Capital Punishment

[Morgan]

ModerateCentrist,

You have no room to talk about ignoring statistics. I just quoted an article that showed violent gun deaths have gone up in Toronto in one year by 35% and you ignore it.

You did not answer my question...would you pay an extra tax levy to support murderers for life imprisonment? I'll bet not. As long as support for murderers comes out of the general Treasury, you are happy to wrap yourself in sanctity of life philosophy and "other noble and civilized reasons" I'm sure.

The reason that there are so many legal costs associated with violent criminals is because waivering bleeding heart ninnies question the judge and jury system of justice and can't believe that sometimes incorrigible evil exists in hearts of men. Ergo, countless appeals as second guessing of our justice system.

People like me would never put $ in the pockets of lawyers if we had our way. One appeal, that's it. Then it's" see you, don't bother to write, the Almighty Maker show will show mercy to you when you get there."

Exactly what "suffering" do lifers experience? Enlighten me on the subject.

Oh puhlease, more women would die if abortion was struck down...and that's why you support it...give me a break. I don't recall women dying left and right in my mother and grandmother's day due to no abortion access. Women and men respected themselves in those days and did not need abortion-on-demand and claim it as a "human right." How ironic.

As for liberal conspiracies...you're the only one that always cites that phrase when we discuss crime stats, no one else...maybe you believe it to be so? I don't...but I do believe that stats can be manipulated to prove a certain point.

[Moderate Centrist]

"You did not answer my question...would you pay an extra tax levy to support murderers for life imprisonment?"

Morgan

I don't understand the question. We currently have life in prison for prisoners with parole after 25 years. I see absolutely no reason to change the current system.

If you're asking should we keep murders in jail for their entire lives - I really don't care. Murders make up such a small percentage of criminals that it doesn't bother me one way or the other.

Like I said I don't live my life in fear of crime. I take the precautions I need and go about my business. Doesn't really worry me too much.

"Of Toronto's 60 killings in 2002, 28 were committed with firearms, a drop from 2001, when 33 of 60 murder victims were shot."

This definetly should be taken seriously - no doubt. But who are these people? The article seemed to suggest it was gang type stuff. Compare these numbers to the actual population of Toronto and I think you can begin to get a little perspective.

The article in the Sun still did not site the source of its' statistics unless I missed it or the Sun did the survey itself.

We're at an impass here. You and others seem to see violent crime as a huge problem in Canada that is out of control. I don't.

And there we are.

[Morgan]

1. ModerateCentristsaid:

You and others seem to see violent crime as a huge problem in Canada that is out of control. I don't.

I know violent is increasing but you don't want to believe it.

Criminal violence on the rise in Canada according to new Fraser Institute study, Nov.27/03

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.  The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

2. I believe that murderers should suffer consequences. Sitting in jail for 20-25 years getting a law degree and having sex once a week is not my idea of punishment to fit the crime.

Liberals who want to show mercy to murderers should pay an extra tax levy to pay for housing these blights to society and to babysit them with parole officers for life after release.

Showing mercy to murderers is a recent new pet hobby horse for bleeding heart liberals. Why don't they pay for their hobbies? Keeping murderers alive is not a contribution to society like fire, police, roads, schools. Keeping murderers alive is in keeping with a particular political philosophy, so adherents can pay to support this belief system.

For example, after Holly's murderer is caught, I don't want him to get a dime of regular tax money to extend his life beyond a trial and guilty verdict thank you very much. Those who want to save his soul, should pay for his incarceration. If there's as many anti-death penalty advocates as you and Goldie and Brainiac imply exist, there should be no problem raising funds. And those same murderers turn into highly productive people in such a short time, I'm told, that they could repay the money in no time flat. Maybe you abolitionists along with productive newly released murderers could set up a continually renewing murderers bursury fund?Saving murderers with focused tax payer funds becomes a win-win situation for all, don't you think?

[udawg]

I think the Southern states have it right. Make them work hard for their keep, and don't pay them for it either.

All the money they would have earned for their work, goes to pay for their incarceration. This way, we complete valuble public projects... hell, have them do private jobs too, and the equivalent amount that normal workers would be paid, goes to the justice system.

Then, if they want to work on a college degree or whatever, let them work on it in their spare time, like everyone else. They work, they get credit for money, and they can use their credit to pay for classes. No freeloading off the system. They want to get ahead, make them work for it, don't just give it to them.

[Moderate Centrist]

"I know violent is increasing but you don't want to believe it."

Morgan

For every source you provide saying violent crime is increasing I can produce one that says it isn't. I've already provided links to both Stats Can and Canadian Corrections which say crime isn't increasing.

So who is right Stats Can or the Frasier Institute. They can't both be right?

Why don't you email, write or visit Stats Can and tell them what they're doing wrong. That way I can have access to accurate statistics.

Another point. The death penalty is punishment for murder and perhaps treason. If you killed every murder that went through the Canadian penal system the effect would not even be noticeable to the average Canadian because crime is so rare.

If you want the death penalty to deter crime you must apply it to crimes that are common - domestic abuse, theft, fraud, assault and battery, drunk driving. Then it may lower the crime rate.

Another point - I personally do not fear violent crime. I take what precautions I can and let fate do the rest. The chances of me getting murdered are slim to none.

Another point - I am satisfied with the Canadian corrections system as it is now. I see no reason to change it.

I guess I can't really contribute much more to this arguement. You'll never convince me and I'll never convince you.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Heard comments on educating prisoners before that I agree with. Part of condition of parole should be self improvement, ie. becoming literate if not, and getting hischool/GED if not allready graduated. Learning tends to provoke introspection, like why am I doing this with my life, and it provides the con with employabillty after his release, so maybe he'll choose that option after his release.

Do believe in work gangs, or hard labour, whatever it's called. Even if it's simply digging a hole and filling it in the next day.

[Hugo]

To be honest, I don't mind if tax money keeps murderers alive. Human life is not to measurable in monetary terms anyway. What's a life worth - a million dollars, ten million, or only a thousand? Is my life worth more than yours, or less, and how do we determine that? The mind boggles at these questions, because life and money are not comparable.

To my mind, the money we pay to keep the scum of the human race alive is a price we pay to preserve our souls and our moral superiority to them. That cost is symbolic of the fact that we can see beyond financial costs and that we are compassionate and ethical enough to wish to preserve life at any cost.

I don't believe prisoners should be educated or rehabilitated while incarcerated. Law-abiding citizens have to save and borrow tens of thousands of dollars to get an education, and I don't see why they should have to pay for what a criminal gets for free. That is not fair.

Criminals are imprisoned in order to be punished. When one of my sons has been naughty, I don't punish him by letting him play some videogames and eat some candy, I punish him by assigning some menial chore, sending him to his room, or banning him from videogames or TV for a time. Punishment means hardship. Otherwise, what's the point?

I believe prisoners should do hard labour 14-16 hours a day, the profits from which (if there are any) can be split between the state (to offset the cost of their incarceration) and the victims or the families of the victims. Food, clothing, housing and medical care should be the minimum necessary to preserve life. Why should criminals be rewarded with cable TV, for instance, when there are hard-working and law-abiding people who can't afford it?

Rehabilitation comes after prison. I think that after a prisoner is paroled, it is up to the parole officer to help the prisoner find work, or get an education at his own expense. This makes the criminal no more privileged than other citizens - anyone can get help finding work or education. But while in prison, let the prisoner be punished for what he has done. This gives us a two-pronged attack on repeat offences, first, the shock of a miserable prison life to deter criminals from wanting to go back and then second, help to build a life without resorting to crime. Of course, release should be only if the prisoner cannot reasonably be deemed a threat to society.

[Brainiac]

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.

Yeah, I am starting to realize that. I hear a lot of talk about how the media is biased to the left and then when it comes to crime and legal issues the media is all of a sudden not a bad place to look.

[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.

If you say so.

Corrections statistics - who cares?- certainly criminals don't read them.

Criminals probably don't read a lot of things. What is your point?

You think Corrections statistics give police a greater sense of confidence when they patrol the streets of Toronto?

No. I never said that corrections statistics give Toronto Metro a greater sense of confidence. Do you think they should? Do you think Toronto Metro lacks confidence? I personally don't know any Toronto Police Officers who are terribly worried about the rise in the number of homicides in the city anymore than they need to be to solve the crime. It isn't a daily reality for them. The Statistics however might help some people who read the Sun chain of newspapers on a regular basis get a better perspective on the homicide situation in the country, that is what I am getting at. I point out the Sun because they have a tendency to really play up crime issues in the paper more than other news outlets.

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.

Life must seem so simply when your world is painted with such broad brush strokes.

As for the report that you cited from the Fraser Institute, you gave it a misleading title. The report said very little about the increase of violent crime in Canada. It was a report on how the gun registry is a failure. I would have to agree with that conclusion, but that is another issue. As for the one section of the report that talks about the violent crime increase in Canada, it gets its info from this source Crime Statistics in Canada, 2001 Juristat 22, 6, Statistics Canada I suggest you read it to put the claim the report made into perspective, and to see what sorts of violent crime are on the increase.

Police reported about 309,000 violent crimes in 2001, up 7,000 from 2000. This nudged the violent crime rate up 1%, the second consecutive increase after seven years of decline from 1993 to 1999. Prior to 1993, the violent crime rate had risen each year since 1977. The 2001 violent crime rate was 6% lower than a decade ago, but 52% higher than 20 years ago.

Minor assaults account for almost two-thirds of all violent crimes each year. In 2001, the rate of minor assaults advanced 1% and was the key factor in the rise in the total violent crime rate. The more serious categories of assault - assault with a weapon and aggravated assault - increased 5%, mainly because of a 7% increase in Quebec and a 14% jump in Saskatchewan.

So what should we do to all the people who commit minor assaults? Kill em?

If there's as many anti-death penalty advocates as you and Goldie and Brainiac imply exist, there should be no problem raising funds.

I don't recall ever saying there was a large or small number of anti-death penalty advocates. The idea that the death penalty is a partisan issue is almost as retarded as the idea of partisan politics itself. Trying to pigeon hole someones beliefs is pointless, that is unless they are a mindless fool who just takes in whatever idea their particular wing believes in.

Liberals who want to show mercy to murderers should pay an extra tax levy to pay for housing these blights to society and to babysit them with parole officers for life after release.

What about 'conservatives' who don't agree with a death penalty? Or do only liberals believe that it is a bad idea and conservatives think that it is the best thing in the world. If only everything was that simple, life would be so much more BORING!

[KrustyKidd]

Liberals who want to show mercy to murderers should pay an extra tax levy to pay for housing these blights to society and to babysit them with parole officers for life after release.

What about 'conservatives' who don't agree with a death penalty? Or do only liberals believe that it is a bad idea and conservatives think that it is the best thing in the world. If only everything was that simple, life would be so much more BORING!

And I would vote against everything so I could rake in and live in another country. Imagine voting against spending money for every Government Venture! Vote a 'NO' and they hand you a C note. What a life!

[Hydraboss]

bump

[August1991]

I'll bite.

After a quick look-see through this thread, I agree more or less with Hugo.

In principle, I'm against capital punishment. It's uncivilized, and mistakes happen too often. Nevertheless, I'm ultimately pragmatic about this question and I'd be willing to change my mind if I saw convincing evidence that it deters crime. I just haven't seen any.

As noted in the thread, it is not only the penalty that deters potential criminals but also the chance of it being imposed. There's little point in have capital punishment if criminals are never caught.

If we have capital punishment, it should apply to serious crimes only. If drug trafficers face a death sentence, they're more likely to kill the police officer who comes to arrest them.

While we're on this kind of topic, I'm in favour of free choice for abortion and I have no qualms about our government ordering soldiers to shoot to kill in a war.

Lastly, we usually put these topics in the morals and religion section.

[Wilber]

I would consider myself a conservative and I am against capital punishment. I don't really believe it is a deterrent to most people who commit murders and there are enough wrongful convictions on record to know that innocent people would end up being put to death. I am in favor of sentences for some murders where "life" does really mean life. No chance of parole, no faint hope clause. Their victims families should never have to hear the killer's names mentioned by the courts again.

If you believe that killing someone unless it is to defend other lives is immoral, institutionalizing killing won't make it moral. Therefore, I don't like the idea of capital punishment, not because I care whether some of these scumbags live or die but because of what it says about a society that practices it.

[apollo19]

I have to agree with the idea of capital punishment to an extent. My preference would be that it be an option for repeat offenders in instances where the original sentence was not too long (eg. rape, theft, etc). I would also like to see it be an option for people in prison for life where, as Wilber mentioned, it really is life without parole. Perhaps there could also be a way for prisoners who plead guilty to such a crime to request the punishment as well. On a side note, does the Charter itself protect against capital punishment? I may not know if there was a previous SCC decision on this, but reading the text of it I noticed Section 7 talks about the right to life within fundamental justice, but would this meaning change with a more liberally interprative court in the future?

[uOttawaMan]

I find the repeated use of the word "get/ getting tough on crime" humourous.

[Hydraboss]

I find the repeated use of the word "get/ getting tough on crime" humourous.

As do I. There hasn't been any form of "tough punishment" in this country for decades upon decades. Rape a child? 18 months (out in under a year). Murder someone? 7 years (out in 4). Criminals are people that decided to commit a crime after weighing the "risk vs reward" in their mind. Notice that I am not saying that they were rational, just that they made a conscious decision. The risk in this country is miniscule, therefore almost any reward seems to justify the crime.

Where I get a laugh is when people quote statistics from places like Texas. "They have the death penalty, and it hasn't stopped people from committing murder!" But how many murders didn't happen because people thought twice about the "reward"? Nobody wants to address that tidbit of information.

I fully support the death penalty (in case it wasn't obvious). I support it mainly because of the number of repeat serious offences, such as rape, murder, child molestation, drug dealing, etc.. Not for armed robbery, or grand theft auto. As for the number of innocent people that get caught in the system? Do they outnumber the innocent people that get caught in the crossfire from re-offence? I don't think so.

[Michael Hardner]

But how many murders didn't happen because people thought twice about the "reward"? Nobody wants to address that tidbit of information.

Actually, you're wrong. That question has been debated for a long time. Here's a well thought out analysis:

Death Penalty Info

I fully support the death penalty (in case it wasn't obvious). I support it mainly because of the number of repeat serious offences, such as rape, murder, child molestation, drug dealing, etc.. Not for armed robbery, or grand theft auto.

It's not clear to me what you're saying here. You support it because of offences other than murder ? Do you mean that you support its use for other crimes ?

As for the number of innocent people that get caught in the system? Do they outnumber the innocent people that get caught in the crossfire from re-offence? I don't think so.

That's a dangerous argument. The system is designed to err on the side of the innocent. I doubt there are any studies that compare murders by re-offenders versus wrongful executions.

[Hydraboss]

But how many murders didn't happen because people thought twice about the "reward"? Nobody wants to address that tidbit of information.

Actually, you're wrong. That question has been debated for a long time. Here's a well thought out analysis:

Death Penalty Info

Actually, I was referring to this thread.

I fully support the death penalty (in case it wasn't obvious). I support it mainly because of the number of repeat serious offences, such as rape, murder, child molestation, drug dealing, etc.. Not for armed robbery, or grand theft auto.

It's not clear to me what you're saying here. You support it because of offences other than murder ? Do you mean that you support its use for other crimes ?

Yes, I do. Serious crimes that endanger the lives of others.

As for the number of innocent people that get caught in the system? Do they outnumber the innocent people that get caught in the crossfire from re-offence? I don't think so.

That's a dangerous argument. The system is designed to err on the side of the innocent. I doubt there are any studies that compare murders by re-offenders versus wrongful executions.

The system is designed to err on the side of the innocent. But usually it just errs. The unjustice system in Canada does not protect the innocent. Why should the guilty walk free with my kids because the system is weak beyond belief? What protects my children? Where are their rights? They don't have any in this country because the system is too busy worrying about the feelings of dangerous criminals. If the occasional innocent is killed, how would that be any different from the innocents that are killed every year in this country because we are too scared to enforce justice? Why do we worry about rehabilitating the un- rehabilitatable? (sorry, is that even a word?) One moment of justified decision making, and that criminal will never reoffend. If there are any studies anywhere that compare re-offenders vs innocents, I would like to see them. The anti-capital crowd loves to cite this instance and that instance, but has anyone ever counted how many have died wrongly accused? If so, then how is it that this same crowd can recite from memory that only two or three murderers were actually reoffending? Ridiculous.

[betsy]

Perhaps we would not see such a dramatic crime increase if we have not treated juvenile offenders with such leniency.

Anyone remember the Canadian teen who got caned in Singapore for vandalism or shoplifting???

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, I do. Serious crimes that endanger the lives of others.

Really ? For drug dealing too ? All drugs or just some ? For child molestation ? For any type ?

I think it's too much. The idea that all crime will be eliminated by harsher penalties is simplistic and just wrong, and a full overhaul of the legal system would have to be undertaken to make this work.

It's not going to happen, nor should it.

The system is designed to err on the side of the innocent. But usually it just errs. The unjustice system in Canada does not protect the innocent. Why should the guilty walk free with my kids because the system is weak beyond belief? What protects my children? Where are their rights? They don't have any in this country because the system is too busy worrying about the feelings of dangerous criminals. If the occasional innocent is killed, how would that be any different from the innocents that are killed every year in this country because we are too scared to enforce justice? Why do we worry about rehabilitating the un- rehabilitatable? (sorry, is that even a word?) One moment of justified decision making, and that criminal will never reoffend. If there are any studies anywhere that compare re-offenders vs innocents, I would like to see them. The anti-capital crowd loves to cite this instance and that instance, but has anyone ever counted how many have died wrongly accused? If so, then how is it that this same crowd can recite from memory that only two or three murderers were actually reoffending? Ridiculous.

I'll admit that there probably haven't been many that were wrongly convicted but we have at least a few in Canada. The idea of making a system that executes people just to be on the safe side is ridiculous.

What's the point of trying to protect innocent people when we're executing them anyway ?

Also, the points you make about the justice system are well taken but you're talking mostly about perceptions rather than reality. Crime rates have fallen in recent years but people are more worried about crime than ever. I'd say we need to fix the system but also the perceptions of the system.

[uOttawaMan]

I find the repeated use of the word "get/ getting tough on crime" humourous.

I find it humourous because it's illogical.

It is not a logical step, to apply a term such as "getting tough" to a subject such as crime, which is a subject very broad and very complex as I'm learning in completing my Criminology degree.

The meaning of such a phrase is very vague. "Getting tough". What does that even mean?

To some it means giving mandatory sentences, bringing back capital punishment, longer sentences, more lockups.

To others it is focussing on the problems that cause crime. Poverty, smuggling, etc.

To others "Getting tough" on crime means finding new ways of dealing with crime, be it rehabiltative approaches, alternative approaches, a feeling in their minds of finally adressing the real issues in criminal "corrections" that have been ignored in the past.

The only common thread I find in the use of "getting tough" when applied to the subject of crime is that it refers to a changing of the institutional definition and approach to crime. Not some simplistic "lets punish more " meaning.

[Hicksey]

Before I put in my two cents, just let me say that both sides have made some very intelligent arguments and it was a joy to read this thread instead of skimming as I have been guilty of in the past. You should all pat yourselves on the back. You deserve it.

Having said that ...

I am in favor of limited use of the death penalty only for the most heinous, murderous offences that include any one or combination of excessive malice, premeditation, the murder of a peace officer, or the murder of persons numbering more than one. There are some crimes that demand the ultimate sentence. We shouldn't be doing it so people can take emotional solace in a death avenged, but to put out the message that as a society there are some crimes against society and its citizenry that cannot and will not be tolerated. Sometimes an example has to be set and only the most severe punishment can achieve this. I think such deaths should be open to the public and televised and that people in jail for other crimes should be required by law to witness one first hand wherever possible. All the lipservice we are paying to the subject means nothing to the people in question. Most people need to see it to quantify the seriousness of the consequences.

For other lesser offenses we need to start making a sentence mean something. When you are sentenced to ten years you should serve ten years. Life should mean life too. We haven't sent you to college, you're going to jail--so a free education is not on the ticket. Considering the jail isn't located in your living room, why should there be a television for you to watch? You're not sleeping in your own bed so why should you be allowed to have sex as if you were? The only visitors you should be allowed to see should be on the other side of a bulletproof glass pane. The best ounce of prevention comes from talking the talk on punishment, and then in practice walking the walk.

Personally, I have no problem with spending more on policing and jails. If we do we can make this discussion moot because we'll have already manufactured our own deterrant. Say what you will about turning society into a police state--I trust them sufficiently more than I trust criminals, so to make that transformation is a necessary evil.

[margrace]

What is the difference, in human assessment, between Capital Punishment and complete isolation for life?.

Wouldn't the second be more effective? Since punishment in some cases does not seem to work and killing someone for killing someone else seems to be a bit of an ozymoron Wouldn't it be better to take away someones rights to anything for the rest of their life be punishment for what they did to the person they killed? Just questioning this for others opinions.

[Renegade]

What is the difference, in human assessment, between Capital Punishment and complete isolation for life?.

Wouldn't the second be more effective? Since punishment in some cases does not seem to work and killing someone for killing someone else seems to be a bit of an ozymoron Wouldn't it be better to take away someones rights to anything for the rest of their life be punishment for what they did to the person they killed? Just questioning this for others opinions.

There are generally several reasons for punishing crimes: deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution.

With capital punishment, since rehabilitation is not a motivation, and deterrence has mixed results, there is still retribution as the motivation.

[Hicksey]

What is the difference, in human assessment, between Capital Punishment and complete isolation for life?.

Wouldn't the second be more effective? Since punishment in some cases does not seem to work and killing someone for killing someone else seems to be a bit of an ozymoron Wouldn't it be better to take away someones rights to anything for the rest of their life be punishment for what they did to the person they killed? Just questioning this for others opinions.

There are generally several reasons for punishing crimes: deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution.

With capital punishment, since rehabilitation is not a motivation, and deterrence has mixed results, there is still retribution as the motivation.

I still think that there are some crimes so malicious and devastating to society that we need to send the strongest possible message that they will not be tolerated--ever,