Majority of Canadians support death penalty

[Jack Weber]

I was just about to point out (again) that the answer to easy parole or parole too soon isn't simply death.

Don't tell that to the Hang 'Em High crowd...

They'll counter with the "Cost to Taxpayers" arguement...

[eyeball]

It's not just the far right that sees further limitation of rights as a good thing. The far left can be quite good at it, too.

I think you'll find that the lefties you're referring to are actually very conservative in their thinking and just like their conservative brethren on the other end of the spectrum they also cleave towards authoritarianism. China's leadership is a perfect example and it's no surprise to me why our corporations and rulers leaders are all lining up to do business with them. Notice the more we trade with them the more we become like them.

A case in point, our deteriorating attitudes towards criminals rights and where cracking down and getting tough and even mean are all the rage.

Edited March 26, 2012 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

..A case in point, our deteriorating attitudes towards criminals rights and where cracking down and getting tough and even mean are all the rage.

That's what happens in the land of hug-a-thug. People get fed up with those who continually refuse to get with the program!

[Bryan]

It's real simple, everybody has rights.

That is a problem. We should change that.

People who would support suspending the rights of Tori Staffords killers would soon be saying all killers should have their rights suspended, ahead of them are people who want all criminals to have their rights suspended and so on and so forth it goes.

Those all sound like great ideas. That probably is where we should start actually. People who commit serious crimes have voluntarily abandoned their rights, and our laws should reflect that first and foremost.

[g_bambino]

People who commit serious crimes have voluntarily abandoned their rights, and our laws should reflect that first and foremost.

Anybody who's convicted of a crime already automatically has their rights changed from what they had before they were found guilty; they obviously no longer have freedom of mobility, for example. If you want to start pulling away more - like the right to life - then you're going to have state what the benefit of such an act would be and define exactly what constitutes a "serious crime" and how to fix that definition in perpetuity, so that, say, shoplifting or adultery isn't one day deemed by the state to be a "serious crime" worthy of death.

[Bryan]

Anybody who's convicted of a crime already automatically has their rights changed from what they had before they were found guilty; they obviously no longer have freedom of mobility, for example. If you want to start pulling away more - like the right to life - then you're going to have state what the benefit of such an act would be and define exactly what constitutes a "serious crime" and how to fix that definition in perpetuity, so that, say, shoplifting or adultery isn't one day deemed by the state to be a "serious crime" worthy of death.

Why does there have to be a benefit? Make it all about punishment.

[g_bambino]

Why does there have to be a benefit?

Because it's not worthwhile, otherwise.

[Bryan]

Because it's not worthwhile, otherwise.

You don't think it is worthwhile, many think it is. IMO, that's the biggest problem with our justice system right now: not enough emphasis on punishing the offenders because they offended. Rehabilitation and/or societal benefit should only come into effect if and when sufficient punishment has been administered.

[Wild Bill]

You don't think it is worthwhile, many think it is. IMO, that's the biggest problem with our justice system right now: not enough emphasis on punishing the offenders because they offended. Rehabilitation and/or societal benefit should only come into effect if and when sufficient punishment has been administered.

Quite right, Bryan. Some folks don't seem to understand that without punishment there is no real deterrent. If a negative act has no bad consequences then there is no reason not to repeat it, if you are so inclined.

There is this strange idea out there that Man is born with a social conscience and just needs a nurturing environment to bring it out. This is simply not true! We are born blank slates and our environment shapes us one way or another.

If a criminal personality learns that he can get away with something then all the rehabilitation efforts often become just a snow job on his part. He knows that if he makes the right noises he will get away with things.

I would concede that in the odd instance a criminal might be basically good and respond to efforts to bring him back to the right path but that would be an exception. The problem seems to be that the "system" is extremely poor at telling the difference between that sort and the career criminal.

[Shakeyhands]

http://www.canada.com/news/postmedia/Video+Terri+Lynne+McClintic+confession/6339081/story.html

The 8 year old had a bag put over her head and then was struck on the head repeatedly with a hammer crushing her little skull, and then she was kicked. This after being raped till she bled in the snow.

McClintic will be up for parole at age 46.

Any hearing on parole, and they come up again and again..awaken the torture for the family, rape the memory of the child over and over. And bleeding hearts will think...say.."the murderer is now rehabilitated..give them a day pass, give them a weekend pass,put them in a half way house...forgive them they found religion, they're not the same person..."

Awful, disgusting acts. Executing those two however, will not make those words go away, nor will it make the family forget them, parole hearing or not.

Neither of them will see the light of day again from the outside, same as Bernardo, same as Williams, same as Pickford and just the same as it was for Olsen.

I'd rather confine them to small rooms for the rest of their lives where every decision is made for them and they don't have the freedom to do anything, especially harm another member of the public. Incarceration for the rest of their natural lives is much more unpleasant than getting a prick in the arm and drifting off to sleep forever, and it's cheaper.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Shakeyhands

[bleeding heart]

There is this strange idea out there that Man is born with a social conscience and just needs a nurturing environment to bring it out. This is simply not true! We are born blank slates and our environment shapes us one way or another.

No, we are not blank slates; we are inherently moral creatures, else we couldn't, wouldn't practice moral behaviour and try to codify it.

You can no more make an inherently amoral being moral than you could teach a human being to spread his arms and fly. Our mental/emotional states are as intrinsic as are our physical properties...in fact, the mind-body distinction is mostly fallacious.

I hasten to add that, obviously, environment is important to our behaviour; crucial to it. You're right about that. But without the inherent qualities, the entire point would be moot.

[Guest Peeves]

Awful, disgusting acts. Executing those two however, will not make those words go away, nor will it make the family forget them, parole hearing or not.

Neither of them will see the light of day again from the outside, same as Bernardo, same as Williams, same as Pickford and just the same as it was for Olsen.

I'd rather confine them to small rooms for the rest of their lives where every decision is made for them and they don't have the freedom to do anything, especially harm another member of the public. Incarceration for the rest of their natural lives is much more unpleasant than getting a prick in the arm and drifting off to sleep forever, and it's cheaper.

You seem to be avoiding the fact that life is not a sentence of unconditional incarceration away from society until death.

The stress and re victimization of the family each time the parole hearing comes up.

[Shakeyhands]

You seem to be avoiding the fact that life is not a sentence of unconditional incarceration away from society until death.

The stress and re victimization of the family each time the parole hearing comes up.

Actually I am not, in fact I addressed it directly. Nothing will ever change the fact that these families are victims, parole hearings or not.

Perhaps even, a parole hearing prevents the victimization cycle in that it gives a voice to those who continue to suffer and makes them part of the system that is holding the perpetrator to account?

In those cases that deserve life imprisonment, that is the usual sentence. Just because someone is up for parole doesn't mean that it is automatic, you know that.

Should we have a law that Life means Life? Perhaps, but I believe that our system is one where rehabilitation balanced with victim rights is pretty good.

[eyeball]

Quite right, Bryan. Some folks don't seem to understand that without punishment there is no real deterrent. If a negative act has no bad consequences then there is no reason not to repeat it, if you are so inclined.

Tori Stafford's killers are not repeat offenders who never learned their lesson the first time.

That said, this is not the first time advocates for the death penalty have conflated their case du jour with things that have nothing to do with it.

[Wild Bill]

No, we are not blank slates; we are inherently moral creatures, else we couldn't, wouldn't practice moral behaviour and try to codify it.

You can no more make an inherently amoral being moral than you could teach a human being to spread his arms and fly. Our mental/emotional states are as intrinsic as are our physical properties...in fact, the mind-body distinction is mostly fallacious.

I hasten to add that, obviously, environment is important to our behaviour; crucial to it. You're right about that. But without the inherent qualities, the entire point would be moot.

Well, that's your opinion. Not everyone shares it. Ever read William Golding's "Lord of the Flies"?

It's my opinion that family and society shape a child's "blank slate". While morality is based on social conventions, ethics is based upon logic. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a very logical concept. It's logically consistent to have a society develop civilized standards of behavior just from that basic idea.

While some people are born with actual differences in the wiring of their brains that causes them to be sociopaths or have other problems, in the main we reflect the standards of our society. The average Aztec no doubt saw nothing wrong with human blood sacrifices.

The MORAL standards of western society have been developed over hundreds if not thousands of years. Raise a child in isolation and who knows what behavior you could expect?

Our society is presently having a problem with often much less parental supervision than with previous generations. With both Mom and Dad working, children are left on their own or with less intimately related supervision. This has given rise to some problems. When we were young, if we shoplifted we were likely quickly caught and marched by one of our parents back to the store to "fess up" and learn a lesson. Today, a kid more often wouldn't be caught! Or if caught, would not receive what the child would consider true punishment. It would be perfectly logical for such a child to grow up thinking that shoplifting or other such petty crime is "no big deal".

It's not a big step from childhood petty criminal behavior to an adult committing far more serious crimes. We still are willing to keep highly dangerous criminals like a Bernardo in jail forever but lesser crimes rarely receive long prison sentences. It would be interesting to study the history of these criminals to see what percentage of them had a history of escalation of their behavior and how many straightened out entirely on their own, due to some instinctive built in "moral conscience".

[g_bambino]

You don't think it is worthwhile, many think it is.

And have yet to provide a cogent argument, that doesn't rely on base, emotional appeal, to support their opinion.

IMO, that's the biggest problem with our justice system right now: not enough emphasis on punishing the offenders because they offended.

One more time: death is not the only solution to that problem, if indeed, there is a problem.

[Guest Peeves]

And have yet to provide a cogent argument, that doesn't rely on base, emotional appeal, to support their opinion.

One more time: death is not the only solution to that problem, if indeed, there is a problem.

The argument against capital punishment is generally predicated on 'life' imprisonment rather than death for a capital offense.

However, a 'life' sentence as alternative is factually not life.

Perhaps if instead of a death penalty, citizens could expect consistently a natural life incarceration with no chance of parole, nor of any perks, then it might be more acceptable. ( until moved at age 90 or when infirm (or so) to an old folks jail.)

[Guest Peeves]

And have yet to provide a cogent argument, that doesn't rely on base, emotional appeal, to support their opinion.

One more time: death is not the only solution to that problem, if indeed, there is a problem.

Recently convict has murdered convict. The death penalty assures no guard, fellow prisoner or escape takes place.

[g_bambino]

However, a 'life' sentence as alternative is factually not life.

But it could be.

[Tilter]

Quite right, Bryan. Some folks don't seem to understand that without punishment there is no real deterrent. If a negative act has no bad consequences then there is no reason not to repeat it, if you are so inclined.

There is this strange idea out there that Man is born with a social conscience and just needs a nurturing environment to bring it out. This is simply not true! We are born blank slates and our environment shapes us one way or another.

If a criminal personality learns that he can get away with something then all the rehabilitation efforts often become just a snow job on his part. He knows that if he makes the right noises he will get away with things.

I would concede that in the odd instance a criminal might be basically good and respond to efforts to bring him back to the right path but that would be an exception. The problem seems to be that the "system" is extremely poor at telling the difference between that sort and the career criminal.

WB-- In a christian society the feeling is that the criminal will be punished at his demise by a vengeful God.

Not to argue (tho the existence is contestable) the God VS no god theory, let's just for the moment say that the whole heaven/hell post death option does not exist---- where is the punishment?

I'm in favor of not taking the "vengeful God" seriously and doing the punishment before that (but very little before) occurrence -- occurs :lol: and if the life ever after thing does in fact occur--- most of these cretins deserve double punishment anyway.

[Wild Bill]

WB-- In a christian society the feeling is that the criminal will be punished at his demise by a vengeful God.

Not to argue (tho the existence is contestable) the God VS no god theory, let's just for the moment say that the whole heaven/hell post death option does not exist---- where is the punishment?

I'm in favor of not taking the "vengeful God" seriously and doing the punishment before that (but very little before) occurrence -- occurs :lol: and if the life ever after thing does in fact occur--- most of these cretins deserve double punishment anyway.

I would agree, Tilter. Belief in an afterlife with punishment for sins is an opinion not justified by any concrete evidence. It makes no sense to use it as an excuse to not deal with inappropriate behavior in life. To put it "in God's hands" is really just a copout.

One of my favourite Scifi authors is Robert Heinlein. He wrote the book Starship Troopers, from which they took almost nothing but the title to make the movie about giant bugs. The book was actually a backdrop for Heinlein to express some of his personal social observations and his own philosophy of life.

In one chapter he has a teacher telling young kids about our times and how things like young offender laws worked. He used the analogy of training a puppy. He asked his pupils how you trained a young puppy and they told him that you had to sometimes spank him to make him understand what he did was wrong. They agreed that this didn't mean you no longer loved your puppy, it was just the way you had to teach him.

He then told asked them if it would be fair or make sense to let the puppy do whatever he wanted until he was full grown and then if he made a mess or broke something you took him out and shot him!

The children were not just horrified but truly puzzled. They immediately told their teacher that the idea made no sense.

He then told them that was how the law worked with young offenders in the late 20th century. They would be essentially unpunished until some arbitrary age such as 16, when at that point the full weight of the law would be brought to bear upon them as an adult.

I've always believed that old Robert had it right.

[bleeding heart]

Well, that's your opinion. Not everyone shares it. Ever read William Golding's "Lord of the Flies"?

Yes. some of the children remained reasonable and compassionate throughout.

It's my opinion that family and society shape a child's "blank slate".

The influence is massive, as i fully agree. I'm only saying there's no "blank slate," but rather a pre-existing set-up, a biological factor.

Try to teach an ant to be moral...or immoral.

Mine isn't a controversial assertion (though yours certainly is). Moral ability (let's call it) is hardwired, just as the ability to walk and talk. Exactly as those.

The MORAL standards of western society have been developed over hundreds if not thousands of years.

Yes....but they've always been present, though details and codification keep shifting.

But it's always been there. Because it's innately part of what being a human is.

The environmental factors to which you speak are acting upon a pre-existing human condition. Not creating something out of nothing (the "blank slate" hypothesis).

Edited March 26, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Wild Bill]

Yes. some of the children remained reasonable and compassionate throughout.

The influence is massive, as i fully agree. I'm only saying there's no "blank slate," but rather a pre-existing set-up, a biological factor.

Try to teach an ant to be moral...or immoral.

Mine isn't a controversial assertion (though yours certainly is). Moral ability (let's call it) is hardwired, just as the ability to walk and talk. Exactly as those.

Nature vs. nurture is a very old argument. We are not going to solve it here.

The fact that in Golding's novel some of the children remained "civilized" could be attributed to having had a stronger imprinting of social values when they were younger.

I'm not denying that some children show some sort of moral conscience, just that it is not something shared by ALL! It is rather stupid to then treat offenders as if they ALL are of that description!

What's more, that's really still a sidebar to the premise that a lack of strong consequences for negative actions means poor success with correcting such behavior.

Yes....but they've always been present, though details and codification keep shifting.

But it's always been there. Because it's innately part of what being a human is.

The environmental factors to which you speak are acting upon a pre-existing human condition. Not creating something out of nothing (the "blank slate" hypothesis).

[cybercoma]

Recently convict has murdered convict. The death penalty assures no guard, fellow prisoner or escape takes place.

It's just that simple, eh? A convict murders another one, he should be put to death, right? There should be absolutely no consideration for what the convict's circumstances were and why he murdered another one. He kill, you die.

[Guest Peeves]

It's just that simple, eh? A convict murders another one, he should be put to death, right? There should be absolutely no consideration for what the convict's circumstances were and why he murdered another one. He kill, you die.

Yep.

Pretty much, if he's guilty either execute him or give him another life sentence...sharing a cell with a nastier bunkee.