Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[bush_cheney2004]

You have a partial point here. First though, you are not quite right about the time line. See here. The death penalty was abolished for most crimes in 1967 and in 1976 for all crimes except a few military crimes. Capital punishment for those last few crimes was abolished in 1998. So 1967, or even 1976 is the more appropriate date to quote. (Unless you are talking about very specific military crimes.)

So you are saying that execution for military crimes is OK until 1998, but take credit for "abolition" starting in 1967. That doesn't sound very convincing.

Your info with respect to extraditing to face the death penalty is also out of date. Charles Ng was extradited in 1985. But you need to see a case called United States v. Burns from 2001. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that Canada cannot extradite without an assurance that there will be no death penalty. They say that there will be an exception in "exceptional circumstances". These circumstances are not explicitly defined, but in other cases the term has been used to allude to things like war or other national emergencies.

Oh, in other words, it could happen...strike two!

So barring a national emergency, Canada does not extradite people if they will face the death penalty. And aside from someone like Osama bin Laden, I do not see a case where refusing to extradite someone will lead to a national emergency.

Doesn't Osama Bin Hidin' deserve protection from the big bad death penalty? Too bad Saddam didn't have Canadian citizenship. Point being...what happened to the absolute sanctimony for the value of life...strike three!

[buffycat]

Great, now explain this to other nations who have foreigners commiting crimes within those nations, and tell them that they have no right to punish them under their own law.

Isn't that what happened to Kazemi?

If a man commits a brutal act in the US and they want the death penalty that is their business. When he committed a crime on their soil he subjected himself to their laws.

Define the crime.

Yes, I know this guy did really horrid things - that is not disputable. I am not arguing for or against the death penalty. I am talking about what Canada apparantly states and believes it - which is not capital punishment. That is another arguement.

What happens if some one, a Canadian is caught stealing and is sentenced to his hands being cut off? Do we help him?

I see this as a sloughing off of responsibility. He is Canadian. Let him rot. Far better punishment for the soul. Or heck, let human justice prevail and allow him into the prison population - child molesters don't last long there - no matter where on earth you are. There Ya go!

Bring him home and feed him to the populace. That will satisfy the bloodlust of Canadians, and keep our nation soveriegn at the same time . (Note the sarcasm).

*() used for the thick headed around here.

[jefferiah]

I am talking about what Canada apparantly states and believes it - which is not capital punishment. That is another arguement.

What happens if some one, a Canadian is caught stealing and is sentenced to his hands being cut off? Do we help him?

First off it doesn't matter what Canada believes. If you commit a crime on American soil for instance, they dont care what Canada thinks. Criminals who commit crimes in America don't get special treatment if they are Canucks. I am against the death penalty myself, but I cannot tell Americans how to deal with people who commit crimes down there.

Now as for this other case of yours, I am sure that would be an exception. The point is they won't be going to bat for people they can't extradite anyway---as they have tried to before and failed.

[buffycat]

First off it doesn't matter what Canada believes. If you commit a crime on American soil for instance, they dont care what Canada thinks. Criminals who commit crimes in America don't get special treatment if they are Canucks. I am against the death penalty myself, but I cannot tell Americans how to deal with people who commit crimes down there.

Now as for this other case of yours, I am sure that would be an exception. The point is they won't be going to bat for people they can't extradite anyway---as they have tried to before and failed.

So, let's say that some dude, American, is caught in Saudi Arabia (one of the American's buddies) having gay sex. He is sentenced to death. Should he die?

If your daughter did a silly thing. And ended up in a prison where she awaited the death penalty, would you not be of a different mind? Afterall - kids make mistakes.

This guy here, is an extreme - but an extreme which is liable to set a precident. That is my concern.

I think you missed the gist.

[capricorn]

- bring him home and incarerate the bastard for the rest of his life.

I heard Ralph Goodale on Question Period say the Liberals are not asking that Smith be repatriated. Sounds to me like the Conservatives and Liberals agree on this point.

The disagreement between the two parties is on whether to press for commuting the death penalty. The Conservatives don't want to pursue this and the Liberals are insisting.

At least that's the way I read the picture.

[jefferiah]

So, let's say that some dude, American, is caught in Saudi Arabia (one of the American's buddies) having gay sex. He is sentenced to death. Should he die?

I think you missed the gist.

I think you missed the last part of my last post. I am sure these cases would be an exception. Remember that Canadian criminal in Texas a few years back. Stuff like that. They are not going to bother with it.

[betsy]

You folks got to think of the big picture sometimes, not just the immediate story in front of our noses.

For example does this also mean, that when Canadians are sentenced to death in countries such as in various parts of Asia or the Middle East, where for example people are killed for suspected drug crimes, that Canada will no longer try to intervene on their behalf either? Even the United States would try to help its own citizens elsewhere under such circumstances.

If I understood correctly, it was specified that the government will not ask for clemency from democratic countries.

At least the government is being blunt about its stance on the issue. Canadians going abroad should think twice before committing any crimes in other countries.

[buffycat]

I heard Ralph Goodale on Question Period say the Liberals are not asking that Smith be repatriated. Sounds to me like the Conservatives and Liberals agree on this point.

The disagreement between the two parties is on whether to press for commuting the death penalty. The Conservatives don't want to pursue this and the Liberals are insisting.

At least that's the way I read the picture.

I concur. Good synopsis.

[capricorn]

This guy here, is an extreme - but an extreme which is liable to set a precident. That is my concern.

That's a valid concern and one that worries me as well. I take comfort in the fact that the Conservatives assured that each case has to be decided on its own merits.

[betsy]

This, is not a question of whether a Canadian is guilty, as the murderer in the Montana, but our attitude towards capital punishment. If we are against it, we're aganst it no matter what or where it takes place. And our obligation is to complain to those countries, places like Phillipines where death sentences are mandatory for drug crimes, even marijuana possession. Our government is obligated to try and fight for their lives to be spared, regardless of whether those countries will cooperate, or have ever cooperated before.

How do you suggest we fight, if a country is un-willing to cooperate?

[Wilber]

If a non-Canadian commits murder in Canada, and his home country wants him back to face the (non)penalty, should we give in? Think of the Sharia example.

Keep in mind that in the reverse, other countries are loathe to return Canadian citizens because our "justice" system is a joke. If a Canadian commits murder in Texas, the US knows he will walk in 10-25 years in Canada instead of being executed. As a parent of the (pretend here) victim, I would fight that extradition tooth and nail. If my country exacts the death penalty, I expect the man to die. The Canadian government could kiss my ass.

The Sharia example is bogus. Again, we are talking about the Canadian government's obligation to its own citizens. We can't force another country to do anything, nor them us. No sovereign country is going to give up the right or responsibility to enforce its own laws on its own soil. If there is any accommodation it would have to be by mutual agreement on an individual basis. That doesn't absolve a government of its responsibility to at least make an effort on its citizen's behalf.

[Wilber]

That's a valid concern and one that worries me as well. I take comfort in the fact that the Conservatives assured that each case has to be decided on its own merits.

I take no comfort in that at all. Every citizen has the right to expect his government's support. That statement says we will decide which Canadians will have support and we will do so according to our principles.

[buffycat]

That's a valid concern and one that worries me as well. I take comfort in the fact that the Conservatives assured that each case has to be decided on its own merits.

Yeah, but I'm not sure if I trust the Harper government to do that... or the previous Liberals for that matter.

Therein lies the problem...

[noahbody]

Every citizen has the right to expect his government's support.

I don't know where you read that but the fine print said *unless you murder someone.

[Wilber]

I don't know where you read that but the fine print said *unless you murder someone.

Making stuff up now.

[bk59]

So you are saying that execution for military crimes is OK until 1998, but take credit for "abolition" starting in 1967. That doesn't sound very convincing.

I am pointing out that the time line regarding capital punishment in Canada is not as simple as you seem to think. For a murder of the kind we are discussing in this thread, there has been no death penalty in Canada since 1967. So you cannot say that for this type of crime we were able to execute someone up until 1998. That sounds convincing enough to me. But even if you want to distort this crime and say 1998... that doesn't change the fact that right now there is absolutely no death penalty in Canada.

Oh, in other words, it could happen...strike two!

It could happen. But it doesn't. And the conditions set out have such a high threshold that no one really expects it to happen.

It could happen that the US decides to up and burn its Constitution and ask to become a colony of the UK again. That doesn't mean that I'm going to accuse the US of right now wanting to be a colony of the UK. Yours was a nice try... but a miss.

Doesn't Osama Bin Hidin' deserve protection from the big bad death penalty? Too bad Saddam didn't have Canadian citizenship. Point being...what happened to the absolute sanctimony for the value of life...strike three!

Yes, I happen to think that he does deserve to live. He deserves to live the rest of his life in a prison cell somewhere. I would have said the same about Saddam, because I do not happen to believe in the death penalty for anyone.

But be realistic, if the US threatened to go to war with Canada and nuke our cities because we were holding bin Laden, then I think we would probably give him up. Because quite frankly, it's hard to convince people that the death penalty is wrong when your entire society is dead. You can get on your soap box all you like and claim that is not a principled position. But at some level you can find a ridiculous example where pragmatism steps in. And when it comes to the absolute sanctity of life, if you have to choose between someone killing a whole bunch of innocents and someone killing one person... sometimes you choose the lesser evil because both choices involve people dying. That does not change the fact that life is sacred and no one should be committing murder whether your are just some guy, or whether you are the government of a country.

Claim that as a strike if you want. But it doesn't change the fact that you had to come up with a ridiculous scenario that in all likelihood will never happen. Canada does not extradite people to face the death penalty. Not anymore. And not in the foreseeable future.

[bk59]

Now as for this other case of yours, I am sure that would be an exception. The point is they won't be going to bat for people they can't extradite anyway---as they have tried to before and failed.

The issue is not whether they succeed or fail. The issue is that the Canadian government should be going to bat for Canadian citizens. That is their job.

[bk59]

If I understood correctly, it was specified that the government will not ask for clemency from democratic countries.

At least the government is being blunt about its stance on the issue. Canadians going abroad should think twice before committing any crimes in other countries.

People should be thinking twice before committing crimes anywhere.

But the nature of the country should not be the issue (unless we are talking about procedural things like whether or not the trial is fair). The issue should be whether or not the Canadian citizen is facing a crime that we do not believe is a crime or facing a punishment that we do not think is just.

How do you suggest we fight, if a country is un-willing to cooperate?

Well, it would help to start by trying to talk to that country. Writing the citizen off before even trying is what I have a problem with. Even if a country is unwilling to listen, that does not mean you just give up and stop trying to negotiate. If we did that every time we were in a negotiation then we'd be pretty screwed as a country.

[bk59]

I find the approach that some people are taking in this topic to be very interesting. There have been a number of comments indicating that Canada should stay out because this is US sovereign jurisdiction. And yet, the US has an interesting history of ignoring the sovereignty of other nations. And this in a much more direct manner than just asking or negotiating for something.

Take for instance the Helms-Burton Act passed by the US in 1996. It says that any company that does business in Cuba, no matter who they are or where they are in the world, can be charged. What right does the US have to interfere not just in one country's sovereignty, but the sovereignty of two countries? Especially when that business relationship has absolutely nothing to do with the US.

My point is, stop complaining that Canada is asking for something that is America's sovereign right to govern. Countries do this all the time. Canada was just trying to negotiate for its citizens. At least Canada is not taking direct action against the sovereignty of other nations when Canada is not even being harmed.

[betsy]

People should be thinking twice before committing crimes anywhere.

But the nature of the country should not be the issue (unless we are talking about procedural things like whether or not the trial is fair). The issue should be whether or not the Canadian citizen is facing a crime that we do not believe is a crime or facing a punishment that we do not think is just.

Well, it would help to start by trying to talk to that country. Writing the citizen off before even trying is what I have a problem with. Even if a country is unwilling to listen, that does not mean you just give up and stop trying to negotiate. If we did that every time we were in a negotiation then we'd be pretty screwed as a country.

Assuming it was a fair trial. In most democratic countries, we do have consular offices if I'm not mistaken....so it is safe to assume that our citizen had access to his consul officer.

What is it that consuls do in situations like this?

Did the government say there would not be any attempt at talks at all? Correct me if I'm wrong....I only heard the part that says we will not ask for clemency.

You mention the word "negotiation." What kind of negotiation do you have in mind?

[scribblet]

A whole lot of fuss over nothing, if this guy were in a country with no due process or had no access to a fair trial, Canada would intervene.

You can bet your sweet bippy that if Smith were brought back to Canada to serve out the rest of his sentence, he would likely be back on the streets in months. After all, Canada's maximum for first degree murder is 25 yrs, of which Smith has served 20 years allready Smith has said he'd like to come back home to Canada, and get on with his life.. yup - I bet he would.

Considering that Smith is from Alberta, he'd probably get the same nincompoops that let the re-captured Cancer Con-man out on bail.

Harper's looking better all the time !

[Wilber]

Assuming it was a fair trial. In most democratic countries, we do have consular offices if I'm not mistaken....so it is safe to assume that our citizen had access to his consul officer.

What is it that consuls do in situations like this?

Did the government say there would not be any attempt at talks at all? Correct me if I'm wrong....I only heard the part that says we will not ask for clemency.

You mention the word "negotiation." What kind of negotiation do you have in mind?

"We will not actively pursue bringing back to Canada murderers who have been tried in a democratic country that supports the rule of law," Day told the House of Commons on Thursday.

That statement says to me that if you are convicted of a murder and sentenced do death, whether you are an obvious mass murder or you were railroaded, your government is writing you off. If that is not what he means, he should make if very clear what he does mean.

[Wilber]

A whole lot of fuss over nothing, if this guy were in a country with no due process or had no access to a fair trial, Canada would intervene.

You can bet your sweet bippy that if Smith were brought back to Canada to serve out the rest of his sentence, he would likely be back on the streets in months. After all, Canada's maximum for first degree murder is 25 yrs, of which Smith has served 20 years allready Smith has said he'd like to come back home to Canada, and get on with his life.. yup - I bet he would.

Considering that Smith is from Alberta, he'd probably get the same nincompoops that let the re-captured Cancer Con-man out on bail.

Harper's looking better all the time !

Should the US agree to return someone, you can bet it would be on their terms. Why else would they agree to it?

[Guest trex]

Should the US agree to return someone, you can bet it would be on their terms. Why else would they agree to it?

First of all, the US knows it is in the interest of their own citizens abroad to be cooperative to such request at certain times. They know full well the golden rule, as you do unto others, so it will be done unto you. And this has been the basis of such diplomacy for many decades.

That does not mean of course, that they HAVE to. No one has to.

This is one way that Canada has tried to persuade other countries to cease executing people for committing crimes. We are not saying they are innocent, its the punishment we're talking about. We want the United States to put peple in prison for life, not kill them, as we do here. But if we can't change their minds on their internal policy, we can at least try and do so for Canadian citizens.

And this move by the cons, if anything, has re-started the debate on capital punishment in our society. As we are talking about it now, and it inevitably moves toward a discussion of the validity of capital punishment in general, bringing this issue into question in the minds of Canadians. It also shows that the Cons attitude towards capital punishment is permissive, these god-loving bible thumping conservatives don't seem to mind putting people to death with the stroke of a pen, as a form of vengeance. Strange too, if we look at a map of the world to see where capital punishment is still being used, it shows that it's only in the middle east, asia, parts of africa and the United States. In other words, the harsh dictatorships of the world, and the United States. Those countries which are run by non-secular governments, or by totalitarian dictatorships like Korea and China. And, the US, whichever way they may fit into this picture-

http://stuhasic.files.wordpress.com/2007/0...ltymaplarge.jpg

Do we want to join this list?

Someone mentioned that they used the term, democratic countries. Well Iran is a democratic country, as are others in the middle east but that does not stop them from carrying out executions for things that are not crimes in our country, like homosexuality for instance. But even in that case I doubt Stockwell Day would want to intervene, if a Canadian homosexual was going to be executed. So he is just being selective based on his own personal value judgements, not according to the ideals of our free society. While it yet exists.

Edited November 3, 2007 by trex

[old_bold&cold]

If people who have such practices as homosexuality, go to countries like Iran, and get caught being what they are, then they should not be the responsibility of the Canada, to get them off. When I travel, I make sure I know the local laws and those places I have issues with, I do not travel to. Both my wife and I have travelled extensively thru Europe and Carribean as well as Central America. Countries like Panama where if they think you are American, they will shoot you dead. I stay away from and we always make sure we wear our Maple Leaf insignias when we travel. We are always well received as Canadians, and much better then most Americans are with their flag on their packs etc..

If I went to China, I would not seek out people to tell them freedom awaits us all, and would always try not to engage in that type of talk with the peope there. I also would never even think about breaking any laws there as I know that crime there is swift and complete. But I still want to see the country and its many places where great works of art and buildings have survived to this day. One day I will afford that trip and I will go. I only expect my country to support me if there is some problem, but I do not think they should be there to allow me to break their laws, even if it is not against the law where I am from.

For those abraod who have broken laws, especially murder, well they get what they deserve and if that is the death penalty, then so be it. If I am in Saudi Arbia and I steal things, then I gues sI will lose an arm. It is that simple. The only time we should be concerned is the time before they have past sentence, at trial, that s where all efforts should be made and once found guilty by a court of law then so be it. As long as the trial is fair. For those who keep bringing up homosexuals etc., must remember that it was not that long ago where here in Canada we locked up homosexuals, and because of that many of them were beaten and killed. Just because w have changed, does not mean everyone has. If you are of that persausion, do not go to places where this is a problem, or you may die because of it .