Majority of Canadians support death penalty

[bush_cheney2004]

Support/believe whatever,are you my proofreader now?Are you interested in the position,well talk.

Interested? Hell, I want to pull the switch!

As far as the 1500m run goes,you must be talking about some video game or you are one of those people that gets enough excersice from watching the tv/computer.

I don't play video games....unless you count this web forum, which is a lot of fun.

[dre]

I do like. I consider it the only response your sanctimonious blowhard "kinda silly" comments are worthy of.

So youre still going to ignore these two simple questions, that point out two rather seriously logical flaws in the way you present your list?

Here they are for you again...

1. How do you know that all those cases would have been capital crimes? Only a small percentage of murders are tried as capital crimes.

2. With inmates often waiting in prison for decades before the state kills them, how do you know any of people on your list that WERE convicted of capital crimes would have been executed prior to their escaping?

The average length of time for a prisoner to wait on death row varies between states but the national average stay is 169 months, or 14 years.

Your contention that the death penalty would prevent these criminals from escaping and re-offending is pure speculation. A person sentenced to death still spends an average of 14 years in prison, and some of them spend as long as thirty years there, and a real quick google shows that theres been quite a few escapes from deathrow.

Edited March 4, 2012 by dre

[cybercoma]

She's not going to give them a straight answer either.

[Guest American Woman]

Let's take a look at Canada:

1. Conrad Brossard was serving two life sentences for a murder as well as two attempted murders, each of which was committed after being granted day parole. In 2002, the parole board granted Brossard day parole again, during which he raped and murdered Cecile Clement.
   
2. Eric Norman Fish was released to a half-way house in 2004 in Vernon, British Columbia. Fish had been serving a life sentence for a 1984 murder and had been deemed by the Parole Board to be a "high-risk to violently re-offend." Fish walked away from the half-way house and over a period of six weeks murdered two people; Jeffrey Drake, whose body was found on the shore of Okanagan Lake, and Bill Abramenko, a 75-year-old retired carpenter, who Fish beat to death with a crowbar.
   
3. Allan Craig MacDonald was paroled in late-1989 after serving only 12 years for murdering a police officer and a taxi driver. In April 1990, MacDonald beat, raped, stabbed, and murdered 21-year-old Linda Shaw and set her body on fire. (Although MacDonald was not convicted for this crime (he committed suicide in 1994), his guilt was confirmed by a DNA test in 2005).
   
4. Robert Bruce Moyes was granted day parole in 1995, even though he was serving a life sentence for multiple armed robberies and had a total of 36 criminal convictions, including three attempted murders and three escapes from prison. Moyes also had numerous previous parole violations. Within a year of being paroled, Moyes and an accomplice murdered seven people.
   
5. John Lyman Kehoe was paroled in 1986. He had been sentenced to life in prison for murdering his two children in 1972. In 1996, Kehoe and another paroled multiple murderer attacked real estate agent Wendy Carroll. Carroll was choked and had her throat slit, although she did survive. [i suppose technically this doesn't count since she survived the attempted murder.]
   
6. Leopold Dion was paroled in 1963, despite being sentenced to life in prison for rape and attempted murder and previously violating parole by sexually assaulting a young boy. Within 18 months of being released, Dion molested 21 children and murdered four of them. Dion was subsequently killed in prison.
   
7. Michael Hector received full parole after only serving half of a 13-year sentence, even though he had an extensive criminal history, had previously violated parole and had been described in psychological assessments as "a highly criminalized man." In early 1997, approximately 18 months after his release, Hector murdered three people, including a young boy.
   
8. Kevin Humphrey was granted paroled despite being sentenced to life for robbing and murdering a man in 1983 before fleeing the country. Despite three previous parole violations, Humphrey was paroled again in 2006. In October of that year, Humphrey stabbed Richard Kent multiple times with a folding knife and then slit his throat in a crack house. Although Kent survived, he still has brain injury symptoms and memory problems.[again, perhaps this doesn't count since the attempted murder victim miraculously survived.]
   
9. Daniel Jonathan Courchene, a known gang member, was kept on parole even though the Board knew that Courchene was repeatedly violating his parole by using intoxicants. While on parole, Courchene and an accomplice attempted to kill a police officer by shooting him in the face, stole several vehicles, and committed a home invasion in which they attempted to kill the owner.[Again. Only "attempted murder."]
   

Proof that convicted murderers do murder again. Even in Canada.

[dre]

Proof that convicted murderers do murder again. Even in Canada.

You dont need to provide proof of that. Nobody is disputing that assertion. You would need to look at those cases, but you dont seem to want to do any real analysis beyond cut and pasting lists.

Here they are again... two very simple questions...

1. How do you know that all those cases would have been capital crimes? Only a small percentage of murders are tried as capital crimes.

2. With inmates often waiting in prison for decades before the state kills them, how do you know any of people on your list that WERE convicted of capital crimes would have been executed prior to their escaping?

[dre]

She's not going to give them a straight answer either.

Well thats not her fault... She cant answer those questions without abandoning her previous position on capital punishement and escaped prisoners re-offending.

Which is why she has a new list, this time focusing on "parole" as opposed to "escape". Shes AT LEAST on better ground here. Clearly while a person sentenced to death still has on average 15 years during which they could escape and re-offend, she has a point that at least they arent going to be given parole.

THe problem now of course is that you could also solve that problem with real life sentences and no parole. So its STILL not an argument for the death penalty specifically.

You cant really blame her though. Shes having the same problems with this argument that everyone else does... and that is that theres very little empirical evidence supporting capital punishment, and thats precisely why death penalty advocates have taken a sound beating over the last few decades in most of the civilised world.

[bush_cheney2004]

You dont need to provide proof of that. Nobody is disputing that assertion. You would need to look at those cases, but you dont seem to want to do any real analysis beyond cut and pasting lists.

Christo! What more needs to be done to demonstrate this fact...in Canada. WTF?

[dre]

Christo! What more needs to be done to demonstrate this fact...in Canada. WTF?

A rational and logically sound argument, and a willingness and answer simple questions about a position. That might be a good start.

Also an acceptance that the DP would not be the only potential remedy. The cases in her recent list could have been avoided by life sentences without parole. That would leave only the argument about ESCAPES which as we have established is entirely fallacious since people sentenced to death still have a 15 year window where an escape and re-offense is possible.

We are on page 18 now, and it seems like at some point someone should make an argument for the death penalty. We have had Wild Bill make a pretty decent attempt to justify it on moral and emotional grounds, hats off to him for that, even though I didnt personally find that argument compelling.

Is like to see an argument that tackles public policy questions...

1. Is the policy likely reduce capital crime rates?

2. Is the policy affordable and would it survive a cost benefit analysis.

3. Is there a increase in the ammount of capital crimes that would cause us to revisit the approach used for the last few decades?

4. Is there an easier alternative to dealing with some of the terrible parole decisions made by corrections? Perhaps a sentence with no possibility of parole?

Edited March 4, 2012 by dre

[eyeball]

Shes having the same problems with this argument that everyone else does...

You mean everyone else is both for and against the death penalty at the same time too?

[Wild Bill]

Well thats not her fault... She cant answer those questions without abandoning her previous position on capital punishement and escaped prisoners re-offending.

Which is why she has a new list, this time focusing on "parole" as opposed to "escape". Shes AT LEAST on better ground here. Clearly while a person sentenced to death still has on average 15 years during which they could escape and re-offend, she has a point that at least they arent going to be given parole.

THe problem now of course is that you could also solve that problem with real life sentences and no parole. So its STILL not an argument for the death penalty specifically.

You cant really blame her though. Shes having the same problems with this argument that everyone else does... and that is that theres very little empirical evidence supporting capital punishment, and thats precisely why death penalty advocates have taken a sound beating over the last few decades in most of the civilised world.

My good Dr. Dre, did you actually read AW's list?

Some were escapes. Some were paroles. A couple were what appear to be rather short and light sentences.

Also, you can use all the debating tactics you want to win this battle of an argument and it really won't matter. In fact, the more sophisticated your argument the more you will lose, in the real world of public opinion.

Joe Canadian has become so overwhelmed by people talking over his head that he tends to simply reject all such talk as more "spin".

You have made one good point in all this, as far as I can see. You pointed out that true life sentences would satisfy much of the objection to not having a death penalty. I have agreed with you all along on that point!

[Shady]

I'm gobsmacked Shady... and memory fails me. Since you hold the correction in such veneration, let me give you an opportunity to play it over again. After all, given your many thumpings, you need to puff up your imagined triumphs any chance you get. What correction, Shady?

Ah, you've forgotten about Carl Rove already eh? I don't blame you.

[bush_cheney2004]

A rational and logically sound argument, and a willingness and answer simple questions about a position. That might be a good start.

Provided...in spades. There is no counter-argument...dead perps can't re-offend, not even in Canada!

Also an acceptance that the DP would not be the only potential remedy. The cases in her recent list could have been avoided by life sentences without parole.

...and if pigs had wings they could fly. Think of the DP as retroactive abortion, something I'm sure you think is a constitutional right.

That would leave only the argument about ESCAPES which as we have established is entirely fallacious since people sentenced to death still have a 15 year window where an escape and re-offense is possible.

Judges don't see things that way...."escape" is a re-offense in and of itself.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Also, you can use all the debating tactics you want to win this battle of an argument and it really won't matter. In fact, the more sophisticated your argument the more you will lose, in the real world of public opinion.

Spot on....such academic elitism only pushes public opinion into the corner of common sense.

[dre]

My good Dr. Dre, did you actually read AW's list?

Some were escapes. Some were paroles. A couple were what appear to be rather short and light sentences.

Also, you can use all the debating tactics you want to win this battle of an argument and it really won't matter. In fact, the more sophisticated your argument the more you will lose, in the real world of public opinion.

Joe Canadian has become so overwhelmed by people talking over his head that he tends to simply reject all such talk as more "spin".

You have made one good point in all this, as far as I can see. You pointed out that true life sentences would satisfy much of the objection to not having a death penalty. I have agreed with you all along on that point!

Yeah Iv touched on both the "escapes" and "paroles".

And I dont really think my argument is very sophisticated. Im basically asking for elementary logic and reason to be employed here, and for people to rationally defend the positions they take.

Joe Canadian has become so overwhelmed by people talking over his head that he tends to simply reject all such talk as more "spin".

I think I give Joe Canadian a bit more credit than you give them. If you look at the recent polling that spawned this thread, people appear to be able to look at this from both sides.

For example... 2/3's of people support the death penalty in concept, but only 1/2 actually think it should be reinstated, and when given the chance to choose between real life sentences without parole, and reinstating the death penalty a lot more people choose real life sentences.

So clearly on some level people are able to look at both the moral argument, and the public policy argument.

You have made one good point in all this, as far as I can see. You pointed out that true life sentences would satisfy much of the objection to not having a death penalty. I have agreed with you all along on that point!

Not sure thats fair... I thought pointing out that the death penalty would not necessary prevent re-offenses by escaped convict was a good point, and directly relevant. I thought that pointing out that most murders are not capital cases anyways was a good point as well.

[dre]

Spot on....such academic elitism only pushes public opinion into the corner of common sense.

Im not sure that type of logic and reason expected from your average student in grade 3 qualifies as Academic Elitism. And if it does then everyone here is guilty of it not just me, because the majority of what people do here, is take positions, articulate them, and attempt to support them.

[cybercoma]

Wild Bill and his claims of elitism is getting tired. I would much rather someone with an education making important decisions than somebody that flunked out of high school. Yet, Bill's not the only one that has articulated this growing distrust of educated people. This is a frightening trend.

[dre]

Provided...in spades. There is no counter-argument...dead perps can't re-offend, not even in Canada!

Thats funny because a counter-argument WAS provided to which you responded "Good point".

[bush_cheney2004]

Thats funny because a counter-argument WAS provided to which you responded "Good point".

You think dead perps are funny? That's just sick....

[bush_cheney2004]

Wild Bill and his claims of elitism is getting tired. I would much rather someone with an education making important decisions than somebody that flunked out of high school. Yet, Bill's not the only one that has articulated this growing distrust of educated people. This is a frightening trend.

Be afraid...be very afraid. Common folk are tired of the elitist bullshit!

[Guest American Woman]

Not sure thats fair... I thought pointing out that the death penalty would not necessary prevent re-offenses by escaped convict was a good point, and directly relevant. I thought that pointing out that most murders are not capital cases anyways was a good point as well.

I'm pretty sure it's more than fair as I thought your "good points" were "kinda silly" ...

Edited March 4, 2012 by American Woman

[dre]

Wild Bill and his claims of elitism is getting tired. I would much rather someone with an education making important decisions than somebody that flunked out of high school. Yet, Bill's not the only one that has articulated this growing distrust of educated people. This is a frightening trend.

I dunno, I think Wild Bill provides a valid perspective and at least he doesnt run away from his own arguments. Everyone uses a combination of morality, emotion, and reason to forumlate an opinion on things, and I can see why reasonable people would look at some of the crazy stuff done by corrections Canada as an argument to write a final chapter on some of these super dangerous criminals.

Bill wouldnt call me an academic elistist if he knew me better.

[dre]

I'm pretty sure it's more than fair as I thought your "good points" were "kinda silly" ...

Youre just playing games AW. You C&Ped some stuff from pro DP sites without thinking it through, and when some pretty serious logical flaws in your argument were pointed out, you refused to continue defending your position. Understandable. Your tact now appears to be to pretend the words "kinda silly" were some kind of aggregious personal attack (come on), and now youre using that as an excuse to refuse to respond to very simple and relevant questions posed to you about a half dozen times now.

Its your right to do that, but stop pretending that the reason youre refusing to answer questions about your positions is because of the phrase "kinda silly". Iv been called a blowhard, and an academic elitist just in the last page alone, and a little bit of namecalling hasnt made me run away from my own positions.

Grow a skin for god sakes... "kinda silly"...

Anyhow, your refusal to answer IS an answer.

Edited March 4, 2012 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

Youre just playing games AW. You C&Ped some stuff from pro DP sites without thinking it through, and when some pretty serious logical flaws in your argument were pointed out, you refused to continue defending your position. Understandable. Your tact now appears to be to pretend the words "kinda silly" were some kind of aggregious personal attack (come on), and now youre using that as an excuse to refuse to respond to very simple and relevant questions posed to you about a half dozen times now.

Its your right to do that, but stop pretending that the reason youre refusing to answer questions about your positions is because of the phrase "kinda silly". Iv been called a blowhard, and an academic elitist just in the last page alone, and a little bit of namecalling hasnt made me run away from my own positions.

Grow a skin for god sakes... "kinda silly"...

Anyhow, your refusal to answer IS an answer.

I'm not sure that's fair ............

As I said, if you want me to engage in discussion with you, lose the sanctimonious blowhard attitude. If not, keep pretending I'm not responding because I can't - that'll fit right in with your attitude.

[dre]

I'm not sure that's fair ............

As I said, if you want me to engage in discussion with you, lose the sanctimonious blowhard attitude. If not, keep pretending I'm not responding because I can't - that'll fit right in with your attitude.

Get real. You use language more sanctimonious than "kinda silly" on a regular basis, and you regularly continue on in threads where this kind of stuff is flying back and forth between you and variety of other posters.

And like I said... You DID answer those questions by not answering. And I cant FORCE you to answer them. Your refusal to defend your position is part of the record now, and this thread isnt about you and I. Lets just stop derailing the thread in case some people still find it interesting, and move on.

[Guest American Woman]

You mean everyone else is both for and against the death penalty at the same time too?

Are you so caught up in your ideology that you can't comprehend that someone can actually see both sides? While my personal decision is against the death penalty, I can understand the other point of view and see that it has merit also. I repeat. I don't see this as a black and white issue, and the arguments that some of you are making are filled with holes - which I am pointing out. It's not your way or the highway regarding the potential loss of innocent lives. I'm simply pointing that out.

Yes, the death penalty does come with the risk of convicting an innocent person, but sparing the lives of convicted murderers does put innocent people at risk, too - and I can't believe that you can't see that. Seriously. I can't believe it.