Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[Wilber]

The company the Conservatives would like to keep.

Death Penalty World Wide

I thing that the method and the reasons for why this change has been made are really grounded in solid judgment, and are the best for all involved. The case of this guy from Alberta, is not one of if he is innocent, as he has admitted his guilt. It now is one of the severity of sentencing, so it really is not an isue the Canadian Government, should be involed in, as it has no standing in the internal laws of a foreign country. All comment on this are just rabble about people having issues of the death sentence. They should go to the USA and protest there, not here, where we already have agreed not to use the death penalty. People need to go where their voices will make a difference, and here is not that place.

If one disagrees with the Canadian government's position regarding the execution of Canadian citizens the place to protest is Canada.

[Fortunata]

As for asking for clemency on the death penalty goes, they can ask but that is as far as it should go in this. We should not be meddling in the internal afairs of foreighn countries who are democratic and have courts that rule on laws written in that countries justice system. If there are any injustices, that seem apparent then yes our government should seek to fine out why and what has caused these and take action only on a case per case issue.

All most are saying here is that the Canadian government ask because we do not believe in the death penalty. When did asking ever hurt anyone. When did asking become meddling?

The rest of this stuff in this thread is just political garbage being used to change the channel away from the sad melt down of the Liberal party's inner most people. I can see why they would want this to happen. But face it, we are all being used once again by the Liberals, to eb tricked in looking the other way, when they want to be left in the shadows to try and cover up things they would rather us not see. But that is done all the time by all parties I guess.

This has nothing to do with another party's meltdown. This has everything to do with this government changing policy without debate. This has everything to do with the hypocrisy of this government.

I thing that the method and the reasons for why this change has been made are really grounded in solid judgement, and are the best for all involved. The case of this guy from Alberta, is not one of if he is innocent, as he has admitted his guilt. It now is one of the severity of sentencing, so it really is not an isue the Canadian Government, should be involed in, as it has no standing in the internal laws of a foreign country. All comment on this are just rabble about people having issues of the death sentence. They should go to the USA and protest there, not here, where we already have agreed not to use the death penalty. People need to go where their voices will make a difference, and here is not that place.

Is there anything that this government could do without you championing it? You need to look at the larger picture and see the implications that this new policy "could" have and the trend that this government has set. Should all our future governments take this approach? What happens when a government that you don't agree with acts in this manner? Will you be so complacent then?

As far as making a difference on a forum, does it have to? Is that what forums are here for? Should it just be closed?

[Guest American Woman]

All most are saying here is that the Canadian government ask because we do not believe in the death penalty. When did asking ever hurt anyone. When did asking become meddling?

From what I've read, it's hurt the families of the murder victims a lot.

Thomas Running Rabbit Jr. of Browning has rarely cried in the 25 years since the execution-style murders of his son, Thomas Running Rabbit III, and nephew, Harvey Mad Man Jr.

The tears flowed freely Wednesday when Running Rabbit pleaded with Gov. Brian Schweitzer to keep his son's and nephew's killer on Montana's death row, and not concede to Canadian officials lobbying to commute the sentence of Ronald A. Smith, the only Canadian currently scheduled for execution in the United States.

The case has a profound effect on the families, according to those who spoke Wednesday.

"I don't want him to be released to Canada," said Running Rabbit, surrounded by dozens of tearful family members and Blackfeet tribal leaders who met with Schweitzer in Helena. "He did the crime here; he should stay here."

When the Running Rabbit and Mad Man families heard the news last week about the Canadian government contacting Schweitzer about commuting Smith's sentence, it poked at wide-open emotional wounds that have yet to heal, they said.

Family members are worried because Smith has served more than 20 years in a Montana state prison, and a life sentence in Canada is only 25 years. If Smith is commuted, he could be set free from a Canadian prison after a few years and, they fear, possibly kill again.

Link

[myata]

It may be a common opinion in America (don"t know how common) that a person can be put to death to bring consolation to those affected by the crime (eye for an eye principle). This is not the opinion of a great majority of people in this country, or for that matter, most, if not all but a few, other advanced democracies.

Government of Canada is asking to spare its citizens death penalty because is the position that citizens of this country have expressed via democratic process. Doing otherwise is no less than saying that death penalty for canadians is OK, at least in some cases. Nobody has authorised Harper to say that on behalf Canada. He is in contempt of the democratic process, period.

Finally,

do we have rights on principle, as an expression of our common understanding of what being a citizen of this country means, or because someone in the government holds us worthy of it (or not)? Does our government protect our rights because it"s one of the main reasons for which it exists, or because somebody judges that some of us deserve it (while others maybe not)?

The answer is everybody"s. Just remember that most of those who we consider the least free or democratic, would have no problem with any rights - as long as they"re applied on the case by case basis.

Edited November 7, 2007 by myata

[Guest American Woman]

It may be a common opinion in America (don"t know how common) that a person can be put to death to bring consolation to those affected by the crime (eye for an eye principle).

"Family members are worried because ... he could be set free ... and, they fear, possibly kill again."

Concern that he could kill again. Concern that another family could suffer the way they are. That hardly sounds like "an eye for an eye."

I don't support the death penalty any more, but when I did, "an eye for an eye" played absolutely no part in it. There are other reasons to support the death penalty, preventing that person from ever killing again being at the top of the list.

[Smallc]

"Family members are worried because ... he could be set free ... and, they fear, possibly kill again."

Concern that he could kill again. Concern that another family could suffer the way they are. That hardly sounds like "an eye for an eye."

I don't support the death penalty any more, but when I did, "an eye for an eye" played absolutely no part in it. There are other reasons to support the death penalty, preventing that person from ever killing again being at the top of the list.

A life sentence prevents the same thing.

[noahbody]

A life sentence prevents the same thing.

Not in Canada.

Schweitzer said Smith already has served more than 20 years in prison, and a life sentence in Canada is only 25 years.

“If we were to send him back to Canada, for example, then he'd be turned loose shortly after he arrived there,” Schweitzer said. “So those are some of the discussions that I've actually had with them.

“Obviously I would take into consideration the ideas of the families of these young men that were brutally executed, and I'm still visiting with the people from Canada,” he said.

Smith's attorney, however, said the chances of Smith being granted parole in Canada are “minimal.”

“He certainly wouldn't automatically be released,” Jackson said.

Smith's case would be reviewed by a parole board, and would be subject to the same scrutiny as any other case, he said.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:0cBzeT...t=clnk&cd=1

[Guest American Woman]

A life sentence prevents the same thing.

As noahbody already pointed out, no it doesn't. A life sentence isn't always for life.

Furthermore, speaking of sending mixed messages:

"Afghanistan is a 20-year venture. There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for." Major-General Andrew Leslie -- Canada's military commander in Afghanistan

[Smallc]

As noahbody already pointed out, no it doesn't. A life sentence isn't always for life.

Furthermore, speaking of sending mixed messages:

"Afghanistan is a 20-year venture. There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for." Major-General Andrew Leslie -- Canada's military commander in Afghanistan

Yeah, the last line is not the same thing as the death penalty.

[Smallc]

Not in Canada.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:0cBzeT...t=clnk&cd=1

Thats false. The sentence is known as 25 to life. That means life with no chance of parole in 25 years. Most people who earned a life sentence will never see that parole.

[Smallc]

Once you take a life, you can not turn back. That is what always makes me think twice. Also, why are you talking about Canadian sentences? He would not be moved here, but rather his sentence would be commuted to life in prison.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah, the last line is not the same thing as the death penalty.

It's killing, whether it's "the same" or not. It's still taking a life/lives. So are you saying some kinds of killing are ok while others are not?-- It's ok to kill in some instances but not in others? Are you saying it was ok to kill in retribution for the Canadian lives lost on 9-11 but it's not ok to kill for the lives lost at the hands of Smith?

Edited November 7, 2007 by American Woman

[Smallc]

It's killing, whether it's "the same" or not. It's still taking a life/lives. So are you saying some kinds of killing are ok while others are not?-- It's ok to kill in some instances but not in others? Are you saying it was ok to kill in retribution for the Canadian lives lost on 9-11 but it's not ok to kill for the lives lost at the hands of Smith?

Its not at all the same thing. We are in a war, and a war is not the same as the death penalty. Quit trying to poke holes.

[noahbody]

Also, why are you talking about Canadian sentences? He would not be moved here, but rather his sentence would be commuted to life in prison.

Because Schweitzer is the governor of Montana. And he and Canadian officials had discussed bringing Smith back to Canada. And both the governor and Smith's lawyer commented on Smith serving out a Canadian life sentence.

[Smallc]

Because Schweitzer is the governor of Montana. And he and Canadian officials had discussed bringing Smith back to Canada. And both the governor and Smith's lawyer commented on Smith serving out a Canadian life sentence.

I see. Well, the sentence is 25 to life, their information is correct.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's killing, whether it's "the same" or not. It's still taking a life/lives. So are you saying some kinds of killing are ok while others are not?-- It's ok to kill in some instances but not in others? Are you saying it was ok to kill in retribution for the Canadian lives lost on 9-11 but it's not ok to kill for the lives lost at the hands of Smith?

Good point...but some here don't like this tack...far too logical. And don't even mention abortions!

[Wilber]

It's killing, whether it's "the same" or not. It's still taking a life/lives. So are you saying some kinds of killing are ok while others are not?-- It's ok to kill in some instances but not in others?

That is what our government is saying with this change in policy.

I think there is a difference between an execution and shooting back at someone who is shooting at you. You can argue the merits of a government sending it's military to war but it would be a pretty useless soldier who could never bring himself to kill anyone.

[Guest American Woman]

Its not at all the same thing. We are in a war, and a war is not the same as the death penalty. Quit trying to poke holes.

The holes are there. I didn't poke them. You wouldn't be at war if your nation didn't believe "there are things worth killing for." In this case, the lives lost on 9-11.

[Guest American Woman]

I think there is a difference between an execution and shooting back at someone who is shooting at you.

I agree. Except they wouldn't be shooting at you if you weren't there shooting at them because "there are things worth killing for;" because of the lives lost on 9-11. That's the reasoning behind the death penalty-- that a life lost is worth killing for.

[Smallc]

I agree. Except they wouldn't be shooting at you if you weren't there shooting at them because "there are things worth killing for;" because of the lives lost on 9-11. That's the reasoning behind the death penalty-- that a life lost is worth killing for.

All that speaks to is redemption. I thought you didn't believe in that. We removed a government that was a danger to the western world in Afghanistan, and we are helping them to rebuild their country now.

[capricorn]

Thats false. The sentence is known as 25 to life. That means life with no chance of parole in 25 years. Most people who earned a life sentence will never see that parole.

As far as I know, a life sentence in Canada means 25 years with or without the chance of parole. There have been many convicted murderers in Canada that have received less than a 25 year sentence. Murder in Canada does not automatically result in a life sentence.

[Smallc]

As far as I know, a life sentence in Canada means 25 years with or without the chance of parole. There have been many convicted murderers in Canada that have received less than a 25 year sentence. Murder in Canada does not automatically result in a life sentence.

Thats correct, but the sentence of life is actually 25 to life. It depends on the projected probability of re offense as to whether or not you stay in for 25 or life. Murder in the US does not get an automatic life either.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Smallc

[guyser]

The holes are there. I didn't poke them. You wouldn't be at war if your nation didn't believe "there are things worth killing for." In this case, the lives lost on 9-11.

I dont think this is a valid arguement.

War by its very nature is kill or be killed. I think on that there is consensus. But with war and the assignment of a nations men and women to that arena comes some responsibilities. I am suggesting that our soldiers (and yours) are given a sort of carte blanche (ROE applies) to be judge and jury and executioner all in one. IOW, when engaged by the enemy, soldiers are allowed to take life as theirs is in jeopardy should they not. I have no problem with that and likely neither do others.

So, to that end our soldiers are not allowed to kill surrendered enemies. They must safeguard them and transport them to a secure place. Assumingly they are kept captive until the end of the war . I know of none that are summarily killed while captive. (ok we know it has happened but lets leave that out as the killers were prosecuted)

So, the murderers in our countries are captured and transported to jail for prosecution. Upon conviction they should not be murdered by the state.

The same applies to ones own self. I do not support capital punishment . IIRC neither do you. But I certainly would not hesitate to kill someone in my own defence since that is exactly what they were trying to do to me.

So yes, some things are worth killing for. My life is one. My family is another , of course on the assumption that they were being threatened with imminent death.

But as a state sanctioned rule , not a chance.

And that is why war cannot be put in the same context as capital punishment.

[Guest American Woman]

Myth

A life sentence in Canada means that offenders only have to serve 25 years before they are released.

Reality

A life sentence means life. Lifers will never again enjoy total freedom.

Offenders, convicted of first-degree murder, serve life as a minimum sentence with their first parole eligibility set by law at 25 years. For offenders convicted of second-degree murder, the judge may set parole eligibility at a point between 10 and 25 years.

Lifers can only be released from prison if granted parole by the Board. Unlike most inmates who are serving a sentence of fixed length, i.e. 2, 10, or 20 years, lifers are not entitled to statutory release. If granted parole they will, for the rest of their lives, remain subject to the conditions of parole and the supervision of a parole officer. Parole may be revoked and offenders returned to prison at any time if they violate the conditions of parole or commit a new offence.

Not all lifers will be granted parole. Some may never be released on parole because they continue to represent too great a risk to re-offend.

Link

So they are not "free" because they are "subject to the conditions of parole," but I think most would argue that once they are out on parole they are free. And since it's pointed out that "some may never be released," it sounds as if more are than aren't.

[Smallc]

Myth

A life sentence in Canada means that offenders only have to serve 25 years before they are released.

Reality

A life sentence means life. Lifers will never again enjoy total freedom.

Offenders, convicted of first-degree murder, serve life as a minimum sentence with their first parole eligibility set by law at 25 years. For offenders convicted of second-degree murder, the judge may set parole eligibility at a point between 10 and 25 years.

Lifers can only be released from prison if granted parole by the Board. Unlike most inmates who are serving a sentence of fixed length, i.e. 2, 10, or 20 years, lifers are not entitled to statutory release. If granted parole they will, for the rest of their lives, remain subject to the conditions of parole and the supervision of a parole officer. Parole may be revoked and offenders returned to prison at any time if they violate the conditions of parole or commit a new offence.

Not all lifers will be granted parole. Some may never be released on parole because they continue to represent too great a risk to re-offend.

Link

So they are not "free" because they are "subject to the conditions of parole," but I think most would argue that once they are out on parole they are free. And since it's pointed out that "some may never be released," it sounds as if more are than aren't.

If they will never re offend, there is no point in keeping them in jail. We should not put people away based on revenge, but rather deterrence and rehabilitation.