Todd Cameron Smith escapes from Halfway house

[PocketRocket]

Bring back the death penalty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While it may not be the death penalty, it seems your desire to see the lad dead may come to fruition.

In the article you provided, he allegedly left a note saying....

"I can't be caged anymore. If they find me, they'll have to kill me. I will never be caged again. Bye. Sorry.''

It's a foregone conclusion that they'll catch up with him at some point.

If he resists, and does so with some sort of weapon, then he may well end up dead.

While I have mixed feelings on the death penalty, I will shed no tears for this youngster.

[crazymf]

Sorry, but in junior high I was a skinny, nerdy kid with glasses.

So you're older now? Sorry, bad sense of humor.....

The death penalty has been ineffective in deterring murderers as has the risk of shooting by criminals. The US is sufficient evidence of that. In Britain, most criminals do not carry guns because they are not subject to being shot by trigger happy cops if surprised. Apprehension is better than death.

Some 25 or so years ago, an American Law School studied every case in the USA where the death penalty had been carried out in the twentieth century. The conclusion was that there had been over 400 innocent men executed in the first 50 years of the century. That number was only of the provably innocent from the records. The inference is that the number could be much higher.

The death penalty is 100% effective in deterring repeat offenders.

Your second point would be effective if it was in Canada, which we are discussing, or if you even backed yourself with facts, but is merely rhetoric without.

This link illustrates the repeat capital offences in Canada.

http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/reports/pr101001_e.htm

Liz,

Don't go. Your posts are valuable to the thread and we don't bite. Our methods of discussing are varied, but all in all we are a happy bunch of banterers.

[Black Dog]

The death penalty fails to work as a deterrent and, given the legal systems propensity to screw up and convict the wrong man (Stephen Truscott, Guy Paul Morin, David Milgaard?), there exists a high probaility of error.

I'd rather not run the risk myself. People like Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olsen should never see the light of day, but to give the state the power over life and death is going too far.

[crazymf]

What I said made no sense because it's a circular argument. Duhhh...sorry.

The death penalty would stop repeat offences 100%.

What the issue is here is the conscience of the living people exacting the death penalty. Once someone is dead, he's not suffering and it makes no difference to him.

Incarcerating prisoners in a maximum security prison must cost the tax payers dearly. I heard in the order of 100k/year, correct me if I'm wrong. During that time, people are at risk daily caring for them. Prison violence does occur.

Which is a greater tragedy, sentencing a technically innocent person, who probably in most cases has dirty hands too, or allowing totally innocent people to be mudered by repeaters out on parole? That's a tough one.

As I said, in certain cases, the ultimate penalty should be put on the table. I'm sure there'd be volunteers to pull the switch on some of these characters.

[Black Dog]

Which is a greater tragedy, sentencing a technically innocent person, who probably in most cases has dirty hands too, or allowing totally innocent people to be mudered by repeaters out on parole? That's a tough one.

Not reallly. Look at your own stats:

Over the past 24 years:

4 (0.2%) of the 2,666 day parole releases of murderers were subsequently re-incarcerated for a repeat homicide offence.

9 (0.6%) of the 1,465 releases of murder offenders on full parole were subsequently re-incarcerated for a repeat homicide offence.

...

Over this period:

2 (0.08%) of the 2,588 releases of manslaughter offenders on day parole;

6 (0.3%) of the 2,274 full parole releases; and

16 (0.6%) of the 2,790 statutory releases, were subsequently revoked and re-incarcerated for a second homicide offence.

...

Over the 24 year period 1975/76 to 1998/99, 37 homicide offenders were convicted of a second homicide offence while on supervision in the community.

This represents about one-third of one percent of the 11,783 (0.3%, 37/11,783) released homicide offenders.

I would argue the chances of an innocent person being sentenced to death are far greater than the chances of being murdered by a parolee.

Besides, no one is arguing for lax parole.

[Argus]

Besides, no one is arguing for lax parole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well someone must have wanted it because we've had it for some time.

When did parole stop being a special recognition of a prisoner who had made extraordinary efforts at reforming himself and turn into an entitlement program given automatically to all prisoners regardless of behaviour?

[crazymf]

I would argue the chances of an innocent person being sentenced to death are far greater than the chances of being murdered by a parolee.

Go for it. There's 35 million people in Canada<>? What's your chance of being wrongly convicted of a capital offence? Nil, providing you are a law abiding citizen. You have some say in who your friends are and an ultimate choice of your activities.

The point is I'm not sure people get merely taken from the street and randomly sentenced to death mistakenly.

Parolled offenders can and do kill innocent people. That's the difference.

The chance of either is slim though. Testimony to that is that most of us are still here.

[PocketRocket]

The death penalty would stop repeat offences 100%.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only if the right person is convicted of the offense.

[crazymf]

The death penalty would stop repeat offences 100%.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only if the right person is convicted of the offense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Damn, that's a double whammy. I never thought of that.

That is a consideration. That's why the death penalty must have irrefutable proof such as dna, confession and smoking gun and maybe video evidence.

[Black Dog]

Go for it. There's 35 million people in Canada<>? What's your chance of being wrongly convicted of a capital offence? Nil, providing you are a law abiding citizen. You have some say in who your friends are and an ultimate choice of your activities.

The point is I'm not sure people get merely taken from the street and randomly sentenced to death mistakenly.

But it happens all the time. Some of the names above were simply a case of people being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Besides the persumption that if someone is convicted of a crime, they must be guilty of something is a perversion of the principle of presumed innocence that is the foundation of our justice system.

[crazymf]

Go for it. There's 35 million people in Canada<>? What's your chance of being wrongly convicted of a capital offence? Nil, providing you are a law abiding citizen. You have some say in who your friends are and an ultimate choice of your activities.

The point is I'm not sure people get merely taken from the street and randomly sentenced to death mistakenly.

But it happens all the time. Some of the names above were simply a case of people being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Besides the persumption that if someone is convicted of a crime, they must be guilty of something is a perversion of the principle of presumed innocence that is the foundation of our justice system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah. I'm not going to say that. I just want the death penalty to be an option when it warrants.

Surely you agree some people are unredeemable and it would be adequate for them.

[Black Dog]

Surely you agree some people are unredeemable and it would be adequate for them.

I think in such extreme cases, death is the easy way out. Life without parole, in solitary away from society and any human interaction, would be appropriate.

The problem I have with the death penalty is that once you give the state that power, there's no guarantee it will be used properly. Even if you could guarantee that 99 per cent of people executed were guilty, I think the innocent 1 per cent is reason enough to think twice about a punishment that you can't take back.

[crazymf]

BD, that's the fundamental difference of opinion that you and I share. You distrust government and generally all institutions by your own words.

I just think the death penalty would be suitable and I'd like the government to do it because they'd spend a heck of a lot more capital making sure they got the right guy than me if I did it.

[Hawk]

Its hard to take you seriously when you use 'innocent' deaths in the first half of this century as your justification. I mean, what exactly could they use back then to prove anything? Logic? LoL

Today, a crime worthy of the death penalty would have at least a 99.999999% chance at the right guy being convicted or nobody being convicted at all. Simply because these days you require so much hard evidence to even lock someone up =p

[Guest eureka]

If some of those killers are irredeemable, and I would agree that some are, they are psychopaths.

Perhaps we should do psychological profiling on the population starting at puberty, to measure the degrees of psychopathy. They are measurable, BTW.

We could then, on the sound principle of preventing violent crime, euthanise all those above a certain level to be determined by psychiatrists and a panel of bloodthirsty "law and order" freaks.. No more homicides, perhaps, and no more innocents murdered by the State. Just the sick culled.

[Black Dog]

oday, a crime worthy of the death penalty would have at least a 99.999999% chance at the right guy being convicted or nobody being convicted at all. Simply because these days you require so much hard evidence to even lock someone up =p

If that's the case why is the richest country in the western world (incidentally, also the only one stil using the death penalty) still routinely putting innocent people on death row?

A study by Columbia University professor James Liebman examined thousands of capital sentences that had been reviewed by courts in 34 states from 1973 to 1995.  “An astonishing 82 percent of death row inmates did not deserve to receive the death penalty,” he said in his conclusion. “One in twenty death row inmates is later found not guilty.”

....

Although there has been much attention surrounding the use of DNA testing, only 13 death row inmates of 113 have been exonerated by use of DNA.  Many people falsely believe that DNA testing is a panacea that guarantees innocent people will not be put to death.  However, it is important to note that DNA testing is not always able to determine the killer.  In many cases, there is no physical evidence to test.  DNA testing can be a critical tool for proving innocence, but it is still only available in a fraction of cases.  For instance, five of the seventeen people released from death row were released because DNA evidence revealed their innocence.

A question of innocence.

[crazymf]

Joseph Amrine was sentenced to death for murdering a fellow inmate in 1986, a conviction based largely on circumstantial and conflicting evidence.

Earl Washington, who was found to suffer from pronounced mental retardation,

Anthony Porter was convicted in 1982 of a drug-related double murder.  In September 1998, 2 days before his scheduled execution, his volunteer lawyer won a stay to look into his mental competency

For all you liberals who crap on the states regularly, why are you now using USA information and quotes to support your argument? Conflict of morality???

Their system looks plenty corrupt, which maybe is another argument against the death sentence. For those convicted with the above situations, I'd say the system is at fault.

There still is a place for the death penalty, with the proper evidence and due process.

[I Miss Trudeau]

There still is a place for the death penalty, with the proper evidence and due process.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you determine if proper evidence procedures and due process have been followed? If the conviction is handed down, the court has already decided that the rules have been followed sufficiently. So in a sense, what you ask for as "proper evidence and due process" already exists, yet still tends to be wrong a rather alarming amount of the time.

The problem with capital punishment is not that the system isn't perfect, its that it isn't even reliable.

[crazymf]

There still is a place for the death penalty, with the proper evidence and due process.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you determine if proper evidence procedures and due process have been followed? If the conviction is handed down, the court has already decided that the rules have been followed sufficiently. So in a sense, what you ask for as "proper evidence and due process" already exists, yet still tends to be wrong a rather alarming amount of the time.

The problem with capital punishment is not that the system isn't perfect, its that it isn't even reliable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK then. Let's just let them back out on the street. Oh wait, it's already happening!!

There's always a 'what if'. That's what grey/grey liberals will always get hung up on.

What I am saying is that due process must involve competence in handling the cases, not the gross misjudgements and corruption illustrated by the US system, where prejudices overrun common sense. There must be checks and balances and fail safe devices before someone is sentenced to death. It can never become routine.

After that, hang the mother and get on to the next one.

[Hawk]

oday, a crime worthy of the death penalty would have at least a 99.999999% chance at the right guy being convicted or nobody being convicted at all. Simply because these days you require so much hard evidence to even lock someone up =p

If that's the case why is the richest country in the western world (incidentally, also the only one stil using the death penalty) still routinely putting innocent people on death row?

A study by Columbia University professor James Liebman examined thousands of capital sentences that had been reviewed by courts in 34 states from 1973 to 1995.  “An astonishing 82 percent of death row inmates did not deserve to receive the death penalty,” he said in his conclusion. “One in twenty death row inmates is later found not guilty.”

....

Although there has been much attention surrounding the use of DNA testing, only 13 death row inmates of 113 have been exonerated by use of DNA.  Many people falsely believe that DNA testing is a panacea that guarantees innocent people will not be put to death.  However, it is important to note that DNA testing is not always able to determine the killer.  In many cases, there is no physical evidence to test.  DNA testing can be a critical tool for proving innocence, but it is still only available in a fraction of cases.  For instance, five of the seventeen people released from death row were released because DNA evidence revealed their innocence.

A question of innocence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That article is ambiguous at best, first it says “An astonishing 82 percent of death row inmates did not deserve to receive the death penalty,” and then proceeds to say “One in twenty death row inmates is later found not guilty.”

First problem, what is required for them to 'deserve to recieve the death penalty'?

Second problem, if one in twenty death row inmates are later found not guilty, does that mean they are not guilty or they got knocked down a notch to life? Or possibly prison? Or scott free? It leaves alot of blanks.

As for the DNA evidence, it isn't there to only prove people innocent, it is also there to prove them guilty. Therefore to say "only 13 death row inmates of 113 have been exonerated by use of DNA" proves nothing, and is at best a statistic to prove DNA evidence has worked to save innocents =p

[cavemon44]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

What the hell is going on? A kid kills someone, get a couple years and then allowed to merely walk away from a halfway house? Our system sucks in Canada. In my opinion if a minor commits a capital gross offence and is guilty beyond doubt, recycle him. Death penalty, goodbye. I honestly can't see rehabilitating a teenager who has resorted to killing as an option. It's like a dog who has tasted blood, the option will always be there and you can never trust them again.

It'a like that Mandin kid who shot his whole family a few years back in Valleyview I think. He'll never be useful again. Bring back the death penalty.

My name is Mike

And i was in a halfway house with Todd Cameron Smith from january of 2008 until october 2008

so he was not allowed to just walk away from a halfway house, he was put back in and is still in right now.

I understand your anger towards canada's justice system.

I say we kill all the rapists and child molester's and people who have comitted disgusting crimes but...

I find it hilarious how you think Todd killing a kid should be punishable by death.

He had a terrible life and i will tell you that it is no better for him in the halfway house the punishment he has received is enough for what he has done.

Maybe if you worried more about getting kids to stop bullying and poverty we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.... and for heaven's sake stop talking about killing as an option for punshment of killing.

Now if that isn't the oxymoron of the century... "let's kill to get people to stop killing". Haha wow you have a lot to learn. (not to say that everyone else doesn't too including myself).

Todd is a nice guy and if people would learn to accept him and stop being... well im not going to say what. Then maybe he could learn to accept himself and not think himself a monster. Yes, he does see himself as a monster. I would too if i had people talking about how i should be killed all the time. Walk a mile in Toddy's shoes before you speak ill of his actions. People bullied that kid to the point of temporary insanity because they thought he was different and weird. If what happened to him happened to me i would have done the SAME THING!! :angry: Not to say it's right but if society creates a monster they better be ready when it decides to bite! And Toddy bit back hard. I find it funny how it is ok to most people to kill in a war, because people cant walk all over you, but Toddy was walked all over throughout his whole life and he kills one person and people are "going wild in the streets".

I hope you see this one day Toddy and see that there are people who care. There not all assholes like we think. HAHAHA remember our late night funny *** conversations. See this and smile for me Toddy. HAHA i remember how u liked ur smiley stickers. I'm using my brain now that i've gotten out and im stayin outta trouble.

[Molly]

Glad you wrote that.

I read (the rest of the way) to the end of this thread just to see if anyone had replied appropriately to Argus' proposal that he had been bullied.

Argus, if you can chalk your treatment up to being 'skinny and nerdy', and claim to never having thought of killing - just about everybody around you- then you are highly unlikely to have been bullied. If you don't live in a state of post-traumatic shock, you almost certainly were not bullied.

Everyone who walks has felt awkward, and everyone who has had contact with other humans has taken a few slights, and maybe even pointed cruelties...

Diminishing the massive cruelty that is visited upon a few, by claiming to be bullied when what you really experienced was semi-regular hassle from a handful of jerks, is just one more offense against those who did/do have the real thing to deal with.

At best, it's unconstructive.

[Wild Bill]

Glad you wrote that.

I read (the rest of the way) to the end of this thread just to see if anyone had replied appropriately to Argus' proposal that he had been bullied.

Argus, if you can chalk your treatment up to being 'skinny and nerdy', and claim to never having thought of killing - just about everybody around you- then you are highly unlikely to have been bullied. If you don't live in a state of post-traumatic shock, you almost certainly were not bullied.

Everyone who walks has felt awkward, and everyone who has had contact with other humans has taken a few slights, and maybe even pointed cruelties...

Diminishing the massive cruelty that is visited upon a few, by claiming to be bullied when what you really experienced was semi-regular hassle from a handful of jerks, is just one more offense against those who did/do have the real thing to deal with.

At best, it's unconstructive.

Quite right, Molly. I was the 'new kid' at a country school and was repeatedly bullied. I found it incomprehensible how so many teachers and other adults blew it off as just "kids stuff". I knew that I had done nothing to deserve it. The message was clear. Teachers not only won't protect you, they didn't even consider it worth doing!

Becoming an adult gives you a better perspective but to this day I cannot abide some of those who had bullied me so long ago. To use a crude expression "I wouldn't walk across the street to urinate on them if they were on fire!"

It made me fiercely defensive for my own children when they began school and unable to watch other kids being bullied in the school yard. Teachers supposedly on playground supervision seemed oblivious. I finally got one of them to stop and incident only by threatening to call the police myself.

My experiences were mild compared to what unfortunates like Todd Smith endured but I can understand how such experiences can shape a young mind. I was blessed with some innate intelligence that kept me from any extreme over-reaction but that was merely the luck of my draw. Others like Todd obviously weren't so lucky.

[Progressive Tory]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

What the hell is going on? A kid kills someone, get a couple years and then allowed to merely walk away from a halfway house? Our system sucks in Canada. In my opinion if a minor commits a capital gross offence and is guilty beyond doubt, recycle him. Death penalty, goodbye. I

I don't support the death penalty but do agree with most of what you say. We have a halfway house in Kingston that backs onto a public school and playground. It's nonsense. Petition after petition and I think they're finally going to move it. We've had many 'walk away' from there too.

[Progressive Tory]

For my money, put the victim in the hole, toss the killer in with him, and bury them together.

Sorry. I don't support the death penalty but that did make me laugh.

I also don't support light sentences or lax systems that allow murderers to simply 'walk away'. If he was truly remorseful he would have served his time and paid his debt. Do they consider him a danger?