The Capital Punishment Debate

[canada94]

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

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

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

 

[exabedtech]

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

 

[armyvern]

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

B.S.

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

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

 

[exabedtech]

B.S.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

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

Keep trying, but you will not change my mind.

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


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

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

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

 

[exabedtech]

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

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

 

[exabedtech]

Keep trying, but you will not change my mind.

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


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

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

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

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

 

[Container]

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

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

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

 

[FormerEnlisted]

Keep trying, but you will not change my mind.

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


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

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

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

I agree wholeheartedly with you.

 

[brihard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

 

[Jarnhamar]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[brihard]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

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

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

Things like this are NORMAL.

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

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

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