Man convicted of 1989 murder of 10-year-old girl granted chance for new appeal (why we shouldn't have the death penalty)

[CdnFox]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/441023/Man-convicted-of-1989-murder-of-10-year-old-girl-granted-chance-for-new-appeal

Long and short of  it is that this guy was convicted in 89 for strangling a girl and has always insisted he's innocent.  Recently new evidence has appeared that wasn't at the trial which suggests that's true, and a judge is going to decide if it's strong enough evidence to warrant a new trial.

Now we dont' know if he's innocent yet or what the new evidence is.  But - its' obviously fairly compelling if they're looking at a new trial over it.

IF it turns out he's innocent, he's lost 40 years of his life for a 'mistake.'.  But at least he can have his remaining years with his name cleared and hopefully find some peace and enjoyment after all that's been done to him.

If we had put him to death for it - as we might well be tempted to do for strangling a 10 year old - and it turns out he was innocent then we would be the murderers and we would have no chance to make any of this right.

THis is why we should NEVER trust the state with the power of life and death over it's people.  Ever.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

THis is why we should NEVER trust the state with the power of life and death over it's people.  Ever

Nonsense.  Your argument is purely hypothetical because there was no death penalty when this guy was tried back in 1989.  He could just as well have been found not guilty if there were a death penalty at that time.

So using his case to argue against capital punishment for murderers is meaningless because he never faced it.

We also don't know if he was guilty of murder.  The court at that time found him guilty.  Whether his argument for an appeal is legitimate or credible remains to be seen.  Many convicted murderers claim they are innocent.  So what does that prove?  What do you expect them to say?  Of course they will claim they are innocent and their lawyers will continue to look for ways to appeal.  That is just how the system works.  Lots of money to be made in the legal profession for everyone involved.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Nonsense.  Your argument is purely hypothetical because there was no death penalty when this guy was tried back in 1989. 

He could just as well have been found not guilty if there were a death penalty at that time.
 

And he could have been found guilty. Aw he was.  So it's a perfect example.

He went through the process and was found guilty. Had he been killed there would be no way to address it if new evidence became available. Which is precisely what happened.

 

Quote

We also don't know if he was guilty of murder.

Good thing we didn't kill him then.

 

Quote

Of course they will claim they are innocent and their lawyers will continue to look for ways to appeal.  That is just how the system works.  Lots of money to be made in the legal profession for everyone involved.

Except that the new evidence is compelling enough to suggest that he didn't that they're considering giving him a new trial.

And i was very clear - we don't know yet but IF he's found to be innocent.....  At least we can do SOMETHING to salvage what's left of his life.

Your whole argument is made up of "we don't know".   which is PRECISELY why we shouldn't have a death penalty.  Gov'ts and the legal system make mistakes, evidence is uncovered years later, etc etc.  So if you kill the person, there is no chance of making anything right.

Your insistence that "we don't know" what would have happened or if he's guilty proves my point nicely.

Edited August 10, 2023 by CdnFox

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Good thing we didn't kill him then.

Actually I should have worded that differently.  He was found guilty of murder.  Unless that is changed, he remains guilty under the law.   Capital punishment is ordained by God in the Bible, his written Revelation in Genesis 9:6 KJV.  Don't let the Devil keep you under his control.  You have been deceived and are simply believing what the demonic / evil spirits want.  Same as everyone else who doesn't believe the Bible.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Actually I should have worded that differently.  He was found guilty of murder.  Unless that is changed, he remains guilty under the law. 

But the new evidence means that might very well be about to change.  So if that changes - if he were dead then we would have killed an innocent man.

Quote

 

Capital punishment is ordained by God in the Bible, his written Revelation in Genesis 9:6 KJV. 

 

I seem to recall the bible mentions not killing innocent people somewhere as well.

Quote

Don't let the Devil keep you under his control.  You have been deceived and are simply believing what the demonic / evil spirits want.  Same as everyone else who doesn't believe the Bible.

I assure you,  being leery of our gov'ts ability to not make mistakes requires no demonic influence whatsoever

Lets be clear.  I do not object to capital punishment on moral grounds.  If i knew with 100 percent certainty that a person strangled a 10 year old girl to death I would happily put a gun to their head and blow their brains out myself and  I would sleep like a baby that night.

The point here is that the gov't cannot be trusted with that power. They make too many mistakes, and occasionally the powers that be even deliberately make "mistakes" to catch someone they "Know" is guilty - only to be proved wrong later.  It's happened many times.  IN fact they are now pretty sure that the last person executed in canada was innocent, turns out the police themselves did not turn over critical evidence from their investigation.

The devil is indeed a dangerous trickster - but he's got nothing on governments.

Edited August 10, 2023 by CdnFox

[BeaverFever]

45 minutes ago, blackbird said:

He was found guilty of murder.  Unless that is changed, he remains guilty under the law.

What don’t you understand here What if we had executed him and then it was changed to not guilty?  What does your god say about thst?

 

46 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Capital punishment is ordained by God in the Bible, his written Revelation in Genesis 9:6 KJV.  Don't let the Devil keep you under his control.  You have been deceived and are simply believing what the demonic / evil spirits want.  Same as everyone else who doesn't believe the Bible.

Fortunately we don’t live in Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia therefore the deities of Iron Age nomads and their alleged utterings have no relevance in a Canadian court of law. 

[blackbird]

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But the new evidence means that might very well be about to change.  So if that changes - if he were dead then we would have killed an innocent man.

Wrong!  He is not innocent according to the law.  He would only received capital punishment if there were such a thing if he is guilty.  You are assuming he is innocent which is not the case as the legal process found him guilty.  A hypothetical argument you are making has no meaning in law or reality.

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What don’t you understand here What if we had executed him and then it was changed to not guilty?  What does your god say about thst?

 

Again you are making up false scenarios.  He is guilty by law.  A hypothetical claim by you means nothing in law.

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Fortunately we don’t live in Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia therefore the deities of Iron Age nomads and their alleged utterings have no relevance in a Canadian court of law. 

This has nothing to do with Islamic countries.  Capital punishment for murderers is part of the Christian Bible in Genesis.  You would rather let murderers escape what they deserve for their crimes.  That is anti-Christian and rewarding extreme evil which comes from Satan.  He loves that kind of thing.  He was a murderer from the beginning.  You need to accept that you are a fallen sinner who needs to believe the Bible and become a Christian before it is too late.

[blackbird]

13 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What don’t you understand here What if we had executed him and then it was changed to not guilty?  What does your god say about thst?

The legal system, judge and jury, must follow the law and in a trial for murder, if there is any doubt the person is found not guilty.  Every precaution should and would be taken to ensure a fair trial and proper outcome.  

[blackbird]

20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Fortunately we don’t live in Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia therefore the deities of Iron Age nomads and their alleged utterings have no relevance in a Canadian court of law. 

This subject has nothing at all to do with Islamic countries.  The problems with the justice system are right here now in our own country.  Liberals and left politicians and their supporters are the depraved individuals who are to blame.

Unfortunately we live in a country where dangerous criminals are let off.  The are often let out on bail or parole and go on to assault and murder innocent people.  That is because we have a corrupt and evil system and government.  Canada is a mess and people who keep voting for that kind of government are the primary problem.

Edited August 11, 2023 by blackbird

[BeaverFever]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The legal system, judge and jury, must follow the law and in a trial for murder, if there is any doubt the person is found not guilty.  Every precaution should and would be taken to ensure a fair trial and proper outcome.  

That doesn’t answer the question.  Even with “every precaution” innocent people are still found guilty. For example. DNA evidence didn’t even exist when this girl was as killed and since then hundreds of convictions have been overturned based on DNA. 
 

Answer this question:  how would you feel if this man had been executed after  “every precaution a fair trial and proper outcome”  based on the evidence available at the time….but then later after his death he is posthumously exonerated by NEW evidence?

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Wrong!  He is not innocent according to the law.  He would only received capital punishment if there were such a thing if he is guilty.  You are assuming he is innocent which is not the case as the legal process found him guilty.  A hypothetical argument you are making has no meaning in law or reality.

Hey - it would REALLY help if you'd actually read what people write and pay attention.  Do you need to go to remedial english before we continue? That's about the third time you've misunderstood something VERY simple.

 I said they are in the process of determining if this new evidence is sufficient to justify  a new trial.  THAT IS TRUE.  Period

I also said if he is then found to be innocent at that trial then had they killed him before they would have killed an innocent man.  THAT IS TRUE.

These are simple facts, if you can't get your head around them you are far too dumb to be having this conversation.

The very fact that he was found guilty and may now be shown to be innocent is proof of why we shouldn't allow capital punishment. However much it appeals to us.

[BeaverFever]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

dangerous offenders are often let out on bail or parole and go on to assault and murder innocent people. 

Not “often”…..it happens sometimes are almost never for those initially convicted serious crimes like murder. When you hear of an offender out on bail or parole reoffending they were usually out on bail/parole for a lesser crime. And while I agree things could probably be tightened up for those folks capital punishment is not the answer. 

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

This subject has nothing at all to do with Islamic countries. 

Except you were maki the same arguments they do, ie citing scripture. 

[blackbird]

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I also said if he is then found to be innocent at that trial then had they killed him before they would have killed an innocent man.  THAT IS TRUE.

Once again, false.  You are making up purely hypothetical situations that do not exist.  You are trying to make a case based on hypothetical claims.  It has no meaning.  

[blackbird]

54 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Except you were maki the same arguments they do, ie citing scripture. 

No, I wasn't.   Islam is a false religion and they do not believe in the Judeo-Christian Bible.  So you are making false comparisons.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The legal system, judge and jury, must follow the law and in a trial for murder, if there is any doubt the person is found not guilty.  Every precaution should and would be taken to ensure a fair trial and proper outcome.  

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-wronged

All these people would be dead and the state (us) would have been guilty of murder.

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

All these people would be dead and the state (us) would have been guilty of murder.

No the state would not be guilty of anything.  The state does the best they can and it must be done to protect society.  Murderers need to be put away for the good of society.  It is no different that the medical system.  People have to be treated and operated on try to save their lives.  Sometimes mistakes happen and people die as a result.  But the system does the best they can.  We don't stop providing medical treatments because some doctor might make a mistake sometime.  It is the same with the justice system.  We need to carry on the best way we can.  Murderers should not escape what they have coming to them.  The system is broken.  Organized crime is running rampant and the Supreme Court makes rulings that allow criminals to get away with murder and criminals remain loose because of so-called constitutional rights.  Sick society.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No the state would not be guilty of anything. 

The state would have been guilty of putting an innocent man to death.  It is as simple and truthful as that.

Which is why the state must never be given that power.

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

We don't stop providing medical treatments because some doctor might make a mistake sometime.  I

Do you REALLY need me to explain why treating an illness you already have which may take your life is different than killing someone you don't need to?

I'm all for locking people up for life no parole, but the state cannot have the power of life and death over it's citizens.

[Aristides]

28 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No the state would not be guilty of anything.  The state does the best they can and it must be done to protect society.  Murderers need to be put away for the good of society.  It is no different that the medical system.  People have to be treated and operated on try to save their lives.  Sometimes mistakes happen and people die as a result.  But the system does the best they can.  We don't stop providing medical treatments because some doctor might make a mistake sometime.  It is the same with the justice system.  We need to carry on the best way we can.  Murderers should not escape what they have coming to them.  The system is broken.  Organized crime is running rampant and the Supreme Court makes rulings that allow criminals to get away with murder and criminals remain loose because of so-called constitutional rights.  Sick society.

So the state can kill innocent people as long as they have due process. Just collateral damage. Doctors make mistakes trying to save people, not kill them.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Aristides

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

No, I wasn't.   Islam is a false religion and they do not believe in the Judeo-Christian Bible.  So you are making false comparisons.

They are all false religions and Islam is not all that different, all the Judeo-Christian characters and stories, including Jesus, are in Islam. Only the fine details are different,  then they add another chapter at the end with another prophet after Jesus named Mohammad. 
 

Besides the larger point which you completely miss is that we’re  not a theocracy who puts citizens to death based on scripture n

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

That doesn’t answer the question.  Even with “every precaution” innocent people are still found guilty. For example. DNA evidence didn’t even exist when this girl was as killed and since then hundreds of convictions have been overturned based on DNA. 
 

Answer this question:  how would you feel if this man had been executed after  “every precaution a fair trial and proper outcome”  based on the evidence available at the time….but then later after his death he is posthumously exonerated by NEW evidence?

Just a question, today we have vast experience with DNA evidence, which as you suggest is reliable, do we now have to look at the death penalty again as a variable means of punishment...

You've pointed out a few cases out of millions, i'd be curious what the actual numbers are ? How effective is our justice system? 

And your augment assumes that due small percentage of mistakes made in the justice system in the past we should eliminate the death penalty all together, forever...  I'm assuming your good with housing these guys for up to 25 years, (not very many serve 25 years) at the cost of millions of dollars each. It seems we are more concerned at the criminals than the victims.  

Including guys like the kid that murder those in the mosque in Quebec, or Paul barnardo, people we know are guilty...

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, Army Guy said:

Just a question, today we have vast experience with DNA evidence, which as you suggest is reliable, do we now have to look at the death penalty again as a variable means of punishment...

There have been plenty of cases where dna evidence was later proven to be in error one way or another, including a case where the lab person was pressured to say it was a match to catch a guy the cops "knew" was guilty.

You can NEVER trust the state.  You're from a military background - are you telling me the gov't never screws up, never paints a false picture, NONE of the people in the military every bend or break the rules if they think they know better, etc etc?

And that doesn't include dna evidence that is deliberately left out because it might cast doubt on the guy's guilt.

In BC there was an exeprt doctor who was a world recognized pro at child abuse cases who would be called to testify about a very specific kind of injury and would say it was proof of abuse.  Hundreds and hundreds of cases were "won" because of his testimony over the years.  It was then discovered HE FAKED IT ALL - he was NOT a doctor, he'd faked his certs and it was PROVEN that his model was wrong - all of those people had been convicted with completely wrong medical information from a state recognized 'expert'.

There have been other cases - in ontario  a review found that an expert there made the wrong conclusion in 40 cases where he said the child was murdered and they now know that's not true.

You can never know.  Period.

 

If you lock a person up for life, that's good enough (and generally cheaper). No parole, no time with friends or family, just sit there for the rest of your life and think about what you've done. Automatic divorce for the spouse.

But - if it turns out you're wrong....  and the guy might be innocent..  at least you can still do something.

[Army Guy]

16 hours ago, Aristides said:

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-wronged

All these people would be dead and the state (us) would have been guilty of murder.

 

It is unfortunate we do not have a "perfect" justice system, but you have shown us a few cases out of the millions that have been completed...what is your opinion on those cases that we can 100% say that they are guilty can we execute those people...

There are risks to everything we do, putting food on our table, cutting the timber to make your table, we all live with those risks. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, Army Guy said:

There are risks to everything we do, putting food on our table, cutting the timber to make your table, we all live with those risks. 

Killing someone isn't an accident. it's not a 'risk'.  It's a decision. And killing someone knowing that they might very well be innocent but you can't know either way with 100 percent certainty means you're knowingly killing innocent people.  And for what?

Tell you what - you put one of your kids or loved ones forward as the first innocent person to be killed and then we'll talk.

[blackbird]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I'm all for locking people up for life no parole, but the state cannot have the power of life and death over it's citizens.

What it all boils down to is this:

" 6  Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Genesis 9:6 KJV

There you have it.  You have no business interfering with God's wishes or command on the subject.  It is up to the authorities / government to obey what God has ordained on this subject and it is government's business to make sure it is done correctly and only for those who are guilty.  You cannot play God and ignore the command for any reason.  

 

[blackbird]

16 hours ago, Aristides said:

So the state can kill innocent people as long as they have due process. Just collateral damage. Doctors make mistakes trying to save people, not kill them.

As I said above to Cdnfox, it is God's command to carry out the death penalty for murderers.  It is not man's business.  Government is responsible for doing it without error.  " 6  Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."  Genesis 9:6 KJV