Should Canada have the death penalty?

[WIP]

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

Since you are so concerned about the unborn, I expect you to start supporting efforts to reduce child poverty and extend your benevolence to the increased number of children who will be in need if you right wingers actually get your wish on banning abortion.

[jdobbin]

Would that be because you know that the majority of Canadians might disagree? That since "the way it is" supports your own personal views then populist democracy be damned?

It is because I know that there may be contradictory referenda that may make it impossible to do anything.

Case in point: There were five propositions on ending the deficit in California last Tuesday. They were defeated. There is also a law on the books that no defiicits can be run. So, how do you solve that problem?

Explain to me how that is not simple elitism.

Direct democracy with contradictory outcomes is not elitist. It is chaos and makes for an ungovernable jurisdiction.

Edited May 21, 2009 by jdobbin

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Look at the Swiss system, which is direct democracy, before any assumptions are made.

[xul]

It seems our dear lawyers are not the only ones who know how to play the system in hands....

Steps retraced in Tori search

Now into its second day, police continue to search for the remains of 8-year-old Tori. They maintain the girl was killed six weeks ago, hours after her abduction in Woodstock, about 80 kilometres from the site now being investigated.

No body, no conviction....the charged murderer seems perfectly know this. It seems McClintic has confessed to the abduction and turned Rafferty in, but she just didn't know where is the final place Rafferty put the victim and Rafferty refused to cooperate with police.

But if people continues to let the emotional blows develope unchecked, like Americans did after the terrorists attack years ago, I think Canadian will soon need to seek the resorts like water-boarding for help...

Edited May 21, 2009 by xul

[Smallc]

Would that be because you know that the majority of Canadians might disagree?

It doesn't matter. If something is wrong, then it shouldn't be up for a vote...ever. Killing is morally and ethically wrong...and it doesn't matter who is being killed or in whose name it's being done.

[Smallc]

There is a fault with your logic.

You can let someone out of jail if they're guilty. You can't unkill them.

[jdobbin]

Look at the Swiss system, which is direct democracy, before any assumptions are made.

Constitutional amendments in Switzerland require a double majority.

[segnosaur]

There is a fault with your logic.

You can let someone out of jail if they're guilty. You can't unkill them.

Ummm....

Go back and look at my post.

When I referred to the 'fault' with the previous poster's logic, I was referring specifically to his argument: if its wrong for an individual to do something, it should be wrong for the government. I made it very very clear that that was the issue I was addressing.

At no point did I suggest the previous poster was wrong because all convicted people are actually guilty; in fact, I even pointed out that that the risk of wrongful conviction was a valid reason to oppose the death penalty.

Your statement above is pretty useless in that it A: brings up a point that has already been discussed, and B: doesn't actually address the content of my post.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You can let someone out of jail if they're guilty. You can't unkill them.

Ummm....

Go back and look at my post.

When I referred to the 'fault' with the previous poster's logic, I was referring specifically to his argument: if its wrong for an individual to do something, it should be wrong for the government. I made it very very clear that that was the issue I was addressing.

At no point did I suggest the previous poster was wrong because all convicted people are actually guilty; in fact, I even pointed out that that the risk of wrongful conviction was a valid reason to oppose the death penalty.

Your statement above is pretty useless in that it A: brings up a point that has already been discussed, and B: doesn't actually address the content of my post.

My point is that that government should have no more right than the citizen. In fact to my mind that concept is very likely the root cause of a great many flaws within our society.

The right of an individual must always prevail over the privilege of another. Rights must be the foundation from which all laws are derived and deemed justifiable and valid. Paramount right can be described as the right to life itself. Rights need to be defined and ratified by the citizens before any real attempt at reforms can take place. Those reforms may be capable of correcting some of the wrongs within our society. Such things as the definition of the individual come to mind, because there is a very real difference between the true natural citizen and that of the legal citizen. One is an individual and the other is not. Those two citizens are the core of our problems. One is subject to mortality and the other is not. So how is it that the one who dies can be punished and the one that does not is not? This is a fundamental question that rises as an insurmountable wall to the citizenry. To resolve it will change the direction of our society.

[M.Dancer]

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

The assumption that capital punishment is wrong is wrong. It is neither good or bad.

The second statement is correct.

[kuzadd]

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?

Disagree. It won't deter a dam thing. And given the corruption within the police forces, rcmps, and political pressure to solve crimes we have seen innocents found guilty, some cleared and some still sit and rot,

It is a hot button issue that makes the "self-righteous" feel righteous but accomplishes zero.

[capricorn]

It is a hot button issue that makes the "self-righteous" feel righteous but accomplishes zero.

Every time heinous crimes are committed, such as in the case of Tori's abduction and murder, the death penalty issue invariably pops up. I don't think it's about self righteousness at all. I think it's a demonstration of a feeling of helplessness and horror in the face of such evil. It's all the more frustrating that the little one's body has not yet been found. Just look at her mother's words. "I want the killers dead." Those are not the words of a self-righteous person but words from one in agony over the loss of her precious daughter.

[segnosaur]

When I referred to the 'fault' with the previous poster's logic, I was referring specifically to his argument: if its wrong for an individual to do something, it should be wrong for the government. I made it very very clear that that was the issue I was addressing.

My point is that that government should have no more right than the citizen. In fact to my mind that concept is very likely the root cause of a great many flaws within our society.

Congratulations... you just repeated yourself without addressing any of the points I brought up. Hurrah!

Once again... We already have cases where the government is assigned certain rights than an individual does not have. I gave the example where an individual who holds someone against their will is guilty of kidnapping, but a government can hold a convicted person in jail against their will without it being considered 'wrong'.

So we already have cases where the government can do something private citizens cannot. Applying the death penalty is not a difference in concept, just a difference in degrees.

The right of an individual must always prevail over the privilege of another. Rights must be the foundation from which all laws are derived and deemed justifiable and valid. Paramount right can be described as the right to life itself.

If you want to argue that 'life' is such an important right that it can never be taken away, that's fine... its a valid opinion (although not one that everyone will share). But that is not the same argument that you made before (that a government cannot do things a private citizen cannot.)

Edited May 22, 2009 by segnosaur

[Dave_ON]

My point is that that government should have no more right than the citizen. In fact to my mind that concept is very likely the root cause of a great many flaws within our society.

Congratulations... you just repeated yourself without addressing any of the points I brought up. Hurrah!

Once again... We already have cases where the government is assigned certain rights than an individual does not have. I gave the example where an individual who holds someone against their will is guilty of kidnapping, but a government can hold a convicted person in jail against their will without it being considered 'wrong'.

So we already have cases where the government can do something private citizens cannot. Applying the death penalty is not a difference in concept, just a difference in degrees.

You are quite correct that the government is, and IMV should be, endowed with certain privileges over and above the rights of an individual. These are necessary that better part of society can benefit as a whole. The point I think is important not to forget that while they do have this power, they also have the responsibility to make restitution when mistakes are made. Wrongful imprisonment is far easier to make up for than is a wrongful execution. The question remains who is to be held responsible for what would essentially be a state murder? How is the family of the wrongfully executed to receive justice? We have seen many examples of wrongful imprisonment that have cost the taxpayers dearly. How much more would this cost the taxpayers to try and make up for a wrongful execution? No amount of money would fill the void left in the lives of the family of the wrongfully convicted.

My concern for capital punishment is not for the guilty, it’s the potential and irrevocable damage it could do to the innocent and the lives of their families. For this reason we have to remain cool headed about such things, and as angry as cases like Tori Stafford can make us, we can't let our emotions get in the way of our better judgment. The high probability of the wrong person being executed is too high a price to pay for what limited deterrent and sense of justice capital punishment would bring us.

[Muddy]

Since you are so concerned about the unborn, I expect you to start supporting efforts to reduce child poverty and extend your benevolence to the increased number of children who will be in need if you right wingers actually get your wish on banning abortion.

[/quote

Why do you believe that only right wingers as you put it are anti abortion? i am considered a right winger and I am not a fervent anti abortion ,yet my NDP friend is definately anti abortion all the way. Of course this does not make him populer within the party.

[eyeball]

My concern for capital punishment is not for the guilty, it’s the potential and irrevocable damage it could do to the innocent and the lives of their families. For this reason we have to remain cool headed about such things, and as angry as cases like Tori Stafford can make us, we can't let our emotions get in the way of our better judgment. The high probability of the wrong person being executed is too high a price to pay for what limited deterrent and sense of justice capital punishment would bring us.

Calls for the death penalty resonate with the vindictive get tough and crack down mentality that seems to have gripped society. My concern deepens when I also see calls for more police, more surveillance, fewer civil liberties, harsher prisons.

As long as there are even a few politicians willing to cater to this mindset there is a very high probability that this sort of fear and loathing will drive our country towards becoming a police state.

[Muddy]

Capital punishment will not deter crimes such as what happened to little Tory or the victims of Bernardo and Clifford Olsen. Ghastly evil will someday raise it`s ugly head again but capital punishment will not stop it. The people who commit such crimes can not be deterred unless caught in the act. Even if we suspect that these creatures posing as humans are planning deeds most foul we are helpless to do anything except watch and hope they slip up when being watched. Although we all hold our children ( grand Children here) just a little closer after this murder, we must go back to normal or create frightened children unable to cope.

[Oleg Bach]

In my area - an overly passionate black brother and sister had a tiff - he cut his sister throat - then two blocks away - an hour later the swat team came out in full force to surround a welfare strip joint hotel - where a clean cut young white man had taken refuge after holding a blade to the throat of a lady street car driver...you could have threat of execution for both of these violent nut bars - it would not stop anything...It was pitiful when the young man was finally taken out in cuffs to stand in the middle of Broadview and Queen - His face was scrunched up - he was confused and bewildered - he really did not have a clue to what he did...I felt sorry for that ass hole who will now do hard time - He was a lost person....who could have cut the head off a public employee..He should be confined and not killed - what ever happened to "correctional" facilities? Now all we have are prisons that increase the mental illness and parole the damaged goods to go damage more.

[Wild Bill]

My concern for capital punishment is not for the guilty, it’s the potential and irrevocable damage it could do to the innocent and the lives of their families. For this reason we have to remain cool headed about such things, and as angry as cases like Tori Stafford can make us, we can't let our emotions get in the way of our better judgment. The high probability of the wrong person being executed is too high a price to pay for what limited deterrent and sense of justice capital punishment would bring us.

Something is being missed in this thread. It has to do with 'consent to be governed'.

Long ago in Britain justice was an individual thing. Someone robbed you, you tried to steal things back. Someone killed one of your clan, you took the life of one of theirs.

Naturally, such a primitive system had flaws. Mistakes were often made, grudges and even blood feuds lasted for generations. Also, there was the problem that victims often were those possessing much less power than their oppressors.

Slowly improvements were made. Citizens began to be recognized as having inherent rights. Justice began to be administered by clan chiefs and civic leaders. Eventually, justice became known as flowing from the King or monarch. You no longer had the right to take justice into your own hands.

What helped things along was the understanding that the ruler could do a better job for you at justice than usually you could do for yourself. As long as the King was seen to be reasonably fair, impartial and EFFECTIVE then the average man was content. This was the birth of the concept of 'consent to be governed'.

Somehow, in the last 50 or 60 years, we have allowed a disconnect to occur between what a victim might consider justice and the effectiveness of the state at administering such. It's all very well to decide that a murderer should not be put to death for his crime, out of some concept of 'humanity'. Sadly, the victim often does not agree. Yet his or her views are repeatedly 'blown off' as coming from someone 'too emotionally involved' or 'not dispassionate enough'. Sentences are often perceived as being too light for the severity of a crime.

There is a popular conception that not only does the state no longer care about the victims, it will punish any victim who attempts to take the law into his own hands more harshly than the actual criminal! Sadly, there are numerous examples of this in the news almost every day.

Perhaps it deserves its own thread but can it be healthy for a society if this disconnect is allowed to grow? What happens to the popular 'consent to be governed' if the state is perceived as no longer interested in administering true justice?

It doesn't matter if you believe in capital punishment or not, or if you think the justice system is too lax or too harsh. That popular conception of the state not doing a better job at justice than an individual can do for himself is there, its real, and it's being fed every day by the actions of the state.

This is not a healthy state of affairs. Perhaps others may have some thoughts as to where this may end up.

[kuzadd]

Every time heinous crimes are committed, such as in the case of Tori's abduction and murder, the death penalty issue invariably pops up. I don't think it's about self righteousness at all. I think it's a demonstration of a feeling of helplessness and horror in the face of such evil. It's all the more frustrating that the little one's body has not yet been found. Just look at her mother's words. "I want the killers dead." Those are not the words of a self-righteous person but words from one in agony over the loss of her precious daughter.

No it is about the self-righteous, you are not the young girls mother. She is an emotional wreck at this time, revenge is a natural thought at this moment. I would feel the exact same way.

But justice HAS to be rational.

The death penalty is a bigger issue then one person.

It is a societal issue.

It is not an effective deterrent.

Will do nothing to make people safer.

Will quite possibly result in further deaths of innocent people done on behalf of the citizens, no thanks.

It is always the law and order self-righteous types who tout these kind of useless actions.

They accomplish nothing.

It is the game well played by politicians who always appeal to law and order types, incarcerate everyone, pass more laws, and hell the taxpayer will foot an ever increasing bill.

The police and judicial systems have been demonstrated to be prone to corruption, willing to bend to political will rather then actual justice.

These are huge, huge problems, in an imperfect system.

When the state executes, it is for good, and it is done on behalf of you , me and everyone else.

It will prevent nothing and in all likelihood open up a great big can of worms.

[M.Dancer]

It is not an effective deterrent.

Not an effective argument. Prisons aren't deterrents either....just look how many people are in them...hell..there are waiting lines to get in and it doesn't stop us from sending more people to them.

Will do nothing to make people safer.

No chance of being a repeat offender versus getting out in 10 years? Think again...

Will quite possibly result in further deaths of innocent people done on behalf of the citizens, no thanks.

They accomplish nothing.

Are you talking about the parole board?

The police and judicial systems have been demonstrated to be prone to corruption, willing to bend to political will rather then actual justice.

What brand of toaster do you listen to the most?

When the state executes, it is for good, and it is done on behalf of you , me and everyone else.

It will prevent nothing and in all likelihood open up a great big can of worms.

When life gives you lemons you make lemonaide....when you open up a can of worms you go fishing...

[capricorn]

No it is about the self-righteous, you are not the young girls mother.

I have said on other threads that I am against the death penalty so personally I am not looking for a lynch mob to exact justice on Tori's killer(s). True, I am not the child's mother but as a parent, and knowing how precious children are to their parents, I can empathize with a parent who loses a child at the hands of a murderer.

She is an emotional wreck at this time, revenge is a natural thought at this moment. I would feel the exact same way.

There you go. Like me, you're capable of empathizing with the mother. I would not call you self-righteous for having the natural feelings common to human beings, as those expressed by some posters here.

But justice HAS to be rational.

The death penalty is a bigger issue then one person.

It is a societal issue.

It is not an effective deterrent.

Will do nothing to make people safer.

It's a societal issue in the sense that it falls in the realm of the state's justice system. The death penalty is not really about deterrence. It's about what society feels is an appropriate penalty for taking another's life. A murderer convicted to life in prison without the possibility of parole could not victimize another citizen if he/she is not on the street. That's a form of deterrence. Mind you, some murderers have been known to kill fellow inmates. That's another whole topic.

Will quite possibly result in further deaths of innocent people done on behalf of the citizens, no thanks.

I'm with you on this point. I don't trust the justice system to the extent of allowing it to take a life for fear of a mistake in prosecuting the wrong person.

It is the game well played by politicians who always appeal to law and order types, incarcerate everyone, pass more laws, and hell the taxpayer will foot an ever increasing bill.

You're exaggerating. But hey, if that's how you feel go ahead and vent.

These are huge, huge problems, in an imperfect system.

I agree. That's the easy part. Finding solutions is the real challenge. Talking about it is a good first step.

[Topaz]

A school friend of mine later went on to become a priest in the Orthodox church. As part of his education he studied the original greek scrolls that were later translated to become the modern Bible.

I was very surprised when he told me how many MIS-translations there are in the King James version of the Bible!

First off, for the creationist crowd, in the original greek Adam was not a proper name. It was a plural noun meaning "mankind".

Sure puts a different spin on Genesis, doesn't it?

As for your point Topaz, the Commandment never said "Thou shalt not kill."

It said "Thou shalt not murder."

That also shows how we have a major misconception!

However, it seems these days anybody can write any old version of the Bible they want and insist that it's the only true one so I doubt if going back to the original words will ever happen.

Your point of Thou Shalt not murder vs Thou shalt not kill, I have a bracelet about 50 years old and it says "not kill" and I found on line Exodus20:2-17 it says kill, the end results is the person is dead, I guess it depends which Bible one uses.

[Wild Bill]

Your point of Thou Shalt not murder vs Thou shalt not kill, I have a bracelet about 50 years old and it says "not kill" and I found on line Exodus20:2-17 it says kill, the end results is the person is dead, I guess it depends which Bible one uses.

That was my point! The original greek scrolls are 2000 years old! The King James version was written in the time of King James and released in 1611. It would seem that virtually all Bibles in use today in English speaking countries are relatively modern translations of translations.

However, the fact that there ARE so many contradictions means that it is illogical to use a Bible as proof of much of anything. As a moral guide it is accepted by many people but to take it as absolute truth is purely a matter of opinion.

To take it as a Law of a society is yet another thing altogether.

[Oleg Bach]

That was my point! The original greek scrolls are 2000 years old! The King James version was written in the time of King James and released in 1611. It would seem that virtually all Bibles in use today in English speaking countries are relatively modern translations of translations.

However, the fact that there ARE so many contradictions means that it is illogical to use a Bible as proof of much of anything. As a moral guide it is accepted by many people but to take it as absolute truth is purely a matter of opinion.

To take it as a Law of a society is yet another thing altogether.

Not all scripture is a moral guide - some old testimonial stuff is absolutely immoral - and for some reason evil is celebrated by some...for instance when King David looks upon the bathing Bathsheba...and lusts for her - It does not matter to him that it is someones elses wife - David arranges indirectly for the murder of her husband so he can have sex with her and take her for his own ----This is NOT moral - it's barbaric - and at that point I lost all respect for the historical King David - YET there are those that think being immoral as long as you gain is just fine...a man dies so you can get laid - that is not a king!