Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

noahbody · November 2, 2007

My point is, where do they get off making value judgements as to which Canadians they will represent and which they will not?

Murder.

myata · November 2, 2007

It's by these little slips of the tongue we may have a glimpse of what the conservative majority could be all about. In the highly "open" government, it's probably as much clue as we could hope for. I'm disgusted. Harper is playing god - judging who deserves mercy, who - to die. I thought the time for this had long passed, here at least.

BTW from Amnestly International, most countries that do not have death penalty routinely ask for clemency for their condemned citizens.

I'd like to contrast this act with Paul Martins decision to support gay marriage bill, when politicians were threatened with some kind of church penalty. He said something to the extent that he leaves his personal views at home. Looks like it's much less likely with Harperites. The (SoCon) past must be hard to step over, no matter what they say.

Wilber · November 2, 2007

Murder.

You're positive about that are you?

bk59 · November 2, 2007

Sorry, but if it doesn't matter, why can't the convicted murderer file his own petition just like everybody else? Are you advocating that Canadian nationals (murderers) deserve a different sentence than American nationals?

The Canadian government has a responsibility to stand up for its citizens when they go abroad. That is why Canada is officially involved.

And no, Canadian prisoners do not deserve a different sentence than American prisoners simply based on nationality. In fact, Canada believes that neither American nor Canadian prisoners should be executed. It is why when extraditing Americans for crimes that could be punished by capital punishment we always ask for assurances that the death penalty will not be used. And it is why when a Canadian ends up on death row Canada should ask for clemency. Up until now the approach was consistent. Now we apply a double standard. Ironically a double standard that is favourable to non-Canadians.

The point was that government can and does take human life without due process as a matter of circumstance and policy objectives, whereas death row inmates have been afforded the most "due process" of all, making their execution a purposeful "premeditated" event. That governments kill people according to law is unexceptional in this regard.

That is exactly the point. Some opposition to capital punishment is exactly because it is the same as the government performing a premeditated murder. If planning to kill someone is wrong, then why is the government involved in planning to kill people?

It is unclear to me that Canada had taken any position with respect to condemned Americans, unless you mean the more general opposition to capital punishment worldwide, in which case the condemned Canadian needs no special intervention.

As I mention above, Canada will not extradite anyone to any country if there is the possibility that they will face capital punishment unless they first receive assurances that the death penalty will not be used. That includes Americans (and more often than not involves Americans because we are neighbours).

bk59 · November 2, 2007

if a Canadian travels abroad and takes risks, that is their choice. To what degree am I - another Canadian - responsible? (Our passport states clearly that foreign countries apply citizenship and laws as they wish.)

You are not responsible. Our government is responsible. It is responsible for protecting its citizens.

Why, as a Canadian taxpayer, am I paying any money to defend some guy who chose to go to the US? If you chhose to go abroad, you assume the risk.

If you ever go abroad and need the Canadian government's help you may see the necessity for it. Even more importantly, Canada has a duty to protect its citizens. Whether they are within Canada or abroad.

If you travel to the US, you take the risk that you will be charged with murder and suffer capital punishment.
...

The US is a civilized country with due process. Some American states impose capital punishment. Everyone knows this. IOW, don't ask me to come and bail you out for your prdicament - certainly not in the US.

(Accused of a crime and incarcerated in China, you might have a case. But even then, I'd argue that you choose to go to China. And everyone knows about the Chinese government now.)

And that's the problem with your argument. If you go to a country where you get arrested for something that we do not believe is a crime, or found guilty and sentenced to something that we do not believe is an acceptable punishment, then Canada should get involved. If Canadian values are going to mean anything then we need to stick up for those values. All the time, no matter who it is we are addressing (China or the US).

In the case of unacceptable punishments, it is perfectly legitimate for the Canadian government to offer to punish the criminal ourselves in a way that we find acceptable rather than let the person suffer a punishment that we do not believe in.

guyser · November 2, 2007

And that's the problem with your argument. If you go to a country where you get arrested for something that we do not believe is a crime, or found guilty and sentenced to something that we do not believe is an acceptable punishment, then Canada should get involved.

I agree with pretty much all you wrote except the above.

Whether we believe it a crime is not the factor, but the punishment is. The crime is theres to prosecute. It is when there seems a lack of proper rep for the accused , or what seems an inordinately severe punishment for an innocuos crime (by our standards) we have a duty and our Govt sees fit to make contact and attempt to assist that accused.

myata · November 2, 2007

Finally a real issue. The guy obviously 1) believes in death penalty; and 2) has trouble leaving his personal beliefs at home. Not to mention attitude issues.

This is way more important than some bungles bucks or poor accent. I hope they'll keep him on the hook for that come election time. This will be one question I'm going to ask the cons candidate in my riding.

bk59 · November 2, 2007

My choice would be to end any and all extradition proceedings and applications. If someone commits a crime in another country and flees to Canada (as usually happens), we should look into it and just kick him to the border. I really don't care where he goes...it is the responsibility of the nation where the crime was committed to find him.

That is not particularly effective. You may not care about where that criminal goes, but what happens when it is Canada asking for someone else to return a criminal? Why would we spend all those extra resources unnecessarily hunting down people around the globe when we could reach agreements with various countries about how to extradite fugitives? It is more efficient and allows justice to be served.

I can't believe I have to say this, but fighting crime is a good goal. It is a goal that we should care about no matter where the crime takes place. An effective extradition process is a good thing.

If a Canadian leaves our borders, they should no longer be under our protection. The only exemption to this would be those required by our nation to travel (soldiers). If they breach the laws of another country, they pay the price as dictated by that country's laws.

The Canadian government has a duty to protect its citizens. If (for example) you are falsely accused of a crime in a strange country then you should be able to expect at least some help from the Canadian government.

If someone is accused of a crime that is not a crime in Canada, say for example being a member of a certain religion in a country that has banned that religion, then Canada should be trying to help that person. Is the person stupid for going there? Probably. But if we believe in freedom of religion then we need to stand up for that value. Particularly when Canadian citizens are being persecuted for that belief. Even if they are stupid citizens.

Likewise, we need to stand up against punishments that we believe are wrong. Even if the individual we end up defending is a scumbag murderer.

bk59 · November 2, 2007

I agree with pretty much all you wrote except the above.
Whether we believe it a crime is not the factor, but the punishment is. The crime is theres to prosecute. It is when there seems a lack of proper rep for the accused , or what seems an inordinately severe punishment for an innocuos crime (by our standards) we have a duty and our Govt sees fit to make contact and attempt to assist that accused.

Sorry, I should clarify. In this case the issue is not the crime itself. Just the punishment.

But right now I see three areas where the Canadian government should stand up for its citizens abroad when they are facing criminal charges:

1) Where the crime is not a crime in Canada

2) Where the procedural guarantees are lacking (e.g. no fair trial, no legal representation, etc.)

3) Where the punishment is not legal in Canada or (as you say) disproportionate to the crime

These are things that the government should stand up for, no matter what their personal beliefs. No matter who the individual is (so long as they are a Canadian citizen).

I do think #1 is still an issue. I just posted an example of what I mean. We do not believe that being a member of a certain religion is a crime. So why would we sit idly by and say nothing when one of our citizens is punished for that "crime"?

jdobbin · November 2, 2007

What a topic. What a thread.
First of all, let's be honest. If you travel abroad, you are subject to the laws of the countries where you travel. IMV, if a Canadian travels abroad and takes risks, that is their choice. To what degree am I - another Canadian - responsible? (Our passport states clearly that foreign countries apply citizenship and laws as they wish.)

Second, the US is a civilized country and everyone knows that some states have capital punishment after due process.

Third, this issue is stupid. When it breaks down ultimately, it's a referendum on Canadian perceptions of the US. That's a winning propostion for the Conservatives. Stockwell Day is making the right political move.

I'm not surprised that you see it through the prism that you do.

If Canada takes a position on the death penalty at home and another one abroad, it is an inconsistent policy.

When Canadians are incarcerated, the laws of the country where the crimes took place apply. However, Canada as a country takes an interest in the treatment of their citizens regardless of the crime. Harper and Day have said that Canada no longer will take a consistent position on what Canada's position on the death penalty is.

This has more to do with your position and the position of the Conservative party on the overall issue of the death penalty than anything else.

sharkman · November 2, 2007

I'm not surprised that you see it through the prism that you do.
If Canada takes a position on the death penalty at home and another one abroad, it is an inconsistent policy.

When Canadians are incarcerated, the laws of the country where the crimes took place apply. However, Canada as a country takes an interest in the treatment of their citizens regardless of the crime. Harper and Day have said that Canada no longer will take a consistent position on what Canada's position on the death penalty is.

This has more to do with your position and the position of the Conservative party on the overall issue of the death penalty than anything else.

And your prism is also not surprising in the least, so what?

jdobbin · November 2, 2007

And your prism is also not surprising in the least, so what?

If your prism is support for the death penalty, please be honest about it. That's all I'm saying. Don't try to be incremental conservatives about it.

Hydraboss · November 2, 2007

bk59,

So you're saying, by extension, that if a man that follows Sharia Law stones his wife to death in Canada that Canada should bow to his country of origin? Due to the fact that (under certain circumstances granted) his country of origin may not see this as a punishable crime, Canada should extradite the man to Wherever, Middle East because they feel that the punishment is unfounded.

Right?

Wilber · November 3, 2007

bk59,
So you're saying, by extension, that if a man that follows Sharia Law stones his wife to death in Canada that Canada should bow to his country of origin? Due to the fact that (under certain circumstances granted) his country of origin may not see this as a punishable crime, Canada should extradite the man to Wherever, Middle East because they feel that the punishment is unfounded.

Right?

Wrong.

Aren't we talking about what the Canadian government does on behalf of its own citizens? It has no such obligation toward the citizens of other countries. If a ME government wanted to intervene on behalf of one of theirs convicted of such a crime here, that would be their business but we would have no obligation to send him back unless we have a standing agreement with that country to do so.

Hydraboss · November 3, 2007

Yes, and that is my point. Extradition laws work in both directions so if Canada wishes to intervene on the part of a citizen and receive action, then we must be prepared to give as well as take.

bush_cheney2004 · November 3, 2007

As I mention above, Canada will not extradite anyone to any country if there is the possibility that they will face capital punishment unless they first receive assurances that the death penalty will not be used. That includes Americans (and more often than not involves Americans because we are neighbours).

Maybe yes...maybe no. The death penalty was very Canadian (legally) until 1998, so it's not like this capital punishment sanctimony has a long history or has been favored by any political party for long.

Canada extradited Charles Ng to the USA in 1985 and he is currently on death row in California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ng

http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut5.htm

bk59 · November 3, 2007

bk59,
So you're saying, by extension, that if a man that follows Sharia Law stones his wife to death in Canada that Canada should bow to his country of origin? Due to the fact that (under certain circumstances granted) his country of origin may not see this as a punishable crime, Canada should extradite the man to Wherever, Middle East because they feel that the punishment is unfounded.

Right?

Not quite. Canada should try that man for murder and lock him away as this is what our laws require. If he is a Canadian citizen, or even has dual citizenship where one of them is Canada, then that is the end of the story. If this person is not Canadian then I would fully expect his home country to talk to the Canadian government. And I fully expect the Canadian government to say, thank you, now piss off. Do not mistake my previous statements: Canada has an obligation to stand up for its citizens, but that does not mean that the other country has an obligation to do anything. This is the discussion we already had earlier about sovereignty.

You also mention extradition here & below...

Yes, and that is my point. Extradition laws work in both directions so if Canada wishes to intervene on the part of a citizen and receive action, then we must be prepared to give as well as take.

Extradition does not work that way. Extradition laws come into effect when one country is seeking to prosecute a crime, but the fugitive has fled to another country. In your example above there would be no extradition because the man is in Canada and the crime was committed in Canada.

As an example: If the man committed the "crime" of being of a certain religion in country X and then fled to Canada it is conceivable that country X would request that the man be extradited to face trial and punishment. Canada would examine the request, but because being of a certain religion is not a crime in Canada we would not extradite him to country X. The opposite side of the coin is that if a man stoned his wife in Canada and then fled to country X, country X may refuse to extradite him to Canada because they would not see it as a crime. And Canada would not be able to force the issue unless they brought other diplomatic pressure to bear.

bk59 · November 3, 2007

Hydraboss, the other aspect to this thread is that we are talking solely about punishment. In this case, I expect that Canada is making the argument that since we do not believe in capital punishment, we will take over his punishment and put him in prison. Canada would not be arguing to get rid of all punishment. It would be more like a trade - we take over his punishment in exchange for the US not executing him.

Or at least, that was probably the argument until the policy was changed.

bush_cheney2004 · November 3, 2007

Or at least, that was probably the argument until the policy was changed.

Really? How many Canadians on death row in the US have been repatriated to serve "life sentences" in Canada? Such a deal!

Wilber · November 3, 2007

Yes, and that is my point. Extradition laws work in both directions so if Canada wishes to intervene on the part of a citizen and receive action, then we must be prepared to give as well as take.

Absolutely not. Whether we get action or not is beside the point, that is up to the other country. Regardless, our government has an obligation to intervene on its own citizens behalf. We can only enforce our own laws, we cannot force others to abide by them any more than they can force us to abide by theirs. Extradition is about bringing back someone who has committed a crime in our country regardless of their nationality, not sending someone back to their home country for a crime committed here. We do but it is called deportation.

buffycat · November 3, 2007

Does this lay the groundwork to begin talk of reinstating the death penalty here in Canada?

If this guy is a Canadian citizen, no matter how dirty and disgusting - he is our responsibility. So - bring him home and incarerate the bastard for the rest of his life.

Everyone is making this far too complicated.

Afterall, as of now, there is NO death penalty in Canada. As of now, the laws are the way they are. Taking down this 'fence' in this instant can lead to others being taken down, perhaps with less savoury regimes.

Slippery slope.

bk59 · November 3, 2007

Maybe yes...maybe no. The death penalty was very Canadian (legally) until 1998, so it's not like this capital punishment sanctimony has a long history or has been favored by any political party for long.
Canada extradited Charles Ng to the USA in 1985 and he is currently on death row in California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ng

http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut5.htm

You have a partial point here. First though, you are not quite right about the time line. See here. The death penalty was abolished for most crimes in 1967 and in 1976 for all crimes except a few military crimes. Capital punishment for those last few crimes was abolished in 1998. So 1967, or even 1976 is the more appropriate date to quote. (Unless you are talking about very specific military crimes.)

Your info with respect to extraditing to face the death penalty is also out of date. Charles Ng was extradited in 1985. But you need to see a case called United States v. Burns from 2001. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that Canada cannot extradite without an assurance that there will be no death penalty. They say that there will be an exception in "exceptional circumstances". These circumstances are not explicitly defined, but in other cases the term has been used to allude to things like war or other national emergencies.

So barring a national emergency, Canada does not extradite people if they will face the death penalty. And aside from someone like Osama bin Laden, I do not see a case where refusing to extradite someone will lead to a national emergency.

Hydraboss · November 3, 2007

If a non-Canadian commits murder in Canada, and his home country wants him back to face the (non)penalty, should we give in? Think of the Sharia example.

Keep in mind that in the reverse, other countries are loathe to return Canadian citizens because our "justice" system is a joke. If a Canadian commits murder in Texas, the US knows he will walk in 10-25 years in Canada instead of being executed. As a parent of the (pretend here) victim, I would fight that extradition tooth and nail. If my country exacts the death penalty, I expect the man to die. The Canadian government could kiss my ass.

jefferiah · November 3, 2007

If this guy is a Canadian citizen, no matter how dirty and disgusting - he is our responsibility. So - bring him home and incarerate the bastard for the rest of his life.

Great, now explain this to other nations who have foreigners commiting crimes within those nations, and tell them that they have no right to punish them under their own law.

If a man commits a brutal act in the US and they want the death penalty that is their business. When he committed a crime on their soil he subjected himself to their laws.

Edited November 3, 2007 by jefferiah

bush_cheney2004 · November 3, 2007

....If this guy is a Canadian citizen, no matter how dirty and disgusting - he is our responsibility. So - bring him home and incarerate the bastard for the rest of his life.
Everyone is making this far too complicated.

Ummm...you're forgetting one small item...the sovereign place in which he committed capital murder wants to off his ass. Canada's righteous attitude about executions takes a back seat to that, and the victim's family and friends may not jolly well agree with a free pass to lifetime cable TV.