Victoria is facing a public-safety crisis

[mariomike]

Generally speaking murderers are much easier to handle than garden variety criminals. We have had serial killers here and I have never heard of any serious threats against Corrections staff.
The worst ones are high profile inmates like Uncle Peter N - who use their notoriety to gain special privileges. And the threat of lawsuits works - and let's not forget the influence of the JHS who never met an inmate they didn't love.

I worked part-time at the Don, on days off. Didn't try to figure them out. Just counted heads and turned keys.

I remember when they used to hang murderers there.

In the States,

First degree-murder can be punished by death when it involves any of the following aggravating factors:

The murder was committed against any law enforcement officer, corrections official, corrections employee, probation and parole officer, emergency medical or rescue worker, emergency medical technician, paramedic or firefighter, who was engaged in the performance of official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was a law enforcement officer, corrections official, corrections employee, probation and parole officer, emergency medical or rescue worker, emergency medical technician, paramedic or firefighter engaged in the performance of official duties.

Not sure if Canadians would go along with that.

 

[OldSolduer]

When my dad was wrapping up his career at Millhaven he told me that the worst were the jihadis, and they would convert large portions population of inmates.

That may work there - we have had a few that tried Islam but weren't good with Ramadan. Besides our overriding population is Indigenous - and they are not fans of jihadis.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Remember 110k a year (likely more now, this is a number from over a decade ago) to keep these arseholes alive in prison. Think about how many kids we can put through school, how much healthcare we can provide, and how much debt we could clear by getting rid of these individuals who have done nothing but harm society.

Will the state make mistakes? Yes. But it does that currently. By that logic we shouldn’t jail anyone ever because what if we get it wrong and accidentally put a innocent behind bars?

The reason it is so expensive in the states is their infinite appeal system. Canada wouldn’t have that problem with our system.

I am also in favour of a 3-5 strike system. Commit 3-5 serious crimes and you get sentenced to death as you aren’t willing to reform or be a part of society.

It is harsh but the reality is we all want the death penalty or more specifically we want them to ‘disappear and no longer be a problem’. Most are just too weak to accept what is required to get that problem to seize to exist.

I am all for trying to get to the root of the issue and prevent crime, I am also all for alternative sentences which favour rehabilitation with good options. But some people refuse to do so and eventually society needs to cut their losses.

 

[brihard]

Remember 110k a year (likely more now, this is a number from over a decade ago) to keep these arseholes alive in prison. Think about how many kids we can put through school, how much healthcare we can provide, and how much debt we could clear by getting rid of these individuals who have done nothing but harm society.

Will the state make mistakes? Yes. But it does that currently. By that logic we shouldn’t jail anyone ever because what if we get it wrong and accidentally put a innocent behind bars?

The reason it is so expensive in the states is their infinite appeal system. Canada wouldn’t have that problem with our system.

I am also in favour of a 3-5 strike system. Commit 3-5 serious crimes and you get sentenced to death as you aren’t willing to reform or be a part of society.

It is harsh but the reality is we all want the death penalty or more specifically we want them to ‘disappear and no longer be a problem’. Most are just too weak to accept what is required to get that problem to seize to exist.

I am all for trying to get to the root of the issue and prevent crime, I am also all for alternative sentences which favour rehabilitation with good options. But some people refuse to do so and eventually society needs to cut their losses.

The number of cases that would actually potentially qualify for capital punishment (after a decade + of appeals) is negligible. The very minor savings from killing them instead of warehousing them would get eaten up immediately in legal costs, and would basically make no difference. "It would save us money" is high on the list of 'worst reasons to kill somebody".

The difference between execution and prison is that when an innocent person is found to have been imprisoned, they can be released and compensated. So far, for executions, that trick's only worked once, for some dude who had a shitty Easter a couple thousand years ago.

We could make the most serious offenders 'disappear and no longer be a problem' with a true life without parole for the most absolutely serious cases. That would also be more likely to survive Charter challenge.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Will the state make mistakes? Yes. But it does that currently. By that logic we shouldn’t jail anyone ever because what if we get it wrong and accidentally put a innocent behind bars?

If mistakes can happen, then "by that logic" we must not ever have a death penalty because it's beyond correction and compensation.

Comparatively, if "we get it wrong and accidentally put a innocent behind bars", there is ample time to figure it out and correct the mistake and compensate (somewhat) for the harm.

 

[rnkelly]

Lol at the shitty Easter line!

 

[Good2Golf]

We could make the most serious offenders 'disappear and no longer be a problem' with a true life without parole for the most absolutely serious cases. That would also be more likely to survive Charter challenge.

Ummm…you’ve been watching recent news, right?

Supreme Court’s decision to strike down life-without-parole law leads to sentencing changes - The Globe and Mail

The Supreme Court’s decision in May in the case of Alexandre Bissonnette is having an effect on sentencing well beyond multiple murders, a Globe review of a legal database has found

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[brihard]

Ummm…you’ve been watching recent news, right?

Supreme Court’s decision to strike down life-without-parole law leads to sentencing changes - The Globe and Mail

The Supreme Court’s decision in May in the case of Alexandre Bissonnette is having an effect on sentencing well beyond multiple murders, a Globe review of a legal database has found

www.theglobeandmail.com

Yes; with sufficient government force of will (eg, recurrent use of the Notwithstanding Clause), that could be overcome. Any court objection to the severity and supposed disproportionality of true life without parole would also apply to capital punishment, so it’s not like executions are a way around the courts blocking life without parole.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The number of cases that would actually potentially qualify for capital punishment (after a decade + of appeals) is negligible. The very minor savings from killing them instead of warehousing them would get eaten up immediately in legal costs, and would basically make no difference. "It would save us money" is high on the list of 'worst reasons to kill somebody".

The difference between execution and prison is that when an innocent person is found to have been imprisoned, they can be released and compensated. So far, for executions, that trick's only worked once, for some dude who had a shitty Easter a couple thousand years ago.

We could make the most serious offenders 'disappear and no longer be a problem' with a true life without parole for the most absolutely serious cases. That would also be more likely to survive Charter challenge.

If you put strict limits onto who can be subject to capital punishment, then you can reduce that risk to pretty much zero. It would mean a number who should get it, won't.

 

[brihard]

If you put strict limits onto who can be subject to capital punishment, then you can reduce that risk to pretty much zero. It would mean a number who should get it, won't.

It would be an interesting thought exercise to try to devise a system that we're all confident government and the justice system still couldn't still manage to screw up.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There are times in the extreme when people should be put down. Think Bernardo, Homolka, or Wortman (If he had been caught alive).

A good list here, not sure how many are still alive:

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS: "Worst of the worst" ranks swell slightly

Elric MacArthur, Travis Winsor and Michael Kozovski joined a growing list this year of “the worst of the worst” culprits in Canada’s prisons.

torontosun.com

 

[dapaterson]

Guy Paul Morin might have a few thoughts about that.

 

[Good2Golf]

Yes; with sufficient government force of will (eg, recurrent use of the Notwithstanding Clause), that could be overcome. Any court objection to the severity and supposed disproportionality of true life without parole would also apply to capital punishment, so it’s not like executions are a way around the courts blocking life without parole.

I’m not even thinking about capital punishment, just that life without parole is now deemed by the SCC to be unacceptable. More and more, the rights of victims specifically and citizens in the larger view, are yielding to the rights/privileges of the criminals.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The number of cases that would actually potentially qualify for capital punishment (after a decade + of appeals) is negligible. The very minor savings from killing them instead of warehousing them would get eaten up immediately in legal costs, and would basically make no difference. "It would save us money" is high on the list of 'worst reasons to kill somebody".

The difference between execution and prison is that when an innocent person is found to have been imprisoned, they can be released and compensated. So far, for executions, that trick's only worked once, for some dude who had a shitty Easter a couple thousand years ago.

We could make the most serious offenders 'disappear and no longer be a problem' with a true life without parole for the most absolutely serious cases. That would also be more likely to survive Charter challenge.

Charter can be changed, I would also say the wording is pretty clear. ‘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.’ Death penalty can easily be part of fundamental justice.

If the judges don’t like it, parliament can clarify the defination of the words. Such as stating the death penalty is both not cruel or unusual punishment.

Judges serve to enforce the law, if they fail to do so (or in many cases such as the Mosque shooters, make up their own laws for sentencing, leading to successful appeals) they deserve to be canned.

If mistakes can happen, then "by that logic" we must not ever have a death penalty because it's beyond correction and compensation.

Comparatively, if "we get it wrong and accidentally put a innocent behind bars", there is ample time to figure it out and correct the mistake and compensate (somewhat) for the harm.

You cannot correct that mistake. It is irreparable. Just because some like to pretend that it can be fixed, it cannot be. Say you spend 10 years behind bars for a crime you didn’t commit, no amount of money will give you back your freedom.

Again as I have said before, life in prison is the death penalty just with time being the executioner. What if you sentence someone to life in prison and they die a year later and turns out they didn’t do it? You still killed a man. Isn’t that not the same as executing them?

Personally I would rather die than live amongst a bunch of criminals for a crime I didn’t commit, your mileage may vary.

I also have no qualms about getting rid of the worst of society, if we did it on a more regular basis that cop which was just shot would be still walking among us.

 

[OldSolduer]

I’m not even thinking about capital punishment, just that life without parole is now deemed by the SCC to be unacceptable. More and more, the rights of victims specifically and citizens in the larger view, are yielding to the rights/privileges of the criminals.

I am in agreement. The "system" is running scared of entities like the JHS or EFS who never met a criminal they did not love. The government - and it doesn't matter what party - is scared of lawsuits no matter how frivolous or full of bullshit the case us and even the average person on the street can see through the garbage. It appears that justice is blind - which is fine - but to be deaf and dumb and lack common sense is quite another.

 

[YZT580]

The number of cases that would actually potentially qualify for capital punishment (after a decade + of appeals) is negligible. The very minor savings from killing them instead of warehousing them would get eaten up immediately in legal costs, and would basically make no difference. "It would save us money" is high on the list of 'worst reasons to kill somebody".

The difference between execution and prison is that when an innocent person is found to have been imprisoned, they can be released and compensated. So far, for executions, that trick's only worked once, for some dude who had a shitty Easter a couple thousand years ago.

We could make the most serious offenders 'disappear and no longer be a problem' with a true life without parole for the most absolutely serious cases. That would also be more likely to survive Charter challenge.

which is what Trudeau senior vowed would be the case when he did away with the death penalty. Life means life is what he promised.

 

[Good2Golf]

Trudeau and Promise are pretty much two separate circles on a Venn diagram…

 

[Brad Sallows]

You cannot correct that mistake. It is irreparable. Just because some like to pretend that it can be fixed, it cannot be. Say you spend 10 years behind bars for a crime you didn’t commit, no amount of money will give you back your freedom.

You correct the mistake by acknowledging it and freeing the person (if still incarcerated). One thing about people who have been wronged is that they can be compensated.

"Since we can't restore the period of incarceration to people wrongfully incarcerated, we might as well go ahead and have a death penalty, too." What a dumb f*cking idea.

 

[YZT580]

You correct the mistake by acknowledging it and freeing the person (if still incarcerated). One thing about people who have been wronged is that they can be compensated.

"Since we can't restore the period of incarceration to people wrongfully incarcerated, we might as well go ahead and have a death penalty, too." What a dumb f*cking idea.

provided that the person incarcerated never again breathes the air outside the prison walls and I do mean the walls not some glorified holiday camp. There are some crimes that should permanently place the doer beyond the pale.

 

[lenaitch]

I worked part-time at the Don, on days off. Didn't try to figure them out. Just counted heads and turned keys.

I remember when they used to hang murderers there.

In the States,

Not sure if Canadians would go along with that.

Keep in mind that would be a State. US criminal law is state-based.

Charter can be changed, I would also say the wording is pretty clear. ‘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.’ Death penalty can easily be part of fundamental justice.

If the judges don’t like it, parliament can clarify the defination of the words. Such as stating the death penalty is both not cruel or unusual punishment.

Judges serve to enforce the law, if they fail to do so (or in many cases such as the Mosque shooters, make up their own laws for sentencing, leading to successful appeals) they deserve to be canned.

Parliament alone cannot amend the Constitution. See the 'amending formula' sections. We have 100% failure track record at Constitutional amendment - across several governments - except those minor ones impacting a single province, to the point that it is political kryptonite.