Majority of Canadians support death penalty

Bryan · February 27, 2012

Show me where in his ruling he was "factually incorrect," as you say. I highly doubt you even understand the argument of the ruling.

I already did, try to keep up.

eyeball · February 27, 2012

Look at the hue and cry we are getting over just marginal increases in sentences, and for mandatory minimums for very serious crimes. We already have activist judges over ruling the LAW.

I don't see this as an either or thing anyway. We need much stricter sentencing (far stricter than what's in the omnibus crime bill), and we need to put people like Bernardo and Olsen to death. I don't think anyone would support its widespread use for all cases, but does anyone really object to that?

I do, because the right-wing is not a place but a direction on an endless journey that is forever just getting underway.

You can bet there are people up ahead of you who already regard you as being a hopelessly soft and mushy hug a thug lefty - people who would support the death penalty for all cases. Ahead of them are people who would use it for more than murder and so on and so on.

Edited February 27, 2012 by eyeball

g_bambino · February 27, 2012

We already have activist judges over ruling the LAW.

The constitution is the law, Bryan.

cybercoma · February 28, 2012

I already did, try to keep up.

No you didn't. Show me specifically what part of the ruling you find factually incorrect.

dre · February 28, 2012

Sixty-one per cent said capital punishment is warranted for murder.

This poll asks the wrong question. It makes no difference whether its "warranted" or not. What matters is whether or not its good public policy. Very few people would deny that some criminals deserve death. But whether or not capital punishment is a sound public policy that accomplishes anything is a totally different question.

1. Will the policy save money?

2. Will it reduce the rate at which capital crimes occur?

3. Is the legal system good enough for the government to dole out the ultimate penalty?

4. Do you have the ammount of faith in government required to support them doling out this very final judgement?

Need to anser THOSE questions. Thats why the cost/benefit analysis was invented

cybercoma · February 28, 2012

Forget warranted. The question ought to be "Should the death penalty be re-instated across Canada?"

Shakeyhands · February 28, 2012

We already have activist judges over ruling the LAW.

I wondered who would pull out the "activist" gem... What exactly is an activist judge? Beyond a made up Republican term that is...

Bryan · February 28, 2012

No you didn't. Show me specifically what part of the ruling you find factually incorrect.

Try reading the thread, asked and answered.

waldo · February 28, 2012

Try reading the thread

try reading the poll

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.

Sa'adoni · February 29, 2012

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 it only implants the seed and lets it foster.

Yeah and the wrong guy can go to jail for life too.I`d rather be killed than innocent in jail. Jail breeds hate and laten rage and contempt in the innocent in regard to the system and government that acts unjustly, it is a breach that only widens with time. Time heals nothing. it makes good loving people cold people, it dehumanizes. I'd rather a dead man than a man made into a monster by injustice of the system. I'd rather a dead monster, let god heal the wicked, let man rid the beast from the earth.

It would only lead to starvation or riot regardless. Society shouldn't force that on good people.The game should just be called than a life of deprivation. You just make people killers in jail either they go in as them or they come out as them. Either that or jail has accomplished nothing but waste peoples time.

Kill all criminals but make laws just so that people of good moral character are not deemed criminal for their acts.

There are too many people in the world regardless thining things out will only do good.

Jail is non productive and a drain on public resources.

They try to control, but all it accomplishes is contempt.

A man that fears is not a free man, a society that makes men fear is not a free society, it is one that oppresses. that is not good.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Sa'adoni

cybercoma · February 29, 2012

If the wrong guy goes to jail, he can be released if it's proven. You can't release someone from death.

Wild Bill · February 29, 2012

If the wrong guy goes to jail, he can be released if it's proven. You can't release someone from death.

Nobody says it has to be compulsory in all cases, CC! Do you really think Paul Bernardo is actually innocent?

With modern DNA forensics the chances of a mistake are much less. If the death penalty was only to be applied in extreme cases where evidence of guilt is overwhelming it would go a long way to restoring faith in the system to those who have lost it.

Of course, the idea of a mistake is really just a red herring. Those who say that really just don't want a death penalty at all, even when there's no possibility of a mistake.

Or we could have consecutive sentences and a life term meaning exactly that, instead of the relatively short terms given today.

However, the same people against the death penalty seem to be the ones against true life sentences.

They are entitled to their opinion, the same as anyone else. My problem is that when they are in the minority yet their view prevails to me it is not democratic! It is elitism! It breeds a lack of confidence in the "system" and a festering resentment, precisely the situation we are in today.

The people who are losing confidence in the system will NEVER agree with the "doves" and I suspect will ALWAYS be in the majority.

This means we will always have a growing majority of citizens cynical of the justice system and continually becoming more and more pissed off!

Not good! Something has to be worked out.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Wild Bill

Smallc · February 29, 2012

They are entitled to their opinion, the same as anyone else. My problem is that when they are in the minority to me it is not democratic! It is elitism! It breeds a lack of confidence in the "system" and a festering resentment, precisely the situation we are in today.

The people who are losing confidence in the system will NEVER agree with the "doves" and I suspect will ALWAYS be in the majority.

But what if people's opinions are baseless? What then? What people think, when it comes to matters of justice, is rather irrelevant.

g_bambino · February 29, 2012

If the death penalty was only to be applied in extreme cases where evidence of guilt is overwhelming it would go a long way to restoring faith in the system to those who have lost it.

How, exactly?

However, the same people against the death penalty seem to be the ones against true life sentences.

I'm not.

They are entitled to their opinion, the same as anyone else. My problem is that when they are in the minority yet their view prevails to me it is not democratic! It is elitism!

You wouldn't say that if you were the innocent man facing death because the majority voted in favour of it.

Mob rule has been tried and dispensed with by those from whom we inherited our system of governance. And for good reason.

[ed.: +]

Edited February 29, 2012 by g_bambino

Smallc · February 29, 2012

And again, there is the option for indefinite detainment right now, and on cases going forward where 1st or second degree murder are found to be the crime, sentences can be given consecutively.

guyser · February 29, 2012

With modern DNA forensics the chances of a mistake are much less. If the death penalty was only to be applied in extreme cases where evidence of guilt is overwhelming it would go a long way to restoring faith in the system to those who have lost it.

WB, respect your posts but....we gonna argue here.

One, the italics are mine...chances...? Not good enough. We have cops alive who swear that so and so is guilty, even when faced with DNA evidence. Detectives are a funny bunch and they want , always want, something solved. We know it taints there evidence, they suppress or just throw out that which does not fit what they think the MO is . (I should say sometimes taints)

Two , far too many people come to the conclusion they have no faith in the system because they are frankly, too lazy to investigate just how well the system works. I do not deny there aree gievances and concerns, but I am of the belief that it works overwhelmingly fine.

Of course, the idea of a mistake is really just a red herring. Those who say that really just don't want a death penalty at all, even when there's no possibility of a mistake.

Not really.

Those who want the death penalty want it for everything from petty theft to jaywalking.

I dont believe what I wrote, but I also cannot believe what you wrote.

It is my opinion thatthe death penalty does nothing to prevent crime or murder. We all can agree on that. Beyond that, I do not trust the investigators to be upfront and honest.

Also, we cannot have a death penalty on the books that can be applied for only 100% guilty since nothing exists that way and at what threshold can we use it for? How minutely can we construct a law for this as you propose?

This means we will always have a growing majority of citizens cynical of the justice system and continually becoming more and more pissed off!

You sure about that?

Wild Bill · February 29, 2012

But what if people's opinions are baseless? What then? What people think, when it comes to matters of justice, is rather irrelevant.

Considering baseless is an opinion. Who's opinion prevails? Mine, yours? CharterofRights?

Once again, if the people are wrong then the people will eventually learn a lesson. If given no opportunity to make mistakes they will never learn anything.

There are many people's opinions that I consider baseless. When do I get MY chance to have my opinions become law?

Smallc · February 29, 2012

When do I get MY chance to have my opinions become law?

When you convince enough other people that you have good ideas. The public has input in the reaction of laws. They don't have input into those laws being carried out in a matter befitting of a justice system. The public can't make laws, and then decide they don't like them, which is what some of you seem to prefer.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Smallc

Wild Bill · February 29, 2012

WB, respect your posts but....we gonna argue here.

One, the italics are mine...chances...? Not good enough. We have cops alive who swear that so and so is guilty, even when faced with DNA evidence. Detectives are a funny bunch and they want , always want, something solved. We know it taints there evidence, they suppress or just throw out that which does not fit what they think the MO is . (I should say sometimes taints)

Two , far too many people come to the conclusion they have no faith in the system because they are frankly, too lazy to investigate just how well the system works. I do not deny there aree gievances and concerns, but I am of the belief that it works overwhelmingly fine.

Not really.

Those who want the death penalty want it for everything from petty theft to jaywalking.

I dont believe what I wrote, but I also cannot believe what you wrote.

It is my opinion thatthe death penalty does nothing to prevent crime or murder. We all can agree on that. Beyond that, I do not trust the investigators to be upfront and honest.

Also, we cannot have a death penalty on the books that can be applied for only 100% guilty since nothing exists that way and at what threshold can we use it for? How minutely can we construct a law for this as you propose?

You sure about that?

Everything from petty theft to jaywalking? Sez who, Guyser? You? Do you really expect the Canadian people would allow such a thing to come to pass? If you do, you really have a low and extreme opinion of your fellow citzens. I for one think better of them!

You say the system works overwhelmingly fine? That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. All I'm saying is that if your opinion is to be made into law you should have the majority of your fellow citizens on your side. If you don't then you're just another elitist, plain and simple. You shouldn't be able to just blow off the majority who disagrees with you and get your own way!

I agree that the police can be biased and corrupt in the way they handle evidence. That's why the death penalty should never be mandatory! Was there any doubt about Paul Bernardo? How can you class him with a simple thief as far as receiving capital punishment?

Again, as far as setting a legal limit for capital punishment, I never said some 100% utopian ideal. I said "beyond any reasonable doubt". Paul Bernardo would fit that description.

Regardless of all these arguments, I still believe the law should reflect the wishes of the majority of the people. When someone starts saying that the people are not qualified or should not be trusted I seriously question his arrogance and his motives.

Smallc · February 29, 2012

Regardless of all these arguments, I still believe the law should reflect the wishes of the majority of the people.

The law does. It's up to the justice system to ensure that law is followed as written and intended, even if the people change their mind.

dre · February 29, 2012

Regardless of all these arguments, I still believe the law should reflect the wishes of the majority of the people. When someone starts saying that the people are not qualified or should not be trusted I seriously question his arrogance and his motives.

I totally disagree.

And its not about motives. The way some people are approaching this is just completely irrelevant. It doesnt matter what you think criminals "deserve" or how sure you are that someones "guilty". Im sure when some scumbag is caught committing a grisly and easy to emotionalise crime you could get a majority saying that cutting off his genitals and shoving them up his ass is warranted.

Like I said before... the criminal justice system isnt about revenge or making the mob happy. Its there to provide enough order and stability so that the economy can healthy and the citizens can be relatively safe.

If you want to argue for capital punishment you need to have answers to these questions...

1. Will the policy save money?
2. Will it reduce the rate at which capital crimes occur?

3. Is the legal system good enough for the government to dole out the ultimate penalty?

4. Do you have the ammount of faith in government required to support them doling out this very final judgement?

In the case of the death penalty it doesnt save money, it does not act as a deterrent, and the people that would be charged with administering it can barely do anything right at all.

Do you have ANY real evidence AT ALL, that as a piece of public policy this would survive a cost/benefit analysis?

guyser · February 29, 2012

Everything from petty theft to jaywalking? Sez who, Guyser? You? Do you really expect the Canadian people would allow such a thing to come to pass? If you do, you really have a low and extreme opinion of your fellow citzens. I for one think better of them!

Bill, re-read what I wrote. It was a response to you assertion of 'red herring'

You say the system works overwhelmingly fine? That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. All I'm saying is that if your opinion is to be made into law you should have the majority of your fellow citizens on your side. If you don't then you're just another elitist, plain and simple. You shouldn't be able to just blow off the majority who disagrees with you and get your own way!

That is my opinion, , but then again, not to many think about but listen to what this govt feeds them,and thats scary scary all the time. The results then get skewed if night after night the govt trots out this person and that person and pointedly tsk tsk the sentence....all the while ignoring the 1000 cases that day that were adjudicated correctly, timely and successfully.

However on rankings worldwide we rate very high and we sould celebrate that fact all the while improving it. Access,lenght of time taken are issues we can get behind for improvement.

17% of CDNS have high regard for our justice system, 61% have moderate faith.

The youth justice system is where most concerns lie.

I agree that the police can be biased and corrupt in the way they handle evidence. That's why the death penalty should never be mandatory! Was there any doubt about Paul Bernardo? How can you class him with a simple thief as far as receiving capital punishment?

I never classified him a simple thief.

Paul Bernardo sits in his cell 23 hours a day. I like that. He can rot for all I care . Yes I have no concerns if he died by his own hand or that of the state....but thats one case. I am not ready to let that be the norm, simply because far too many cops screw up on these things.

The cops themselves were too stupid to see it was Paul, nor would they share info on Paul, and all the while Paul and his little bitch were dooing harm to Mahaffey and the other girl.

Like I said, write a law that is constitutional on how it can be used for one and not for the other.

Regardless of all these arguments, I still believe the law should reflect the wishes of the majority of the people. When someone starts saying that the people are not qualified or should not be trusted I seriously question his arrogance and his motives.

Thats fine.

The majority like our system.

I know it appears arrogant, but most people have no f'ing clue what goes on in the justice system apart from what the bs politicos trot out as "see..see...this is why we need <insert here> "

Karla Homlka is one prime example. People rant and rave about justice not being done, but it was, quite a good result notwithstanfding the police foul ups.

And that is why I appear so arrogant.

(that and Im a prick-your choice..hehehe)

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/10/10/canadians-confidence-in-criminal-justice-system-shaky-study-finds/

Edited February 29, 2012 by guyser

Wild Bill · February 29, 2012

When you convince enough other people that you have good ideas. The public has input in the reaction of laws. They don't have input into those laws being carried out in a matter befitting of a justice system. The public can't make laws, and then decide they don't like them, which is what some of you seem to prefer.

Ah, but that has been my point all along, Smallc! Do I have to convince the majority of my fellow citizens, or can just a small minority of us get to have OUR values made Law?

Wild Bill · February 29, 2012

Bill, re-read what I wrote. It was a response to you assertion of 'red herring'

That is my opinion, , but then again, not to many think about but listen to what this govt feeds them,and thats scary scary all the time. The results then get skewed if night after night the govt trots out this person and that person and pointedly tsk tsk the sentence....all the while ignoring the 1000 cases that day that were adjudicated correctly, timely and successfully.

However on rankings worldwide we rate very high and we sould celebrate that fact all the while improving it. Access,lenght of time taken are issues we can get behind for improvement.

17% of CDNS have high regard for our justice system, 61% have moderate faith.

The youth justice system is where most concerns lie.

I never classified him a simple thief.

Paul Bernardo sits in his cell 23 hours a day. I like that. He can rot for all I care . Yes I have no concerns if he died by his own hand or that of the state....but thats one case. I am not ready to let that be the norm, simply because far too many cops screw up on these things.

The cops themselves were too stupid to see it was Paul, nor would they share info on Paul, and all the while Paul and his little bitch were dooing harm to Mahaffey and the other girl.

Like I said, write a law that is constitutional on how it can be used for one and not for the other.

Thats fine.

The majority like our system.

I know it appears arrogant, but most people have no f'ing clue what goes on in the justice system apart from what the bs politicos trot out as "see..see...this is why we need <insert here> "

Karla Homlka is one prime example. People rant and rave about justice not being done, but it was, quite a good result notwithstanfding the police foul ups.

And that is why I appear so arrogant.

(that and Im a prick-your choice..hehehe)

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/10/10/canadians-confidence-in-criminal-justice-system-shaky-study-finds/

Guyser, I have seen a couple of sentences for murder up close. People who I knew were killed.

I have no respect whatsoever for the light sentences they received.

That's why I believe as I do!

Jack Weber · February 29, 2012

Are you sure? At that time or forever? In the entire USA or just in a few cracker states?

With all the riots and racial strife going on, do you think a majority would have voted to let it continue?

Or do you believe that the majority of Americans at the time were evil and would rather have died than allow racial equality? How do you know if the majority at the time WANTED equal rights and the crackers were in the minority?

If you have anything to prove your premise I'd be interested in seeing it.

If you think things would change over time,you'll have to explain the switch to the Republican party in the good ol' Confederacy since the Civil Rights Act passed AND the success of the so called "Southern Strategy"?