Should Canada have the death penalty?

[Smallc]

IMV, we should impose the death penalty if it deters people from committing such horrific crimes

Some studies say it does...and others (the majority) say that it doesn't. Yet other studies draw a direct correlation between countries that have the death penalty and the fact that those countries (for the most part) have higher crime rates. Very few rich countries have the death penalty (2, I think), and most of the modern world has a lower crime rate than the countries with the death penalty.

[Oleg Bach]

Some studies say it does...and others (the majority) say that it doesn't. Yet other studies draw a direct correlation between countries that have the death penalty and the fact that those countries (for the most part) have higher crime rates. Very few rich countries have the death penalty (2, I think), and most of the modern world has a lower crime rate than the countries with the death penalty.

It's absolute terror and fear that keep some poplulations in check - for instance take Saudi Arabia - they have the death penalty - and they also have torture. No one willingly commits a crime - in fact they are so terrified of the state - that there are no crimminals... So what they do to keep their perverse little game going is - beat the suspect half to death untill he confesses - These primatives go on the premise that the confession came directly from the mouth - they do not take into account that they had to crush the body in order for the mouth to make a sound....so they have to artifically create crimminals in order to have their fun - do we want to evolve to that?

[Machjo]

I'm for capital punishment with the option of life imprisonment or even life of exile from a local community, for murder and certain other crimes, leaving it up tothe judge to decide based on circumstances. If for instance, the murder fell just short of being legitimate self-defense (e.g. constant and emotionally vicious though never physically threatening harrassment from the victim or some other thing along those lines), if it's believed the murderer would likely never have committed the crime otherwise and has a spotless record and many character witnesses on his behalf, and regrets it sincerely, etc., proof of the vicious harrasment, etc., then life of exile from the city of the murder might be appropriate. In other cases, life imprisonment might be preferable if the person cold be of use to society still in some way, special skill, etc. and wants to make up for his crime to society, etc.For the rest, dath is appropriate.

I support execution if motivated by justice, but totally oppose it if motivated by vengeance. The objective should simply be to set an example for the rst of society, not vengeance. And of course execution should be humane. For example, perhaps a law that it must be done within 48 hours of the verdict, otherwise it immediately converts to life imprisonment, on the grounds that it's not fair to have them on death row for months on end.

Yes, there is always a risk of a false verdict. But that alone is not reason to stop it. If we follow the principle of reasonable proof, then that should limit it considerably. Innocent errors would certainly be a shame, but there are ways to minimize the chances.

As for religious questions, I belive turning the other cheek applies to individuals, not the body politic. While we shold pray for forgivness, the body politic is responsible to maintian justice.

All this being said, I wold not trust a gung ho politician to re-introduce the death senense motivated by vengeance. If so, that would be a surefire way to guarantee alot of innocent deaths.

[Oleg Bach]

Not our place? Then who? God?

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

Borg

I feel like that also. One thing I noticed was the devine justice seems slow by human measure of time . It does come - patients my friend - if you want - invoke a curse - that works -if the person is guilty - if not - it has no effect..give it a try but be careful - sometimes revenge has a bitter taste that never leaves - that's the price.

[Sir Bandelot]

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

Exactly. The "Saudification" of society... what our country really needs.

[August1991]

I'm for capital punishment with the option of life imprisonment or even life of exile from a local community, for murder and certain other crimes...

What kind of deterrent is that?

[waldo]

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'm for capital punishment with the option of life imprisonment or even life of exile from a local community, for murder and certain other crimes...

What kind of deterrent is that?

your initial comment, as quoted, offers a less than definitive "if it deters"... then you proceed to question even a qualified alternatives deterrence. One would expect someone so clamoring for capital punishment to have a modicum of understanding capital punishments impact in deterring crime.

[xul]

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.

I'm sorry, I was mistaken.

I think since the time when the Bible was written, men have done a lot of things that it should not be their place to do, I mean from concentration camp to atomic bomb, etc. And so far, God has not send fire and flood to our world to destroy all such wrongdoings yet like he did on our forefathers described on the Bible.

I think God might have changed his way to guide men. He might have decided to give men more power to decide what we should do and what would be correct and wrong by ourself. Just like a father instructing his child, when his child was a small child, he told him everything which is wrong or correct, but when the child has grown up and has learnt more from his or her past, he begin to let him or her alone to make a decision, practice it, learn from the failure, correct it and work out a correct way.

So, I think men should keep open mind to explore every possibility that could lead us to good and correct results, not only restrict ourselves in what our forefathers told us or what they believed that God told them.

Edited May 21, 2009 by xul

[Bryan]

Absolutely capital punishment should be reinstated.

Of course it deters crime: by eliminating repeat offenders.

[Smallc]

We shouldn't kill people. It's just that simple.

[Muddy]

When I was younger I was a hang em high advocate,but as time has passed and seen several convicted of murder be exonerated much later because of poor police work in the beginning I have had a change of mind. I do believe that locking up convicted murders for life ,and I mean life and hard labour to boot.

Unfortunately our prison system is now run by the inmates in some kind of weird partnership with officials.The prisoners now have rights! Deterance must be the message to other would be scum like these two suspects who are charged with the murder and torture of this child from Woodstock along with the gang bangers. Life must not be pleasant behind bars. Recreation should be limited to education and reading. Giving these murders basketball courts and gymnasiums should be cut off immediately. Why should we make these thugs stronger? Prison should be hell on earth. For some flogging would be a great deterant. Anyone who is flogged for rape will never ever rape again.

[Wild Bill]

One thing's for sure, as a people we will NEVER, EVER be allowed to vote on capital punishment in a binding referendum!

Or even a non-binding one for that matter. The last thing our politicians want is any proof that there is a disconnect between the will of the people and the actions of governments...ALL governments!

We get a lot of convoluted arguments as to how the status quo is what we really want, we just don't know it. Or we are told that the majority of us are against it, polls to the contrary.

Or most elitist of all, that some of us know what's good and moral better than the rest of us and so have the right to force their choice on us all.

Plus ca change...plus ca meme chose.

[bjre]

Death penalty is not for Canada.

Canada is for nation full of errors (for example: Medical errors killing up to 24,000 Canadians a year, http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2004/06/09/...rors040609.html )

Canada is a nation personal interest can be pursued above anything else without responsibility without moral (for example, CAS victimize one kid out of every 100)

If Canada have death penalty, it will definitely be used evilly for personal interest for group interest without trace.

For Canada, the more important thing is establish a better Moral System, need to reform the education system to make people tolerate, understand, think of, care about others, instead of just think like "it is his problem, not mine", when a killer kills you or your family member, can you still say that? Is just killing the murder will heal your hurt if your child be killed?

Penalty is necessary, but it can not be the only thing to rely on. A murder decide to kill others in a lot of time is drive by strong emotion like hate, anger, sadness, and others, in that case, he would not be able to consider the consequence even if it is a death penalty. The strong emotion may be caused by bully, feel unfair, and many others.

If more people be nice to care about the people near them, and do some real help to them, even a criminal can be changed nice.

Edited May 21, 2009 by bjre

[Topaz]

This topic is so confusing especially if you bring the Bible in to it. One, the rule Thou shan not kill. So does that mean man is not suppose to kill ANYTHING AND ANYONE? So why is man going to war and killing? The saying an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, doesn't that mean revenge?? What doing to happen when our jails are full, we ended up building more and more and just to one person in jail is around $83,000 yearly. Another question...has society failed these people who do these crimes? The 18 year invloved with the murder of the 8 year old girl, was a foster child, going to one family to another all her live.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If it is not right for one citizen to take the life of another citizen, then it cannot be right for the government to take the life of a citizen. Aside from this simple logic, I do not trust the government with my life.

[capricorn]

Another question...has society failed these people who do these crimes? The 18 year invloved with the murder of the 8 year old girl, was a foster child, going to one family to another all her live.

The child's body hasn't even been located yet, and already Terri-Lynne McClintic's defence is taking shape.

Rejected by her stripper mother and taken in by a couple that soon split, storm clouds gathered early over the life of Terri-Lynne McClintic.

Her adoptive father yesterday recalled an unfortunate childhood marked by several moves across Ontario and the total deterioration of any relationship with her paternal family.

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2009/...523706-sun.html

In the case of Michael Thomas Rafferty, accused of the killing of little Tori, I read he may have a drug problem. I can see it now. The drugs made him do it.

This case is taking an all too familiar twist. How quickly the focus has turned away from the victim to finding excuses explaining why the accused committed their crime.

[jdobbin]

One thing's for sure, as a people we will NEVER, EVER be allowed to vote on capital punishment in a binding referendum!

I'd rather not have a government dominated by contradictory and binding referendums, plebiscites and propositions.

[noahbody]

I think

You want to believe.

since the time when the Bible was written, men have done a lot of things that it should not be their place to do, I mean from concentration camp to atomic bomb, etc. And so far, God has not send fire and flood to our world to destroy all such wrongdoings yet like he did on our forefathers described on the Bible.

Is any God or human who will sit back and watch a child being molested worthy of your admiration? If he's powerless to do anything about it, he surely didn't create the universe; he doesn't exist. If he exists, he's a perverted sicko without morals. Think about that.

[Wild Bill]

This topic is so confusing especially if you bring the Bible in to it. One, the rule Thou shan not kill. So does that mean man is not suppose to kill ANYTHING AND ANYONE? So why is man going to war and killing? The saying an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, doesn't that mean revenge?? What doing to happen when our jails are full, we ended up building more and more and just to one person in jail is around $83,000 yearly. Another question...has society failed these people who do these crimes? The 18 year invloved with the murder of the 8 year old girl, was a foster child, going to one family to another all her live.

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.

[Dave_ON]

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.

Actually you may want to speak to your friend again. Genesis is part of the Old Testament and as such was originally written in Hebrew and subsequently translated into Koine Greek many, many years later. In Hebrew Adam was the proper name given to him and as with most Hebrew words there are several meanings depending on context, the most common use is Human or people, or mankind if you wish to wax archaic. It is derived from the Hebrew word Adamah which means red soil, as an aside Dam which means blood is also derived from Adamah. Hebrew is a fantastically consistent and contextual language unlike English. As for the kill vs. murder quote that is a Greek affectation. In Hebrew words can have several meanings depending on context. In Ancient Hebrew to my knowledge, there was only a word for kill Harg. There is no distinction between killing an animal or a human; it's the same word Harg. Another example of this is the Hebrew word for day Yom. Depending on context it could mean a literal 24 hour time span, the time between sun up and sun down or could mean a longer period of time, all using the same word to indicate what you are attempting to say all of which is determined by context.

You are quite correct about the myriad of mistranslations however, and King James isn't the only one. The thing most people forget is that each translation is an interpretation of the meaning of the text. The Ancient Hebrews were so rude to not have written it in English.

However I digress. I'm quite against the death penalty and frankly I don't feel the Bible has any place in affairs of state. Church and State are and should remain separate. I can't simply accept that innocents are a necessary casualty to server justice. If we espouse this, then any innocent who is killed by the state was in fact murdered by definition. Therefore those who are responsible for his conviction and execution are also murders and would need to be put to death. I'm certain that if we took this hard line lawyers, judges and juries would be inclined to avoid mistakes at all cost. If an innocent is killed SOMEONE has to be held responsible and put to death. Otherwise how would the family of the falsely accused ever achieve "justice"? In the end execution of the murderer doesn't bring the victim back. It also doesn't fill the emptiness left by their absence. It's also not a very effective deterrent, if it were our neighbors to the south would have long ago eliminated the problem.

[ToadBrother]

This case is taking an all too familiar twist. How quickly the focus has turned away from the victim to finding excuses explaining why the accused committed their crime.

That's because, since the beginning of English Common Law, the court is about the accused. I know that's hard to understand when we're seeing some evil SOB being hauled away for killing a kid, but the courts are not there for her, but rather to decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent.

Cops and the Crown do get things, you know. Innocent people are sent to prison, and all accused are innocent until found guilty. It sometimes means that the accused get to trot out excuses for evil acts, but it's still the best way to dispense justice I know of.

[scorpio]

One, the rule Thou shan not kill. So does that mean man is not suppose to kill ANYTHING AND ANYONE?

Dave_ON is essentially correct. The "new" linguistic-correct precept is 'Thou shalt not murder.' The whole eye for an eye (which justifies the desire for the death penalty by holy folks) is taken out of context. Death was precribed for unruly children to adulterers and everything in between back in the day of the Old Testatment. The irony is that even the new version of thou shalt not murder applies to state sanctioned exectutions in the larger sense. Christians, though, will undoubtedly point to the lawful justification of applying the noose. I wonder if Moses should have been put to death for "murdering" an Egyptian, Exodus 2:11-12.

[Wild Bill]

I'd rather not have a government dominated by contradictory and binding referendums, plebiscites and propositions.

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?

Explain to me how that is not simple elitism.

[Argus]

Philosophically I'm in favour of the death penalty in certain cases - ie Bernardo would be the poster boy. Realistically, given my lack of faith in our legal system, I would not be in favour of implimenting the death penalty in Canada.

I would like to see life meaning life, without parole, and life at hard labour, as they have in the UK.

[segnosaur]

If it is not right for one citizen to take the life of another citizen, then it cannot be right for the government to take the life of a citizen.

There is a fault with your logic.

Currently, we consider it illegal (i.e. "not right") for somene to kidnap another and hold them against their will. Yet if such a person were found guilty of that crime, they would be imprisoned (i.e. held by the government against their will.). Its also considered illegal (i.e. "not right") to steal from someone, yet many cases of petty theft/shoplifting can result in fines (i.e. government taking something from a guilty person.)

In both those cases, I suspect most citizens would consider such punishments "fair", even though the punishment is similar to the crimes themselves.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the death penalty is automatically 'good'... its still reasonable to oppose it on other grounds (such as the possibility of wrongful conviction). But claiming the government shouldn't use a punishment because an individual engaging in such an action would be illegal is wrong.

The difference is, the government engages in certain processes to make sure that when a person is fined, imprisoned (or executed), the chance of a wrongful conviction is minimized and the punishment benefits society as a whole. When a individual engages in theft, kidnapping, or murder, they A: may be doing so for self-serving purposes, and B: there is no due process to prevent wrongful convictions