Majority of Canadians support death penalty

[Wild Bill]

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.

If the law truly does, then how do we have a difference cited when polls ask about the death penalty?

Last time I looked, a majority wanted it and we don't have it, going back for decades!

[Guest American Woman]

In the case of the death penalty it doesnt save money, it does not act as a deterrent....

It would have acted as a deterrent in these murders:

A SHORT LIST OF MURDERERS RELEASED TO MURDER AGAIN

[cybercoma]

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

I know we both disagree with the death penalty, but I'm utterly appalled at how some people can so easily decide to end a human life vis-a-vis a cost/benefit analysis. Edited February 29, 2012 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Last time I looked, a majority wanted it and we don't have it, going back for decades!

That isn't what this poll asked. Also, sometimes issues are about more than the way people feel, as people in this thread have been explaining.

[olpfan1]

Majority of canadians want to make bullying illegal but locking up 9 year olds isnt the answer

just like capital punishment isnt the answer though it would be in a world where no mistakes are made

[olpfan1]

I approve of the death penalty for people like Robert Pickton

[dre]

It would have acted as a deterrent in these murders:

A SHORT LIST OF MURDERERS RELEASED TO MURDER AGAIN

That assumes your choices are death and release. Those murders could have been prevented by real "life sentences" as well.

[Wild Bill]

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...

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?

I found your response interesting Dr. Dre. I've heard similar arguments from others many times before.

Do you realize you never once mentioned the victims, or their families and loved ones? Capital punishment satisfies a very deep human emotion, one that few can understand unless they themselves are touched by such tragedy. This emotion says that a murderer should pay with his own life! It gives closure, and says that the victim's life had value.

To my mind, the victims and their families and loved ones come first! The needs, wants and values of society come second! The crime was against an individual, not against his society.

When someone defines things only as to how it relates to society, I am reminded of the best definition of society I've ever heard, from the novelist Ayn Rand.

She said (I'm paraphrasing here from memory) that "society is everyone in general and no one in particular but it is never, ever YOU!"

I always considered this definition to be a truism.

[dre]

I know we both disagree with the death penalty, but I'm utterly appalled at how some people can so easily decide to end a human life vis-a-vis a cost/benefit analysis.

All government policy should be evaluated this way.

A proponent of the death penalty doesnt need to demonstrate that a certain convict "deserves" to die. He has to show that it is effective public policy that will result in a tangible benefit for the tax payers who will have to bear the high cost of building this into our criminal justice system, all the additional appeals and court time involved, etc etc.

Saying that "some murders deserve death", has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not capital punishment is good public policy, worthy of the huge cost of implementing it.

[dre]

I found your response interesting Dr. Dre. I've heard similar arguments from others many times before.

Do you realize you never once mentioned the victims, or their families and loved ones? Capital punishment satisfies a very deep human emotion, one that few can understand unless they themselves are touched by such tragedy. This emotion says that a murderer should pay with his own life! It gives closure, and says that the victim's life had value.

To my mind, the victims and their families and loved ones come first! The needs, wants and values of society come second! The crime was against an individual, not against his society.

When someone defines things only as to how it relates to society, I am reminded of the best definition of society I've ever heard, from the novelist Ayn Rand.

She said (I'm paraphrasing here from memory) that "society is everyone in general and no one in particular but it is never, ever YOU!"

I always considered this definition to be a truism.

Do you realize you never once mentioned the victims, or their families and loved ones? Capital punishment satisfies a very deep human emotion, one that few can understand unless they themselves are touched by such tragedy. This emotion says that a murderer should pay with his own life! It gives closure, and says that the victim's life had value.

I have plenty of sympathy for the victims of crime, but making them feel better is not the primary purpose of the criminal justice system.

To my mind, the victims and their families and loved ones come first! The needs, wants and values of society come second! The crime was against an individual, not against his society.

The problem is that now you want to confiscate the wealth of millions MORE individuals to fund your vision of the justice system as pertains to the mental health of victims and their sense of closure.

I understand your emotional position... its understandable to see some of these crimes and think that the perp should be killed, or even tortured. Most people feel that way to some extent... but the government has a lot of other things to consider besides peoples emotional reactions to things when they write up policy... they have to contemplate what good will come of it, what the risks are, what the costs are, and where the money will come from.

[Guest American Woman]

That assumes your choices are death and release. Those murders could have been prevented by real "life sentences" as well.

Even the ones who escaped?

Fact is, there is no guarantee of "real life;" someone somewhere down the line can always come along and pardon or grant parole.

Furthermore, no one can say that the death penalty is not a deterrent - there's absolutely no way to know whether or not there are people who would have committed murder but didn't go through with it because of the death penalty.

[dre]

Furthermore, no one can say that the death penalty is not a deterrent - there's absolutely no way to know whether or not there are people who would have committed murder but didn't go through with it because of the death penalty.

Well, whether there are such people or not is besides the point. If the death penalty had a statistically significant effect on the rate of capital crimes you would be able to measure it.

For example, between 1990 and 2010 the murder rate in US death penalty states dropped from 9.5 to 4.5. But the murder rate in non death penalty states dropped more... from 9.18 to 4.0. Iv read similar studies that monitored murder rates in states and countries that abolished capital punishment.

If the policy is effective it should have some kind of statistically significant effect on the number if these crimes. If it doesnt, then the argument in favor of it is predicated on nothing in the first place.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

I any case... I have nothing to prove. Im happy with the way our criminal justice system works now. The folks proposing this policy are the ones that will need to find some kind of real argument for it, or some evidence that it actually does something useful. Thats a losing argument though, because no data supports that, and thats exactly why the death penalty has been abolished in almost the entire modern world, and is in decline in last few first world countries that have, like the US.

Edited March 1, 2012 by dre

[cybercoma]

All government policy should be evaluated this way.

A proponent of the death penalty doesnt need to demonstrate that a certain convict "deserves" to die. He has to show that it is effective public policy that will result in a tangible benefit for the tax payers who will have to bear the high cost of building this into our criminal justice system, all the additional appeals and court time involved, etc etc.

Saying that "some murders deserve death", has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not capital punishment is good public policy, worthy of the huge cost of implementing it.

You're presuming that the only benefit to the taxpayer is a fiscal one. How about the benefit of not being put to death by the state if you're wrongly convicte? I would say that benefit far outweighs any amount of money it might cost to ensure that doesn't happen.

[cybercoma]

Furthermore, no one can say that the death penalty is not a deterrent - there's absolutely no way to know whether or not there are people who would have committed murder but didn't go through with it because of the death penalty.

Sure you can. You can compare murder rates in places with and without the death penalty to see if it has any deterrant effect. It doesn't and one of many possible explanations is that people don't expect to be caught when they kill someone. Another possible explanation is that people don't just go around killing indiscriminately. They often only do it when they feel like they have no other choice given the circumstances they're in. This of course relates to the first possible explanation. In those situations, the killer is certainly not thinking about being caught.

[Guest Manny]

Sure you can. You can compare murder rates in places with and without the death penalty to see if it has any deterrant effect. It doesn't and one of many possible explanations is that people don't expect to be caught when they kill someone. Another possible explanation is that people don't just go around killing indiscriminately. They often only do it when they feel like they have no other choice given the circumstances they're in. This of course relates to the first possible explanation. In those situations, the killer is certainly not thinking about being caught.

Or they simply don't care if they are. They have made the "final" choice for their victims, and for themselves. In some cases. Of course there are different motivations.

I think the other issue is the effect of state-sanctioned murder on the collective psyche. When you believe that committing murder is always wrong, and should never be carried out, the concept is quite clear. When you believe that murder is justified in some circumstances... one only needs to decide now where the boundaries of those circumstances are. That's a statement about the value of life. It could actually result in more murders being committed.

[Wild Bill]

The problem is that now you want to confiscate the wealth of millions MORE individuals to fund your vision of the justice system as pertains to the mental health of victims and their sense of closure.

I understand your emotional position... its understandable to see some of these crimes and think that the perp should be killed, or even tortured. Most people feel that way to some extent... but the government has a lot of other things to consider besides peoples emotional reactions to things when they write up policy... they have to contemplate what good will come of it, what the risks are, what the costs are, and where the money will come from.

Well, then we must agree to disagree. BTW, torture is YOUR word, not mine! I have no interest in torture. Death by lethal injection would be fine by me.

I do not consider my position to be emotional and frankly, Dr. Dre, I find yours somewhat harsh and uncaring. You have not convinced me at all that you give any value to the needs of victims and their loved ones. Once the State takes over, I guess you expect them to simply shut up and go away, after a victim's impact statement that the courts can promptly ignore, of course!

I guess it depends on who you consider more important. I've always considered individuals paramount. You clearly don't.

Let's move on.

[g_bambino]

I do not consider my position to be emotional...

And yet, where is the rational justification for it? Having the death penalty will restore people's faith in the justice system? How? Capital punnishment will save money? Again, how, when we consider your assertion that it should only be used against the most heinous of criminals for which there isn't a shred of doubt of their guilt? How many such criminals are there?

[Michael Hardner]

And yet, where is the rational justification for it? Having the death penalty will restore people's faith in the justice system? How?

There seems to be a lot of support for it, although I'm not one of those. In that sense, you can say that these people would have their faith restored - I don't see how you can question that.

[Wild Bill]

There seems to be a lot of support for it, although I'm not one of those. In that sense, you can say that these people would have their faith restored - I don't see how you can question that.

Exactly, Michael!

I find it amazing how so many people not only think their own views are the majority but they have difficulty understanding how anyone could feel differently.

[Evening Star]

Do you realize you never once mentioned the victims, or their families and loved ones? Capital punishment satisfies a very deep human emotion, one that few can understand unless they themselves are touched by such tragedy. This emotion says that a murderer should pay with his own life! It gives closure, and says that the victim's life had value.

WB, how is this not an emotional position? Definitely seems more like 'heart person' thinking than 'head person' thinking to me.

[Guest American Woman]

WB, how is this not an emotional position? Definitely seems more like 'heart person' thinking than 'head person' thinking to me.

Seems to me "'heart person' thinking'" has a place in the courts in the form of "victim impact" statements.

[Guest American Woman]

Sure you can. You can compare murder rates in places with and without the death penalty to see if it has any deterrant effect. It doesn't

How does that answer the question? Crime rates vary from place to place - even among places that don't have the death penalty the murder rates can vary greatly. So how do we know that murder rates wouldn't be even lower in states without it if they were to have it - and even higher in states that have it if they didn't have it? Just because the conclusion has been drawn based on such statistics doesn't mean that the conclusion has merit. The only way to know if it's a deterrent or not is to get inside would-be murderers heads - and that's impossible.

and one of many possible explanations is that people don't expect to be caught when they kill someone.

Say that's true - "not expecting to" and realizing it's a possibility are two very different things - as in "I don't expect to get caught, but if I do ...... at least I won't be executed." It could become part of a person's mindset.

Another possible explanation is that people don't just go around killing indiscriminately. They often only do it when they feel like they have no other choice given the circumstances they're in.

They "often" do it for that reason, eh? I would like a source for that, please - I'd like to know how often is "often." From what I've read, motives for murder include conflict, power, greed, lust, anger, drugs, intoxication, and fear - with "conflict" being the most common - and then there are serial killers, a whole other breed.

However, just like cost, I don't think whether or not it's a deterrent should be a factor - those who murder have murdered someone and taken a life or lives. They have killed - and have the potential to kill again - and I provided proof of convicted murderers who escaped or were paroled, only to kill again. I repeat. In those instances, for those using the "deterrent" argument, the death of the convicted murderers would have prevented (ie: "deterred") those deaths.

Edited March 1, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Exactly, Michael!

I find it amazing how so many people not only think their own views are the majority but they have difficulty understanding how anyone could feel differently.

I think what people have a hard time with are views that have no basis on any rational judgment, but are the result of a "feeling" or some other motivation. The questions that g_bambino posed were pertinent to any sort of rational discussion on the subject. Instead, you continue to repeat the exact same assertion that social policy ought to be dictated by the will of the majority. Your thinking justifies abhorrent social situations like the Witch Trials. It's that kind of thinking that also justified the sterilization of Canadian citizens from the 1920s until the 1970s because they were deemed "mental defectives" for not being able to do things like draw a perfectly shaped circle or equilateral triangle. Mob rule is not necessarily ethical or just.

[cybercoma]

However, just like cost, I don't think whether or not it's a deterrent should be a factor

Then why bring it up?

those who murder have murdered someone and taken a life or lives. They have killed - and have the potential to kill again

That's your opinion. Every single person on this planet has the potential to kill.

I provided proof of convicted murderers who escaped or were paroled, only to kill again.

So what? What do you think that shows? You provided a handful of examples. Out of all all the people that have committed murder in the United States and have subsequently been released to jail, how many of them have committed another murder? Does the recidivism rate of murderers justify the death sentence and its potential to end the lives of innocent people?

I repeat. In those instances, for those using the "deterrent" argument, the death of the convicted murderers would have prevented (ie: "deterred") those deaths.

It would have prevented those deaths sure. However, you're mixing definitions of deterance. You've used it in the sense that someone is stopped from committing a murder because they're locked up. This is not what is meant when people talk about sentences being a deterrant. What is meant is that the sentence prevents free people from choosing to do something because they do not want to face the potential of being sentenced. It is not used in the sense that being sentenced deters someone from crime because they're unable to commit it. I'm sorry, but this is why it's so difficult to have conversations with you because you conflate definitions and play silly semantic games during discussions.

[Guest American Woman]

Then why bring it up?

Duh. I didn't. Others did. I responded.

That's your opinion. Every single person on this planet has the potential to kill.

That's your opinion. I've backed my statement up by providing a list of people who have killed - and killed again after being released from or escaping from prison. Those who already have killed are in a different category from "every single person on this planet" who haven't murdered anyone, so your claims about their potential mean nothing.

So what? What do you think that shows? You provided a handful of examples. Out of all all the people that have committed murder in the United States and have subsequently been released to jail, how many of them have committed another murder? Does the recidivism rate of murderers justify the death sentence and its potential to end the lives of innocent people?

I'll throw your words back at you - since you want to minimize the "handful" of examples I provided, one can just as easily minimize the handful of innocent people who have been put to death. Why do you feel the "handful" of people murdered by people who have previously murdered are more easily minimized and not a legitimate argument - or at least as strong an argument - as the handful of innocents executed?

For the record, my reason for not supporting the death penalty is based on the fact that innocent people could be put to death, but you don't see me minimizing the deaths in the list I provided - which doesn't claim to include every instance. It's why I understand those who support it - it's not all about "revenge." It's also one of the reasons why I think the "deterrent" argument has no merit. Obviously it would "deter" a murderer from killing again if they were no longer alive. Had those murderers been put to death, innocent victims would still be alive.

It would have prevented those deaths sure.

It sure would have.

However, you're mixing definitions of deterance. You've used it in the sense that someone is stopped from committing a murder because they're locked up. This is not what is meant when people talk about sentences being a deterrant.

No. I'm just not limiting the definition to one definition the way those using it as an argument against the death penalty are.

What is meant is that the sentence prevents free people from choosing to do something because they do not want to face the potential of being sentenced. It is not used in the sense that being sentenced deters someone from crime because they're unable to commit it.

Again, that might be what you mean, but there is more than one meaning and more than one way to "deter" murders. Furthermore, there is no proof whatsoever that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent in the way you are speaking of, for the reasons I stated. I would bet money that the thought of the death penalty has deterred some murders, but we'll never know, will we? Which is why one cannot say, other than as an opinion, that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent (even in the way you mean).

I'm sorry, but this is why it's so difficult to have conversations with you because you conflate definitions and play silly semantic games during discussions.

I see. You - yet again - resort to personal insults and accusations in response to my comments, but I'M the one who's "difficult to have conversations with."

The fact that you so often resort to this type of insulting commentary tells me you don't like that I have made points counter to yours; points that you can't dismiss - so you resort to insults.