Death penalty

[Shwa]

I just relish the chance to put my hands around some peverted ,child molesting a -hole who has ruined some poor child life forever.If that make me a murder ,then I am all for it, now someone that feels differently about that, makes me wonder about that persons state of mind and why they want to protect people like that.

Really? You "wonder" about vigilante justice and why society must be protected from lunatics that believe they can subject society to their morally just cause? Riiiight.

You talk tough, but talk is cheap on the ol' anonymous intertubes ain't it?

You would become what you despise - a murderer - no better than any other murderer who still believe they had the "right" reasons to kill someone despite getting sent to prison anyways. And in your case, no doubt, it would come out as first degree murder.

Good for you PIK! You have stooped to your own lowest standards.

[Saipan]

You would become what you despise - a murderer -

You're VERY confused. Murder is premeditated killing of innocent person. Not punishement of dangerous murderer.

[segnosaur]

People in favour of the death penalty are the same ones who have it in their character to murder...difference being - Proponents of the death penalty want to find a way to kill with out being caught..legally... It's a bad idea..anything to do with death is a bad idea...and those that want death in any form are bad - end of story.

Sorry, your argument fails big time.

Claiming that the death penalty is somehow morally equivalent to murder is like claiming anyone who wants to arrest and sentence people to jail are also in favor of kidnapping, or wanting to charge people fines is also in favor of theft. They are not.

The main difference between the death penalty and murder (or between imprisonment and kidnapping) is that the death penalty/imprisonment typically only happens after due process has been followed.

Now, if you want to claim the death penalty is wrong because of the risk of accidentally killing an innocent person, I might agree with you. But if you're going to assume a moral equivalence between the death penalty and murder then I expect you to also condemn people who favor imprisonment and suggest that they are no better than 'kidnappers'.

[Saipan]

Then we find out later that he didn't do it.

Are you saying Denis Lortie, Marc Lepine, Picton, Bernardo, Homolka, didn't do it?

[Guest TrueMetis]

You're VERY confused. Murder is premeditated killing of innocent person. Not punishement of dangerous murderer.

No it's not. You apparently don't understand the criminal code. Premeditated murder is first degree murder, while pretty much every other time you kill someone it is second degree murder or, depending on how much control you had over the situation, manslaughter. (All of which are only used to differentiate sentences that can be given as most people would consider all three murder) It does not matter whether the person you kill is guilty of a crime or not vigilantes are not allowed, and a vigilante cannot determine someones guilt of innocence anyway.

[Guest American Woman]

You're VERY confused. Murder is premeditated killing of innocent person. Not punishement of dangerous murderer.

Vigilante killings as you described are murder, not "punishment." You have no legal right to take anyone's life unless it's in self-defense.

[Esq]

Are you saying Denis Lortie, Marc Lepine, Picton, Bernardo, Homolka, didn't do it?

"Bernardo claimed the deaths were accidental, and later claimed that his wife was the actual killer."

How is keeping someone in an 8'x4' jail cell ever going to prepare them to reenter society.

It relaly is a form of torture. i'm wondering if he was given the choice between death or life in an 8'x4' jail cell what would he choose?

To me it seems like something that would cause mental and physical incapacity - a more or less a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

It just seems unhealthy to me.

The option of death by acceptance of it should be there.

This judaic eye for eye in the justice system is pretty mentally unsound as far as I'm concerned, if indeed it is intended that way. It is a form of brain rot. Creating even due to evil is rather backward. That whole fire with fire thing.

Lortie: CFS Carp "Diefenbunker" did not have room for separate weapons and ammunition lockers.

Lortie pleaded guilty to reduced charges of second-degree murder in 1987.

"In his efforts to destroy the Parti Québécois, Denis Lortie killed three government employees"

Lortie was paroled in December 1995

"Lépine's suicide statement"

Picton: He pleaded not guilty

homolka: pleaded guilty to manslaughter

release from prison in 2005

Edited January 29, 2011 by Esq

[Saipan]

I take it the answer is "whatever".

[yarg]

How anyone could ever want to give a second chance to a rapist and a murderer is unthinkable to me, why are you so weak? We don't need those people in our society, lock them up forever and give them the option of ending it, that is more humane than giving them the chance to kill again. Criminals do have a pattern of re-offending if a car thief steals again I can live with that, if a murderer kills again the victim certainly can't live with it. But it seems some of you are willing to take that chance with the lives of innocent people so a monster can get his second chance, cry me a river.

[wyly]

And after you kill him, you find out it was the wrong person... like this child-killer...

or this manexecuted for killing is children...

[Saipan]

Vigilante killings as you described

I didn't.

[Esq]

How anyone could ever want to give a second chance to a rapist and a murderer is unthinkable to me, why are you so weak? We don't need those people in our society, lock them up forever and give them the option of ending it, that is more humane than giving them the chance to kill again. Criminals do have a pattern of re-offending if a car thief steals again I can live with that, if a murderer kills again the victim certainly can't live with it. But it seems some of you are willing to take that chance with the lives of innocent people so a monster can get his second chance, cry me a river.

People make mistakes. Its repeat offenders that are the troublespot IMO.

Perhaps I just don't understand Rape - but in my mind it just plays off as relatively limited body interchange that lasts a short period of time. the only downside is that you have sex with someone you don't want to. People do that in retrospect all the time after a night of drinking. Heck some marriages are founded on it.

(in some cases it might just make an absence of forplay a crime - no does mean no of course - not all rape cases are that clear cut though)

This is not me saying rape isn't a violation, I'm just saying it - as far as the physical aspects are concerned - seems not as bad as aggravated assault. Where someone is actually physically hurt.

Of course the repercussions are the issue, but rape is actually fairly common. A lot of people get away with it.

As far as murder is concerned, sometimes murder is justified, it just may not be acceptable as a response to most.

Often people who are victims end up hitting back in the extreme, then get penalized for it, because you arn't allowed to kill, because a lot of people would be dead if it were acceptable, because the world is full of anuses.

Of course there is a lot of "bad murder" too. However I think the notion of "only self defence" is ok. Yet justice is left to "society" in long drawn out super legalized situations.

It really is just creating a constrained society that serves a professional class of people who determine - the way is based on words and interpretations of what someone else ment- rather than society, and what the individual thinks. Yet it was some other individual - who may very well be dead, or a law that was decided before you were even born to determine what is right for you.

I think this is a false notion. I think individual choice trumps state control. It is dehumanizing really to be delegated by a political machine rather than your own reasons.

I'm not saying go out and kill the person who cut you off yesterday and gave you the finger. I am saying though that say if people actually are conspiring to destroy your life, blowing their heads off or drowning them in a toilet isn't really "bad" it is just a natural response.

Also sometimes people do things in anger - after anger management courses or otherwise they can potentially not be prone to killing in anger again.

Often it can be drug or alchohol related. Prohibiting access to drugs or alchohol could prevent future offence.

It is a case to case thing.

Just saying RAPE is the worst thing, isn't necisarily representative of every rape. Some may be misunderstandings rather than forcable confinement and aggravated sexual assault. Some leave no scars but knowing that they were a donut.

The spiritual and other aspects are something else entirely I'm sure but physically that is as stated above blown way out of proportion on cultural grounds.

So yeah I still think that the death penalty would be on compasionate grounds. With the convict having the option.

And I think that not every murder or rape is really "deserving life" let alone jail time.

God didn't say thou shalt not kill and if you do you shall be put in a tomb forever.

I think victim impact is part of that. Like there are some very very mentally issued people who would put people in jail for looking at them the wrong way if they could.

It is just a facet of Canadian soceity that there are morally corrupt people who don't respect individuals right to freedom.

------------

The justice system itself tends to build that into it, so it is probably a loosing context.

I'm more so for informed vigilatism.

1. Give them a warning you will kill them if you see them.

2. If they show up near you, they had warning.

Doesn't mean the system can't help it.

I'd rather have freedom and chaos than limitation and hierarchy.

its a facet of life but death is really the only compassion from an otherwise morally corrupt system.

But no forced death penalties arn't moral. (it should be in the moment, not meditated) death by consent is moral though. But one sided death, is murder.

Murder in the moment is justified as an emotional response, if it is defence of ones own freedoms. An individual's freedoms however cannot infringe on the other person.

The other person has to be infringing on their freedoms to justify it.

Really meditated murder is "the worst moral crime" (when not in self defence) so inbeding that within the state is a little false. Compasionate grounds and meditation ain't the same.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Esq

[Bob]

*gasp!*

How dare you consider that anyone is capable of rehabilitation and redemption!

Oh, the humanity.

Well, yes, indeed it is 'humanity' isn't it?

Plus I noticed you said the word "chance" in keeping with the spirit of our laws.

The usage of the word "chance" doesn't change the absurdity of his proposition. A monster like Bernardo should never, ever have even the chance of being released, with or without fantasies of rehabilitation. A monster like him cannot be rehabilitated. Moreover, he has forfeited all of his rights to freedom when he did what he did. The suggestion that he should be given the chance to be released is abhorrent and offensive.

We'll just add you to the looney-tunes club named "Perversion of Justice" of which TrueMetis is a card-carrying member.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

This judaic eye for eye in the justice system is pretty mentally unsound as far as I'm concerned, if indeed it is intended that way. It is a form of brain rot. Creating even due to evil is rather backward. That whole fire with fire thing.

Judaism doesn't advocate "eye for an eye". The statement in the Torah is viewed as metaphorical for monetary compensation. So, if I assault you and blind you, there is a system through which I am beholden to you for the value of your eyes. I might be liable to you monetarily and/or through service.

[Saipan]

Judaism doesn't advocate "eye for an eye".

But Islam does. And more.

[Bob]

But Islam does. And more.

Probably depends who you ask. Anyways, it's complicated.

[Shwa]

The usage of the word "chance" doesn't change the absurdity of his proposition. A monster like Bernardo should never, ever have even the chance of being released, with or without fantasies of rehabilitation. A monster like him cannot be rehabilitated. Moreover, he has forfeited all of his rights to freedom when he did what he did. The suggestion that he should be given the chance to be released is abhorrent and offensive.

We'll just add you to the looney-tunes club named "Perversion of Justice" of which TrueMetis is a card-carrying member.

Please feel free.

But until you can cite some concrete, objective evidence that anyone - even "monsters" like Bernardo - are beyond rehabilitation and redemption, then we'll just add you to the looney-tunes club name "Those Who Frequently Speak Out of Their Ass."

I mean fair is fair.

The word "chance," by the way, was in reference to the laws currently on the books here in Canada since the laws here deem rehabilitation and redemption possible.

[Jack Weber]

Please feel free.

But until you can cite some concrete, objective evidence that anyone - even "monsters" like Bernardo - are beyond rehabilitation and redemption, then we'll just add you to the looney-tunes club name "Those Who Frequently Speak Out of Their Ass."

I mean fair is fair.

The word "chance," by the way, was in reference to the laws currently on the books here in Canada since the laws here deem rehabilitation and redemption possible.

Classic!!!

[Bob]

Please feel free.

But until you can cite some concrete, objective evidence that anyone - even "monsters" like Bernardo - are beyond rehabilitation and redemption, then we'll just add you to the looney-tunes club name "Those Who Frequently Speak Out of Their Ass."

I mean fair is fair.

The word "chance," by the way, was in reference to the laws currently on the books here in Canada since the laws here deem rehabilitation and redemption possible.

Read these books:

Snakes in Suits

Without Conscience

Then come back and tell me the Bernardo should have the chance to be released by some "experts" at a parole review board.

[Jack Weber]

Read these books:

Snakes in Suits

Without Conscience

Then come back and tell me the Bernardo should have the chance to be released by some "experts" at a parole review board.

Hey Bobby...

The point is he won't be...

He's in solitary in Penetanguishene...

Now go back to your pile of rocks and resume your "struggle"...

[Guest American Woman]

Hey Bobby...

The point is he won't be...

He's in solitary in Penetanguishene...

Now go back to your pile of rocks and resume your "struggle"...

That's where he is now. How do you know he won't be there in the future? That's the point. Whether you agree with it or not.

[Guest TrueMetis]

We'll just add you to the looney-tunes club named "Perversion of Justice" of which TrueMetis is a card-carrying member.

As is pretty much everyone else in Canada because what it is really known as is the Canadian justice system. Don't like it write you MP, maybe you'll get lucky and he will be one of those ineffectual "tough on crime" idiots. Then you can at least pretend like you are actually doing something.

Read these books:

Snakes in Suits

Without Conscience

Then come back and tell me the Bernardo should have the chance to be released by some "experts" at a parole review board.

You do realize that Bernardo wasn't considered a psychopath, and if he had been he wouldn't have been sent to prison? He would have been put into a mental health facility indefinitely. As is he is considered a dangerous offender making his release even more unlikely.

Learn the basics of the Canadian justice system then come back and debate it.

Edited January 30, 2011 by TrueMetis

[Wild Bill]

People make mistakes. Its repeat offenders that are the troublespot IMO.

Perhaps I just don't understand Rape - but in my mind it just plays off as relatively limited body interchange that lasts a short period of time. the only downside is that you have sex with someone you don't want to. People do that in retrospect all the time after a night of drinking. Heck some marriages are founded on it.

Man, you have just lost every woman on the planet!

You sound like a virgin academic! First off, rape almost invariably includes a lot of pain. Second, to a woman the sense of violation can psychologically scar her for life! The fact that you don't understand WHY is irrelevant! That's how it affects most women! It's a simple fact that can't be denied!

I predict that you are due for some pretty intense flame responses from our female members.

[Shwa]

Read these books:

Snakes in Suits

Without Conscience

Then come back and tell me the Bernardo should have the chance to be released by some "experts" at a parole review board.

Dodge. Read these books:

Everybody Poops 410 Pounds a Year

Kama Pootra: 52 Mind-Blowing Ways to Poop

And then come back with some concrete, objective evidence that our laws are wrong.

[Guest American Woman]

Man, you have just lost every woman on the planet!

You sound like a virgin academic! First off, rape almost invariably includes a lot of pain. Second, to a woman the sense of violation can psychologically scar her for life! The fact that you don't understand WHY is irrelevant! That's how it affects most women! It's a simple fact that can't be denied!

I predict that you are due for some pretty intense flame responses from our female members.

You pretty much covered the bases, so this woman thanks you for that.

I'll just add -- possibility of sexually transmitted diseases and possibility of pregnancy, neither a very trivial thing to say the very least, and without having had a choice in the matter. Marriages and "nights of drinking" involve choices. Even if they are poor ones, they are still the woman's choice.

Honestly, I'm pretty much rendered speechless that anyone could think that way.