Capital Punishment

[Carinthia]

Maybe so but do you want all our laws based on revenge?

Our laws are already based on revenge. Revenge is the preliminary emotion that leads to justice or the desire for it. Not much difference between revenge and justice really.

[Wilber]

Our laws are already based on revenge. Revenge is the preliminary emotion that leads to justice or the desire for it. Not much difference between revenge and justice really.

That was the case at one time. Around two hundred years ago you could be hung for theft and a lot of other crimes which would be considered petty now. The civilized world has been heading in the opposite direction for some time. In Canada we have banned capital and corporal punishment and we are reluctant to put people in jail at all. We have things like mandatory release after 2/3 of a sentence (makes no sense to me), community service, probation, faint hope clause, house arrest, you name it. People are constantly bitching about our prisons being too nice for these scumbags. Our Federal penitentiary's have some of the best drug rehab facilities in the country. It's just too bad our courts won't give more sentences of two years plus a day. Time in a Federal institution would give a lot of addicts a better chance of getting clean than almost anything else out there. Our courts will do just about anything to avoid imprisoning people unless they are a real danger to the public or their crimes are particularly offensive and sometimes not even when they should be doing that.

Are you arguing for a return to a more revenge based system?

I can understand why a person who has lost someone dear to them in a particularly horrific way would want to take revenge on the person responsible. I can't honestly say I would feel any different if it happened to me. I don't know. But would you really want to put that into law? I wouldn't.

[Guest American Woman]

The death penalty isn't based on revenge any more than any other sentence is.

Edited November 13, 2007 by American Woman

[JerrySeinfeld]

I think in order to be against the death penalty, you have to have some degree of respect for the life of a convicted capital murderer.

It's not that I'm pro-death penalty so much as I really don't give a shit what happens to a guy who kills his wife and his unborn son (for example).

Does this make sense to anyone else out there?

[Wilber]

I think in order to be against the death penalty, you have to have some degree of respect for the life of a convicted capital murderer.

It's not that I'm pro-death penalty so much as I really don't give a shit what happens to a guy who kills his wife and his unborn son (for example).

Does this make sense to anyone else out there?

The fact that you don't give a shit what happens to him makes sense to me. Hard to feel sympathy for someone like that.

Putting someone to death makes me more like him and that is something I don't wish to be. That's just my personal philosophy on this issue.

[Higgly]

One of the people found to have been wrongly convicted by Dr. Charles Smith in Ontario is a guy who was sent to prison for the murder of his niece, a child of 5 or 6. It turns out the girl died of natural causes, yet you can imagine the howls for blood this guy was subjected to.

There are some intelligent arguments in this thread, but I do not understand how anybody can get past the wrongful conviction problem. It is the 900 pound gorilla in the room for me. Nothing gets past it.

[Wilber]

One of the people found to have been wrongly convicted by Dr. Charles Smith in Ontario is a guy who was sent to prison for the murder of his niece, a child of 5 or 6. It turns out the girl died of natural causes, yet you can imagine the howls for blood this guy was subjected to.

There are some intelligent arguments in this thread, but I do not understand how anybody can get past the wrongful conviction problem. It is the 900 pound gorilla in the room for me. Nothing gets past it.

That to.

[Carinthia]

One of the people found to have been wrongly convicted by Dr. Charles Smith in Ontario is a guy who was sent to prison for the murder of his niece, a child of 5 or 6. It turns out the girl died of natural causes, yet you can imagine the howls for blood this guy was subjected to.

There are some intelligent arguments in this thread, but I do not understand how anybody can get past the wrongful conviction problem. It is the 900 pound gorilla in the room for me. Nothing gets past it.

The wrongly convicted is about the only reason I would hesitate to support the return of the death penalty. I have a hard time getting past that one too. We have had 2 or 3 people wrongly convicted in Canada that we know about, in the past 10 years and that's 2 or 3 too many.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Carinthia

[capricorn]

There are some intelligent arguments in this thread, but I do not understand how anybody can get past the wrongful conviction problem. It is the 900 pound gorilla in the room for me. Nothing gets past it.

I think people are torn between situations where the person convicted of murder is guilty without the shadow of a doubt. These cases repulse the normal thinking human being. Then you have cases where there may be a doubt as a result of an error in the justice system. This all makes the issue of proper sentencing so emotional.

I don't agree with the death penalty because those who administer our justice system are human and may therefore make mistakes.

I just want convicted murderers to stay behind bars for the rest of their natural life. If it is found afterward that a mistake was made, the error is corrected and the person is let free. Is that too much to ask?

[Moxie]

I think in order to be against the death penalty, you have to have some degree of respect for the life of a convicted capital murderer.

It's not that I'm pro-death penalty so much as I really don't give a shit what happens to a guy who kills his wife and his unborn son (for example).

Does this make sense to anyone else out there?

I feel the same way, but there is always a but, sadly the Canadian Justice System makes to many mistakes. Killing an innocent will happen, I can't live with that.

I think people are torn between situations where the person convicted of murder is guilty without the shadow of a doubt. These cases repulse the normal thinking human being. Then you have cases where there may be a doubt as a result of an error in the justice system. This all makes the issue of proper sentencing so emotional.

I don't agree with the death penalty because those who administer our justice system are human and may therefore make mistakes.

I just want convicted murderers to stay behind bars for the rest of their natural life. If it is found afterward that a mistake was made, the error is corrected and the person is let free. Is that too much to ask?

Well stated Capricorn, I agree. Our judges have to start giving Max sentences, not the min.

Our penal system is just that, penal. Punitive Punishment is handed down for crimes against Society. The greater good of Society is suppose to supercede the rights of a criminal. That is not what is happening, when someone who is sentenced to life for first degree murder and gets out in seven years that is not in the best interest of "Society". Society is placed at risk because these people almost always reoffend.

I am not an advocate for "Rehabilitation", they are incarcerated for a CRIME. I however have no problem with using them as a cheap labour force. It is not society's job to rehabilitate Criminals, the justice system is based on punitive punishment. We have tried incarceration and rehabilitation for twenty years, it doesn't work. Work them half to death and make them loathe going back to jail not coddle them. Jail birds are board, idle and drugs are rampart in Fed and Prov jails. Our system would work if the bleeding hearts weren't the only voice the Government heard. I don't care if they eat bread and gruel and toil ten hours aday in a blizzard, don't commit a crime if you don't want to do the time.

As for the assertion that poverty is a caustation for crime, well that is bogus bleedying heart propaganda. Our prisons are full of lazy nar-do-wellers who want "Instant Gratification" or are career criminals who have no desire to live a legit life.

I've read posts that state "Prison is ugly" blah blah, I've been in Federal Prisons (not as an inmate, yet) Provincial Jails, Women's Prisons and Youth Detention Centers. It's not always pleasant but it is by no means unpleasant. Each of the above have a social structure, a subculture if you will. Prisons are just an extension of society, other than personal restrictions they are not that BAD.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Moxie

[guyser]

I feel the same way, but there is always a but, sadly the Canadian Justice System makes to many mistakes. Killing an innocent will happen, I can't live with that.

Well stated Capricorn, I agree. Our judges have to start giving Max sentences, not the min.

I hope you include the police in the "justice system"

That is not what is happening, when someone who is sentenced to life for first degree murder and gets out in seven years that is not in the best interest of "Society". Society is placed at risk because these people almost always reoffend.

Sorry but that is a myth that keeps getting perpetrated on this site. They "may" be considered for parole after 15 yrs. 2nd degree, 10 -15 years after sentencing.

I am not an advocate for "Rehabilitation", they are incarcerated for a CRIME. I however have no problem with using them as a cheap labour force. It is not society's job to rehabilitate Criminals, the justice system is based on punitive punishment. We have tried incarceration and rehabilitation for twenty years, it doesn't work. Work them half to death and make them loathe going back to jail not coddle them. Jail birds are board, idle and drugs are rampart in Fed and Prov jails. Our system would work if the bleeding hearts weren't the only voice the Government heard. I don't care if they eat bread and gruel and toil ten hours aday in a blizzard, don't commit a crime if you don't want to do the time.

And where will they work?

[Higgly]

The wrongly convicted is about the only reason I would hesitate to support the return of the death penalty. I have a hard time getting past that one too. We have had 2 or 3 people wrongly convicted in Canada that we know about, in the past 10 years and that's 2 or 3 too many.

Actually it's now 2 or 3 dozen people. This is a very big deal; I don't understand why more Canadians aren't really angry about it. My guess is that it's because the press is failing us on this issue in a big way.

[Guest American Woman]

I think people are torn between situations where the person convicted of murder is guilty without the shadow of a doubt. These cases repulse the normal thinking human being. Then you have cases where there may be a doubt as a result of an error in the justice system. This all makes the issue of proper sentencing so emotional.

I don't agree with the death penalty because those who administer our justice system are human and may therefore make mistakes.

I just want convicted murderers to stay behind bars for the rest of their natural life. If it is found afterward that a mistake was made, the error is corrected and the person is let free. Is that too much to ask?

I think it's cases like this that really set people off:

An Australian man convicted of drowning his three sons during a Father's Day outing to spite his ex-wife was sentenced to life without parole Friday.

Robert Farquharson, 37, killed his sons Jai, 10, Tyler, seven, and Bailey, two, by driving his car into a dam near his home in Winchelsea in the southeastern state of Victoria on September 4, 2005.

Supreme Court judge Philip Cummins said the children had trusted and depended on Farquharson but he planned the killings over a significant period to punish their mother Cindy Gambino.

Link

Obviously the man is guilty. He did get life without parole.

Edited November 16, 2007 by American Woman

[Hydraboss]

Can anyone post credible stats as to the numbers of people murdered or raped by two-time losers? This is what puts me firmly in the pro-capital punishment camp. Whether the number of wrongfully convicted people is 2 or 3, or 23 does not outweigh the number of horrific acts that have been perpetrated by people released from prison on parole or who have completed their mandatory (minor) sentences for these crimes.

Had the death penalty been used, there would be a lot more innocent people alive.

So then, the crux of the problem is whether or not the number of wrongly convicted is worth the lives of the innocents killed or raped. Revenge does not play into this as all penalties are revenge-based. Rehabilitation of people that commit these crimes is nil. If capital punishment is not a deterrent, then it certainly works as a preventative measure for second offences. People who have committed crimes that would be subject to the death penalty have given up their rights. ALL their rights.

These people cannot be rehabilitated, and once put in the Federal system, have access to an almost unlimited supply of drugs. REHAB IS NOT AN OPTION. Keep in mind that we're not talking about some twenty-something year old that stole a car. We're talking about someone who brutally raped and cut up a three year old. Emotions had better play a part in the sentence.

As for who would pull the switch...I would...and so would a whole hell of a lot of people. Personally, I think the option should be given to the family of the victim and if they don't want to, then you go to a state-paid employee.

[Wilber]

Can anyone post credible stats as to the numbers of people murdered or raped by two-time losers? This is what puts me firmly in the pro-capital punishment camp. Whether the number of wrongfully convicted people is 2 or 3, or 23 does not outweigh the number of horrific acts that have been perpetrated by people released from prison on parole or who have completed their mandatory (minor) sentences for these crimes.

Had the death penalty been used, there would be a lot more innocent people alive.

The only reason these people get to kill again is because they are let out. Fix that and there will be a lot more innocent people alive. Had the death penalty been used there would also be more innocent people dead, just different people doing the killing. You and I.

How can you say that society putting an innocent person to death is less horrific than a private individual who murders? Whoops so sorry but us killing you doesn't outweigh what old scumbag over there did so it's OK.

[Wilber]

As for who would pull the switch...I would...and so would a whole hell of a lot of people. Personally, I think the option should be given to the family of the victim and if they don't want to, then you go to a state-paid employee.

What if you got one wrong, how would you feel? If you are in favour of capital punishment you have to be prepared to pull the switch on all those who are sentenced to death. No choosing or hiring someone to do your dirty work for you. You are the state. You are responsible no matter who does it.

[Fortunata]

What if you got one wrong, how would you feel? If you are in favour of capital punishment you have to be prepared to pull the switch on all those who are sentenced to death. No choosing or hiring someone to do your dirty work for you. You are the state. You are responsible no matter who does it.

I think a lot of people that believe in capital punishment wouldn't lose too much sleep over it because they would be able to point out to the "righteous" executions; in other words, the system works .... in most cases.

Take the Truscott case. The Harpers felt as though justice had been undone when Truscott's conviction was overturned. For far too many, accused means guilt, no matter the evidence to the contrary.

[Hydraboss]

The only reason these people get to kill again is because they are let out. Fix that and there will be a lot more innocent people alive. Had the death penalty been used there would also be more innocent people dead, just different people doing the killing. You and I.

How can you say that society putting an innocent person to death is less horrific than a private individual who murders? Whoops so sorry but us killing you doesn't outweigh what old scumbag over there did so it's OK.

Society putting a convicted first degree murderer to death is ABSOLUTELY less horrific.

What if you got one wrong, how would you feel? If you are in favour of capital punishment you have to be prepared to pull the switch on all those who are sentenced to death. No choosing or hiring someone to do your dirty work for you. You are the state. You are responsible no matter who does it.

First of all, I wouldn't KNOW I got one wrong. As for the rest, I believe I was quite clear that I AM prepared to pull the switch. One caveat though, the job has to pay more than I'm making now. So that should end that part of your argument. If anyone needs to be put to death, I'm be your trigger man. Throw the switch, hit the injection button, release the gallows. Whatever.

Any other questions? How about this: How many convicts, incarcerated for lesser crimes, are killed in prison by those in there for "life"? Do they count to you? Is it okay for THEM to die at the hands of some second-time loser? What about THEIR right to live and be protected? How will you guarantee that?

By the way, does anyone know the second-time murder stats?

[Wilber]

Society putting a convicted first degree murderer to death is ABSOLUTELY less horrific.

I was referring the innocent ones who will inevitably fall through the cracks.

First of all, I wouldn't KNOW I got one wrong. As for the rest, I believe I was quite clear that I AM prepared to pull the switch. One caveat though, the job has to pay more than I'm making now. So that should end that part of your argument. If anyone needs to be put to death, I'm be your trigger man. Throw the switch, hit the injection button, release the gallows. Whatever.

We have had several examples of innocent people who were convicted of first degree murder in the past few years. Cases where others have since been identified as the culprits. So you would know occasionally. Innocents being convicted of first degree murder isn't a theory, it happens. Doubt is now being cast on 13 criminal convictions regarding the death of infants based on the evidence of Dr. Charles Smith. What if all those had been first degree convictions and the people had been executed? Do you believe ignorance is bliss, that putting an innocent to death without your knowledge somehow absolves you of any responsibility?

[Hydraboss]

Nothing can absolve me of responsibility. Or anyone else for that matter.

Could I live with myself knowing I had pulled the switch on a man the courts deemed guilty? Yes.

And if he were to be proven innocent at a later date? Yes.

There is a price to be paid for the defense of our children, families and friends. If you are too cowardly to pay that price, I will pay it for you. I am willing to take the responsibility off your shoulders in order to protect the lives of the people who will be saved by putting to death the guilty. Should innocents be caught in the middle....at least we know it will not be some kindergarten girl that can't figure out why the mean man hurt her instead of showing her his puppy like he promised.

Ya, I'll take the responsibility.

[Guest coot]

I'm all in favour of capital punishment for treasonous secessionists who would split up our country and bike thieves.

[Hydraboss]

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. You can't put to death some poor soul who needs to steal a metric to eat.

But if it's my Harley....fry him.

[Wilber]

Nothing can absolve me of responsibility. Or anyone else for that matter.

Could I live with myself knowing I had pulled the switch on a man the courts deemed guilty? Yes.

And if he were to be proven innocent at a later date? Yes.

There is a price to be paid for the defense of our children, families and friends. If you are too cowardly to pay that price, I will pay it for you. I am willing to take the responsibility off your shoulders in order to protect the lives of the people who will be saved by putting to death the guilty. Should innocents be caught in the middle....at least we know it will not be some kindergarten girl that can't figure out why the mean man hurt her instead of showing her his puppy like he promised.

Ya, I'll take the responsibility.

No one is protected by putting an innocent person to death. As a matter of fact it has been shown that juries are less likely to convict if the death penalty is involved meaning it is more likely that a murderer could go free.

You can't take responsibility for me. If the state puts someone to death, they are doing it in my name as well as yours no matter who pulls the switch and if you kill someone on your own initiative, you are committing murder yourself.

[Guest American Woman]

There are so many ways of looking at the death sentence. Anyone who's given it serious thought knows it goes beyond "revenge." Like I said, we could say our whole penal system is based on revenge.

I got into a discussion about the death penalty last night, bringing up this man who "premeditated" a way to kill his three sons as "punishment" for his ex-wife. He's guilty without a doubt, so there's no chance of putting an innocent man to death in this icase.

So here are some of the responses I got. "Death is too good for him. Once he's dead, he won't be suffering" (Sounds like life in prison can be based on revenge). A response to that-- "Not if you believe in hell." Another response-- "if you don't believe in hell but believe in an afer life, you're reuniting him with his kids." Another response-- "the sentence should fit the crime. A human life is the most valuable thing on this earth, and if it's not respected as such, any sentence other than death diminishes the value of human life." Another comment-- "putting someone like a child rapist or a serial killer in prison for life is a death sentence for them; a death that's not nearly as comfortable as the death sentence." So is that more moral? More humane?

To be honest, when it comes to the bottom line, the fear of putting an innocent person to death is really what makes me against the death penalty. I struggle with the 'it makes us just like them' line of thought because it really doesn't. We have a reason for taking that person's life-- the reason being that they are a murderer. I still have to say I'm against it for moral reasons too, but I can understand why others wouldn't be. When it's done humanely, I really don't think it's the barbaric act that so many make it out to be.

I try to imagine being the mother of those boys. I try to imagine what it would feel like to send my kids off with Daddy, knowing they love and trust him, and then having him kill them. How can anyone, any parent here, not say they'd want to kill him? Is "anger" the same thing as "revenge?" I don't think so. HIS action was revenge. I don't think giving someone what they deserve is revenge. I think it's holding them accountable to their actions.

My state doesn't have the death penalty, so we're not any different from Canadians in that respect, but I do still give it thought, and I don't automatically say "no" to the death sentence because it's perceived as the "right, humane, moral" answer and I don't accuse those who support it of doing so out of nothing other than revenge. That's a pretty shallow way of looking at it, imo.

Edited November 17, 2007 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

There are so many ways of looking at the death sentence. Anyone who's given it serious thought knows it goes beyond "revenge." Like I said, we could say our whole penal system is based on revenge.

I got into a discussion about the death penalty last night, bringing up this man who "premeditated" a way to kill his three sons as "punishment" for his ex-wife. He's guilty without a doubt, so there's no chance of putting an innocent man to death in this icase.

So here are some of the responses I got. "Death is too good for him. Once he's dead, he won't be suffering" (Sounds like life in prison can be based on revenge). A response to that-- "Not if you believe in hell." Another response-- "if you don't believe in hell but believe in an afer life, you're reuniting him with his kids." Another response-- "the sentence should fit the crime. A human life is the most valuable thing on this earth, and if it's not respected as such, any sentence other than death diminishes the value of human life." Another comment-- "putting someone like a child rapist or a serial killer in prison for life is a death sentence for them; a death that's not nearly as comfortable as the death sentence." So is that more moral? More humane?

To be honest, when it comes to the bottom line, the fear of putting an innocent person to death is really what makes me against the death penalty. I struggle with the 'it makes us just like them' line of thought because it really doesn't. We have a reason for taking that person's life-- the reason being that they are a murderer. I still have to say I'm against it for moral reasons too, but I can understand why others wouldn't be. When it's done humanely, I really don't think it's the barbaric act that so many make it out to be.

I try to imagine being the mother of those boys. I try to imagine what it would feel like to send my kids off with Daddy, knowing they love and trust him, and then having him kill them. How can anyone, any parent here, not say they'd want to kill him? Is "anger" the same thing as "revenge?" I don't think so. HIS action was revenge. I don't think giving someone what they deserve is revenge. I think it's holding them accountable to their actions.

My state doesn't have the death penalty, so we're not any different from Canadians in that respect, but I do still give it thought, and I don't automatically say "no" to the death sentence because it's perceived as the "right, humane, moral" answer and I don't accuse those who support it of doing so out of nothing other than revenge. That's a pretty shallow way of looking at it, imo.

Those violent liars that push for the death penalty are made of the same stuff that they hate. Those willing and capable of killing in the name of the almighty state are the sameones that if you look deep enough into their hearts and minds will commit murder themselves - some are natural born killers and preditors and have a power crazed sadistic nature kept well hidden..a person that screams at the foot of the gallows for the death of a human being - is a human being capable and lusting to kill...Some just like the thought of killing...The real hard nose types that say that they would push the plunger on the death syringe or pull the lever on the gallows - are they creepy types who would suffer a deviant errection during the act.

Henry Kissinger once said that power is the greatest aphrodesiac...that would make me think that if he was directly or indirectly envoled in an execution - the bombing of some silly and useless village - or ultimately - pressing the nuclear button - he could then feel confident that he could have sex with his wife that night or get something a little extra ordinary from his mistress or boyfriend or what ever the case would be with a man who would make such a damning and foolish statement - killing is bad....confinement is another matter - perminent if neccesary. Nothing more irritating than the hypocrites that wail like witches of capital punishment...all the while they justify the perversity of mind with false social benevolence. EG. child and woman protection - meanwhile they do nothing to assist society other than insisting on executiong societies human failings and errors.