The Capital Punishment Debate

[Brutus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

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. 

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. 

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]

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]

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]

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. 

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]

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]

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]

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.