.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (10 Dec 2007)

Never trust a man that keeps pigs-Snatch ;D


----------



## KevinB (10 Dec 2007)

I think we need a good old throw back to the days of old where we could burn people at the stake


----------



## TCBF (10 Dec 2007)

- The guillotine: quick, painless, cheap, RELIABLE.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2007)

Whatever the means, it should be the half time show on Hockey Night in Canada. It's the only way people will get the maximum exposure to it and won't have to depend on the slanted reporting of our media. ;D


----------



## TCBF (10 Dec 2007)

- Don Cherry can do the play-by-play.

 ;D


----------



## tonykeene (10 Dec 2007)

Hi!

When I was young, and full of piss and vinegar, I was in favour of the death penalty.  I no longer am.  Here are just a few of the reasons:

Milgaard
Marshall
Morin
Mullins-Johnson

I'm sure there are more.  And although now science has given us ever-more precise ways of determining guilt, such as DNA testing, we must always remember Dr. Smith.  As long as people are ready to lie and fabricate evidence in order to achieve their idea of justice, we can never, ever be absolutely sure.

You can free an unjustly-convicted person; you can never bring them back from the grave.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Dec 2007)

Yeah, that might have been the case pre- and just post charter, but not now.  Guilty people don't get convicted for crimes all that often, so innocents don't need to be that concerned.  
As with anything, decisions would have to be made.  If the death penalty came back, it would likely only be used in the most cut and dry cases.  If there was ever any doubt, and a death penalty was sentenced, that would be grounds for endless appeals.  
tonykeene, can you give me any reason that Paul Bernardo or this gear box pig farmer should be allowed to live?


----------



## ZBM2 (10 Dec 2007)

Fix Bayonets!
They aint worth the price of a bullet!


----------



## Bane (10 Dec 2007)

I think one of the options should have been "In the name of Science" though I suppose you could slip that in with "Something more painful".


----------



## tonykeene (10 Dec 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Yeah, that might have been the case pre- and just post charter, but not now.  Guilty people don't get convicted for crimes all that often, so innocents don't need to be that concerned.
> As with anything, decisions would have to be made.  If the death penalty came back, it would likely only be used in the most cut and dry cases.  If there was ever any doubt, and a death penalty was sentenced, that would be grounds for endless appeals.
> tonykeene, can you give me any reason that Paul Bernardo or this gear box pig farmer should be allowed to live?


I can think of no reason.  Except one.

When I was working at a major news agency, at the height of the Guy-Paul Morin Case, I watched screaming crowds outside the court yelling:"Baby Killer!", and spitting at him.  The cops were sure, the Crown was sure, and the entire community was sure.  Most of the media were sure too.
There were strident pleas for a return to the death penalty.  MPs called for it just because of this case.

We know now that the cops were both incompetent and deceitful  They enticed a jailhouse informant to fabricate evidence.

He wasn't the guy.

Neither was David Milgaard.  Neither was Donald Marshall.  And now Mullins-Johnson, convicted on nothing less that the scientific evidence of a famed forensice pathologist.

We can't have a death penalty statute that says it is to be used "only when we are absolutely sure."  Because in each of these cases, we were absolutely sure.

And we were absolutely wrong.

As a journalist who has covered many trials over many years, I can tell you this:  Cops lie.  Cops tamper with evidence.  They entice jailhouse informants to lie.  They do this because they are absolutely sure they have "the guy."

Do I think those who kill policemen deserve to die?  I'm a cop's son.  I say yes.

Do I think those who rape and murder kids deserve to die?  I'm a parent.  I say yes.

BUT...the question still remains:  How many innocent people are we prepared to kill, in order to get the guilty ones?


----------



## TCBF (10 Dec 2007)

tonykeene said:
			
		

> ... BUT...the question still remains:  How many innocent people are we prepared to kill, in order to get the guilty ones?



- The innocent people killed by the state must be added to the innocent people killed by previously covicted criminals who are released.  That total is the price of liberty.  The goal is to tilt the death toll so that less innocents and more convicts are killed.  There is a death toll anyway, let's slant it in favour of society, rather than letting criminal sociopaths take a lifelong harvest of productive citizens.


----------



## Teflon (10 Dec 2007)

> As a journalist who has covered many trials over many years, I can tell you this:  *Cops lie.  Cops tamper with evidence.  They entice jailhouse informants to lie.  They do this because they are absolutely sure they have "the guy*."



As a journalist who by your own words "has covered many trials over many years" you might want to reread your post and examine the part I placed in bold. Because it would seem that you presume to speak about all cops, and even to speak about their motives.  Seems strange that you would make such a huge generalization.  Maybe pointing out that cops could lie etc instead of indicating that they do, Unless of course you DO believe ALL cops lie, tamper with evidence and entice their informants in which case I would like to ask you to kindly recycle all that tin foil when your done with your hat.


----------



## tonykeene (10 Dec 2007)

Teflon said:
			
		

> As a journalist who by your own words "has covered many trials over many years" you might want to reread your post and examine the part I placed in bold. Because it would seem that you presume to speak about all cops, and even to speak about their motives.  Seems strange that you would make such a huge generalization.  Maybe pointing out that cops could lie etc instead of indicating that they do, Unless of course you DO believe ALL cops lie, tamper with evidence and entice their informants in which case I would like to ask you to kindly recycle all that tin foil when your done with your hat.



Dear Teflon,

You are absolutely right, and as the son of a policeman and friend of many others, let me rephrase:  Some cops lie sometimes, especially when they are under great pressure from the Crown and the community.  This was, I believe, epsecially the case in the Guy-Paul morin case.
My hmble apologies to all the great, honet police officers out there.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Dec 2007)

I see tonykeene's point.  I don't necessarily agree with it - but I see it.  I don't _THINK_ he meant to malign all LEOs - but he can correct me if I'm wrong.  What I took away from his post was that LEOs, Drs, prosecutors, defence counsel, judges, juries, et al are HUMAN - and subject to the limitations of that particular species.

Where tonykeene and I part ways is in considering whether the possibility of executing an innocent man is acceptable.  I have wrestled with this one, and I believe given the science available today, coupled with fail safes built into the system (appeals process, etcetera), and given carefully thought out, coherent, death penalty legislation, then the risk is acceptable (to me).

What needs to be separated from the capital punishment debate is the concept of "corrections" - when we are contemplating execution, "corrections" has nothing to do with it - it's society exacting vengeance, as well as protecting itself from future acts of this individual.  I think the defence from future acts is the more defensible of these two motives - the recidivism rate for executed individuals being zero, after all.  Do I think society has a right to exact vengeance?  Yes - but I do acknowledge that it is a difficult position to defend.

Edited to add:  tonykeene posted his clarification as I was typing this.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Dec 2007)

Milgaard--Jan. 31, 1969 
Marshall--sentenced in 1971 
Morin-October 3, 1984
Mullins-Johnson-1993

Nothing more recent than 14 years ago?  Have you not seen what a donkey show the legal system has become in the last ten years?  Those first three were found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  But if you look at the cases, there are a whole heap of technicalities that came into play in getting them off.  Found not guilty is not the same thing as innocent.  It does look like Mullins-Johnson got screwed, but by the CFS, not the police.  



			
				tonykeene said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right, and as the son of a policeman and friend of many others, let me rephrase:  Some cops lie sometimes, especially when they are under great pressure from the Crown and the community.  This was, I believe, especially the case in the Guy-Paul morin case.
> My hmble apologies to all the great, honet police officers out there.



I find your invocation of police loyalty to ring hollow.  We don't get pressure from the Crowns or the community.  That's the kind of stuff you see on Law and Order.  No policeman wants the wrong guy to go to jail, because that means the actual killer is still out and about.  What, you think we play Wheel of Asshole, spin the board and just pick people to railroad?  And the Crowns don't even want to hear from us until we have a rock solid case.  They have enough on their plates without half-baked cases getting pushed forward.  As for the community, at least these days, most people get pissed if the news pre-empts Survivor: Campus Marshes, so that isn't really an issue either.  
However, I will believe that you are a reporter (or at least a journalism student).  God knows, most don't let facts get in the way of a good story.


----------



## Cliffy433 (10 Dec 2007)

I think all the reasonable arguments have been made... everybody has to have their turn crying for Milgaard.  The fact is, if the death penalty comes back - there is a risk of mistakes, and executing someone who is innocent.  A risk.  Could perhaps modern day forensics reduce that risk?  Just a little?

Of 4 examples - how many properly convicted felons in Canada have there been from the first one (1969) to now?  I'm guessing thousands - I'm willing to call that a lowball.  

How many of those were convicted of much lesser crimes than they are actually guilty of?  How many people have they hurt by selling them highly addictive agents?  Beating them?  Raping them?  Murdering them?  Keep in mind everyone they've permanently hooked on meth, coke, heroin, everyone they've disabled with violent crime - is now a social burden as well as an added strain on the family.  Multiple lives affected for one guilty verdict.  I'd be willing to wager 4 innocent lives, on thousands of convicts and their tens of thousands of victims.  It's harsh, but a fair trade.

How long from sentencing to cessation of vital signs does it take (on average) in comparable nations to Canada who still have the death penalty?  I bet we have time to ensure accuracy and completeness.  I'm pretty sure in the day and age of cellphones, there's gotta be a way, somehow, to quickly get a message to the warden in time to stop the event should new evidence come to light.  New rule - no executions on dark and scary nights... or when there's any risk of communication links being severed.

Back to the original poll... I chose "Some Other Way":

WHEEL OF DEATH!
List all the favourites - include a TINY wedge for "commuted to life sentence" - if luck is on their side...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Dec 2007)

Bang on, yammit.


----------



## marshall sl (10 Dec 2007)

Milgaard--Jan. 31, 1969 
Marshall--sentenced in 1971 
Morin-October 3, 1984
Mullins-Johnson-1993  Even if the Death penalty was in effect these men would not have been executed as they did not commit Capital  MURDER( Killing of Police Officer ,Prison Guard etc)


----------



## Bane (10 Dec 2007)

I don't agree with the death penalty at all. Captial trials are expensive and I'm not buying the 'we hardly ever make mistakes' hubris. 

But were it to come back, I'd throw in with the 'wheel of death' as long as it has 'death by science' on it.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Dec 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> I don't agree with the death penalty at all. Captial trials are expensive and I'm not buying the 'we hardly ever make mistakes' hubris.
> 
> But were it to come back, I'd throw in with the 'wheel of death' as long as it has 'death by science' on it.



And non-"captial" trials are cheap?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Dec 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> I don't agree with the death penalty at all. Captial trials are expensive and I'm not buying the 'we hardly ever make mistakes' hubris.



Another Nobel Prize submission from Bane.


----------



## Bane (10 Dec 2007)

From my limited understanding of how it works in the U.S. is that if a person is to be executed they must go through an additional process that is very time consuming and expensive.   

Thanks zipperhead, I like prizes.


----------



## Bane (10 Dec 2007)

"Death Penalty has Cost New Jersey Taxpayers $253 Million"
 Jersey Policy Perspectives report concluded that the state's death penalty has cost taxpayers $253 million since 1983, a figure that is over and above the costs that would have been incurred had the state utilized a sentence of life without parole instead of death. The study examined the costs of death penalty cases to prosecutor offices, public defender offices, courts, and correctional facilities. The report's authors said that the cost estimate is "very conservative" because other significant costs uniquely associated with the death penalty were not available. "From a strictly financial perspective, it is hard to reach a conclusion other than this: New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one," the report concluded. Since 1982, there have been 197 capital trials in New Jersey and 60 death sentences, of which 50 were reversed. There have been no executions, and 10 men are housed on the state's death row. Michael Murphy, former Morris County prosecutor, remarked: "If you were to ask me how $11 million a year could best protect the people of New Jersey, I would tell you by giving the law enforcement community more resources. I'm not interested in hypotheticals or abstractions, I want the tools for law enforcement to do their job, and $11 million can buy a lot of tools." (See Newsday, Nov. 21, 2005; also Press Release, New Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, Nov. 21, 2005). Read the Executive Summary. Read the full report. Read the NJADP Press Release.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Dec 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> "Death Penalty has Cost New Jersey Taxpayers $253 Million"
> Jersey Policy Perspectives report concluded that the state's death penalty has cost taxpayers $253 million since 1983, a figure that is over and above the costs that would have been incurred had the state utilized a sentence of life without parole instead of death. The study examined the costs of death penalty cases to prosecutor offices, public defender offices, courts, and correctional facilities. The report's authors said that the cost estimate is "very conservative" because other significant costs uniquely associated with the death penalty were not available. "From a strictly financial perspective, it is hard to reach a conclusion other than this: New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one," the report concluded. Since 1982, there have been 197 capital trials in New Jersey and 60 death sentences, of which 50 were reversed. There have been no executions, and 10 men are housed on the state's death row. Michael Murphy, former Morris County prosecutor, remarked: "If you were to ask me how $11 million a year could best protect the people of New Jersey, I would tell you by giving the law enforcement community more resources. I'm not interested in hypotheticals or abstractions, I want the tools for law enforcement to do their job, and $11 million can buy a lot of tools." (See Newsday, Nov. 21, 2005; also Press Release, New Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, Nov. 21, 2005). Read the Executive Summary. Read the full report. Read the NJADP Press Release.



That's extremely interesting.  Have you got a link for that?  I'd be interested to read more.

Roy


----------



## Bane (10 Dec 2007)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108


----------



## tonykeene (10 Dec 2007)

marshall sl said:
			
		

> Milgaard--Jan. 31, 1969
> Marshall--sentenced in 1971
> Morin-October 3, 1984
> Mullins-Johnson-1993  Even if the Death penalty was in effect these men would not have been executed as they did not commit Capital  MURDER( Killing of Police Officer ,Prison Guard etc)


I take your point.  However, the person I was replying to had cited the cases of Pickton, Bernardo et al.  They didn't kill police officers either.  They did however, commit what we now call First Degree Murder, or murder that is planned and pre-meditated.

My point is that even now, as we find more and more cases of this sick crusading pathologist coming under review, and men like Mullins-johnson just now finally being cleared, how many more are there, how many mnore will there be?  There are more than 20 of his cases under review.

And if we bring back the death penalty for cop-killing, and then execute the wrong man for killing a cop, what difference does it make?

Remember, in almost all of these cases everyone...cops, Crown, jury, the public and the media (Yeah, guys like me) believed that justice had been done and that they'd got the bastard.  And then, a few years later...

I'm quite prepared to pay my taxes and have these guys rot in prison for the rest of their lives.  Let's give more resources to the police and the courts, and let's make the law stick (ie no more automatic bail, parole etc without very strict criteria).

In the United States decades ago, white mobs who lynched negroes were absolutely convinced they had got the rapist, murderer etc.  I've seen footage of the mobs at those lynchings, and believe me, the sound and the look was no different from what was waiting for Guy Paul Morin when he made his court appearances.

Maybe some are prepared to execute a few innocent people in order to ensure that fewer guilty ones ever go free. (See above in this post)  But I'm not.  And that is just about all I have to say.

Thanks to everyone.  There has been a lot of really thoughtful comment here, and I appreciate your stimulating argument.

Good night.


----------



## Rayman (11 Dec 2007)

All I have to say is what about that guy who killed Holly Jones? Michael Briere or what not. Hes supposedly able to get parole in 25 years. Karla Hamolka? Isnt she a free woman today WHILE Paul Bernardo still rots behind bars? If they dont want to bring back capital punishment they need to at least give life sententances to these people and stick with them. No chance for parole. Lots of people may claim the death penalty is harsh, savage, and out dated. Though im sure those SAME people will agree that s***heads who do these severe offences should just be locked up and the key lost down a floor drain. Not allowed back out sometime later.


----------



## Roy Harding (11 Dec 2007)

Rayman said:
			
		

> All I have to say is what about that guy who killed Holly Jones? Michael Briere or what not. Hes supposedly able to get parole in 25 years. Karla Hamolka? Isnt she a free woman today WHILE Paul Bernardo still rots behind bars? If they dont want to bring back capital punishment they need to at least give life sententances to these people and stick with them. No chance for parole. Lots of people may claim the death penalty is harsh, savage, and out dated. Though im sure those SAME people will agree that s***heads who do these severe offences should just be locked up and the key lost down a floor drain. Not allowed back out sometime later.



Karla Holmolka cut a deal - perhaps a bad deal (from the point of view of the public) - but nevertheless, a deal (which, despite my personal misgivings, I think the government needs to honour).  

Paul remains in custody.  What the eventual disposition of his case may be is pure speculation.

As a proponent for the death penalty - I find your self inclusion on my side of the debate disturbing.  

We aren't talking about lunatic reaction here.  The ill-informed, fanatical lynchings you appear to support aren't welcomed by me - we're discussing the extremely (perhaps ultimately)  serious subject of a state abrogating to itself the right to take the life of one of its' citizens - hardly a subject for uninformed rhetoric.


----------



## Roy Harding (11 Dec 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108



I meant to express my thanks for this link earlier - but failed to do so.

Thank you for a most interesting link - I'm still reading.

More to follow.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Dec 2007)

tonykeene said:
			
		

> I'm quite prepared to pay my taxes and have these guys rot in prison for the rest of their lives.  Let's give more resources to the police and the courts, and let's make the law stick (ie no more automatic bail, parole etc without very strict criteria).



Yeah, that's great to say, but you know that won't happen.  A life sentence isn't life.  Hell, it is rarely even 25 years anymore.  
You want to burn tax dollars?  How about double the number of jails in Canada?  That might be a good expense.  



			
				tonykeene said:
			
		

> In the United States decades ago, white mobs who lynched negroes were absolutely convinced they had got the rapist, murderer etc.  I've seen footage of the mobs at those lynchings, and believe me, the sound and the look was no different from what was waiting for Guy Paul Morin when he made his court appearances.



You are a journalist, and you still use that word?  A PAFFO no less?


----------



## Rayman (11 Dec 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Karla Holmolka cut a deal - perhaps a bad deal (from the point of view of the public) - but nevertheless, a deal (which, despite my personal misgivings, I think the government needs to honour).
> 
> Paul remains in custody.  What the eventual disposition of his case may be is pure speculation.
> 
> ...



First of all I dont support the death penalty. Secondly the point im stating is that its ridiculous that they allow parole and such to some of these people who are serving a life sentance, or should be. I DO BELIEVE that when they hand down a sentance of life that it be for the said term. Either way, im sure there is one thing that YOU and I can BOTH agree on is that if someone commits a serious offence that warrants either the death penalty or life sentancing that whoever it is should not be allowed years later (be they the guilty party) to have a chance to go back into society. Since not all people are for the death penalty, and it may very well be decided that it may not be re-instated, that at least life sentancing should not carry the option of parole at a later date.


----------



## Greymatters (11 Dec 2007)

I find it appaling that the only good argument as to whether the death sentence is right or not is based on 'cost', but if thats how some want to compare it, fine.  Then consider this:

The anti-death sentence proponents are very quick to bring up how much a death sentence review (and a poorly run one at that) costs taxpayers.  It only shows how the system is being milked for what should be a simple process.  But the same people fail to compare this cost against how much it costs to house, feed, and provide entertainment, medical services, and other support for the same inmate over a 25 year period.  $475,000 is bloody cheap compared to the caretaking costs which goes into the millions.  If you want to argue cost, its cheaper to execute than maintain indefinately. 

Next argument please...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Dec 2007)

Rayman said:
			
		

> Since not all people are for the death penalty, and it may very well be decided that it may not be re-instated, that at least life sentancing should not carry the option of parole at a later date.



That would require that someone admit that the concept of rehabilitation is a joke.  It isn't very hard to spot people who have a chance at changing vs. gearboxes that are career criminals/too dangerous to be allowed out without an explosive radio collar.


----------



## Bane (11 Dec 2007)

Greymatters,
       Cost is not the only argument, but it is one of them.  Inmates are typically only executed after a large number of years, in a sense the system pays for 'both' methods if capital punishment is to be used. Of course this delay time I would imagine would differ between jurisdictions.  Because of the nature of the punishment a different process for appeals is typical (more rigorous, in some cases mandatory) and a minimum elapsed time between sentencing and execution is, from what I know, common.  From the small amount that I have read about this, in the U.S. capital punishment is on par more expensive than straight incarceration.  I don't claim exhaustive knowledge on this matter and I'm sure it's different for different jurisdictions.  
          Making the cost argument is relatively easy to argue compared to getting at the fundamental moral issues. Which, as you alluded to, is of vastly greater importance.  But don't assume that because a person states an argument against capital punishment on the grounds of cost that they don't have more to their argument.  Writing a specific, detailed and persuasive piece on the moral arguments of capital punishment is time consuming.  Made all the more difficult in that most of us are not experts on this topic, thus we are all learning as we go, and the 'internet forum' is a place that it is sometimes challenging to get complex ideas across effectively.  I also have not heard many persuasive arguments on why capital punishment is required, it certainly has little affect as a deterrent.


----------



## tank recce (11 Dec 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> You are a journalist, and you still use that word?  A PAFFO no less?



Without peering into tonykeene's head, I suggest he may well have been using the mob's own term - they weren't lynching Afro-Americans, they were lynching negroes. They may have slurred the pronunciation a bit.

That said, is 'Negro' considered a loaded word, not for use in polite society? "Nigger" obviously is, despite it's continued use for shock value in the sub-culture most affected by the continued use of the term. If 'Negro' is, what about 'Caucasian'? If one, why not the other? (getting just a little off topic)


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Dec 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> it certainly has little affect as a deterrent.



Executed criminals have an extremely low recidivism rate.  

How about, simply put by the venerable Wilfred Brimley, "it's the right thing to do"?  Cost is not even a legitmate argument.  This is _Canada_.  We _live_ to waste money on useless things.  
And for that matter, why are we obliged to imitate the convoluted system the United States has?  Seems Japan has a pretty decent system, lots of time wasting appeals and such.  We could massage the actual execution procedure a bit to make the mushies feel better, but once the criminal's death warrant is signed, they require it to be acted on within six months. 



			
				tank recce said:
			
		

> (getting just a little off topic)



Very off topic.  I'm not going to start the dogpile.


----------



## Bane (11 Dec 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Executed criminals have an extremely low recidivism rate.


True, but it does not effectively deter others. 



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Cost is not even a legitmate argument.  This is _Canada
> _


_
I think cost is a legitimate argument, but it is of lower importance. You and Greymatters I think are correct in pointing this out. At issue are far more weighty moral arguments



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		


			How about, simply put by the venerable Wilfred Brimley, "it's the right thing to do"?  
		
Click to expand...

That is not a weighty moral argument.


Edited for grammer. _


----------



## Bane (11 Dec 2007)

I'm not trying to exclude myself from my own critsism here; if I could quickly and easily define justice (This 'rightness' the Mr. Brimley mentions) and then using that definition of the 'just', lay out exactly how execution is damaging to society and how _not _ executing a person is in itself just, even if they are a monster, I would.  But it's not easy to argue one way or the other without resorting to this simple notion of natural 'rightness'.  I must admit that that argument is appealing in ways, and can equally be used to back either side, but it is not persuasive nor sufficient if it is to become state policy in my opinion.  I don't have any great answers myself at the moment.


----------



## Rayman (11 Dec 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> That would require that someone admit that the concept of rehabilitation is a joke.  It isn't very hard to spot people who have a chance at changing vs. gearboxes that are career criminals/too dangerous to be allowed out without an explosive radio collar.



I can agree with that totally zipperhead except for one thing. If someones commited a crime that warrants say a life or a rather lengthy prison sentance, should they even be given the chance at rehabilitation?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Dec 2007)

"Deterrence" is a paper tiger.  Nothing deters criminals.  You either want to commit crime, or you don't.  There is nothing in law that creates any real consequence for any crime, therefore there is really no reason to not be a criminal.  For regular folks, they would not want to spend time in jail, and therefore think it is a bad thing.  For the criminals, who have learned from the first second they step foot into a detention facility, it is a big game.  They generally could care less about being in jail, unless it is cutting into their crack-time.  Committing crime is like playing hockey.  You eventually end up doing some time in the penalty box, but you'll be back in the game soon enough.  
Bane, I imagine you are hung up on the idea that "human life is precious".  I don't happen to have that hang up.  IMO human life is a privilege, which should be reassessed in terms of "what have you done for anyone lately" and if things were proper, that status could be up for termination if one fails to meet a standard.  Being a useless, drug addled, society-draining cancer IMO most certainly qualifies one for elimination.  Being a child molester?  That's easy.  Night night.  Kill any innocent (not just police) in order to facilitate the crime you are committing?  Dirt nap time.  
I would love to hear why we should retain these clods within society.  And I don't want to hear "rehabilitation" because everyone who is in the system knows that doesn't work.  



			
				Rayman said:
			
		

> I can agree with that totally zipperhead except for one thing. If someones commited a crime that warrants say a life or a rather lengthy prison sentance, should they even be given the chance at rehabilitation?



No.  I have seen countless criminals brag and laugh about the counselling and "personal development" initiatives they have undertaken in order to dazzle some judge or parole member.  It's all b*llshit.  
Here's a thought.  You got to jail, you do hard, phyically brutal labour on pain of corporal punishment.  Criminals tend to be lazy, so this would be hell for them.  If working at a real job is easier than going to jail, lo and behold you might just see some of them make the easier choice.  But I could just imagine the squall that would come out of the left:
_"Oh, but that is so icky and brutal!  That would be a police state!  Bono would give us a poo poo look and we wouldn't appear in the top ten of the UN cool places to live list, eewwww gad, I don't want people to not like me"_


----------



## Bane (11 Dec 2007)

That's a really good clear argument zipperhead.  I'm surpised more people don't agree with you. Your arguments are so persuasive, and loud. And your barely veiled personal attacks really win me over. 

I happen to know a Doctor very well that counsils inmates in Kingston. She has quite a balanced and realistic opinion of the benifits and limits of rehab. So much for speaking for everyone in the system.  And we're not talking about rehab, we're talking about captial punishment.  No mention of 'appropriate length of internment' is needed.  

You don't think life is precious? Thats really sad.  I suspect you really do (solider and a cop) but are saying that to seem tougher.


----------



## Rayman (11 Dec 2007)

To me his last post sounds like hes saying that some of these people who do nothing but milk the system and are nothing but trouble should be walked off the ramp...without a chute none the less. Though this thinning of the herd would probably cause a lot less problems in society though there are people who will object saying this is useless slaughter or some sort of Holocaust. As well people wouldnt care to see that it isnt like Hitlers killing of citizens and individuals upstanding or not because they belonged to an ethnic group or had a different sexual orientation. They would see one thing and one thing only-killing.

Which is what leads me to my point that while a death penalty in my opinion is barbaric, they should just put them away for life. Yes it does drain tax dollars out of me every pay cheque. That wont stop tomorow and the day after doesnt look good either. Instead of sinking money into someone sitting in a chair and asking them repeatedly "And how does that make you feel inside?" they should simply say "Listen pal, you blew it plain and simple. No chance for parole and no chance to ever leave these walls again." Have them sit there and live with that the rest of their lives. How they screwed up. They'll regret it sooner or later, hate being alive, and wish for death. If they want to end their lives sooner or later they may find a way or may not. Like the saying goes "Even hell is too good." Death is the easy way out. Theyve done whatever they have done and realize its the end of the line and death may be the only good thing to happen to them in the near future. Instead let them rot and suffer never to resurface again.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Dec 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> That's a really good clear argument zipperhead.  I'm surpised more people don't agree with you. Your arguments are so persuasive, and loud. And your barely veiled personal attacks really win me over.



You're feeling attacked?  Trust me, I don't veil anything.  



			
				Bane said:
			
		

> I happen to know a Doctor very well that counsils inmates in Kingston. She has quite a balanced and realistic opinion of the benifits and limits of rehab. So much for speaking for everyone in the system.  And we're not talking about rehab, we're talking about captial punishment.  No mention of 'appropriate length of internment' is needed.



Rayman asked the question on rehabilitation.  I don't presume to speak for everyone in the system, but my access to players in the system is significant.  You are relying on the information of one social worker?  



			
				Bane said:
			
		

> You don't think life is precious? Thats really sad.  I suspect you really do (solider and a cop) but are saying that to seem tougher.



EAD.  I didn't say all life.  I said that at such time as you demonstrate that you are abusing your place on this rock, you should be eliminated from it.  I don't think that is tough, just pragmatic.  
Sorry if I made you have a sad feeling.  (((((((HUGS)))))))


----------



## Roy Harding (11 Dec 2007)

ALL:

Let's keep this civil - there's no need for personal attacks or insinuations.

This is a touchy and emotional subject at best - opinions regarding the subject are welcome, opinions regarding other posters are not.

I'm finding this an interesting discussion - I'd hate to see it spiral.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Flip (11 Dec 2007)

Personally, I am one who is against the death penalty,

Except in the case of terrorism or insurrection.

My objection is primarily moral.  The practical reasons are obvious.
They do sentence the wrong guys sometimes and capital punishment is 
pretty much a one way street. 

If the convict were to be isolated from society for life 
there is little practical need to kill him.  That's the point isn't it?
Take the bad guy out of society. Beyond that, nothing is really gained.

When that Canadian confessed to murder in Texas a couple of years ago -
only to be executed anyway.  Why would anyone confess again - ever?

Why would a violent criminal potentially facing a death penalty ever 
surrender peacefully?  Why escalate the violence for no practical purpose?

Don't get me wrong - I'm as frustrated as anyone here with the daycare
no sentence system we have, but I don't think the death penalty solves the 
problem.

Yup, If Robert Pickton were to cross the street in front of me I could imagine
my brakes failing and leaving a large dent in my Ford Tempo.......but NOT my Buick though  


I get the feeling that business needs to be finished
Doesn't make it right.
Doesn't make it smart either.


----------



## observor 69 (11 Dec 2007)

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/24/usdom13241.htm

U.S.: States Negligent in Use of Lethal Injections 
Execution Method May Cause Agonizing Death
(New York, April 24, 2006) – Incompetence, negligence, and irresponsibility by U.S. states put condemned prisoners at needless risk of excruciating pain during lethal injection executions, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Lethal injections are used in 37 of the 38 death penalty states in the United States and by the federal government. Every execution in 2005 was by lethal injection.

 The 65-page report, “So Long as They Die: Lethal Injections in the United States,” reveals the slipshod history of executions by lethal injection, using a protocol created three decades ago with no scientific research, nor modern adaptation, and still unchanged today. As the prisoner lies strapped to a gurney, a series of three drugs is injected into his vein by executioners hidden behind a wall. A massive dose of sodium thiopental, an anesthetic, is injected first, followed by pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes voluntary muscles, but leaves the prisoner fully conscious and able to experience pain. A third drug, potassium chloride, quickly causes cardiac arrest, but the drug is so painful that veterinarian guidelines prohibit its use unless a veterinarian first ensures that the pet to be put down is deeply unconscious. No such precaution is taken for prisoners being executed.
The U.S. takes more care killing dogs than people,” said Jamie Fellner, U.S. program director at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report. “Just because a prisoner may have killed without care or conscience does not mean that the state should follow suit.”  

Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all circumstances and calls for its abolition. But until the 38 death penalty states and the federal government abolish capital punishment, international human rights law requires them to ensure they have developed a method of execution that will reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the condemned prisoner’s risk of mental or physical pain and suffering.  

Human Rights Watch urges that states suspend execution by lethal injection until they have conducted a thorough review and assessment of existing and alternative methods.  

The drug sequence used in the United States was developed in 1977 by a medical examiner in Oklahoma who had no expertise in pharmacology or anesthesia. Texas quickly adopted Oklahoma’s protocol, and at least 34 other states then did too. (Nevada’s protocol remains secret). Human Right Watch found that none of the states consulted medical experts to ascertain whether the original three-drug sequence could be adapted to lessen the risk of pain to the prisoner by using other drugs or methods of administering them.  

“Copycatting is not the right way to decide how to put people to death,” said Fellner. “If a state is going to execute someone, it must do its homework, consult with experts, and select a method designed to inflict the least possible pain and suffering.”  

Without adequate or properly-administered anesthesia, prisoners executed by the three-drug sequence would be conscious during suffocation caused by the paralytic agent, and would feel the fiery pain from the potassium chloride coursing through their veins. Logs from recent executions in California, and toxicology reports from recent executions in North Carolina, suggest prisoners may in fact have been inadequately anesthetized before being put to death.  

Corrections agencies have rejected the option of executing prisoners with a single massive injection of a barbiturate, even though that should provide a painless death, because such a method would force executioners and witnesses to wait about 30 minutes longer for the prisoner’s heart to stop beating. Corrections officials have also resisted eliminating the pancuronium bromide – the paralytic agent – even though its use makes it much harder to tell if a prisoner is sufficiently anesthetized. The drug is not needed to kill the prisoner, nor does it protect him from pain: it appears intended mainly to keep his body from twitching or convulsing while dying. It also masks any pain the prisoner might be feeling, since he cannot move, cry out, or even blink his eyes.  

“Prison officials have been more concerned about sparing the sensitivities of executioners and witnesses than protecting the condemned prisoner from pain,” said Fellner. “They are more concerned with appearances than with the reality.”  

Although prisoners have for years brought legal claims that lethal injections were unconstitutionally cruel, courts have until recently given short shrift to their arguments. Troubled by new and powerful evidence of possibly botched executions, federal courts in California and North Carolina have this year refused to permit scheduled executions to take place using the standard lethal injection protocol. On April 26, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about the procedures a prisoner must follow to challenge lethal injections.  

Until recent years, the United States was the only country in the world that used lethal injection as an execution method. Several other countries that have not yet abolished the death penalty have followed: China started using lethal injection in 1997; Guatemala executed its first prisoner by lethal injection in 1998; and the Philippines and Thailand have had lethal injection execution laws in place since 2001 (although to date, they have not executed anyone by this method).


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Dec 2007)

Then I guess Madame Guillotine is the way to go then?


----------



## GAP (11 Dec 2007)

We could give them a sympathy card before we inject....


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Dec 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> international human rights law requires them to ensure they have developed a method of execution that will reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the condemned prisoner’s risk of mental or physical pain and suffering.



And I'm sure the condemned prisoner thought of the mental or physical pain and suffering of his/her victim(s).


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Dec 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And I'm sure the condemned prisoner thought of the mental or physical pain and suffering of his/her victim(s).



Stand by for obligatory pious "we have to be at a higher standard" response.  That is part of the problem.  The rule makers are arrogant and feel they have a superior position to look down from.  The system needs to lower itself to the criminals level, so that they are being dealt with in terms they understand.  All of the idiotic huggy-feely crap is interpreted as weakness to exploit.  Bad guys understand ridged, unwavering rules that are actually enforced.  Hell, they enforce their own codes of conduct in jail better than the legal system manages them on the outside.


----------



## Danjanou (11 Dec 2007)

Well I have to side with ZC. 

Some but not all of the persons who end up in our so called criminal justice/correctional system are just not capable of any rehabilitation/reform. They know how to play the game and what to say to the new aged touchy feeling brigade that we’ve allowed to run most aspects of our society including education, healthcare, our social safety net and the legal and corrections system. For them the only answer is good old fashioned punishment. No cable TV, no free University degrees, no conjugal visits, et cetera but  instead hard manual labour and basic food/shelter for a long long time. That good ole boy Sheriff down in Arizona or New Mexico or DB may be a route to look at.

Make jail or prison a place no wants to go to once, let alone back to. It by itself will not solve the present mess this country has allowed itself to collapse into but it is an important aspect of.  When we agree to have the big friggin stick in place then we can begin to look at the carrot, some of the root social causes such as poverty and solve them. When the ship is sinking you plug the hole first then start bailing otherwise you’re just going to sink to the bottom.

BTW when we get around to solving these root causes ( education, poveerty etc) we need to do so in the same practical manner not more touchy feely PC crap as is the case now. 

To get back to the topic, sometimes punishment means the death penalty and I would support its return in carefully well thought circumstances. Acts of Treason, Killing of a LEO, Killing, abusing a child, certain other aspects of First Degree Murder, Pickton, Bernardo, and Olsen all come to mind.

Before someone brings up Morin, Marshall and Milgaard yeah the system screwed up there. There would have to be certain checks and balances in place. Confessions, overwhelming evidence, indisputable DNA etc before this punishment could be added in any case and there is still a chance, albeit a slim one, we may screw up. That however may be the price society has to pay.

Like ZC and several others my opinions were not formed in ivory tower, but dealing with this on daily basis.


----------



## Flip (11 Dec 2007)

Danjanou,

In nearly every respect I agree with you and ZC.

I would concede most every point made.

The exception, Death penalty.

We can accomplish, as a society, everything we need to without it.
The benefits of a death penalty beyond other measures are few.
The perils , many.

There has in the past been political and individual abuse
of justice systems and there will be again.

Perhaps Paul Bernardo has a value as a live specimen.
I dunno,
Maybe Pickton will write a book.
I don't think either will ever be a danger to anyone again.

What's the point in going down that road?
We can't come back.


----------



## observor 69 (11 Dec 2007)

http://tinyurl.com/385k54

Dr. Charles Smith Says He's Sorry
Nov, 12 2007 - 5:20 PM


TORONTO/AM640 TORONTO - A disgraced pathologist isn't expected to testify at an inquiry until January, but he dropped a bombshell through his lawyer at the start of the hearings today.
Dr. Charles Smith, once a star pediatric forensic pathologist, has been largely unheard from since some of his findings were called into question.

In more than a dozen child deaths, Smith's opinions led to criminal proceedings or convictions, some of which have since been thrown out.

At the start of the inquiry today, Smith's lawyer read a statement saying Smith truly to sorry to all those who may have been affected by his errors.


The point of this posting is that even faith in authority figures can sometimes go wrong. 
The earlier info is to note the difficulty states are having in getting chemical execution right. My understanding is a great many states have suspended executions until they can be sure they have a working system.

None of this means I oppose execution but rather to demonstrate the difficulty in getting it right.


----------



## Danjanou (11 Dec 2007)

Sorry bud, the only value I see Bernardo having is as a target puller in the buts on the 81mm Mortar range.

Pickton writing a book, well fortunately we now have law in place that state that any financial gain from such an enterprise must go to the families of the victims. Although one wonders if any cash would compensate them for their loss especially if the price was having to read in lurid details of their loved ones demise.

Naah the pig farmer can be handcuffed to pretty boy Paul on the assigned duties I outlined in the first sentence. Good ole Clifford can join them, many hands make light work and all that.

Trust me I’m a peaceful man, a pacifist, and for the most part non violent. I was that way during my time in uniform too. I saw no contradiction then BTW. I trained as as soldier to take life and later trained others to do so as part to the job. For a just society to exist there must be rough men guarding the walls and sometimes needed to commit quick and controlled violence on behalf of the society as retribution. I had no qualms being one of them.  

Same applies now. I also believe that the rights of society  are forfeited by those who willingly choose to step outside the rules of that society.


----------



## Bane (11 Dec 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Danjanou,
> In nearly every respect I agree with you and ZC.
> I would concede most every point made.
> The exception, Death penalty.



I would agree that also Flip and with your early comment that once taken out of society, what's the point of going further. Just lock them up and 'have a nice day'. They are already out of the playground.  The justice system is a human system and therefore suject to error.  There is therefore a likely hood that at some point an innocent person will be killed.  Why bother taking that chance.


----------



## Danjanou (11 Dec 2007)

Ok fine we just lock them up for a long time. 

Life means life though and our new improved penal system is modeled after this guys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

But because I’m such a sensitive guy. Some inmates like  those I’ve referred to above are handed a razor blade and a body bag instead of cookies and milk before being sent for nap time in solitary.  >

Happy now?


----------



## Bane (11 Dec 2007)

This should be in army.ca's catologe of quotations. 
"It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths." - to inmates complaining of the heat in 'tent city'
I liked the pink underware bit too.


----------



## Flip (11 Dec 2007)

> Sorry bud, the only value I see Bernardo having is as a target puller in the buts on the 81mm Mortar range.
> 
> Pickton writing a book, well fortunately we now have law in place that state that any financial gain from such an enterprise must go to the families of the victims. Although one wonders if any cash would compensate them for their loss especially if the price was having to read in lurid details of their loved ones demise.



Sorry about that - I didn't think it through.

Ok - Maybe Pickton donates a kidney or participates in a pathology study.
Bernardo can entertain the other inmates.  >

Again - I agree with and understand everything else.



> Sorry bud, the only value I see Bernardo having is as a target puller in the buts on the 81mm Mortar range.


This comment brings up a weird hypothetical question though..........
How long could he last in this new "employment"?

You know.....before getting fired..... ;D



BTW - I just heard Pickton's sentence.
No chance of parole for 25 is not enough.
I would get rid of that "faint hope" rule.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Dec 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> I happen to know a Doctor very well that counsils inmates in Kingston. She has quite a balanced and realistic opinion of the benifits and limits of rehab. So much for speaking for everyone in the system.  And we're not talking about rehab, we're talking about captial punishment.



Well, of course she does, its called keeping your job.......................................think you will ever hear me say we should have Brinks security do prison guarding?



			
				Bane said:
			
		

> You don't think life is precious? Thats really sad.  I suspect you really do (solider and a cop) but are saying that to seem tougher.



Life is extremly precious.................and thats why he thinks like that.[as do I}


----------



## Danjanou (12 Dec 2007)

Welcome back Bruce.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Dec 2007)

Like it says in my subscriber bar.....[ what? some of you users haven't subscribed yet??}, _is baaaaaack, and refreshed_.

Thanks, my friend.


----------



## Bane (12 Dec 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well, of course she does, its called keeping your job.......................................think you will ever hear me say we should have Brinks security do prison guarding?


I'm not sure someone I’ve known for 25+ years is simply pimping job security to me.  You could say that kind of thing about anyone in any job.  Regardless, ZC stated that 'everyone' in the system knows that rehab doesn't work.  From my little experience that isn't true.  Despite the fact that I know very little about ZC, I know he has much much more experience than me in dealing with the criminal justice system than I do and he is probably very correct in some of the critiques that he has made. 



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Life is extremely precious.................and that’s why he thinks like that.[as do I}



This was stated and assumed to be some sort of 'hang up' of mine in a pejorative way with little quotes and all, that is why I commented on it.  You'll certainly get little argument from me on this point. 


And now back to regularly scheduled programming....
In the course of reading, I came across this interesting page.

It is a "Pro Capital Punishment" http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
There is some good stuff on it, haven't had a chance to get throught the whole thing yet.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Dec 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> I'm not sure someone I've known for 25+ years is simply pimping job security to me.  You could say that kind of thing about anyone in any job.  Regardless, ZC stated that 'everyone' in the system knows that rehab doesn't work.  From my little experience that isn't true.  Despite the fact that I know very little about ZC, I know he has much much more experience than me in dealing with the criminal justice system than I do and he is probably very correct in some of the critiques that he has made.



Here is the typical unfortunate sequence of events:

1.  Criminal commits crimes, gets little or no sentence because "it's the first time/first theft/first violent crime"

2.  Subsequent sentencing excuses can't really include "it was a one time thing/wrong place/time" so now it is time to play the "I grew up ghetto/my daddy didn't hug me/weird uncle Larry hugged me _WAY_ too much" I-need-help card.  Said criminal has lots of interaction with his useless cohorts, and learns what he needs to say to get the proper sympathy from the counsellor.  Doubtless, they can draw from real life examples.  
Counsellor goes "awwww, you just need to process some grief.  I can help with that" and mandatory counselling is ordered.  Criminal goes through the motions.

3.  Having played the "I'm broken" card a bit too often, now said criminal is being looked at as being too screwed in the head to be allowed out of the penalty box.  Ooops.  Time to start talking to the Drug Unit guys and working on plea bargins.  Meanwhile, criminal doesn't go back to counselling, and counsellor is left with a feeling of accomplishment.  

Criminals are cunning.  They do whatever they can to weasel out of responsibility and accountability.  What they don't like is discomfort and discipline.  Bring those back to the penal system (along with the doubling of detention facilities for a start) and maybe we will see some progress.  Currently, all jail offers is boredom, inconvenience and more-expensive-than-normal drugs that smell like ass.


----------



## GAP (12 Dec 2007)

Picton's defense even used "He's a first time offender" routine.....


----------



## Bane (12 Dec 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Here is the typical unfortunate sequence of events:
> 
> 1.  Criminal commits crimes, gets little or no sentence because "it's the first time/first theft/first violent crime"
> 
> ...



    I must sadly admit that my family has had contact, though not ruinous, with an individual who is now a 'serious offender'. I knew this individual well in my teenage years, they being a little older and while I never had particular dealings with them I was able to witness their progression through the system from a very close vantage.  This person in question is *fully* incompatible with civilized society and I had actually not thought of it for a long time, quite gladly, it until your last post.  It very much describes how this person slithered their way through the system with what I must admit was sheer amusement on their part at times.  One of my siblings aided the crown in their application for 'dangerous offender' status, but the lesser status was the result.  I won't describe their actions for obvious reasons but their actions, at the worst, amounted to deliberate and creativite violence.  Done by a person with a flare for the craft, if you will. 
    I still don't think this person should be executed, though I think my thoughts on this may be a bit more serious now I admit.  Do I personally think that this person is reformable or redeemable nope(Thankfully, may mental health profesionals agree with me )  Do I think that this person should spend the rest of their days turning rocks into sand or perhaps, in a grand Soviet inspired scheme, help to build a tunnel under Canada from coast to coast to coast, right ******* on.  

Thanks for reminding me btw, good for perspective.


----------



## Roy Harding (12 Dec 2007)

> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.
> 
> epiphany
> 
> ...



Bane:  Welcome to yours.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (13 Dec 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> Thanks for reminding me btw, good for perspective.



No worries.  Now ride the euphoria and go kill a hobo.  

 ;D


----------



## Bane (13 Dec 2007)

:cheers:


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Dec 2007)

Why do people think that Lethal Injection is the preferred method?  Hanging is a tried, tested and true method.  It's also an art form to make the noose, no?

But if you want to cause excruciating pain and suffering, then crucify them: sometimes it took days for people to die of crucifixion.


----------



## eurowing (13 Dec 2007)

My all time favorite punishment comes from England.  Warwick Castle actually, although it was likely found in other spots.  In the bottom of the dungeon there was a pit it which all the sewage flowed.  No direct light could shine in it. The design was such that the prisoner could not stretch out at all.  Sit or kneel.  There you stayed and festered.

Second favorite was the Iron Maiden.  If your crime was merely bad, you hung and rotted.  If you were really despised, they fed you and you lived while the iron cut into your body.

For some people, I have no problem with this.


----------



## TCBF (13 Dec 2007)

I still say: The Guillotine.


----------



## bily052 (13 Dec 2007)

I'm of the opinion of the crime that was committed is to be reciprocated onto the death sentence.  You cut a throat, get yours done.  Slowly torture someone, same same.....  Back to the basics, Do on to others etc...

just my 2 cents


----------



## COBRA-6 (13 Dec 2007)

wood chipper


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (13 Dec 2007)

Death by Powerpoint.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Dec 2007)

> Death by Powerpoint.



Now, that is just barbaric...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (14 Dec 2007)

AES Op - Jr said:
			
		

> Back to the basics, Do on to others etc...



Umm, technically the phrase is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  Jesus wasn't renowned for his old school revenge ethic.  Probably not applicable here.  I think you were looking for "an eye for an eye" or something to that effect?   ^-^


----------



## Flip (14 Dec 2007)

I think AES-Op wants to go all "Old Testement" on someone. ;D


----------



## observor 69 (15 Dec 2007)

More food for thought on this topic from the New York Times: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15sat1.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print


 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 15, 2007
Editorial
A Long Time Coming 
It took 31 years, but the moral bankruptcy, social imbalance, legal impracticality and ultimate futility of the death penalty has finally penetrated the consciences of lawmakers in one of the 37 states that arrogates to itself the right to execute human beings.

This week, the New Jersey Assembly and Senate passed a law abolishing the death penalty, and Gov. Jon Corzine, a staunch opponent of execution, promised to sign the measure very soon. That will make New Jersey the first state to strike the death penalty from its books since the Supreme Court set guidelines for the nation’s system of capital punishment three decades ago.

Some lawmakers voted out of principled opposition to the death penalty. Others felt that having the law on the books without enforcing it (New Jersey has had a moratorium on executions since 2006) made a mockery of their argument that it has deterrent value. Whatever the motivation of individual legislators, by forsaking a barbaric practice that grievously hurts the global reputation of the United States without advancing public safety, New Jersey has set a worthy example for the federal government, and for other states that have yet to abandon the creaky, error-prone machinery of death.

New Jersey’s decision to replace the death penalty with a sentence of life without parole seems all the wiser coming in the middle of a month that has already seen the convictions of two people formerly on death row in other states repudiated. In one case, the defendant was found not guilty following a new trial.

The momentum to repeal capital punishment has been building in New Jersey since January, when a 13-member legislative commission recommended its abolition. The panel, which included two prosecutors, a police chief, members of the clergy and a man whose daughter was murdered in 2000, cited serious concerns about the imperfect nature of the justice system and the chance of making an irreversible mistake. The commission also concluded, quite correctly, that capital punishment is both a poor deterrent and “inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.”

By clinging to the death penalty, states keep themselves in the company of countries like Iran, North Korea and China — a disreputable pantheon of human mistreatment. Small wonder the gyrations of New Jersey’s Legislature have been watched intently by human rights activists around the world.

Spurred in large part by the large and growing body of DNA-based exonerations, there is increasing national unease about the death penalty. The Supreme Court is poised to consider whether lethal injections that torture prisoners in the process of killing them amount to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, an exercise bound to put fresh focus on some of the ugly details of implementing capital punishment.

In a sense, the practical impact of New Jersey’s action may be largely symbolic. Although there are eight people on New Jersey’s death row, the moratorium was in place, and the state has not put anyone to death since 1963. Nevertheless, it took political courage for lawmakers to join with Governor Corzine. Their renunciation of the death penalty could prick the conscience of elected officials in other states and inspire them to muster the courage to revisit their own laws on capital punishment.

At least that is our fervent hope.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Dec 2007)

Wow no bias in that piece eh?? :


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Dec 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Wow no bias in that piece eh?? :



It's an editorial - designed to spark discussion.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Dec 2007)

Thanks I do understand the purpose of editorials and the purpose they serve.


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Dec 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Thanks I do understand the purpose of editorials and the purpose they serve.



Your original comment regarding bias, complete with rolling eyes, would indicate otherwise, Padre.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Dec 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Your original comment regarding bias, complete with rolling eyes, would indicate otherwise, Padre.



I guess I'm trying to indicate that I disagree with the editorial and with words like this they are not very open to the views of probably 50% who would be reading the item
"...the moral bankruptcy, social imbalance, legal impracticality and ultimate futility of the death penalty..."

I'm quite an avid reader of newspapers and now that they are all available on line I'm in pig heaven....I am used to reading some pretty ignorant editorials...but this one just struck me as an extremely rigid stance without a lot of understanding or tolerance of the other side of the debate.

Personally I'm not an eye for an eye sort of guy and with the number of falsly accused that have come up I'm hesitant to agree to a full unrestricted use of this form  of punishment. For clearly proven cases of murdering sickos like Bernardo, Pickton, Olsen I think we might be better off to consider this kind of an end for them.


----------



## observor 69 (15 Dec 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I guess I'm trying to indicate that I disagree with the editorial and with words like this they are not very open to the views of probably 50% who would be reading the item
> "...the moral bankruptcy, social imbalance, legal impracticality and ultimate futility of the death penalty..."
> 
> I'm quite an avid reader of newspapers and now that they are all available on line I'm in pig heaven....I am used to reading some pretty ignorant editorials...but this one just struck me as an extremely rigid stance without a lot of understanding or tolerance of the other side of the debate.
> ...



OK now I feel better. I was afraid you were just throwing the editorial in it's entirety out. I thought that it did have a point on the :

"Spurred in large part by the large and growing body of DNA-based exonerations, there is increasing national unease about the death penalty. The Supreme Court is poised to consider whether lethal injections that torture prisoners in the process of killing them amount to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, an exercise bound to put fresh focus on some of the ugly details of implementing capital punishment."

And I also can't say never with the likes of "Bernardo, Pickton, Olsen " and such.


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Dec 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I guess I'm trying to indicate that I disagree with the editorial and with words like this they are not very open to the views of probably 50% who would be reading the item
> "...the moral bankruptcy, social imbalance, legal impracticality and ultimate futility of the death penalty..."
> 
> I'm quite an avid reader of newspapers and now that they are all available on line I'm in pig heaven....I am used to reading some pretty ignorant editorials...but this one just struck me as an extremely rigid stance without a lot of understanding or tolerance of the other side of the debate.
> ...





Sorry, Padre - upon looking at it again my post was sharper than I meant it to be.

I too am an inveterate consumer of newspapers.  I subscribe to The National Post (which gives me access to the Victoria Times-Columnist, the Vancouver Sun, The Province, The Calgary Herald, The Edmonton Journal, The Regina Leader-Post, The Saskatoon Star Phoenix, The Windsor Star, The Ottawa Citizen, The Montreal Gazette, along with their more regional papers), The Globe and Mail, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times, and of course much of the content of the SUN paper chain is available (without subscription) on-line.  

To say that I read all these papers every day would be a "stretcher" - they all, of course, carry much of the same content - derived from the various wire services out there (Reuters, CP, etc, etc).  But I DO always read the "Letters to the Editor" section of all of these.  I _think_ doing so gives me an insight into the concerns of _the people_.  I don't always agree with the views expressed, and I very rarely send missives of my own to the various publications I subscribe to.

I am rarely shocked at the bias expressed in "editorials".  They are, after all, by definition "opinion pieces" - but they do give me a clue regarding which way the particular paper is inclined - which clue informs how I absorb their news reporting.

I AM an "eye for an eye" kind of guy - which of course informs my opinion regarding the various editorials I read, and I don't ascribe much credibility to the editorial which sparked this public conversation between you and I.  I think the fool that wrote it is probably a refugee from the Sixties, and has killed too many brain cells to be able to string more than two sentences together to express a point of view.

All that said - I respect your opinion, and look forward to reading your posts here - I'm sure that you and I can disagree amicably.



Roy


Edited for grammar.  RHH


----------



## warspite (16 Dec 2007)

A trek across the artic in the winter(without jackets  ), should they survive they may have their jail cell for life.
Should that prove ineffecient a bullet sure is cheap. Just not hanging, awful way to die, makes me cringe to think bout it.


----------



## Cliffy433 (28 Dec 2007)

Again, some very interesting posts to read and some very valid points... while I am still of the pro-DP side, a few of the nay-sayers have actually caused me to seriously consider their arguments.  Not changing sides, just recognizing validity.  That has not been successfully done on this subject since I was 12 or so.  Congrats to you all.

I think the strongest argument against the DP is that if done humanely, it really just boils down to the dollar value of human life.  Really.  If it's not a deterrent to other criminals, then we're simply "freeing up a bed" for a lesser criminal and avoiding the annual cost of keeping the scum of the earth alive until their natural demise.  So really, we're just trying to save a few bucks... and devaluing life to that level at a societal level causes me some concern.

Then I think... given lengthy appeals processes, legal costs, laboratory costs, "WHEEL OF DEATH" PPV production costs, and victim recovery costs, it really costs us more to execute the degenerate low-lifes.  Well, my dilemma in para 2 is now solved, we haven't devalued human life to the almighty dollar.  So I'm all good and will remain upon the DP bandwagon.

GOING OFF TOPIC FOR A RANT
I'd now like to issue a call-out to Karla Homolka's legal team.  I believe you are degenerate liars.  I do NOT BELIEVE FOR ONE SECOND that you made that deal in "good faith" with the Crown.  I do believe you were fully aware of the content of the tapes, I'll bet you even viewed them.  I believe you slapped your impotent wieners into submission salivating at the thought of your future bank as a result of rescuing one of Canada's most vile criminals from a life in prison.  And while I do not subscribe to a specific faith, I believe that there is a higher power, and you will be judged.  While it is your duty to provide a zealous defense, it is NOT YOUR DUTY to ensure psycopaths and sociopaths roam free.  When she offends again, I hope you are tried as a co-conspirator.
/RANT

tlm.


----------



## Flip (28 Dec 2007)

> Personally I'm not an eye for an eye sort of guy and with the number of falsly accused that have come up I'm hesitant to agree to a full unrestricted use of this form  of punishment.



I always took "an eye for an eye" as a mitigation.  Take an eye rather than raze
a village or take a guys flock. 

Capital punishment has a political tone and can have political purposes.
We can never be sure there is no political interference or influence.
We can never be sure of justice.

Perhaps the death penalty is not "punishment" at all. 
Sorry, this debate always takes me to the "Easter story" and 
how easily influenced the authorities of the day were.

Are todays' authorities any wiser?  ;D
Just what's on my mind is all.........


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Dec 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Perhaps the death penalty is not "punishment" at all.



.....How much of a penalty is Death for a true believer that seeks martyrdom for the cause, or for his/her virgins or even because he/she heard voice?

I am reminded of the joke about the sadist and the masochist hooking up with expectations that each is going to get what they want from the other guilt free.  The masochist begs the sadist to beat him.  The sadist says no.


----------



## Flip (28 Dec 2007)

Kirkhill!!!!


> I am reminded of the joke about the sadist and the masochist hooking up with expectations that each is going to get what they want from the other guilt free.  The masochist begs the sadist to beat him.  The sadist says no.




That's sick!!   :rofl:


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Dec 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Sorry, this debate always takes me to the "Easter story" and
> how easily influenced the authorities of the day were.



It was God's will that Jesus died for our sins.  So you are saying your left leaning sensitivities should supercede that of the Lord's?   :


----------



## Flip (29 Dec 2007)

> It was God's will that Jesus died for our sins.  So you are saying your left leaning sensitivities should supercede that of the Lord's?



Ouch! Zipperhead! left-leaning? That smarts!

Yes, I'll agree that it was God's will that Jesus died for our sins.
That this was necessary, was not God's will.

That is, if Pontius Pilate felt compelled to call for water and 
symbolically wash his hands - was this a good and proper legal process? 
It appears that he didn't think so.

Just because God's will was done - We (humanity) have nothing we can
take credit for.  Anyway, that's the heart of my moral objection.

Given circumstances of insurrection or insurgency, in Canada
I have no problem with it. The state is at risk.  No choice.

I agree we have to separate the Picktons and Bernardoes 
from  society.  We don't have to kill to accomplish this.
Perhaps a few hundred years ago we didn't have the means
to keep monsters like that locked up, we do now.
I don't see any harm in simply "throwing away the key" so to speak.
It's humane, reversable and might actually be more of a punishment
than turning the guy off.  Perhaps the pathology of these guys can
be studied and prevention might be found?

I don't think my point is all that "leftie". Stalin executed prodigiously.
I think I'm just being sensible.


----------



## Trinity (29 Dec 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> That is, if Pontius Pilate felt compelled to call for water and
> symbolically wash his hands - was this a good and proper legal process?
> It appears that he didn't think so.



Are you implying that Pontius felt that the death penalty was improper
in general or just in Jesus' case.

Cause rest assured, Pontius put a lot of people to death in his time.


----------



## Flip (29 Dec 2007)

> Are you implying that Pontius felt that the death penalty was improper
> in general or just in Jesus' case.



No, that particular case.

I think Pilate makes my point that execution is subject to political
influence and as such, is likely to be unjust. As in Jesus' case.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Dec 2007)

At such time as Canadians rally to justice for something other than liberal idiocy I'll believe that "mob rule" has half a chance of making a difference. 
However, it is just that situation that makes the judges feel so very much more superior and keeps the law from reflecting the wishes of what the people want (and I reiterate the need to vote for judges). 
I guess I'm just not really hung up on the idea of rehabilitation or morality or deterrence or potential cost saving.  Killing people who suck is just the right thing to do.  It's a simple choice in my mind.


----------



## Flip (30 Dec 2007)

> I guess I'm just not really hung up on the idea of rehabilitation or morality or deterrence or potential cost saving.



On rehabilitation and deterrence I believe I agree with you.
On the length of sentences(being way too short) We probabaly agree.

 As for who we kill and who we don't - I think there is a simple and reasonable test.

Do we have to?

In military circles (from what I understand) you don't contemplate killing
anyone because you feel like it.  You kill out of operational necessity.
I think everyone who reads this thread would agree that to kill Osama
or Saddam would be justifiable.  And ultimately necessary.
The guy in the act of robbing a liquorstore - he points his weapon at a police officer
Yep - necessary.

Say a decade from now a Canadian ship depth charges a Russian sub at OUR
north pole. Do we stick around for survivours? Probably.  It's who we are.
( the analogy was deliberately goofy - don't overwork it )

Yes, some people suck - some aren't even criminals.- some are even judges!
Not killing when we don't need to is the right thing to do.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Dec 2007)

+1 Flip.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (30 Dec 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> No, that particular case.
> 
> I think Pilate makes my point that execution is subject to political
> influence and as such, is likely to be unjust. As in Jesus' case.



Pilate was the ruthless Governor of an occupied country. His superiors were even more ruthless than he was. They didn't care who Pilate killed or tortured or suppressed as long as he kept the peace, intimidated the population into submission and kept the economic channels to Rome open and functioning.
To him Jesus of Nazereth was just another misguided Jewish Holy man who was getting a lot of the establishment in Jerusalem upset. He disposed of him as easily as he would have a pesky bug and did so as he did with all other rabble rousers...publicly. At one time he crucified over two thousand "dissidents" on the road leading into Jerusalem just to let the populaton know that resistance would not be tolerated. I think he cared little about the morals or ethics of taking life. His God was Ceasar who could have him executed at will should he so desire....he hardly cared about the life and death of a rural mystical holy man.,,,like all politicians he was concerned about himself.
(yes it was God's will that Jesus die...Pilate was handy in carrying that will out but he wasn't inspired by ideals or spirituality in  my humble opinion)


----------



## Flip (30 Dec 2007)

> (yes it was God's will that Jesus die...Pilate was handy in carrying that will out but he wasn't inspired by ideals or spirituality in  my humble opinion)



I agree, but I think even he could see that this was an unjust execution.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Dec 2007)

Pilate washed his hands and passed the decision on to the local authorities for a very simple reason:  CYA.  Also, they way to keep the locals in line was to create deliberate in fighting among the various factions.  I find it hard to believe that a Roman Governor would have a hard time executing ANY Israelite for ANY reason, least of all moral ones.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (30 Dec 2007)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Pilate washed his hands and passed the decision on to the local authorities for a very simple reason:  CYA.  Also, they way to keep the locals in line was to create deliberate in fighting among the various factions.  I find it hard to believe that a Roman Governor would have a hard time executing ANY Israelite for ANY reason, least of all moral ones.



He may have washed his hands but it was his soldiers who killed Jesus not the locals. Mt 27:27.
"Then the soldiers of the Governor took Jesus into the Governor's Headquarters and they gathered the whole cohort around him...." 
the narrative continues that they then beat him without mercy and compelled him to carry his cross (a Roman form of exucution not a Hebrew one) until he could no longer carry it and then compelled a passer by to carry it. They crucified him outside the city and the soldiers cast lots for his clothes and they remained in charge of the body until it was taken down and buried.
Pilate was the only one who could have a man legally executed...that's why they took him to Pilate in the first place.
He wanted to keep the peace so he signed the warrant and had his men carry out the sentence by law. The washing of his hands was a show of contempt toward those who had disturbed him at his palace.


----------



## TCBF (30 Dec 2007)

It's lonely at the top...


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Dec 2007)

:rofl:   But he could see Peter's house from up there.



*sorry, Padres, saw the shot, had to take it.  No harm meant*


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 Dec 2007)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> :rofl:   But he could see Peter's house from up there.
> 
> 
> 
> *sorry, Padres, saw the shot, had to take it.  No harm meant*



Yikes! I thought he was talking about Pilate being lonely at the top.


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Dec 2007)

He probably was, just my cursed oblique view of the world given free reign.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 Dec 2007)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> He probably was, just my cursed oblique view of the world given free reign.



Understood......just to further digress...Peter was a fisherman from Galilee so it must have been a pretty good view to see it from Jerusalem!


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Dec 2007)

See, my post only works if you ever heard the old joke.... :-[


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 Dec 2007)

Dragging this slightly back onto track I noted on the news last night that it was the anniversary of the execution of Saddam Hussien. There was only a hand full of demonstrators at the graveside mourning the loss and it was a very peaceful night throughout the country according to the MSM. I guess not too many people are worried about the fact that we're not keeping him in rations and quarters anymore.


----------



## Flip (31 Dec 2007)

Sorry, Padre but I gotta jump on this one.

Capital punishment in Canada and an execution in Iraq are
not the same thing!

In Saddam's case I believe the execution was necessary.
Iraq is an unstable place and you could rationally argue
that getting rid of Saddam will ultimately save innocent lives.
ergo - it is justified.

In the event that say....Pickton will never see the outside again -
He is removed from society never to hurt anyone again,  where's
the legitimacy of killing him?  What if a few years hence he
comes clean with who he did kill and who he didn't.
Maybe getting rid of him hides the actions of his accomplices.

It is not necessary to kill him. So we should not.(my opinion)
Yes, he is a case of proven evil.  Are we made better by his death?
Does dying by human design serve any purpose not 
otherwise served?  I think not.

Personally, I like my little acid test - Necessary or not.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 Dec 2007)

Jump away my friend this is a discussion. 
I agree that Saddam was a different case....he killed a lot more people than Pickton. But it has now been proven beyond a reasonable doubt ,by a jury of his peers, that he killed at least six people ergo why do we need to hang in (so to speak) for more evidence? The estimated cost of prosecuting him so far is in the vicinity of $23 million dollars. Is that money well spent? What purpose will it serve to spend more on proving he killed 43 more people? what greater purpose will be served by keeping him in maximum security and feeding him for however long his miserable life lasts?
I'm not so sure I believe in death penalty for all, but in the case of monsters like this I'm leaning toward cutting our losses.


----------



## Flip (31 Dec 2007)

We might be able to agree that lawyers cost too much.. 

The cost of execution and appeals, we could say for
the sake of argument, would be similar to what the
cost of incarceration would be.

I would prefer to take the financial issue out of it anyway.
Applying a cost vs. benefit rule to human life - don't want to go there.

What greater good is served by actually pushing the button?
He may at some point (no matter how remote) provide some value
to someone else.  Should the state and courts have the ultimate
power in a civil society?  Picktons' continued existence would be
material proof of our civility.  Now if he chose to die by his own hand
I would not feel any particular need to prevent it, like I would just
about anyone else.

Here's the thing.  Once capital punishment is accepted and practiced,
the burden of proof and burden of evidence will shift.
Each case brought forward will potentially move the bar up or down
as to what's acceptable.  Today were getting rid of caged monsters.
Tomorrow we're getting rid of racial minorities or old people.

If the state has no such ultimate power, no risk exists.
There is no risk of killing the wrong guy, because we never kill unnecessarily.

Howszat?

Edit to add: Two movies come mind;  12 angry men and The Green Mile

Cheers all!


----------



## Greymatters (31 Dec 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Today were getting rid of caged monsters.  Tomorrow we're getting rid of racial minorities or old people.



That risk exists whether capital punishment is present or not, and tends to be political vice law enforcement.  It also requires a class of people at the top who have no peers to oversee and criticize their actions.  I.e. Transportation in jolly old England was supposed to a method for deporting those who committed illegal acts, but in the end the process was used to get more slaves and habitants for Australia and the Colonies. 

However, you make a case for no capital punishment - what deterent do you propose?  Because obviously the current system isnt working.  If rapists, murderers and other extreme sorts know that the risk is a few years in jail, if they get convicted, what measure is there to deter them?  A bad reputation?  Disassociation from society?  Obviously they dont care about these things or they wouldnt have committed the acts in the first place. 

In the end, the rules of polite society are for those who agree to abide by the rules.   Those who commit capital crimes have no regard for the societal rules and rarely make an effort to change their ways once caught and convicted. What is the alternative?  What lesson are sending to the upcoming generation who see the same faults in the system that the current criminals see?


----------



## Flip (31 Dec 2007)

> However, you make a case for no capital punishment - what deterrent do you propose?  Because obviously the current system isnt working.



I agree.  Perhaps Zipperhead Cop can help us out here.

My patented short , smarta$$ suggestion would be to spend what it
takes to raise the chances of getting caught to close to 100%.
Get them to trial without bail and really damn quick.
Then make sentences appropriately long.
Let people know in advance that they could spend the next
50 years REALLY close to Paul Bernardo or R.Pickton.
See, they're already part of the solution.   ;D  

Edited: punctuation, my bad.........


----------



## TCBF (1 Jan 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> Ithey could spend the next
> 
> ...50 years REALLY close to Paul Bernardo or R.Pickton. ...



- Minor segway here:  Now that Pickton is locked up, is it finally safe to eat bacon again?  I gots ta know...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (1 Jan 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> I agree.  Perhaps Zippehead Cop can help us out here.
> 
> My patented short , smarta$$ suggestion would be to spend what it
> takes to raise the chances of getting caught to close to 100%.
> ...



There seems to be no such thing as a really quick trial for anything anymore. It takes years to prosecute cases and the lawyers keep prolonging things as it keeps them on the clock. The whole justice system is broken in my opinion from, the guy charged with common assault to the guy charged with murder, it just takes too darn long and costs too much money.


----------



## Greymatters (1 Jan 2008)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> There seems to be no such thing as a really quick trial for anything anymore. It takes years to prosecute cases and the lawyers keep prolonging things as it keeps them on the clock. The whole justice system is broken in my opinion from, the guy charged with common assault to the guy charged with murder, it just takes too darn long and costs too much money.



+1 to that!  The system and its loopholes are used to extend the cases to the point of being ridiculous rather than shortening them...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Jan 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> +1 to that!  The system and its loopholes are used to extend the cases to the point of being ridiculous rather than shortening them...



Force a system that pays lawyers by completed trials, not by the hour.  That would move things along nicely.


----------



## Delicron (19 Jan 2008)

As much as the idea of paying lawyers for complete trials rather than by the hour is tempting, I don't think it would serve the interests of justice very well.  I can already see lawyers just pleading out or making unfavorable deals just to complete a trial as quickly as possible...so they can move on to the next.  And this goes both ways; Prosecutors making bad deals to the potentially guilty to end it quick, and defense lawyers forcing potentially innocent clients to take plea bargains by convincing that there's no hope of acquittal (again, to move on to the next client).  Motivation often lies with incentive, and if the incentive is to have as many clients as possible, lawyers will likely try to find an easy way to maximize that incentive.  Lawyers are only human after all (surprising I know  , sorry, just a little poke...).  This is not to say that there won't be lawyers who will 'do the right thing', but I don't think they will be in the majority in this scheme.  I am likely going to take some flak for my dim view of lawyers... but so be it...

It is agreed however that the current system is woefully inefficient, and the pay by the hour system is just exacerbating things.


----------



## Roy Harding (19 Jan 2008)

Delicron said:
			
		

> ...  I am likely going to take some flak for my dim view of lawyers... but so be it...
> 
> It is agreed however that the current system is woefully inefficient, and the pay by the hour system is just exacerbating things.



I don't think you have a dim view of lawyers - I think you have a dim view of humanity - and I agree with you completely.

You're right about the current system being inefficient - I don't know what the answer is.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (19 Jan 2008)

I think our society could use a few Pilate's and Cesar's.

And I'll leave it at that. ;D
Darn rules on my speech!


----------



## mariomike (19 Oct 2010)

I see this thread is 14 pages long, and more than two years old. But, seeing how I did not vote in the poll, I suppose it's worth a bump.

The poll was:
"If Canada were to ever adopt the death penalty again (I know not likely) how do you think the manner of exexcution should be carried out?"

I can't speak for others, but if offerred a choice ( none of which are very nice ), I would go with the gas chamber.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Oct 2010)

Whatever leaves their body intact which is then donated to science/used for organs.


----------



## mariomike (20 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Whatever leaves their body intact which is then donated to science/used for organs.



It seems quite popular in China.

"Lets Harvest the Organs of Death Row Inmates":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONsEpfeZ3nI


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> The poll was:
> "If Canada were to ever adopt the death penalty again (I know not likely) how do you think the manner of exexcution should be carried out?"
> 
> I can't speak for others, but if offerred a choice ( none of which are very nice ), I would go with the gas chamber.


Already voted, but I'll state it again.  Hanging by the neck until dead.


----------



## mariomike (20 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Already voted, but I'll state it again.  Hanging by the neck until dead.



You are Old School!


----------



## marshall sl (20 Oct 2010)

Hang them and while we are at it bring back corporal punishment.Whipping with the cat of nine tails as part of the sentence and the Paddle for breaking the rules in side.. bread and water in the hole would be good as well


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2010)

I'm not old school, but I believe that other methods of capital punishment listed are either "soft" so that we as a society don't get the "heebie-jeebies" when we kill someone, and the other extreme is just sadistic.  

Take a classic Canadian Case: Clifford Olson.  This guy did horrible things.  Assume that he has been sentenced to die.  Some would want to inflict pain.  I say that those people are sadists.  Others wish to "put him to sleep".  Those people are weak-kneed, unwilling to accept that we as a society are killing someone.  I believe that societies may have to kill one of  its own members, once in a generation at most.  But when it's done, it must be efficient and without sadism, but it must not be "sanitary".  Hanging by the neck fulfills both of those criteria.  And, if we use hemp, it's a green alternative (no chemicals or carbon spewing bullets!)


----------



## mariomike (20 Oct 2010)

I guess this poll leads to the next decision. What would you order for your last meal?:

"Dead Man Eating":
http://deadmaneating.blogspot.com/2003_12_07_deadmaneating_archive.html#107135025859953857


----------



## Journeyman (20 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ....societies may have to kill one of  its own members, once in a generation at most.


Well, only once in the condemned criminal's generation at any rate.  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, only once in the condemned criminal's generation at any rate.  ;D


VERY good point!  ;D


----------



## captloadie (20 Oct 2010)

I don't think lethal injection is the soft kneed method of killing people. Capital punishment is about issuing a sentence to a crime. The quickest most humane way is the likely the best way, as it causes less controversy. Look south of the border at when the debate arises about capital punishment. It is almost always when something goes wrong and Joe Public is exposed to some horrific scene of someone dying a horrid painful death (even if they do deserve it for the crimes they committed).

If we really wanted retribution, we would allow what we think of the most heinous of criminals (child molestors, psychopaths, sadists, etc.) to live among the general population for as long as they could survive.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I don't think lethal injection is the soft kneed method of killing people. Capital punishment is about issuing a sentence to a crime. The quickest most humane way is the likely the best way, as it causes less controversy. Look south of the border at when the debate arises about capital punishment. It is almost always when something goes wrong and Joe Public is exposed to some horrific scene of someone dying a horrid painful death (even if they do deserve it for the crimes they committed).
> 
> If we really wanted retribution, we would allow what we think of the most heinous of criminals (child molestors, psychopaths, sadists, etc.) to live among the general population for as long as they could survive.



Then we should go back to the guillotine. It is by far the quickest and most painless, but perhaps not the most visually appealing for some.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2010)

I don't think _how_ matters as much as _where_ and _when_.

IF the death penalty is to have any useful deterrent value then surely it must be done in public - maybe near a high school (students are very impressionable) - and at an opportune time (maybe just before school starts so that teachers will have one of those valuable _teachable moments_).


----------



## Danjanou (20 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't think _how_ matters as much as _where_ and _when_.
> 
> IF the death penalty is to have any useful deterrent value then surely it must be done in public - maybe near a high school (students are very impressionable) - and at an opportune time (maybe just before school starts so that teachers will have one of those valuable _teachable moments_).




Now that is old school 8)


----------



## Journeyman (20 Oct 2010)

_When_ should also include proximity to the guilty verdict and sentencing.

Looking at the US examples, by the time every possibly legal loophole is tried, no one except the victim's family has any remote knowledge of the crime being deterred or the example made.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> The quickest most humane way is the likely the best way, as it causes less controversy.


This is the crux of my argument.  We are making it humane so that it is more palatable for us as a society.  If we were to have capital punishment, then we must never ever be comfortable with it.  That way, we can assure ourselves that only those very deserving individuals are subjected to it.  

I'm not arguing to make it brutal either, but quick, efficient and if you wish, environmentally friendly: locally grown hemp made into rope.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Oct 2010)

Eventually, someone is going to throw out the fact that deterrence won't stop most of these sort of things from occurring so I'll do it first.  In Deviant Williams case, he thought that he was too smart to get caught.  In other "heat of the moment" type cases, people act without thinking.  Toss in drugs and alcohol, deterrence just isn't there.  We can spiral off into the fact that there is no deterrence ANYWHERE in the legal system, but perhaps the  Judge Super Thread would be better for that.  

The major obstacle that our society would need to overcome in their minds is that "all human life is precious".  I'm pretty sure that the only people who believe that are the ones who don't have to deal with the full spectrum of "humanity" and the bipedal oxygen thieves that populate the bottom 2%.  Some people should be put to death because their existence provides nothing of value and conversely much drain on treasure and resources.

Now I stand by for the obligatory bleeding heart to trot out the wrongfully convicted cases.  However, if the death penalty were to be brought back in Canada I'm confident that the criteria for it to be implemented would be so brutally high, coupled with our judges being so brutally left leaning, that it would only ever exist on paper.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2010)

You can pretty much guarantee that the death penalty will never be reinstated in our lifetime(s).

There are far too many people, and I agree with zipperheadcop....that think ALL life is precious.

I got a news flash....not ALL human life is precious. I'm sure that the police and corrections officers that deal with scum will attest to that.


----------



## mariomike (20 Oct 2010)

"Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has said there is no need to re-open a debate on capital punishment in light of the Russel Williams case.":
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/10/19/15754381.html


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Oct 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has said there is no need to re-open a debate on capital punishment in light of the Russel Williams case.":
> http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/10/19/15754381.html



Well, good to know that the voice and opinion of Canadians is so easy for the Minister to disregard and shut down with a rebuke that you'd expect from a grade school teacher


----------



## krustyrl (20 Oct 2010)

Makes one wonder since there is undeniable evidence, written -video and real time confessions  that this case could NOT possibly be mistaken , this is a prime example of how, why and when we should possibly have CPunishment.?


 :2c:


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Well, good to know that the voice and opinion of Canadians is so easy for the Minister to disregard and shut down with a rebuke that you'd expect from a grade school teacher



IMO it will never fly in Parliament as there is a minority government. I would daresay that it may never fly with a majority Conservative government.


----------



## Brutus (20 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> IMO it will never fly in Parliament as there is a minority government. I would daresay that it may never fly with a majority Conservative government.



I agree, but regardless of Parliament, the Charter doesn't allow for it so any 'push' for it would stop at the Supreme Court.


----------



## ballz (20 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> I agree, but regardless of Parliament, the Charter doesn't allow for it so any 'push' for it would stop at the Supreme Court.



Which part of the Charter doesn't allow for capital punishment?

If it's "the right to life, liberty, and security of person" there is an exception stated within that right.

"LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON. 
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof *except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.*"

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html


Not sure exactly what the "principles of fundamental justice" means but it seems like capital punishment could weasel it's way in there...


----------



## Brutus (20 Oct 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Which part of the Charter doesn't allow for capital punishment?
> 
> If it's "the right to life, liberty, and security of person" there is an exception stated within that right.
> 
> ...



Although the Charter came into effect after the abolishment of Capital Punishment, there has been a couple of cases that would lead one to reasonably expect it to be struck down, if it were to come back. The best one:

R vs. Burns.

Essentially, this was an extradition case. The guy was to be extradited to the US where he would likely face the death penalty. The SCoC decided that to allow it would be a violation of his rights under Section 7 (specifically, it was a breach of Fundamental Justice). They decided this due to the arbitray and irreversable nature of Capital Punishment, although stopped short of calling Capital Punishment a violation of Section 12 (cruel and unusual punishment). But if they found that extraditing a man for CP was a violation of fundamental justice, I can't see how doing it ourselves is somehow NOT a violation of fundamental justice.

TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT. 
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

There is no chance, IMHO, that the Supreme Court would not decide that CP violates Section 12. Considering the lack of empirical evidence that CP is a better deterant (or any deterant at all) than Life Imprisinment, the viable alternative (Life), the irreversable nature of CP, and the total lack of rehabilitation inherant in CP, there is just no way to establish that it is not cruel and unusual.


----------



## ballz (20 Oct 2010)

Well, it's not "unusual" as it's been happening since man began making societies, and happens next door to us.

Cruel is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholders in a democracy should be the voters. I certainly don't see how lethal injection is cruel, especially not matched up next to the crimes that would get you the needle...

That said, I agree with you that it probably would never happen, I just don't think it would be because of the Charter.


----------



## Brutus (20 Oct 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Well, it's not "unusual" as it's been happening since man began making societies, and happens next door to us.
> 
> Cruel is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholders in a democracy should be the voters. I certainly don't see how lethal injection is cruel, especially not matched up next to the crimes that would get you the needle...
> 
> That said, I agree with you that it probably would never happen, I just don't think it would be because of the Charter.



The Charter and the SCoC are not subject to democratic whim. 100% of Canadians could be in favour of it, but it would take an amendment of the Charter or an amendment of the SCoC's authority to get CP back on the books.

It's not the MODE of execution that is cruel, it's the issue of killing as a form of punishment. It could be considered cruel based on it's irreversable nature, the lack of necessity (why kill when you can just incarcirate?), and the lack of any deterant value. Add to that the violation of Section 7 (fundamental justice) and there really is no chance.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2010)

Punishment has to be both cruel and unusual to be effective.  Allow me to explain.

The cruelty must be solely in how it is perceived by the punished.  It must cause some sort of discomfit and the punished must not want it.  It must *not* be cruel in how it is applied, in other words, bringing some sort of perverted pleasure to the punisher.

It must be unusual, in that it is not the norm.  Which brings me back to the graphic method of executing someone.  It must remain gruesome in some respects, in that we as a society don't feel comfortable with it at all.  I have avoided using the Williams example because it is fresh in our minds, so I will revert to the Clifford Olson example.  It is many years after his conviction and his name pops up from time to time.  He is worthy, IMHO, to have been executed.  Williams?  Most likely as well.  But these cases are so special that they are unusual.  And execution, no matter how dressed up as humane, is anything but.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> The major obstacle that our society would need to overcome in their minds is that "all human life is precious".  I'm pretty sure that the only people who believe that are the ones who don't have to deal with the full spectrum of "humanity" and the bipedal oxygen thieves that populate the bottom 2%.  Some people should be put to death because their existence provides nothing of value and conversely much drain on treasure and resources.


Devil's advocate here, but do those who provide nothing of value and a drain on treasure include babies?  The infirm?  

I only say this to bring caution.  I agree with a death penalty; however, I believe that one ought to have forfeited their right to live through some heinous act, vice the assessed value that person brings to society.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2010)

Were heading here again ;D


----------



## 57Chevy (20 Oct 2010)

Techno ;D   Are you relating this thread to another of heinious behaviour..... :camo:

Screw the Charter.
There are some crimes that surpass 10 fold the charter. Way beyond the imagination of the writers of such a 
humane charter that deals in whole with the normally 'unsurpassed' illegal behaviour of humans.
I pay my reference to the Neuremburg trials at this time.
Where crimes commited were dealt with expediently, at least in the infancy of such hearings.
Where persons are found guilty, especially by reason of 'self admittance' to such as considered as heineous
crimes...............Yes......they should be dealt with by the death sentence.
And without pity whatsoever.
These are individual crimes against humanity because all men find it discusting.
And they should be dealt with severely.
With an iron fist.


----------



## Brutus (20 Oct 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Techno ;D   Are you relating this thread to another of heinious behaviour..... :camo:
> 
> Screw the Charter.
> There are some crimes that surpass 10 fold the charter. Way beyond the imagination of the writers of such a
> ...



We DO have the notwithstanding clause, but I doubt this is the issue it would be used on.

Why not just incarcirate him for life? Why kill him? Is it the deterant factor?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> We DO have the notwithstanding clause, but I doubt this is the issue it would be used on.
> 
> Why not just incarcirate him for life? Why kill him? Is it the deterant factor?



Because a bullet cost $00.13 and the problem is gone. Lifelong incarceration costs millions more and you still have assholes like Olsen preying on and mocking the families, even though they're locked up.


----------



## Brutus (20 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Because a bullet cost $00.13 and the problem is gone. Lifelong incarceration costs millions more and you still have assholes like Olsen preying on and mocking the families, even though they're locked up.



But in the States folks on death row cost more, on average, than their 'Lifer' equivelants.


----------



## Nostix (20 Oct 2010)

Well, the whole "Cost to keep a prisoner" argument is kind of bunk anyways.

Most of the statistics involved are found by averaging the costs of the system per prisoner, when in reality, the difference between keeping x prisoners and x+1 prisoners is negligible.

So unless getting rid of that lifer would suddenly allow you to shut down a whole prison, the costs involved wouldn't change by any noticeable amount.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2010)

The death penalty guarantees he'll never harm another human being again.

Its not about dollars and cents.


----------



## Brutus (20 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The death penalty guarantees he'll never harm another human being again.
> 
> Its not about dollars and cents.



So does true life in prison.


----------



## desert_rat (20 Oct 2010)

I know in this touchy-feely, politically correct, everybody gets a first-place ribbon age its not kosher, but....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,858656,00.html


----------



## ballz (20 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> So does true life in prison.



Well for one, we don't even have that... Seriously, 25 years is the longest you can get without parole. Like the prosecution said in the article about Williams, "some day this guy will be up in front of a parole board."

WHY???

Secondly, what about closure to the family? Quite frankly, the parents,friends, family, and maybe kids (not sure in Williams case) of the victims actually have to live knowing this guy is still out there... Much worse, the fact that some day, in their life time, he may be in line behind them at Tim Hortons...


----------



## 57Chevy (20 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> So does true life in prison.


There is a place for all punishments.
As one authority is found to be of a higher or of greater essence, so is it that their ultimate
punishment should be found to be that much greater.
And greater the crime requires that which can only be found in the greatest of courts,
whereas in that court,
death should be the ultimate punishment.


----------



## Nostix (20 Oct 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Well for one, we don't even have that... Seriously, 25 years is the longest you can get without parole.



Ignoring the fact that we can (and do) keep prisoners incarcerated indefinitely, I don't know why you would skip straight to the death penalty without at least giving mention to the obvious step of legislating a true life - no parole sentence.


----------



## Brutus (20 Oct 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Well for one, we don't even have that... Seriously, 25 years is the longest you can get without parole. Like the prosecution said in the article about Williams, "some day this guy will be up in front of a parole board."



Agree with you there. They DO have the dangerous offender thing, which can keep you in prison beyond the 25 years (IIRC).



> Secondly, what about closure to the family? Quite frankly, the parents,friends, family, and maybe kids (not sure in Williams case) of the victims actually have to live knowing this guy is still out there... Much worse, the fact that some day, in their life time, he may be in line behind them at Tim Hortons...



Well, for one, true life in prison would prevent the 'meeting up with the murderer'. 

But honestly, do you really think that killing the murderer would actually reduce the grief of the NOK? There is nothing that anyone can do to bring them back, I really don't see how killing another person would help the situation. 

Even if it did, is vengence for the family more important than assuring we don't execute the wrong man?


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Even if it did, is vengence for the family more important than assuring we don't execute the wrong man?


Yes.


If you're going to frame your hypothetical questions like that, then expect a piss-poor answer.

We don't execute people willy-nilly, and we ought not to.  Can you say that there is a single doubtful bone in your body that Olson, Bernardo, Pickton and Williams, were they executed, be the "wrong man"?


----------



## ballz (20 Oct 2010)

Nostix said:
			
		

> Ignoring the fact that we can (and do) keep prisoners incarcerated indefinitely, I don't know why you would skip straight to the death penalty without at least giving mention to the obvious step of legislating a true life - no parole sentence.



I'm not "skipping" it. I agree with you, it is an obvious step to consider which I think should exist. I just also think that a more extreme punishment be available for more extreme, heinous crimes. A multiple murderer should get life, no chance of parole. Someone who tortured and raped his victim(s) and made them beg for their life before putting them away, however, should be served a harsher punishment.

As for the fact that we can and do keep prisoners incarcerated indefinitely, yes, but despite a persons crimes, we can still only give a maximum of life with parole after 25 years. You can give it to them 5 times, but that doesn't add up to 125 years without parole unfortunately. Basically, our justice system says that 1 first degree murder, and in some cases 1 2nd degree murder, deserves the equivilant of 20 first degree murders.

Yes, in reality somebody with 20 first degree murders probably isn't going to get parole, but on paper it's black and black. I just think it's stupid.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2010)

Execution GUARANTEES that serial killers like Williams will NEVER harm anyone again.

As for you that want to keep him in solitary for life, well that won't work. One, because its against the Charter, or so the Supreme Court will rule one day.
Second, by their very existence they continue to manipulate and hurt others. I've seen too many people I called co workers turned by  scumbags that only care for one person - themselves.


----------



## ballz (20 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Well, for one, true life in prison would prevent the 'meeting up with the murderer'.



Perhaps, but that doesn't put to rest the heebie jeebies the family has to live with. Much like not killing Sadaam Hussein wouldn't put to rest what he represented.



			
				Brutus said:
			
		

> But honestly, do you really think that killing the murderer would actually reduce the grief of the NOK? There is nothing that anyone can do to bring them back, I really don't see how killing another person would help the situation.
> 
> Even if it did, is vengence for the family more important than assuring we don't execute the wrong man?



Well I can only speak for myself, but would it reduce grief for me? Yes. If it were my daughter who was the victim of some of the crimes we're talking about here I may want to do it myself for all I know.

We live in a society that wants proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'll let Technovikings answer stand for myself as well for the "what if it's the wrong guy" question.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Oct 2010)

Not only would it serve to avoid repeat offenses, I think it's safe to say that in cases such as Olson, Pickton, et al, they won't ever get out again.  I just see it as the convicted as forfeiting their right to breathe, and it offers closure to us as a society.


I caution, gravely, that we must never EVER get used to seeing people get executed.  Never.  We must always have sleepless nights before and after the act.


----------



## Neill McKay (20 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Although the Charter came into effect after the abolishment of Capital Punishment



That's not quite true: a court-martial could still sentence a CF member to death into the '90s.  (I'm not sure if the change away from that had anything to do with the Charter.)


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Oct 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> That's not quite true: a court-martial could still sentence a CF member to death into the '90s.  (I'm not sure if the change away from that had anything to do with the Charter.)


It changed in September 1999.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Devil's advocate here, but do those who provide nothing of value and a drain on treasure include babies?  The infirm?



At such time babies start to rape and murder people, I won't feel bad about them being executed.  



			
				Nostix said:
			
		

> Ignoring the fact that we can (and do) keep prisoners incarcerated indefinitely, I don't know why you would skip straight to the death penalty without at least giving mention to the obvious step of legislating a true life - no parole sentence.



Because in reality, there is no true life sentence in Canada.  The parole board is a joke and if ANYONE actually makes it to 25 years it is amazing.  Make no mistake: Williams will walk amongst us in 25 years if he is still alive.  



			
				Brutus said:
			
		

> But honestly, do you really think that killing the murderer would actually reduce the grief of the NOK? There is nothing that anyone can do to bring them back, I really don't see how killing another person would help the situation.



Yes, absolutely.  Not because most people revel  in killing, but because that family could be satisfied that the filth could never harm another.  



			
				Brutus said:
			
		

> Even if it did, is vengeance for the family more important than assuring we don't execute the wrong man?



Yes it is.  As mentioned, in all reality if the death penalty was actually existing on paper it would be appealed so vigorously that it would essentially be a non-issue.


----------



## OkanaganHeat (21 Oct 2010)

The precedent has been set for a serial killer to not receive parole and in fact not be released after 25 years. The inmate that murdered four young children in Saskatoon in the mid seventies is still in prison and at his parole hearing was denied release. Unfortunately I do not know if he had been deemed a dangerous offender but it is most likely that he has been.

This case hit close for me as one of the girls he took was a neighbor of mine and with her friend took them from a park that was across the street from me.

I know that many would like to see the death penalty and I am of mixed feelings about this. I just do not see that any redeeming factor can be found with this type of animal and there is no chance for rehabilitation. I just don't want society to fall to their level and take a life as we as a whole should be above that or what as a society are we?


----------



## Nostix (21 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> We don't execute people willy-nilly, and we ought not to.  Can you say that there is a single doubtful bone in your body that Olson, Bernardo, Pickton and Williams, were they executed, be the "wrong man"?



The big issue with this, is how do you turn that into a set of legal guidelines which govern when you can execute someone?

"We all know they did it." cant, and shouldn't fly in any court in Canada. The most legal certainty you can achieve in a case like this is a conviction by a jury, which has been shown to be fallible on occasion. Trying to take something from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "with absolute certainty" is the key issue on that front, and it is quite nearly impossible.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Oct 2010)

Nostix said:
			
		

> The big issue with this, is how do you turn that into a set of legal guidelines which govern when you can execute someone?
> 
> "We all know they did it." cant, and shouldn't fly in any court in Canada. The most legal certainty you can achieve in a case like this is a conviction by a jury, which has been shown to be fallible on occasion. Trying to take something from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "with absolute certainty" is the key issue on that front, and it is quite nearly impossible.



But there are some cases that are slam dunks, like Williams case.  Bernardo, Olsen.  Maybe it wouldn't happen often, but the ability to execute degenerates would be a nice thing to have, even if it rarely was used.  



			
				OkanaganHeat said:
			
		

> The precedent has been set for a serial killer to not receive parole and in fact not be released after 25 years. The inmate that murdered four young children in Saskatoon in the mid seventies is still in prison and at his parole hearing was denied release. Unfortunately I do not know if he had been deemed a dangerous offender but it is most likely that he has been.



The problem with the Williams case is that he is intelligent and educated.  He could be the ultimate model prisoner and be eligible for parole in 25 years.  So then what?  You want him living next door to you and your teen age daughter?


----------



## Nostix (21 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> But there are some cases that are slam dunks, like Williams case.  Bernardo, Olsen.  Maybe it wouldn't happen often, but the ability to execute degenerates would be a nice thing to have, even if it rarely was used.



Again, back to the issue. We know it is a "slam dunk", but why? What set of legal guidelines can you put in place which can be followed in a future case?

We can't exactly have a person's life sitting in the court of public opinion. That's fundamentally opposed to the purpose of the justice system.


----------



## captloadie (21 Oct 2010)

Don't we hand out sentences to criminals to punish _them_, not alleviate the grief of the family? If a habitual drunk driver kills someone, but the family forgives him, should we let him go free? No, we punish him.

For Williams, I think that 25+ years in prison will be a greater punishment for him than a death sentence. He knows he has nothing else to live for. He would probably rather be in the general population and provoke other inmates to finish him. 

We are more likely to see euthanasia/assisted suicide accepted in out society before capital punishment. We can all say ending Williams life is the right thing to do, but could we end the life a loved one if they asked? Both events take a life.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Oct 2010)

ZC: I was being "over the top" on purpose.  I know you dont' advocate killing babies, it's just the statement of killing those of no use to society.  I know what you mean; however, others could take that to extreme, is all.  


I'm with you: there ought to be state sanctioned executions, and Nostix raises quite valid concerns.  Which is why we ought never make execution seem "sanitary", as though we are putting them to sleep.  Don't make it brutal, but I would offer up some rope.


----------



## 57Chevy (21 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Even if it did, is vengence for the family more important than assuring we don't execute the wrong man?



Vengence can never have anything to do with an execution.


----------



## canada94 (21 Oct 2010)

Its not just the fact that if we "want" it to be legal. We must remember that our charter, states we have the right to; Life, Liberty and Security of person. Taking away someone's right to life is against the charter. 

We also have the right to escape "unusual" forms of punishment. Is killing someone not unusual? Im not  saying im against the Death penalty, neither for it just giving my  :2c:

Mike


----------



## HavokFour (21 Oct 2010)

Hang 'em high. 

In my eyes, the perfect system would include...

Murder: Death
Rape: Death
Pedophilia: Death
Theft (under $1000): 5 years
Theft (over $5000): 8 years
Drugs: 15 years
DUI: 20 years

etc.

Some may find it a bit extreme, but that's like your opinion, man.


----------



## readytogo (21 Oct 2010)

Although the evidence in cases such as Bernardo, Olsen, and other such criminals is overwhelming and they have been found guilty in a court of law what about the cases in the last 30 years where the evidence was also overwhelmingly in favor of a conviction that turned out to be wrong???  Names like Stephen Truscott, David Milgard, or Guy Paul Morin (not sure if i spelled those correctly)  In reading the history books Truscott escaped the gallows on a couple occasions when he was still a child?? These men would have died for crimes they did not commit, is that a mistake you could live with?  On the other side of the coin maybe today with introduction of irrefutable DNA evidence perhaps the death penalty could be a seldom used extreme measure?

RTG


----------



## Container (21 Oct 2010)

Truscott was not found innocent- it was just impossible to have a new trial as would usually be required. He testified in front of the supreme court and they found him confused and untrust worthy in his testimony in the 60's.

Milgaard- that was terrible. DNA would have avoided this.

Morin- DNA eventully freed him. 

The specific nature of DNA makes me quite comfortable in the execution of people shown to be guilty of heinous crimes where DNA is involved. (not just transfer DNA)


----------



## readytogo (21 Oct 2010)

How old was Truscott in the 60's???? maybe a teenager? if I was 16ish standing in front of the supreme court accused of murdering somebody that I didnt i think my nerves and fear would cause me to appear "confused and untrust-worthy"  I agree DNA eventually did free Milgaard and Morin but if the death penalty was still allowed at the time of their trials then it seems safe to say they wouldnt of been around to get there "I told you so" moment.


----------



## Container (21 Oct 2010)

true. I wouldnt have been as keen on the death penalty prior to DNA. 

I wouldnt ever put someone to death on witness testimony alone. Fingerprints and DNA are good to go however. (for me)


----------



## ballz (21 Oct 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Hang 'em high.
> 
> In my eyes, the perfect system would include...
> 
> ...



I see MADD is having an effect on some people...


----------



## Brutus (21 Oct 2010)

What about the moral aspect of CP? Is it morally correct for the State to kill when the reasonable alternative guarantees no recidivism? IMHO, this relegates CP to mere vengeance, which as stated by another poster, should NEVER be a component of sentencing.


----------



## mariomike (21 Oct 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> I see MADD is having an effect on some people...



U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA: 
"North Carolina and Kentucky, have charged impaired drivers with capital murder.":
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/13qp/facts/facthom.html


----------



## TimBit (21 Oct 2010)

> What about the moral aspect of CP? Is it morally correct for the State to kill when the reasonable alternative guarantees no recidivism? IMHO, this relegates CP to mere vengeance, which as stated by another poster, should NEVER be a component of sentencing.



Agreed.


----------



## readytogo (21 Oct 2010)

Good for Kentucky and North Carolina!!!!  Having experienced a couple of "near misses" with pissed up a*&holes forgetting the difference between a gas and a brake pedal(one guy barely missed me while my kids were in the truck with me)  I say they are absolutely guilty of 2nd degree murder at least!!! Bravo and hopefully that kind of legislation sweeps over North America like a plague!!


RTG


----------



## Container (21 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> What about the moral aspect of CP? Is it morally correct for the State to kill when the reasonable alternative guarantees no recidivism? IMHO, this relegates CP to mere vengeance, which as stated by another poster, should NEVER be a component of sentencing.



But I dont really consider there being an alternative that guarantees that it wont happen again. Gingras is a good example.

As long as it takes place in a moral fashion its not really a moral issue (for me)


----------



## Brutus (21 Oct 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> But I dont really consider there being an alternative that guarantees that it wont happen again. Gingras is a good example.



A Life Sentence with a Dangerous Offender designation will accomplish the same thing.



> As long as it takes place in a moral fashion its not really a moral issue (for me)



How can the dispassionate killing of a person by the State be done in a 'moral fashion'? My contention is that it is inherantly immoral. Life is a basic human right. In fact, it is the most basic human right. By definition, rights can be restricted, but never taken away.


----------



## Container (21 Oct 2010)

Brutus I think that we are running into issues over what is moral.

To me it is immoral to let some languish in prison for 60 years waiting for them to die. I do not believe that CP needs to be "revenge" by anyone. It can be a response to a threat. 

The dangerous offender designation to hardly applied one could argue that its been extremely ineffective in its implementation. People in jail get day passes and escape by other means. They also kill CO's or other inmates.

There is no way to completely remove the threat except through the swift painless execution of the offender.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Oct 2010)

You can't bring morality into it. Morality is a human condition of varying degree to each individual given their mental state, upbringing, geography, religion, the list goes on.

You can't impose your morals on someone else, anymore than you can impose your own opinion for, or against, capital punishment on anyone else.

To say it is morally wrong is to state a personal opinion and holds no real value.

It's a straw man argument and has no place in the discussion.

You guys are starting to go in circles. Come up with something new or be satisfied to agree to disagree. Because no one is changing their minds any more than the last couple of time this was discussed here.


----------



## Brutus (21 Oct 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> Brutus I think that we are running into issues over what is moral.



I agree. If we argue what is moral for me vs. what is moral for you, it's a very short converation. But I think we are talking about collective Candian moral standards here, and not mine or yours specifically. 



> To me it is immoral to let some languish in prison for 60 years waiting for them to die. I do not believe that CP needs to be "revenge" by anyone. It can be a response to a threat.



What threat? If they are imprisoned for life, there is no chance of repeat offences barring an escape.



> The dangerous offender designation to hardly applied one could argue that its been extremely ineffective in its implementation.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying the Dangerous Offender designation hasn't worked? I think it works rather well due to it's simplicity - if you are designated, you are held indefinately until you are deemed to not be designated.



> People in jail get day passes and escape by other means.



Pickton, Olsen, etc. do not get day passes and never will.



> They also kill CO's or other inmates.



This problem should be addressed by securing the offender better, protecting the CO better, etc. The solution is not 'well, shoot, let's just kill him then.'



> There is no way to completely remove the threat except through the swift painless execution of the offender.



Agreed.


----------



## GR66 (21 Oct 2010)

What exactly is a "slam dunk" case?

Does a "positive" DNA match meet the criteria?

from 60 Minutes - DNA Testing: Foolproof? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/27/60II/main555723.shtml

or from bioforensics.com - Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence: Essential Elements of a competent defence review
http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html


Does even the accused/convicted's confession "prove" they are guilty?

from Northwestern Law - False Confessions Study - Illinois Cases
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/causesandremedies/falseconfessions/FalseConfessionsStudy.html


I'm certainly no DNA expert or psychologist but I'll freely admit my opinion that any (hypothetical) potential death penalty cases in a future Canada where faulty evidence or false convictions would lead to a wrongful conviction and execution would be excedingly rare.  The question though is exactly how many potential wrongful exectutions would be acceptable?  Is even one "OK" for the supposed greater good?  The cost of keeping these prisoners behind bars is very high, but compared to the cost to society of killing someone wrongfully I personally think it's a price worth paying.   Certainly lets look at changing the Criminal Code of Canada to keep those that are convicted of the most serious crimes safely locked away forever...with not even a "faint hope" of release hanging over the heads of their victims/families and society as a whole.

I fully believe that death would be a JUST punishment for many evil people in our world, however I do not have enough faith in our own infalibility to be confident that we can be sure that we are incapable of ever wrongfully executing an innocent person.  For that reason, and that reason only, I am personally against Capital Punishment.


----------



## readytogo (21 Oct 2010)

This is the enternal argument (discussion) How can we say that to take away someone's life is immoral and wrong and then turn around and say we are morally justified in doing the same thing to the offender???.  As it has been agreed upon in this and other threads, those who prove a signifigant risk to offend against other inmates and or themselves are placed in nearly permenant segrigation  When said inmate is out of his or her cell, all other inmates are safely locked away.  If said individuals are able to hurt another inmate or CO then that is a terrible circumstance but prisons are an inherantly dangerous place.  Inmates know this before they go and I feel its reasonable to assume that CO's know this when they accept employment.

  By all means we do what we can to minimize this risk to all parties involved, but I stand behind the fact that an eye for eye style justice is simply bringing ourselves to the serial killers level.  

In response to the statement that dangerous offender status doesnt work, I believe I read that Paul Bernardo was due for release in 2016? or somewhere around there.  I dont think anyone would say that he will be released on that time frame or anyother time frame around there, he and others like him will languish in prison until the day they are placed in the grave.  Th end result is as Container said, there is no permenant solution to this other than execution, but we as a civilization have to be better than that.



RTG


----------



## Container (21 Oct 2010)

The designated offender program doesnt work because the courts do not impose the status on offenders out of fear of being appealed. 

Example of people on a life sentence who are let out on day passes (murderers)-

"Daniel Gingras was a career armed robber serving a life sentence for murder (committed while at large from his sentence) when in 1987 he was granted a "humanitarian" birthday pass to the West Edmonton Mall. Gingras , who was inexplicably allowed to chose his escort for the day, overpowered the unarmed guard. Just weeks after this latest escape, Gingras murdered Joseph Piquette, a rodeo clown in Edmonton, because he didn't like his face and wanted Piquette's identification. Still at large, Gingras then abducted 24-year-old Wanda Woodward from Medicine Hat, Alberta. He strangled her with her own shoelaces on August 14th "because she was crying like a cow." The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) attempted to cover the details of the case, but an independent investigation found that the warden of the institution where Gingras was imprisoned was "willfully negligent". The parents of Wanda Woodward subsequently sued CSC and eventually settled for an estimated $250,000. Gingras is eligible to apply for his judicial review on August 20, 2002."

As for the DNA links- those examples do not dispute the validity of DNA based convictions. They dispute shitty lab and court work. The DNA in your link on the 60minus link has to do with the amount of information looked at by the lab. They were able to make the mistake because they do not use appropriate  thresholds. In fact the probability was only 1 in about 600 000. Thats terrible. 

In Canadian forensics we use thresholds that have prbabilities in the billions far exceeding the population of the planet (living now combined with the amount taht have EVER lived)  

Anyways I respect your position Brutus. Clearly we will be unable to resolve out differences over a message board!

I recall a prison walkaway from max right out the front door because of human error. Locking someone up does not remove the threat!


----------



## Container (21 Oct 2010)

readytogo said:
			
		

> If said individuals are able to hurt another inmate or CO then that is a terrible circumstance but prisons are an inherantly dangerous place.  Inmates know this before they go and I feel its reasonable to assume that CO's know this when they accept employment.
> RTG



Its not their job to get hurt. Its their job to monitor offenders and keep them safe and in jail. If they get murdered by a murderer inmate it was entirely preventable.

The CO is a productive, law abiding non murderer scum bag. His life IS worth more than the offenders. All animals are equal......some are more equal than others  ;D


----------



## Container (21 Oct 2010)

Oops-

Lastly there are about two dozen "dangerous offenders" with court designations and everything that are on parole right now. 

It doesnt keep people in jail either.


----------



## Brutus (21 Oct 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> Its not their job to get hurt. Its their job to monitor offenders and keep them safe and in jail. If they get murdered by a murderer inmate it was entirely preventable.



But the prevention measure is admitidly extreme, and the cost/benefit has to be looked at. IMHO, it is too costly to to warrant this kind of thing. Also, it's not like executions are carried out the day after sentencing. In the States, death row inmates typically spend decades in limbo. 

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that a CO is not aware prior to accepting employment that his workplace is a very dangerous place, and that violence up to and including death is possible. Of course it's a travesty whenever a CO is hurt or killed, but this is not reason on it's own to prevent it by killing all murderers. There is assumed risk here, and those that choose this career must assume it.



> The CO is a productive, law abiding non murderer scum bag. His life IS worth more than the offenders. All animals are equal......some are more equal than others  ;D



We don't have the ability to place a quantitative value on a life, therefore, all life has equal value.


----------



## canada94 (21 Oct 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Hang 'em high.
> 
> In my eyes, the perfect system would include...
> 
> ...



The perfect system? Eek. By "drugs" what do you mean?. You can have 1 gram of marijuana on you and you will most likely not even receive a fine. But you should get 20 years in your system. Yet you can break into someones house steal 5000 dollars worth of material and get less?. Absurd.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Oct 2010)

canada94 said:
			
		

> The perfect system? Eek. By "drugs" what do you mean?. You can have 1 gram of marijuana on you and you will most likely not even receive a fine. But you should get 20 years in your system. Yet you can break into someones house steal 5000 dollars worth of material and get less?. Absurd.



So don't smoke Marijuana, problem solved.

Instead of having these jerks sit in prison for 10 years getting university degrees and shit we should put them to use in labour camps. Fixing roads.Helping the homeless somehow.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Oct 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Don't we hand out sentences to criminals to punish _them_, not alleviate the grief of the family? If a habitual drunk driver kills someone, but the family forgives him, should we let him go free? No, we punish him.



The problem is that the entire prison system is based on rehabilitation.  Punishment is a severely minor element to being in jail.  Look at how hard and how much money is spent on making prisoners comfortable and happy.  



			
				Nostix said:
			
		

> Again, back to the issue. We know it is a "slam dunk", but why? What set of legal guidelines can you put in place which can be followed in a future case?



Some of these most heinous cases have heaps of solid evidence.  Such as the degenerates video taping themselves.  As for legal guidelines, that would be as always up to a judge to decide.  



			
				Nostix said:
			
		

> We can't exactly have a person's life sitting in the court of public opinion. That's fundamentally opposed to the purpose of the justice system.



Per se, it is only a legal system.  Justice took a big ole walk around, oh... 1982.  As for public opinion, we have more than enough examples that the judges have little or no regard for the publics opinion.  "Disdain" is the word that comes to mind for me.  There are a few decent exceptions, but judge-shopping for defense lawyers is pretty standard.  



			
				HavokFour said:
			
		

> Hang 'em high.
> 
> In my eyes, the perfect system would include...



Harsher penalties would be nice, but in reality the cost to house all those people would be stunning and unmanageable.  I'm all for the death suggestions you mentioned though.  FYI- "Rape" no longer exists in law, it's called sexual assault.  



			
				Brutus said:
			
		

> I agree. If we argue what is moral for me vs. what is moral for you, it's a very short conversation. But I think we are talking about collective Candian moral standards here, and not mine or yours specifically.



When last I heard any polling done, I believe something to the tune of 75% of Canadians supported the death penalty.  Perhaps it is simply time to amend the Charter.  



			
				Brutus said:
			
		

> What threat? If they are imprisoned for life, there is no chance of repeat offences barring an escape.



A "life" sentence is never that unless they have the dangerous offender status tacked on.  Even then, they can appeal every two years to have it lifted.  And getting DO is VERY rare.  As mentioned with Williams, if he doesn't kill himself (fingers crossed) he will likely be the model prisoner.  25 years hence he will have an excellent shot at getting out.  



			
				Brutus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying the Dangerous Offender designation hasn't worked? I think it works rather well due to it's simplicity - if you are designated, you are held indefinitely until you are deemed to not be designated.



That is much easier said than done unfortunately.  



			
				Brutus said:
			
		

> This problem should be addressed by securing the offender better, protecting the CO better, etc. The solution is not 'well, shoot, let's just kill him then.'



Why would you make a death penalty sentence sound frivolous or arbitrary?  I think that we can all agree that were it to exist it would be leveled only after exceptional consideration and weighing of the facts.  



			
				canada94 said:
			
		

> The perfect system? Eek. By "drugs" what do you mean?. You can have 1 gram of marijuana on you and you will most likely not even receive a fine. But you should get 20 years in your system. Yet you can break into someones house steal 5000 dollars worth of material and get less?. Absurd.



For the love of god, please lets not pick apart that post and turn this into a "Legalize the bud" discussion!  I think we have one of those already somewhere.


----------



## canada94 (21 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> So don't smoke Marijuana, problem solved.
> 
> Instead of having these jerks sit in prison for 10 years getting university degrees and crap we should put them to use in labour camps. Fixing roads.Helping the homeless somehow.



Yes a very smart way to solve our problems. Force labor upon people smoking marijuana. I don't smoke it myself, but I understand the complete stupidity of the money we spend on controlling it. Do you know what the largest source of economic income is in BC? Marijuana 6 billions dollars a year. I do understand what your saying though in _SOME_ sense it seems people in prison for doing petty crimes end up receiving more then the law abiding citizen.

I won't lose the point of the topic on the other hand;

As i stated before the charter defends the fact that, that we don't have the right to put someone to death as they are allowed the right to LIFE.


----------



## Container (21 Oct 2010)

You either believe in justified killings or you dont. I do. I dont believe all life is equal- I believe it starts out that way and then through your actions you can reduce your value. 

I refuse to offer protections to the rights of a person who refuses good people the same consideration. (in theory of course- as a member of society I have to go with some things i dont like!)

I believe in preemptive strikes on bombmakers. I believe that killing terrorists with UAV's is good. I believe that bombing Hiroshima was the correct course of action at that time. 

Some people need to be stopped. Im not uncomfortable with the idea. They choose their actions. 

The moral highground is a luxury not afforded by reality in my opinion.


----------



## Brutus (21 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> The problem is that the entire prison system is based on rehabilitation.



Is rehabilitation for those that CAN be rehabilitated a bad thing?



> Punishment is a severely minor element to being in jail.  Look at how hard and how much money is spent on making prisoners comfortable and happy.



This we can agree on. Prison needs to  return to a punishment mode. There's no reason why an inmate can't better himself and be rehabilitated while living in discomfort.



> When last I heard any polling done, I believe something to the tune of 75% of Canadians supported the death penalty.  Perhaps it is simply time to amend the Charter.



Could you post that survey? My understanding is that the vast majority of Canadians oppose it.



> A "life" sentence is never that unless they have the dangerous offender status tacked on.  Even then, they can appeal every two years to have it lifted.  And getting DO is VERY rare.  As mentioned with Williams, if he doesn't kill himself (fingers crossed) he will likely be the model prisoner.  25 years hence he will have an excellent shot at getting out.



Let's no resort to fear here. There is NO chance Williams, Pickton, Olsen, Bernardo, et.c will be released prior to their death. We should be looking at fixing the existing system (DO status), not throwing it out for a system rife with more problems and opportunities for heinous errors.


----------



## Container (21 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> If you were manning the C6 in a raid, would you not put a burst into the outhouse? The barracks/sleeping quarters? Clearly any enemy soldiers in either of these locations are not currently a threat at that exact moment, but we kill them anyhow...right?
> 
> How does the OP's scenario differ in principle or ethics?



????

These men wait for an opportunity to kill other people- but you suggest that we can just crate them? But sleeping enemy soldiers are okay? 

Apologies for bringing in other posts- but Im just trying to get my head around your "rule set".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Let's no resort to fear here. There is NO chance Williams, Pickton, Olsen, Bernardo, et.c will be released prior to their death. We should be looking at fixing the existing system (DO status), not throwing it out for a system rife with more problems and opportunities for heinous errors.



While you are, in all likelyhood, probably right, you are neither qualified, nor clairvoyant enough, to make that statement.


----------



## Brutus (21 Oct 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> ????
> 
> These men wait for an opportunity to kill other people- but you suggest that we can just crate them? But sleeping enemy soldiers are okay?
> 
> Apologies for bringing in other posts- but Im just trying to get my head around your "rule set".



I think you're asking me to reconcile the validity of killing sleeping enemy soldiers vs. not killing convicted murderers.

There are so many differences here that they are really not comparable. BUUUUT, I will try and explain my seemingly contradictory views.

Enemy soldiers are an uncontained threat. Incarcirated killers are not.

Enemy soldiers are killed as part of a military operation, executed murderers are not.

But the real big issue here is that many here propose the killing of a disarmed, captured civilian (say, Williams for example), but I think we all agree that we could not kill a captured, disarmed soldier. So the question is, if you are willing to accept that you must not kill a foreign enemy PW based on LOAC and ethical standards, why do you not offer the same mercy to a civilian killer?


----------



## Brutus (21 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> While you are, in all likelyhood, probably right, you are neither qualified, nor clairvoyant enough, to make that statement.



...but I'm probably right.

And if the slim hope that I'm wrong is the sticking point here, why not fix that? Make it mandatory that 1st degree murder is Life, no parole. Would that be ok?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Is rehabilitation for those that CAN be rehabilitated a bad thing?



Sure, it's a great concept.  However, there is no reason for criminals to change.  There is no genuine hardship caused by being incarcerated.  For most of them, it's a big joke and nothing to fear.  As one recidavist put it to me "Oh well, back into the penalty box for a five minute major".  



			
				Brutus said:
			
		

> Could you post that survey? My understanding is that the vast majority of Canadians oppose it.



Looks like my info is outdated:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/international-polls-and-studies


> •Although previous opinion polls have indicated over 70% support for the death penalty in Canada, that support has dramatically dropped. A poll showed an even split on the death penalty generally, with 48% supporting it and 47% opposing it. When asked which sentence they would favor for the most serious crimes, 53% supported a life sentence and only 42% supported the death penalty. (Montreal Gazette, 12/31/98).



Certainly not a "vast majority" are against it either.  I would be interested to see what the numbers would look like if it indicated that there was no chance of a wrongful conviction (lets not let that trigger a wrongful conviction discussion pls) 



			
				Brutus said:
			
		

> Let's no resort to fear here. There is NO chance Williams, Pickton, Olsen, Bernardo, et.c will be released prior to their death. We should be looking at fixing the existing system (DO status), not throwing it out for a system rife with more problems and opportunities for heinous errors.



At no time have I heard that anyone is seeking DO against Williams.  It has to be set out at the beginning, since that could affect how the defense counsell conducts the trial.  Thus, it would not appear that it is being sought.  If he studies, works hard, gets along with others, seeks couselling, finds God, knits doillies then mark my words: He has an EXCELLENT shot at making parole.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Oct 2010)

There is a big difference between a captured combatant and a serial killer. 

A serial killer is a predator. He (for serial killers are primarily male) will continue to victimize people in one way or another. As an example, Clifford Olsen continues to torment the parents of the kids he murdered.
A captured combatant is afforded protection based on hundreds of years of custom, practice and law.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> I think you're asking me to reconcile the validity of killing sleeping enemy soldiers vs. not killing convicted murderers.
> 
> There are so many differences here that they are really not comparable. BUUUUT, I will try and explain my seemingly contradictory views.
> 
> ...



Good enough.  Shoot them, then take the corpse into custody... ethical dilemma solved.

Oh, sorry, forgot to add  >


----------



## ballz (21 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> if you are willing to accept that you must not kill a foreign enemy PW based on LOAC and ethical standards, why do you not offer the same mercy to a civilian killer?



Wow now you're treading into murky waters, careful the army.ca monster doesn't get you. I'm going to try and be level-headed since it wasn't you that brought your post from a completely different topic into this discussion. I was originally going to tell the person that did "how can you try and apply that to this discussion," but you just tried to cross the discussions as well.

You are comparing a professional soldier to a serial killer.

The LoAC sets out a set of rules that professional soldiers play by in an Armed Conflict. Professional soldiers accept that if they're going to try and destroy an enemy, the enemy will also try and destroy him and his comrades.

Serial killers victimize the weak and vulnerable. Civilians have the Criminal Code of Canada that they accept and follow, serial killers break it.

Come on, think twice before you go comparing "civilian killers" to professional soldiers in a war-time environment.


----------



## Brutus (21 Oct 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Come on, think twice before you go comparing "civilian killers" to professional soldiers in a war-time environment.



I didn't, he did. I was answering a question.


----------



## GR66 (21 Oct 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> As for the DNA links- those examples do not dispute the validity of DNA based convictions. They dispute shitty lab and court work. The DNA in your link on the 60minus link has to do with the amount of information looked at by the lab. They were able to make the mistake because they do not use appropriate  thresholds. In fact the probability was only 1 in about 600 000. Thats terrible.
> 
> In Canadian forensics we use thresholds that have prbabilities in the billions far exceeding the population of the planet (living now combined with the amount taht have EVER lived)



All I'm suggesting is that we remember that we are only human and that we are NOT perfect.  Humans are collecting the DNA samples.  Humans are storing/transporting/handling the DNA samples.  Humans are testing the DNA samples and humans are analyzing those samples.  Mistakes CAN be made.  Even if the threshold of error is 1 in 100 billion what if that error occurs in the FIRST case as opposed to the LAST case?  Certainly change the system so that these guys (or gals as the case may be) are locked up FOREVER.  PERIOD.  END OF STORY.  At least in that case IF (or when?) a mistake does take place we have not taken an innocent life in error.  Just my personal opinion of course.

G


----------



## Brutus (21 Oct 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Wow now you're treading into murky waters, careful the army.ca monster doesn't get you. I'm going to try and be level-headed since it wasn't you that brought your post from a completely different topic into this discussion. I was originally going to tell the person that did "how can you try and apply that to this discussion," but you just tried to cross the discussions as well.
> 
> You are comparing a professional soldier to a serial killer.
> 
> ...



Actually, neither of us were...

We were comparing the ethics of killing a PW vs. the State killing a murderer. Any comparison of the serial killer to a professional soldier was intended to show that someone who we would agree is more deserving of death (the enemy soldier in an intense, kinetic, risky situation) is afforded his right to life, whereas a serial killer (captured, incarcirated, and posing virtually no imminent threat) is not.

And I don't buy the argument that we don't kill PWs because of custom or even law. We don't because it's wrong.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Oct 2010)

If you look at history, you'll see that its a custom and law that we don't kill PWs. And I agree, it would be wrong.

Besides, I really think this is a red herring. We've hung murderers in the past.


----------



## ballz (21 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Any comparison of the serial killer to a professional soldier was intended to show that someone who we would agree is more deserving of death (the enemy soldier in an intense, kinetic, risky situation) is afforded his right to life, whereas a serial killer (captured, incarcirated, and posing virtually no imminent threat) is not.



What makes this surrendering soldier(s) deserving of death? What did he do wrong exactly? Fought for his side, just like members of the CF do? 

I have no real life experience, so sorry if I piss anybody off as this may seem like a dumb question, but how is a surrendering soldier(s) or wounded to the point of neutralized a threat? I'm not talking about in COIN, I'm talking about conventional warfare against a nation. Sure, be vigilant and treat it with caution, but a section inflicted with serious casualties waving a white flag doesn't seem much of a threat to me?

I'm still more bewildered as to why they are more "deserving of death" than a cold-blooded killer?


----------



## Brutus (21 Oct 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> What makes this surrendering soldier(s) deserving of death? What did he do wrong exactly? Fought for his side, just like members of the CF do?
> 
> I have no real life experience, so sorry if I piss anybody off as this may seem like a dumb question, but how is a surrendering soldier(s) or wounded to the point of neutralized a threat? I'm not talking about in COIN, I'm talking about conventional warfare against a nation. Sure, be vigilant and treat it with caution, but a section inflicted with serious casualties waving a white flag doesn't seem much of a threat to me?
> 
> I'm still more bewildered as to why they are more "deserving of death" than a cold-blooded killer?



We're beating a dead horse. My point was that we offer mercy to PWs for ethical reasons (among other reasons), but many propose not offering mercy to a person of much less imminent threat. My issue is not with the PW obviously (and if it was this is the wrong thread), but with the dismissal of the ethical consequences of the cold blooded killing of a man who poses no threat to anyone, imminently. Yes, that threat may resurface, but we should address that by eliminating the possibility through life incarciration, not by killing them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Oct 2010)

canada94 said:
			
		

> Yes a very smart way to solve our problems. Force labor upon people smoking marijuana. I don't smoke it myself, but I understand the complete stupidity of the money we spend on controlling it. Do you know what the largest source of economic income is in BC? Marijuana 6 billions dollars a year. I do understand what your saying though in _SOME_ sense it seems people in prison for doing petty crimes end up receiving more then the law abiding citizen.
> 
> I won't lose the point of the topic on the other hand;
> 
> As i stated before the charter defends the fact that, that we don't have the right to put someone to death as they are allowed the right to LIFE.



Pot is harmless, just ask the people who have their houses broken into by addicts ot the RCMP who were killed out west.
Criminals, regardless of their crimes "giving back" to soceity in the form of free labour is a very smart idea, I agree with you.



			
				Container said:
			
		

> You either believe in justified killings or you dont. I do. I dont believe all life is equal- I believe it starts out that way and then through your actions you can reduce your value.
> 
> I refuse to offer protections to the rights of a person who refuses good people the same consideration. (in theory of course- as a member of society I have to go with some things i dont like!)
> 
> ...



I'd sit down for a drink or 12 with you any day man, good post!


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Oct 2010)

Excuse me but as a former Correctional Officer with some experience, serial killers when incarcerated,  don't stop vicitmizing. They find ways and means to continue, legal or otherwise.

They do not "rehabilitate". They never will.

Ted Bundy will victimize no longer.


----------



## Brutus (21 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Excuse me but as a former Correctional Officer with some experience, serial killers when incarcerated,  don't stop vicitmizing. They find ways and means to continue, legal or otherwise.
> 
> They do not "rehabilitate". They never will.
> 
> Ted Bundy will victimize no longer.



Totally agree. My understanding is that these individuals are, for the most part, sociopaths and cannot be changed. But not all murderers are sociopaths.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Totally agree. My understanding is that these individuals are, for the most part, sociopaths and cannot be changed. But not all murderers are sociopaths.


You are in fact correct. I've spoken with several. Most are the "heat of the moment" types - men who have what we call "anger managment" issues. In other words, bad tempers.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Oct 2010)

Anyone is capable of ending another life given the right stressors or enticements.  To actively hunt them down and torture them before ending their lives, and to do so repeatedly, takes a special kind of sicko, who will never be anything but a sicko, 30 years of state supplied "rehabilitation" or not.


----------



## Brutus (21 Oct 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Anyone is capable of ending another life given the right stressors or enticements.  To actively hunt them down and torture them before ending their lives, and to do so repeatedly, takes a special kind of sicko, who will never be anything but a sicko, 30 years of state supplied "rehabilitation" or not.



Agreed.

I don't want to be read as some kind of softy. People like Pickton and Olsen can never be reached, they will never feel remorse, they will never be rehabilitated. I just don't agree that killing them is an acceptable alternative to letting them rot in prison, risks of escape and violence in prison be damned.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Oct 2010)

Alright folks, as stated earlier, we're going in ever shrinking circles here......again. Get your final points in as we're coming up short on wasting any more time. You'll have a chance the next time the subject comes up again and again and again.

The Forum is not in the habit of letting people chime off incessantly, just so they can hear themselves talk.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## KevinB (21 Oct 2010)

Its the State that controls the use of force, either the Military to kill an Enemy combatant (lawful or unlawful combatants), or the Legal System to Kill an Enemy of the State, who has been tried and found guilty by a jury of his/her peers.

 I'm proud to life in a state that both has castle law (so I can invoke my own sentence if need be), CCW and Capital Punishment.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Oct 2010)

Forget tap-dancing around the LOAC and go to the heart of state-sanctioned killing.  When Canadians send forces abroad, Canadians risk collateral killings.  As I wrote in another thread: "The restraint against a government killing a non-citizen, who is emphatically not subject to its powers by any reasonable standard, should be greater than against killing those theoretically subject to its powers; the restraint against killing innocents should be greater than against killing criminals, particularly criminals of a predatory nature."  Since we are willing to risk killing innocent foreigners not subject to our laws and customs, we have already crossed the bar for killing criminal citizens subject to our laws.

Against the death penalty:  "And the simplest and most compelling objection is that for a not unbearable annual maintenance cost, a convict's life is preserved against the possibility evidence might later surface which casts doubt on guilt."

However, in some cases there will be a preponderance of non-circumstantial evidence which removes all doubt.  Even then we can first separate those who are a risk only to the "weak" (ie. will not attack a CO or inmate) from those who are a risk to everybody and focus further attention to the latter.  CO's must accept some risk as a condition of the job; inmates are not so bound.  A true life prisoner has little else to lose if he can not be executed.  Execution is not general deterrence; it is specific deterrence.  And at some level, confinement and restraint also become cruel and unusual.


----------



## mariomike (23 Oct 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> And at some level, confinement and restraint also become cruel and unusual.



Then there are the Tex Watson's, ( Manson Family ).  He was scheduled for the gas chamber at San Quentin, but was reprieved, along with Manson, Sirhan Sirhan and many others when California temporarily abolished the death penalty. After that, Tex went on to get married behind bars and sired four more children during conjugal visits.

Or Canada'a Roch Theriault who is still ( last I read ) visited regularly by some of his former cult "wives,'' who have moved to New Brunswick to be close to him and have borne him more children following conjugal visits. 

Or this guy: "Life inside a British Columbia prison – a facility dubbed Club Fed – has been good for the man who shot dead two people in an Osgoode Hall courtroom and left a third man paralyzed for life, a court has heard.
For nearly seven years, Kuldip Singh Samra has been playing chess, baking cookies, preparing his own meals in his residential-style unit, working in his vegetable garden, taking courses in sociology and jogging on a private track at the minimum security facility that isn't surrounded by a high wall or a barbed-wire fence.":
http://www.thestar.com/article/172315 

"At one time, it even had its own "pitch and putt" golf course for inmates but, as warden Brian Lang testified yesterday, it had to be shut down because of a public outcry."

Here's one more, from Milnet.
"Mass murderer Nathan Fry seeks 'upbeat' pen pal":
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/91624/post-904996.html#msg904996


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Oct 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> CO's must accept some risk as a condition of the job; inmates are not so bound.



I'm hoping you are meaning "face risk".  To "accept risk" suggests that a CO should expect to be assaulted and that it is just part of the job.  That sort of thinking minimizes what they do and fosters an environment where they can get "a little hurt, it's part of the job".  Police get jammed with the same thing.  



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> A true life prisoner has little else to lose if he can not be executed.



But that doesn't happen in Canada unless they have the dangerous offender status, that that doesn't happen nearly often enough.  



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> And at some level, confinement and restraint also become cruel and unusual.



Maybe, but our prison system is more at risk of being "overly comfortable and alluring" than being accused of being "cruel and unusual".


----------



## canada94 (23 Oct 2010)

Yea dangerous offender status is only given to people who have no conscious. Yet some offenders escape it and get out in 25 years, our justice system is flawed in a lot of ways; but the death penalty isn't where it starts. 

Mike


----------



## GAP (23 Oct 2010)

I'm thinking there are not a whole wack of 75 year old offenders out there after doing their 25 years.....for the most part they're toast....


----------



## mariomike (23 Oct 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> I'm thinking there are not a whole wack of 75 year old offenders out there after doing their 25 years.....for the most part they're toast....



Star
13 August, 1998:
"The man who shot dead a Toronto police officer after a Danforth Ave. bank robbery in 1973 has served his 25-year life sentence and is now on day parole from a Quebec penitentiary."
"Now 49, Vaillancourt was 24 when he shot and killed Maitland, 35, on Feb. 1, 1973, after a bank robbery at Coxwell-Danforth Aves."
"Vaillancourt was sentenced to hang, but his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment after Ottawa abolished the death penalty in 1976"  
``Mr. Vaillancourt can have another life if he wants,'' McCullum said. ``Twenty-five years is not long enough. Life should mean life.''  
http://www.tpg1.com/protest/federal/cp/star1.html


----------



## canada94 (23 Oct 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Star
> 13 August, 1998:
> "The man who shot dead a Toronto police officer after a Danforth Ave. bank robbery in 1973 has served his 25-year life sentence and is now on day parole from a Quebec penitentiary."
> "Now 49, Vaillancourt was 24 when he shot and killed Maitland, 35, on Feb. 1, 1973, after a bank robbery at Coxwell-Danforth Aves."
> ...



Escaped in the nic of time.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Oct 2010)

>I'm hoping you are meaning "face risk".  To "accept risk" suggests that a CO should expect to be assaulted and that it is just part of the job. 

If you prefer "face" to "accept", that's fine.  "I accept the risk" is a common enough turn of phrase when I outline risks to decision makers.  I don't think most people interpret "accept the risk of <event>" as "accept the inevitable certainty of <event>".


----------



## GAP (24 Oct 2010)

It's not the death penalty, but I assume the deterrent effect is still there....

 Iranian authorities cut off hand of convicted thief in front of other prisoners
Article Link
By: The Associated Press Posted: 24/10/2010

Iranian authorities have amputated the hand of a convicted thief in front of other prisoners, state radio reported Sunday, in a possible step toward restoring the punishment to common use and carrying it out in public.

Cutting off the hands of thieves — allowed for by the Iranian judiciary's strict reading of Islamic law — has been rare in Iran in recent years, but the amputation reported Sunday was the second this month. And a week ago, a judge ordered the same punishment for a man who stole from a candy shop, though that ruling can still be appealed.

Sunday's report said the 32-year-old convict, whose hand was cut off at a prison in the central city of Yazd, had committed four robberies and other crimes. It did not elaborate or identify the prisoner by name. Yazd is 400 miles, or 670 kilometres, southeast of the capital, Tehran.

There were no details on how the punishment was carried out. There have been conflicting reports in the past, with some saying amputations were done in the early 1980s without any medical procedures. Other reports said they were carried out in the presence of a doctor. A recent news report said they would now be carried out with the prisoner receiving anesthesia.

An audience of fellow inmates was assembled to witness the amputation, which could be a sign that such punishments will be done before the public in the future.

The punishment has been part of Iran's penal code since 1980, a year after the country's clerical leaders came to power in the revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed shah.
More on link


----------



## mariomike (24 Oct 2010)

Looks like supplies are running low in the U.S.:
"Shortage of lethal injection drug halts US executions":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8030839/Shortage-of-lethal-injection-drug-halts-US-executions.html


----------



## Brutus (25 Oct 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Execution is not general deterrence; it is specific deterrence.  And at some level, confinement and restraint also become cruel and unusual.



I appologize for picking one thing out of your post, but this is one issue that we haven't really discussed.

I agree that the death penalty IS a deterrance, but i don't think it's a very good one. To try and figure out what kind of deterrence CP would have in Canada, we can look at the deterance factor in the closest comparison we have to our society, the US.

Of the top 10 murder States in the US (Lousiana, New Mexico, Maryland, Tennesse, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, S. Carolina, Michigan, Oklahoma), only one does not have the death penalty (Michigan). Of the top 20 murder rate States, again, only one does not have the Death penalty. Of the bottom 10 States in murder rate, 6 don't have the Death Penalty. Of the bottom 20, 10 don't have the Death Penalty. 

Combined, Death Penalty States have a higher rate of murder than non Death Penalty States. In 2007, DP States have a 42% higher murder rate than non-death penalty States. From 2003-2007 the difference remained in the 40% range, 2000-2002 it was in the 30's, 1995-1999 it bounced in from the 20's to the 40's, and from 1990-1994 it bounced from as low as 4% to as high as 17%. 

But the end result is that, in every year from 1990-2007, the States with the Death Penalty had a higher murder rate than those without. The Death Penalty is not serving as a deterant in the US. Why would anyone think Canada would be different? 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

editted to add link


----------



## KevinB (25 Oct 2010)

You cannot use that in isolation, you also need to look at the demographics in both poverty and population density.

As well as Border States (at least Southern Border) have much higher rates due to both Drug and Alien Smuggling.


----------



## Brutus (25 Oct 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> You cannot use that in isolation, you also need to look at the demographics in both poverty and population density.
> 
> As well as Border States (at least Southern Border) have much higher rates due to both Drug and Alien Smuggling.



Of course there are other factors that affect murder rates. But if we are discussing the Death Penalty, and one of the chief arguments for it is it's deterant factor, then measuring the effectiveness of this deterant must be part of the discusion. 

Does population density affect murder rate? Yes, lower density states have a lower murder rate. Does poverty affect the murder rate? Yes, the more affluent a state, the less likely it's citizens will resort to murder.

But to dismiss the stats that clearly show that Capital Punishment in the States has had NO positive deterant factor because there are OTHER factors that affect murder rates is dishonest. In fact, if you could draw any conclusion from the stats, you would say that NO death penalty is a deterant to murder.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> But to dismiss the stats that clearly show that Capital Punishment in the States has had NO positive deterant factor because there are OTHER factors that affect murder rates is dishonest. In fact, if you could draw any conclusion from the stats, you would say that NO death penalty is a deterant to murder.


Your logic is faulty.  Given the other prevelant factors, can you say what the murder rates would be had there been no death penalty?



That's what I thought.


But it's not just about deterrence.  It's also about punishment.


----------



## Brutus (25 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Your logic is faulty.  Given the other prevalent factors, can you say what the murder rates would be had there been no death penalty?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No one can.

But, of the poorer states, the ones WITH capital punishment tend to have higher murder rates.

West Virginia, the 2ND poorest State in the US, has the 23rd highest Murder rate, and no Capital Punishment. 

Maryland, the richest State in the US, has the 3rd highest murder rate, and HAS Capital Punishment.

So we have a poor State with a modest murder rate and no CP, and a very rich state with CP and a very high murder rate.

The correlation between capital punishment and murder rate suggests that NO Capital Punishment is a deterant, and Cp is not.

As for the punishment factor, I think 30 years of hard time is far worse than 10 followed by execution.

edit:

i understand the draw of CP, I used to be for it. But to argue for it using deterrence as an example of it's effectiveness is a bad idea. It just isn't there. I agree that CP satisfies the populace that the killer will never kill again, and there's no getting around that. But I think the driving force behind most proponents of CP is the vengeance factor, and like it or not, this is not an acceptable factor in our justice system. We can change this, sure, but as it stands, vengeance is not something the Candian Justice system considers. The US system does, but I question the motives of anyone who looks at their system, and especially their recidivism, and wishes to emulate their system.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> No one can.
> 
> But, of the poorer states, the ones WITH capital punishment tend to have higher murder rates.
> 
> ...


I disagree with your logic.  EDIT TO EXPLAIN:  West Virginia is a mostly rural state, no?  Could other factors talk to why the murder rate is lower?  Closer family bonds?  Maryland is mostly urban, no?  Would the crowded cities affect group psychology and be a factor in the high murder rates there?
We have a poor state with a dispersed population compared to Maryland, with a lower rate, and a rich (on average, but is it proportional?) population, but a more clustered setting?  
That's what I mean that there are more factors that just saying that the absence of CP in one place and the presence of it in another is good enough reasoning to abolish it.

But I do understand your opposition to CP, and you raise very good points about it being vengeance.  I offer that it is a necessary evil, just as I believe that it's a necessary evil to inject a poor Talib slob with hot molten lead because he's planting a bomb.  It's necessary, of course, but when we have to kill, at war or not, it's a failure in humanity.  Even though, I feel personally that once in a generation, there is a criminal convicted of something so evil, that there is no worth in keeping him or her alive, and the mantra that "justice must be seen" demands of us to end their lives, publically and brutally, but not to the point of sadism.  Hence my advocation that we use ropes to hang them by the neck until they are dead.  In short: our society must be satisfied that these predators will hunt no more, and will drain our public purse no more than the cost of 13 feet of hemp rope.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Oct 2010)

Where deterrence fails, it's impossible to argue that murders who are put do death can re offend.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Oct 2010)

That's true, Grimaldus, but I would offer that very few murderers be sentenced to death.  There are those who commit their crimes in the heat of passion, etc.  It's the predators whom we must execute, IMHO.


----------



## KevinB (25 Oct 2010)

Recitivism in predator types is very high - and that for Capital Punishment is the greatest point.

Back to Brutus -- in W.Va. they have rather liberal gun laws and concealed carry, in the People's Republic of Maryland guns are more stringestly regulated and no real concealed carry exists.

 Jumping into Self Defense issues for a second, down here, states that have adopted "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry policies the murder rates and violent crime has decreased, hence a potential "immediate capital punishment" sentence being instituted.


----------



## Brutus (25 Oct 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Recidivism in predator types is very high - and that for Capital Punishment is the greatest point.
> 
> Back to Brutus -- in W.Va. they have rather liberal gun laws and concealed carry, in the People's Republic of Maryland guns are more stringently regulated and no real concealed carry exists.
> 
> Jumping into Self Defense issues for a second, down here, states that have adopted "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry policies the murder rates and violent crime has decreased, hence a potential "immediate capital punishment" sentence being instituted.



Now THIS is a very good deterant to murder....

The stats are admitidly murky on Capital Punishment and deterrence. Clearly I cannot effectively argue that CP is an aggravating factor, but I think I have shown that it is not a real significant deterant. So, would having CP make murder worse? Maybe, but I have no way of statistically backing that up. But I have yet to see any empirical evidence that it helps the situation.

One thing I think most can agree on - poverty is a DEFINATE aggravating factor. The poorer your immediate surroundings, the more likely you are to be the victim of the ultimate violent crime.

And I would love it if we had licences to carry concealed weapons here.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Oct 2010)

Brutus, your assertion that poverty is an aggravating factor is good, but it is only one factor. When a family of five siblings, and four are hard working, law abiding, but still poverty stricken, but do not resort to crime, but the fifth one is constantly in trouble, then poverty cannot be blamed.
When I was in Corrections, we hade plenty of inmates who were not rich, but came from families who were not poverty stricken.

Read "Inside the Criminal Mind" By Dr Stanton Samenow. It will give you some insights into the criminal mind.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That's true, Grimaldus, but I would offer that* very few murderers be sentenced to death. * There are those who commit their crimes in the heat of passion, etc.  It's the predators whom we must execute, IMHO.



This should be changed IMO.
Too many "plea bargins" and dirty deals.



> Karla Leanne Homolka, also known as Karla Leanne Teale (born 4 May 1970 in Port Credit, Ontario, Canada), is a Canadian convict. She attracted worldwide media attention when she was *convicted of manslaughter following a plea bargain* in the 1991 and 1992* rape-murders of two Ontario teenage girls,* Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, as well as *the rape and death of her own sister* Tammy.[2]
> 
> Paul Bernardo was arrested in 1993 and in 1995 was convicted of the two teenagers' murders. He received life in prison, the full maximum sentence allowed in Canada. Homolka, however, *"portrayed herself as the innocent victim of a murderous monster. [In 1993], she struck a deal with prosecutors (later dubbed the "Deal with the Devil") and pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the deaths in exchange for a 12-year prison sentence. But videotapes of the crimes, found after the plea bargain, showed her to be a more active participant.*  La Presse claimed that Homolka was back in Ontario studying Law and living with her partner Luka Magnotta.[5][6]



We're doing it wrong  :nod:


----------



## Brutus (25 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Brutus, your assertion that poverty is an aggravating factor is good, but it is only one factor. When a family of five siblings, and four are hard working, law abiding, but still poverty stricken, but do not resort to crime, but the fifth one is constantly in trouble, then poverty cannot be blamed.
> When I was in Corrections, we hade plenty of inmates who were not rich, but came from families who were not poverty stricken.
> 
> Read "Inside the Criminal Mind" By Dr Stanton Samenow. It will give you some insights into the criminal mind.



Oh for sure. 

In the end, murder is the act of the individual, for his own reasons. I in no way want to suggest that rich people don't kill, or that poverty is an excuse. These are factors to look at when looking at the problem as a whole, not when looking at the act of the individual. 

Murderers of the serial or cold blooded type have an ability to kill that no one else posseses. They don't have the psychological fail-safe that normal people do. The 'heat of passion' killer doesn't worry me (hopefully the punishment and some rehab will prevent further crimes), but these other animals there is no cure for. 

I just disagree with most here on how to cure the animal.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Oct 2010)

That is a case of a case gone wrong, IMHO.  She is a predator, who should still be behind bars.  So, in a case like hers....


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> I just disagree with most here on how to cure the animal.


To be honest, I don't see it as a method to cure the animal, but rather to rid us of it forever.


----------



## Brutus (25 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> To be honest, I don't see it as a method to cure the animal, but rather to rid us of it forever.


potato/potahto


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Oct 2010)

Well, actually, it's more "Potato/Monkey Wrench" in the difference. I believe that most criminals can be rehabilitated.  Some can't.  Of those who can't, some are that "dangerous" that they ought to be put down.  That's all.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Oct 2010)

It says something about a society when it cares more for it's pets than it's citizens.  A rabid dog is put down quickly and efficiently.  A mad dog human is left to languish in prison for years... sometimes as many as 7 in Canada.


----------



## Brutus (25 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Well, actually, it's more "Potato/Monkey Wrench" in the difference. I believe that most criminals can be rehabilitated.  Some can't.  Of those who can't, some are that "dangerous" that they ought to be put down.  That's all.


Of all the arguments FOR capital punishment, this is the most compelling. To me.

I think the first step to reform of our system should be the removal of ALL luxuries from our jails. No tv, no movies. Yes to books and anything that can better the inmate. No to anything that is strictly entertainment. A lot of criminals have it better in prison than out. That's pathetic.

A gym, a library, a church and your cell.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Oct 2010)

Thank you, Brutus, but I must admit that the thought that we as a society must execute people still disturbs me, just as it disturbed me when I saw enemies of ours killed overseas.  Not so much for pity for them, but that things came to where it was necessary to do so.  

This is why I am utterly opposed to so-called "humane" methods of execution.  We as a society must never get comfortable with the idea, necessary though it may be.


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> This should be changed IMO.
> Too many "plea bargins" and dirty deals.
> 
> We're doing it wrong  :nod:



Something I never considered, but just having the death penalty available may mean that although we end up plea bargaining, we may end up being able to use it as bargaining power to put criminals away for longer.

Perhaps if, for first degree, the penalty were "minimum life (25 years), maximum death," and the death penalty were available, and "true life" were available, we may be able to get people to plead guilty to first degree murder if we offer life/25 years or true life, instead of having to offer "2nd degree" because we lack the evidence to prove it's premeditated.

If it was in fact premeditated, the murderer might be more inclined to accept 25 years to avoid the death penalty, instead of fighting for 10-25 because 25 is the worst they can get anyway....

Thoughts?


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Oct 2010)

Plea bargins suck. 


Get rid of plea bargins. No dropping from 1st degree murder to manslaughter if buddy agrees to rat out his friend.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Plea bargins suck.
> 
> 
> Get rid of plea bargins. No dropping from 1st degree murder to manslaughter if buddy agrees to rat out his friend.



Much easier said than done. The Crown depends on plea bargains as the burden of proof is on the Crown, and they may not possess the required evidence to convict on First Degree.


----------



## mariomike (26 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Where deterrence fails, it's impossible to argue that murders who are put do death can re offend.



"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


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Oct 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> I appologize for picking one thing out of your post, but this is one issue that we haven't really discussed.
> 
> I agree that the death penalty IS a deterrance, but i don't think it's a very good one...



...which is why I originally wrote "Execution is not general deterrence; it is specific deterrence".  "Specific" means "the offender", not "everyone else".  State-sanctioned killing as an object lesson to others strikes me as distasteful policy, even if there were data to back it up (which does not appear to be the case).  The simple threat of imprisonment seems to work on most people who are of a mind to be deterred.  But execution works admirably to prevent an unquestionably guilty person of high likelihood to commit the same offence from ever doing so.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Oct 2010)

Not picking on anyone here. It's a good discussion.

However, _I think_ Brutus has it in his mind to win. He is not going to leave any stone unturned until his protagonists concede defeat, which is good. Unfortunately, the discussion has gone beyond the simple question.

It WAS getting circular, it has evolved somewhat (slightly), if we can continue it as such it may survive.

I don't think, personally, there is much more to say. Kill them, or don't. Nuances be damned. I have land in Florida for anyone that thinks revenge and retribution are not basic human qualities that should be held onto and promoted.

To forget our past, allows us to repeat it.


----------



## Brutus (27 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not picking on anyone here. It's a good discussion.
> 
> However, _I think_ Brutus has it in his mind to win. He is not going to leave any stone unturned until his protagonists concede defeat, which is good. Unfortunately, the discussion has gone beyond the simple question.
> 
> ...



I am rather competitive....

Truth be told I am not trying to change anyone's mind. Everyone here has a rational basis for their views, and those are tough to change (and I'm not trying). I admit I feel rather passionate about this topic, and hope I haven't beaten you all over the head with it too much. 

I just really like a good (respectful) debate.


Brad: interesting distinction between general and specific deterance. I hadn't considered that. If you're right, the stats I posted have far less significance.


----------



## Ex-SHAD (28 Oct 2010)

Hanging, since it was historically the only authorized method of execution in the Dominion of Canada.


----------



## marshall sl (29 Oct 2010)

Speaking as a CO with 28 years in.At my Institution we have give or take 80 lifers. That's 80 Convicts that should be dead! Hang Them!!!


----------



## pontcanna (27 Nov 2010)

And I have seven "dead men walking" on my caseload, some of whom have been in the community for decades and are extremely low risk. Guess we should kill 'em now, just to be fair.


----------



## Ex-SHAD (27 Nov 2010)

pontcanna said:
			
		

> And I have seven "dead men walking" on my caseload, some of whom have been in the community for decades and are extremely low risk. Guess we should kill 'em now, just to be fair.



Considering the unreasonable tax burden placed on the Citizenry of Canada by lifers and violent criminals, it’s both reasonable and fair to have these men put to death.


----------



## Container (27 Nov 2010)

pontcanna said:
			
		

> And I have seven "dead men walking" on my caseload, some of whom have been in the community for decades and are extremely low risk. Guess we should kill 'em now, just to be fair.



What qualifies these men as "dead men walking"? If they meet the relatively stiff requirements we suggest in this thread- not every murderer and rapist gets the penalty as proposed. 

By virture of being low risk they already seem like they wouldnt be a candidate. Predators are never low risk.


----------



## mariomike (27 Nov 2010)

pontcanna said:
			
		

> And I have seven "dead men walking" on my caseload, some of whom have been in the community for decades and are extremely low risk. Guess we should kill 'em now, just to be fair.



"in the community for decades"?
How long did they serve? 

If you treat and transport their victims from crime scenes, I think it may influence a person's opinion on the subject of punishment.


----------



## Sapplicant (2 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This is why I am utterly opposed to so-called "humane" methods of execution.



Sometimes these "humane" methods don't work so well.




> Romell Broom's execution last year was stopped by Gov. Ted Strickland after an execution team tried for two hours to find a suitable vein to administer a lethal injection.
> 
> Broom has said he was stuck with needles at least 18 times, with pain so intense that he cried and screamed.



Which then transitions to 



> He was sentenced to die for the 1984 rape and slaying of 14-year-old Tryna Middleton after abducting her in Cleveland as she walked home from a Friday night football game with two friends.




Needle vs.  :bullet: 


:bullet: wins, every time.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2010)

There is a "dead man walking" here in Winnipeg. This ne'er do well was in custody for a number of years for making "movies" with underage females, one of whom is the daughter of a high profile former/still gang member.
What do you think his chances are on the street? The law of the street doesn't recognize concepts such as procedural fairness etc.....


----------



## PMedMoe (2 Dec 2010)

> Broom has said he was stuck with needles at least 18 times, *with pain so intense that he cried and screamed*.



Oh, boo hoo.   :crybaby:

I wonder how 14-year-old Tryna Middleton felt when she was raped and killed by him?


----------



## GAP (2 Dec 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> There is a "dead man walking" here in Winnipeg. This ne'er do well was in custody for a number of years for making "movies" with underage females, one of whom is the daughter of a high profile former/still gang member.
> What do you think his chances are on the street? The law of the street doesn't recognize concepts such as procedural fairness etc.....



Is that the one that the cops announced was getting out this week.....?  Think red flag......waving....yahoo!!!


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Is that the one that the cops announced was getting out this week.....?  Think red flag......waving....yahoo!!!


Yes,  that's him.

I had the dubious pleasure to supervise him while he was in PC.


----------



## pontcanna (2 Dec 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "in the community for decades"? How long did they serve?


Mostly between 10 and 25 years.


----------



## ballz (4 Dec 2010)

Here's the link to another thread with an article about a multi-murderer in Canada that we had locked up who was apparently no longer able to continue killing people...

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97872.0.html

There are also a few comments in there which led to me reposting into this thread as to avoid derailing the other one.


So, what do you anti-capital punishment fellows have to say now? He sure managed to kill somebody despite his life sentence, and will do so again anytime he gets the chance, which he will, because as long as he's locked up and not dead, even in solitary confinement, somebody's got to bring him food/water, new linens, etc.

Nobody that comes into contact with him is safe, and he knows they can't really make his punishment any worse right now either.


----------



## old medic (5 Dec 2010)

Just to fuel some more debate on this, here's a story from Friday's Sun chain.

Man deemed likely to kill to be set free
By Jason Halstead, QMI Agency
Last Updated: December 3, 2010 5:17pm
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/canada/2010/12/03/16422256.html



> WINNIPEG – A convicted killer the National Parole Board says poses an unmanageable risk of violently re-offending will be out of jail before Christmas.
> 
> Brent Leask, who stabbed a man to death in a Winnipeg park in 2001 and later deliberately drove a vehicle into a crowd of people while on statutory release in 2006, will serve out his full sentence after the National Parole Board again decided he is too dangerous to release early.
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2010)

Ah, just the perfect Christmas present for our society: a homicidal maniac.  Awesome.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Ah, just the perfect Christmas present for our society: a homicidal maniac.  Awesome.



If it makes ya feel better they get everyday...............naw, I guess it wouldn't.

But they do, most even get out early, unlike this guy.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 Dec 2010)

Set your calendars for 25 years.  That's when Williams will be out and given a new identity so he can start a new life.


----------



## armyvern (31 May 2012)

Bring it back; I'll even volunteer to pull the switch. 

Luka Magnotta was mentionned in this thread back in 2010 ... He's now making the news big time once again. Kittens, Body parts, ice picks and videos ...

Previously it was for Karla ...


> "She has had so much opportunity to get help in prison," Dr. Van Gijseghem said.
> "But if we don't really recognize we have a problem that needs to be changed, how can psychotherapy have some impact?"
> Karla Homolka now lives in the Caribean with her new husband Luka Magnotta and four year old son Damien.



Sick little man also has himself a blog:
Necrophiliac Serial Killer

Serial Killer eh? I won't be surprised if that bears out as true in the end. Something tells me that he's got some experience in this. Wonder if She-Devil assisted/lured any one for him. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out_ that_ way either.


----------



## YZT580 (5 Aug 2019)

Abdullah, you are right on.  Before your time but there was once a PM who advocated for the end of the death penalty, promising that a life sentence meant a life sentence.   I could accept that but it never happens except in extreme cases like Paul Bernardo and even his case comes up for review regularly.  People consider the death penalty as cruel and unusual.  Well so is robbing another of their life.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Aug 2019)

Life sentence with regular parole review is a life sentence to the victims families


----------



## AbdullahD (5 Aug 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Life sentence with regular parole review is a life sentence to the victims families



https://www.citynews1130.com/2011/07/04/father-of-jamie-cliffs-murder-victim-speaks/

He was family to me, his family and ours grew up as one. Uncle Chris, and Aunty Darlene, never deserved this.

Since then the pos who Murdered Andrew has been appealing amongst other things, trying to get out of jail and they get to be notified of it constantly and have to fight to keep that pos behind bars. Also look at his rap sheep, what hes being doing behind bars etc.

I thought I heard he was a freeman now.. but that may be wrong...

But yeah. Torture is a better description of what they go through.

It isn't fair, they end up costing us more money, the families suffer more etc. A life for a life is justice. We throw out bad apples, bad meat, we put down rabid dogs, why is this different.

Abdullah


----------



## mariomike (5 Aug 2019)

For capital punishment debate,

The Capital Punishment Debate 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/37415.25
24 pages.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Aug 2019)

>why is this different.

I'll be blunt: to me, your misery is the price I'm willing to pay to absolutely guarantee no innocent is executed.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (5 Aug 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> https://www.citynews1130.com/2011/07/04/father-of-jamie-cliffs-murder-victim-speaks/
> I thought I heard he was a freeman now.. but that may be wrong...



He was sentenced to 25 years in prison without parole; he is going to be in jail for a few more years.


----------



## ballz (5 Aug 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >why is this different.
> 
> I'll be blunt: to me, your misery is the price I'm willing to pay to absolutely guarantee no innocent is executed.



Sure but we could at least have a true life sentence instead of this 25 years BS. One where after the normal appeals related to the trial are done, that's it, no more parole hearings, etc. unless there's been something such as new evidence to trigger a possible re-trial / exoneration of the accused.


----------



## brihard (6 Aug 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> Sure but we could at least have a true life sentence instead of this 25 years BS. One where after the normal appeals related to the trial are done, that's it, no more parole hearings, etc. unless there's been something such as new evidence to trigger a possible re-trial / exoneration of the accused.



That would be acceptable. Or, at a minimum, long term / dangerous offender status should be applied more readily. However the risk of a wrongful execution is absolutely unacceptable.


----------



## GAP (6 Aug 2019)

well, at least they have accepted consecutive rather than concurrent sentences


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2019)

>Sure but we could at least have a true life sentence instead of this 25 years BS.

I fully agree.


----------



## AbdullahD (6 Aug 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >why is this different.
> 
> I'll be blunt: to me, your misery is the price I'm willing to pay to absolutely guarantee no innocent is executed.



That is fine, we disagree and I suspect our views are not going to align any time soon.

I just feel if it is clear cut, clean verdict etc, then it is acceptable to execute murders. I also believe a waiting period should exist and if no new evidence, information or testimony comes forward to change the verdict then it should go forward.

Not all murderers would be executed or well I should say in my opinion should be executed in my view, in order to protect someone from being wrongfully convicted and executed.

But if it is an open and closed case, heck even with a prior criminal record etc.. string em up after the waiting period. Maybe I am a hardliner, maybe not, I do not know if it would curtail murders or not etc, I just feel it is right and just.

But any rate, agree to disagree?
Abdullah


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Aug 2019)

I'm pro death penalty but cases like Glen Assoun's wrongful conviction and spending 18 years in prison (after police eraced evidence) has me thinking maybe I have it wrong.


----------



## mariomike (6 Aug 2019)

This is in US Politics. But, also has a couple of pages of recent opinion on capital punishment in general,

USA brings back death penalty for fed cases  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/130847.0.html


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Aug 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> . . .
> 
> I just feel if it is clear cut, clean verdict etc, then it is acceptable to execute murders. I also believe a waiting period should exist and if no new evidence, information or testimony comes forward to change the verdict then it should go forward.
> 
> ...



How would you define "clear cut, clean verdict" or "open and closed case"?  No need to get into the semantics, it was a rhetorical question.  Capital punishment, especially for anyone who may have a personal connection to it, is a very emotional issue.  Whether the connection is with a homicide victim, revenge is a justifiable reaction, or if the connection is with an alleged murderer, it's natural to want them to live.  For the rest of us, it is a philosophical question - should the state deliberately take the life of someone who has transgressed societal mores.

I have no problem with the imposition of a capital sentence for certain crimes, however my objection is with the all too often politicization of capital punishment.  Though the debate is mostly over in this country (and in most other developed western nations), south of the border it is still an issue in some jurisdictions and all too often politicians (whether running for legislative, executive or judicial positions) will use their support for or against as a campaign point.  It is very easy to say what the mob wants to hear.  But would those individual politicians sing the same tune if they were confronted with a more direct role in carrying out such a sentence.

The killing of someone is (or should be) a horrific act.  In those jurisdictions that still kill human beings following judicial approval, this act is usually carried out in a clean and clinical manner, well separated from public view.  But as the execution of a citizen is probably the most extreme action that a government official will approve, then that government official (the senior executive) should be the one to actually perform the execution.  And none of this "cruel and unusual punishment" BS, if someone deserves to die because they wronged society then that society should be there to witness it in all its horror.  My personal preference would be garroting,  Yes, there would obviously be some technical hitches with my proposal, the Governor of Texas would probably have to a facility set up in the State House just to keep up with demand and cut down on travel time, but that can be worked out.  Oh, and to ensure that they a personal stake in the game, if it transpires that a "mistake" was made and a innocent person was executed then the person who performs the execution would be subject to prosecution for murder.  It's only fair if that executioner (a politician) wants a single standard of justice.

The death penalty could be a highly effective deterrent, though probably not of murder.  While I would not solely advocate the widespread inclusion of the death penalty as a punishment for other violence offences, if it was required to be considered for any single illegal action that "directly wronged twelve persons" (if 12 bodies can decide one's fate, it's an appropriate threshold number), then a whole lot of white collar criminals would have received a more fitting punishment that a few months in a "Club Fed".


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2019)

>But any rate, agree to disagree?

Yes.

I made my point harshly on purpose.  While people who favour the death penalty should acknowledge the cost of wrongful conviction, people like me who are against it should acknowledge the cost to victims and the people who loved them and be clear about what is being traded off.


----------



## mariomike (6 Aug 2019)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> The death penalty could be a highly effective deterrent, though probably not of murder.



I wouldn't know. But, there is this school of thought,



> 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


----------



## brihard (6 Aug 2019)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> That is fine, we disagree and I suspect our views are not going to align any time soon.
> 
> I just feel if it is clear cut, clean verdict etc, then it is acceptable to execute murders. I also believe a waiting period should exist and if no new evidence, information or testimony comes forward to change the verdict then it should go forward.
> 
> ...



The problem is, anyone wrongfully executed or exonerated while on death row was already proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the highest standard of certainty that the legal system has. In theory it means we’re sure we got it right.

In practice that obviously isn’t the case. Within that risk lies too much moral hazard to chance it, IMO.


----------



## YZT580 (6 Aug 2019)

beyond reasonable doubt = life sentence,no parole
death penalty should require either multiple eye witness or witnessed confession


----------



## brihard (6 Aug 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> beyond reasonable doubt = life sentence,no parole
> death penalty should require either multiple eye witness or witnessed confession



Eyewitnesses and confessions are two of the more notoriously flawed types of evidence. There is plenty of very well conducted research demonstrating the problems with both generating false identifications/confessions.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Aug 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> beyond reasonable doubt = life sentence,no parole
> death penalty should require either multiple eye witness or witnessed confession



As long as it is a life sentence. Not ten years. Life should mean life.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2019)

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers."

And maybe some innocents, as well.  You may never know.


----------



## GR66 (7 Aug 2019)

There is no doubt in my mind that death would be a just punishment for many of those that commit the most heinous of crimes.  However, our justice system is not perfect and sometimes we make mistakes and convict innocent people for crimes they did not commit.  Sometimes that even includes cases where the defendant admits to the crime or there are witnesses who swear to the guilt of the defendant.

Since can't be absolutely 100% certain that we're not capable of making a horrible mistake by executing an innocent person of a crime they did not commit, then I'm willing to live with the fact that someone that rightly deserves to die for their crimes instead spends the rest of their life in custody instead.

I do agree with those others that have commented that a "life sentence" should really mean life behind bars for these people.


----------



## ballz (7 Aug 2019)

We've had this discussion before about types of evidence.

Types of evidence absolutely cannot play into it. Sentences need to be proportionate to the crime, aggravating / mitigating circumstances, etc. The fact that the evidence presented is different between two similar crimes does not mean one person should get a harsher sentence than the other. That undermines the principles of sentencing, and doesn't take an academic to see it is clearly unfair.

I had proposed before, without realizing it I guess, that I'd support the death penalty if a higher burden of proof was achieved. I had proposed you had to be found guilty of say, 3 or 4 heinous acts. The logic was that it starts to become statistically impossible that you could be found guilty of multiple offences for which you are not guilty.

But I've softened on that stance. If a burden of proof of "absolute" could be established, I'd support it. But the more and more I see of the state, the less I am inclined to trust it with that power. Even now we see some pretty slippery slope crap going on that doesn't involve executing people. I'd guess if we made a perfect system, it would still eventually erode and fall to our own stupidity. Father time is undefeated.


----------



## mariomike (7 Aug 2019)

Regarding Canada's last executions.

In December 1962, there were three men on death row at the Don Jail in Toronto.

Two were hanged back to back. That's pretty well known.

Most are not likely familiar with what happened to the third,



> 2015
> 
> Child killer, pedophile who confessed to three unsolved rapes was sentenced to death more than 50 years ago
> https://www.mississauga.com/news-story/6062238-child-killer-pedophile-who-confessed-to-three-unsolved-rapes-was-sentenced-to-death-more-than-50-years-ago/
> Convicted child killer and pedophile Gary Alexander McCorkell was given a second chance at life and he used it to rape more young boys.


----------



## YZT580 (7 Aug 2019)

Accepting but not liking the fact that the potential for executing the wrong person is real, we are back to the problem of defining a suitable sentence.  There should be certain acts that, if committed, justify removing the perpetrator from civilised society for ever.  They have forfeited the right to be a part of society.  The death penalty accomplishes that.  Incarceration for life also accomplishes that.  It is expensive, and it also opens up the potential for that individual to influence others with whom he comes in contact either directly or via letter but at least society and the families of the victims are spared the possibility of being confronted by his freedom at a later date.  So remove the faint hope clause and change the definition of life to mean life behind bars and in a totally secure institution as well.  That is the promise that Pierre made and it is the minimum that should be acceptable.


----------



## mariomike (7 Aug 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The death penalty accomplishes that.



We haven't had a hanging in 57 years. Party politics aside, I doubt there will be another during my lifetime.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Aug 2019)

Best way to assert our sovereignty over Hans Island is to put a penal institution there. Establishes a year round presence, and removes a few cancer cells from the body. Win/win.


----------

