PIK Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 No. There's no reason to reopen the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 No. There's no reason to reopen the debate. And the reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 And the reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 Come on smallc you can say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 Come on smallc you can say it. Say what? That I don't believe in capital punishment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 And the reason? Too many innocent men would be dead and/or scheduled to die. No more, no less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) Thoughts? While many here will agree that thinking isn't my most obviously stand-out quality, I oppose the idea for three reasons (two of which are, I think, closely related): 1. The profound possibility of an error that can never be taken back, resulting in, literally, the worst injustice that can befall a person at the hand of the State; 2. It is the ultimate in statism and statist thought, giving the country (or a province, depending on how jurisdiction issues would work out) too much power. There is no bigger government than that which can put its citizens to death; 3. Killing a human being when not justified by necessity is a moral wrong, apart from what this person himself has committed. Edited October 22, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 How does it solve any problem, that life imprisonment doesn't already solve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 How does it solve any problem, that life imprisonment doesn't already solve. Yep. Also, coming from the standpoint of money, housing, the actual execution process and the legal costs of endless appeals means it's far more expensive to house a death row inmate rather than a regular inmate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 If life in prison really meant life in prison, the issue would never come up again. Look at Russell Williams - everyone seems to agree that he's a monster.......yet his sentence was two concurrent "life" terms. That means he is eligible for parole after 25 years. Whether he gets parole or not is another question - the fact is he could be out in 25 years. When will life in prison mean life in prison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 If life in prison really meant life in prison, the issue would never come up again. Look at Russell Williams - everyone seems to agree that he's a monster.......yet his sentence was two concurrent "life" terms. That means he is eligible for parole after 25 years. Whether he gets parole or not is another question - the fact is he could be out in 25 years. When will life in prison mean life in prison? And how many people deserve that sentence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) Too many innocent men would be dead and/or scheduled to die. No more, no less. Which is rare but yes it does happen, that is where you just have to be sure like williams bernardo and olsen. But what about the 367 innocent people that have been murdered by people let out on parole since ''71''. Edited October 22, 2010 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) Which is rare but yes it does happen, that is where you just have to be sure like williams bernardo and olsen. But what about the 367 innocent people that have been murdered by people let out on parole since ''71''. Most of those people obviously didn't get 25 to life, weren't declared dangerous offenders, and wouldn't have been given the death penalty anyway...because they wouldn't have been eligible in all likelihood. Edited October 22, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) . Edited October 22, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 Which is rare but yes it does happen, that is where you just have to be sure like williams bernardo and olsen. But what about the There will never be the 100% certainty needed to implement that penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 Aren't the arguments above really arguments to eliminate parole in some cases ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 Aren't the arguments above really arguments to eliminate parole in some cases ? Which can be done, and probably should be done in more cases (by having someone declared a dangerous offender). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 Which is rare but yes it does happen, that is where you just have to be sure like williams bernardo and olsen. But what about the 367 innocent people that have been murdered by people let out on parole since ''71''. rather one go free than hang one innocent. The parole angle is another argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 How does it solve any problem, that life imprisonment doesn't already solve. True. One of the main problems with capital punishment as an actual punishment is that it does nothing to make the criminal pay back his debt to society. It's far better to have a killer serve life in jail and work his nails to the bone on behalf of the state (ie: digging ditches all day etc.) to pay back some of his debt. Killing him solves nothing, and if the criminal is doing tedious manual labour every day & has a cell with few luxuries he/she would probably rather be dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) Those people obviously didn't get 25 to life, weren't declared dangerous offenders, and wouldn't have been given the death penalty anyway. That is something we don't know.Dangerous offender declaration was not around back in the day, and look they would not nail williams with that. Edited October 22, 2010 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 rather one go free than hang one innocent. The parole angle is another argument. Only to kill more?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 Thoughts? I think everyone can agree that, if anyone does deserve to die it would be a child rapist and murderer. The scum of the earth. THe lowest of the low. So here is a man that would be dead: Wrongfully convicted man gets $4.25M from Ont. William Mullins-Johnson spent 12 years in prison after he was convicted in 1994 on evidence from the doctor that suggested he had raped and strangled his niece, Valin. Mullins-Johnson was exonerated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in October 2007 after it was determined the child died from natural causes. In overturning Mullins-Johnson's conviction, the court found there was no evidence he was guilty of any crime. Bentley apologized to Mullins-Johnson for a "miscarriage of justice." Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/10/21/toronto-smith-pathologist-mullins-johnson.html#ixzz131v7b13a My biggest concern with the death penalty is how would a dead man spend his $4.25 million for being wrongfully convicted? Apparently you can't take it with you.... at least that's what I've been led to believe. Any pro-death penalty people have a solution to this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 That is something we don't know.Dangerous offender declaration was not around back in the day, and look they would not nail williams with that. Williams was charged with two counts of first degree murder, and so was not eligible for that status. He will most likely never be let out of prison anyway, given the details that the parole board will be reminded of at every opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) Here are three reasons why Capital Punishment should never rear its head..... DR. CHARLES SMITH Edited October 22, 2010 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.