Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[old_bold&cold]

I do not want offenders brought back to Canada to serve snetences because they broke the law in a foreign land and should serve their time there. Here our prisons are like holiday inn with cable tv and pool tables etc. It costs us to keep people there and when we charge people from foreign lands they serve their time here, some even fight to make sure they serve it here, because prisonn here is luxury compared to life back home. Since the crimes were in foreign lands let them and their prison system pay for it.

As for asking a governor to commute a death sentence goes, they can ask, but they can not compell. As with the governor in this latest case has said, he would proabably not commute the sentence but even if he did he would fight letting this person serve time in Canada, because he would be let out before he dies, where in the place where he is, he will never outlive his sentences. Also this is a case of the USA, where their laws and ours differ but not by much and since the person has admitted the deed there is no doubt about it being the wrong guy. When he is put to death it will be as humane as possible, just like we do here with beloved pets and even now our aged family members.

I do not look to my government to be all protecting and all consuming in my affairs abroad. That is a very far left way of thinking, and I believe it to be wrong.

[jdobbin]

I do not look to my government to be all protecting and all consuming in my affairs abroad. That is a very far left way of thinking, and I believe it to be wrong.

And you wonder why people think some Conservatives are out to lunch. The Canadian government advocates for all its citizens wherever they are. It isn't a leftist thing. It is a nation thing.

Edited November 9, 2007 by jdobbin

[bk59]

I do not want offenders brought back to Canada to serve snetences because they broke the law in a foreign land and should serve their time there. Here our prisons are like holiday inn with cable tv and pool tables etc. It costs us to keep people there and when we charge people from foreign lands they serve their time here, some even fight to make sure they serve it here, because prisonn here is luxury compared to life back home. Since the crimes were in foreign lands let them and their prison system pay for it.

I was unaware that murderers sat around watching TV and playing pool all day. What prison is that at?

There are several reasons why someone might be brought back to serve time in Canada. You have to remember that a justice system is not there solely to punish. It is also there to rehabilitate. Compassion and a respect for someone's humanity can play a role. For someone who is old or sick, bringing them to a prison close to their family can be good, not just for the prisoner, but also for the family. It's not just about money or punishment.

As for asking a governor to commute a death sentence goes, they can ask, but they can not compell. As with the governor in this latest case has said, he would proabably not commute the sentence but even if he did he would fight letting this person serve time in Canada, because he would be let out before he dies, where in the place where he is, he will never outlive his sentences. Also this is a case of the USA, where their laws and ours differ but not by much and since the person has admitted the deed there is no doubt about it being the wrong guy. When he is put to death it will be as humane as possible, just like we do here with beloved pets and even now our aged family members.

Of course they cannot compel. But that is a lot different than they should not try. Saying that the US laws only differ slightly from our laws is no excuse. The point is, there is a difference. And when it comes to killing someone, that difference is arguably a big one. If the only difference between Canada's laws and the laws of country X is in how to punish jay walking, would it be OK that country X executed people for jay walking? Would Canada let its citizens be executed without ever trying to intervene?

Also, the way the US executes people may not be as humane as previously thought. In fact, I believe a case is before the US Supreme Court with evidence showing that lethal injection could in fact be considered cruel & unusual. It has to do with untrained prison staff administering the drugs where the drug that causes unconsciousness wears off before the drugs that kill the person take affect.

I do not look to my government to be all protecting and all consuming in my affairs abroad. That is a very far left way of thinking, and I believe it to be wrong.

They do not have to be all protecting. If someone steals my wallet while I am traveling the government does not have to pay me back the money I lost.

But if something is against the law in Canada, then when someone tries to do that something to a Canadian citizen abroad, when that something involves the citizen's liberty or life, then the government should be getting involved. That's not "very far left" thinking. That is a government trying to protect its citizens. Governments do it all the time. Canada's decision to reverse on this is not a good thing.

[jdobbin]

The view from the Sun on the issue.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/11...639965-sun.html

By the way, which countries do the Conservatives define as democracies supporting the rule of law? Couldn't that be open to dispute? And even in such a democracy, is there no possibility of a trial where a Canadian abroad could be wrongly convicted (obviously, not the case with Smith), which, if he's already dead when that information comes to light, would make freeing him a rather moot point?

Instead of a blanket policy that we will or won't seek clemency for Canadians convicted of murder abroad, as long as the country doing it meets some undefined standard of democracy and the rule of law, shouldn't our policy be that we will look at each case on its merits and, applying good judgment and common sense, decide whether we want to protest the imposition of the death penalty?

Wouldn't that make more sense?

Edited November 9, 2007 by jdobbin

[noahbody]

The view from the Sun on the issue.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/11...639965-sun.html

That's funny. He criticizes the policy for being a 'blanket policy' which it isn't. Then, he provides a recommendation which mirrors the new policy.

[myata]

Those who have any brains will see that it is very stupid to again bring this issue up, as today there are just too many people that would side on the pro death penalty with certain conditions.

Are you dreaming? Or smoking? What? One in five Canadians supports death penalty according to Tories own opinion poll.

But indeed, the move appears, so to say, unwise and counterproductive, that even some analysts sympathetic to Harpers conservatives find it undesirable. Really, why bother (Don Martin, CBC): it's all pain and no gain. Better leave sleeping dogs lie.

The problem with that thinking is that it assumes that Harpercons are like us. Great majority of Canadians who firmly believe that the time of death penalty in this country is over. If that were to be the case, none of these moves would make much sense - indeed, why waste all the energy and risk losing favour with part of population, especially urban population in Ontario and Quebec, for something you don't even believe in? No, makes no sense whatsoever.

Now look at it from another angle. What's losing a few points in the polls and having to answer (or not answer) a few inconvenient questions, if it could make the goal a little closer to attain? Public, a little more familiar with the coveted prize. A little more used to it - one tiny step at a time. So that, with patience and time, the deeply desired goal - death penalty in Canada - may one day become a reality?

Admit it, it's lot easier to interpret Harper's action from this angle. They now appear to make some sense and even become logical. Of course, it's a long road with many steps (basically, reversing the path covered so far - from making death penalty acceptable in some cases, maybe abroad - to perhaps restoring it as extereme measure never to be used - then less extreme measure, still not to be used - then, when a reasonably appealing case comes about - as in good old times - first execution - public servants going to work to perform executions - managers having to sub for the unionized employees - wise and compassionate leader stopping a pending execution of an innocent, on inspiration from above - good and truthful prison guard, torn between the call of duty (that is, to execute) and subtle unclear concern from within, and so on). All those little things that a good so conservative soul can enjoy just a short drive south, but is so brutally deprived of here.

Of course, social and psycho analysis is not my domain. But from purely logical perspective, the second possiblity looks real enough to make me worry. And I hope it worries enough people so that it never becomes reality.

Edited November 9, 2007 by myata

[jdobbin]

That's funny. He criticizes the policy for being a 'blanket policy' which it isn't.

How is it not a blanket policy? It is a blanket policy for the U.S. thus far. We don't know what other countries it applies to because the Tories haven't said so yet.

Edited November 9, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Jeffrey Simpson's view of the issue.

http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generat.../wcosimp07.html

You either oppose the death penalty, or you don't. If you oppose it, you don't want it befalling a Canadian wherever he or she is. You work to get the Canadian home, behind bars.

Unless, of course, you really favour the death penalty, but don't want to risk a debate in Canada. And you've got a bunch of hang 'em high backbenchers for whom the death penalty there is the next best thing to having it here.

[Wilber]

How is it not a blanket policy? It is a blanket policy for the U.S. thus far. We don't know what other countries it applies to because the Tories haven't said so yet.

Either: 1) They don't know. 2) They do know but are afraid to reveal their real intentions. 3) They have a vague idea and will make it up as they go along.

[myata]

I think they should have pretty good idea (at least on the level of a possible direction of their long term policy). Otherwise, would it worth the trouble? In this particular precarious moment? It would be lot safer, and make lot more sense to wait till majority, then test the ground. Unless of course, someone was thinking of death penalty as a majority winner. Which in itself would be quite a revelation of their peculiar way of thinking.

[old_bold&cold]

I was unaware that murderers sat around watching TV and playing pool all day. What prison is that at?

It was just a little while ago that prisoners at Kingston penitenery threatened violence because the cable tv was droppign a show they all wanted to see. I knwo from my own experience visiting someone, that Ottawa Inneis road Jail has pool tables, and cable tv. Most prisons have exercise yards and well as indoor gyms, Some of the low security federal prisons even have golf driving ranges. They have conjucal visits from wifes and even paid lovers. Yes, here in Canada, our worst of the worst prisons are thousands of times better then live of freedom in third world countries.

There are several reasons why someone might be brought back to serve time in Canada. You have to remember that a justice system is not there solely to punish. It is also there to rehabilitate. Compassion and a respect for someone's humanity can play a role. For someone who is old or sick, bringing them to a prison close to their family can be good, not just for the prisoner, but also for the family. It's not just about money or punishment.

Of course they cannot compel. But that is a lot different than they should not try. Saying that the US laws only differ slightly from our laws is no excuse. The point is, there is a difference. And when it comes to killing someone, that difference is arguably a big one. If the only difference between Canada's laws and the laws of country X is in how to punish jay walking, would it be OK that country X executed people for jay walking? Would Canada let its citizens be executed without ever trying to intervene?

Canada is not the one who should be footing the bill for rehabilitaing any foreign offenders period. Just as we make foreign offenders serve their time here, we should also understand that same need when it comes to our own. In most cases the family can travel to see there family member where he is and never should it be a determining issue in placing a prisoner, as for family visits. It should come down to security risk and level of dentention to address that risk.

Also, the way the US executes people may not be as humane as previously thought. In fact, I believe a case is before the US Supreme Court with evidence showing that lethal injection could in fact be considered cruel & unusual. It has to do with untrained prison staff administering the drugs where the drug that causes unconsciousness wears off before the drugs that kill the person take affect.

It does not have to be a hard thing to do and if people coming concious before the drugs kill them are a big thing, then use more drugs, Are we worried about the cost or is it that they do not want to kill him before they kill him . Anyway it is done each and every day here in Canada with the act of pallitive care. So do you want thta to also stop and let this people suffer all the way to death comes to take them? We put down a vicious dog without even trying to rehabilitate him, and I like dogs. But we try to make vicious killers into normal people, when all the stats show that the largest majority of those we release and say they are rehabilitated, reoffend and usually take more lives in doing so. I would rathe try to rehab the dog and dput down the person to tell you the truth. But we do not do that now do we?

They do not have to be all protecting. If someone steals my wallet while I am traveling the government does not have to pay me back the money I lost.

But you will want the government to make sure all you travel papers and passport are reissued, and emergency money loaned to you, so you can pay for food and lodgings. Me I draw the line after they make sure I am treated fairly and secure my travels. I do not expect them to be like a big brother who will pull me out of trouble I willingly get involved in.

But if something is against the law in Canada, then when someone tries to do that something to a Canadian citizen abroad, when that something involves the citizen's liberty or life, then the government should be getting involved. That's not "very far left" thinking. That is a government trying to protect its citizens. Governments do it all the time. Canada's decision to reverse on this is not a good thing.

No that is left sided govrenment thinking. What you describe are the policies of the left and I do not mean center left but far left. You see this in government today because it was rulled mostly in the last 50 years by left wing Liberals. What you see happening today is that the goverment even though a minority government, is now coming back to center and maybe a little right of center, and that is why all the Liberal and far lefties are here whinning about this. It really makes them cry to see that the way of the Canadian people is now swinging more to the center right, after so many years of mid left of center policies that took us too far to the left.

Fight over it all you like, it is just what the people asked for in the last election and is exactly what they are getting. There has been no vast movement towards the mid to far right that the Liberals all claimed last election, and now the ;olls have said that the vast majority of Canadians like the direction the government is going and would not fear a majority harper lead government. It is the whinning left that is doing all the complaining, and only because they think that because they made these things over a very long term Left leaning Liberal government, that these are now traditions and can not be replaced. SILLY RABBIT TRICKS ARE FOR KIDS

[noahbody]

How is it not a blanket policy? It is a blanket policy for the U.S. thus far. We don't know what other countries it applies to because the Tories haven't said so yet.

He was referring to it as a blanket policy because he was under the impression that they would not be reviewing "each case on its merits and, applying good judgment and common sense, (to) decide whether we want to protest the imposition of the death penalty."

Ironically, the only blanket policy is the former one. The new policy will be protest based on merit, done on a case by case basis. Based on this, the Sun endorses the new policy, they're just not smart enough to realize it.

[Fortunata]

and now the ;olls have said that the vast majority of Canadians like the direction the government is going and would not fear a majority harper lead government.

What percentage of the voting population forms a "vast majority?"

[old_bold&cold]

What percentage of the voting population forms a "vast majority?"

I believe the poll said it was 60% of the people would feel ok with a majority Harper government. That is a pretty vasy majority, but yes there are 40% better ones then that

[Fortunata]

OK but how does that so-called 60% being ok with a Con. majority go down to a mid thirty percent in the who-would-you-vote-for poll?

[myata]

Canada is not the one who should be footing the bill for rehabilitaing any foreign offenders period.

One more time and slowly, please: why are we (starting with Mr Harper) suddenly talking about bringing back criminals to Canada. I thought at issue was Harpers refusal to ask for clemency for Canadians sentenced to death penalty? Which is not a lawful sentence in Canada, and possibly (I have to study Charter on the subject more closely) violates one of the fundamental rights of Canadians (to be alive).

Why sudden change of topic? Is it another transparency measure? Like "no comments"?

[Smallc]

I believe the poll said it was 60% of the people would feel ok with a majority Harper government. That is a pretty vasy majority, but yes there are 40% better ones then that

Your forgetting something. People were ok with a Harper majority before they pulled this stunt. I was ok with it too. Now, I want a strong opposition to keep them in line. Ralph Goodale did a good job in the house of taking them to task. Too bad he's not the Liberal leader. I'm am member of the CPC, but this is plain wrong. What are they going to do next, repeal medicare?

[White Doors]

No he's not, but we do not have a right to take his life any more than he did to take the lives of others. On your first point, we cannot keep people who are "cured" in jail for fear of a single percent.

Wow... that's weird.. You are against the dealth penalty because there is a chance (ie: one percent) that they are innocent, yet you want to let 'reformed' killers out even if there is a 1% chance that they will kill again?

Not sure where I stand on the death penalty and I waver from day to day, but it is clear to me I have put ALOT more thought into it than you have.

Edited November 9, 2007 by White Doors

[Smallc]

Wow... that's weird.. You are against the dealth penalty because there is a chance (ie: one percent) that they are guilty, yet you want to let 'reformed' killers out even if there is a 1% chance that they will kill again?

Not sure where I stand on the death penalty and I waver from day to day, but it is clear to me I have put ALOT more thought into it than you have.

So your saying we should keep people in jail even if they have been 99 or 99.9% reformed. There is never certainty, no , but I don't think we should keep them in jail forever. I live and breath political issues, so don't tell me who has thought about this more.

[White Doors]

What was the other one....oh yeah, I will drop the gst if gas goes over 80 cents. funny how things change when your in power.

ummm... they have dropped the GST twice now...just a little fyi for ya.

[Smallc]

ummm... they have dropped the GST twice now...just a little fyi for ya.

The promise was to drop ALL GST on gas over 80 cents. You can spin if you want, but it won't do you any good.

[old_bold&cold]

One more time and slowly, please: why are we (starting with Mr Harper) suddenly talking about bringing back criminals to Canada. I thought at issue was Harpers refusal to ask for clemency for Canadians sentenced to death penalty? Which is not a lawful sentence in Canada, and possibly (I have to study Charter on the subject more closely) violates one of the fundamental rights of Canadians (to be alive).

Why sudden change of topic? Is it another transparency measure? Like "no comments"?

Well if you want to bring this down to that single scope then fine. Just because the Liberla left has been doing things like asking for all death penalties to be commuted, it is not there fore a tradition as it has alway been a political issue and the Charter of Rights only apply to people here in Canada, not in foreign lands. So even though I do nto think it will be in there, I would still say it would not apply. Canad has and did ask alredy that the sentence be commuted to life, and they would bring the person here to serve. But the Govenor of Montana has said that he does not wish to commute the sentence and if he did he would not agree to have the prisoner sent to Canada, as here we would reallease him on parole and in Montana Life sentences mean life with no parole and you die in jail. So that pretty mucj is it. The governor has already shown that he does not want to be bugge anymore by Canada, and he would never agree to transfer that prisoner here because of our lax position on life sentences. So it will never be done, not matter wht we do. If we push much more it will pretty much make the govenor to make sure the death sentence is carried out. So does anyone want to further the problems on this one case.

Now maybe you want then the topic to be scoped more to the issue of if and when we should be seeking death penalty intervention. Just how far do we press, before we see that it is just making the justice system of that country more rigid in their carrying out their sentences. We do have to know how to ask nicely and politely. We must not be seen as doing this everytime as then we are seen as bleeding hearts and that weakens our case. I think Harpers approach is the right one and it does say that when we do intervene it is because we have valid reason to do so. As to the old we always intervene because we always think that you are wrong to kill a living being no matter what he has done. I know which one I would give more support to.

[White Doors]

So your saying we should keep people in jail even if they have been 99 or 99.9% reformed. There is never certainty, no , but I don't think we should keep them in jail forever. I live and breath political issues, so don't tell me who has thought about this more.

I am not saying one way or the other, I am simply pointing out that you seem ok with former murderers killing again more than you are with the government killing murderers.

Where ever one stands on this issue, you got to admit that it pretty twisted thinking.

[Smallc]

I am not saying one way or the other, I am simply pointing out that you seem ok with former murderers killing again more than you are with the government killing murderers.

Where ever one stands on this issue, you got to admit that it pretty twisted thinking.

I'm not ok with them killing again. A small (and in this case very small) chance does not mean that they will kill again. If you want to twist my thinking go ahead. Maybe we should just arrest everyone. That way there would be no chance of people killing.

[old_bold&cold]

The promise was to drop ALL GST on gas over 80 cents. You can spin if you want, but it won't do you any good.

Stupid people just do not see that it was a totally different time and events. But you forget that now do you not. You only go looking for things like this because as you say you life and breath politics. So that is the best you got is to quote events out of the past that really have changed because the world is forever changing.

Harper is the only one to have ever dropped the GST rate after promising to do so. That is a feather in his hat, not a point against him. He also cut the Tax rate for people and business, and of course it is never enough to his detractors, but then again why was this not all done back when the Liberals were in power? Different times and different measures, that is what I said above. It si nto that hard of a thing to get your mind around now is it?