Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[Smallc]

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?

Your right, and I think it was a stupid promise. I think Mr Harper is finally learning not to make promisise that he might not be able to keep. I'm not disagreeing with you on the issue, just on the fact that Mr. Harper says things and then does the opposite.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Smallc

[White Doors]

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.

I'm not twisting your thinking or your words.

You tell me where I am getting this wrong.

1) You are against the dealth penalty because there is a chance that an innocent person could be wrongly executed. Am I representing this correctly?

2) You are ok with convicted killers getting out early from their sentences EVEN IF there is a small chance that they may kill again. (you said one per cent once then said 99.9% chance that they don't). whatever, moot point.

What anyone can gleam from this is that you are more comfortable with a convicted killer killing an innocent than the Canadian Justice system killing an innocent. ie: You have more faith in 'reformed' murderers than the Canadian Justice system.

You either are making up your views as you go or you have put little to no thought into them. You pick.

[Smallc]

I'm not twisting your thinking or your words.

You tell me where I am getting this wrong.

1) You are against the dealth penalty because there is a chance that an innocent person could be wrongly executed. Am I representing this correctly?

2) You are ok with convicted killers getting out early from their sentences EVEN IF there is a small chance that they may kill again. (you said one per cent once then said 99.9% chance that they don't). whatever, moot point.

What anyone can gleam from this is that you are more comfortable with a convicted killer killing an innocent than the Canadian Justice system killing an innocent. ie: You have more faith in 'reformed' murderers than the Canadian Justice system.

You either are making up your views as you go or you have put little to no thought into them. You pick.

I am ok with them getting out when it has been determined that they have been rehabilitated. If they have not been rehabilitated to satisfaction they should serve the entire sentence. There is never a number of 100% in anything, thats the only reason I said it. You are twisting my words so I'll twist yours. There is probably a chance some day that I may kill someone somehow. We had better put me someplace where i can't hurt anyone. In fact we had better do that with everyone.

[White Doors]

I am ok with them getting out when it has been determined that they have been rehabilitated. If they have not been rehabilitated to satisfaction they should serve the entire sentence. There is never a number of 100% in anything, thats the only reason I said it. You are twisting my words so I'll twist yours. There is probably a chance some day that I may kill someone somehow. We had better put me someplace where i can't hurt anyone. In fact we had better do that with everyone.

So you have more confidence in a Psychiatric's assesment than the Canadian Justice system.

Look, if you're against the death penalty because an innocent might get executed, that's fine. I understand that. But if you come back and ALSO say that you are ok with a convicted killer getting released to the public because there is very little chance that the killer will kill again - that's what I have the problem with.

These people are convicted killers. They serve their 10 years for murder and because some 27 year old with pimples and a degree waves a wand and says that they are 'rehabilitated' and voila - you are ok with them going out into society...

YET you oppose the death penalty STRICTLY because there is a chance that the Canadian Justice system might execute an innocent person??

I have seen alot on these boards, but never the level of low-brow hypocricy such as this.

Edited November 9, 2007 by White Doors

[Smallc]

So you have more confidence in a Psychiatric's assesment than the Canadian Justice system.

Look, if you're against the death penalty because an innocent might get executed, that's fine. I understand that. But if you come back and ALSO say that you are ok with a convicted killer getting released to the public because there is very little chance that the killer will kill again - that's what I have the problem with.

These people are convicted killers. They serve their 10 years for murder and because some 27 year old with pimples and a degree waves a wand and says that they are 'rehabilitated' and voila - you are ok with them going out into society...

YET you oppose the death penalty STRICTLY because there is a chance that the Canadian Justice system might execute an innocent person??

I have seen alot on these boards, but never the level of low-brow hypocricy such as this.

Yeah, I trust psychiatrists. I am taking psychology and philosophy, so I'd better. Almost all people released from jail never kill again. By your logic we should keep them all in there forever, because there is a small chance of reoffense

Edited November 9, 2007 by Smallc

[Wilber]

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.

This much I agree with. The problem is, the government has said that it will no longer ask in any cases where a Canadian is sentenced to death in the US or any other country that meets their standard of democracy and rule of law. Whatever that is.

[White Doors]

Yeah, I trust psychiatrists. I am taking psychology and philosophy, so I'd better. Almost all people released from jail never kill again. By your logic we should keep them all in there forever, because there is a small chance of reoffense

Actually, no. That's YOUR logic. you are simply being inconsistent with it.

You demand absolutes on one group and 'high probabilities' from another.

That is inconsistent. Hence my posts pointing this out.

Thus the whole basis of your opposition to the death penalty is in logical shambles. Just trying to help you see this.

Take a minute, re-read what I wrote and write back when the light bulb goes on.

Edited November 9, 2007 by White Doors

[myata]

... and the Charter of Rights only apply to people here in Canada, not in foreign lands.

But not the Canadian government's responsibility to protect our rights, even in the foreign lands.

Is it another matter Harpers cons understand differently from the rest of us?

and they would bring the person here to serve.

Slow, slow please. How does one relate to another? Who would bring them here to serve and why?

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

Governor of Montana is not responsible to Canadians. Canadian government is. It refused to intervene of behalf of its citizen. I want to know why and who has decided so, and on what grounds.

...before we see that it is just making the justice system of that country more rigid in their carrying out their sentences.

OK, here's what you're saying: we'll let other countries to execute some of our citizens (without our asking them for clemency, who and how would even know we care?) in the hope (justified or not) that they'll spare the others.

This is exactly what has been said all over: that Harper's cons are quietly pulling through a slight change in the attitude toward death penalty: from "it's inacceptable, period" to "maybe it's acceptable for some (canadians)". Let me also remind that they're pulling it through behind public's back, without any discussion or parliamentary debate. Why are they pulling it through? Anybody's guess, as they just won't make their position public (out of extreme love for openness and transparency I guess). One possibility however, which seems to becoming a greater possibility when considered in the light of their other actions, is that they may have a longer term plan.

They now have two options: come clear and explain their actions, what they mean and their intent. Explain publicly in open discussion. Or, keep trying to brush it under the table. In that case, everybody who cares would be justified to at least suspect a hidden agenda here.

[Fortunata]

One possibility however, which seems to becoming a greater possibility when considered in the light of their other actions, is that they may have a longer term plan.

Incremental Harperism.

[Smallc]

Actually, no. That's YOUR logic. you are simply being inconsistent with it.

You demand absolutes on one group and 'high probabilities' from another.

That is inconsistent. Hence my posts pointing this out.

Thus the whole basis of your opposition to the death penalty is in logical shambles. Just trying to help you see this.

Take a minute, re-read what I wrote and write back when the light bulb goes on.

I am quite familiar with logic. I also know that life is not based on logic alone. There is never a 100% or 0% like in the world of logic. I do not support the death penalty. It really has nothing to do with the small chance of us being wrong (though that does factor in). It is because I do not believe that we have the right to put people to death, just as I do not believe that we have the right to keep people in jail if they have been reasonably (that is to say with almost 0 chance of re offense where we are are nearly certain) rehabilitated.

[White Doors]

I am quite familiar with logic. I also know that life is not based on logic alone. There is never a 100% or 0% like in the world of logic. I do not support the death penalty. It really has nothing to do with the small chance of us being wrong (though that does factor in). It is because I do not believe that we have the right to put people to death, just as I do not believe that we have the right to keep people in jail if they have been reasonably (that is to say with almost 0 chance of re offense where we are are nearly certain) rehabilitated.

So you are backtracking? Because you said that you didn't support capital punishment because there was a chance a mistake could be made.

And you are wrong again, we DO have a right to hold murderers in for the full length of their sentence. That is indisputable.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I like this move by the conservatives.

In a general sense, grown adults when travellign abraod need to be aware of and abide my the laws of the countries they visit.

Example: smoking of possesing pot in Canada is a minor offense usually ignored by police, but in many U.S. jurisdictions, posession of pot could easily lead to jail time. Grown adult Canadians (or anyone else) visiting these jurisdiction should be held accountable for their actions in those jurisdicitions by those jurisdictions.

A policy by the government to try to override the laws of foreign jurisdictions is simply another form of Nanny State thinking by adolescent thinkers: ie. I can't be held responsible for my actions, and my government will take care of me no matter how stupidly I behave.

All the conservative government is doing is respecting foreign jurisdiction, and implicitly saying to Candians: you are accountable for your actions, when you fuck up over there, don't expect us to come bail you out of the mess you created for yourself.

[Fortunata]

All the conservative government is doing is respecting foreign jurisdiction,

Steve is not respecting Canadians who made it clear that they do not believe in the death penalty; he is not respecting democratic process and parliamentary input and debate.

He'd rather have respect from another country to earn him the ever sought after brownie points than have respect from his own?

[Wilber]

In a general sense, grown adults when travellign abraod need to be aware of and abide my the laws of the countries they visit.

Of course they do. I travel all the time and expect to be subject to the laws of the countries I visit. I also expect my government to live up to it's responsibilities when it comes to looking after its citizens. Those responsibilities don't end at the Canadian border. If that is the case, give me a passport from a country that does take those responsibilities seriously.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Of course they do. I travel all the time and expect to be subject to the laws of the countries I visit. I also expect my government to live up to it's responsibilities when it comes to looking after its citizens. Those responsibilities don't end at the Canadian border. If that is the case, give me a passport from a country that does take those responsibilities seriously.

What do you mean "resposibility to look after it's citizens"?

[Wilber]

What do you mean "resposibility to look after it's citizens"?

It has an obligation to at least try and ensure that our citizens are treated in the same fashion as they would be at home. It is not allowed to pick and chose when it will do so according to the morality of particular government members. We have laws that set those standards in accordance with the wishes of it's citizens through Parliament, not the PMO.

[Shakeyhands]

you guys all seem to be missing the point. Its not a matter of abiding by laws abroad, we all agree that if you do the crime you do the time. The issue is that Canada has long been against Capital Punishment worldwide, we have been co sponser of the UN moratorium resolution and we've long lobbied to have those peoples sentences that have been sentenced to death commuted via diplomatic means, this shouldn't change because of a minority gov't decideds to change the song sheet. I'd be willing to go to the polls based on this one issue.

[trex]

Steve is not respecting Canadians who made it clear that they do not believe in the death penalty; he is not respecting democratic process and parliamentary input and debate.

He'd rather have respect from another country to earn him the ever sought after brownie points than have respect from his own?

Interesting point, one can presume that he is pressured by another country, to back off on the insistence of human rights perhaps a country like China, big trade contracts. Or, simply put, USA, biggest partner.

Economics Trumps Virtue again

[myata]

I can't seriously think that anybody actually pressed Harper to do that. He maybe showing some initiative. Especially if it goes along with the deep desire of the heart...

[JerrySeinfeld]

It has an obligation to at least try and ensure that our citizens are treated in the same fashion as they would be at home. It is not allowed to pick and chose when it will do so according to the morality of particular government members. We have laws that set those standards in accordance with the wishes of it's citizens through Parliament, not the PMO.

You need to weigh this against the sovereign rights of these countries to practise their laws as they see fit on their own sovereign territory.

Isn't lobbying to commute a sentence also in accordance with the "morality of particular government members"?

Just because it isn't YOUR morality (or that of the liberal governments of past decades) doesn't make it wrong.

Your maknig the mistake of equating Liberal government policy with "Canadian morality" - which is something the Libs have (somewhat successfully) indoctrinated for years.

It's refreshing to see some of that groupthink finally being unwound.

[trex]

I can't seriously think that anybody actually pressed Harper to do that. He maybe showing some initiative. Especially if it goes along with the deep desire of the heart...

Why not? They make the vote but they don't sponsor it. What do you think that means? It means we don't have to bug China anymore when it comes to trade deals, about executions. Because we are not sponsoring that one!

[JerrySeinfeld]

Steve is not respecting Canadians who made it clear that they do not believe in the death penalty; he is not respecting democratic process and parliamentary input and debate.

He'd rather have respect from another country to earn him the ever sought after brownie points than have respect from his own?

This is statement contrary to most surveys or polls, in which supoprt fo the death penalty hovers around 70% and has never droppped below 50%.

[myata]

Why not? They make the vote but they don't sponsor it. What do you think that means? It means we don't have to bug China anymore when it comes to trade deals, about executions. Because we are not sponsoring that one!

Oh sorry, on that... I thought more about the policy change... Sure, it's quite common for some countries to press others into voting certain way in the UN (recall e.g Iraq). But if it'd come out - big splash. No, on the balance of things, I think it must be their own initiative. The plan could have been, e.g. next time - to obstain. Too many vote for anyways, why not show some fairness and support the weaker side? Those voters, they'll swallow anything, if accompanied by a nice tax cut.

[Wilber]

You need to weigh this against the sovereign rights of these countries to practise their laws as they see fit on their own sovereign territory.

Has nothing to do with the sovereignty rights of other countries. They can tell us to pound sand if they wish. No hard feelings. It has everything to do with our governments obligations to its own people.

Isn't lobbying to commute a sentence also in accordance with the "morality of particular government members"?

No, the death penalty was outlawed by Parliament by a free vote and confirmed eleven years later by another free vote. It is the law of the land for our citizens. What self respecting country wouldn't at least make an effort to have that respected for its citizens in another country? Even if Canada had capital punishment it is the responsibility of government to try and intervene on behalf of its citizens.

Just because it isn't YOUR morality (or that of the liberal governments of past decades) doesn't make it wrong.

Our law as confirmed by two free votes in Parliament says it is wrong.

Your maknig the mistake of equating Liberal government policy with "Canadian morality" - which is something the Libs have (somewhat successfully) indoctrinated for years.

I don't subscribe to group think. I do not respect governments of any stripe who try to do end runs around our laws.

It is the Harper government and you who are trying to impose your morality on the country in spite of its laws.

[trex]

Yes you have a point there, I'm sure they intended this beforehand and made some publc statements about it... as I posted links some while back made by others in teh cpc, not Day and not Harper. But a good reason to keep a muzzle on everybody, so these things don't leak out!

But in regards to China, I believe that is the advantage they made with dropping sponsorship.

The two may not be related, but part of the same pro-death agenda