Sexual Predator in Mom's Daycare

[sdimock]

1- Risk of executing an innocent man. With life sentences, you can reverse the sentence. Case in point is David Milgaard, who was jailed for 15 years (IIRC) for a murder he did not commit.

(I'm not worried, even if every nation in the western world thinks I'm wrong)    

Yes, there is a chance that can happen, capital punishment should only be used in cases where there is no possable doubt that the individual involved was guilty of a crime that warranted the death sentance.

2- Lack of ethical and moral jurisdiction. Governments do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies. What right do we have to decide to end another's life? They are there, in this instance, to protect Canadian society. There are more acceptable means of protecting society. If execution is used to protect society, then why not just jail them for life with no parole?

Governments can and do have the right to decide who lives and who dies, they maintain a police force and army who have the authority to use lethal force if it is warranted, an individual in serious enough danger can use lethal force as well.

"More acceptable" is a personal judgement.

"Jail them for life with no parole", there is the chance of escape and the infamous "Faint hope clause"

3- You can't make someone feel better about their loss by killing another. Too often, the execution of a criminal is justified due to the pain he has caused his victims family. How can you justify ending someone's life to ease the emotional pain of another? How is their emotional health more important than his existence? Also, how exactly is killing someone going to make another feel better about losing their spouse, child, parent or sibling? Is their pain so superficial that it can be eased by simply ending another's life? Keep in mind that their pain is focused around the victim not the perpetrator. It is caused by the loss of that loved one, it is not caused by the act of the criminal. If you could bring the person back by killing the perpetrator, then that would be different. In the end, after you kill the murderer, the victim is still dead, and their pain remains.

This is the bottem line of our disagreement on this issue. If someone has commited a crime that is deserving of something as serious as execution, then I have no problem with having them put to death, your saying there is nothing that deserves the death sentance and I'm saying there is.

I'm sure you are aware of what is going on in the Vancouver legal system right now with regard to the pig farmer.

I have no problem with, when the courts are done with him, if he were put to death.

It isn't an ease the pain issue it's a justice issue, there is (or should be) a price to pay, in my opinion death is not to high a price for the actions of some individuals.

As far as I'm concerned your point about executing an innocent man is the only one that's valid.

 

[YukonJack]

There ya' go Caesar, we'll build our case yet....much better!

 

[2 Cdo]

Caesar, I couldn't agree any less about your statement that the government has no right to execute, but that is neither here nor there. You and I are both entitled to our beliefs. That being said, polls taken in the past few years have shown that 60% and higher would like to see the death penalty brought back in Canada for "capital crimes". Child molesters have been shown to NEVER change their beliefs and actions, and if we are to truly protect our most precious resource(children) then execution is the only way to ensure that they are protected.
I realize that studies show that capital punishment is not a deterrent, but so what? The one really good side benefit from execution is no repeat offenders!
Just one little thing about executions, it has been described as"near to premeditated murder" the actions that a police/military sniper take when firing. In fact the whole premise of a fighting eschelon is premeditated murder on an enemy!

 

[RCA]

As far as I'm concerned your point about executing an innocent man is the only one that's valid.

So you wouldn't consider this a valid enough reason not to have the death penalty?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think child molestation is a capital offense. It is one of the most heinous of crimes, but because a isn't life is taken, one can not be forfeited.

I think the error here is believing that if you don't believe in the death penalty, that you are somehow soft on crime. Spending life in prison, with no chance of parole isn't consider punishment. Clifford Olsen will be complentating his miserable life for years to come, instead of having his existence ended and in a way put out of his misery.

I agree with Ceaser on many of his points. Justice must be unemotional and detached. If not then some would consider theft of their property as a "capital offense".

 

[sdimock]

So you wouldn't consider this a valid enough reason not to have the death penalty?

No, from previous post,

"Yes, there is a chance that can happen, capital punishment should only be used in cases where there is no possible doubt that the individual involved was guilty of a crime that warranted the death sentance."

From Dictionary.com

"capital offense

n : a crime so serious that capital punishment is considered appropriate."

Right now by Canadian law there are no capital offenses.

As an individual, child molestation could be considered a capital offense depending on who is doing the considering.

I agree that justice should be unemotional and detached.

 

[Dottir]

Hi,

For starters, I have no problem or shame in fessing up that I'm a survivor, and even a thriver in some ways, of, and in spite of, my own early experiences (no details necessary other than to say stuff began as a preschooler and "went on" many years) I was 35 before I told anyone. So, my point in saying any of that is just to say I'm only speaking personally, based on my own experiences.

As far as I'm concerned, there can NEVER be any true justice because the only true justice is for things like this to have never happened to begin with.

The next "best thing" is in societies ability to PREVENT offenders from ability to reoffend once caught. The only preventions, that actually work, are death or inflicted social isolation from the rest of society so that no opportunity to re-offend can ever present itself.

Rules and laws often get in the way of isolating and preventing the arresting and the re-offending ... as well as often innocent people are sometimes put through.

None of this is simple or cut and dried, and the burden of the cost of dealing with the aftermath (damage done can incur tremendous lifelong medical and psychiatric and finacial costs of treating and assisting victims (AND Offenders!!!) ... and legal costs to try and deal with finding, catching, and dealing with offenders) ... the financial costs are the burden of taxpayers, as it's their taxdollars paying out of pocket to cover all expenses from medical, financial, and legal costs.

The least expensive and most sure way of stopping the financial drain, and prevent future offence and more harm and expense is to ... well ... practically speaking, death stops future expense AND reoffence therefore more future expence.

Morally, inside of me, I'm very uncomoirtable in playing God and deciding who should live and who should die, let alone why.  Castrations and meds may prevent sexual desire, but they don't do away with the urge to overpower and hurt others aka victimize. Most sexual offenses have nothing to do with sex ... sexual offence is a means to another end ... which is the power to overpower and abuse because its a psychological drive within the person BECAUSE the acts fulfill some agenda which is justified in their minds.

There are many ways, and many reasons, that people cross lines, from the sick puppy who craves the inncoent affection of a child to the Willy Picton type story ... in all, the offenders own gratification is priority irregardless of age, awareness, vulnerability, or consent of the one (child or adult) ... the most upsetting to me is the coldness of financial gain.

Once an offence occurs, the damage is done and the victim and society is left to pick up the pieces best they can, within they means and ways available, including frustrating legal and financial means and systems and everything else. We all pay. We all lose.

Oops ... blah blah blah ... interrupted which may be a good thing here LOL ... must go... but felt compelled to reply a bit.

Dottir

 

[dutchie]

1- Risk of executing an innocent man. With life sentences, you can reverse the sentence. Case in point is David Milgaard, who was jailed for 15 years (IIRC) for a murder he did not commit.

(I'm not worried, even if every nation in the western world thinks I'm wrong)    

Yes, there is a chance that can happen, capital punishment should only be used in cases where there is no possable doubt that the individual involved was guilty of a crime that warranted the death sentance.

'No possible doubt' is, by definition, impossible. You cannot prove guilt, including criminal intent, to a 100 % degree, with no possibility of doubt. Even if you could, it's moot, as there are other reasons capital punishment is unethical.

Governments can and do have the right to decide who lives and who dies, they maintain a police force and army who have the authority to use lethal force if it is warranted, an individual in serious enough danger can use lethal force as well.

See my last post. Basicaly, you can kill to prevent someone else from killing, when there is no other option. That condition is not met with capital punishment. Execution is in response to a killing, it does not prevent it. You may respond by saying "yes, but it will prevent him form killing again!", and you'd be correct, but there are alternatives, including life imprisonment.

"Jail them for life with no parole", there is the chance of escape and the infamous "Faint hope clause"

If there is a significant risk of escape, then the problem is with our correctional facilities or personel (I don;t think there is a problem, BTW). You don't address this problem by eliminating the need to hold him, in case we poop the bed and let him escape. You would execute a man because he MIGHT escape?

Faint hope clause? Get rid of it, it's a sham anyway.

This is the bottem line of our disagreement on this issue. If someone has commited a crime that is deserving of something as serious as execution, then I have no problem with having them put to death, your saying there is nothing that deserves the death sentance and I'm saying there is.

What is the basis for your assertion that say, murder deserves the death penalty? I have already stated that it does not, and have given reasons for it (no moral jurisdiction, possible mistakes, attempts to 'make up' for crime, and overkill compared to life imprisonment), but you have not. Why do you prefer the death penalty to life imprisonment with no parole? Is possible escape & the faint hope clause your only basis for your position? Please tell me there's more....

I realize that studies show that capital punishment is not a deterrent, but so what? The one really good side benefit from execution is no repeat offenders!

You can avoid repeat offences by locking the bastards up for life, no parole, general population.

Just one little thing about executions, it has been described as"near to premeditated murder" the actions that a police/military sniper take when firing. In fact the whole premise of a fighting eschelon is premeditated murder on an enemy!

Agreed. But were in a different realm here. In theory, we go to war when we have exhausted all other avenues. With capital punishment, we have nothing but time, and one really good option - life imprisonment.

 

[dutchie]

Well, first of all, I think it took a lot of guts for 'Dottir' to post what he did. I don't know what else to say, but good on ya.

As far as I'm concerned, there can NEVER be any true justice because the only true justice is for things like this to have never happened to begin with.

Exactly. Once the crime has occured, it's already too late. We can't make up for it by increasing the severity of the punishment.

The next "best thing" is in societies ability to PREVENT offenders from ability to reoffend once caught. The only preventions, that actually work, are death or inflicted social isolation from the rest of society so that no opportunity to re-offend can ever present itself.

Easy - lock 'em up, no parole, general pop. (Do I hear an echo here?)

 

[Britney Spears]

The fundamental disagreement here is whether we place more value in humanity or utility. Western liberal democracies do, that's why our systems of justice and punishment ultimately have the goal of rehabilitating a criminal until he/she can once again become a useful member of society. The purpose is not to dispense "justice" or "retribution" or "make them pay".

Some countries take the exact opposite approach and that is why they have forced labour camps and larger numbers of executions. Certainly, someone can pay their "debt" to society better through hard labour than by taking a bullet to the head, right? In these places idea like "parole" generally don't play much of a role. After all, the whole point is to punish, not to rehabilitate, right?

I can't say whether one approach is neccesarily "better" than the other. 

 

[sdimock]

â Å“If there is a significant risk of escape, then the problem is with our correctional facilities or personnel (I don't think there is a problem, BTW). You don't address this problem by eliminating the need to hold him, in case we poop the bed and let him escape. You would execute a man because he MIGHT escape?â ?

I would execute a man for the crime he committed, see your comments about "no possible doubt" and apply it â Å“chance he could escapeâ ?.

Faint hope clause? Get rid of it, it's a sham anyway.

It may be a sham but it's still there and if I'm not mistaken it was originally put in place to give prisoners who were sentenced to life in prison a reason to behave themselves so they would have a chance to get out.

â Å“What is the basis for your assertion that say, murder deserves the death penalty? I have already stated that it does not, and have given reasons for it (no moral jurisdiction, possible mistakes, attempts to 'make up' for crime, and overkill compared to life imprisonment), but you have not. Why do you prefer the death penalty to life imprisonment with no parole? Is possible escape & the faint hope clause your only basis for your position? Please tell me there's more....â ?

My basis is that you are responsible for your actions and there should be no limit on the punishment that is available to the government to impose.

While western liberal democracies place greater value on rehabilitating criminals we are not talking about someone who was shoplifting or doing a B&E, certainly there is a balance that needs to be struck between humanity/utility.

As well if they get life without parole, rehabilitation is not the objective.

 

[Dottir]

Well, first of all, I think it took a lot of guts for 'Dottir' to post what he did. I don't know what else to say, but good on ya.

Exactly. Once the crime has occured, it's already too late. We can't make up for it by increasing the severity of the punishment.

Easy - lock 'em up, no parole, general pop. (Do I hear an echo here?)

Hi Caesar,

Just to clear up any confusion, I'm a woman It's still easier for women to be more open about this stuff than men, but believe me, I've spoken to many men who have been on the receiving end of these offences as well, as children. It takes a whole lot more courage for a man/boy to come clean, for so many reasons that most of us know and understand why.

In our "real world", attitudes and solutions are so varied, as every country, and even every individual, has a different solution or way of dealing with these social issues. What to do about, and with, the offender ... well, that's a tough call and there are so many variables at play, and consequences to each and every "solution". Bottom line, we all agree is that offending must stop, and somehow the offence has forced society to stop the offender and deal with it best we can, within the rules and means we have to deal with it all.

I don't like the idea of the death penality for many reasons. One big reason is that I know that when people figure that they have nothing more to lose, they have nothing to fear, and there are no more limits to stop them. To my mind, the death penalty is like a licence to continue and even act out all sorts of other worse things. They expect to be caught and get the death penalty anyways so WTF ... indugle and goi for the gusto.

Threat of loss of freedom and lifestyle through imprisonment if caught may be the only, The ONLY deterant to someone crossing that line. They may go through life with 'the impulse to", but they won't cross that line because it would cost them more than they want to pay for the indulgence. They may even be inspired to go to counselling, etc, to help them overcome these "impulses". Whatever.

Many "sexual offences" are not pre-meditated. Circumstances and opportunites, and desire to give in happen when an opportunity knocks ... and someone jumps when opportunity knocks. If caught they face imprisonment and ostracization 9to name a couple of losses). Many will stop at that one time and ... may get caught, do the time, feel bad and lucky, get rehab couselling and never offend again once free ... (depends on the "motivations and psychology" of the offender.

But ... if the death penalty were expected if caught, once they crossed that line ONCE they'd know, "I'm sunk" ... might as well go for broke til I get caught because I'm a goner anyways. The door has been opened to play out all sorts of anti-social fantasies they may not have acted on before ...

What to do? Yikes.

I don't like the idea of the death penalty, in most cases, because of these reasons.

I'm uncomfortable deciding who is to live and die and why, even though my impulse would be to KIA the offender if I caught them in action.

I'm afraid at how the death penalty could result in people having no more justification to stop now. There's no longer any reason to practice self-restraint because they know they're goners anyways.

Some people are innocent, and some people CAN and ARE rehabilitated.

Imprisonment/isolation out of protectivity for the rest of society, in my mind, seems the most practical answer based on taking many things into consideration. I may be wrong. Maybe not?

Decisions on how to handle things have far reaching impact on individuals and society ... I'm glad I don't have to "decide" ... but I also know that my own feelings run so deep that one day, who knows, one day I may "catch someone in the act" ... and I can't promise that I wouldn't make an immediate gpdlike decision about whether that person gets to live beyond my catching them ... I'd do whatever I had to to stop them without concern for how I'd end up paying for how I stopped the offfender ...

Arghhhhhhh!

 

[dutchie]

Just to clear up any confusion, I'm a woman It takes a whole lot more courage for a man/boy to come clean, for so many reasons that most of us know and understand why.

Oops! Sorry! And you're right, it does seem that in our society it is much easier for women (and children) to come clean than a man, probably due to the social conditioning of men as 'protectors', but that's another discussion altogether.

The rest of your post, I was in pretty much total agreement with. The exception being the bit about the death penalty being an incentive to kill, but it is interesting...

I would execute a man for the crime he committed, see your comments about "no possible doubt" and apply it â Å“chance he could escapeâ ?.

Why not execute all criminals that MIGHT escape? That's obviously ridiculous. However, executing a man, who you would otherwise not execute, because he might escape and re-offend is equally ridiculous. Which brings us back to your response regarding why capital punishment is justified in a case of murder:

My basis is that you are responsible for your actions and there should be no limit on the punishment that is available to the government to impose.

Ok, so you're saying torture, rape, caning, 'draw & quarter'-ing, slavery, etc are all acceptable, provided the crime was heinous enough? You have no limits to what is acceptable punishment? I think you need to rethink your position here. The first part of your response I completely agree with - you must be responsible for your actions. The last half is completely devoid of reason, fairness, and civility.

As well if they get life without parole, rehabilitation is not the objective.

So, what's your point? Because we can't rehab them in prison, we should execute them instaed of just letting sit there and rot? Maybe I'm misuderstanding what yuo're trying to say here...

 

[Dottir]

Oops! Sorry! And you're right, it does seem that in our society it is much easier for women (and children) to come clean than a man, probably due to the social conditioning of men as 'protectors', but that's another discussion altogether.

Yeah ... breaking the silence opens people up to all sorts of responses and knee-jerk reactions. Male/female tend to get different focusses. And yeah, again, thats all a whole new discussion.

The rest of your post, I was in pretty much total agreement with. The exception being the bit about the death penalty being an incentive to kill, but it is interesting...

I guess I'm coming from the point of view that people with nothing to lose, especially when they've done something so bad they know the death penalty is what they'll get as soon as they're caught, have no incentive to self-restraint, and being in that position, some people are bezerkers and knowledge of the being faced with the death penalty may push them over the edge to do worse to more ... well ... they can do a lot of acting out and damage before they're caught ... causing a lot more grief, losses, and costs to individuals and society etc. blah blah blah

"Licence to kill" may have been an inappropriate choice of words on my part LOL Another aspect of of death penalty as opposed to incarceration is that I think many people dread imprisonment more than they do death. If you're dead, you're free of dealing with everything including paying consequences and any reactions from others.

My own truth is, is that if I were put to a vote yes/no for the death penalty, I'd have a tough time deciding. I obviously have mixed feelings aboiut many aspects, but right now I'd probably vote no because of my fears and mixed feelings, and concern about people and society being hurt more because the death penalty took away someones last justification to self-restraint? Hmmm ... but what do I know?

Regards prisoners who escape ... well, the onus is on the systems to find better ways to ensure escape doesn't happen. Nothing seems to be infallible. Do the best we can is all we can do. It sounds like many checks and balances actually frustrate success. I don't know the system so just talk off the top of my head, based on impressions gotten from the little I know.

Yes, it costs a lot of money to incarcerate people and keep them there.

Well, just some more of my 2-cents worth

Oh ... and by the way ... the major person responsible in my childhood slipped on some rocks when bringing in his boat after fishing when I was a teenager and I lived far away ... he banged his head on the rocks, got up and went home, died about an hour later of concussion. Sometimes fate steps in and relieves society of the burden of dealing with them, and stops the offenders in their tracks. This one man ... created much harm and I'm not the only one. I recall being totally enraged that he'd died as that got him off scot free of any repurcussions. As I said though, I think the only real justice is in when someone is stopped from harming anymore. Incarceration means they can't get their hands on others. Death gauratees it.

I wish that all serious offenders would go the way of my (person) and save us all the problems and costs so we can pick up the pieces of our lives without having to pay for dealing with them and supporting them.

Dottir