Should Canada have the death penalty?

[cybercoma]

For someone who lights his hair on fire whenever a Canadian has an opinion about America, you sure blab a lot of opinions about Canada..... Hypocrite.

burn.

[Evening Star]

A speech worth remembering:

http://uranowski.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/pierre-elliott-trudeaus-speech-in-support-of-the-abolition-of-capital-punishment-house-of-commons-june-15th-1976/

[PIK]

Lies.

OTTAWA — James Sidney Allen, the ‘sadistic pedophile’ who killed eight-year-old Ricky Johnston in an Orléans swamp in 1975, has quietly been released from the Royal Ottawa Hospital’s secure forensic unit in Brockville, the Citizen has learned.

Allen, now 51, was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1976 and has been held in a mental hospital ever since.

His discharge, granted by the Ontario Review Board earlier this month, comes one year after the same board refused his release after hearing from a doctor who warned “the risk associated with his pedophilic personality disorder ... is that a vulnerable woman or child could be subject to significant harm.”

The family of the dead boy told the Citizen that the public should know that Allen is now living unsupervised for the first time in 37 years.

© Copyright © The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Infamous+1975+Orl%c3%a9ans+child+killer+released+from+hospital/7722468/story.html#ixzz2FbmY6EBh

Why is this guy being released?

Edited December 20, 2012 by PIK

[Wilber]

No.

Whether our existing sentences are adeqate is a separate issue and should not be part of a capital punishment debate.

[guyser]

OK, but there really is no such thing as "life in prison" for perps convicted in Canada.

True

They can get a life sentence , and they do.

As for the death penalty, no way.

Edited December 20, 2012 by guyser

[bush_cheney2004]

True

They can get a life sentence , and they do.

Abolishing the death penalty is one thing, but it is misleading to advertise a "life sentence" as 10 to 25 years. That is "life" with the possibility/certainty of parole.

[guyser]

Abolishing the death penalty is one thing, but it is misleading to advertise a "life sentence" as 10 to 25 years. That is "life" with the possibility/certainty of parole.

It is a life sentence. No matter how you look at it.

[Canuckistani]

The question should give a few options because there is strong support for Capital Punishment for heinous crimes and repeat murderers but much less for first time murderers.

But no, we should not have capital punishment.....but for heinous crimes or repeat murderers, Life in prison should mean just that - Life. For all other crimes, the term "Life" should not be used...it should be replaced with the actual sentence range - "....sentenced to 10-25 years" or "25 to life". Don't try and fool Canadians into thinking someone is doing a "Life Sentence" when clearly, they are not. For first degree murder, the "faint hope" clause should be gone. The reason there is still strong support for Capital Punishment is that there is no "truth" in sentencing. These changes will fix that.

A agree. Good points.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is a life sentence. No matter how you look at it.

OK...maybe math is different in Canada.

[guyser]

OK...maybe math is different in Canada.

Yes, we use metric.

But that doesnt touch on the fact that a life sentence is a life sentence here

[PIK]

I would love to know the numbers of repeat offenders when it comes to murder and perverts.

Edited December 20, 2012 by PIK

[Keepitsimple]

True

They can get a life sentence , and they do.

As for the death penalty, no way.

Do a search on "life with no chance of parole for 10 years" and you'll see how many "Life" sentences are out there in plain view - and there are likely hundreds that are not there to see. Keep in mind that when a murderer gets a chance at parole after 10 years - if he's denied, he can go back year after year and try again. After a while, they learn how to play the game - how to lie and eventually get out. And every year, the victims' families have to bear the cross of having the murderer of their loved-one potentially out on the street again.

Because the judge says "Life" doesn't make it so. Almost all the time, it's a lie.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[Canuckistani]

I would love to know the numbers of repeat offenders when it comes to murder and perverts.

Google is your friend.

Between 1 January 1975 and 31 March 1990, 658 murder offenders were released on full parole. Some of these offenders were released more than once for a total of 752 full-parole releases. As illustrated in Figure 1, more than three quarters of released murder offenders (77.5%) were not reincarcerated while on parole. Of those who were reincarcerated, 13.3% had their release revoked for a technical violation of their parole conditions and 9.2% for an indictable offence.

Of the 69 indictable offences committed by the released murder offenders, 30.4% ⁽²¹⁾ were offences against the person, 18.8% ⁽¹³⁾ were narcotics offences, 17.5% ⁽¹²⁾ were property offences, 8.7% ⁽⁶⁾ were robbery and 24.6% ⁽¹⁷⁾ were other Criminal Code offences.

Five released murder offenders (of a total of 658) were convicted of having committed a second murder while they were on full parole. Three of these were convicted of first-degree murder and two of second-degree murder. All five offenders had originally been convicted of non-capital murder. Besides these, no released murderer has been convicted of attempted murder or any other offence causing death.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=22128&st=30#entry867554

So murders doing another murder was 0.8%

When you say perverts, presumably you mean sex offenders. The recidivism rate there would be much higher, especially among pedophiles. Good argument for locking them up for a long time or at least keeping a close eye on them while they are outside.

[guyser]

Because the judge says "Life" doesn't make it so. Almost all the time, it's a lie.

Check your facts. Its never a lie.

[guyser]

When you say perverts, presumably you mean sex offenders.

No, what he means is any opinion offered he will change the goalposts and direction.

[-TSS-]

Isn't it strange that people keep on saying that prisons nowadays are too soft but when you ask them how do they know that, have they been in prison themselves or do they know people who have been in prison, very often they have not and do not? Yet they are very convinced of their views about prisons.

[Guest]

Check your facts. Its never a lie.

It's not a lie. It's an option.

When the judge says life it doesn't mean life in any practical sense. It can, but that's for others to decide.

[betsy]

I am not in favour of the death penalty.

Too many people are found guilty at trial then cleared at a later date when technology improves for any country to have the death penalty as an available option.

There's nothing wrong with the state killing the right person. It doesn't make us "as bad as they are". But killing the wrong person goes some way towards that.

Same here. I changed my position after learning some were executed - and later, found not guilty of the crime at all. And usually the reason is negligence, and sloppy handling of evidences by investigators.

[guyser]

It's not a lie. It's an option.

When the judge says life it doesn't mean life in any practical sense. It can, but that's for others to decide.

Actually no again

Life is life. They will never be free from the CSC

[Guest]

<Shrug> Sophistry.

[Bonam]

So murders doing another murder was 0.8%

A 0.8% error rate when it comes to people's lives is too high. Would you release a medicine of which 0.8% of the pills are fatal? A model of plane of which 0.8% explode in the air? A GMO that has a 0.8% chance of giving you cancer if consumed? Nope.

Parole boards gamble with the lives of the public every time they release a murderer, and they seem to tolerate a much higher level of risk of death for the public than is acceptable in any other context.

[Merlin]

A 0.8% error rate when it comes to people's lives is too high. Would you release a medicine of which 0.8% of the pills are fatal? A model of plane of which 0.8% explode in the air? A GMO that has a 0.8% chance of giving you cancer if consumed? Nope.

Parole boards gamble with the lives of the public every time they release a murderer, and they seem to tolerate a much higher level of risk of death for the public than is acceptable in any other context.

What about people who are 100% guilty? Bernardo or Picton types. You think that these people deserve to live?

[Guest]

What about people who are 100% guilty? Bernardo or Picton types. You think that these people deserve to live?

Lots of people don't deserve to live. The problem is, you can't give the state the right to kill them without risking the execution of someone who might.

Best err on the side of caution.

Edited December 22, 2012 by bcsapper

[Eyrie]

I am against he death penalty just because death is so final. Death offers so chance for redemption, it is just the end of existence. Unless you believe in any one religion, that is. But either way, I think the death penalty is a very heavy sentence and should certainly not be handed out lightly, if at all. I think the death penalty is just a leftover option from the colonial times, when they used to execute people for merely being on the wrong side of an issue. Perhaps I'm being too much of a humanitarian on this, but I also am a bit sketchy with the kind of mass-murderer types.

[Political Smash]

Right on, let's hear it for the no's! The default text here sure is small. A strain on the eyes.

David Jeffrey Spetch

Ps. be good, be strong!