Tories Contradict Themselves on Death Penalty

[Oleg Bach]

I don't know you can be sure who is guilty beyond doubt in terms of the death penalty. I don't want Pickton to go free if he is found guilty. I just don't want him to be executed if it means that David Milgaard and Donald Marshall die as well in the haste to clear death row.

Put a killer that killed with forthought or within a hateful or sadistic rage - in a steel box and let them age....being buried alive in a jail cell is the death penalty.....if convicted - no cable and no rights - and no transvestite girlfriends with hormonally induced tits..confinement means confinement - take Paul Bernardo for instance - he lounges and saves his legs..watch TV . and I am sure has devised some way of having some sort of sex along with other human pleasures - denied them everything but the abilty to breath.

[jdobbin]

The guy committed murder in a place where death is the penalty. IT is not an absurd punishment for the crime. It is not like a woman getting stoned to death for being alone in a room with a single man, or getting 10 years in jail for 2 joints of weed. I would rather the Cdn Govt. help Mark Emery than get involved in this.

We stand for all Canadian citizens or none. The death penalty would have seen the execution of several innocent Canadians over the last years. I'd rather someone serve a life sentence than take their life and find out later that his conviction was incorrect.

[MontyBurns]

I don't know you can be sure who is guilty beyond doubt in terms of the death penalty. I don't want Pickton to go free if he is found guilty. I just don't want him to be executed if it means that David Milgaard and Donald Marshall die as well in the haste to clear death row.

Maybe execution should only be reserved for extremely serious crimes such as mass murder and gay advocacy where there is no doubt that they have committed these atrocities.

[jdobbin]

Maybe execution should only be reserved for extremely serious crimes such as mass murder and gay advocacy where there is no doubt that they have committed these atrocities.

I have seen too many case where there was no doubt of the person's guilt and they later were found to be innocent.

[MontyBurns]

I have seen too many case where there was no doubt of the person's guilt and they later were found to be innocent.

Yeah. Nobody's perfect. At least we will get mostly mass murderers and gay advocates.

[Keepitsimple]

Let's not forget how narrow the vopte was to maintain the abolition of the death penalty in Canada. In 1987, a free vote regarding the reinstatement of the death penalty was held in the House of Commons. The result of the vote was in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty, 148 to127. If I remember correctly, the Liberals vote was "whipped" meaning most, if not all Liberals were forced to vote against the death penalty. If Parliamentarians had been allowed to express the will of the constituents, the death penalty would still be in force in Canada - albeit only for egregious and heinous crimes or the killing of a police officer.

[jdobbin]

Let's not forget how narrow the vopte was to maintain the abolition of the death penalty in Canada. In 1987, a free vote regarding the reinstatement of the death penalty was held in the House of Commons. The result of the vote was in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty, 148 to127. If I remember correctly, the Liberals vote was "whipped" meaning most, if not all Liberals were forced to vote against the death penalty. If Parliamentarians had been allowed to express the will of the constituents, the death penalty would still be in force in Canada - albeit only for egregious and heinous crimes or the killing of a police officer.

Another attempt to smear the Liberals and re-write history. It was a free vote in 1987 not a whipped vote. Your memory is very partisan.

http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php

A motion to reintroduce capital punishment was debated in the House of Commons in 1987. On June 30, the motion was soundly defeated on a free vote (148-127), despite public opinion polls indicating majority support for the death penalty.

[guyser]

Let's not forget how narrow the vopte was to maintain the abolition of the death penalty in Canada. In 1987, a free vote regarding the reinstatement of the death penalty was held in the House of Commons. The result of the vote was in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty, 148 to127. If I remember correctly, the Liberals vote was "whipped" meaning most, if not all Liberals were forced to vote against the death penalty. If Parliamentarians had been allowed to express the will of the constituents, the death penalty would still be in force in Canada - albeit only for egregious and heinous crimes or the killing of a police officer.

I dont know if the vote was whipped or not. But neither do we know if it would have passed.

However, I have never understood that clause about killing a police officer. It puts others above the average citizen. Kill me or you, 20 years, kill a cop, death penalty. Never could figure that out. Convenience store workers get killed more often than cops, maybe we could have put them in there.

In this country when capital punishment was a law, the ones with a gun (cops) to defend themselves were privy to more "justice" than those who could not carry a gun.

[Who's Doing What?]

We stand for all Canadian citizens or none. The death penalty would have seen the execution of several innocent Canadians over the last years. I'd rather someone serve a life sentence than take their life and find out later that his conviction was incorrect.

If there is enough proof for it to be unrefutable, I would much rather have the individual in question removed from the human gene pool.

[Keepitsimple]

Another attempt to smear the Liberals and re-write history. It was a free vote in 1987 not a whipped vote. Your memory is very partisan.

http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php

You are technically cforrect in that the original vote on Capital Punishment in 1976 was indeed a free vote - it was a close one (131-124) with Liberals and Conservatives voting on both sides of the issues while the NDP voted as a block in favour of abolition. But as you know, there was a follow up vote in 1989 and this was supposed to be another free vote. I'm wondering if you will retract your statement after viewing this interesting video from the CBC archives. You'll find that in the 1989 "free" vote, all but one of the Liberals and all NDP members voted in favour of abolition. How could this possibly happen if it was not a whipped vote? It seems that the Conservatives were the only party to truly represent their constituents. So.......did I really attempt to smear the Liberals and re-write history?

Video Link to the 1989 vote: http://archives.cbc.ca/society/crime_justice/clip/625-3345/

Video Link to the original 1976 vote: http://archives.cbc.ca/on_this_day/07/14/

Edited March 15, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Drea]

If there is enough proof for it to be unrefutable, I would much rather have the individual in question removed from the human gene pool.

But life in prison is "removing them from the gene pool". Their "bad" genes never get passed down.

I would rather let a guilty person live than cause an innocent person to die. Always.

[jdobbin]

I'm wondering if you will retract your statement after viewing this interesting video from the CBC archives. You'll find that in the "free" vote, all but one of the Liberals and all NDP members voted in favour of abolition. How could this possibly happen if it was not a whipped vote? It seems that the Conservatives were the only party to truly represent their constituents. So.......did I really attempt to smear the Liberals and re-write history?

Link: http://archives.cbc.ca/society/crime_justice/clip/625-3345/

It was a free vote. You said whipped vote which is a lie. No person was forced to vote against their personal wishes, no person was punished for their vote. Stop smearing a vote which was called one of Parliament's finest hours in terms of debate, in terms of non-partisanship and in terms of courage. Popular opinion was for the death penalty and all three leaders of the major parties spoke against it and gave reasoned answers as to why.

This another right wing attempt to re-write history and an attempt to say that only the Tories had a free vote. It's bunk and you should retract what you've said because it an out and out lie. Read any archived material from the Globe, the Star, Macleans or political histories at the time and they all say it was one of the truest free votes in Parliamentary history and one of the finest debates of all time.

Even better, read Mulroney's biography because he said he was proud of all the parties for letting their members vote their conscience on the matter. He certainly didn't take a page from today's right wing playbook and say that the Liberals and NDP whipped their votes and would punish people who didn't vote the party line.

Edited March 15, 2008 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

But life in prison is "removing them from the gene pool". Their "bad" genes never get passed down.

Conjugal visits in prison are allowed. I don't know if this privilege is extended to convicted murderers though. I would be repulsed at the likes of Bernardo or Pickton allowed visits from the "missus".

"France and Canada allow prisoners who have earned the right to a conjugal visit to stay in decorated home-like apartments during extended visits."

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

[jdobbin]

Conjugal visits in prison are allowed. I don't know if this privilege is extended to convicted murderers though. I would be repulsed at the likes of Bernardo or Pickton allowed visits from the "missus".

Conjugal visits for convicted murderers is not allowed in Canada. This issue has been raised with Bernardo a few times since he often gets marriage proposals.

[Keepitsimple]

It was a free vote. You said whipped vote which is a lie. No person was forced to vote against their personal wishes, no person was punished for their vote. Stop smearing a vote which was called one of Parliament's finest hours in terms of debate, in terms of non-partisanship and in terms of courage. Popular opinion was for the death penalty and all three leaders of the major parties spoke against it and gave reasoned answers as to why.

This another right wing attempt to re-write history and an attempt to say that only the Tories had a free vote. It's bunk and you should retract what you've said because it an out and out lie. Read any archived material from the Globe, the Star, Macleans or political histories at the time and they all say it was one of the truest free votes in Parliamentary history and one of the finest debates of all time.

Even better, read Mulroney's biography because he said he was proud of all the parties for letting their members vote their conscience on the matter. He certainly didn't take a page from today's right wing playbook and say that the Liberals and NDP whipped their votes and would punish people who didn't vote the party line.

Then how can you possibly account for all but one Liberal voting against the death penalty while 127 Parliamentarians voted in favour? Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the probability of that happening is mind-numbing. All but one........and keep in mind, our debate was only to do with the death penalty for those accused of first degree murder of policemen or prison guards. Having said all this, I expect that if we had a similar vote today, that vote would not be close at all - it would overwhelmingly support the status quo.

[Pliny]

It was a free vote. You said whipped vote which is a lie. No person was forced to vote against their personal wishes, no person was punished for their vote. Stop smearing a vote which was called one of Parliament's finest hours in terms of debate, in terms of non-partisanship and in terms of courage. Popular opinion was for the death penalty and all three leaders of the major parties spoke against it and gave reasoned answers as to why.

This another right wing attempt to re-write history and an attempt to say that only the Tories had a free vote. It's bunk and you should retract what you've said because it an out and out lie. Read any archived material from the Globe, the Star, Macleans or political histories at the time and they all say it was one of the truest free votes in Parliamentary history and one of the finest debates of all time.

Even better, read Mulroney's biography because he said he was proud of all the parties for letting their members vote their conscience on the matter. He certainly didn't take a page from today's right wing playbook and say that the Liberals and NDP whipped their votes and would punish people who didn't vote the party line.

Who was the Liberal that voted for the death penalty? Is that known?

Parties do tend to be partisan anyway and will vote against the governing party out of principle.

[jdobbin]

Then how can you possibly account for all but one Liberal voting against the death penalty while 127 Parliamentarians voted in favour? Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the probability of that happening is mind-numbing. All but one........and keep in mind, our debate was only to do with the death penalty for those accused of first degree murder of policemen or prison guards. Having said all this, I expect that if we had a similar vote today, that vote would not be close at all - it would overwhelmingly support the status quo.

If you had followed the debates back then, you would have heard every MP account for how they voted. It went on for hours and hour and hours and each gave their reasons. None mentioned it was because it was a whipped vote. None said it was because they would have been punished. All the leaders told their parties it was matter for their conscience.

Right now now all I am hearing is a right wing smear about whether it was a free vote or not. Please cite one MP back then that said later that they voted because the party leader whipped the vote.

This theory that it was a secret whipped vote is the same tripe we hear on September 11 conspiracy threads.

Edited March 15, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Who was the Liberal that voted for the death penalty? Is that known?

Parties do tend to be partisan anyway and will vote against the governing party out of principle.

Parties do tend to be partisan. That is why they are parties.

I can't recall the Liberal MP that supported the death penalty in the free vote. I am fairly certain it was an MP from Ontario.

The death penalty was so controversial an issue that both Trudeau and Mulroney had free votes on the issue. There was a fear that if the vote was whipped for any party (given the support the death penalty had at the time) that there would be a backlash against that party. Each MP went to great lengths to explain why the supported it and why they didn't.

If you read Hansard which is available online, you can see the very personal reasons given by MPs. The three leader gave very impassioned speeches. Read Mulroney's in particular.

I don't subscribe to the present day partisan theory that the 1987 vote was whipped or that pressure was put on any MP by the party. Anyone who was paying attention to the debates back then knows that the issue was so completely controversial that each MP had to stand up and make their view known. There was no hiding behind party discipline. If someone voted against what the majority of their constituents, they had to give a legitimate reason other than the party made me do it.

Edited March 15, 2008 by jdobbin

[mcqueen625]

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...eRWGkBFrRDI3I8A

The Tories have a contradictory policy on the death penalty and it is now becoming obvious that many in his own party don't like it.

For starters if a Canadian makes the choice to break the law while in a foreign country, they should not look to the Canadian government and the taxpayers of this country to bail them out of whatever they have gotten themselves into. As for the death penalty, I don't agree with it personally, BUT I feel that when Canada did away with the death penalty it should have been replaced with a sentence of natural life in prison. Anyone who commits this type of crime, the only way they should get out of prison, is in a prone position, inside a pine box.

With the appointment of bleeding-hearts to the judiciary, our justice system has become nothing but a joke. Just this week I heard on the radio where a pedophile with multiple convictions, and who has refused treatment while in prison, was denied parole because of the refusals, and now his time is up and they have to set him free even though the experts are predicting that it is a 100% certainty that he will re-offend. Something is terribly wrong when we have a justice system that is supposed to protect the public, and we allow someone to go free that we know will harm more children.

We also have the situation whereby Canadians who are convicted of crimes in other countries, and the first thing they do is apply to serve their sentence in a Canadian prison, because they know that our justice system is far too lenient and will oftentimes allow them back on our streets long before their sentence is complete. We need to change our justice system, build more prisons, and keep dangerous offenders, including pedophiles, behind bars until they die.

[Wilber]

For starters if a Canadian makes the choice to break the law while in a foreign country, they should not look to the Canadian government and the taxpayers of this country to bail them out of whatever they have gotten themselves into.

It is the Canadian governments responsibility to do what it can for its citizens whatever they get into. Canadians need to have confidence in their government when they travel abroad. The last thing they want is politicians making judgments based on their own personal morality as to which citizens they will represent and which they will not.

[guyser]

For starters if a Canadian makes the choice to break the law while in a foreign country, they should not look to the Canadian government and the taxpayers of this country to bail them out of whatever they have gotten themselves into.

They can try, but its worthless.

The Consulate will respond and ensure that a fair trial is performed , and that law are followed.

In the case of a death penalty conviction the gov would and should appeal for a different sentence, although they may not be successful

We also have the situation whereby Canadians who are convicted of crimes in other countries, and the first thing they do is apply to serve their sentence in a Canadian prison, because they know that our justice system is far too lenient and will oftentimes allow them back on our streets long before their sentence is complete. We need to change our justice system, build more prisons, and keep dangerous offenders, including pedophiles, behind bars until they die.

And we allow other nationalities to be sent to serve their sentence on home soil. I understand that all transfers come with agreements that they will not be allowed out willy nilly. Standards are in place.

[jdobbin]

For starters if a Canadian makes the choice to break the law while in a foreign country, they should not look to the Canadian government and the taxpayers of this country to bail them out of whatever they have gotten themselves into. As for the death penalty, I don't agree with it personally, BUT I feel that when Canada did away with the death penalty it should have been replaced with a sentence of natural life in prison. Anyone who commits this type of crime, the only way they should get out of prison, is in a prone position, inside a pine box.

Part of being a citizen of a country is knowing that your country will not shrug its shoulders of you are incarcerated. This is what is happening in Mexico where a Canadian woman remains imprisoned with no charges. The Tory government is not doing its job and Paul Martin Jr has had to go down there to advocate for.

Canada is against the death penalty. The government's job at a bare minimum is to ask for clemency in regards to the death penalty for Canadians in a foreign country. Is it no wonder that Saudi Arabia asks why there is an inconsistency when Canada does nothing about Canadians in the U.S. but has a problem with them?

With the appointment of bleeding-hearts to the judiciary, our justice system has become nothing but a joke. Just this week I heard on the radio where a pedophile with multiple convictions, and who has refused treatment while in prison, was denied parole because of the refusals, and now his time is up and they have to set him free even though the experts are predicting that it is a 100% certainty that he will re-offend. Something is terribly wrong when we have a justice system that is supposed to protect the public, and we allow someone to go free that we know will harm more children.

The law allows for someone to be kept in prison as a dangerous offender. It is up to the Crown, not the judiciary to bring that case to the court.

We also have the situation whereby Canadians who are convicted of crimes in other countries, and the first thing they do is apply to serve their sentence in a Canadian prison, because they know that our justice system is far too lenient and will oftentimes allow them back on our streets long before their sentence is complete. We need to change our justice system, build more prisons, and keep dangerous offenders, including pedophiles, behind bars until they die.

Canada already has one of the largest populations in the world behind bars. I expect that it will grow larger still.

[capricorn]

The Tory government is not doing its job and Paul Martin Jr has had to go down there to advocate for.

I'm sure you're privy to all the government's actions going on in the background on this case.

As for Paul Martin, yes it was a nice gesture on his part. He was half an hour from the prison and did not "have to go down there" as you suggest. Had he not been in Mexico City drumming up business, I doubt very much he would have made a special trip to visit Ms. Martin. Anyway, since he hasn't been seen in the House for over 7 months, it's about time he does something to earn his MP's paycheck.

Canada already has one of the largest populations in the world behind bars. I expect that it will grow larger still.

In order to scale back on prisons as the Liberals did, it was necessary to liberate as many criminals as possible early and to hand out suspended sentences in order to keep jail population down. If Canada is to have a justice system that metes out proper sentences for criminal offences more jails are needed. So be it.

[jdobbin]

I'm sure you're privy to all the government's actions going on in the background on this case.

I know what this lady says and it seems that she has gotten very little in help from the government. It was a former Liberal MP that even drew the attention of the media to what was happening.

http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/Article...y.aspx?e=943625

As for Paul Martin, yes it was a nice gesture on his part. He was half an hour from the prison and did not "have to go down there" as you suggest. Had he not been in Mexico City drumming up business, I doubt very much he would have made a special trip to visit Ms. Martin. Anyway, since he hasn't been seen in the House for over 7 months, it's about time he does something to earn his MP's paycheck.

Agreed that he should be doing his job or vacating his seat.

Now, why did Brenda Martin have to wait for Paul Macklin to advocate for her.

In order to scale back on prisons as the Liberals did, it was necessary to liberate as many criminals as possible early and to hand out suspended sentences in order to keep jail population down. If Canada is to have a justice system that metes out proper sentences for criminal offences more jails are needed. So be it.

Where is your citation that prisons were scaled back during the Liberal years?

Edited March 15, 2008 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

Where is your citation that prisons were scaled back during the Liberal years?

There is no cite to provide. In spite of the fact that more criminals were being charged, the Liberals never built one single prison to accommodate the growing prison population. Now we have nowhere to house the increasing number of convicted criminals.

However, the Liberals did close the women's prison in Kingston in 2000.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007...bel-mcneil.html