Should Canada have the death penalty?

Topaz · May 21, 2009

After hearing on the news that the 8 year girl that was kidnapped in April, in Woodstock Ontario, and today arresting the two involved and the 28 yr, guy sexually abusing and killing her, I think its time for the death penalty to come to Canada espcially when dealing with children. I know the Tory government is wanting longer times but when it comes to kids, they need to die for their crime. Agree or not?

Smallc · May 21, 2009

Disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right...ever. Also, you can never unkill someone if new evidence comes to light.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Smallc

Keepitsimple · May 21, 2009

When the death penalty was eliminated, we were supposed to get "Life in Prison". What we got was a maximum 25 year sentence with a faint-hope clause that was used all too frequently and allowed murderers out in 15 years. Add to that the fact that First Degree murder is almost always bargained down to second degree and further diluted with generous parole and statutory release and you can see why so many people are frustrated with how murderers are sentenced and the actual sentences that they serve. At a minimum, I want what was promised in the beginning.....lock up cold-blooded killers and throw away the key.

capricorn · May 21, 2009

I co-sign Keepitsimple's post. I like the idea of murderers rotting in a small cell 23 hours a day for the rest of their lives. Premature death is too good for such scum.

-----

I just hope we don't end up with another Karla Homolka sweetheart deal for the woman testifying against her boyfriend.

CANADIEN · May 21, 2009

After hearing on the news that the 8 year girl that was kidnapped in April, in Woodstock Ontario, and today arresting the two involved and the 28 yr, guy sexually abusing and killing her, I think its time for the death penalty to come to Canada espcially when dealing with children. I know the Tory government is wanting longer times but when it comes to kids, they need to die for their crime. Agree or not?

One word. Truscott.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2009

.... I know the Tory government is wanting longer times but when it comes to kids, they need to die for their crime. Agree or not?

The kids are already dying for their crimes in Canada...unlimited abortion! :lol:

Oleg Bach · May 21, 2009

The kids are already dying for their crimes in Canada...unlimited abortion!

I agree....but like my dad used to say ------------to my mother - you disipline them and hit them if you must - I don't want my kids to hate or fear me" so mum was the executioner - much like Canada is dad and America is mum - capital killing - has no place in an evolved world - confine those that are a danger - only God has the right to birth or death us - no man should take this position.

Borg · May 21, 2009

Yes

Are mistakes made? Yes.

However if you can no schitte prove the guilt - then kill the perpetrator.

Justice? Well a few years in jail and out you go.

Personally I think revenge is the nice part of justice

Borg

Oleg Bach · May 21, 2009

Yes
Are mistakes made? Yes.

However if you can no schitte prove the guilt - then kill the perpetrator.

Justice? Well a few years in jail and out you go.

Personally I think revenge is the nice part of justice

Borg

We kill other animals - to eat - we can not eat those we execute. Once we start to systemically kill our own speices -life and liberty leave...and hell rears it's ugly blood sucking head - Revenge is Justice - socialist lawyer do not believe that - but it is - confinement...is better than death - I have seen men who were held in 24 hour lock up - 15 minutes per day out of the box - They had lost use of their legs - and were gaunt corpses that could only stand their and peer through the plexi-glass......I would say that if someone killed one of mine - sure - I would like to do it myself and have bloody revenge - but it is a bitter trade and one never recovers ----those willing to kill - are those that are all ready dead ---------------no killing by the state - How do we expect our people to not kill each other - if those at the top - who are the fathers and mothers polically speaking - start killing ---------------------------I walked by the old Don Jail - there are bones all around under the sod - of men hanged..the place should be torn down - British law is property based - and the state thinks it owns us - once they start to execute the poorly behaved - they have made a statement - WE OWN ALL OF YOU - WATCH THIS ---- as they kill..bad idea.

Smallc · May 21, 2009

Personally I think revenge is the nice part of justice

Revenge should have nothing to do with justice.

Borg · May 21, 2009

Revenge should have nothing to do with justice.

And why is that?

I watched an execution in Saudi about 20 years ago - the family of the victim were cheering after the criminal was dead. Seems they quite enjoyed the end result

I suspect there are those in this country that would be quite happy to see the perpetrator that caused them their grief meet his/her end.

Then again - perhaps they are not as genteel, educated or as thoughtful as you. They simply want the asshole dead.

Borg

Edited May 21, 2009 by Borg

Smallc · May 21, 2009

I suspect there are those in this country that would be quite happy to see the perpetrator that caused them their grief meet his/her end.
Then again - perhaps they are not as genteel, educated or as thoughtful as you. They simply want the asshole dead.

As I said, two wrongs don't make a right. Taking the life of a murderer does not fix anything. There is nothing just about revenge because there is nothing morally and ethically right about revenge. Perverting the definition of the word justice doesn't make your definition true. I find it interesting, though, that you want a model similar to that in Saudi Arabia.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Smallc

xul · May 21, 2009

I like the idea of murderers rotting in a small cell 23 hours a day for the rest of their lives.

After two years of observation in this forum, honestly, I have an impression that if the two bosses of the CPCs of both side of the Pacific Ocean can seat together and exchange their ture ideas(not their political slogans) of their "universal value of human rights" frankly, they will find out that they will more fit to be pals each other than to be foes on this issue......

Nonetheless, if you have read Smallc's post correctly, you will find that "his kinds" don't really go against death penalty itself, but just worry about that not every murderers convicted is a real murderer, like the dozens of innocent "infanticides" who were put into jail by the evidences from an incapable pathologist in Toronto years ago.

Edited May 21, 2009 by xul

Oleg Bach · May 21, 2009

Revenge should have nothing to do with justice.

Legalism should not define evil as ecceptable. Revenge is the scale that create a fair playing field - it does not mean brutal revenge - It should mean that when you walk into a court and are offended by someone - who brings about unwarranted harm and abuse - YOU should be able to walk out knowing that the bad guy suffered a conviction - The way the world is now - evil is respected..which is bull shit - you do not harbour evil and persecute the good - because of economic - religeous or social reasons - We were constantly approached by lawyers who would say "you do not know the law" - my dumber youger brother would say "I know the diference between right and wrong" They resented the statement - they did not care about justice and they frowned on revenge - The more honest lawyer would say "revenge is justice"

Smallc · May 21, 2009

Nonetheless, if you have read Smallc's post correctly, you will find that "his kinds" don't really go against death penalty itself

Well, my kind may not, but I do find something fundamentally wrong with killing other human beings...no matter what they've done. It's partly because of the risk of killing innocent people, but it's also because I don't think it's our place to judge such things....and as I keep saying, two wrongs don't make a right.

Borg · May 21, 2009

but it's also because I don't think it's our place to judge such things....and as I keep saying, two wrongs don't make a right.

Not our place? Then who? God?

I cannot wait that long - I want my justice - your revenge - NOW!

Borg

Smallc · May 21, 2009

Not our place? Then who? God?

Yes, in fact. If there is such a being (and i believe there is) it is the place of that being to judge how we performed as human beings. I see nothing wrong with us locking people away to keep society safe, but I don't see where we think we have the right to end a life....no matter what they did.

Oleg Bach · May 21, 2009

Yes, in fact. If there is such a being (and i believe there is) it is the place of that being to judge how we performed as human beings. I see nothing wrong with us locking people away to keep society safe, but I don't see where we think we have the right to end a life....no matter what they did.

Look at Saudi Arabia - they will beat a confession out of you - then torment you - then chop of your hands or head or both - we are not them - This is a society that was based in Christian doctrine - we do not kill needlessly.. those in Canada that insist on the death penalty - should apply for Saudi citizenship and have their lusts fufilled.

Machjo · May 21, 2009

I'd be in favour of the death penalty for murder and arson, and possibly certain other crimes, all with the option of life imprisonment, as per the judge's good judgement taking various factors into account.

However, I question the motives of the OP. If the motive is justice, I support it. if the motive is vengeance, then no.

As for the risk of executing an innocent, yes, the risk is always there, but so it is for any other crime. That alone is not a reason to execute justice if there is evidence to find him guilty beyond resonable doubt.

For the sake of fairness to the convict, though, I would say that any such judgement would need to be carried out within 48 hours at most, since it's goal should still not be to traumatize him, but merely to set an example to the rest of society. As such, if it cannot be carried out within 48 hours, the execution should be called off, and it automatically converts to life imprisonment, the objective being to not torture the convict indefinitely making him spend months on end on death row.

As for religious concerns, I don't believe 'turn the other cheek' applies to the government. Yes, as individuals, we are to forgive our neighbour. But as a society, the body politic is there to carry out justice.

Smallc · May 21, 2009

Execution is not necessary for justice to be done. It accomplishes nothing aside from vengance.

CANADIEN · May 21, 2009

Yes
Are mistakes made? Yes.

However if you can no schitte prove the guilt - then kill the perpetrator.

Justice? Well a few years in jail and out you go.

Personally I think revenge is the nice part of justice

Borg

Once again. Truscott. Proven guilty by a jury of his peers, beyond resonable doubts. Sentenced to death, with the sentence commuted not out of any doubt but because of his age.

Oleg Bach · May 21, 2009

I remember hunting as a kid - I was distressed by the suffering of the animal if not killed quickly - My premise with ending life is that it has to be so swift - that the creature does not even know it has died..having said that - You do not raise the dead by creating more dead. Capital punishment, is not a deterent. Those that kill - either premeditate (meaning they are the walking dead) - crimes of rage and passion - which is simply a horrific mistake - and then accident - which is the lack of careing for others. The numbers do not speak when it comes to less murders via more state murders - we as a society either kill - or we do not...."Thou shall not kill" - smart rule - but we wage war for fun and profit - Plus there is an addictive quality to killing- If the state developes a taste for blood - it will want more and the numbers of executions will incrimentally increase - and with the increase in numbers - more innocent people will die and or suffer...We as a species are not intelligent enough to make decisions on life and death of our human brothers.

August1991 · May 21, 2009

Steven Truscott? Who is he?

-----

IMV, we should impose the death penalty if it deters people from committing such horrific crimes - while accepting that the State may make mistakes.

jdobbin · May 21, 2009

IMV, we should impose the death penalty if it deters people from committing such horrific crimes - while accepting that the State may make mistakes.

I am surprised you haven't said the death penalty should be privatized.

Oleg Bach · May 21, 2009

Steven Truscott? Who is he?
-----

IMV, we should impose the death penalty if it deters people from committing such horrific crimes - while accepting that the State may make mistakes.

Yah I remember the Truscott case when I was a kid - he was 13 years old - they tormented him for his whole life - and in the end..said sorry - lucky they did not hang him. From what I know they never clearly said he was innocent----at well over 50 years of age - but that he was not guilty....human passion - hate and rage is not to avenge those that are murdered but to - give satisfaction to those who want the death penalty ( are people who are capable of murder themselves) because they also like killing.