Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[bk59]

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.

This isn't a false notion at all. In fact, you have given the response in your post. It is wrong for one individual to kill another. Yet, under certain circumstances, this will be excused. For instance, if someone acts in self-defence then they will not be held criminally liable for murder. The act is still considered wrong, but they are excused from criminal liability. Likewise, a nation cannot just murder its citizens. Yet if it legally goes to war then it is not murder when its soldiers kill other soldiers from other nations. The deadly force that is authorized for police forces are not authorized in routine circumstances. Deadly force is only authorized in very specific circumstances.

So no, it is not an automatic conclusion that states are justified in executing people with due process. The same goal can be reached by locking this person up for life. There is no need to kill them.

[bk59]

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".

But if the "let's make a deal" boils down to "we will kill you unless you tell us what we want to hear" then that is equivalent to torture. Plea bargaining is an important part of our justice system. But plea bargaining should never be used to threaten someone's life.

[bush_cheney2004]

This isn't a false notion at all. In fact, you have given the response in your post. It is wrong for one individual to kill another. Yet, under certain circumstances, this will be excused. For instance, if someone acts in self-defence then they will not be held criminally liable for murder. The act is still considered wrong, but they are excused from criminal liability.

Again, this is false. Self defense is not wrong at all...in fact....it is encouraged as justified homicide. In the case of police actions, it is a duty to take lives in order to preserve life. So the physical act of killing somebody in and of itself is permitted and supported in law.

Likewise, a nation cannot just murder its citizens. Yet if it legally goes to war then it is not murder when its soldiers kill other soldiers from other nations.

Yet state's actions often result in the deaths of combatants and civilians alike. The act of killing is accepted whether intended or not.

The deadly force that is authorized for police forces are not authorized in routine circumstances. Deadly force is only authorized in very specific circumstances.

But that's the point...it is permitted. So again homicide is authorized.

So no, it is not an automatic conclusion that states are justified in executing people with due process. The same goal can be reached by locking this person up for life. There is no need to kill them.

Nonsense...the goal is execution according to law, not lifetime incarceration. Far more people have been killed by justified police action or "collateral damage" in war.....it is ludicrous to think that the far smaller number of condemned murderers would be afforded so much more protection.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case regarding whether or not the method of lethal injection is cruel and unusual. So it's in regards to the method, not the death penalty itself. I think that's a good thing, as if there is going to be a death penatly, it should be as humane as possible.

[myata]

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.

What if crossing a street on a wrong light, and failing to show appropriate respects (or bribe) to local policeman gets one in a foreign jail for couple of years? Should the government also stay above these triffle matters?

And then, surely, we can always trust in the infallability of foregn justice. Like that case, in Mexico, where two were accused of murder. Fortunately, they were already here. But what if their trip was a bit longer?

What you are saying is that government should abandon responsibility to help its citizens abroad, as a principle. If that's another of Harper cons novel ideas, again, I'll like them to present it openly to the public. Not via backdoor policy changes.

In fact the very nature of asking is automatic then there will be the automatic no way.

Again, without our government asking, how would the foreign government become aware of our wish to spare Canadians the sentence they'll never (unless so cons get their wish) be given here? For all it looks like, Canada is (now) OK with its citizens being executed? Or was that the idea in the first place?

[myata]

as if there is going to be a death penatly, it should be as humane as possible.

... presuming that death penalty can be humane?

Edited November 11, 2007 by myata

[Guest American Woman]

... presuming that death penalty can be humane?

Yes. Death can be brought about in a humane manner, which is why some people chose euthanasia over waiting for a natural death.

[Wilber]

And then, surely, we can always trust in the infallability of foregn justice. Like that case, in Mexico, where two were accused of murder. Fortunately, they were already here. But what if their trip was a bit longer?

Even if convicted they would not have been put to death because Mexico has abolished the death penalty. One should never count on their government coming to their aid if they get into trouble. There have been plenty of incidences where they have not but for the first time we have a government telling its citizens that it will not even attempt to come to their aid when they are subject to a penalty which is illegal in this country.

[runningdog]

Yes. Death can be brought about in a humane manner, which is why some people chose euthanasia over waiting for a natural death.

very good point.

[old_bold&cold]

What if crossing a street on a wrong light, and failing to show appropriate respects (or bribe) to local policeman gets one in a foreign jail for couple of years? Should the government also stay above these triffle matters?

Where have you ever seen such a case? There has to be a level of where we question stupid argument, and you have just reached that with this example. If you can not discuss things without going really foolish then you lost the argument long ago.

And then, surely, we can always trust in the infallability of foregn justice. Like that case, in Mexico, where two were accused of murder. Fortunately, they were already here. But what if their trip was a bit longer?

Again you are using hyperbola to try and make a point, and it is just wrong in all you are saying. These two women were the supposed main suspect in the murders according to the Mexican police. They were questioned and no charges were ever put on them and still to this day no charges have ever been filed. But you forget to say that because it does not fit with the lies you will use to make your point. This then makes everything you could ever say on this, to be questions. You will lie to make a point or misuse the facts to as well. Not what I would call a good way to win over people.

What you are saying is that government should abandon responsibility to help its citizens abroad, as a principle. If that's another of Harper cons novel ideas, again, I'll like them to present it openly to the public. Not via backdoor policy changes.

Again, without our government asking, how would the foreign government become aware of our wish to spare Canadians the sentence they'll never (unless so cons get their wish) be given here? For all it looks like, Canada is (now) OK with its citizens being executed? Or was that the idea in the first place?

The government is not abandoning anything. They are saying that they will on a case by case reviewing make better time and issues with the foreign governments. This will mean that the foreign governments will know this is nota knee jerk reaction and then also pay more attention to the request, as it will have had some level of scrutiny to make sure it is not about parking tickets etc. which is really a waste of time on both sides.

It is ovbvious that you want the government to look after you from cradle to grave and to tell you that all is well, even in foreign lands when you know that is not so. The Canadian people voted out that type of government in the last election, because they were going way too far to the left, we now have a right of center government, that is there because the voters wanted to see things pulled back towards center. Hence your arguing that it is wrong, when it is what most people want. It is also what we will see happening probably for the next several governments.

[JerrySeinfeld]

But if the "let's make a deal" boils down to "we will kill you unless you tell us what we want to hear" then that is equivalent to torture. Plea bargaining is an important part of our justice system. But plea bargaining should never be used to threaten someone's life.

There is a big differnce between "threatening somones life" and being aware of the consequences of your actions.

[trex]

QUOTE(American Woman @ Nov 11 2007, 07:41 AM)

Yes. Death can be brought about in a humane manner, which is why some people chose euthanasia over waiting for a natural death.

very good point.

Yet ironically euthanasia IS a crime in the United States, I believe... although here death is chosen by free will, by the individual, here the state does not allow them to make such a choice. The exact opposite of the view that, the state should have no right to make these choices for the person, as to who live and who dies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yet ironically euthanasia IS a crime in the United States, I believe... although here death is chosen by free will, by the individual, here the state does not allow them to make such a choice. The exact opposite of the view that, the state should have no right to make these choices for the person, as to who live and who dies.

Not necessarily so...as voluntary euthanasia is permitted in Oregon. Involuntary euthanasia was the subject os a much publicized case in Florida. Other states have experience with legal euthanasia. Of course, abortion is legal in all US states.

[Wilber]

There is a big differnce between "threatening somones life" and being aware of the consequences of your actions.

Threats are useless unless you occasionally make good on them.

[Wilber]

Yes. Death can be brought about in a humane manner, which is why some people chose euthanasia over waiting for a natural death.

I think the operative word here is "chose".

[Wilber]

There is a big differnce between "threatening somones life" and being aware of the consequences of your actions.

Ya, the consequences are do what we say or we will kill you.

[Guest American Woman]

I think the operative word here is "chose".

No, the operative word is "humane," since that was what the question was in regards to.

[Wilber]

No, the operative word is "humane," since that was what the question was in regards to.

I think it was regarding the death penalty being humane. Certainly there are painless ways of killing.

[Guest American Woman]

I think it was regarding the death penalty being humane. Certainly there are painless ways of killing.

If that's the case, I have to say I find it rather bizarre. Does being locked up in prison meet the definition of humane? What about solitary confinement-- would that be considered humane? Is punishment in and of itself humane-- or is it that we strive to administer it in a humane way?

[Higgly]

If that's the case, I have to say I find it rather bizarre. Does being locked up in prison meet the definition of humane?

It does if you are innnocent and you are holding on to every last shred of hope that this will be recognized. Like the many innocent men who have been released from murder convictions after it was found that their convictions were bogus.

[Wilber]

If that's the case, I have to say I find it rather bizarre. Does being locked up in prison meet the definition of humane? What about solitary confinement-- would that be considered humane? Is punishment in and of itself humane-- or is it that we strive to administer it in a humane way?

Society has to protect itself from these people somehow, if you can come up with some other way than locking them up or killing them, I'd like to hear it. As far as I can see, those are the choices. I've often heard people say, I'd rather die than get like that. My answer is always, easy to say now but your opinion might change if you find yourself in that position. It's amazing how precious life can become and how hard you will fight for it if you are faced with losing it.

[Guest American Woman]

Society has to protect itself from these people somehow, if you can come up with some other way than locking them up or killing them, I'd like to hear it. As far as I can see, those are the choices. I've often heard people say, I'd rather die than get like that. My answer is always, easy to say now but your opinion might change if you find yourself in that position. It's amazing how precious life can become and how hard you will fight for it if you are faced with losing it.

Yes, those are the choices. It doesn't make either choice "humane." For example, locking someone in a dungeon and locking someone up in our prisons are two variations on the same punishment. So locking them up isn't humane, it's the method that's humane. Furthermore, one can lock someone up without giving them solitary confinement, yet we do it. Is that humane? Taking a life can be by torture, slowly beating them to death, or doing it painlessly. The latter would be considered humane. Thus my original response.

I've often heard people say they'd rather die than live like that too, and it's a fact that prisoners have to be kept from committing suicide. It would be interesting to see how many did commit suicide if they weren't prevented from doing so. Prisoners have even been revived from suicide attempts. Is it humane to keep someone alive and locked up who'd rather be dead?

[Wilber]

Should we then be humane by putting to death all those who request it and imprisoning those who do not? Or as a form of punishment, should we do the reverse? People usually wind up in solitary confinement because they are either a danger to somewone else or their behavior has crossed the line even for hardened criminals.

What about those other crimes which carry sentences of life but not the death penalty? Should that be an option for them as well. What about the three strikes states? Same for them? Hell, if imprisonment was so terrible you would wiping them out by the dozens every day.

[capricorn]

But if the "let's make a deal" boils down to "we will kill you unless you tell us what we want to hear" then that is equivalent to torture. Plea bargaining is an important part of our justice system. But plea bargaining should never be used to threaten someone's life.

Most murderers are cowards who will give up the goods to protect their own skin. Plea bargain offers an out for these twisted souls.

[Wilber]

Most murderers are cowards who will give up the goods to protect their own skin. Plea bargain offers an out for these twisted souls.

The threat is worth nothing if you don't execute someone now and again.