Death penalty

[Bob]

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.

You're making things up again and pretending to know things you don't. You're presenting two false (or at least debatable) "facts", and hoping that nobody will call you on it. I'll call your bluff.

First, let's address your assertion that Paul Bernardo wasn't considered a psychopath. You're pretending to somehow know this. Did you read diagnostics done on him by psychiatrists or psychologists? You and I both know that you have not. Robert Hare, the author of the two books I listed above and arguably the world's foremost authority on psychopathy (he's also Canadian!), has stated that Bernardo is certainly a psychopath. Many articles I've read about Bernardo, written by professionals and not simple journalists, agree that Bernardo is indeed a psychopath. Paul Bernardo himself, for what it's worth, has tried to make claims that he is a reformed psychopath in attempts towards parole after fifteen years via the "Faint Hope" clause (whatever that is).

The second false assertion you're making is that psychopaths aren't sent to prison. Since when? Where is the law against sending psychopaths to prison? Prison is filled with psychopaths. Do you even know what psychopathy is?

You're doing what you usually do, which is pretending to know things.

[Bob]

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.

It's not a dodge, at all. Anyone who reads either or both of those two books will understand that psychopaths like Bernardo cannot be rehabilitated or reformed. Don't be so naive to think that parole laws were written in consultation with psychiatrists or psychologists with respect to psychopathy.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

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.

That's exactly it. We should not be afraid to institute new laws to enforce REAL life imprisonment. It is outrageous that a criminal like Bernardo can even be given the chance to be released.

[Guest TrueMetis]

You're making things up again and pretending to know things you don't. You're presenting two false (or at least debatable) "facts", and hoping that nobody will call you on it. I'll call your bluff.

I enjoy how you say things like this while at the same time confessing to not knowing basic things like what the faint hope clause is.

First, let's address your assertion that Paul Bernardo wasn't considered a psychopath. You're pretending to somehow know this. Did you read diagnostics done on him by psychiatrists or psychologists? You and I both know that you have not. Robert Hare, the author of the two books I listed above and arguably the world's foremost authority on psychopathy (he's also Canadian!), has stated that Bernardo is certainly a psychopath. Many articles I've read about Bernardo, written by professionals and not simple journalists, agree that Bernardo is indeed a psychopath. Paul Bernardo himself, for what it's worth, has tried to make claims that he is a reformed psychopath in attempts towards parole after fifteen years via the "Faint Hope" clause (whatever that is).

Then why wasn't it used during the trial? Section 16 of the criminal code states. No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

Since one of the main criteria of being a psychopath is being unable to feel remorse of guilt, and because psychopathy is thought to have a biological origin than if Bernardo really was psychopathic than he wouldn't go to jail.

The second false assertion you're making is that psychopaths aren't sent to prison. Since when? Where is the law against sending psychopaths to prison? Prison is filled with psychopaths. Do you even know what psychopathy is?

You're doing what you usually do, which is pretending to know things.

Yes I do it's a mental disorder formally known as Antisocial Personality Disorder and as such if it could actually be proven he had it he would have been sent for and indefinite stay in a mental health facility.

[betsy]

So harper makes a mention of it and MP Mcguinty jumps all over it, pretty well saying I dare you to bring it to the people, 69% of canadians agree with harper that in special cases it should be used. So my question is ,do you support it and how dumb is mcguinty for not checking the pulse 1st of canadians before going on the attack.Personally it is a tough choice, bernardo, williams, olsen, I could live with them getting it but not for all.

I was a supporter of the death penalty...however, I changed my position on that. I no longer support it. Religious belief aside, I found myself crying one afternoon while watching the news on tv: they were talking about a man who was posthumously pardoned decades after he was executed. I can't remember the name or the place in the USA where this happened. All I know is that he was mentally challenged (with the intelligence of a 4 year old), and crucial evidence that could've acquitted him were not presented and that the whole investigation was done sloppily. While awaiting his execution in death row, he spent most of his days with the warden's family. The warden couldn't believe he was guilty. When he was executed, he did not even understand what was happening to him. The warden was holding his hand throughout the execution process, reassuring him.

Years later, evidence proved that there was absolutely no way he could've done the crime he was executed for.

I don't like the idea that a man's life is placed at the hand of another's. True we can say "we just make sure that a person is proved guilty without any reasonable doubt" ...obviously that man was found guilty by men who swore that there was no reasonable doubt whatsoever he did it. And now we found out, there shouldn't have been any doubt at all in the first place of his INNOCENCE! We are only human. Some are good at their jobs, have good work ethics and take their responsibilities seriously....while others couldn't care less. Just look into your own workplace and I guess you get my meaning. The justice system is just as easily peopled with these types. Just look at all the wrongful convictions we have in Canada alone.

Edited January 30, 2011 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

Since one of the main criteria of being a psychopath is being unable to feel remorse of guilt, and because psychopathy is thought to have a biological origin than if Bernardo really was psychopathic than he wouldn't go to jail.

Evidently psychopaths are sometimes sent to prison in Canada.

Canada’s prisons are granting early release to psychopaths 2½ times more often than they grant it to other criminals, a group of psychologists says.

The article goes on to say: [The] study looked at 310 male criminals in Canadian prisons who applied for early release. All had served at least two years, most for violent crimes. Ninety of the 310 were classed as psychopathic.

So 90 of the 310 criminals in Canadian prisons were classed as psychopathic, yet they were in prison.

[Wild Bill]

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.

Yeah AW, when I first read his post I was in shock! I guess he's never had a strong relationship with a woman. An attitude like that shows either incredible ignorance or incredible callousness!

It went right to the core of this old hippy! I've still got a lot of close female friends. Back then a lot of them were what we called "ball buddies". Today the term is "friends, with benefits". I never made such distinctions. To me they are simply friends, and you don't treat your friends' feelings so cavalierly.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Evidently psychopaths are sometimes sent to prison in Canada.

Canada’s prisons are granting early release to psychopaths 2½ times more often than they grant it to other criminals, a group of psychologists says.

The article goes on to say: [The] study looked at 310 male criminals in Canadian prisons who applied for early release. All had served at least two years, most for violent crimes. Ninety of the 310 were classed as psychopathic.

So 90 of the 310 criminals in Canadian prisons were classed as psychopathic, yet they were in prison.

They shouldn't be, as for treatment since many psychologists, including Bob Hare, think that psychopathy is biological then treatment should be possible.

[Bob]

I enjoy how you say things like this while at the same time confessing to not knowing basic things like what the faint hope clause is.

I admit things I don't know and refrain from speaking about such things with certainty. You, on the other hand, regularly dive right into subjects you know little to nothing about.

Then why wasn't it used during the trial? Section 16 of the criminal code states. No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

Since one of the main criteria of being a psychopath is being unable to feel remorse of guilt, and because psychopathy is thought to have a biological origin than if Bernardo really was psychopathic than he wouldn't go to jail.

Psychopathy doesn't render someone incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of what they're doing. You're wrong. Again. Lastly, why are you pretending to be familiar with the trial?

Yes I do it's a mental disorder formally known as Antisocial Personality Disorder and as such if it could actually be proven he had it he would have been sent for and indefinite stay in a mental health facility.

Wrong again.

Regardless of all your nonsense, the fact remains that Bernardo and others like him cannot be rehabilitated, and should never be given even the chance of being released. You, on the other hand, are "perfectly fine" with him having the chance to get out. Sometimes I think you say such stupid things just for the sake of disagreeing with me.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

They shouldn't be, as for treatment since many psychologists, including Bob Hare, think that psychopathy is biological then treatment should be possible.

What does the psychopathy's biological connection have to do with its treatability? If you read Robert Hare's books, you'd know that not his position. You're just digging your hole even deeper by being so obstinate.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Fuck it I'm not doing this anymore.

Edited January 30, 2011 by TrueMetis

[Wild Bill]

They shouldn't be, as for treatment since many psychologists, including Bob Hare, think that psychopathy is biological then treatment should be possible.

Then you should have no trouble citing many instances of successful treatment!

I've never heard of even ONE instance! Have you?

[Saipan]

Then you should have no trouble citing many instances of successful treatment!

I've never heard of even ONE instance! Have you?

Yes. Soon as they are hanged they stop.

[Bob]

Then you should have no trouble citing many instances of successful treatment!

I've never heard of even ONE instance! Have you?

I'll save him the trouble, psychopaths cannot be rehabilitated.

[Bob]

Anyone else notice how ridiculous it was of TrueMetis to suggest that psychopathy is treatable because it is (largely) biological? Someone skipped their academic science classes in high school...

[Bonam]

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.

Rape is often not just a matter of unwanted sexual intercourse. Quite often, it includes serious physical assault in the process. After all, the raper has to overpower the rapee, or use drugs that subdue the victim. Legal punishments do already vary based on the situation. In the case of a "rape" that is a "misunderstanding" after a night of people getting drunk at a bar and the woman later deciding that she didn't really want to have sex and reporting a rape, the legal consequences will be very different than in the case of a man physically overpowering, abducting, violating, and harming a woman.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Bonam

[Saipan]

In the US women can apply for conceal carry and allowed to shoot the rapist.

[Shwa]

It's not a dodge, at all. Anyone who reads either or both of those two books will understand that psychopaths like Bernardo cannot be rehabilitated or reformed.

Make no mistake, it's a dodge and an inelegant one to boot. Now maybe your single source Hare brings something, but you don't. All you can say is 'read this book' as a rebuttal. Pffft.

Snakes in Suits

The work is interlaced with fictional narrative illustrating how the factual content applies to real life situations.

Sounds like the Bible to me, which I am sure you are going to offer up in your next dodge, you know, stone 'em til their dead.

Don't be so naive to think that parole laws were written in consultation with psychiatrists or psychologists with respect to psychopathy.

Of course when considering cases, sentences, prison programs and releases, the court never allows psychiatric or psychological reporting at all. Completely unheard of right? I mean in must be against the laws all that medical consultation. Right?

[Esq]

In the US women can apply for conceal carry and allowed to shoot the rapist.

In Canada they can say the have HPV and Aids, carry a knife or bat or learn jujitsu

what is your point?

In most instances of abduction a woman will not have time to grap a concealed handgun.

Also prooving there was an attempted rape may be difficult - putting a certain level of doubt on whether the woman killed the person or not.

I'm all for weaponization of society but it is not a solution. If a woman can get a concealed carry so can the rapist.. then what?

While it is true the rapist could reply "so do I"

There are solutions and concealed carry hasn't stopped rapes in the US.

There are probably more sexual assaults in the US military than in Canada per capital

.824 USA vs 0.733089 Canada (about 1 in 1500 people. or perhaps 1 in 750 women)

1 of 6 U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape.

1.5 per 100,000 apparently are raped per Canada..

The figures are all over the place.

The UN recorded 491 rapes in Canada vs. 89000 in the US in 2009.

Your concealed carry does seem to encourage more rape reporting in the US.

It leaves one to wonder how many rapes "do actually occur"

Edited January 31, 2011 by Esq

[Saipan]

In Canada they can say the have HPV and Aids, carry a knife or bat or learn jujitsu

what is your point?

If it's so effective so can the cops.

In most instances of abduction a woman will not have time to grap a concealed handgun.

You have evidence?

Also prooving there was an attempted rape may be difficult - putting a certain level of doubt on whether the woman killed the person or not.

The rapists are well known criminals.

Can the cop prove he had to shoot?

If a woman can get a concealed carry so can the rapist..

That is the POINT. The CRIMINALS always do. Licence is the LAST thing for them to worry about. They know with their record they won't get it anyway. Plus it's much faster to get gun illegally.

There are solutions and concealed carry hasn't stopped rapes in the US.

Yes it did. Violent crime went down.

BTW, what "solutions"?

1 of 6 U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape.

You just said it can't be proven.

[Molly]

Wow. I wonder how far we'd have to go to find two people who know less about the subject they're arguing over.

Esq, you might want to figure out whether you are talking rape or sexual asault- occurences, reports or convictions, per year or lifetime per capita.. (not 'per woman'. 4 of the rape victims that I know are male).. and then you should question whether the source you have consulted is in any manner qualified to offer a numerical report, regardless of which statistical sliver they've chosen to report.

Saipan, get a grip. NOTHING tops "The rapists are well known criminals." for pulling a laughably obtuse falsehood out of thin air.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Molly

[Saipan]

Prove it.

[segnosaur]

Robert Hare, the author of the two books I listed above and arguably the world's foremost authority on psychopathy (he's also Canadian!), has stated that Bernardo is certainly a psychopath. Many articles I've read about Bernardo, written by professionals and not simple journalists, agree that Bernardo is indeed a psychopath.

Then why wasn't it used during the trial? Section 16 of the criminal code states. No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

Since one of the main criteria of being a psychopath is being unable to feel remorse of guilt, and because psychopathy is thought to have a biological origin than if Bernardo really was psychopathic than he wouldn't go to jail.

The problem with your argument is that being "unable to feel remorse" (i.e. being a 'psychopath') is not the same as not "appreciating the nature of the act... or knowing it was wrong".

Even if Bernardo didn't feel remorse about being involved in sexual assaults and/or murders, he was quite capable of understanding that his actions were wrong (or would be seen as wrong by society and were thus to be avoided). Section 16 deals with individuals who were actually incapable of understanding that what they did was wrong. (For example, a person who is mentally handicapped who doesn't understand the concept of death, or someone who is actually 'hears voices' that convince him that his neighbor is an evil alien and he needs to kill him to prevent an invasion from outer space.)

One of the first attempts to characterize what should be considered 'insanity' (in terms of a legal defense) were the M'Haghten rules.) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_Rules

Oh, and here's something else to consider... The American Psychiatric Association found that those found not guilty by reason of insanity actually spent twice as long (on average) in a mental hospital (which is not exactly a vacation...) as those who were found to be sane/guilty and got sentenced to a regular jail. (Probably wouldn't apply to Bernardo, just something interesting to ponder.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html

Edited January 31, 2011 by segnosaur

[Esq]

If it's so effective so can the cops.

You have evidence?

The rapists are well known criminals.

Can the cop prove he had to shoot?

That is the POINT. The CRIMINALS always do. Licence is the LAST thing for them to worry about. They know with their record they won't get it anyway. Plus it's much faster to get gun illegally.

Yes it did. Violent crime went down.

BTW, what "solutions"?

You just said it can't be proven.

The text I typed was

"Also prooving there was an attempted rape may be difficult"

This doesn't mean it can't, it means prooving it is difficult. Certain elements need to be established.

1. The person who needs proof saw it happen (beyond a reasonable doubt) or experienced it.

2. Everyone dies and god said it happened.

I wasn't actually refering to that, what i mean is that if women go around shooting guys or guys women (and with molly's statement that men are being raped too..) a dead body and some type of rough intercourse suddently becomes circumstancial unless there are witnesses.

Just because violent crime in the US goes down doesn't mean you take that same approach somewhere else in the world means it would change things.

Also the more guns you have out there, I would think the chances of violent crime especially gun related violence would increase.

There are already guns in the US...

Crime has gone down in Canada over that same period with stricter gun laws..

The only corelation is likely that increased enculturation is reducing certain types of crime, not making guns more or less available.

Rape to begin with is more common in gun rich America.

You seemed to avoid that 490 rapes in Canada vs 89000 in the usa?

"Some types of reported property crime in the U.S. survey as lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher."

Canada's gun laws are not severe, they are there to allow people who need guns and can be trusted with them to get them.

Taking a gun test and not having people say you might try to kill them is all that is really required.

True the costs aren't really necesiary but that is the governments fault. I think if there was no cost involved many people wouldn't care about IQ testing and actually learning about their gun before they can shoot it on their own.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Esq

[guyser]

a dead body and some type of rough intercourse suddently becomes circumstancial unless there are witnesses.

I have no idea what you are trying to get at but I think you should stop trying.

The above captioned statement is so wrong one wouldnt know where to start.