g_bambino Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) The Constitution wasn't even signed by one of the most populous provinces in the country... Yes, it was; represenatives of Lower Canada and the legislature thereof approved the constitution in 1867. ----- Oops! Should've read on. Actually, it was, in 1867. The 1982 signature wasn't necessary. Thank you, smallc. [ed.: +] Edited March 7, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
eyeball Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 I'm still not sure what you're getting at - are you speaking of a person who was wrongfully convicted? No, I'm talking about the person who pushes the button that kills the convicted. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Guest American Woman Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 No, I'm talking about the person who pushes the button that kills the convicted. That I got. But is the "convicted" wrongfully convicted/executed? If not, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Even if they are, I'm don't think you have a point. For one thing, they aren't the ones responsible for the arrest, trial, verdict, sentencing; certainly they don't have that much power. And again, if they should have the executed person's death on their conscience, then subsequent murders committed by convicted murderers who are no longer serving time should be on the conscience of everyone not supporting the death penalty. The mindset has to work both ways. Quote
eyeball Posted March 11, 2012 Report Posted March 11, 2012 That I got. But is the "convicted" wrongfully convicted/executed? If they are then it's on the conscience of the victims turned executioners. If not, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Even if they are, I'm don't think you have a point. Yes, it was facetious, remember? For one thing, they aren't the ones responsible for the arrest, trial, verdict, sentencing; certainly they don't have that much power. And again, if they should have the executed person's death on their conscience, then subsequent murders committed by convicted murderers who are no longer serving time should be on the conscience of everyone not supporting the death penalty. The mindset has to work both ways. It's enough to drive you bonkers isn't it? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Tilter Posted March 11, 2012 Report Posted March 11, 2012 The stupidity of keeping monsters like Bernardo, Homolka & the convicted & about to be convicted in the Tori Stafford murder alive for even 1 year after conviction is something that should be heavily on the conscience of the "murderer huggers", judges and the whole government who support the "death by imprisionment" sentences handed down by our failing & cowardly judicial; system. Quote
eyeball Posted March 11, 2012 Report Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) The stupidity of keeping monsters like Bernardo, Homolka & the convicted & about to be convicted in the Tori Stafford murder alive for even 1 year after conviction is something that should be heavily on the conscience of the "murderer huggers", judges and the whole government who support the "death by imprisionment" sentences handed down by our failing & cowardly judicial; system. What would really bear down on my conscience is knowing that the minute we gave you people the inch of death penalty you want you'd be screaming blue bloody murder for a mile of it. Soon you'd be asking it be applied more broadly and for the reduced evidentiary standards and sloppy justice it would take to apply it within the year you're asking for now. No doubt that would be down to months and then weeks before long. Where you want to go is not a place it's a direction and it's always pointing downhill. Edited March 11, 2012 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Shakeyhands Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Interesting article in the Star about KP. Worth a read, especially for those that think being incarcerated for life isn't a proper punishment. My link Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Tilter Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 What would really bear down on my conscience is knowing that the minute we gave you people the inch of death penalty you want you'd be screaming blue bloody murder for a mile of it. Soon you'd be asking it be applied more broadly and for the reduced evidentiary standards and sloppy justice it would take to apply it within the year you're asking for now. No doubt that would be down to months and then weeks before long. Where you want to go is not a place it's a direction and it's always pointing downhill. Just for small minded people like those against the death penalty Quote
Tilter Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Interesting article in the Star about KP. Worth a read, especially for those that think being incarcerated for life isn't a proper punishment. My link One point to consider is that the grand quarters in which he is house cost somewhere between 1/4 & 1/2 million dollars a year for each of these sub-humans. If there are 50 of them in that section it would mean that the prison system is spending between 12 and 25 million dollars that we pay in taxes to allow these useless people to live on---- for perhaps an average of 40 years each. Is that justified in ANYONE'S mind, pro or con about the death penalty? Quote
g_bambino Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Is that justified in ANYONE'S mind, pro or con about the death penalty? It's actually irrelevant. Quote
eyeball Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 One point to consider is that the grand quarters in which he is house cost somewhere between 1/4 & 1/2 million dollars a year for each of these sub-humans. If there are 50 of them in that section it would mean that the prison system is spending between 12 and 25 million dollars that we pay in taxes to allow these useless people to live on---- for perhaps an average of 40 years each. Is that justified in ANYONE'S mind, pro or con about the death penalty? It was already pointed out that the legal costs of executing someone is far higher than the cost of incarcerating them. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Guest Manny Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 What would really bear down on my conscience is knowing that the minute we gave you people the inch of death penalty you want you'd be screaming blue bloody murder for a mile of it. Soon you'd be asking it be applied more broadly and for the reduced evidentiary standards and sloppy justice it would take to apply it within the year you're asking for now. No doubt that would be down to months and then weeks before long. Where you want to go is not a place it's a direction and it's always pointing downhill. Can you imagine in this politicized climate we have today, giving bureaucrats the power to decide on life vs death? My Gar... Quote
bleeding heart Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) 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. Absolutely. What kind of lily-livered weakling won't apply the death penalty for all murders? And for pedophiles, who aren't exactly beloved, society-wise. What about torturers? (Unofficial, unsanctioned torturers I mean, of course...not the good ones who carry out matters of State.) The trouble with "apply it to the worst of the worst" is, at least, a two-fold problem: first, what--exactly what--becomes the proper definition? and, second, the number of Bernardo-type creatures is so relatively small that it would make no real difference anyway, in the larger sphere. At any rate, I think that support for the death penalty is, as often as not, a stalking horse for statists who long for more authoritarian governments. Edited March 25, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Guest Peeves Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 http://www.canada.com/news/postmedia/Video+Terri+Lynne+McClintic+confession/6339081/story.html The revelation about microwaving the dog, who had to be put down, casts a new cold light upon the 21-year-old: Animal torture by young people is widely considered by forensic psychiatrists as a harbinger of adult psychopathic behaviour.McClintic arguably displayed another such characteristic when she attempted to explain the dog incident by telling Mr. Derstine first, “I was a child” and then, “I was a child. I didn’t know what I was doing.” She seemed oblivious to the dreadful and obvious — that Tori, too, was a child, only eight when by McClintic’s latest account, she herself killed her. For almost three years, from the moment she admitted she was the mystery woman in the white jacket captured on security video walking with Tori through several lengthy and detailed police statements, McClintic stuck to her story that Mr. Rafferty had been the actual killer. But in January of this year, she abruptly changed her tune — only then able to face up to the facts, she said — and confessed that she was the one who kicked and stomped Tori and then struck her in the head with a hammer. 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..." Quote
bleeding heart Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 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..." The "bleeding hearts" may well take that approach with any number of convicts. But not the types we're talking about here. I'm just not seeing it. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Tilter Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 It was already pointed out that the legal costs of executing someone is far higher than the cost of incarcerating them. How do you figure that? The cost of a 12 Ga. Shotgun shell is less than a dollar. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 The "bleeding hearts" may well take that approach with any number of convicts. But not the types we're talking about here. I'm just not seeing it. Just knowing it could happen in enough to prevent the family from having peace; having to deal with the parole hearing forever is enough to keep it as fresh as the day it happened, just as Peeves said. I don't understand why such convicted murderers even go up for parole. Quote
Tilter Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 Absolutely. What kind of lily-livered weakling won't apply the death penalty for all murders? And for pedophiles, who aren't exactly beloved, society-wise. What about torturers? (Unofficial, unsanctioned torturers I mean, of course...not the good ones who carry out matters of State.) The trouble with "apply it to the worst of the worst" is, at least, a two-fold problem: first, what--exactly what--becomes the proper definition? and, second, the number of Bernardo-type creatures is so relatively small that it would make no real difference anyway, in the larger sphere. At any rate, I think that support for the death penalty is, as often as not, a stalking horse for statists who long for more authoritarian governments. the number of Bernardo-type creatures is so relatively small that it would make no real difference anyway, in the larger sphere. If there are 50 of them in that section it would mean that the prison system is spending between 12 and 25 million dollars that we pay in taxes to allow these useless people to live on So, to you, 12 to 25 million bux a year is chicken feed---- it'd also buy a lot of medical help for the people who need it. You must be NDP----to feel that any PUBLIC money is worth spending because it doesn't cost anything--- it's PUBLIC money. I saw a useless memorial to "miners" (altho the only names on it were elected officials & their taodies.) The explanation given was that the money to build it came from a Federal grant---- as if that made any sense to anyone with 1/2 a brain. Quote
bleeding heart Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 So, to you, 12 to 25 million bux a year is chicken feed---- it'd also buy a lot of medical help for the people who need it. You haven't received the memo? The death penalty is damned expensive. So costs can't be your actual complaint. So why pretend they are? You must be NDP----to feel that any PUBLIC money is worth spending because it doesn't cost anything--- it's PUBLIC money. So...you support the death penalty, but you don't think it should be funded with public money? ??? Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
eyeball Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) I don't understand why such convicted murderers even go up for parole. It's real simple, everybody has rights. 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. Why? Because the goddamn right-wing is not a place but a direction on an endless journey that is forever just getting underway. We have to draw the line before the journey begins to nip the right-wings inability to limit itself in the bud. EVERYBODY has rights, forget that for even one person or one second and before you know it the right-wing will take as many as rights away from as many people as they can. They will never stop. Like the Conservatives say "no cost is too high" and "we're just getting started". Edited March 25, 2012 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
waldo Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 Like the Conservatives say "no cost is too high" and "we're just getting started". Stephen Harper... the master strategist incrementalist! Quote
g_bambino Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 Why? Because the goddamn right-wing is not a place but a direction on an endless journey that is forever just getting underway. 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. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 The "bleeding hearts" may well take that approach with any number of convicts. But not the types we're talking about here. I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps, but the parole hearings alone re victimize the families and give the murderer another shot at reliving the experience wile taking sadistic enjoyment in the farce. Weighing the repeated torture of the families as in this case below,, convinces me that there are indeed cases where the death penalty is the only choice as alternatively with our present system, the murderer may cause renewed pain over and over and over.... As expected, serial killer Clifford Olson was denied parole at a hearing Tuesday at the Ste-Anne-des-Plaines penitentiary north of Montreal.Although Olson had no realistic chance of release from prison, family members of his victims were dreading the hearing as the convicted killer has taunted them in the past with details of his grisly crimes. Olson made some strange statements at the beginning of the hearing, telling the three-member panel that he had documents showing he should be transferred to a prison in the United States because he had information about the 9/11 attacks. However, the parole board members did not allow Olson to continue and admitted four victim impact statements. "No one can murder my memories," victim Daryn Johnsrude's sister said in her statement. "But it's not right that that is all I have, memories." Jana Rosenfeldt went on to describe the gruesome details of Johnsrude's death. She said her brother was offered a summer job by Olson and then abducted and taken into a forest. "Daryn was given a drink with a drug in it and rendered unable to move," she said, fighting to maintain her composure. "He was then driven out to the woods. He had his clothes ripped off of him, he was bent over a tree, he was raped and then his head smashed in with a hammer. I don't know how long he was alive for or all that he suffered, but this is what I do know: In the police reports, the offender stated that a few of Daryn's last words before he died allegedly were: 'Why are you doing this to me, Cliff?'" Olson, Canada's most notorious serial killer, has served 25 years in prison since he admitted to killing 11 boys and girls in British Columbia in 1980 and 1981. In rejecting parole, board member Jacques Letendre said the 66-year-old' s risk factor had not diminished in his quarter-century behind bars. "Mr. Olson presents a high risk and a psychopathic risk," said Letendre. "He is a sexual sadist and a narcissist." "The (correctional team) believes that if released, he will kill again." CTV's Genevieve Beauchemin, who attended the hearing, said Olson left before the ruling because he told the panel he did not want to hear their "retarded decision." Beauchemin said the panel kept a tight rein on the hearing, preventing Olson from taking over as he had tried to do in the past. Although Olson rejected the parole board's jurisdiction over him during the hearing, under Canadian law he is entitled to another hearing in two years because he has served his sentence. Beauchemin said that Olson himself told the panel he did not believe that serial killers should be granted parole. B.C.'s solicitor general, John Les, issued a statement Tuesday calling the hearing "a charade." "Automatic parole hearings for this kind of violent serial offender re-victimize the families," said Les. "It is a travesty that they have to go through this time and time again." Victims' families Speaking before the hearing, relatives of the slain boys and girls said they must continue to speak for the victims, despite how difficult and painful it is to see their killer again. "It's very simple for me -- wherever Clifford Olson appears requesting any type of release, I will always, always be there for Daryn," the dead boy's mother, Sharon Rosenfeldt, told CTV's Canada AM Tuesday from Quebec. "I will be here to represent Daryn at any hearing that is taking place, and if we have to go through this two years from now, and God forbid we will, I will be here again." Holding a large portrait of her son, Rosenfeldt said it's very important she show the parole board she is not afraid of Olson. "It's very, very difficult right now even thinking that I will be in the same room as him, and I just get all frustrated," she said, pausing before tears streamed down her face. Joining Rosenfeldt was Darlene Perry, whose sister Ada was one of Olson's victims. She too said attending the hearing is extremely painful and difficult. "But it's something you have to do for your family, for Ada. She can't be here to speak for herself, he took that away from her, so we're here to support each other," she said. Rosenfeldt said she has appealed to the federal government and Justice Minister Vic Toews to overhaul the parole system. Toews last week said he would examine the correctional system, particularly legislation for murderers who don't show any remorse for their crimes or try to rehabilitate themselves. His gruesome crimes The self-described "Beast of British Columbia," Olson began his killing spree with the abduction and brutal killing of a 12-year-old girl in Surrey, B.C., in 1980. Her body was found on Christmas Day, strangled and stabbed repeatedly. Over the next nine months, Olson tortured and killed 10 more children, ranging in age from nine to 18. He was arrested in August 1981 for the attempted abduction of two girls. In custody, Olson offered police a controversial deal: he would tell police where to find the bodies of his victims in exchange for $10,000 for each body. Police agreed, and $100,000 was paid to his wife and infant child. In prison he sent letters to some victims' families detailing his crimes in graphic deal. With files from CTV Montreal and CTV Vancouver Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20060718/olson060718/#ixzz1q9b1BuGA Quote
bleeding heart Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) Leaving aside the fact that killing somebody to relieve victims' loved ones from emotional distress is a questionable way to proceed, aren't we at any rate missing a step here? What about the life without the possibility of parole? I don't think many Canadians would have serious reservations about this, not when it comes to the Olsens and Bernardos of the world. Edited March 25, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
g_bambino Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 What about the life without the possibility of parole? I was just about to point out (again) that the answer to easy parole or parole too soon isn't simply death. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.