Should we bring back the death penalty?

[Guest ProudConservative]

What crimes should get you the dealth penalty?

[Cannucklehead]

None.  Death is too kind of a punishment.  

[Queenmandy85]

Only bring it back if we use the traditional system.  Parade the condemned out of town on Tuesday morning and hang them from the town gallows. Capital crimes include treason (separatists), murder and theft  

Petty treason (a wife who disobeyed her husband or cheated on him) should be burned at the stake.

[Queenmandy85]

Okay, my serious answer is no. Our system of judgement, while better than anything else, is flawed and we do occasionally convict innocent people.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because the perpetrator rarely thinks they will be caught. Texas has a high murder rate and an enthusiastic application of execution. The rate of repeat offence among murderers is lower than some other crimes. The most heinious murders are often the result of mental illness and therefore not crimminally responsible. 

There are those who raise the economics of housing offenders for 10 years. The counter argument is it would take almost that long to execute an offender and on top of that, Mr. Ellis would not come cheaply. Where would you find an executioner with the experience to hang a prisoner  without leaving them to choke or fully decapitating. Even in Mr. Ellis' last incarnation, sometimes it went horribly wrong. 

Finally, having hanging on the books does not mean anyone will be hanged. Deifenbaker (who was an abolisionist) was the last Prime Minister not to commute a death sentence. For the next twenty odd years, everyone sentenced to death was commuted. Nobody should enjoy signing a death warrant.

[Guest ProudConservative]

How about a conditional dealth penalty? If you kill someone, you're put on probation.... You get sent to prision, and if you don't redeam yourself, you get hung. That way, those who truely want to live, get a second chance.... but if they act like a degenerate and cause prison riots.... We hang them.

We can do the same for Pedophiles, and Drug Traffickers. You have to clean up your act.... or you die.

Edited November 22, 2019 by ProudConservative

[Queenmandy85]

Why not do the same for thieves and people who commit sexual assault and date rape?

[Guest ProudConservative]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why not do the same for thieves and people who commit sexual assault and date rape?

Well yes... If you rape someone... You could get a conditional dealth penalty... There would be no need need to send them to prison.... Just make them do 1000 hours of community service, and if they refuse.... you kill them...

The same with drunk drivers.

That way we can save taxpayers a lot of money, by not sending everyone to prison.

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, ProudConservative said:

That way we can save taxpayers a lot of money, by not sending everyone to prison.

Execution is a very expensive proposition. Plus you still have the expense of a second trial, and appeals. That is money that should be invested in rehabilitation.

[Guest ProudConservative]

6 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Execution is a very expensive proposition. Plus you still have the expense of a second trial, and appeals. That is money that should be invested in rehabilitation.

Well say if it was reformed, to be very cost efficient? Would you support that?

We could also put people on probation for minor offenses.

If some 16 year old kids do vandalism. You give them some hard labour and community service... If they refuse, they get subjected to corporal punishment with increasing levels of serverity.

Edited November 22, 2019 by ProudConservative

[Guest ProudConservative]

The problem with Canada is we currently have slap on the wrist justice. This is leading to moral decay.

Edited November 22, 2019 by ProudConservative

[Queenmandy85]

6 minutes ago, ProudConservative said:

The probablem with Canada is we currently have slap on the wrist justice. This is leading to moral decay.

The problem is lack of prevention. It is not the punishment that deters crime, it is the likelihood of getting caught. 20% of people will never steal. 60% will steal if they think they can avoid being caught and 20% will never steal. 

We need to emphasise community based policing, getting police officers out of their cars and interacting with the citizens on their beat. Follow Peel's 9 principles. 

 

15 minutes ago, ProudConservative said:

Well say if it was reformed, to be very cost efficient? Would you support that?

How would you do that? If the Crown is going to murder a felon in your name, it has to be done properly. You must, by law, allow the court process to be carried out to ensure the accused is treated fairly and their rights are respected because, they are presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. In a capital case, you are looking at about ten years of incarceration, plus all the court time and legal fees and then you need to hire Mr. Ellis. He or she will need to know their trade. It is a science that isn't taught in any University. Add to that the legal costs when it is discovered the wrong person has been executed.

Why go to all the expense of executing people when the jurisdictions that use capital punishment often have high rates of capital crime.

[QuebecOverCanada]

I'd say yes, but it has to be clear 100% that the condemned has done its odious crimes.

Also, it should come back in times of wars, which never happens since we're very lucky to live in Canada.

But terrorists, child molesters, human traffickers, murderers of children, should be killed. I have a simple solution so that no one is offended, is that we shoot the person in the head with a gun without any cameras or witnesses. It has to be a big caliber, so I suggest we use this in a confined room made of multiple layers of reinforced concrete.

Of course, at the funerals, casket down.

Beggars can't be choosers.

(please take this post not to the first degree)

[Guest ProudConservative]

5 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

I'd say yes, but it has to be clear 100% that the condemned has done its odious crimes.

Also, it should come back in times of wars, which never happens since we're very lucky to live in Canada.

But terrorists, child molesters, human traffickers, murderers of children, should be killed. I have a simple solution so that no one is offended, is that we shoot the person in the head with a gun without any cameras or witnesses. It has to be a big caliber, so I suggest we use this in a confined room made of multiple layers of reinforced concrete.

Of course, at the funerals, casket down.

Beggars can't be choosers.

(please take this post not to the first degree)

If you shoot the person in the head with a 50 cal, you will most likely see decapitation. In that case, the guillotine is far more effective.

 

[OftenWrong]

I say no. Not because of the question of punishment or vengeance, although our vengeance shouldn't be so hot. The state is a reflection of our values, and if we give the state the power to kill, it means we accept killing. That's a step towards barbarism, imo.

[Cannucklehead]

1 minute ago, ProudConservative said:

If you shoot the person in the head with a 50 cal, you will most likely see decapitation. In that case, the guillotine is far more effective.

 

Cheaper too.  

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 minute ago, ProudConservative said:

If you shoot the person in the head with a 50 cal, you will most likely see decapitation. In that case, the guillotine is far more effective.

 

You're appealing to my French heritage, I think the French Canadians would proudly accept this, and make them Federalists instead of Separatists.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

I say no. Not because of the question of punishment or vengeance, although our vengeance shouldn't be so hot. The state is a reflection of our values, and if we give the state the power to kill, it means we accept killing. That's a step towards barbarism, imo.

 

Penal Colonies...you might end-up with Australia after a bit of time. 

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

I say no. Not because of the question of punishment or vengeance, although our vengeance shouldn't be so hot. The state is a reflection of our values, and if we give the state the power to kill, it means we accept killing. That's a step towards barbarism, imo.

Well you know, the State allows killing. We have an army, and it's not just for sending trucks of sand bags to flooded areas of Ontario and Québec.

[Guest ProudConservative]

4 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

You're appealing to my French heritage, I think the French Canadians would proudly accept this, and make them Federalists instead of Separatists.

Fear is a good deterance.

[Guest ProudConservative]

3 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Well you know, the State allows killing. We have an army, and it's not just for sending trucks of sand bags to flooded areas of Ontario and Québec.

And they kill for resources.... So it's far worse than executing the guilty.

[Guest ProudConservative]

What about public executions as an deterrence?

[QuebecOverCanada]

Just now, ProudConservative said:

And they kill for resources.... So it's far worse than executing the guilty.

To cage someone in a cell with no future, no goal, no vision is actually worse than dying imo.

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Well you know, the State allows killing. We have an army, and it's not just for sending trucks of sand bags to flooded areas of Ontario and Québec.

Sure, military endeavours are "technically' soldier on soldier. I am only talking about general principles here.  If we were to list the countries that do the most state-sanctioned killing, the trend will be obvious. Hence reference to "barbaric" practices.

In principle, the Christian ethic upon which western law is built is "Thou shalt not kill". If we bend that rule too much, we risk becoming like those countries. They use public execution to incite terror in the minds of the people. The rule became "Thou shalt not kill, except for justice."

[QuebecOverCanada]

Just now, ProudConservative said:

What about public executions as an deterrence?

Like in the Islamic State?

No, we're past that.

[Guest ProudConservative]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

Sure, military endeavours are "technically' soldier on soldier. I am only talking about general principles here.  If we were to list the countries that do the most state-sanctioned killing, the trend will be obvious. Hence reference to "barbaric" practices.

In principle, the Christian ethic upon which western law is built is "Thou shalt not kill". If we bend that rule too much, we risk becoming like those countries. They use public execution to incite terror in the minds of the people. The rule became "Thou shalt not kill, except for justice."

It would be killing the guilty to honor the dignity of the innocent.