Death penalty

[Saipan]

as you know, rural crime rates exceed urban crime rates.('cept for car thefts )

Interesting opinion. You have the statistics?

Edited February 2, 2011 by Saipan

[guyser]

Interesting opinion.

It is not an opinion.

You have the statistics?

Just facts.

Sucks huh? Blows all your silly notions out of the water.

The overall crime rate in small urban areas was 43% higher than in large urban areas, defined as census metropolitan areas, and 58% higher than in rural areas. Rates of total violent crime, total property crime and break-ins were also highest in small urban areas.

Of the 658 homicides in Canada in 2005 with a known location, 427 were committed in large urban areas, 95 in small urban areas and 135 in rural areas.

Taking population into account, the homicide rate of 2.5 homicides per 100,000 people in rural areas was actually higher than the rate of 2.0 in large urban areas and the rate of 1.7 in small urban areas. This pattern has held constant over the past decade.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070628/dq070628b-eng.htm

[guyser]

Guess I just don't subscribe to the idea that it is OK to put someone to death just because of the way I "feel".

My stand on capital punishment has more to do with my own conscience than the fate of a criminal. In fact I don't have any sympathy for many of these scumbags and perhaps they don't have the right to life but that is not for me to say. Killing someone for a crime will not undo what happened. It may be a sanctioned killing but it is really just another killing.

Well said wilber

[Saipan]

It is not an opinion.

Just facts.

Sucks huh? Blows all your silly notions out of the water.

Not at all. Non of the small towns here have ANY murder. And all homes are armed.

Your stats include indians areas. Very high crime.

But thanks for the link. (it's a keeper) It shows: "In Quebec and Ontario, the only provinces where data on weapon use in violent crimes were available for both urban and rural areas, about 1 in 6 violent incidents involved a weapon of some sort, most commonly a knife.

Of interest to those who claim registration of long firearms have any influence on reducing homicide

[Smallc]

Well said wilber

Very well said indeed.

[segnosaur]

My stand on capital punishment has more to do with my own conscience than the fate of a criminal. In fact I don't have any sympathy for many of these scumbags and perhaps they don't have the right to life but that is not for me to say.

Well, is it right for you to say "I think someone who commits a crime should be arrested and incarcerated"? After all, that's really just legalized kidnapping and hostage taking. Or what about applying a fine? That's really just a type of legalized theft.

Yes, death is a little more final than incarceration (and due to the risk of executing an innocent person I'm not pushing for the death penalty to be reinstated), but any sort of punishment will affect convicted people, in ways that might be cruel if done for other reasons.

Killing someone for a crime will not undo what happened.

Neither will putting them in jail, or fining them. Yet we still do that.

[Saipan]

There should be no any problem shooting the guy who shot 100 hard working dogs and throw him in the same pit. I'd bet there'll be very few objections, if any.

[Wilber]

Well, is it right for you to say "I think someone who commits a crime should be arrested and incarcerated"? After all, that's really just legalized kidnapping and hostage taking. Or what about applying a fine? That's really just a type of legalized theft.

Yes, death is a little more final than incarceration (and due to the risk of executing an innocent person I'm not pushing for the death penalty to be reinstated), but any sort of punishment will affect convicted people, in ways that might be cruel if done for other reasons.

Neither will putting them in jail, or fining them. Yet we still do that.

The obvious difference being it is not necessary to kill someone to protect society from their actions.

Whether death us a little more final than incarceration is a matter of opinion. Your opinion might change if it was your death in question.

[bush_cheney2004]

The obvious difference being it is not necessary to kill someone to protect society from their actions.

Correct...but it is very effective.

Whether death us a little more final than incarceration is a matter of opinion. Your opinion might change if it was your death in question.

Mine wouldn't....nobody is getting out of here alive.

[Saipan]

The obvious difference being it is not necessary to kill someone to protect society from their actions.

It is for two reasons.

1) Deterrent.

2) Preventing repeat offence.

Your opinion might change if it was your death in question.

Criminal's opinion is always different. Who gives a shit.

[Wilber]

Correct...but it is very effective.

Not really, countries without the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than those which do. This even applies to states within your own country. LINK Incarceration is at least as effective.

Mine wouldn't....nobody is getting out of here alive.

Seriously though, if the death penalty is only a little more final than incarceration, why is the appeals process so long and complicated and why do so many on death row take full advantage of it. Obviously both society and the criminal think it is a lot more final.

[Shwa]

Well, is it right for you to say "I think someone who commits a crime should be arrested and incarcerated"? After all, that's really just legalized kidnapping and hostage taking. Or what about applying a fine? That's really just a type of legalized theft.

Yes, death is a little more final than incarceration (and due to the risk of executing an innocent person I'm not pushing for the death penalty to be reinstated), but any sort of punishment will affect convicted people, in ways that might be cruel if done for other reasons.

Neither will putting them in jail, or fining them. Yet we still do that.

Arresting them, putting them in jail or fining them rests on the principles of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution that is applicable to all criminal sentences. If you kill them, you cannot apply those principles to any effect.

[Saipan]

Arresting them, putting them in jail or fining them rests on the principles of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution that is applicable to all criminal sentences. If you kill them, you cannot apply those principles to any effect.

Yes, you can. Other criminals see it doesn't pay.

Most importantly, why should victims pay for them through their taxes?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not really, countries without the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than those which do. This even applies to states within your own country. LINK Incarceration is at least as effective.

No, those who are incarcerated can and do re-offend, even when confined. Dead men/women do not.

Seriously though, if the death penalty is only a little more final than incarceration, why is the appeals process so long and complicated and why do so many on death row take full advantage of it. Obviously both society and the criminal think it is a lot more final.

We already know the eventual outcome, we are just debating the amount of time in between.

[Shwa]

Yes, you can. Other criminals see it doesn't pay.

Interesting opinion. You have the statistics?

Most importantly, why should victims pay for them through their taxes?

Give them a tax break or some counselling to accept the fact that this is the way it is.

[Wilber]

No, those who are incarcerated can and do re-offend, even when confined. Dead men/women do not.

And yet, murder rates do not back that up. Are you trying to say that 100% of murders in prisons are committed by people already convicted of murder? If not, we should apply the death penalty to all crimes, just to be safe.

We already know the eventual outcome, we are just debating the amount of time in between.

No, we are debating the cause of death. That logic can be applied to killing anyone. Well, they were going to die anyway, someday.

[bloodyminded]

Guess I just don't subscribe to the idea that it is OK to put someone to death just because of the way I "feel".

My stand on capital punishment has more to do with my own conscience than the fate of a criminal. In fact I don't have any sympathy for many of these scumbags and perhaps they don't have the right to life but that is not for me to say. Killing someone for a crime will not undo what happened. It may be a sanctioned killing but it is really just another killing.

I feel exactly the same way. I'm not saying that, perhaps, some people don't "deserve" to be killed. It may well be that they do.

Or...maybe not.

Who knows?

And since that's my answer, I feel it's best not to have such a thing.

Ending a life is an existential act, a profoundly solemn act, and I don't think it should be done except under necessity; not as a sentence, but to unmbiguously save other lives in the immediate situation, for example.

Also, it gives the State the ultimate authority; there is no higher authority than the ability to legally kill a citizen. That's a good enough reason, in itself, not to have capital punishment.

But...we don't, so I guess it's moot.

Edited February 2, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

And yet, murder rates do not back that up. Are you trying to say that 100% of murders in prisons are committed by people already convicted of murder? If not, we should apply the death penalty to all crimes, just to be safe.

No, I am saying that your earlier claim does not pass muster. Incarcerated prisoners can/do re-offend in prison..that's a fact Jack.

No, we are debating the cause of death. That logic can be applied to killing anyone. Well, they were going to die anyway, someday.

Correct, and we use that logic often along the conception-birth-life-death continuum. Why should it be suspended for convicted prisoners sentenced to death in accordance with law?

[Wilber]

No, I am saying that your earlier claim does not pass muster. Incarcerated prisoners can/do re-offend in prison..that's a fact Jack.

Sure they do but not just convicted murderers. My claim that capital punishment doesn't lower murder rates does pass muster.

Correct, and we use that logic often along the conception-birth-life-death continuum. Why should it be suspended for convicted prisoners sentenced to death in accordance with law?

In this case we use that logic to give the state the legal right to put people to death, nothing more. At the other end of the scale we don't sanction the execution of prisoners of war even though they may have killed one of our own and might again while incarcerated or escape. It has nothing to do with any conception-birth-life-death continuum.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Wilber

[Saipan]

And yet, murder rates do not back that up.

Yes, they do.

[Wilber]

Yes, they do.

I'd like to see the source for that graph and where the statistics came from. Do you really beleive the homicide rate was zero from 1970 to 1976? The ones in my links came from the US census and the FBI.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Wilber

[Wild Bill]

If we brought back the death penalty, we wouldn't have to use it for EVERYTHING, like some people in this debate seem to suggest would be a problem. I'd be happy if if was applied only in cases of horrific crimes proven "beyond reasonable doubt". That way a Donald Marshall might get life and a Paul Bernardo would get the chair.

Or, I could be happy with life imprisonment. I might quibble if a Bernardo got cable tv when I couldn't afford it myself but still, knowing he would pay for his entire life and would never be a threat to anyone else would no doubt be comforting to the families of his victims. Those collateral victims seem to be forgotten in these debates.

What DOES bother me is we don't seem to get EITHER! No capital punishment, and life often doesn't mean anywhere near life at all. First class murder can mean less than 15 years. Often the charge is reduced to second class or manslaughter in order to better ensure a conviction. So the murderer can serve what seems to be an inappropriately short sentence.

I wish Canada would make up its mind!

[Saipan]

I'd like to see the source for that graph and where the statistics came from. Do you really beleive the homicide rate was zero from 1970 to 1976?

I guess not but very low.

Canada had very low homicide rate before all the gun legislations and feel good theatres.

[Saipan]

First class murder can mean less than 15 years.

As low as community service for couple of month for stabbing sleeping man to death. But the criminal was indian woman so maybe she had no runing water or sniffed glue.....

Two years for shooting sleeping husband six (6) times with a gun she smuggled from the US. And becoming celebrity on Hana Garner The National. Why just two years? The husband miraculously survived. So all depended on placement of the bullets. No charge for the illegal gun, no charge for smuggling.

No charge for premeditation to murder. Only for causing "injury" !!?

[Wild Bill]

As low as community service for couple of month for stabbing sleeping man to death. But the criminal was indian woman so maybe she had no runing water or sniffed glue.....

Two years for shooting sleeping husband six (6) times with a gun she smuggled from the US. And becoming celebrity on Hana Garner The National. Why just two years? The husband miraculously survived. So all depended on placement of the bullets. No charge for the illegal gun, no charge for smuggling.

No charge for premeditation to murder. Only for causing "injury" !!?

Be patient, Saipan. A few of our posters will no doubt be jumping in very soon to explain to us how natives have such a perfect society that they are entitled to a different sentence than any other Canadian. What's more, it will be explained that the woman raised in an aboriginal society would never have committed such a violent act in the first place. This means that the entire report must be a fabrication of some white reporter like Christie Blatchford, as a ruse to try to make aboriginals look bad.

Failing all that, we'll be told that since her case was based on logic the entire affair must have been "a figamentation of your imagination", as Bullwinkle J Moose used to say...