Jump to content

capital punishment


PIK

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But do you think that it's working better, in the sense that it has created a safer, more peaceful society or even a more effective and efficient justice system?

As I said, there is more and more evidence that in fact that ain't true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I believe that assholes that rob convenience stores and assault the staff should be dragged to a dumpster and a .22 injected behind their left ear.

Then can we assume you believe that repeat violent offenders and career criminals should be locked up longer......cause that's what Ottawa is trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you should be asking people of the countries with a smaller percentage in prison than the US has...like Canada.

A prettier record. How do we do it?

We let the criminals out on the street. Even a mass murderer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way to reduce crime rate is to make the society more fair, make more people more happy, no punishment can solve the problem if you youself don't like to be threaten.

How do you make drug dealer more happy?

On a larger scale, didn't PM Neville Chamberlain try to make Hitler happy? What was the result?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he was convicted of two murders. His sentences were all mashed together. Effectively everything he did works out to one murder conviction. Our system basically says "Every victim past the first one is a freebie." He should be serving 50 years before he gets to apply for parole.

Good thing then, that the Conservatives prorogued parliament last winter:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/22/williams-parole.html

The bill probably would have received royal assent by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thing then, that the Conservatives prorogued parliament last winter:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/22/williams-parole.html

The bill probably would have received royal assent by now.

The Tories were too busy asserting constitutional prerogatives that hasn't existed for over three hundred years. They didn't have time for something as mundane as a crime bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tories were too busy asserting constitutional prerogatives that hasn't existed for over three hundred years. They didn't have time for something as mundane as a crime bill.

It's probably belies the fact that the "Crime and Punishment' stuff is an empty sop to the Reform base...

The Con's really want to be in power of power's sake...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Con's really want to be in power of power's sake...

Well gosh darn, Jack, politicians in politics because they want to be in power. Of course the Cons want to be in power but so do the Liberals and every other political party in Canada.

Except that the Cons are in power because enough Canadians felt that it was time to remove the levers of power from the Liberals for a time.

Of course, that suits the Cons just fine because as we all know Stephen Harper's ultimate aim is to undo the Liberals as the natural governing party and being in power gives him more time to achieve that objective.

A former chief of staff to Harper suggests there's more to this seemingly self-evident, benign response than meets the eye.

Tom Flanagan, a political scientist at the University of Calgary, believes Harper would be satisfied to return with a strengthened minority -- a result that would throw the Liberals into chaos, thereby advancing the prime minister's longterm strategy of destroying Canada's so-called natural governing party.

"I don't think Harper has to be thinking about a majority at all," Flanagan said in an interview.

"Strategically, this is sort of a prolonged war of attrition."

As Flanagan sees it, the first major battle in this incremental war occurred in 2004, when Harper managed to reduce Paul Martin's Liberals to a minority. In the second clash in 2006, Harper won his own Conservative minority.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20080827/Harperstrategy_080827/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well gosh darn, Jack, politicians in politics because they want to be in power. Of course the Cons want to be in power but so do the Liberals and every other political party in Canada.

Except that the Cons are in power because enough Canadians felt that it was time to remove the levers of power from the Liberals for a time.

Of course, that suits the Cons just fine because as we all know Stephen Harper's ultimate aim is to undo the Liberals as the natural governing party and being in power gives him more time to achieve that objective.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20080827/Harperstrategy_080827/

I suspect you're right....

I've contended all along that Harper represents the Wests continued anger towards Pierre Trudeau,and it's almost singular obsession with destroying all things Trudeau.It could then try to rebuild this country in a Western Reform image that only they (and a fewe in the East want) seem to want.

It's good to see that you tacitly admit that the prorogations were nothing more than a constitutionally specious power grab,and NOT for the silly and feeble excuses the Cons put forth...

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't spent much time out West. Do you think the rest of the West feels this way or is it mainly Alberta?

I suspect it emminates from the hardcore Albertan Con base and works it's way out from there.

Albertan conservatives seem to be the most virulently anti-Trudeau,anti-Liberal,and,anti-Ottawa...They still bring up the NEP pushing almost 30 years after the fact!I think they see Harper,in part,as a way to get back at Eastern Canada for electing Trudeau,and in the process,try to turn back all the things he did for this country...Socially speaking...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Con's really want to be in power of power's sake...

Ignatieff doesn't want to be in power. He just wants to smile a lot.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pS7sKjlzwFg/RwIaXlkpc_I/AAAAAAAAA8g/xLRdWGiTPnc/s400/michael_ignatieff_as_the_joker.jpg

Edited by Saipan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect it emminates from the hardcore Albertan Con base and works it's way out from there.

Albertan conservatives seem to be the most virulently anti-Trudeau,anti-Liberal,and,anti-Ottawa...They still bring up the NEP pushing almost 30 years after the fact!I think they see Harper,in part,as a way to get back at Eastern Canada for electing Trudeau,and in the process,try to turn back all the things he did for this country...Socially speaking...

Actually 'it' does not 'emanate' from any hardcore Alberta Con base.

It may seem it is Alberta which is most 'virulently' anti-Trudeau from where you sit in Ontario. From where I sit in B.C. except for the actual downtown core of Vancouver and groups of NDippers scattered around Greater Vancouver there are B.C.'ers equally if not more vociferously anti-Trudeau than many Albertans. For good reason. Many are equally as 'virulently' anti-Chretien as well; it may be that most B.C.'ers are very, very wary of Quebec and Ontario - period. When it comes to all of the sneering and disparagement of the natural resources of Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan by the Bob Raes, Ignatiefs, the Layton crowd of Babblers, the Quebecers braying on and on about the tarsands and climatebloodychange then is it such a surprise that Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan still loathe everything that Trudeau did to turn our country into the socialist nirvanna he paid such lip service to but in fact treated the citizens, particularly those of the West, with disdain. More contempt than disdain for the fools he believed us to be.

Trudeau and his official language Act? I mean really. Who speaks Quebec french in the West!

`

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trudeau and his official language Act? I mean really. Who speaks Quebec french in the West!

That's right, it's all about the West. Who cares about Canadian history and the continued existence of two large language groups who have lived together in peace and relative harmony for a couple hundred years. Just give you your resource money - right? by the way, the west is far more diverse than you give it credit for. Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg; sorry to break it to you, but all of these cities aren't completely full of Trudeau and small l liberal haters (and that includes many Conservative voters, too). The west isn't only made up of people like you.

Oh well, I'll just go back to my socialist nirvana.

:lol:

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TrueMetis

Denis Lortie.

3 people isn't a mass murder. Plus he had a mental disorder which is a large mitigating factor.

Trudeau and his official language Act? I mean really. Who speaks Quebec french in the West!

Quite a few people I know actually, most people I know aren't anything like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 people isn't a mass murder. Plus he had a mental disorder which is a large mitigating factor.

Quite a few people I know actually, most people I know aren't anything like you.

I'm just like her. But your and my posts are anecdotal. Got any references to back up your claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trudeau and his official language Act? I mean really. Who speaks Quebec french in the West!

`

A little under 200000, according to the 2006 census. And French-speaking communities have been there from the beginning of Erupean settlement. Really. And really nothing to do with capital punishment, so care to say anything on the issue?

Edited by CANADIEN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two practical reasons why capital punishment should be opposed.

First, it is not a deterrant. True, somebody who is executed will not kill again, but execution does nothing to prevent the first muder. The only true deterrant for a criminal is knowing he/she will be caught.

Second... well, all I need is names: Truscott, Marshall, Morin. Sure, one can argue that these and other were cases where there were no absolute certainty they were guilty. Problem with that argument is that, if we take Truscott as an example, absolute certainty as to his guit at the time he was tried and convicted.

Add to that the fact that members of minorities and marginalized groups are more likely to be executed - not from bias, mind you, but because they are less likely to be able to get adequate representation. The risk (and reality) of innocent people being executed is just too high to justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually 'it' does not 'emanate' from any hardcore Alberta Con base.

It may seem it is Alberta which is most 'virulently' anti-Trudeau from where you sit in Ontario. From where I sit in B.C. except for the actual downtown core of Vancouver and groups of NDippers scattered around Greater Vancouver there are B.C.'ers equally if not more vociferously anti-Trudeau than many Albertans. For good reason. Many are equally as 'virulently' anti-Chretien as well; it may be that most B.C.'ers are very, very wary of Quebec and Ontario - period. When it comes to all of the sneering and disparagement of the natural resources of Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan by the Bob Raes, Ignatiefs, the Layton crowd of Babblers, the Quebecers braying on and on about the tarsands and climatebloodychange then is it such a surprise that Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan still loathe everything that Trudeau did to turn our country into the socialist nirvanna he paid such lip service to but in fact treated the citizens, particularly those of the West, with disdain. More contempt than disdain for the fools he believed us to be.

Trudeau and his official language Act? I mean really. Who speaks Quebec french in the West!

`

This Eastern Bastard does'nt have a problem with the oil sands,just the Albertan attitude about how the wealth the oil sands generates relates to strengthening the rest of the country...

At least you admit that it's all about reversing the Trudeau vision of Canada and replacing it with a Western Reform one...

Lot's of luck with that... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you know that 1% of the US population is in prison. If you include remand, city, county and state jails it's way more. They have their famous war on drugs. And it's not working.

I used to be a real "Hang-em High" type. Just like Harper et al are now. But a horrible thing happened. Some hard facts hit me in the face. That approach doesn't work, is expensive, and is counter-productive. Do a little research on criminality.

You're right... there are a lot of people in the U.S. who are jailed (probably unnecessarily) over the possession of small amounts of pot. Is it a "dumb" idea to do so? Probably.

But much of the discussion has not centered around such victimless crimes; the discussion has centered around crimes such as murder, assault, and robbery. The U.S. does have a much higher homicide rate than the U.S., but when you look at other crimes (rape, assault, break and entry, etc.) some of their statistics are actually lower than those in Canada. If the issue is "do harsher prison sentences protect innocent people", the answer might be yes (if you are just comparing the U.S. and Canadian systems.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The continued exoneration of people previously convicted of what would otherwise be capital crimes makes me MORE in favour of the death penalty now, not less.

The advancements in forensic science and investigative techniques that led to their convictions being overturned also means that we can be far more certain that those who are convicted now actually are guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TrueMetis

The continued exoneration of people previously convicted of what would otherwise be capital crimes makes me MORE in favour of the death penalty now, not less.

The advancements in forensic science and investigative techniques that led to their convictions being overturned also means that we can be far more certain that those who are convicted now actually are guilty.

Except for all the cases where they knew at the time he was innocent but covered up evidence and convicted him anyway. And we can never have a 100% success rate. Even if for every thousand guilty people we execute only one innocent person dies that's to many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...