- Reaction score
- 12,009
- Points
- 1,040
>Sure but we could at least have a true life sentence instead of this 25 years BS.
I fully agree.
I fully agree.
The Capital Punishment Debate
- Thread starter Michael Dorosh
- Start date
Brad Sallows said:
That is fine, we disagree and I suspect our views are not going to align any time soon.
I just feel if it is clear cut, clean verdict etc, then it is acceptable to execute murders. I also believe a waiting period should exist and if no new evidence, information or testimony comes forward to change the verdict then it should go forward.
Not all murderers would be executed or well I should say in my opinion should be executed in my view, in order to protect someone from being wrongfully convicted and executed.
But if it is an open and closed case, heck even with a prior criminal record etc.. string em up after the waiting period. Maybe I am a hardliner, maybe not, I do not know if it would curtail murders or not etc, I just feel it is right and just.
But any rate, agree to disagree?
Abdullah
- Reaction score
- 2,345
- Points
- 1,260
This is in US Politics. But, also has a couple of pages of recent opinion on capital punishment in general,
USA brings back death penalty for fed cases
https://army.ca/forums/threads/130847.0.html
USA brings back death penalty for fed cases
https://army.ca/forums/threads/130847.0.html
- Reaction score
- 4,103
- Points
- 1,160
AbdullahD said:
How would you define "clear cut, clean verdict" or "open and closed case"? No need to get into the semantics, it was a rhetorical question. Capital punishment, especially for anyone who may have a personal connection to it, is a very emotional issue. Whether the connection is with a homicide victim, revenge is a justifiable reaction, or if the connection is with an alleged murderer, it's natural to want them to live. For the rest of us, it is a philosophical question - should the state deliberately take the life of someone who has transgressed societal mores.
I have no problem with the imposition of a capital sentence for certain crimes, however my objection is with the all too often politicization of capital punishment. Though the debate is mostly over in this country (and in most other developed western nations), south of the border it is still an issue in some jurisdictions and all too often politicians (whether running for legislative, executive or judicial positions) will use their support for or against as a campaign point. It is very easy to say what the mob wants to hear. But would those individual politicians sing the same tune if they were confronted with a more direct role in carrying out such a sentence.
The killing of someone is (or should be) a horrific act. In those jurisdictions that still kill human beings following judicial approval, this act is usually carried out in a clean and clinical manner, well separated from public view. But as the execution of a citizen is probably the most extreme action that a government official will approve, then that government official (the senior executive) should be the one to actually perform the execution. And none of this "cruel and unusual punishment" BS, if someone deserves to die because they wronged society then that society should be there to witness it in all its horror. My personal preference would be garroting, Yes, there would obviously be some technical hitches with my proposal, the Governor of Texas would probably have to a facility set up in the State House just to keep up with demand and cut down on travel time, but that can be worked out. Oh, and to ensure that they a personal stake in the game, if it transpires that a "mistake" was made and a innocent person was executed then the person who performs the execution would be subject to prosecution for murder. It's only fair if that executioner (a politician) wants a single standard of justice.
The death penalty could be a highly effective deterrent, though probably not of murder. While I would not solely advocate the widespread inclusion of the death penalty as a punishment for other violence offences, if it was required to be considered for any single illegal action that "directly wronged twelve persons" (if 12 bodies can decide one's fate, it's an appropriate threshold number), then a whole lot of white collar criminals would have received a more fitting punishment that a few months in a "Club Fed".
- Reaction score
- 12,009
- Points
- 1,040
>But any rate, agree to disagree?
Yes.
I made my point harshly on purpose. While people who favour the death penalty should acknowledge the cost of wrongful conviction, people like me who are against it should acknowledge the cost to victims and the people who loved them and be clear about what is being traded off.
Yes.
I made my point harshly on purpose. While people who favour the death penalty should acknowledge the cost of wrongful conviction, people like me who are against it should acknowledge the cost to victims and the people who loved them and be clear about what is being traded off.
AbdullahD said:
The problem is, anyone wrongfully executed or exonerated while on death row was already proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the highest standard of certainty that the legal system has. In theory it means we’re sure we got it right.
In practice that obviously isn’t the case. Within that risk lies too much moral hazard to chance it, IMO.
YZT580 said:
Eyewitnesses and confessions are two of the more notoriously flawed types of evidence. There is plenty of very well conducted research demonstrating the problems with both generating false identifications/confessions.
- Reaction score
- 9,027
- Points
- 1,160
YZT580 said:
As long as it is a life sentence. Not ten years. Life should mean life.
- Reaction score
- 12,009
- Points
- 1,040
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers."
And maybe some innocents, as well. You may never know.
And maybe some innocents, as well. You may never know.
- Reaction score
- 6,886
- Points
- 1,160
There is no doubt in my mind that death would be a just punishment for many of those that commit the most heinous of crimes. However, our justice system is not perfect and sometimes we make mistakes and convict innocent people for crimes they did not commit. Sometimes that even includes cases where the defendant admits to the crime or there are witnesses who swear to the guilt of the defendant.
Since can't be absolutely 100% certain that we're not capable of making a horrible mistake by executing an innocent person of a crime they did not commit, then I'm willing to live with the fact that someone that rightly deserves to die for their crimes instead spends the rest of their life in custody instead.
I do agree with those others that have commented that a "life sentence" should really mean life behind bars for these people.
Since can't be absolutely 100% certain that we're not capable of making a horrible mistake by executing an innocent person of a crime they did not commit, then I'm willing to live with the fact that someone that rightly deserves to die for their crimes instead spends the rest of their life in custody instead.
I do agree with those others that have commented that a "life sentence" should really mean life behind bars for these people.
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 497
- Points
- 910
We've had this discussion before about types of evidence.
Types of evidence absolutely cannot play into it. Sentences need to be proportionate to the crime, aggravating / mitigating circumstances, etc. The fact that the evidence presented is different between two similar crimes does not mean one person should get a harsher sentence than the other. That undermines the principles of sentencing, and doesn't take an academic to see it is clearly unfair.
I had proposed before, without realizing it I guess, that I'd support the death penalty if a higher burden of proof was achieved. I had proposed you had to be found guilty of say, 3 or 4 heinous acts. The logic was that it starts to become statistically impossible that you could be found guilty of multiple offences for which you are not guilty.
But I've softened on that stance. If a burden of proof of "absolute" could be established, I'd support it. But the more and more I see of the state, the less I am inclined to trust it with that power. Even now we see some pretty slippery slope crap going on that doesn't involve executing people. I'd guess if we made a perfect system, it would still eventually erode and fall to our own stupidity. Father time is undefeated.
Types of evidence absolutely cannot play into it. Sentences need to be proportionate to the crime, aggravating / mitigating circumstances, etc. The fact that the evidence presented is different between two similar crimes does not mean one person should get a harsher sentence than the other. That undermines the principles of sentencing, and doesn't take an academic to see it is clearly unfair.
I had proposed before, without realizing it I guess, that I'd support the death penalty if a higher burden of proof was achieved. I had proposed you had to be found guilty of say, 3 or 4 heinous acts. The logic was that it starts to become statistically impossible that you could be found guilty of multiple offences for which you are not guilty.
But I've softened on that stance. If a burden of proof of "absolute" could be established, I'd support it. But the more and more I see of the state, the less I am inclined to trust it with that power. Even now we see some pretty slippery slope crap going on that doesn't involve executing people. I'd guess if we made a perfect system, it would still eventually erode and fall to our own stupidity. Father time is undefeated.
- Reaction score
- 2,345
- Points
- 1,260
Regarding Canada's last executions.
In December 1962, there were three men on death row at the Don Jail in Toronto.
Two were hanged back to back. That's pretty well known.
Most are not likely familiar with what happened to the third,
In December 1962, there were three men on death row at the Don Jail in Toronto.
Two were hanged back to back. That's pretty well known.
Most are not likely familiar with what happened to the third,
Accepting but not liking the fact that the potential for executing the wrong person is real, we are back to the problem of defining a suitable sentence. There should be certain acts that, if committed, justify removing the perpetrator from civilised society for ever. They have forfeited the right to be a part of society. The death penalty accomplishes that. Incarceration for life also accomplishes that. It is expensive, and it also opens up the potential for that individual to influence others with whom he comes in contact either directly or via letter but at least society and the families of the victims are spared the possibility of being confronted by his freedom at a later date. So remove the faint hope clause and change the definition of life to mean life behind bars and in a totally secure institution as well. That is the promise that Pierre made and it is the minimum that should be acceptable.
- Reaction score
- 3,103
- Points
- 1,160
Best way to assert our sovereignty over Hans Island is to put a penal institution there. Establishes a year round presence, and removes a few cancer cells from the body. Win/win.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 19,622
- Points
- 1,260
A necro thread revival
Interesting polling
Interesting polling
- Reaction score
- 12,009
- Points
- 1,040
Surely the majority is always right, and we should run ourselves by the will of 50%+1 in all things.
