capital punishment

[August1991]

The mother and her doctor are good enough for me.

Abortion. I think that I understand the late 20th century political debate about abortion but I suspect that in the next century, in the 2050s, the abortion debate will make as much sense as discussions now about women's hats in 1890, or men's wigs in 1780. Edited October 22, 2010 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

All fine and good.

But reading the various reports of this Russell Williams case, I wondered whether he would have done what he did if he knew that he would suffer death when caught.

There's no way to tell for certain. The closest we could come (and it still wouldn't inform us of what Williams would or wouldn't do) is to look at murder rates in comparable societies in which there remains a death penalty.

Obviously the United States is the clearest example--being that we share so many cultural similarities. But the results, as I undertsand it, are highly mixed. They differ from state to state; and they would differ from country to country.

I suspect it remains a fool's game to even speculate. Besides, Williams probably didn't expect to ever go to prison, either, even though he knew his actions were the most serious offenses.

Rather, he seemed relieved to have been caught, knowing that he will still live.

Your impression is not especially useful here, I don't think.

(I know that he attempted suicide in prison but that was after he was caught. He didn't attempt suicide before the police arrested him.)

How many Texan criminals commit suicide before they're arrested, out of fear of the death penalty?

-----

I have no moral qualms about the State condoning death.

They can condone it all they want, so long as they don't execute people.

We accept abortion,

Wrong analogy.

We don't accept state-enforced abortion.

and order soldiers to kill on our behalf.

We don't accept soldiers killing Canadian citizens who have run afoul of the law.

If the State mistakenly kills an innocent prisoner, how is that different from leaving a highway in disrepair where fatal accidents sometimes occur (and the State in effect kills innocent drivers)?

Even if I accepted this dubious comparison...are you really asking me if there's a distinction between the least serious form of manslaughter and first-degree murder?

Yes. There is a huge difference...within the standards you have set up here.

IOW, when the State imposes the same penalty for robbery and murder, is it any wonder that robbers murder their victims.

Most robbers don't kill their victims, because most robbers are not murderers, by fact or by inclination.

-----

Edited October 22, 2010 by bloodyminded

[William Ashley]

Thoughts?

It should be a voluntary option, based on preregistration.

Eg. person has to register for the option in the event of them being arrested for a capital offence.

If they are they can elect to use the method.

But it should be cost effective. Eg. just jumping from a large height and having a standby automated steam roller or sanitized pool of liquid on the bottom like sulphiric acid - no cleanup needed.

Also "organ donation" as a preselected option.

Nothing that would tax personnel levels or costs.

There should be a wait period ex. two months for it to be finalized after making an initial declaration. And if the do declare then if they are already convicted or have already served their time they could opt to initiate it as an alternate sentence.

Maybe not many people will actually sign up for it, but it will shut up the people that want to kill other people and don't want to face it themselves.

So who here supports it but wouldn't sign up for it?

[William Ashley]

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.

what makes you think people will work? In jail they either starve to death or get supported. There has to be the question of human rights at some point if you are starving people or brutalizing them for non work.

I see voluntary capital punishment as a humanitarian mechanism to free people from a life of being wronged and having their human rights violated. The justice system is perverted, I say let the good people go free by death.

[Keepitsimple]

And how many people deserve that sentence?

Hopefully, very few.....but at least our justice system could make a statement that these few "monsters" will never - under any circumstances (except death) - get out of prison. Impose consecutive sentences for these monsters and life in prison should simply be that - life in prison. What are your thoughts Nicky.....do you think Williams should be given a chance to get out in 25 years? Do you think the public should think that there is even a slight chance that he could get out?

[guyser]

I don't particularly care. It would be unfair that an innocent man was sent to the gallows, so let those who put him there, wittingly or unwittingly, share the fate.

Even though some of them are in themselves innocent?

Geez TB, that circles would never end

[Oleg Bach]

Thoughts?

ANYONE willing and ready to murder does not give a damn if he or she is murdered themselves - whether the deed is done within the private sphere or by the state..those that kill are all ready dead.

[guyser]

If the State mistakenly kills an innocent prisoner, how is that different from leaving a highway in disrepair where fatal accidents sometimes occur (and the State in effect kills innocent drivers)?

The State never kills innocent drivers. They may be liable but that is a different story.

[Topaz]

Well, under this federal government the debate won't happen, minister is totally against. IF a person kills another person why shouldn't that person give up their life for doing so. I would think with today tech. more people can be proven innocent or guilty. As the victim, that person would be paying financially to have that person in jail for life, so they are paying twice.

[Smallc]

Because that isn't what our justice system is supposed to be based on. It isn't supposed to be a system of vengeance or a system of simple punishment.

[ToadBrother]

Because that isn't what our justice system is supposed to be based on. It isn't supposed to be a system of vengeance or a system of simple punishment.

At the same time, remove the catharsis, the sense that justice was done, and you cease to have a justice system.

I'm not advocating capital punishment, because it's irreversible, not because I think monsters like Clifford Olsen should be allowed to live. At least if you throw a guy in jail, you can let him out if he's innocent, and give him a cash settlement as retribution for having thrown him in there in the first place. Stick a guy in an electric chair, and that's that. There's no bringing him back, no possible form of compensation, no nothing.

But to see that a guy could kill two women and effectively only be sentenced for one is ludicrous. And the Dangerous Offender rules are just so damned slippery. No, I think concurrent sentences are bad and should be outright outlawed. If a man kills ten people in cold blood, let him serve ten sentences for the crime.

[Smallc]

Well, to be technical, he is serving more than one sentence, but in some cases, I would agree with you, that consecutive sentencing may be the way to go. It should at least be made an option. Lets be clear - I do believe that there are people who should never be let out of jail.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Smallc

[Saipan]

Well, to be technical, he is serving more than one sentence

Nope, just one. Two would be 50 years. And if it's LIFE then it should be LIFE. 25 years is not life.

[ToadBrother]

Well, to be technical, he is serving more than one sentence, but in some cases, I would agree with you, that consecutive sentencing may be the way to go. It should at least be made an option. Lets be clear - I do believe that there are people who should never be let out of jail.

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. He killed two people, he should serve the two sentences.

If we did that, guys like Olsen wouldn't even eligible for the faint hope clause until they made it to something like 150 years of age. If one of those bastards makes it that far, then they get to have their hearing.

Edited October 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Saipan]

I'm not advocating capital punishment, because it's irreversible, not because I think monsters like Clifford Olsen should be allowed to live. At least if you throw a guy in jail, you can let him out if he's innocent

NO ONE is advocating capital punishment for circumstantial evidence cases. Olson, Bernardo, Lortie, etc..... are guilty - 100%.

[segnosaur]

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.

A couple of problems with that particular idea:

- Even though the labor that the criminal is doing helps "pay back society", such activity will require supervision, probably by individuals who will get paid more than the value of the work the convict is doing. Its like throwing good money after bad.

The better solution would be to keep individual criminals isolated in their cells for the length of their sentence... while "society" would loose out on the value of that individual's labor, it would also reduce incarceration costs.

- I have doubts that our judicial system would allow such forced labor and/or austere working conditions. (I also doubt the death penalty would be allowed either, not without amendments to our constitution, but that's another issue.) Remember, our courts have stated that prisoners have the right to vote; I doubt it will be a stretch for them to also enforce rules about living conditions.

[ToadBrother]

NO ONE is advocating capital punishment for circumstantial evidence cases. Olson, Bernardo, Lortie, etc..... are guilty - 100%.

And if that was in and of itself a reliable yardstick, I wouldn't complain. But lots of poor bastards have been sent to the chair with everyone being 100% sure.

Like I said, want my agreement, then we have to allow that if an innocent man is executed, then all who took part in it should themselves be executed. An eye for an eye.

[dre]

Data? Proof?

Dre, I think you are wrong. And this case of Russell Williams is an example. But I would be the first to accept that, as another poster once said, anecdote is not plural for data.

Let's debate capital punishment, with an open mind.

dre, perhaps you think that a LOT of people seek direction.

I don't.

I tend to think that ordinary people are smart and have a good moral compass in deciding what is right. I'm a democrat.

---

I appreciate your "pay-for-play" reference. I have no problem with Crown Prosecutors negotiating plea bargains - but I strongly object to them selling the rest of us so cheap.

Dre, I think you are wrong. And this case of Russell Williams is an example. But I would be the first to accept that, as another poster once said, anecdote is not plural for data.

I havent argued about this for a long time, so I dont have any data handy. But I HAVE read studies that question the "deterent" paradigm. Iv also read that in fact the death penalty encourages people to kill more. For example... if youre already guilty of a capital crime, you might as well kill a bunch of more people, or kill people to avoid getting caught. Because no matter what you do at this point youre still getting the ultimate punishment.

But what it really comes down to is faith in government. I have very little... and judging by your position you have an awfull lot. I think its misplaced.

[dre]

I appreciate your "pay-for-play" reference. I have no problem with Crown Prosecutors negotiating plea bargains - but I strongly object to them selling the rest of us so cheap.

Its not plea bargains I was refering to but the fact that our criminal justice system is classist. People without money are at a huge disadvantage and are not as well defended and criminals with money.

[guyser]

Nope, just one. Two would be 50 years. And if it's LIFE then it should be LIFE. 25 years is not life.

Nope, wrong again.

Being convicted of two charges and serving one concurrent sentence does not mean he is serving one charge.

It is life too. One convicted of murder is never free from the justice system, hence the life tag.

Pretty simple if one can read

[Saipan]

Iv also read that in fact the death penalty encourages people to kill more.

That is not a fact. That is an opinion. You admited you have no data.

Fact is when Canada had capital punishment violent crime was much lower.

My link

Edited October 22, 2010 by Saipan

[Smallc]

No, he was convicted of two murders. His sentences were all mashed together.

Well, no, he's serving two life sentences just at the same time. I understand what you're saying, but technically, he is serving two.

[ToadBrother]

That is not a fact. That is an opinion. You admited you have no data.

Fact is when Canada had capital punishment violent crime was much lower.

My link

It takes more than that to prove a link, my friend. Correlation does not imply causation.

[ToadBrother]

Well, no, he's serving two life sentences just at the same time. I understand what you're saying, but technically, he is serving two.

I realize what has happened technically, I'm saying its wrong. He should be serving 50 years before he gets a shot at parole. No matter how many people he was convicted of killing, he only gets to serve one sentence. It's not as if he ages twice as fast because it's two convictions.

I say ban concurrent sentencing for anything.

[segnosaur]

That is not a fact. That is an opinion. You admited you have no data.

Fact is when Canada had capital punishment violent crime was much lower.

My link

First of all, your link is broken. It should be:

ETA: Never mind, I noticed you fixed the problem in your original post

Secondly, its not always easy to compare homicide rates at different points in time. A lot of things were happening around the time that the death penalty was eliminated... for example, there was the baby boom generation (born between the late 50s and mid-60s). Many of those individuals were reaching adulthood around the time capital punishment was abolished, and younger adults are those most likely to engage in crime.

Edited October 22, 2010 by segnosaur