Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

myata · November 5, 2007

deleted

Edited November 5, 2007 by myata

Wilber · November 5, 2007

That's my point.....there would be and have been consequences, not total immunity from "anything". The original assertion was false, and as of 10/30/07, a bill is working its way through Iraq to end CPA Order 17. How is that possible if only the "Sending Authority" has "say in the legal process".
Are Canadian Forces subject to arrest by Afghan police?

Order 17 was brought up because of your remark that we were somehow "special" because we asked other countries not to execute our citizens. Turns out we are not the only ones who consider ourselves "special", that's all.

Rue · November 5, 2007

I think the Americans would be far more likely to grant clemency and return the accused to Canada if we had a real "life" sentence. But we don't.

I can't help but think you are rght. What makes it tricky though as you probably know, is that in the United States, unlike Canada, criminal law is decided by the State not the federal government because of its division of federal and state powers. So to get a criminal deported, once he's been convicted of a murder and is facing capital punishment in a state that administers it, would require you to get the Governor of the state to agree. That just won't happen given the politicsl optics.

We actually do have reciprocity agreements where we send convicted felons back to their state or province of residence but its not used with major crimes such as murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, terrorism, kidnapping or crimes of serious violence. Its often used when a prisoner is dying and wants to be closer to his family or has the kind of sentence where they want to release him into a treatment program before release and believe he is not a violent criminal and has a low likelihood of repeating the crime.

The problem say when someone murders someone in a state that believes in capital punishment is that Canada has no legal rights as to exercising sovereignty over that criminal. They can ask-but that is all they can do.

Its a difficult issue. I am just not sure what redeeming quality a Paul Bernardo has and what point there is having him sit in a tiny cell watching t.v. for the rest of his life.

Ideally I wish all murderers were forced to work the rest of their lives sending the money they make to charities and/or the loved ones of the deceased, i.e., their children.

So maybe you are dead on. Maybe if we showed we would take the murderer and force him to work instead of letting him go or letting him sit and watch t.v., we might get a different reaction.

I really do think it gets down to simple practical considerations such as the one you raised at the end of the day which have to be considered.

Wilber · November 5, 2007

That's my point.....there would be and have been consequences, not total immunity from "anything". The original assertion was false, and as of 10/30/07, a bill is working its way through Iraq to end CPA Order 17. How is that possible if only the "Sending Authority" has "say in the legal process".
Are Canadian Forces subject to arrest by Afghan police?

I didn't say that the Sending Authority was the only one to have a "say", I am pointing out that they are the only one to have any authority. The occupied country has no legal authority on it's own soil when it comes to Sending Authorities citizens, not just their military. I wonder what your government would do if Iraq tried to test Order 17 by arresting a US citizen for a crime in Iraq. Would they enforce it by using force against the Iraqi Government they are supporting?

myata · November 5, 2007

I can't help but think you are rght. What makes it tricky though as you probably know, is that in Its a difficult issue. I am just not sure what redeeming quality a Paul Bernardo has and what point there is having him sit in a tiny cell watching t.v. for the rest of his life.

Specifics of the case have nothing to do with the policy. It is there because our state at this time does not believe in death penalty. It is not applied to anybody here, whether Paul Bernardo, or wrongfully accused 14 year old. So there's nothing wrong with asking others (no obligation, these requests are routinely ignored not just by US but countries like Vietnam, Singapore etc) to not use it to our citizens. The policy is a manifestation of Canada's attitude toward death penalty. Not of PM's personal views and beliefs; not even policies of the governing party (until they translate into law).

Harper is doing no less than hijacking democratic process. He should either bring the issue up for a democratic debate, or leave it alone. But it's not a secret to anybody anymore that democratic debate just isn't something this very open and transparent party / government is particularly fond about.

noahbody · November 5, 2007

that the PM or a minister's opinion should be sufficient to condemn somebody to a cruel and unusual treatment people of Canada decided to not use in this country since long time?

Has Canada ever declared that capital punishment is "cruel and unusual treatment?" I think if you look back to the last time there was a vote on capital punishment in this country you might be surprised at the majority opinion of the population.

myata · November 5, 2007

OK, I'll take that back. What I think about death penalty isn't relevant to this topic. What is, and directly, is that it's a law in Canada. The honest thing for somebody who does not agree with it would be to bring it up for a public debate and try to change the law. Not to sneak it in hush hush with "refuse to comment" thereafter.

P.S. It's not the first time Harper is trying to deceive and confuse instead of bringing his policies and/or ideas into the open for an open discussion. I'd watch him very closely now.

jefferiah · November 5, 2007

OK, I'll take that back. What I think about death penalty isn't relevant to this topic. What is, and directly, is that it's a law in Canada.

What does it matter if it is the law of Canada? I am not in favor of capital punishment either Myata, but here is the thing----if a Canadian commits brutal crimes south of the border what does it matter what Canadian law says. He is in the US. He committed a crime in a nation that employs the death penalty. Americans can punish crimes on their own soil according to their own laws.

Basically what you would be saying is that while American criminals who commit brutal crimes on their own American soil are candidates for the death penalty, Canadians who commit even more brutal crimes (on American soil) should be given special treatment because they come from a country with different laws????? Think about that!

Edited November 5, 2007 by jefferiah

Shakeyhands · November 5, 2007

What does it matter if it is the law of Canada? I am not in favor of capital punishment either Myata, but here is the thing----if a Canadian commits brutal crimes south of the border what does it matter what Canadian law says. He is in the US. He committed a crime in a nation that employs the death penalty. Americans can punish crimes on their own soil according to their own laws.
Basically what you would be saying is that while American criminals who commit brutal crimes on their own American soil are candidates for the death penalty, Canadians who commit even more brutal crimes (on American soil) should be given special treatment because they come from a country with different laws????? Think about that!

Here is the way I see it, by saying that the gov't will no longer lobby for our citizens that have been sentenced to death abroad, we are complicent in the use of the death penalty and are vicariously sanctioning it. At the very least we should, as the government, request that those sentenced to death be given the ability to serve a LIFE sentence here (no possibility of parole) or have their sentence there commuted.

What kind of gov't decides not to represent all citizens and look out after their lives? Regardless of crimes commited.

Wilber · November 5, 2007

What does it matter if it is the law of Canada? I am not in favor of capital punishment either Myata, but here is the thing----if a Canadian commits brutal crimes south of the border what does it matter what Canadian law says. He is in the US. He committed a crime in a nation that employs the death penalty. Americans can punish crimes on their own soil according to their own laws.

No one disputes the right of Americans to punish crimes on their own soil according to their own laws. In question is the Canadian government's duty to its own citizens.

myata · November 5, 2007

Exactly. Canadians elect their government (including PM) to support and defend the laws of this country. Not their own (PM or his party or else) personal beliefs. Not even their understanding of universal justice.

And if they aren't doing that - to the extent of possible of course - they are in contempt of democracy. Which is a very serious matter.

bush_cheney2004 · November 5, 2007

I didn't say that the Sending Authority was the only one to have a "say", I am pointing out that they are the only one to have any authority. The occupied country has no legal authority on it's own soil when it comes to Sending Authorities citizens, not just their military. I wonder what your government would do if Iraq tried to test Order 17 by arresting a US citizen for a crime in Iraq. Would they enforce it by using force against the Iraqi Government they are supporting?

Understood, but I suspect that each case would be judged on its own merit and political impact. As I am sure you are aware, military personnel of all stripes fall under a specific legal protocol. Other MNF types, diplomats, contractors, etc. have their own protocols to follow. But again we are talking about the accused, not the legally tried and convicted as in the case of a Canadian national on death row in the United States.

Does America treat its nationals as "special"....most definitely....but not in the narrow context of CPA Order 17 and the occupation of Iraq by the MNF, not just Americans. I am not convinced that line of duty misconduct by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan would be any different. Again, these are the accused, not the convicted.

bush_cheney2004 · November 5, 2007

Here is the way I see it, by saying that the gov't will no longer lobby for our citizens that have been sentenced to death abroad, we are complicent in the use of the death penalty and are vicariously sanctioning it. At the very least we should, as the government, request that those sentenced to death be given the ability to serve a LIFE sentence here (no possibility of parole) or have their sentence there commuted.

Has this a ever actually happened? Has a condemened Canadian ever been repatriated to Canada from the USA to serve a life sentence instead? Why would PM Harper's administration be held to such a standard when it has never gone before?

Shakeyhands · November 5, 2007

don't know if it has ever happened before to be honest, but the attempt should be made.

noahbody · November 5, 2007

Exactly. Canadians elect their government (including PM) to support and defend the laws of this country.

Canadians elect governments to govern and to get things done, not to lobby other countries to adopt their laws.

And if they aren't doing that - to the extent of possible of course - they are in contempt of democracy. Which is a very serious matter.

This is about government policy, not law and has nothing to do with contempt of democracy.

myata · November 5, 2007

This is about government policy, not law and has nothing to do with contempt of democracy.

The previous policy was based on Canadian law (no death penalty) and responsibility of government to protect its citizens.

Now explain what is this change of policy is based on? Mr Harpers understanding of morality? Call from above? Divine inspiration, who should deserve mercy and who to fry? Deep respect for the American / Iraqi (it's a democracy after all, as proclaimed) and so on, justice system?

November 5, 2007

The previous policy was based on Canadian law (no death penalty) and responsibility of government to protect its citizens.
Now explain what is this change of policy is based on? Mr Harpers understanding of morality? Call from above? Divine inspiration, who should deserve mercy and who to fry? Deep respect for the American / Iraqi (it's a democracy after all, as proclaimed) and so on, justice system?

It is based on their not-so-secret longing to bring back the death penalty in Canada, plain and simple. ANyone who believe otherwise, check the links I provided to statements by various high level CPC members in the recent past. They have openly declared their heartfelt wishes to bring it back

Edited November 5, 2007 by trex

Fortunata · November 5, 2007

Canadians elect governments to govern and to get things done, not to lobby other countries to adopt their laws.

Asking for a commutation to life is not lobbying another country to adopt your laws; it is standing up for your country's principles.

Has a condemened Canadian ever been repatriated to Canada from the USA to serve a life sentence instead?

Doesn't matter. What does matter is that the leader of this country should defend the principles of Canada wherever and whenever it needs to be.

Either you believe in the death penalty and will do nothing to stop it or you don't believe in the death penalty and will try your best to stop it. Steve is trying to have it both ways and says it isn't a mixed message when indeed it is. Why does he think he has the right to decide who gets defended and who doesn't? For a PM that says he is "the" leader with clear messages, he hasn't shown that in more than just this issue.

noahbody · November 5, 2007

"Harper said Friday that while he doesn't want to reopen the capital-punishment debate in Canada, he also doesn't want to start a debate on whether his government is willing to repatriate convicted murderers.

"We have no desire to open the debate on capital punishment here in Canada and likewise we have no desire to participate in the debate on capital punishment in the United States," he said at a news conference in Halifax, where he was speaking to an aboriginal group.

"Were we to intervene, it would very quickly become a question of whether we are prepared to repatriate a double-murderer to Canada," he said."

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...QVm85xw8v4IsM5w

November 5, 2007

He already lied about the income trust, why should we believe him on anything else now? They play the game well.

capricorn · November 5, 2007

"Harper said Friday that while he doesn't want to reopen the capital-punishment debate in Canada, he also doesn't want to start a debate on whether his government is willing to repatriate convicted murderers.
"We have no desire to open the debate on capital punishment here in Canada and likewise we have no desire to participate in the debate on capital punishment in the United States," he said at a news conference in Halifax, where he was speaking to an aboriginal group.

"Were we to intervene, it would very quickly become a question of whether we are prepared to repatriate a double-murderer to Canada," he said."

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...QVm85xw8v4IsM5w

Here is how I interpret PM Harper's comments. He appears to be reluctant to bring the question of lobbying for clemency before the House because he knows that the opposition would take that opportunity to press for an expansion of that debate to include lobbying for the repatriation of convicted Canadians. It also looks like he weighted the options and feels Canadians in general will agree with his government's policy with regard to these cases, and that those same Canadians would not think any debate is necessary. This is only my analysis of his words and actions so far on the question of Canadians convicted and incarcerated in other countries, including Smith on death row.

I think those who suspect he has a hidden agenda and wants to bring back the death penalty are fretting for nothing.

Wilber · November 5, 2007

Does America treat its nationals as "special"....most definitely....but not in the narrow context of CPA Order 17 and the occupation of Iraq by the MNF, not just Americans. I am not convinced that line of duty misconduct by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan would be any different. Again, these are the accused, not the convicted.

Of course but then there could never be a conviction.

Moxie · November 5, 2007

The people of Canada should of had a voice regarding the Death Penalty, if forums are an example of the wishes of the people I'd say it's sixty percent against and forty percent for it. Personally, Canada's shameful and dismal record of incarcerating innocent people for murder speaks volumns.

Wilber · November 5, 2007

I think those who suspect he has a hidden agenda and wants to bring back the death penalty are fretting for nothing.

It says a lot to me about his government's position on the death penalty. This action makes me think that he would try to bring it back if he thought it would fly and maybe he is just testing the waters. Personally, I think more Canadians are frustrated with our revolving door justice system than are in favour of the death penalty. Give them a clear choice between real life without parole and the death penalty, the death penalty wouldn't stand a chance.

guyser · November 5, 2007

QUOTE(jdobbin @ Nov 1 2007, 06:44 PM)
If the Tories intend to change the death penalty in Canada, this could be their test balloon.

However, incremental conservativism could mean this is the first step in a national change of policy.

scary, scary, scary
Kudos to all the other posters here, regardless of the side of the issue, for avoiding such a false and misleading post.

Shame, shame, shame.

I suppose the editors of many papers should be shamed ,including the National Post since that is exactly what many of them suspect.