The Capital Punishment Debate

[zipperhead_cop]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Were heading here again ;D

 

[57Chevy]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

The death penalty guarantees he'll never harm another human being again.

Its not about dollars and cents.