Majority of Canadians support death penalty

[Bryan]

A half-century has passed since the last person in Canada was executed, but a recent public opinion poll suggests Canadians are warming to the idea of a return to capital punishment.

The survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion in partnership with the Toronto Star found that 63 per cent of the 1,002 Canadians surveyed across the country believe the death penalty is sometimes appropriate. Sixty-one per cent said capital punishment, which was abolished in Canada in 1976, is warranted for murder.

Sixty-one per cent said capital punishment is warranted for murder. When was the last time we had that much agreement for anything in this country?

“We ask the question in two ways — do you support or oppose the death penalty — and in that context people really do support it,” he said. But when the option of life imprisonment is introduced as an option for those convicted of murder, “50 per cent actually say they would prefer life in prison.”

So we also are seeking much stiffer prison sentences. There's no such thing as a 'rest-of-your-life' sentence in Canada, but half the people in this country wish there were. So much for the opposition to recent tough on crime measures, most people wish they were much tougher.

This must be a Sun News story, right? What? Angus Reid and the Toronto Star? LOL!

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1127764--majority-of-canadians-support-return-of-death-penalty-poll-finds

[MiddleClassCentrist]

The problem is that they could kill the wrong guy.

If I knew that 100% of all death penalties handed out were for murderers, rapists, child molsesters, etc. I'd have no moral problem with it. I find it more moral that society not be forced to pay for them to live out their life.

[olpfan1]

The problem is that they could kill the wrong guy.

If I knew that 100% of all death penalties handed out were for murderers, rapists, child molsesters, etc. I'd have no moral problem with it. I find it more moral that society not be forced to pay for them to live out their life.

I'm in the same agreement as you

[olpfan1]

Hey Bryan.. majority of Canadians polled want Assisted Suicide as well.. Majority of Canadians want marijuana legalized too

Majority of Canadians polled do not support a war with Iran

Hey Bryan majority of Canadians polled want prostitution legalized

But I bet you'll object to some of those.. your point was not made well

Edited February 26, 2012 by olpfan1

[Guest American Woman]

The problem is that they could kill the wrong guy.

If I knew that 100% of all death penalties handed out were for murderers, rapists, child molsesters, etc. I'd have no moral problem with it. I find it more moral that society not be forced to pay for them to live out their life.

Although sometimes there is absolutely no doubt at all as to whether or not the convicted actually did it, I agree regarding the possibility of killing the wrong person - it's why I voted against it (and it remained abolished in my state). However, I actually would rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison with no possibility of parole, so considering the "humane" aspect of it, which is so often brought up, I think death is more humane. Furthermore, a dead person is no threat to society, those targeted, or the people who testified against them. However, as I said, I voted against it - so that's ultimately my stance on it. My point is that it's not quite as cut and dried as some would make it out to be.

Edited February 26, 2012 by American Woman

[Shakeyhands]

However, I actually would rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison with no possibility of parole,

This I agree with. It is far more punishment to have to spend the rest of your life in jail than to gently drift off to death with the prick of a needle.

Not to mention it's far cheaper (if we use the US as an example, oh no... here comes BC) to keep someone incarcerated than to put them to death.

This is of course before we even bring up the cases of the wrongfully convicted and innocents that have been put to death.

[Newfoundlander]

When it comes to people like Paul Bernado I agree with it.

[Wild Bill]

This I agree with. It is far more punishment to have to spend the rest of your life in jail than to gently drift off to death with the prick of a needle.

Not to mention it's far cheaper (if we use the US as an example, oh no... here comes BC) to keep someone incarcerated than to put them to death.

This is of course before we even bring up the cases of the wrongfully convicted and innocents that have been put to death.

Well Shakey, some folks are ignoring some pretty basic premises here. First off there's the issue of the people getting the law that they want! I can understand how some would be against a majority opinion but I have never understood how they can expect their minority opinion to win out over the wishes of the majority. To me, this is simple elitism and frankly, I despise it, even when my views are those of the minority!

Sadly, my views usually are, it seems!

Second, I too am worried about a mistaken execution but these are not the days of Steven Truscott! Modern DNA forensics are such that there are times when proof of guilt is overwhelming.

Just because capital punishment returns is no reason to expect it to be compulsory! It never really was! There is no reason not to reserve a capital sentence only for cases where guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt, as with a Paul Bernardo.

So the idea of executing the wrong man is really a red herring used by those who don't want capital punishment period, in any way, shape or form!

The idea that life in prison is somehow less humane seems also a red herring. It is a clumsy appeal to any "red neck" opposition, to try to make them think that life imprisonment is a harsher punishment, as if that would be the only reason why some wanted capital punishment in the first place!

This is yet another area where the Law is in conflict with the wants and values of the majority of the country's citizens, for over half a century! I truly believe that this sort of thing only breeds disrespect for the Law and that is NOT a good thing! And you can't get respect back by scolding people to change their beliefs!

Since clearly data shows that only a minority supports banning capital punishment, it is only logical that only a minority respects the Law in this matter!

Finally, here in Canada when the choice is to have life imprisonment or capital punishment it seems we do neither! We issue life sentences, but they are never consecutive. As has been said many times, for a murderer in Canada only the first one costs. Any more are free!

When we issue a life sentence, it actually is only 25 years. What's more, we come up with all sorts of ways to shorten that sentence! Time served awaiting trial (at double time!), time off for good behavior, mandatory two thirds served parole - it's hard to see how all this is harsher than capital punishment!

Of course, we do insert a clause or two to make sure that a truly dangerous wacko will never be released, under the definition of a dangerous offender. That sounds nice to those of us worried about a wacko sitting beside us on a bus who wants to chop off our heads but it tells a whole different story to the family and loved ones of a victim who's murderer is NOT declared a dangerous offender and is given early release!

This is one of those issues that politicians hate, either because the majority view conflicts with their own or the majority does not represent a clear voting bloc that would help them next election. They would much rather ignore it, with no party bringing it up during a campaign so no voter gets any electoral choice in the matter.

Still, a conflict between the will of the people and the Law of the land will never disappear. It will just fester for years, until the boil comes to a head and needs to be lanced!

[waldo]

as relevant as any poll is, as relevant as any single poll is, notwithstanding MLW member "Bryan's" most gleeful pronouncement, the poll results would appear to mirror historical "opinion" in that ~40% range:

When asked to select between two possible courses of action to deal with convicted murderers in Canada, half of respondents (50%) prefer life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, while two-in-five (38%) favour the death penalty.

[Wild Bill]

as relevant as any poll is, as relevant as any single poll is, notwithstanding MLW member "Bryan's" most gleeful pronouncement, the poll results would appear to mirror historical "opinion" in that ~40% range:

As I posted already, in Canada we practise NEITHER option! We don't hang 'em and life is NOT life!

I wonder Waldo, given the statistical math skills of many of the leftwing posters here on MLW use to claim a majority of Canadians support the opposition over the Tories, should I not be able to add that 50% and 38% and make the claim that 88% of Canadians want life to mean LIFE?

[waldo]

life is NOT life!

Canadians want life to mean LIFE?

deep! I'll need to ponder this... oh, wait... are you stating something along the lines that, "a life of incarceration, is not life"? If so, I suspect you'd (also) be in favour of that wingnut's proposal to provide prison cells with, "accessory ropes"! Have I captured it right, WB?

[cybercoma]

Sixty-one per cent said capital punishment is warranted for murder. When was the last time we had that much agreement for anything in this country?

So we also are seeking much stiffer prison sentences. There's no such thing as a 'rest-of-your-life' sentence in Canada, but half the people in this country wish there were. So much for the opposition to recent tough on crime measures, most people wish they were much tougher.

This must be a Sun News story, right? What? Angus Reid and the Toronto Star? LOL!

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1127764--majority-of-canadians-support-return-of-death-penalty-poll-finds

This conversation isn't even worth happening because it's not going to happen. It's unconstitutional and would be shot down by the SCC before the ink dries on the bill.

[eyeball]

As I posted already, in Canada we practise NEITHER option! We don't hang 'em and life is NOT life!

I wonder Waldo, given the statistical math skills of many of the leftwing posters here on MLW use to claim a majority of Canadians support the opposition over the Tories, should I not be able to add that 50% and 38% and make the claim that 88% of Canadians want life to mean LIFE?

No, because it's far more correct to state that the Tories do not have the support of the majority of Canadians.

The difference is between a majority and the majority.

The left's math skills will never be worse than the semantic skills of the right.

[Wild Bill]

deep! I'll need to ponder this... oh, wait... are you stating something along the lines that, "a life of incarceration, is not life"? If so, I suspect you'd (also) be in favour of that wingnut's proposal to provide prison cells with, "accessory ropes"! Have I captured it right, WB?

Nope! I guess I wasn't clear. Let me try again.

I'll agree that most Canadians ASSUME that Life means a life of incarceration, just from their understanding of the English language.

However, in Canada a life sentence is NOT incarceration for life! As I posted before, it is actually incarceration for 25 years, which is then further reduced by many factors by an appreciable fraction.

As for what I favour, I'm easy! I'd agree with capital punishment, as long as its only for those cases where the ruling was considered beyond any reasonable doubt. Not being an Islamic fundamentalist I would not support stoning someone to death just for being gay.

So hang Paul Bernardo, but not Richard Simmons! (although I did have to think about if he deserved punishment for his choice of music!).

I could also agree with a life sentence, as long as it actually meant the murderer was indeed incarcerated for the rest of his life.

I think even a large percentage of capital punishment advocates might grudgingly accept the same idea, although being a populist I would want it to be put to some sort of referendum or at least, be a campaign issue.

I just consider the present situation to be rather a scam and frankly, a sleazy one!

Edited February 26, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Moonlight Graham]

If I knew that 100% of all death penalties handed out were for murderers, rapists, child molsesters, etc. I'd have no moral problem with it. I find it more moral that society not be forced to pay for them to live out their life.

Do you realize that it costs much more to execute someone than to imprison them for life? The legal costs of killing someone, appeals etc., are insane. According to that AP article, one jurist said it costs 10x more to execute than to imprison for life.

I've heard this many times before.

Beyond the cost, what about wrongly convicted being killed? Also, what exactly does killing someone accomplish? I think it's better to force a convict to work their fingers to the bone every day for the state to pay back their debt to society, or to work for pay in prison and give most of the salary to the victims' family. Execution accomplishes nothing, & I believe the state should have no power to kill its own citizens.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi

[Bryan]

Hey Bryan.. majority of Canadians polled want Assisted Suicide as well.. Majority of Canadians want marijuana legalized too

Majority of Canadians polled do not support a war with Iran

Hey Bryan majority of Canadians polled want prostitution legalized

But I bet you'll object to some of those.. your point was not made well

You'd lose that bet.

[Guest American Woman]

Do you realize that it costs much more to execute someone than to imprison them for life? The legal costs of killing someone, appeals etc., are insane. According to that AP article, one jurist said it costs 10x more to execute than to imprison for life.

....one jurist said it costs 10x more to execute than to imprison for life.

I believe he was speaking of California, and according to your link, "California's legendarily slow appeals system [...] produces an average wait of nearly 20 years from conviction to fatal injection — the longest in the nation." I've read other stats for other states where the "10x more" does not appear to apply. But yes, execution is more expensive.

...what exactly does killing someone accomplish?

It accomplishes the obvious - the inability of the murderer to ever kill again; peace of mind in that regard for potential victims/witnesses who testified against them.

[Guest Manny]

Hard to accept but the will of the majority is not always the "right" will.

[cybercoma]

It accomplishes the obvious - the inability of the murderer to ever kill again; peace of mind in that regard for potential victims/witnesses who testified against them.

So does imprisoning someone for life.

So is capital punishment merely a cost saving measure?

Also it might be important to consider the recidivism rate for murderers. How many of them go out and kill again if they're released from prison? I don't know the answer for sure, but I bet a lot of people don't go out killing for sport. I bet the majority of people convicted of murder found themselves in circumstances where they believed they had no other option, even if it wasn't self-defense. This notion that there's "bad guys" out there that will do harm for the sake of doing harm is probably not reality. Obviously there are some people out there that would, but I doubt that's the majority even of those convicted of murder.

A death sentence is final. The only argument that really makes sense to me for the death sentence is that the punishment ought to fit the severity of the crime. You take someone's life, then you give up yours. And the problem with that, as has been pointed out, is that the criminal justice system makes mistakes and you can't bring an innocent person back to life.

[Wild Bill]

Hard to accept but the will of the majority is not always the "right" will.

So I should put you down in the "elitist" column?

[cybercoma]

So I should put you down in the "elitist" column?

Do you believe the will of the majority is always right or ethical?

[kimmy]

When it comes to people like Paul Bernado I agree with it.

This may be why support for the death penalty is on the rise... high profile murderers have been in the news. The Robert Pickton trial, Clifford Olson died, Karla Homolka released... there are some people who are so sickening that the question "well why *not* execute them?" becomes a serious discussion.

Somebody like Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olson ...there's no questions as to their guilt, and there's no way that monsters like this could ever be considered "rehabilitated" enough to ever be allowed out of prison. So ... why not the death penalty for cases like this?

I think probably there are two main arguments... one is that the definition of "cases like this" is highly subjective. Any murder case that provokes strong emotion and public outrage could potentially become "cases like this". The other is a philosophical discussion about what limits should be placed on the power of the state.

-k

[waldo]

This may be why support for the death penalty is on the rise...

no - again

as relevant as any poll is, as relevant as any single poll is, notwithstanding MLW member "Bryan's" most gleeful pronouncement, the poll results would appear to mirror historical "opinion" in that ~40% range:

When asked to select between two possible courses of action to deal with convicted murderers in Canada, half of respondents (50%) prefer life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, while two-in-five (38%) favour the death penalty.

[g_bambino]

Hard to accept but the will of the majority is not always the "right" will.

You got that right.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 26 February 2012 - 02:12 PM, said: It accomplishes the obvious - the inability of the murderer to ever kill again; peace of mind in that regard for potential victims/witnesses who testified against them.

So does imprisoning someone for life.

No it doesn't. As long as the person is alive, there's the possibility of escape, parole, a hit being set up - the only thing that guarantees that the murderer will not kill again is death. The only thing that will give those who testify total peace of mind in that regard is death.

So is capital punishment merely a cost saving measure?

Seems to me I clearly said that it's more expensive.

Also it might be important to consider the recidivism rate for murderers. How many of them go out and kill again if they're released from prison? I don't know the answer for sure, but I bet a lot of people don't go out killing for sport.

Serial killers do. Those is crime syndicates sometimes kill for revenge. Criminals have been known to go after those responsible for their incarceration, also. It's why I also spoke of "peace of mind."

I bet the majority of people convicted of murder found themselves in circumstances where they believed they had no other option, even if it wasn't self-defense.

Wow. That's all I can say to that - just wow.

This notion that there's "bad guys" out there that will do harm for the sake of doing harm is probably not reality. Obviously there are some people out there that would, but I doubt that's the majority even of those convicted of murder.

And what makes you think this? Seriously.

A death sentence is final. The only argument that really makes sense to me for the death sentence is that the punishment ought to fit the severity of the crime. You take someone's life, then you give up yours. And the problem with that, as has been pointed out, is that the criminal justice system makes mistakes and you can't bring an innocent person back to life.

And I haven't disagreed.