Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[noahbody]

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.

Stands to reason that if you argue against the death penalty in order to protect the possibility of an innocent being killed, you should be against letting a convicted murderer out for the same reason. Or is that risk acceptable?

[Smallc]

Stands to reason that if you argue against the death penalty in order to protect the possibility of an innocent being killed, you should be against letting a convicted murderer out for the same reason. Or is that risk acceptable?

There are some that have been rehabilitated with almost zero chance to re offend. What would be gained by keeping them in jail?

[Wilber]

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.

The old chicken and the egg argument. Why do you assume that others wouldn't shoot at you just because you weren't shooting at them? I'm sure our troops would much rather be doing reconstruction work in Afghanistan without having people shooting at them.

[jdobbin]

The latest incremental move by the Tories on the death penalty.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...06?hub=Politics

The Conservative government will not co-sponsor a United Nations resolution calling for a global moratorium on the death penalty, breaking with a nearly decade-old tradition.

An official with the Foreign Affairs Department says Canada will vote in favour of the resolution when it comes to the floor of the UN General Assembly in December, but will not sponsor it.

"There are a sufficient number of co-sponsors already, and we will focus our efforts on co-sponsoring other resolutions within the UN system which are more in need of our support,'' said Catherine Gagnaire.

Seventy-four other countries have put their names forward as sponsors, including the United Kingdom, Australia and France.

Last week, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day surprised the House of Commons by announcing that Canada will not oppose the execution of a Canadian citizen on death row in Montana for two murders. Day said the new policy will apply to "murderers'' such as Ronald Allen Smith who have had a fair trial in a democratic country.

[Wilber]

"There are a sufficient number of co-sponsors already, and we will focus our efforts on co-sponsoring other resolutions within the UN system which are more in need of our support,'' said Catherine Gagnaire.

What a crock.

[Smallc]

What a crock.

Exactly, how hard is it to put Canada's name on it? I was in favour of almost everything this government was doing until these recent developments.

[Wilber]

Exactly, how hard is it to put Canada's name on it? I was in favour of almost everything this government was doing until these recent developments.

What's pissing me off more and more about these people is they don't have the balls to come out and say what they really stand for. Not an unusual trait in politics but disappointing none the less.

[Guest trex]

I guess its quite clear why they are not allowed to talk to reporters unless Harper says so, and he never talks to them impromptu either

[noahbody]

There are some that have been rehabilitated with almost zero chance to re offend. What would be gained by keeping them in jail?

If less than one percent is accurate, you could save an innocent life by keeping 100 or so murderers in jail.

I'm not sure if Smith, someone who just wanted to know what it was like to kill, is a good candidate to put back on the streets, ever.

[Smallc]

If less than one percent is accurate, you could save an innocent life by keeping 100 or so murderers in jail.

I'm not sure if Smith, someone who just wanted to know what it was like to kill, is a good candidate to put back on the streets, ever.

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.

[jazzer]

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.

I don't know of any murderer who was sentenced beyond 25 years for a single murder. And if they are, I don't believe they serve their entire life behind bars. I think if they did it would be the exception, not the rule.

[Smallc]

I don't know of any murderer who was sentenced beyond 25 years for a single murder. And if they are, I don't believe they serve their entire life behind bars. I think if they did it would be the exception, not the rule.

The maximum sentence is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years, but this number can range from only a few years up to the maximum. There is no guarantee that parole will be granted if the National Parole Board determines that the offender still poses a risk to society.

Source: Wikipedia

[myata]

Another piece of the puzzle: from Ottawa Metro, front page, "Support for death penalty slim", Nov.5th:

"The Conservative government found just one in five Canadians supported the death penalty as a criminal deterrent in a survey it commissioned this summer in support of its justice policies".

Survey commissioned by the Conservative government, in which they remembered to ask about death penalty. Here, in Canada. Just in case? Or hoping for a better result?

Despite all the policies designed to hide their real views they are finally coming into the open. It's quite a telling also that they'll never dare to bring it into the open discussion, instead devising ways to pull it in behind the public's back. No it won't go away. Everybody who cares to see, will now have a pretty good picture of what would be at question should Harpers' people ever gain a majority.

[noahbody]

Everybody who cares to see, will now have a pretty good picture of what would be at question should Harpers' people ever gain a majority.

Really this situation isn't too hard to get your head around. The death penalty issue isn't black or white. There are a variety of reasons you can be against it such as fear of a David Milgaard incident, the belief that our justice system should reform, not punish and the belief that no one has the right to take another person's life. You need not embrace all of these reasons to be against the death penalty.

I would suggest Harper believes Canada's stance on crime has been soft and its stance against the death penalty has been vague. The government's comment "it would send the wrong message" means Canada doesn't support the death penalty because an innocent person like Milgaard could be killed, but not because it doesn't believe in punishment. They want to take a tough stance on crime.

As far as them having a survey that included capital punishment, they likely wanted to know where Canadians stood. In one post you accuse them of being in contempt of democracy, now you criticize them for seeking out the views of Canadians.

If all you look for is a hidden agenda, it's all you'll see.

[Wilber]

As far as them having a survey that included capital punishment, they likely wanted to know where Canadians stood. In one post you accuse them of being in contempt of democracy, now you criticize them for seeking out the views of Canadians.

s

They take a survey that indicates an overwhelming number of Canadians don't support the death penalty then promptly announce that they will not try to intervene for Canadian citizens facing the penalty in other countries. Seems to me that the survey didn't turn out the way they wanted and now they have decided this is the next best thing.

[myata]

The death penalty issue isn't black or white.

I accept that some people may support death penalty. In a democratic society it's their right. What I'm having problems with is that this Conservative party is not being open and honest about what its position is and future intentions are. Policy change, refusal to sign the convention, this obscure opinion poll - it's pretty clear where all this is pointing to. Should we trust our own eyes or Mr Day's assurances?

This is quickly becoming Con's signature politics - instead of debating and winning issues (such as Kyoto or death penalty), they'll pay a verbal homage to the majority's position and then do the opposite behind the doors with policies and actions.

No they aren't open or transparent. They're simply doing what they could to lay their hands on power.

[Fortunata]

This is quickly becoming Con's signature politics - instead of debating and winning issues (such as Kyoto or death penalty), they'll pay a verbal homage to the majority's position and then do the opposite behind the doors with policies and actions.

No they aren't open or transparent. They're simply doing what they could to lay their hands on power.

I totally agree with this. What surprises me are the people that don't get it. Is it just because it is their government of choice because if the government not of their choice were to do the same thing they, imo, would be much more critical. No government should have the right to change long standing policies and understandings without the debate of our representatives at least, if not all of us.

This government continues to slime it's way through and think people are dumb enough not to see what they are doing (when it is even found out what they are doing). That's the HarperConservative democracy.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Fortunata

[Wilber]

Unfortunately the opposition in Parliament has been next to useless.

[myata]

I don't know what to say. If they don't jump on this, they're less than useless.

This is a principle matter, not point of GST nor somebody's accent or the manner to express themselves.

They have to make a stand on this or I won't have any sympathy for them if they become laughing stock.

[Michael Bluth]

I totally agree with this. What surprises me are the people that don't get it. Is it just because it is their government of choice because if the government not of their choice were to do the same thing they, imo, would be much more critical. No government should have the right to change long standing policies and understandings without the debate of our representatives at least, if not all of us.

This government continues to slime it's way through and think people are dumb enough not to see what they are doing (when it is even found out what they are doing). That's the Harpercon democracy.

There is nothing stopping the opposition parties from voting no-confidence in the Government and forcing an election over the issue.

[jdobbin]

They have to make a stand on this or I won't have any sympathy for them if they become laughing stock.

It hasn't come up for a vote in Parliament. It was a decision that was done unilaterally.

We'll see what happens when the next confidence vote happens. I expect that the end has come for this session of Parliament is coming and the Tory support for the death penalty will be one of the things that the Opposition can point to in bringing them down.

[noahbody]

I expect that the end has come for this session of Parliament is coming and the Tory support for the death penalty will be one of the things that the Opposition can point to in bringing them down.

I'm sure they'll try. The only problem is that the Harper government voted in favour of a moratorium on capital punishment and Harper has said he has no intention on reopening the debate.

I'm expecting Dion will likely announce he wants to bring Smith home to Canada to live among the Taliban prisoners. Give him a week.

[jdobbin]

I'm sure they'll try. The only problem is that the Harper government voted in favour of a moratorium on capital punishment and Harper has said he has no intention on reopening the debate.

I'm expecting Dion will likely announce he wants to bring Smith home to Canada to live among the Taliban prisoners. Give him a week.

He certainly won't do it with a minority. It is the incremental policy of the Tories to support capital punishment elsewhere first.

There is no plan to bring this particular convicted criminal. Never was.

[sharkman]

I accept that some people may support death penalty. In a democratic society it's their right. What I'm having problems with is that this Conservative party is not being open and honest about what its position is and future intentions are. Policy change, refusal to sign the convention, this obscure opinion poll - it's pretty clear where all this is pointing to. Should we trust our own eyes or Mr Day's assurances?

This is quickly becoming Con's signature politics - instead of debating and winning issues (such as Kyoto or death penalty), they'll pay a verbal homage to the majority's position and then do the opposite behind the doors with policies and actions.

No they aren't open or transparent. They're simply doing what they could to lay their hands on power.

How the hell does making an unpopular decision help them "do what they could to lay their hands on power"? It doesn't, it hurts their chances. But you, and others like you on this forum, have framed the issue in a skewed fashion soas to make it seem that the Tories love killing people (and babies, don't forget the babies!) and are just waiting for the chance to spring the death penalty on an unsuspecting Canadian public with glee.

All they are doing is saying that Canadian criminals stupid enough to commit crimes in other countries who have much harsher penalties (and make no mistake, this is REALLY STUPID, when they could be killing people or whatever at home and getting 5-6 years for it), should not expect the Canadian taxpayer to shell out for their foolishness. End of story.

I accept that some will have an immediate knee jerk reaction to this, and in a democratic society, it's their right. What I have a problem with is those who then blow it all out of proportion and try to use this manufactured hysteria to manipulate opinion.

[jdobbin]

How the hell does making an unpopular decision help them "do what they could to lay their hands on power"? It doesn't, it hurts their chances. But you, and others like you on this forum, have framed the issue in a skewed fashion soas to make it seem that the Tories love killing people (and babies, don't forget the babies!) and are just waiting for the chance to spring the death penalty on an unsuspecting Canadian public with glee.

Even the National Post editorial says this should have gone to Parliament first. Instead the government has made a unilateral decision on the death penalty.