Majority of Canadians support death penalty

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, it still all comes down to who actually decides? The people or someone else?

Who says the people are wrong and that something is moral or right? Who do we trust to make such decisions?

Judges? Who are appointed and not elected? Who are fallible men?

I simply have more confidence in my fellow citizens as a whole than I do with some elitists.

We put our trust in the freedoms that we hold to be essential as part of our society, coded into our constitution. Judges only interpret it.

[Smallc]

I have enough faith in my fellow citizens to believe that if given the direct power they would never allow such inequities to have the force of law.

Then you're dreaming. The mob is not interested in anything beyond self interests. That's why we have unelected judges, the people you call elites. They are better able to make a just decision based on the facts. What you propose is essentially anarchy.

[Bryan]

Then you're dreaming. The mob is not interested in anything beyond self interests. That's why we have unelected judges, the people you call elites. They are better able to make a just decision based on the facts.

When you look at the kinds of decisions they've been making (especially lately), clearly they are not better able to make rational decisions. Increasingly, they make their decisions based on their personal biases, and completely disregard the facts.

Where it gets dangerous, is when they get called on it, and people like you take the position that you take; "meh, they know what they're doing". That's how the elites really do start calling the shots.

[Smallc]

When you look at the kinds of decisions they've been making (especially lately), clearly they are not better able to make rational decisions. Increasingly, they make their decisions based on their personal biases, and completely disregard the facts.

Examples and citations will be very appreciated. Or are you only giving your own opinion?

[Bryan]

Examples and citations will be very appreciated. Or are you only giving your own opinion?

I've commented on several of them on this forum in recent weeks. Your response was little more than shrugging your shoulders.

[Smallc]

I've commented on several of them on this forum in recent weeks. Your response was little more than shrugging your shoulders.

Sure, and disagreement. You were wrong. Your opinion isn't based on the facts.

[Bryan]

Sure, and disagreement. You were wrong. Your opinion isn't based on the facts.

That's YOUR opinion. Such as it is.

And you have the relationship exactly backwards. Opinions I can abide, it's when people try to invent their own facts that I object.

You want one example, I'll give you one. The case where the Manitoba Judge ruled that ending the Wheat Board monopoly without a plebiscite was contrary to its charter. The absolute fact is, that judge was wrong. It's not my opinion, it's black and white. The plebiscite that judge cites is in the section "other grains", specifically you have to get a vote of farmers to change which grains it covers. There is nothing requiring a plebiscite to allow farmers freedom to market outside of the CWB. That judge can't even read the material in front of him. He sure as hell is not "better able to make a decision" on anything.

[Smallc]

You want one example, I'll give you one. The case where the Manitoba Judge ruled that ending the Wheat Board monopoly without a plebiscite was contrary to its charter.

But he didn't say that the government's legislation was illegal, did he? Again, that decision doesn't seem to be what you think it is.

[Bryan]

But he didn't say that the government's legislation was illegal, did he? Again, that decision doesn't seem to be what you think it is.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-broke-law-on-wheat-board-court-rules/article2263351/

Federal Court judge Douglas Campbell ruled the Conservative government broke the law in recently introducing legislation to end the Wheat Board’s 76-year old monopoly over the sale of all wheat and barley grown in Western Canada

Again, that decision doesn't seem to be what you think it is.

[Smallc]

Hi ruling though, wasn't intended to and didn't stop the legislation, did it?

It doesn't really matter though. Even if you find a few judges that could be considered bad, it doesn't mean that leaving the decisions to people with less education on the subject would result in better rulings. Overall, rulings in Canada are very fair, and very consistent.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Smallc

[Bryan]

Hi ruling though, wasn't intended to and didn't stop the legislation, did it?

Thanks for reinforcing my point. Not only was his ruling factually incorrect, so was his supposition that he even had authority to make it.

It doesn't really matter though. Even if you find a few judges that could be considered bad, it doesn't mean that leaving the decisions to people with less education on the subject would result in better rulings. Overall, rulings in Canada are very fair, and very consistent.

Consistent yes, fair, no. Overall, they are a pile of left-wing propaganda that blatantly disregards the fact of the cases. At bare minimum, we need to be able to fire them when they make political decisions rather than factual ones, when they try to make new law by applying a new meaning to existing ones, when they disregard clear and basic rules set forth before them, just because they don't like them.

[Bonam]

Then you're dreaming. The mob is not interested in anything beyond self interests.

You greatly overestimate the mob. If it could at least act in its own self-interest, that would be a strong redeeming quality. No, the mob tends to act mindlessly, just as likely to harm its own interests as to advance them.

[Evening Star]

The other is a philosophical discussion about what limits should be placed on the power of the state.

-k

It seems incredible to me that a small-c conservative would be willing to give the state the ultimate power of killing its own citizens.

[Bonam]

I think there would be much much less support for the death penalty if life actually meant life for the worst crimes. 25 years with the strong possibility of getting out even earlier just doesn't do the trick in a lot of cases.

[Evening Star]

I think there would be much much less support for the death penalty if life actually meant life for the worst crimes. 25 years with the strong possibility of getting out even earlier just doesn't do the trick in a lot of cases.

But why not just advocate longer sentences in that case? Doesn't seem like a reason to support the death penalty.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think there would be much much less support for the death penalty if life actually meant life for the worst crimes. 25 years with the strong possibility of getting out even earlier just doesn't do the trick in a lot of cases.

I agree...if I ever get the urge to go on a murdering rampage, I will definitely do it in Canada. Maybe steal some panties too!

[olpfan1]

since when does the government govern on what the majority want? they pander to minorities more than they do majority

Edited February 27, 2012 by olpfan1

[Bonam]

But why not just advocate longer sentences in that case? Doesn't seem like a reason to support the death penalty.

Personally I agree. But emotionally, when a lot of people see someone that's been convicted of a truly horrible crime come up for a parole hearing, they are just repulsed, and wish that person had just been done away with years ago. If these individuals had simply been locked up for life and the key (figuratively) thrown away, such cases would not happen, and the emotional trigger for support of the death penalty would never come up.

[Bryan]

But why not just advocate longer sentences in that case? Doesn't seem like a reason to support the death penalty.

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?

[Smallc]

Consistent yes, fair, no. Overall, they are a pile of left-wing propaganda that blatantly disregards the fact of the cases. At bare minimum, we need to be able to fire them when they make political decisions rather than factual ones, when they try to make new law by applying a new meaning to existing ones, when they disregard clear and basic rules set forth before them, just because they don't like them.

Why? There are already legitimate ways for judges further up the line to do that. Even if you did find a bad judgement here (I'm not sure you did), that doesn't really prove your point in any way. The SCOC is pretty well regarded around the world in terms of the fairness of its decisions.

[Smallc]

I think there would be much much less support for the death penalty if life actually meant life for the worst crimes. 25 years with the strong possibility of getting out even earlier just doesn't do the trick in a lot of cases.

There really isn't a strong chance of getting out earlier. It happens in very few cases, and can't even happen anymore. I believe that there was some stat someone presented on this forum showing the average 25 to life recipient spent about 30 years in prison.

[Evening Star]

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?

Are you asking if anyone really objects to the use of the death penalty in the cases of people like Bernardo and Olsen? If, so, yes, I object to it in any case.

Edit: I'm not necessarily in favour of stricter sentences either but "people are getting out of jail earlier than I'd like, therefore we need to bring back the death penalty" just seemed like a leap of logic to me, even if one accepts the first part.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Evening Star

[cybercoma]

Thanks for reinforcing my point. Not only was his ruling factually incorrect, so was his supposition that he even had authority to make it.

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

[Wild Bill]

Are you asking if anyone really objects to the use of the death penalty in the cases of people like Bernardo and Olsen? If, so, yes, I object to it in any case.

Edit: I'm not necessarily in favour of stricter sentences either but "people are getting out of jail earlier than I'd like, therefore we need to bring back the death penalty" just seemed like a leap of logic to me, even if one accepts the first part.

While we focus on the likes of a Paul Bernardo, perhaps we could all think a moment about Karla Homolka?

Yep! Life means life! We give harsh sentences here in Canada! Justice is always served! No doubt the families and loved ones of her victims are well and truly impressed!

[Michael Hardner]

Yep! Life means life! We give harsh sentences here in Canada! Justice is always served! No doubt the families and loved ones of her victims are well and truly impressed!

First of all, WB, sarcasm doesn't come over well so be careful when using it as it's easy to confuse the reader to think you're serious.

Secondly, she got a plea in order to get testimony against her then husband. This happens in all jurisdictions, including law-and-order states in the US so it's not a straightforward example that you can use as criticism of Canada's system.