The Capital Punishment Debate

[ballz]

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.

And I understand where you are coming from, but what you are asking (as a requirement) just brings in waaaay too many shades of grey.

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.

But, according to your "ticks in the box," finding buddy's fingerprint on a glass in the room (along with rest of the evidence proving him guilty) would be enough to qualify for the DP. All you are asking for is that there is DNA evidence *somewhere* on the evidence list that proves them guilty, not "a certain degree of DNA evidence." And of course, "a certain degree" would bring in even more grey...

More to the point, what if 10 people witness a heinous a crime but there is no DNA evidence? This guy doesn't qualify for the death penalty, but someone with no witnesses does because there was DNA involved? Okay, but wait, maybe you think 10 witnesses is "as good as" semen in a vagina.... what about 5? What about 2? Where do you draw all these lines? You can't, it's too grey.

This is why sentenced are based on whether or not you are guilty (black and white), and mitigating / aggravating circumstances. They are not based on "what degree/type of evidence" was used to prosecute you. If you are guilty, it doesn't matter what they used to prove it.

You will never hear a judge rule "you have been proven guilty, but I'm not sure the witness testimony is credible so I'll give you a lighter sentence," for the same reasons you will never hear "you have been proven guilty, and since the witness testimony was pretty convincing, I'm going to give you a harsher sentence."

EDIT: Oh sorry, let me change that out from "a fingerprint on a glass" to "buddy's hair was on the cupboard," just to make it clear that we're talking about DNA...

 

[armyvern]

You'd better read it again.  :

I stated exactly where the DNA was, and the finger print and that doesn't mean there wouldn't be "other evidence" ... those two were specifically brought up in ref to your "DNA is just more evidence, it isn't higher."

It sure as hell can be!! It can be just like Mr Murderer was nice enough to videotape his crime ... and the jury will decide ... that's why they exist.

And to your query? Was it a kid the 10 witnessed murdered? Then you know my answer!! And, if out of 10 witnesses, at least one couldn't tell authorities where dude touched the kid, where the kid touched the due etc ... they ain't very good eyes-on witnesses!! DNA does not have to be the offenders, most people kick and scream and leave their DNA on offenders as evidence too despite gloves/condoms etc.

This scenario should never happen of course. 10 people sitting back and watching a kid get killed? They should be glad I'm not the Crown Prosecution ... or I'd charge them too!!

I am OK with that. Still. Just as I was yesterday and just as I will be tomorrow, next week etc.

You kids have a good night. 


OH PS: Many judges have over-ruled (set aside) juries`verdicts of guilty. They can not, by law, set aside a juries finding of `not guilty`however.

 

[YBN3A]

It is not a question of finance, neither is it a question of morality. nobody is going to execute them nobody is going to tie them to a bed with "humane killing" (whats so humane about killing i will never understand) never the less a person who was born to this world have many choices and some people make very bad ones. there should be no second chance for rehab of convicted rapists/pedos/and murderers, they have made their choice be it of capital gain, or "personal pleasure", regardless these people made their choice and by giving them another choice we are allowing them to live as prisoners and scum as they are, or kill themselves understanding that they deserve it. there should be no halfway homes, nor paroles, nor second chances. these people did not give their victims a second chance, they did not show mercy. we do by not offing them right there and then. financially what the cost of housing them and feeding them will never come close to the profit CORCAN makes. Soviet labor camps made a profit of their prisoners. i am not saying we need to make goolags in Canada and treat them like slaves. but they as prisoners and still citizens of this nation need and must contribute to our society like everyone else. and if they choose not to, there will be a nice silky rope waiting for them at their cell, a home they made the choice to live in.
also reuse the ropes so to cut expenses. morally there is nothing wrong with taking your own life, after all it is your own, millions do it by eating garbage junk food every single day, clogging their fat hearts and die on a toilet,and yet McDonalds  is not outlawed?! let them have a choice between contribution and death. and enough of these halfway houses, and 20 year sentencing with parole after 5.

 

[ekpiper]

We are straying into a very deep moral issues with this thread.  Most people believe that democracy is at least in part defined by the freedoms with which we are given.  Why is it that we would stop someone from making the choice of death.  After having seen 3 uncles die from cancer, each of whom had at least a year of the downwards spiral, gradually losing bits of their dignity, I know for a fact I wouldn't want to go through that, nor would I want to subject my family to having to deal with seeing me deteriorate and require constant care.  As a result, I am a firm believer in euthanasia.  I suppose that it would be prudent to ensure that, in cases other than terminal illness, the person is mentally stable.

With regards to the death penalty, I do agree with it, but there must be some way to stipulate a more absolute certainty.  For instance, if one is convicted with all jurors in agreement, then during sentencing, he would be eligible to receive the death penalty.  Perhaps not that, but some legal mechanism which states that it is, in effect, as plain as day, we've got a confession or undeniable or incontrovertible proof that this one is guilty.  As Brad Swallows rightly pointed out, if we are able to go into another country and cause innocents to potentially die through some fault of our own while taking out a big bad guy, and accept it as the reality of war, then why is it so very different to have a similar risk here at home to protect the vast majority of people.  Where do we draw the distinction?

I wouldn't draw the line at child rape/murder, but rather any heinous crime.  For instance, the case referenced in the below link, or any case where an utter lack of humanity is present.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1116081--neighbours-haunted-by-toronto-man-s-torture-in-their-midst

I also strongly agree that prison should be nothing short of hell, or at least maximum security prisons.  In order to be an effective deterrent, one must be deterred from the punishment.  The luxurious rights should be taken away, still having food and shelter and protection from other inmates, but no more than the are minimum.  A healthy diet, sanitary conditions.  That's it.

 

[brihard]

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.

You don't see in the context of this debate how arguing for *reducing* the appeals process for those sentenced to die is problematic? Even the current system allows for wrongful convictions. One need only look at the U.S. for ample precedent of men sentenced to die and later exonerated. Granted, most of those cases are somewhat dated and the exonerations have been because of evidentiary techniques now available at the initial investigation and trial- but errors are still made. I'm not arguing here that someone sentenced for a capital crime should get a paid education behind bard, or should be given vocational training. But to deny appeal that any other criminal gets? Utterly unconscionable.

A person who we decide the state will kill on our behalf in a judicial setting must get every opportunity to try to demonstrate their evidence. How the hell can it be otherwise? You. Can't. Take. Back. Execution. If there are points of law to be argued, evidence to be disputed- then it must be! In ANY case, never mind when a person's life is at stake! The small number of such cases makes the cost of such appeals a pittance in the grand scheme- and what dollar value are *you* going to place on determining whether we will execute a criminal or murder an innocent man? *Who* would you make throw that switch on someone who it turns out later has not done a crime because you consider it burdensome to allow them every opportunity to appeal their conviction and demonstrate their innocence?

You take these same pieces of shit, put them in jail until they die and provide them with only what they need to live and everything we could possibly legitimately need from a criminal justice system is served, but if we later find out the state was in error at least some remedy exists- you can let him out.

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.

When has a law, once written by the state, *not* faced attempts to slowly, incrementally extend it? How do you tell the parents of one murdered child that the murderer of *their* child doesn't get executed because the evidence just didn't quite hit the standard, when two months prior someone else was executed based on utterly sound evidence? How do you keep the politicians from screwing the whole thing up out of populist BS intended to get votes?

At the end of the day there is not an infallible system in human creation for determining guilt. Until a criminal justice system exists which has the ability to make that determination flawlessly, it is unjustifiable to risk murdering an innocent man because our bloodlust dictates that letting them die in prison is not enough. Everything we want to and need to see cna be accomplished by locking the son of a bitch away and throwing away the key.

Now, if a prisoner wishes to die? Let 'em. I support the right to die if one wishes. It's an inseparable part of having ultimate liberty over oneself as an individual. By all means give 'em the rope.

 

[ballz]

You'd better read it again.  :

I stated exactly where the DNA was, and the finger print and that doesn't mean there wouldn't be "other evidence" ... those two were specifically brought up in ref to your "DNA is just more evidence, it isn't higher."

It sure as hell can be!! It can be just like Mr Murderer was nice enough to videotape his crime ... and the jury will decide ... that's why they exist.

And to your query? Was it a kid the 10 witnessed murdered? Then you know my answer!! And, if out of 10 witnesses, at least one couldn't tell authorities where dude touched the kid, where the kid touched the due etc ... they ain't very good eyes-on witnesses!! DNA does not have to be the offenders, most people kick and scream and leave their DNA on offenders as evidence too despite gloves/condoms etc.

This scenario should never happen of course. 10 people sitting back and watching a kid get killed? They should be glad I'm not the Crown Prosecution ... or I'd charge them too!!

I am OK with that. Still. Just as I was yesterday and just as I will be tomorrow, next week etc.

You kids have a good night.

You're working way too hard to ignore my point of "guilty vs not guilty" as opposed to "degree of evidence." Or in other words, shades of grey vs black and white.

I notice you are happy to answer about 10 witnesses (of course I know what you're answer would be), but not if there were only 5, 3 (now I don't know) or just 1 (now I really, really don't know). You just ignored the point of shades of grey vs black and white, and instead went on a completely irrelevant rant about charging the 10 witnesses for not intervening.

There is not "higher forms" of evidence. Higher forms of credibility, sure, but not a higher form of evidence. In some cases, key witnesses are the main factor, in others it is DNA, and in some it is a video tape, and in some it is a confession.  Either there is enough evidence of various kinds to prosecute someone, or there is not. Two people that commit the exact same crime under the exact same circumstances are just as guilty as the other one, one is not "more" guilty because of the type of evidence used to prosecute him, and therefore one shouldn't be subject to a harsher penalty.

This becomes an even more important principal of justice when you are talking about the death penalty.

 

[exabedtech]

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..

Can't "give him a rope".  Assisting suicide is a crime in this country.  When you can't legally help a loved one who is begging you to help them die, helping the criminals to commit suicide isn't going to fly.  Yes, i'd love to see a guy like Russell Williams kill himself and do us all a favour, but we're VERY far away from legally being allowed to assist him.
The argument against assisted suicide often comes down to the risk of escalation. The Dutch program is a good example of a program initially intended only for the most extreme cases, but is now allow to be applied in all manner of circumstances.

Advocates against assisted suicide would likely point to the Nazi T4 euthanasia program.  My own opinion is that there are cases where it should be allowed, but there would need to be some serious controls.  On some level I can sympathize with Robert Latimer, but did his daughter really want to die?  At what point do we argue that the disabled are incapable of making their own decision.  Should someone be allowed to make that decision for them?  In Robert Latimer's case, it was simple murder but the way our assisted suicide laws are drawn up, simply advocating that a person should end their life is a crime whether that person actually succeeds or not.

 

[armyvern]

You're working way too hard to ignore my point of "guilty vs not guilty" as opposed to "degree of evidence." Or in other words, shades of grey vs black and white.

I notice you are happy to answer about 10 witnesses (of course I know what you're answer would be), but not if there were only 5, 3 (now I don't know) or just 1 (now I really, really don't know). You just ignored the point of shades of grey vs black and white, and instead went on a completely irrelevant rant about charging the 10 witnesses for not intervening.

There is not "higher forms" of evidence. Higher forms of credibility, sure, but not a higher form of evidence. In some cases, key witnesses are the main factor, in others it is DNA, and in some it is a video tape, and in some it is a confession.  Either there is enough evidence of various kinds to prosecute someone, or there is not. Two people that commit the exact same crime under the exact same circumstances are just as guilty as the other one, one is not "more" guilty because of the type of evidence used to prosecute him, and therefore one shouldn't be subject to a harsher penalty.

This becomes an even more important principal of justice when you are talking about the death penalty.

I didn`t ignore shit. I already answered it earlier.

Quite commonly 2 people can murder people. 1 can be eligible for the death sentence while the other is not. I`m good with that. That`s not shades of grey; rather it is considered as `special circumstances`in order to be eligible for sentence X. Must meet ticks in boxes to be eligible. Those are my ticks.

We also have those ticks for a myriad of lesser offenses in this country. With a weapon? Longer sentence. Prior conviction? Longer sentence? Involve a child? Longer sentence.

No shades of grey there for me. You meet the ticks: Bye, bye.

 

[ballz]

We also have those ticks for a myriad of lesser offenses in this country. With a weapon? Longer sentence. Prior conviction? Longer sentence? Involve a child? Longer sentence.

No shades of grey there for me. You meet the ticks: Bye, bye.

And how do any of those things involve basing the length of the sentence on evidence? Your examples are not even relevant.

You said it yourself "lesser offenses" not "lesser evidence."

How you can suggest that two people committing the same crime under the same circumstances, and getting a different sentence is in anyway "justice," is beyond me.

 

[armyvern]

And how do any of those things involve basing the length of the sentence on evidence? Your examples are not even relevant.

You said it yourself "lesser offenses" not "lesser evidence."

How you can suggest that two people committing the same crime under the same circumstances, and getting a different sentence is in anyway "justice," is beyond me.

No sentence length; dead. Clear enough for you?

Meet the special circumstances and that`s it. It may be beyond you, but is absolutely 100% normal in places currently having the DP as a possibility provided that the accused is found guilty by their jury and that the jury finds those special circumstances as having been met.

Normal; not rocket science.

As to your quoting my `lesser offences` (ie: lesser offenses than MURDER) without quoting the samples of those ... We do NOT send a guy who commits an assault to jail for life. We may commit a guy who commits an assault with a weapon to jail for life. WE, Canada, already apply `special circumstances` to these myriad of lesser (than murder) offenses, so what is so wrong with doing that for murderers of children? Nothing.

So, if you want to keep insisting that doing such `creates shades of grey`, how do you justify the fact that we already do so in this nation normally and routinely?

 

[ballz]

No sentence length; dead. Clear enough for you?

Meet the special circumstances and that`s it. It may be beyond you, but is absolutely 100% normal in places currently having the DP as a possibility provided that the accused is found guilty by their jury and that the jury finds those special circumstances as having been met.

Normal; not rocket science.

I would be interested in seeing those requirements in other jurisdictions you are talking about. I doubt they are requirements of a certain kind of evidence.

For Texas, the "ticks in the box" I found on wiki are here:

Since the re-introduction of the death penalty, Texas has always required the jury to decide whether to impose the death penalty in a specific case. However, Texas did not adopt the "aggravating factor" approach outlined in the Model Penal Code. Instead, once each side has pleaded its case, the jury must answer two questions (three, if the person was convicted as a party) to determine whether a person will or will not be sentenced to death:

The first question is whether there exists a probability the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a "continuing threat to society". "Society" in this instance includes both inside and outside of prison; thus, a defendant who would constitute a threat to people inside of prison, such as correctional officers or other inmates, is eligible for the death penalty.

The second question is whether, taking into consideration the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there exists sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence.

If the person was convicted as a party, the third question asked is whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased, or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased, or "anticipated" that a human life would be taken.

In order for a death sentence to be imposed, the jury must answer the first question 'Yes' and the second question 'No' (and, if convicted as a party, the third question 'Yes'). Otherwise the sentence is life in prison.

None of those are based on a type of evidence.

 

[ballz]

We do NOT send a guy who commits an assault to jail for life. We may commit a guy who commits an assault with a weapon to jail for life. WE, Canada, already apply `special circumstances` to these myriad of lesser (than murder) offenses, so what is so wrong with doing that for murderers of children? Nothing.

So, if you want to keep insisting that doing such `creates shades of grey`, how do you justify the fact that we already do so in this nation normally and routinely?

That's not giving a harsher sentence based on EVIDENCE.... How can I make that more clear?

Assault and assault with a weapon are two different offences. It is giving a harsher sentence based on the fact that you did something considered worse than just assaulting someone with your bare hands.

 

[armyvern]

That's not giving a harsher sentence based on EVIDENCE.... How can I make that more clear?

Assault and assault with a weapon are two different offences. It is giving a harsher sentence based on the fact that you did something considered worse than just assaulting someone with your bare hands.

A murder of an adult and a murder of a child are both murder.

I`m OK with giving one of them a much harsher sentence. Evidence showed the fact that one was an absolutely defenseless child, which for me, makes it a worse crime. Can I make that more clear?

That would be one of my special circumstances. You don`t have to like them; that doesn`t make it wrong. My opinion is just as valid as yours and, quite frankly, neither are worth much in this too-PC country.

 

[ballz]

Vern, I have no problem with requiring special circumstances, or "ticks in the box." I agree with bringing back the DP, and I agree with requiring special circumstances to make you eligible.

The only thing I disagree on is having "DNA (or any other specific kind of) evidence was used to prove the defendant guilty" as one of those "ticks in the box."

A murder of an adult and a murder of a child are both murder.

I`m OK with giving one of them a much harsher sentence. Evidence showed one was a child. Can I make that more clear?

Yes, that's fine if you are arguing that the required "tick in the box" be "the victim was under the age of 12" or something. Fine and dandy.

But you were advocating that one of the ticks in the box be "DNA evidence was presented." That's what I don't think is fine and dandy. That specific requirement.

That would be one of my special circumstances. You don`t have to like them; that doesn`t make it wrong. My opinion is just as valid as yours and, quite frankly, neither are worth much in this too-PC country.

I think your DNA evidence requirement would not be in the spirit of "justice," which is why I think it is wrong. That said, you are right, at this moment in Canada, our nitpicking is really much ado about nothing.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Unlike what someone else wrote above, I *would* like to change minds rather than just debate the point.  That said...

I can only conceive of three courses of action to deal with the people who are truly dangerous to society:
1) Kill them
2) Warehouse them
3) Export them

I object to (1) on the grounds of fallibility.  Yes, I recognize the accuracy of DNA identification; however, I do not recognize the accuracy of how DNA comes to be present in some circumstances.  Many victims of crime are victims of people who are acquaintances or closer; there are a lot of ways another person's DNA can come to be present on an object, at a location, or indeed on a person.  (And yes, when it comes to "on a person" there are many fewer mitigating circumstances.)

(2) Must be done humanely.

(3) No-one else is likely to accept our dangerous people.

There is, I suppose, a compromise between (2) and (3): a colony on our own sovereign soil.  Think "Escape From New York".

The problem with penal institutions is that they are not run like a service detention barracks - I envision an austere place, with an extremely busy schedule of mandated activities designed to leave prisoners with no energy or opportunity to abuse each other, and with opportunities to earn privileges but no inhumane punishments.  For example, I can tolerate the notion of weeks on end on Punishment Diet #1 (does such a thing really exist?) with no privileges bar those deemed medically necessary, but not solitary confinement.  And such a regimen has to start with juvenile offenders: they really, really need to want to avoid going back into such a place, ever.

 

[jollyjacktar]

There is a fourth option Brad.  Lobotomize them.  They won't hurt anyone again that way.

 

[mariomike]

For example, I can tolerate the notion of weeks on end on Punishment Diet #1 (does such a thing really exist?)

I believe something similar to it does:
"Restricted diet
55(1) A restricted diet may only be imposed on an inmate with the consent of an institution’s physician.
(2) A restricted diet is to consist of not less than 1100 calories per day.
(3) A restricted diet may be imposed for not more than 3 days.":
http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=726
"COMPENDIUM OF FEDERAL & PROVINCIAL CORRECTIONS LAW"
page 31.

Edit to add. Some discussion of Canadian military punishment diets here:
http://canadianprovostcorps.ca/dentbks-00.htm

 

[brihard]

There is a fourth option Brad.  Lobotomize them.  They won't hurt anyone again that way.

Nope, fails the revocability test.

Out of curiosity, have you seen A Clockwork Orange?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Nope, fails the revocability test.

Out of curiosity, have you seen A Clockwork Orange?

Yes I have.  One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest too (so I've seen Jack's version of post op glee).  Tough shit about the revocability test.  If they're that dangerous they don't deserve a chance to hurt anyone else again.  You're not killing them, cause that's taboo  :  and makes hearts everywhere bleed profusely.  F'em society's welfare comes first.

 

[brihard]

Yes I have.  One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest too (so I've seen Jack's version of post op glee).  Tough crap about the revocability test.  If they're that dangerous they don't deserve a chance to hurt anyone else again.  You're not killing them, cause that's taboo  :  and makes hearts everywhere bleed profusely.  F'em society's welfare comes first.

There is nothing inherently desirable or justifiable to society that execution or causing brain damage can accomplish that a true life sentence without parole and in isolation cannot. I don't give much of a shit for those who are guilty- my concenr is solely with the fact that the state is most certainly going to get it wrong from time to time, and such consequences as are imposed must be at least to an extend revocable when we discover that the justice system failed to exceed the competence of the weakest link in the chain at some point in a case.