Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[Smallc]

Again, there is no reason why a Canadian should get special treatment. This is about a Canadian governments obligation to act for its citizens.

A government should go to bat for its citizens because often, situations are not as cut and dry as this one.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Smallc

[jefferiah]

They should do away with the death penalty. I agree our citizens should follow the laws, and this is a very evil man. It makes it hard to decide. I'm against the death penalty, but why defend him? I think its the principle of the thing, so we have to be against Canadians being put to death.

But if you want to go to bat for Canadians who broke the laws of another nation (which puts them in their turf for punishment) then you must also go to bat for the people of those nations as well. Because in effect they are criminals of that nation. Their crimes were committed against that nation. Against that state. They are the same as native criminals to them. Or else it is unfair. You would be in effect telling another nation that it must treat a Canadian criminal differently, when lesser criminals on their own soil have gotten worse. The man broke the laws of their nation so what justice is there (for their own system of justice) if he is treated better than their own when they commit lesser crimes.

[bush_cheney2004]

Those are not "western" in the sense that I am speaking of. They are not counted as western civilizations.

Really? Not "western civilizations"...I thought the issue was western democracies? I shall inform Brazil of their lowered status at once.

[jefferiah]

A government should go to bat for its citizens because often, situations are not as cut and dry as this one.

I think that is what they meant Smallc. They are not just going to bat for just anyone who breaks another nations laws, unless the situation demands it.

[Smallc]

But if you want to go to bat for Canadians who broke the laws of another nation (which puts them in their turf for punishment) then you must also go to bat for the people of those nations as well. Because in effect they are criminals of that nation. Their crimes were committed against that nation. Against that state. They are the same as native criminals to them. Or else it is unfair. You would be in effect telling another nation that it must treat a Canadian criminal differently, when lesser criminals on their own soil have gotten worse. The man broke the laws of their nation so what justice is there (for their own system of justice) if he is treated better than their own when they commit lesser crimes.

I'm saying no one should be put to death. There is no reason for it. Canadians should not be put to death in other countries. The citizens of that country should not be put to death either. We would not put another countries citizens to death, so why should they put ours to death?

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm saying no one should be put to death. There is no reason for it. Canadians should not be put to death in other countries. The citizens of that country should not be put to death either. We would not put another countries citizens to death, so why should they put ours to death?

Because the penalty phase of a criminal trial provides for capital punishment in many nations. However, recognizing Canada's preferences in such matters, all would be capital murderers are invited to slay victims in states without capital punishment. We'll leave the light on for them.

Edited November 6, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

Because the penalty phase of a criminal trial provides for capital punishment in many nations. However, recognizing Canada's preferences in such matters, all would be capital murderers are invited to slay

victims in states without capital punishment. We'll leave the light on for them.

Again, there is no reason to kill. Taking away freedom for a lifetime is a sufficient punishment. Our crime and murder rates are lower than that of the US. It seems that this deterrence isn't working.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

Again, there is no reason to kill. Taking away freedom for a lifetime is a sufficient punishment. Our crime and murder rates are lower than that of the US. It seems that this deterrence isn't working.

Please explain that concept to the murderers. Sufficient punishment is defined by law, not our opinions. Of course the rates are lower in Canada....America is a very violent place....we can't fry 'em fast enough!

[Smallc]

Please explain that concept to the murderers. Sufficient punishment is defined by law, not our opinions. Of course the rates are lower in Canada....America is a very violent place....we can't fry 'em fast enough!

Putting people to death does not solve problems. The US is the only "western" democracy with the death penalty. It should be abolished.

[bush_cheney2004]

Putting people to death does not solve problems. The US is the only "western" democracy with the death penalty. It should be abolished.

It's not suppose to "solve problems"....it's suppose to put the condemned to death as provided for by law. I have already demonstrated that the US is not the only "western" democracy with the death penalty. Many nations in Africa and Asia also retain capital punishment, and some are even democracies!

What's so special about the "west" when it comes to frying perps?

Edited November 6, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jdobbin]

Here is what the National Post editorial is on the subject.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...8a-186140798ce8

Both NDP Leader Jack Layton and Liberal leader Stephane Dion have attacked Mr. Day for, in effect, tacitly condoning capital punishment. And they have a point. Yes, the United States is "a democratic country that supports the rule of law," but it is also one that has come to a different conclusion on the fundamental moral question of whether it is ever permissible for the state to take a human life in the service of criminal justice. With his announcement, Mr. Day is either (1) falsely suggesting that this difference in outlook isn't worth making a diplomatic fuss about, even though a man's life is at stake; or (2) indicating that this government truly does support capital punishment, notwithstanding the three-decade old ban on the practice that's been in place in our own country (not to mention a 2001 Supreme Court of Canada decision that effectively declared the practice unconstitutional).

Both of these implications reflect poorly on the government. If Stephen Harper's party seeks to overturn our nation's stance on such an important issue, the proper place to do so is Parliament -- not a communique involving a single Canadian monster awaiting a cocktail of pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride.

Harper should have taken this to Parliament. That is a the proper process for this sort of decision. Instead, he has just issued a policy statement and thinks that is all that is needed.

Edited November 6, 2007 by jdobbin

[Smallc]

It's not suppose to "solve problems"....it's suppose to put the condemned to death as provided for by law. I have already demonstrated that the US is not the only "western" democracy with the death penalty. Many nations in Africa and Asia also retain capital punishment, and some are even democracies!

What's so special about the "west" when it comes to frying perps?

Western Civilization is an idea, not a place, I have already said that. It is progressive and reasonable. The death penalty is not reasonable.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here is what the National Post editorial is on the subject.

Harper should have taken this to Parliament. That is a the proper process for this sort of decision. Instead, he has just issued a policy statement and thinks that is all that is needed.

Was the original policy decided by Parliament? Or was it a narrow SCC ruling?

Edited November 6, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jefferiah]

I'm saying no one should be put to death. There is no reason for it. Canadians should not be put to death in other countries. The citizens of that country should not be put to death either. We would not put another countries citizens to death, so why should they put ours to death?

Now that argument is useless. About them putting ours to death while we dont put theirs. A Canadian who commits a crime in the US is a criminal to America. Though he may be a Canadian, his crime was against the US. So the Crown does not decide how to mete justice out in this case because his crime was not committed against the Crown. The crime was committed against the US. It is a breach of their justice system and their justice system decides how to deal with it.

If you dont want Canadians to die of the American death penalty the only answer is that they abolish it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Western Civilization is an idea, not a place, I have already said that. It is progressive and reasonable. The death penalty is not reasonable.

But you posted "western democracy"....my mistake???? Western Civilization (the "place") has been the site for some very unprogressive and unreasonable things as well.....good and bad...and that includes capital punishment (good).

[Smallc]

Now that argument is useless. About them putting ours to death while we dont put theirs. A Canadian who commits a crime in the US is a criminal to America. Though he may be a Canadian, his crime was against the US. So the Crown does not decide how to mete justice out in this case because his crime was not committed against the Crown. The crime was committed against the US. It is a breach of their justice system and their justice system decides how to deal with it.

If you dont want Canadians to die of the American death penalty the only answer is that they abolish it.

I have said they should. No one has the right to take a life, no matter what the person has done.

[Wilber]

I think that is what they meant Smallc. They are not just going to bat for just anyone who breaks another nations laws, unless the situation demands it.

The situation according to who?

[Wilber]

Was the original policy decided by Parliament? Or was it a narrow SCC ruling?

Not sure what you mean by policy but capital punishment was abolished in Parliament by a free vote.

[Smallc]

I think that is what they meant Smallc. They are not just going to bat for just anyone who breaks another nations laws, unless the situation demands it.

They did say case by case yes, so we will have to see how that works out I suppose.

[jdobbin]

Not sure what you mean by policy but capital punishment was abolished in Parliament by a free vote.

The policy on the death penalty has been in place since 1976 and was decided by all parties in Parliament. A subsequent debate in 1987 in Parliament affirmed that decision. From 1976 on, Canada has advocated for its citizens who faced a death penalty in other countries. The reason for this was to ensure a consistent stand at home and abroad on this form of punishment.

http://www.justicecanada.ca/en/news/fs/2003/doc_30896.html

The military was the only exception to the law and even that was changed in 1998.

Edited November 6, 2007 by jdobbin

[Guest American Woman]

Canadians are saying it's the Canadian government's responsiblity to look out for its citizens, but this quote by the Governor of Montana tells more than anything else why it would be nothing more than a lesson in futility to ask for clemency for a Canadian who committed murder in the U.S.:

"I am the governor of Montana, not the governor of Alberta. My responsibility is to protect Montanans first."

Link

[Higgly]

As much as I disagree with the use of the death penalty, you cannot expect another government to behave according to your own internal laws. I do agree though that the Canadian government should do its best to ensure that any Canadian sentenced to death while abroad has been given exemplary due process, and that the Candian government should refuse to extradict people to countries which will try them with the intention of using the death penalty should they be found guilty.

[geoffrey]

If you commit a crime knowing that the death penalty is an option, why should I have any sympathy? People are stupid. They know when you kill someone in the US or say China, you may face death. Too bad.

Let me tell you a little secret.

Don't murder people in death penalty jurisdictions and you won't be killed!!!

[Shakeyhands]

As much as I disagree with the use of the death penalty, you cannot expect another government to behave according to your own internal laws. I do agree though that the Canadian government should do its best to ensure that any Canadian sentenced to death while abroad has been given exemplary due process, and that the Candian government should refuse to extradict people to countries which will try them with the intention of using the death penalty should they be found guilty.

Given this countries stand on capital punishment, the least that we as the government can do is lobby on behalf of our citizens.

[Hydraboss]

If you commit a crime knowing that the death penalty is an option, why should I have any sympathy? People are stupid. They know when you kill someone in the US or say China, you may face death. Too bad.

Let me tell you a little secret.

Don't murder people in death penalty jurisdictions and you won't be killed!!!

If a Canadian is traveling in a foreign country, it is that person's responsibility to be familiar with the local laws. Break them and you have to pay the price. The extent of the Canadian government's responsibility is to try to ensure that that person receives due process....that's it. The taxpayers of Canada have NO RESPONSIBILITY to pay for anything past that investigation. I certainly don't want any more convicted criminals coming to (or back to) our soil. As it is, we basically give them a free pass (and free cable) in this country. If they die overseas, that's their problem, not ours.

Canada may have mistakenly done away with capital punishment, but we have no responsibility to try to change other countries' minds on the subject. If you don't want to be subject to the death penalty, stay out of jurisdictions where that is a possibility.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Hydraboss