Should we bring back Capital Punishment for violent crimes.

CITIZEN_2015 · September 5, 2016

Dialamah, you're talking about cases that wouldn't be "death penalty cases". And when you say that people should be rehabilitated to become productive members of society, again, you are not talking about death penalty cases because lets face it - that is a complete impossibility.

I'm sure Citizen is talking about the Clifford Olson or Willie Picton types - I would assume

I do but either they don't get it or they wish to divert attention to other cases to discredit my argument in the debate. Even the title says violent crimes for proven cases..........

Edited September 5, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

dialamah · September 5, 2016

Dialamah, you're talking about cases that wouldn't be "death penalty cases". And when you say that people should be rehabilitated to become productive members of society, again, you are not talking about death penalty cases because lets face it - that is a complete impossibility.

I'm sure Citizen is talking about the Clifford Olson or Willie Picton types - I would assume

Yes I understand the point he is trying to make. My point is that the justice system doesn't work well, especially for people with limited means. You are correct that my son's charge wasn't one Citizen has said would warrant the death penalty in his world, but it wasn't far off; she chose one of the most horrific crimes he could be charged with. My understanding is that she wanted to have him charged with a worse crime, but the 'victim' wouldn't back her up, so she went with the next best thing.

Hopefully, on a charge that involved the death penalty, the police and prosecutor would be a little less lackadaisical, but if the American (cue BC) experience is anything to go by, I wouldn't want to count on it.

CITIZEN_2015 · September 5, 2016

Locking them up permanently saves those future victims just as effectively, and allows us to fix any mistakes that were made.

Now if you wanted to remove any possibility of parole for the kinds of crimes you are talking about (though I'd remove your gender bias), I'd support that.

How many times we have heard about cases that violent criminals released on parole or bail or for good behavior take more victims after? And can you assure us that even for those few cases that it may be permanent (though most judges recommend not a release for 25 years max. so if he is in his 20's he is released a young repeat offender) that they won't escape from prison until he dies of old age, Not to mention that tax payer like you and me have to pay to support and feed the animal for the rest of his life? Where are you guys (taxme, Argus) when we need you?????

Edited September 5, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

Machjo · September 5, 2016

I could support capital punishment for murder, arson, and drug crimes. However, the judge must have the option of waiving it in favour of life imprisonment or banishment. In short, it should not be used frivolously, but the fact that a judge could use it would deter some.

CITIZEN_2015 · September 5, 2016

WILL YOU GUYS THEN SUPPORT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR A REPEAT VIOLENT OFFENDER??? YES OR NO?

A repeat violent offender is someone who violently raped and/or murdered an innocent randomly selected defenseless victim and was given a second chance by the justice system (parole, good behavior, max 25 year release.......). Upon release soon after or anytime after he commits the same violent crimes against same or another innocent defenseless being. Or you softies would argue that there is still a chance of one in a million that he may have been convicted wrongfully a second time as well!!!!!!!!!!.

Edited September 5, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

Hal 9000 · September 5, 2016

Well, as BCSapper said, I do think we're protected from the Pictons who are in prison. But, clearly death penalty cases are not taken lightly and we're surely not gonna impose it on a run of the mill "he said, she said" cases. But, if we're talking about the Karla Homalka types that do get out and are clearly guilty of the most heinous of crimes - then yeah, I'll go for the death penalty rather than subject even one person to the likes of her.

dialamah · September 5, 2016

I could support capital punishment for murder, arson, and drug crimes. However, the judge must have the option of waiving it in favour of life imprisonment or banishment. In short, it should not be used frivolously, but the fact that a judge could use it would deter some.

Would the death penalty really deter people? I've seen different arguments on this, but the one that stands out to me is that people commit crimes with the expectation they will not get caught, therefore the punishment is irrelevant.

By drug crimes, I'm thinking you mean high-level distributers, not the addicted schmuck who robs a convenience store, but nobody dies?

Machjo · September 5, 2016

WILL YOU GUYS THEN SUPPORT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR A REPEAT VIOLENT OFFENDER??? YES OR NO?

A repeat violent offender is someone who violently raped and/or murdered an innocent randomly selected defenseless victim and was given a second chance by the justice system (parole, good behavior, max 25 year release.......). Upon release soon after or anytime after he commits the same violent crimes against same or another innocent defenseless being. Or you softies would argue that there is still a chance of one in a million that he may have been convicted wrongfully a second time as well!!!!!!!!!!.

Again, people can be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

If a person is unlucky enough, he could innocently find himself at the wrong place at the wrong time twice.

That's why I say that while I support the death penalty, the judge absolutely must have the power to waive it in favour of life imprisonment for any reason without question. Always special circumstances.

Let's say the judge is sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, but the person is still denying it and his story, though very difficult to believe, is still within the realm of possibility. The judge may have no choice but to find him guilty, but might choose to waive the death penalty due to some doubt none-the-less.

The judge should have that power, but not use it too frivolously.

Machjo · September 5, 2016

Would the death penalty really deter people? I've seen different arguments on this, but the one that stands out to me is that people commit crimes with the expectation they will not get caught, therefore the punishment is irrelevant.

By drug crimes, I'm thinking you mean high-level distributers, not the addicted schmuck who robs a convenience store, but nobody dies?

Yes, high-level distributers.

Again, I think it could be the default punishment, but the judge could waive it for life in prison. In most cases, the judge proably woudl waive it. But the simple fact that he could choose to not waive it would deter some people. People still consider the risk of getting caught.

Machjo · September 5, 2016

About he-said-she-said cases, that is a problem too. Cops have been known to exaggerate or even outright falsify statements.

In one case in Canada itself, a cop had actually planted cocain in the house he was investigating. Walked into a room alone, pulled the drug out of his pocket, and walked out saying look what I found.

In that particular case, the cop was cought. I don't remember how, but I think it had to do with the fact he was already being investigated for taking bribes, the accused swore up and down that he knew nothing about the drug (where most people would just admit to it given the guilty appearance), and the cop's registration of previous drug quantities were often off.

But that kind of thing is very difficult to prove.

I know of another case of cops falsifying statements. In that case, it was proved on a balance of probabities that the cops and the CBSA officer had written false comments. but for a criminal offence it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Also in that case, it was unclear whehter the false comments were intentional or as a result of simple carelessness and misunderstanding on the part of the cops concerned.

So yes, I'm fore capital punishment in principle, but we've got to approach it with extreme caution.

Queenmandy85 · September 5, 2016

What about people like George Lemay or Lucien Rivard. Neither was ever charged with murder although when Rivard was finally returned to Texas, he received a sentence or 20 years without parole for possession of a single roach. Lemay spent six months in a Florida jail. He allegedly committed the lime pit murders in Quebec. Is it fair that a mentally disturbed person is executed and yet professional hit men for the mafia go free.

Murder is rare in this country and most are crimes of passion or committed by people suffering from mental disturbance or incapacity. The experience of the U.S. in recent years shows that people are executed due to poverty and/ or mental illness.

Put the enormous cost required to hang someone towards finding better treatment for offenders. I work near the Regional Psychiatric Centre in Saskatoon where some of the most dangerous offenders have been held. Why do we not invest in research that would treat them more effectively.

Finally, if it is wrong for a citizen to kill a defenceless individual, how do you justify the Crown executing a defenceless individual. We are talking about a person who has their hands tied behind their back, their feet bound, a hood over their head, and a noose around their neck. That is no different than first degree murder.

Vengeance is Mine sayeth the Lord.

dialamah · September 5, 2016

Yes, high-level distributers.

But high-level distributors don't actually kill anyone, they merely distribute an illegal product - it may be true that people die from their activities, but it's very indirect.

Now if someone can be held responsible for indirect death, then what about the people who create world financial crisis? They have also been responsible for indirect deaths:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/financial-crisis-caused-500000-extra-cancer-death-according-to-l/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/melaniehaiken/2014/06/12/more-than-10000-suicides-tied-to-economic-crisis-study-says/#74768a291cbb.

Perhaps even the smaller cons, who defraud old ladies out of life-savings: perhaps any subsequent death of their victims, within a certain time period, can be laid at their feet?

Where does the thirst and pursuit of vengeance end?

bush_cheney2004 · September 5, 2016

Accidentally killing innocent people is not the best outcome.

But it is a common outcome, most without the appeals and due process afforded to convicted prisoners. The government and private sector accidentally kills people on a routine basis, and it is accepted as unavoidable or too expensive to avoid.

dialamah · September 5, 2016

But it is a common outcome, most without the appeals and due process afforded to convicted prisoners. The government and private sector accidentally kills people on a routine basis, and it is accepted as unavoidable or too expensive to avoid.

So what? I'd prefer not to enshrine that in law.

bush_cheney2004 · September 5, 2016

So what? I'd prefer not to enshrine that in law.

That's fine, but "accidental" state execution is hardly a logical consideration given "So what".

dialamah · September 5, 2016

That's fine, but "accidental" state execution is hardly a logical consideration given "So what".

If we do not have capital punishment, the State cannot accidentally kill someone for a crime they did not commit. They may kill people accidentally in other ways, but not with the defense "but we thought he was guilty".

bush_cheney2004 · September 5, 2016

If we do not have capital punishment, the State cannot accidentally kill someone for a crime they did not commit. They may kill people accidentally in other ways, but not with the defense "but we thought he was guilty".

But that is the point...the government and private sector accidentally kills people without any trial or due process at all, and it is an acceptable level of killing.

dialamah · September 5, 2016

But that is the point...the government and private sector accidentally kills people without any trial or due process at all, and it is an acceptable level of killing.

It's not actually acceptable to me, personally. I understand that other people think this is ok, especially when it comes to the 'war on terror', where if they drop bombs on civilians it's the price we must pay for 'safety', but I would happily vote for any politician who would get us out of there. I also do not accept police being as trigger happy as they are becoming; more effort should be made to de-escalate situations, not pull out your gun and shoot.

As for accidental death due to accident in the private sector (which I think is what you are referring to), I do not think that falls under the umbrella of capital punishment for certain crimes.

Edited September 5, 2016 by dialamah

bush_cheney2004 · September 5, 2016

It's not actually acceptable to me, personally. I understand that other people think this is ok, especially when it comes to the 'war on terror', where if they drop bombs on civilians it's the price we must pay for 'safety', but I would happily vote for any politician who would get us out of there. I also do not accept police being as trigger happy as they are becoming; more effort should be made to de-escalate situations, not pull out your gun and shoot.

Although those circumstances also apply, I am including the routine accidental deaths from employment, transportation systems, medical procedures, legal and illegal drugs, recreation, etc., etc. I am logically challenging the "moral" objection to accidental capital punishment given the huge number of routine accidental deaths that are widely accepted.

As for accidental death due to accident in the private sector (which I think is what you are referring to), I do not think that falls under the umbrella of capital punishment for certain crimes.

Accidental death is still death....why parse it in such a way that appeals to a certain social or political ideology ?

Hal 9000 · September 5, 2016

What about people like George Lemay or Lucien Rivard. Neither was ever charged with murder although when Rivard was finally returned to Texas, he received a sentence or 20 years without parole for possession of a single roach. Lemay spent six months in a Florida jail. He allegedly committed the lime pit murders in Quebec. Is it fair that a mentally disturbed person is executed and yet professional hit men for the mafia go free.

Murder is rare in this country and most are crimes of passion or committed by people suffering from mental disturbance or incapacity. The experience of the U.S. in recent years shows that people are executed due to poverty and/ or mental illness.

Put the enormous cost required to hang someone towards finding better treatment for offenders. I work near the Regional Psychiatric Centre in Saskatoon where some of the most dangerous offenders have been held. Why do we not invest in research that would treat them more effectively.

Finally, if it is wrong for a citizen to kill a defenceless individual, how do you justify the Crown executing a defenceless individual. We are talking about a person who has their hands tied behind their back, their feet bound, a hood over their head, and a noose around their neck. That is no different than first degree murder.

Vengeance is Mine sayeth the Lord.

Why should we spend more money on these dangerous offenders? These people that Citizen has been talking about are people who are beyond counselling. You and Dialamah (see below) are bringing in ridiculous scenarios and drawing false equivalenies.

As for your last sentences, it's not murder and it's not vengeance - it's called punishment, remember that? Punishment! Are we so far down the road of Political correctness, that we can't "punish" a child molester/killer anymore?

Hal 9000 · September 5, 2016

It's not actually acceptable to me, personally. I understand that other people think this is ok, especially when it comes to the 'war on terror', where if they drop bombs on civilians it's the price we must pay for 'safety', but I would happily vote for any politician who would get us out of there. I also do not accept police being as trigger happy as they are becoming; more effort should be made to de-escalate situations, not pull out your gun and shoot.

As for accidental death due to accident in the private sector (which I think is what you are referring to), I do not think that falls under the umbrella of capital punishment for certain crimes.

Between this and your comments in the "War on terror" thread, you keep sounding like a Trump supporter.

dialamah · September 5, 2016

Between this and your comments in the "War on terror" thread, you keep sounding like a Trump supporter.

Funny, I thought of that myself. But I think Trump has also talked about bombing them back into the dark ages, something like that. More lately he's been saying get of the region and let them fight it out, I think, but I doubt that would prevail once the corporations reminded him about "oil" and "profits".

Altai · September 5, 2016

I voted for "Yes", putting someone in prison is much more violent than executing him/her.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Altai

September 5, 2016

I voted for "Yes", putting someone in prison is much more violent than executing him/her.

I think you're getting our prisons mixed up with Turkish prisons.

Altai · September 5, 2016

I think you're getting our prisons mixed up with Turkish prisons.

So what happens when someone being held in a prison for long years ? Does he/she going to be a better person with each passing day behind the walls ? Or just the opposite he/she is going to suffer physically and psychologically ? Short term of prison sentence is acceptable but long term prison sentence is a crime. Makes everything worse.