Capital Punishment

[udawg]

I'm not sure if this has been covered in a previous thread, so forgive me if it has, I didn't see it.

I have to do an essay on capital punishment. With the research materials given, I have developed a technical knowledge of the subject... but the material is a little dry. What I am looking for here is some more emotional, human reactions to the debate.

I started this essay with a firm belief for capital punishment. All the arguments of the critics can be brushed aside. Capital punishment does nothing to deter other offenders, in fact, states in the US that brought back CP have seen increases in violent crimes since the return. So I say, oh well, the death penalty is not meant as a deterrent, it's meant to make bad people dead.

So I get to thinking. Exactly what are we accomplishing by killing the offenders? Preventing them from ever harming another human? The same thing can be accomplished by putting them in prison for the rest of their life. (No chance for parole... ever) Every time the death penalty would normally be invoked, they are simply sentenced to spend the rest of their natural life in a high security prison.

But it costs money to keep a prisoner in jail for decades. I can't recall where I read this, it may have been Reader's Digest or something like it, and I honestly don't know how they came by their figures, but it worked out to show that sentencing a convict to death costs something like 10 times what it would cost to imprison the same person for the rest of their life. (I hope someone can verify/clarify/prove me wrong on this one.) Counter-intuitive, but true.

And then you bring in the whole wrongful-conviction side of it, and all of a sudden I was almost convinced against capital punishment. Killing an innocent man gets really ugly with the public. (What with media hysteria over these sorts of issues.)

So what is it that drives us to believe in it? My answer: it's emotionally satisfying, for everyone involved (save the convict) to see the offender put to death. The victim and/or their family get closure, the people see justice done, and everyone is happy to see an evil-doer eradicated from this earth.

Am I against capital punishment? Not yet. That emotional satisfaction again. And I believe that someone who has commited atrocities on the scale of some offenders really don't deserve the air they are breathing.

So I look forward to the debate on this. And maybe I can get a new perspective for that essay.

[udawg]

And just a follow-up:

Do you think we should bring capital punishment to Canada?

If so, are there any procedures or controls you would like to see in place to prevent wrongful convictions and similar incidents?

[Moderate Centrist]

Hello there,

I'll state my opinion on this yet again...

No capital punishment for any crime for any reason.

I oppose if for several reasons such as:

No deterent to crime... it can only be applied to crimes such as murder and treason which are extremely rare. So common crimes such as assault and break and enter do not enter into the picture.

Taking of one life will not bring back another. Life in prison is punishment enough and justice enough ( this is my OPINION and should be read as such)

I do not support the right of the state to murder its' own citizens. This is too much state power.

Wrongful conviction - there are no real safeguards for this. Also remember in some of the high profile cases shabby police work, and sometimes corruption has been the cause for conviction.

The Death Penalty should not be reinstated in Canada and if such an attempt is made I would do what little I could to oppose it.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Here's an interesting site,

http://www.ccadp.org/

I guess maybe we should change our anthem to "Oh Canada, We Stand On Guard for scum, who murder, and rape children"

Canada's more worried about people that kill police officers, serial rapists, pedophiles, murderers, and mobsters, than it is about the safety of its own people. Kill of pedopiles, rapists, and murderers, those whose virtues are to steal, lie, cheat, rape, and murder, have no place in society.

[Neal.F.]

you can add drug dealers to that list, Alliance fanatic. I like the way China deals with those lowlifes. A walk through the village square to the town garbage heap, then a bullet in the nape of the neck.

[Moderate Centrist]

Well I disagree with the rational of both Alliance and Neal. But you do have a point. If you want Capital punishment to really affect the crime rate then you have to apply it to as wide a variety of crimes as possible.

Remember, if you're that concerned about crime there is an easy solution to lowering it:

Get rid of civil rights and give the police unlimited power.

Crime is going to be with us until the end of our days. Our goal is not it's elimination but it's surpression to acceptable levels.

[SirRiff]

i strongly support captial punishment for both practical and philosophical reasons.

1. There is a finite amout of resources in a nation like canada. we cannot give all our of our citizens the quality of life we would like to. thus in a very real sense, any resource spent on rapists and murderers is almost like stealing it from a new born baby. its something they are entitled to, yet will not receive because it has been diverted. the potential return to society is infinate for the baby- the child could very well become a life long productive member of society. the potential return to society for teh criminal is nill, they have already had their chance in society and have caused much grief in thier deviant conduct. thus it is impractical to continue to house dangerous and resource sucking people on one hand, and deny valuable resources to citizens who can contribute to society and help canada prosper. from a purely mechanical allocation of resources, it is illogical to waste such precious energy.

2. from a purely philosophical point of view, when you kidnap a little girl, rape her, suffocate her, cut her up into little pieces and throw her in the garbage, being punished by simply restricting movement cannot be sufficient. EVEN IF there was no known deterrent effect, that level of crime requires a certain level of justice, the highest level being taking the offenders life. there is no other substitute for crimes against the dignity of life.

3. where my parents were from, they would bring thieves to teh town square and cut their hands off in front of the whole town. that way, everyone knew what would happen to criminals. in a philosophical sense this is necessary, after all, it is the citizens taxes that run the justice systems, and it is your punishment that is being inflicted, being ignorant of the true punishment would be wrong as it protects the very society you occupy

[Michael Hardner]

My opinion is that the issue of capital punishment is used more for political mileage than for making any improvement in the way we live our lives.

Theoretically, the issue should be able to be discussed rationally with a view to coming up with the best solution. Unfortunately, politicans are starting to learn that they can improve their political chances by evoking primal emotions and squelching discussion and rationality.

So, in a sense, I think the "emotional" side of this issue (and most every issue in the public eye) is exactly the problem. Certainly there's a place for emotion in the public sphere, but why are we letting unbridled and unrestrained passions govern our government ?

This will surely lead to our downfall.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Capital Punishment is a tricky subject. I think of it as 'is life sacred or not?'. This should be a yes or no question, not a 'well if...then'. Obviously our hope is for rehabillitation, as in the offender being trained to become a usefull member of society and never committing an offence again. There are some crimes that are so horrible though that rehabillition is not a viable option, such as acts of terrorism, serial rape, and really any other acts that tend to be committed by sociopaths. For instance, a person like bin Laden is unlikely ever to realize that the murder of innocent children is wrong so the only hope to prevent him from committing further transgressions, without capital punishment, is to detain him in prison until the end of his days. Then the question arises 'is this really better or more humane than capital punishment?' I would say yes. Psychologists can profile hime, doctors can examine him, biographers can write about him, all in an effort to determine what makes a man like this, and what we can do to try and prevent this in the future. Death is the quick fix. No good comes from it. It's a postponement of future problems. I say, if it's of no use to society, don't do it.

Beyond capital punishment, I have to say that our legal and penal system is much too soft. The 'nanny state' mentallity that is sometimes talked about on this site is real and it's biggest problem is that it takes away our sense of individual responsibillity and accountabillity. Understanding that a criminal came from an abusive home and got neglected by the system is one thing, but to forgive him his crime because of it is another. Punishment is too lax. Not that criminals think logically before they do the things they do, but I think most people have an ingrained risk assessment always going on, even if just subconciouslly. If the payoff is worth the risk, then whats to stop them from taking that risk? " I can steal this DVD player from the store and if I get caught the minimum is 6months probation and maximum is a 2yrs sentence(out in six months). Look at murder, for instance. Taking a persons life should affect yours forever. How many times do you see in the news some guy getting out in under ten years for murder? That's sickening! Friends and I sat around talking once of what we would do if a female friend or maybe a sister was raped. The general consensus was to have a couple of drinks and go kill the guy who did it. We figured that with the court taking alcohol being a factor and the emotional duress we were under, we would get a maximum of 10yrs, and out long before that. A small price to pay for protecting your kin. What messed up thinking. Is this what the justice system wants, people taking advantage of our weak laws to commit murder?

[Brainiac]

Capital punishment, just like any other punishment for a crime is only so good as the publics perception that they will be caught and the punishment will be dealt out. You can raise the traffic fines to whatever amount you wish, but if people think they can get away with it, they will still continue to speed. People will still shoplift if they know they could lose their hands for doing so if they don't think they will get caught. Criminals are not smart people, if they were they would not be criminals. Some criminals commit crime for things such as survival (ie.stealing), but most do it because they aren't smart enough not to. They also have very little respect for their fellow citizens.

I don't agree with having a death sentence because there is no guarantee that only guilty people will be put to death and its effectiveness as a deterrent is unfounded. As for the emotional aspect of killing a killer, sure it might make some people feel good that that person is dead, but that doesn't change the harm that they did to the victim and quite honestly, I believe death would be a pretty good sentence if I raped and murdered a little child...it is better than having to live with yourself for the rest of your life and have nothing to do but think about what you have done all the while knowing that life is passing you by on the other side of the wall that you get one hour a day to walk around inside of.

[Neal.F.]

With reference to my earlier post, in all seriousness, I generally oppose the DP, if only because of the possibility of wrongful conviction, and the fact that wealth can purchase superior counsel, which means that for the same crime a rich, well connected guy can walk while he who is less well off, and doesn't know the right people has to prepare for a one way trip to the great beyond....

Until there's a way to guarantee equal treatment under the law to the priveleged and the not so, we can't have it on the books.

I nevertheless think that severe should be meted out to some of the filthy sleazeballs cited earlier (especially harsh treatment to drug dealers, the worst of the lot) and the appeals process cannot be allowed to drag out. punishment should be swift and sure.

I don't have a problem with caning for drug dealers, and castration for sex offenders, for example.

[Hugo]

I do not favour capital punishment. As Brainiac has correctly said, it is not the sentence but the likelihood of being apprehended that deters crime. In medieval Europe, crime was rampant despite the fact that virtually all crimes warranted an often grisly and agonising death sentence, because there were no real police forces.

It is the case that the cost of the endless appeals and legal fees of executing a criminal costs the state more than it would to inter him for the rest of his life. In this case, to execute is the more expensive option and deprives the state of even more resources. We cannot really do away with the appeals because they are necessary checks and balances in a judicial system that has the power to kill.

In a society that truly values human life, any life, even the life of a pedophile, a mass murderer or drug dealer is valuable. To advocate the death penalty is to state that you do not find all human life precious, and you are in favour of awarding an individual or group the legal power to decide whether another individual lives or dies.

Friends and I sat around talking once of what we would do if a female friend or maybe a sister was raped. The general consensus was to have a couple of drinks and go kill the guy who did it.

I'm just picking upon this because it brings up a fallacious argument, to whit, what if it happened to you or your friends or family? If your daughter were brutally raped, tortured and murdered, what would you have the sentence be? Of course, most people would probably want to vent their rage and grief on the perpetrator and wish him to be killed in a way that reflected the pain and misery he had inflicted on others.

However, once it becomes a personal issue all objectivity is lost. This is why it's required that jurors have no connection with the defendant. While the feelings of the victims and their families are perfectly understandable, they cannot be allowed to influence the course of justice.

[Morgan]

1. is capital punishment a deterrent?

Hugo said:

As Brainiac has correctly said, it is not the sentence but the likelihood of being apprehended that deters crime.

Actually, recent research proves you both wrong.

A study last year by researchers at Emory University in Atlanta examined the nearly 6,000 death sentences imposed in the USA from 1977 through 1996. The authors compared changes in murder rates in 3,000 U.S. counties to the likelihood of being executed for murder in that county. They found that murder rates declined in counties where capital punishment was imposed. The researchers said a statistical formula suggested that each execution saved the lives of 18 potential victims.

Also,

Recent studies at the University of Houston and at the University of Colorado at Denver had similar findings. Blecker, who is researching deterrence, says they square with what he found in interviews with 60 killers. "They are cognizant of whether they are operating in a death-penalty state before they pull the trigger," he says. "They're operating in the real world, not the realm of political theory."

Also,

To McAdams, the debate over deterrence is unnecessary. "If you execute a murderer and it stops other murders, you've saved innocent lives," he says. "And if it doesn't, you've executed a murderer. Where's the problem?"

2. death penalty is costly because you need to keep endless appeals process as a check and balance

Hugo said:

It is the case that the cost of the endless appeals and legal fees of executing a criminal costs the state more than it would to inter him for the rest of his life. In this case, to execute is the more expensive option and deprives the state of even more resources. We cannot really do away with the appeals because they are necessary checks and balances in a judicial system that has the power to kill.

As it stands, death penalty cases are costly. True. But how did we become convinced that endless appeals are necessary to deliver fair justice? Is this self-interest motivated"schtick" peddled by the legal profession and perpetuated by left wing media? The defendent is judged by his peers. The sentencing is done by the judge. Is that not a check and balance right there?

One appeal to the Supreme Court of the province or state is enough to double check the initial jury/judge decision, IMHO.

3. society should value all life, even lives of murders

Hugo said:

In a society that truly values human life, any life, even the life of a pedophile, a mass murderer or drug dealer is valuable. To advocate the death penalty is to state that you do not find all human life precious, and you are in favour of awarding an individual or group the legal power to decide whether another individual lives or dies.

Not all lives are of equal value. Sorry. I don't believe that at all. The guy who just admitted to murdering 48 prostitutes recently in the USA is evil. His life is not precious. The folks who kill cops who are trying to defend us from crime are not beautiful people. Some people are truly evil. They lose their right to live in society when they take the lives of others.

4.

While the feelings of the victims and their families are perfectly understandable, they cannot be allowed to influence the course of justice.

Victims cannot speak on their own behalf anymore. That's why society employs prosecutors arguing cases on their behalf. Prosecutors are our mouthpieces for law and order, but they also speak on behalf of citizens who have been silenced due to murder.Why do we only worry about "feelings" of murderers or only about our own religious/philosophical feelings? Where's justice for the victim in this argument? What about the murder victim's "feelings?"

Postscript:

Here's an interesting article from USA Today that's backed with interesting stats and research about death penalty[some of which I quoted above] and it addresses the myth about "innocent" people put to death.

Professors speak out in favour of the death penalty, USA Today, Jan.07/03.

[Hugo]

is capital punishment a deterrent?

To be honest, Morgan, I actually don't care if you are right. Torturing people for tax evasion would probably be an effective deterrent, too, but there are some things I could never sanction.

Not all lives are of equal value. Sorry. I don't believe that at all.

I did not say that all lives were of equal value. What I said was:

any life... is valuable.

And I stand by that. Every human life is precious, not only for itself, but because we strive to be a compassionate culture that values life. So, we should not put a price on a human life. What we effectively do when we sentence a man to die is to say that his moral "debts" outweigh the value of his life, so his life shall be taken from him. The only thing that can outweigh a human life, is more than one human life to be saved in the balance against it, and once a man has been sentenced to life in prison there will be no more lives in the balance against his.

Like abortion, this also puts our society on a dangerous slope where we have decided that some lives are worth preserving, and others not.

Why do we only worry about "feelings" of murderers or only about our own religious/philosophical feelings? Where's justice for the victim in this argument?

We do not worry about the "feelings" of murderers. Life in a state penitentiary is pretty much a living hell. The "justice for the victim" is in the fact that the criminal has been stripped of his freedom and civil liberties and will never again take any pleasure in his own existence.

[Morgan]

Hugo,

I respect the consistency of your beliefs about abortion and capital punishment.

But I cannot agree with you that all human life is "valuable." The person who killed Laci Peterson and her full term baby may be "precious" to you but not to me. Also, by not implementing the death penalty, in my opinion, shows a clear disregard for the value of the murder victim's life and potential murder victim's life whose life might be spared because a criminal has second thoughts about paying for his evil deed with his life.

I believe that if mercy is to be shown for the life of a cold blooded murderer, it should come in the hereafter and be doled out by a higher power. This is a mortal world and the best we mortals can do is to dispense justice. Striving for a "compassionate" society is not high on my list. Striving for a fair society is important to me.

You say:

Like abortion, this also puts our society on a dangerous slope where we have decided that some lives are worth preserving, and others not

"Dangerous slope" is always acquiescing to the life before you. Abolishing the death penalty but allowing abortion on demand are 2 examples of this "slippery slope" behaviour in my opinion.

You say:

The "justice for the victim" is in the fact that the criminal has been stripped of his freedom and civil liberties and will never again take any pleasure in his own existence.

I disagree. Prisoners can still vote which is one of the most valued "rights" in a democracy. Prisoners can have conjugal rights with a significant other and the state even provides privacy and condoms to honour this basic human need. Prisoners get free shelter, food, education, health care, entertainment, legal aid.

The only "freedom" constrained is free movement. And if we put no teeth into our laws,like death penalty for murder, increasingly, citizens' free movement is constrained because of criminals who do not have any fear consequences.

Discussions about capital punishment rarely have people reaching consesus.

For now, Hugo, abolitionists like you outnumber pro-death penalty folks like me. But maybe as violent crime increases, my group may come to outnumber yours and capital punishment will be reinstated.

Good debate though, Hugo.

[Lost in Manitoba]

I have to say Hugo, I respect your opinion on abortion a lot more, hearing your views on capital punishment. It is this type of consistency we need to make society better.

Morgan brings up a point I've wondered about before. Does anyone have a problem with prisoners having the right to vote? I've got my opinion on this but I'd like to hear others.

[udawg]

What we effectively do when we sentence a man to die is to say that his moral "debts" outweigh the value of his life, so his life shall be taken from him. The only thing that can outweigh a human life, is more than one human life to be saved in the balance against it, and once a man has been sentenced to life in prison there will be no more lives in the balance against his.

Regardless of this, there should be a stronger punishment than a state-paid ticket to old age.

Brainiac:

I believe death would be a pretty good sentence if I raped and murdered a little child...it is better than having to live with yourself for the rest of your life and have nothing to do but think about what you have done all the while knowing that life is passing you by on the other side of the wall that you get one hour a day to walk around inside of.

In spite of this, I think that for a murderer/rapist/other evil-doer to live another moment of life after committing a horrific crime is completely unconscionable. Especially when you consider that the worst of the worst are psychopaths anyway, and really don't care what they've done.

Now... if you were to condone the beating of the offender into oblivion over and over again, for every remaining day of their life... I might accept that.

Perhaps if it is a crime of passion, so to speak, the sort of offender who really DOES regret what they've done, and where the situation in which they killed someone is unlikely to ever occur again, the death penalty is not warranted. But for repeat offenders, serial rapists... hell, any rapists, serial killers, sociopaths, and other bloodsucking unproductive vermin, death is the only recourse for their actions.

[Alliance Fanatic]

I recently watched a move called the Boondock Saints, it was fairly violent, and had plenty of foul language, but it had an interesting story too it. It's about these two brothers who believe they have a mission from god to kill all of those who are wicked.

You hear in the news about pedophiles getting out of prisons, rapists being allowed to walk the streets who are still a threat to society, and drug dealers caught with alot of crack who get soft sentences. Some people should not be allowed to live in this society, if thier only goal in life is to kill, rape, cheat, steal, and sexually abuse younger children, they do deserve to die. However we as a society must also give some people a chance to redeem themselves, and help those who want help, to get back on their feet.

[udawg]

Good post, AF.

Something I forgot in my previous post, and is quite important, in my view. Some members of this forum, indeed, many members of society, advocate life sentences for offenders, to preserve the sanctity of life. While this may be a valid argument, it simply doesn't work in real life (under our current justice system) if the goal is actually to protect the public.

In Canadian justice, the longest I have heard of someone staying in prison, for a "life sentence", is about 30 or 35 years. A long time, but not their whole life. If they get out on parole, the whole idea of "life sentence" is a joke. The Crown prosecutor saying "Don't worry, you're not in danger anymore, he's in prison for life" should not console the victim and family of the victim in Canada.

The parole system is flawed, where a serial rapist and killer can be set free after 15 years of "good behaviour". Of course it was good behaviour, there were no women around to assault and kill!

And besides, good behaviour, professed remorse, etc, will not make a difference when a serial rapist, just released from prison, hides in a bush waiting for a women to walk by.

BTW, anyone know what the re-offend rates are for various crimes, or where I can find them?

[Gloria]

To add something else to this debate ... The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in an extradition decision (the summary of which you can probably find elsewhere on this very site) that it is unconstitutional for Canada to extradite prisoners/criminals to jurisdictions with the deathe penalty UNLESS they ensure that the death penalty will not be sought. They then went a step further and stated that captial punishment would violate the constitution in Canada period, closing the door on bringing it back in Canada.

Say what you want about judicial activism (or if this decision even constitutes that) but I think the Court's intervention on this issue demonstrates how our elected officials are too cowardly to debate and surmount issues like capital punishment. I think the Court made the right decision and I would fight tooth and nail against the reinstatement of the death penalty in Canada, but one has to wonder why that direction had to come from the bench rather than from an elected house.

[Morgan]

Gloria said:

I would fight tooth and nail against the reinstatement of the death penalty in Canada

Fighting words like those re: saving the lives of murderers are what make me proud to say I'm a Canadian. Saddam and Holly's killer can count on us when their lives hang in the balance.

I'm curious...

a) Would you fight tooth and nail to prevent euthanasia laws being passed in Canada?

Would you fight tooth and nail to strike down abortion on demand laws?

Or is life sacred only on certain days of the week or when life can't speak for itself?

I'll juxtapose 2 "articles" about violent crime, one from a Toronto police officer's perspective and another from a civilian Iraqi blogger. And before any of you say, oh, an Iraqi, primitive person living in the midst of anarchy, what do you expect?

This Iraqi is a well educated dentist. He's living in a country under martial law but when there's no death penalty, and the criminals on the street know it, all hell breaks out everyday regardless of how many coation troops and Iraqi police on the streets. The crime the Iraqi dentist speaks of is not terrorism. It's ordinary violent crime committed by violent humans who have no respect for others, but know "their rights" oh so well. And as violent crime escalates in Canada as it is in other EU democracies, and there are more criminals being re-cycled into Canadian streets, 10 years from now we'll see if you still are fighting tooth and nail against reinstatement of the death penalty.

Gun violence is up 35% in Toronto this year. Criminals forgot to register their guns. Dec.31/03 TO Sun

Gun violence is up 35% in Toronto this year and almost half the city's murder victims were dispatched by a firearm. The rise in the use of guns appears based on drug turf battles, squabbles involving any of the more than six dozen identified gangs, retaliation for a previous tiff or sign of disrespect. Archibald was a gang cop 11 years ago with the 4 District Street Crime Unit, and he's seen things get worse. Indeed, he reminisces about an era when many thought teens then were out of control. "Here you are at 2:50 in the afternoon, there are kids still celebrating Christmas, still playing in the area, and shots ring out," he said. "It's just ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous." Gangs, he said, are now more sophisticated and "are a lot more violent, and they're so loose with the gun," he said. "There's an absolute disregard for the community, the people in the community, the kids."

Death penalty should be reinstated to Iraq says "Healing Iraq" blogger

The death penalty should return and be implemented immediately. This isn't an issue of morals, human rights, and ethics..blah, blah, blah. We need it badly to deter criminals, terrorists and gangs. Iraqis were horrified when Bremer abolished the death penalty. That may be possible in the US or Europe, but in Iraq the results would be devastating. A hundred thousand dangerous criminals released by the regime before the war are loose on the streets killing innocent people, abducting children, women, and businessmen, carrying out daily armed robberies, and carjackings (an average of 20 carjacking incidents occur in Baghdad daily). And since those criminals know they won't be executed for it, they act extremely. Hence your regular murderer kills a policeman and then asks for his rights. Killing a person remorselessly in Iraq has become so easy because of this. The necessity and the consequences of reactivating the death penalty cannot be underestimated to resolve the security problems. Crime will simply diminish today if say a hundred deadly criminals were hanged publicly. This may sound barbaric to people in the west, but in Iraq its a MUST to put an end to the chaos. So we can safely move on to reconstruction .

We have barbarians in our midst. They may look like us, talk like us, but they are barbarians nonetheless. Every society has them. Baghdad has more of them now than Toronto does. But these violent criminals across the world have more in common with each other than they do with their fellow law abiding nationals.

It's insulting to pro-death penalty advocates like me that I should have my tax dollars pay for murderers' food, their health care, their education, their condoms, their tooth brushes so abolitionists can feel all warm and fuzzy about their inclusive sense of humanity.

If death penalty abolitionists had to pay a special tax levy to keep these murderers alive for life, I'll bet most of them would lose their belief in the sanctity of life mighty quick.

Hugo, I believe you are one of the few sincere death penalty advocates I've ever met, because you don't beieve in either abortion or death penalty, but I'll wager that 60% -70% of death penalty advocates are also advocates for abortion, euthanasia, rationed socialized medicine which fly in the face of "all life is sacred" hooey they preach to "rednecks" like myself.

That the giant brained Supreme Court justices ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional does not suprise me one bit. The Charter of Human Rights was written by Liberal politicians-former lawyers who didn't personally believe in the death penalty[Chretien was Justice Minister at the time and his high priest was PET] so the "fix" was in right from the start. Btw, are any of the hallowed Supreme Court justices former prosecutors? I'll bet zero.

Postscript: I believe that abortion as well as the death penalty are necessary evils of society, whether you live in Baghdad or Toronto.

[Brainiac]

In Canadian justice, the longest I have heard of someone staying in prison, for a "life sentence", is about 30 or 35 years.  A long time, but not their whole life.  If they get out on parole, the whole idea of "life sentence" is a joke.

I will refer you to the Correctional Services of Canada website. This is what they say about the above myth.

A life sentence means life - never again will an offender serving a life sentence enjoy total freedom. Although "lifers" may not spend the rest of their lives within an institution (i.e. they may eventually be paroled), they will always remain subject to conditions and supervision. Should an offender breach these conditions or engage in behaviour that gives the National Parole Board cause for concern, he or she may be returned to prison at any time.

Myths and Realities

This link may also help some other people on this thread get a better idea of what the real facts are concerning our Corrections system in Canada. The media has failed in just about every attempt they have made to try and get across information regarding crime in Canada. The reason being is that it is too complex of an issue to be blurted out during the evening news cast or to fill a column on a page in a newspaper. I see that lack of understanding a lot in these threads.

Udawg, serial rapists do not commit that many rapes here in Canada...the majority are commited by men that the women know and who are more than likely on a date with. To use serial rapists as an example is nothing more than some lame shock tactic that holds little water. It is like saying everyone who commits a murder is a serial killer. Completely ludicrous.

BTW, anyone know what the re-offend rates are for various crimes, or where I can find them?

Here is a Statistical Overview done by the Correctional Services of Canada The Safe Return of Offenders to the Community It is very recent and dispells a lot of the rhetoric that gets shot around on a topic such as this. The CSC website is very helpful in trying to get a better idea of the corrections situation in Canada. That being said, it will probably not change anyones position on the death penalty, but it will give them better information to base their opinion on.

[Morgan]

Brainiac,

Here's what would change people's minds about the death penalty:

If death penalty abolitionists had to pay a special tax levy to keep these murderers alive for life, I'll bet most of them would lose their belief in the sanctity of life mighty quick.

Corrections statistics - who cares?- certainly criminals don't read them. You think Corrections statistics give police a greater sense of confidence when they patrol the streets of Toronto?

Left wing touchy feely types are big on enforcing hate speech and gun registries, but when it comes to being tough on violent crime they prefer to offer murderers the possibility for earning a law degree behind bars or rainbow coloured condoms to fight sex ennui.

[udawg]

As a proportion of all crimes reported in the 2001 Uniform Crime Reporting survey, federal offenders re-admitted with a new conviction were therefore responsible for just over 1 of every 1,000 federal statute offences reported to police in 2001, including:

1.4 of every 1,000 violent offences;

0.8 of every 1,000 sexual offences;

1.1 of every 1,000 drug offences;

1.2 of every 1,000 property or other federal statute offences.

Took that from a link off the site Brainiac listed: The Safe Return of Offenders to the Community

I don't know about anyone else, but personally I was under the impression the rate of reoffence was much higher than that. 1.3%? Doesn't seem like that much. But these numbers are misleading, because that's a percentage of ALL new crimes in Canada, that are committed by previously convicted persons.

The more accurate number, which isn't exactly highlighted, is 7.2% of released convicts reoffend. (It is, after all, the Canadian government site...everything has a spin. Where are the colourful graphs showing the reoffence rates?)

During 2001 federal offenders received 15,814 different periods of community supervision.

1,146 (or 7.2%) of these release periods resulted in a re-admission in 2001, because a new crime had been committed.

Anyway, if even 7 released convicts out of every 100 reoffend, that's too much in my books. You will note that the violent offenders are the most likely to reoffend. Aren't they the ones we're most worried about?

[Moderate Centrist]

Hi Morgan,

We don't have the death penalty now and have no reason to reinstate it.

Abortion - murder. However if abortion was made illegal again, which is almost politically impossible, it would only lead to more deaths of women who would choose the illegal route.

Mercy Killing - murder - stronger laws should be in place and clear ethical standards established. This is most important with respect to the disabled community who have the most to fear from Euthanasia laws.

Capital Punishment - I oppose it for many reasons which I've stated again and again.

One of the reasons is there is no useful purpose served by it. The other is I don't agree that the state should have the power to murder it's own citizens.

"It's insulting to pro-death penalty advocates like me that I should have my tax dollars pay for murderers' food, their health care, their education, their condoms, their tooth brushes so abolitionists can feel all warm and fuzzy about their inclusive sense of humanity. "

Morgan

Well if I may be so bold it's insulting to me that our court sytem become clogged with death penalty appeals cases that can literally last for decades while the lawyers get rich.

"And as violent crime escalates in Canada as it is in other EU democracies, and there are more criminals being re-cycled into Canadian streets, 10 years from now we'll see if you still are fighting tooth and nail against reinstatement of the death penalty."

Morgan

This statement can be disputed ad naseum and has been before. I am not aware of any credible evidence that the crime rate is escalating at an alarming rate.

Personally I have little or no fear of becoming a victim of violent crime. Most people base their knowledge of crime on the newspapers which renders it pretty much useless as far as I'm concerned.

I do not live out my life in constant paranoia of being a victim.

Murders are not "getting away with it" as so many on this website would have us believe.

Again, I don't care what the crime nor who the criminal - no death penalty.

Brainiac, I've tried using stats from Canada Corrections in this arguement before. As I'm sure some of our other posters here will tell you - it's a left wing conspiracy, the statistics are wrong and we should rely solely on newspaper stories, paranoia and public hysteria to develop public policy.