Should we bring back Capital Punishment for violent crimes.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Violent crimes against the innocent and defenseless are Capital crimes and they deserve an appropriate punishment. The intention is of course a proportionate punishment and second to take away the chance for REPEAT offense and hence saving the lives of thousands (in Canada alone) or many millions worldwide who will for sure (based on existing statistics a large percentage of violent sex offender commit the crime again) fall victims to the beasts unless he is sent to hell before he repeats his violent crime against a new victim..

To those who may oppose Capital punishment then Where were you or the damn lawyer and the judge when the sub-human bastard was raping and murdering an innocent defenseless woman or a child. Now (that is if he is caught and not released on technicality) he wears a tie and dress nicely to look like human whereas beneath that apparent human body is a beast. A sub-human bastard because A HUMAN DOES NOT MURDER AND RAPE DEFENSELESS INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN. HE IS A SUB-HUMAN and must be sent to like a dog with a rabies who attacks and bites people or a bear or wild animal. The fact that he walks on two legs does NOT make him a human but his behavior does.

For those who oppose a reminder that existing Statistics show that many who go to prison in this unjust system for rape and/or murder of women and children THEY DO IT AGAIN. Are you more concerned about saving the life of a rapist and murderer OR you care more about HIS FUTURE Victims. Save the innocent (Future) victims by sending the guilty one to hell where he belongs the very first time that he commits a PROVEN crime because statistics show that there is a good chance he may take more victims once released or escapes. SO IF YOU OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT THEN YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS NEXT VICTIM'S DEATH or RAPE.

Women and children and elderly are deemed more vulnerable not more valuable because generally speaking they are physically weaker and hence defenseless (I say same for elderly) so any crime against them is more cowardly and deserves worse punishment. Same true for children (but you didn't question about children).

IS THERE A POLITICIAN WITH BALLS OUT THERE??? BRING BACK THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT if you are.

ps - I wanted to make it a poll I didn't know how to!!!! Moderators please.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Charles Anthony
as per OP request

[TimG]

I don't trust government and police to ensure that the people convicted are actually guilty.

You can let the wrongfully convicted out of prison and offer compensation.

You can't bring the wrongfully executed back to life.

Capital punishment is one of those things that sounds reasonable in theory but unworkable in practice.

[Guest]

Agreed. I have no moral objection to putting someone to death if they deserve it, but my objection to killing someone who doesn't overrides it.

[CITIZEN_2015]

I said proven cases.... Think of ALL those future victims (innocent, defenseless children women, elderly) you will be saving. Many many more for each POSSIBLE wrongful conviction. We may say and compromise (though not my preference) that capital punishment for a Second crime to eliminate all likelihood of a wrongful conviction first time.

[Guest]

I said proven cases.... Think of ALL those future victims (innocent, defenseless children women, elderly) you will be saving. Many many more for each POSSIBLE wrongful conviction. We may say and compromise (though not my preference) that capital punishment for a Second crime to eliminate all likelihood of a wrongful conviction first time.

You'd have to change the law. Reasonable doubt would no longer be enough.

That said, if you wanted to kill a Clifford Olson, who admitted his guilt, I'd pay for the ammo.

Edited September 4, 2016 by bcsapper

[CITIZEN_2015]

You'd have to change the law. Reasonable doubt would no longer be enough.

That said, if you wanted to kill a Clifford Olson, who admitted his guilt, I'd pay for the ammo.

I thought the law say beyond reasonable doubt for these cases? Though i admit I am no lawyer.

That was what I meant when I said in proven cases. Like Paul Bernardo who actually video taped his crimes!!. You soft hearted lefties you let them go on living and enjoy eating and all that comes with life while their victims suffered pain and death and had no one to defend them while they were being violently raped and murdered.

Edited September 4, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[TimG]

I thought the law say beyond reasonable doubt for these cases?

David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin were convicted 'beyond all reasonable doubt' but they turned out to be innocent. I understand what you mean by 'those we know 100% for sure are guilty' but there is no way to codify that concept into a law.

[dialamah]

I thought the law say beyond reasonable doubt for these cases? Though i admit I am no lawyer.

That was what I meant when I said in proven cases. Like Paul Bernardo who actually video taped his crimes!!. You soft hearted lefties you let them go on living and enjoy eating and all that comes with life while their victims suffered pain and death and had no one to defend them while they were being violently raped and murdered.

Lots of mistakes are made, even with beyond reasonable doubt. DNA evidence has exonerated 20 people from death row since 1989, and many more from life sentences. http://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

Sometimes people who are not guilty admit committing crimes, for various reasons. According to the Innocence Project, of those exonerated,1 in 4 made a false confession.

So short of catching someone in the actual act, there is always the chance that they are innocent, imo.

[Hal 9000]

I have no problem sending someone to the afterworld, but why only killers of women and children? What about the guy who gets gunned down in cold blood going to the corner store at 2am or the guy who is shot in his sleep by an angry woman - what about justice for them?

[CITIZEN_2015]

Lots of mistakes are made, even with beyond reasonable doubt. DNA evidence has exonerated 20 people from death row since 1989, and many more from life sentences. http://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

Sometimes people who are not guilty admit committing crimes, for various reasons. According to the Innocence Project, of those exonerated,1 in 4 made a false confession.

So short of catching someone in the actual act, there is always the chance that they are innocent, imo.

I know mistakes were made in the PAST but with the advanced technology (you name DNA as one example) I very much doubt that similar mistakes will be made in future.

[bush_cheney2004]

...So short of catching someone in the actual act, there is always the chance that they are innocent, imo.

So what....lots more "innocent" people are killed by lawful government and private actions, due process, policies, etc. Exonerations in the United States are not applicable to Canada.

Edited September 4, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[CITIZEN_2015]

I have no problem sending someone to the afterworld, but why only killers of women and children? What about the guy who gets gunned down in cold blood going to the corner store at 2am or the guy who is shot in his sleep by an angry woman - what about justice for them?

The severity of the crime against defenseless and nature of crime (rape against women and children causing lifetime suffering or murder of defenseless) justifies more severe punishment. As bad as it is a guy shot dead at a corner grocery store is not as severe when a child or a women is molested over years or murdered.

[Guest]

I know mistakes were made in the PAST but with the advanced technology (you name DNA as one example) I very much doubt that similar mistakes will be made in future.

I bet they will. Human nature is such that even career advancement can help convict someone when the evidence isn't quite up to it.

The problem is that it is so final. It cannot be reversed.

[dialamah]

I know mistakes were made in the PAST but with the advanced technology (you name DNA as one example) I very much doubt that similar mistakes will be made in future.

Sure, we're always 'perfect' now, and hindsight is always 20/20. And even with all the most advanced technology, humans make mistakes - usually not deliberately. I'm not willing to risk it.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The problem is that it is so final. It cannot be reversed.

That is also its virtue.

[Guest]

That is also its virtue.

Well, I'm also no advocate of letting them out, either.

[dialamah]

The severity of the crime against defenseless and nature of crime (rape against women and children causing lifetime suffering or murder of defenseless) justifies more severe punishment. As bad as it is a guy shot dead at a corner grocery store is not as severe when a child or a women is molested over years or murdered.

Absolutely untrue. Men do not suffer less than women when they are shot or molested over years. They may even suffer more because of outdated attitudes such as your own, believing they're less 'fragile' than women emotionally and can 'take it'. And dead is dead; man or woman, the people left behind suffer.

[bush_cheney2004]

As bad as it is a guy shot dead at a corner grocery store is not as severe when a child or a women is molested over years or murdered.

That is very inconsistent. Killing unborn children is not even illegal in Canada.

[Guest]

Here's a strange inconsistency. I was watching a documentary about elephant poaching and one of the men policing the area said that sometimes they do catch the poachers, and when they do they just kill them.

And I was okay with it.

[dialamah]

Here's a strange inconsistency. I was watching a documentary about elephant poaching and one of the men policing the area said that sometimes they do catch the poachers, and when they do they just kill them.

And I was okay with it.

You are a barbaric savage!

Just sayin'.

[Guest]

You are a barbaric savage!

Just sayin'.

In some respects, I suppose I am.

[CITIZEN_2015]

That is very inconsistent. Killing unborn children is not even illegal in Canada.

I think it is aborting a fetus which is not illegal in Canada. Can a 9 month old pregnant woman abort legally?

[Guest]

I think it is aborting a fetus which is not illegal in Canada. Can a 9 month old pregnant woman abort legally?

If she can find a doctor who will perform the operation I think she can.

[Smallc]

She won't find anyone to do that.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Absolutely untrue. Men do not suffer less than women when they are shot or molested over years. They may even suffer more because of outdated attitudes such as your own, believing they're less 'fragile' than women emotionally and can 'take it'. And dead is dead; man or woman, the people left behind suffer.

You are denying the obvious. So men and women are equal in strength and can physically defend themselves equally? I do believe that women make up for lack of physical strength in brains though as I find my female students smarter and more hard working and generally speaking on average doing better not to mention a teenage girl again generally speaking is more mature than a teenage boy.

Edited September 4, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015