Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[capricorn]

Regarding the notion that the death penalty amounts to legalized vengeance. I disagree with this premise. Some individuals may want the death penalty for vengeance but this is an emotional reaction and nothing else. And the closer they are to the victim(s) the more likely these individuals want the perp to die. Unlike those affected, government does not harbour these emotional attachments either to the victim(s) or the perp and I don't think it should.

As repulsive as the ultimate penalty appears to some, there is a clear advantage to having this sentence on the books. That is plea bargaining. There have been many cases where a murderer was spared the death penalty, such as for confessing, for leading police to bodies that would otherwise never been found and for testifying against accomplices. In a nutshell, in some cases the death penalty becomes a bargaining chip.

Another thought. Once the death penalty is removed from statutes, then the next highest sentencing level applies, which is life in prison without parole. In turn, that sentence becomes negotiable through plea bargaining and the sentencing element for murder is further diluted to lower sentences. I could see this as a serious consideration by those US states who resist removing the death sentence.

[Guest American Woman]

Is it considered cruel and unusual? I believe currently the answer is no.

This is an interesting question. A lot of people don't support the death penatly simply because an innocent person could be put to death and there's no undoing that, so it's not the moral aspect of it that they object to. It would be interesting to know the reasons behind people's opposition.

But I have to question whether life in prison is any more humane, ie: less cruel and unusual. For some, like Jeffrey Dahmer, prison is a death sentence. The way some people are treated in prison makes prison pure hell. Personally, if I knew I'd never see the outside of a prison again, I'd much rather be dead. I can't imagine a worse hell than spending the rest of my life behind bars.

[capricorn]

But I have to question whether life in prison is any more humane, ie: less cruel and unusual. For some, like Jeffrey Dahmer, prison is a death sentence. The way some people are treated in prison makes prison pure hell. Personally, if I knew I'd never see the outside of a prison again, I'd much rather be dead. I can't imagine a worse hell than spending the rest of my life behind bars.

I am opposed to the death penalty also AW. My main concern is that an innocent be put to death and as others have said the death penalty is final and irreversible. I tried to convince myself that my opposition was on moral grounds, i.e. the sanctity of life etc. but I was deluding myself. I think that for some murderers a swift death is no punishment at all and I prefer life in prison with all the discomfort it can bring to them. It is for this reason that I wish Bernardo was in the general population instead of solitary confinement. In his case, I actually feel the state is protecting him and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

edit: I would add that although I oppose the death penalty, I still like to debate its merits on a philosophical level.

Edited November 10, 2007 by capricorn

[Wilber]

No, your government has not decided to change its policy regarding all Canadians facing the death penalty-- only those facing the death penalty in stable democratic countries where the accused gets a fair trial. IE: the United States.

It has not defined what it considers a stable democratic county. Also, you and others ignore the fact that the death penalty is illegal in Canada yet we have a government which sanctions it for Canadian citizens in other countries.

But I have to question whether life in prison is any more humane, ie: less cruel and unusual. For some, like Jeffrey Dahmer, prison is a death sentence. The way some people are treated in prison makes prison pure hell. Personally, if I knew I'd never see the outside of a prison again, I'd much rather be dead. I can't imagine a worse hell than spending the rest of my life behind bars.

So what, the convicted don't get to determine their own sentence.

As repulsive as the ultimate penalty appears to some, there is a clear advantage to having this sentence on the books. That is plea bargaining. There have been many cases where a murderer was spared the death penalty, such as for confessing, for leading police to bodies that would otherwise never been found and for testifying against accomplices. In a nutshell, in some cases the death penalty becomes a bargaining chip.

Another thought. Once the death penalty is removed from statutes, then the next highest sentencing level applies, which is life in prison without parole. In turn, that sentence becomes negotiable through plea bargaining and the sentencing element for murder is further diluted to lower sentences. I could see this as a serious consideration by those US states who resist removing the death sentence.

And that makes killing someone justifiable?

I've already given reasons other than revenge for supporting the death penalty. Some people insist that the death penalty is nothing more than revenge, but it's just not true. As I said before, when I did support the death penalty revenge had nothing to do with it.

You'll have to refresh my memory, I'm not going to search through 34 pages to find them. What else is it then if not revenge? Expediency? You questioned the senior Canadian military officer when he said some things are worth killing for. Are revenge and expediency two of them? Not to me they aren't. Probably not what he was talking about either.

The question was asked 'who is Canada hurting by asking for clemency?' and the answer is "the murder victims' families"-- and I think it goes a bit beyond "hurt feelings." Talk about minimizing what they are going through! If you had a child who was murdered because someone wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone, and someone was advocating putting the murderer in the situation where he might be free to walk the streets again, would your reaction be "hurt feelings??"

I'm not minimizing what they are going through. I'll rephrase the question. Should a defense council not ask for clemency in deference to the feelings of a victim's family?

The governor of Montana said Canada was putting pressure on him to release Smith to Canada. He said he was being approached about it before he was even sworn in.

Good for Canada, that's what a government is supposed to do for its citizens. Acting according to the principals of our laws is our government's duty. They have to be consistent in this or their people will have to no confidence in them when they travel outside their country. Like it said before, it doesn't matter if a person is a scumbag or a saint, they have to be consistent.

[Drea]

For many, death is a "release".

Prison, IMO, is much worse (if it's not a country club like the one's here in Canada).

I think the death penalty was implemented because the powers that be believed that god would send them to hell for their deeds. Being this is not the case, prison is worse than death.

[Guest American Woman]

I am opposed to the death penalty also AW. My main concern is that an innocent be put to death and as others have said the death penalty is final and irreversible. I tried to convince myself that my opposition was on moral grounds, i.e. the sanctity of life etc. but I was deluding myself. I think that for some murderers a swift death is no punishment at all and I prefer life in prison with all the discomfort it can bring to them. It is for this reason that I wish Bernardo was in the general population instead of solitary confinement. In his case, I actually feel the state is protecting him and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

edit: I would add that although I oppose the death penalty, I still like to debate its merits on a philosophical level.

Thank you for your candid response, capricorn. I wonder how many people are as honest with themselves about this issue as you are. It's a subject I've given a lot of thought to, tending to lean one way then the other, back and forth, before coming out against it. In the end, while I do have a problem with taking a life, it's the possibility of taking an innocent life that made me 100% against it.

[Guest American Woman]

It has not defined what it considers a stable democratic county. Also, you and others ignore the fact that the death penalty is illegal in Canada yet we have a government which sanctions it for Canadian citizens in other countries.

You really question what "a stable democratic country" would be? Like I said, among those with an active death penalty, that would be the U.S. It would also be Japan should they ever give the death sentence.

So what, the convicted don't get to determine their own sentence.

People are saying the death penalty should be abolished because it's "cruel and unsual punishment," so that's what my comment was in regards to. You may think abolishing the death penalty is taking the moral high road because it's cruel and unusual punishment; I'm saying I think life in prison with no possiblity of parole would be more difficult to endure; that life in prison could be conceived as more cruel.

And that makes killing someone justifiable?

Did I, or did I not, say that I don't support the death penalty? Since I most definitely said I don't, you should be able to answer your question yourself.

You'll have to refresh my memory, I'm not going to search through 34 pages to find them. What else is it then if not revenge? Expediency? You questioned the senior Canadian military officer when he said some things are worth killing for. Are revenge and expediency two of them? Not to me they aren't. Probably not what he was talking about either.

That's for sure not what I was talking about . But just as you're not going to search through 34 pages to find the reasons I gave other than revenge, I'm not going to take the time to repeat them.

I'm not minimizing what they are going through. I'll rephrase the question. Should a defense council not ask for clemency in deference to the feelings of a victim's family?

Again, the question was asked: who is Canada hurting by persistantly asking for clemency for Smith. Again, the answer is the family. A question was asked and I answered it. The family IS being hurt. Should that matter? If you think not, then so be it. I happen to think it's got to be quite painful for the family of murder victims who were killed so the person doing it would "know what it's like to kill someone" to hear people plead on his behalf; to have to endure interviews where he says 'so what if he went to the U.S. and killed someone' ...

Good for Canada, that's what a government is supposed to do for its citizens. Acting according to the principals of our laws is our government's duty. They have to be consistent in this or their people will have to no confidence in them when they travel outside their country. Like it said before, it doesn't matter if a person is a scumbag or a saint, they have to be consistent.

People shouldn't depend on Canada to get them out of a mess when they travel; they should know the laws of the land and the sentences for breaking the law-- and then not break the laws. Unless you think there's a possiblity you will murder someone when you travel to the States, I don't think you have anything to fear regarding your government's recent decision when traveling abroad; I think you can still travel outside your country with confidence.

[Wilber]

People shouldn't depend on Canada to get them out of a mess when they travel; they should know the laws of the land and the sentences for breaking the law-- and then not break the laws. Unless you think there's a possiblity you will murder someone when you travel to the States, I don't think you have anything to fear regarding your government's recent decision when traveling abroad; I think you can still travel outside your country with confidence.

Do you know all the laws of all the lands you travel to? Bet you don't know all the laws of your own country. How could you, they are different in every state.

You really question what "a stable democratic country" would be? Like I said, among those with an active death penalty, that would be the U.S. It would also be Japan should they ever give the death sentence.

Yes I do question it for the simple reason they refuse to clarify it.

People are saying the death penalty should be abolished because it's "cruel and unsual punishment," so that's what my comment was in regards to. You may think abolishing the death penalty is taking the moral high road because it's cruel and unusual punishment; I'm saying I think life in prison with no possiblity of parole would be more difficult to endure; that life in prison could be conceived as more cruel.

That's your opinion, your own Supreme Court has said it is cruel and unusual punishment.

Did I, or did I not, say that I don't support the death penalty? Since I most definitely said I don't, you should be able to answer your question yourself.

That was a response to Capricorns assertion that it can be used as a bargaining chip in a plea bargain. Tell us what we want to know or we will kill you. A favourite tool of secret polices everywhere.

Again, the question was asked: who is Canada hurting by persistantly asking for clemency for Smith. Again, the answer is the family. A question was asked and I answered it. The family IS being hurt. Should that matter? If you think not, then so be it. I happen to think it's got to be quite painful for the family of murder victims who were killed so the person doing it would "know what it's like to kill someone" to hear people plead on his behalf; to have to endure interviews where he says 'so what if he went to the U.S. and killed someone' ...

Of course it matters, now answer my question.

[bk59]

As repulsive as the ultimate penalty appears to some, there is a clear advantage to having this sentence on the books. That is plea bargaining. There have been many cases where a murderer was spared the death penalty, such as for confessing, for leading police to bodies that would otherwise never been found and for testifying against accomplices. In a nutshell, in some cases the death penalty becomes a bargaining chip.

This is a very interesting perspective. What you are saying boils down to this: the government is willing to threaten to kill a person unless they cooperate. Essentially they would be saying, give us what we want or we will execute you. Confess or die.

People can have their reasons for wanting the death penalty, but this should not be one of them. Using the death penalty as a threat to get confessions, etc., is no different than torturing someone to get similar information.

In fact, I think that one of the reasons Canadian courts have stopped the practice of extradition when the person could face the death penalty is precisely because of this reason. People were being railroaded into confessions, etc., by authorities who would threaten them with death.

[bk59]

Again, the question was asked: who is Canada hurting by persistantly asking for clemency for Smith. Again, the answer is the family. A question was asked and I answered it. The family IS being hurt. Should that matter? If you think not, then so be it. I happen to think it's got to be quite painful for the family of murder victims who were killed so the person doing it would "know what it's like to kill someone" to hear people plead on his behalf; to have to endure interviews where he says 'so what if he went to the U.S. and killed someone' ...

I realize that this may sound harsh, but so be it. For better or worse, this is the adversarial system that exists in both Canada and the US. Canada has a responsibility to its citizens. When advocating for it citizens, will the feelings of others be hurt? In some cases, yes. But Canada's job is not to look after these US citizens. Canada should be advocating for its citizens. Someone else, presumably the families themselves or their representatives, should be advocating for the families. It will then be up to the governor to decide. And it would appear that in this case he did decide.

I believe that the families of the victims should have a say in the process. But that does not change the fact that Canada should be advocating for its citizens. It is up to the decision maker to balance those competing interests.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In fact, I think that one of the reasons Canadian courts have stopped the practice of extradition when the person could face the death penalty is precisely because of this reason. People were being railroaded into confessions, etc., by authorities who would threaten them with death.

That's all well and good, but not the circumstances of the Montana convict. I would hope that Montana dispatches with this fellow as soon as legally possible, even though he will be turned into the poster boy for reformed murderers in Canada.

[bk59]

That's all well and good, but not the circumstances of the Montana convict.

No one here said it was the circumstances in this case.

[bush_cheney2004]

No one here said it was the circumstances in this case.

Excellent.....then shall we proceed with the penalty phase without further adieu? Canada can make such requests to satisfy the political agenda, and take no offense when proven and confessed murderers get their legal reward. If the concern is death for the not guilty or coerced confessions, tailor the approach for such circumstance. Otherwise, execute with newfound glee for the certainty that this guy should die a thousand deaths.

[Guest American Woman]

People are saying the death penalty should be abolished because it's "cruel and unsual punishment," so that's what my comment was in regards to. You may think abolishing the death penalty is taking the moral high road because it's cruel and unusual punishment; I'm saying I think life in prison with no possiblity of parole would be more difficult to endure; that life in prison could be conceived as more cruel.

That's your opinion, your own Supreme Court has said it is cruel and unusual punishment.

Of course it's my opinion. You gave yours, I gave mine. As for the U.S. Supreme Court, it did not say the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

[capricorn]

If the concern is death for the not guilty or coerced confessions, tailor the approach for such circumstance.

What are you doing BC? Trying to bring reason and logic into an otherwise emotional issue? Can't have that now, can we?

[capricorn]

That was a response to Capricorns assertion that it can be used as a bargaining chip in a plea bargain. Tell us what we want to know or we will kill you. A favourite tool of secret polices everywhere.

And in many cases it works!

[Wilber]

That's your opinion, your own Supreme Court has said it is cruel and unusual punishment.

Of course it's my opinion. You gave yours, I gave mine. As for the U.S. Supreme Court, it did not say the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

I stand corrected, their reference concerned the mentaly retarded, not the penalty in general.

You and I are entitled to our opinions. Our governments are expected to act for their citizens in accordance with the laws of our countries.

[Wilber]

And in many cases it works!

So does torture, let's bring that back to.

[myata]

I'm trying to understand, why, over and again, some people (starting with Harper) keep bringing up specfics of the case? Really. In our everyday encounters with the law we can't say "OK this guy is very nice - don't write him ticket." That one, on other hand, is really, really bad - make him pay three times over.

Just as in this case, maybe, Harperite crowd, despite mutiple and loud claims otherwise, has problems grasping the notions of "rights" and "law". For them, a right is conditional on the one's standing in their framework of merits. E.g. a pedofile priest deserves gentle pat on the shoulder and a transfer to another diocese. A regular pedofile must rot in jail or even more. When me, goody, goes abroad and bad things happen to me, the government must be on its toes to get me out of trouble. He, the baddy, should ... and so on.

If we accept this theory, the rationale for Harper's action becomes clear like water. Really, my government isn't there to help "them". And my government knows best who deseves to be helped.

[bk59]

Excellent.....then shall we proceed with the penalty phase without further adieu? Canada can make such requests to satisfy the political agenda, and take no offense when proven and confessed murderers get their legal reward. If the concern is death for the not guilty or coerced confessions, tailor the approach for such circumstance. Otherwise, execute with newfound glee for the certainty that this guy should die a thousand deaths.

None of that really deals with the central issue of why Canada is now applying an inconsistent approach to the death penalty.

That being said, the concern is not death for the innocent or coerced confessions. Much opposition to the death penalty comes from the simple fact that if it is wrong for an individual to kill someone then it is wrong for the state to kill someone. That an eye for an eye is not justice. So no, there is no certainty whatsoever that this guy should die even once, let alone a thousand times. You may think that is so, and you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is much different than saying that it is certain he deserves to die.

[bk59]

That's your opinion, your own Supreme Court has said it is cruel and unusual punishment.

Of course it's my opinion. You gave yours, I gave mine. As for the U.S. Supreme Court, it did not say the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

It is true that the death penalty per se is not considered cruel or unusual in the US. However I think that there is a case before the US Supreme Court right now in fact, questioning whether or not the method of lethal injection as currently performed is cruel and unusual. I think it has something to do with untrained prison officials botching the job on a regular basis.

[old_bold&cold]

I'm trying to understand, why, over and again, some people (starting with Harper) keep bringing up specfics of the case? Really. In our everyday encounters with the law we can't say "OK this guy is very nice - don't write him ticket." That one, on other hand, is really, really bad - make him pay three times over.

Just as in this case, maybe, Harperite crowd, despite mutiple and loud claims otherwise, has problems grasping the notions of "rights" and "law". For them, a right is conditional on the one's standing in their framework of merits. E.g. a pedofile priest deserves gentle pat on the shoulder and a transfer to another diocese. A regular pedofile must rot in jail or even more. When me, goody, goes abroad and bad things happen to me, the government must be on its toes to get me out of trouble. He, the baddy, should ... and so on.

If we accept this theory, the rationale for Harper's action becomes clear like water. Really, my government isn't there to help "them". And my government knows best who deseves to be helped.

I think that maybe people should take the out look that the government may not be there to help them if they break the law in a foreign land. That way they will be more cautious of when they travel and the laws that they will face. It seems to me to be a good thing. You make it out to be a negative thing. We here in Canada have a justice system that is very good and we can be proud of it, but that should not mean that all other places must honour our system, or even our requests for lieniency in sentencing. In fact the very nature of asking is automatic then there will be the automatic no way. It is better if it is looked at on a case by case and then the requests will be looked at as having more balance and therefore carry more weight. Persoanlly I prefer it this way. The bleeding hearts will all cry foul but they are the ones that think that Canada can have sway in foreign lands and their sentencing, when if we doo this each time someone breaks a law, it will have zero sway, and be quickly ignored. Travelling carries risks and all traveller should know this, and accept it or stay home in Canada. It is really that simple.

[Moxie]

So does torture, let's bring that back to.

I'm cool with that if it's Pedophiles, show them pictures of big breasted women to make them confess to raping kids. When they do shove a stick of you know what up their anus and blow them up before they can rape more kids. I have no mercy with this group of pervs, NONE.

[capricorn]

So does torture, let's bring that back to.

Who said anything about extracting a confession from of a suspected murderer through torture? Plea bargaining is an integral part of the justice system in many democratic countries. It's a form of "Let's make a deal".

[bush_cheney2004]

...That being said, the concern is not death for the innocent or coerced confessions. Much opposition to the death penalty comes from the simple fact that if it is wrong for an individual to kill someone then it is wrong for the state to kill someone. That an eye for an eye is not justice. So no, there is no certainty whatsoever that this guy should die even once, let alone a thousand times...

This is a false notion, as "states" spends many billions dedicated to the sole prospect of killing many people (in war). Domestic police and security measures also authorize "deadly" force on a routine basis. Comparing an individual's unlawful actions to state penalties and police actions is ludicrous. In fact, even individuals can legally kill someone without fear of prosecution, so the "act" itself is not wrong under certain circumstances. Accordingly, it is lawful for the state to execute individuals with due process.

Edited November 11, 2007 by bush_cheney2004