Canada's justice system is far too lenient for murderers. They should really get capital punishment to protect society.

[eyeball]

33 minutes ago, blackbird said:

China executed 11 members of a gang that was involved in a billion dollar online scam and murdering people.  It sounds like China does some things right, even though we know not all things are done right.

So there's a level of admiration you have for China because of their basic dictatorship?

Is that the lefty in Jesus rubbing off on you or the righty in his Dad?

[blackbird]

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So there's a level of admiration you have for China because of their basic dictatorship?

Is that the lefty in Jesus rubbing off on you or the righty in his Dad?

No, there are a few things that make sense in China. Guess you don't understand crime deserves punishment.

[eyeball]

39 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, there are a few things that make sense in China. Guess you don't understand crime deserves punishment.

No, that's not it at all. I am pretty leery however of having a justice system that's been steeped in a bunch of religious hooey or communist hooey for that matter.

[CDN1]

On 1/29/2026 at 3:05 PM, herbie said:

No point arguing the same points re capital punishment in yet another thread when the facts remain unchanged.

It is not effective in decreasing murder rates

Under our own social framework precept, if the individual has no right to kill, the State has even less or no right at all to.

This was decided a half century ago. Argue a return to pints & quarts, inches & miles and Red Ensigns while you're at it.

Yeah, we were all living in +90% White countries back then. Times change.

Soft on crime policy does not work in a low trust society with competing ethnic groups. Vigiliantism & violent destabilization is inevitable when the disproportionality of crime is so extreme.

Look at Brazil's wonderful diversity. Their police kill over 8x as many people per capita annually vs American cops, BTW.

Edited January 30 by CDN1

[blackbird]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, that's not it at all. I am pretty leery however of having a justice system that's been steeped in a bunch of religious hooey or communist hooey for that matter.

Your liberal soft on crime justice system has proven a total failure.  You have nothing to offer.  Canadians have suffered enough.

[Barquentine]

22 hours ago, John Stone said:

Both SCOTUS and SCOC (?) are political ........politically biased. 

The difference is the U.S. flavor provides for transparency. 

I said "as politicised". Do we have right wing judges saying the PM is above the law?

Do we have right wing judges saying "Money is Speech"? 

And on and on...

[Barquentine]

21 hours ago, blackbird said:

You can be pretty sure most of these people are not Bible believers and don't care what God thinks.  God says "thou shalt not kill".

Luke 19:27
Ezekiel 9: 5-7
Numbers 31:17-18 (I think this one was written by Epstein's ancestor)
Judges 19 (Stephen King can't write horror like that)
1 Samuel 15:3

[John Stone]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

I said "as politicised". Do we have right wing judges saying the PM is above the law?

Do we have right wing judges saying "Money is Speech"? 

And on and on...

'not as politicised'?

That's like being sorta pregnant? 

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Luke 19:27

You did not explain what your point is in giving those verse references.  I can only assume you are trying to make what some verse in the Bible say look unjustly harsh.  If you take verses out of context like that and look at them alone, of course they look harsh.  But you need to study the context to understand what they are all about.  God has a purpose for everything under the sun and He is God.

Luke 19:14-27 KJV is explained in a KJV Bible commentary as follows:

"Christ's first coming was as Saviour; but when He returns, it will be as Judge.  False professors and Christ-rejectors will alike be cast away (vss. 26-27)."

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Ezekiel 9: 5-7

The KJV commentary explains it this way:

"Men that sigh and that cry over the evil taking place indicate by their actions that they are righteous ones.  They are marked to be spared from destruction.  We may assume that when the actual slaughter took place in 586 B.C., God providentially spared the righteous.  Jeremiah would be an example of this (Jer 40:1-4).

vs. 8-11 explains:

"Great carnage had been carried out as a recompense for their shedding of blood, perversion, and idol worship; but good news was given concerning the remnant.  Those marked (vs. 4) had not been touched, even as commanded *vss, 6, 11).

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Numbers 31:17-18

KJV commentary says this:

10-18

"And they burnt all their cities.

The command of God to burn and kill here has bothered many throughout history.  But several factors must be kept in mind.  First, the order came from the righteous Judge of the earth Himself.  He was fully aware of all the circumstances and consequences involved at the time of the command.  Second, Israel was fighting for its very survival, and often that meant to kill or be killed.  Third, the moral habits of some of these desert people were almost unimaginable in their degeneration."

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Judges 19

19:1 to 21:25 is all about the immorality of the Gibeonites and Benjamites.  Just because evil events done by certain people are recorded in the Bible does not mean God authorized or approved of it.  You have to understand the context.  Some events are historical in nature.  It does take some time and study to understand these things.

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

1 Samuel 15:3

Again this is a verse that needs to be understood in its context.  It cannot be understood alone.  Many verse in the Bible cannot be understood alone.  You must study the context.  Sometimes, Bible commentaries help if you find a good one.

Sometimes you can find the explanation by doing a search on the internet.  The verse 1 Samuel 15:3 Saul was given a  specific command to "smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all".  This may have been a part of God's deliverance of his people.  One would have to spend some time to study this to learn the exact meaning of the chapter.

Sometimes you can read a chapter or book of the Bible and understand the book or most of it yourself without a commentary.

Edited January 31 by blackbird

[blackbird]

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, that's not it at all. I am pretty leery however of having a justice system that's been steeped in a bunch of religious hooey or communist hooey for that matter.

You think liberal hooey is better?  I'll go with our historic Judeo-Christian belief system which much of our system was based on before liberals changed it.    I think a woman just got 2 years for killing someone while drunk driving.

Edited January 31 by blackbird

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

Your liberal soft on crime justice system has proven a total failure.  You have nothing to offer.  Canadians have suffered enough.

It's not my system. You have no idea what I think. Your assumption that you do is misplaced.

I won't bore you with the details but broadly speaking crime is essentially a symptom of poor socio-economic policies and that's where the main focus of our solutions should be.

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You think liberal hooey is better?  

Depends on what you mean by liberal and hooey. For example, it's hooey to equate liberal with communist.

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I'll go with our historic Judeo-Christian belief system which much of our system was based on before liberals changed it.    I think a woman just got 2 years for killing someone while drunk driving.

You were hoping for public stoning instead?

So, in the case of drunk driving the solution is to prevent it. I'd approach it as a product safety issue and employ better  technology. Breathalyzer interlock systems should be mandatory in every vehicle.

Eventually cars will be self-driving and probably come with a bar.

 

[User]

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

I said "as politicised". Do we have right wing judges saying the PM is above the law?

Do we have right wing judges saying "Money is Speech"? 

And on and on...

America does not have judges saying the President is above the law. 

Money IS in fact speech in every practical way you engage in speech. It costs money to make that poster board you hold up over your head while you scream. It costs money for you to transport yourself to the street corner. It costs money to print out those pamphlets you are handing out. It costs money to advertise on TV, radio, etc... 

So yes, money is in fact speech. 

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

So, in the case of drunk driving the solution is to prevent it. I'd approach it as a product safety issue and employ better  technology. Breathalyzer interlock systems should be mandatory in every vehicle.

That is liberal ideology.  Every crime has an excuse for it and the criminal is not responsible.

[eyeball]

Just now, blackbird said:

That is liberal ideology.  Every crime has an excuse for it and the criminal is not responsible.

No, that's just lawyers being lawyers after the fact.

There's no excuse for not trying to prevent crime before the lawyers are even needed.

I'm pretty sure you'll suggest the fear of facing a harsh vengeance system will do that but research consistently shows the certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the severity of the punishment.

That right there should tell that putting more constables on patrol to prevent crime before the fact would be more effective than employing more lawyers and prosecutors after the fact.

[herbie]

Punish! Punish! Divine Retribution!

So long as it's not our guy on the cross between those disgusting, depraved criminals..

[Barquentine]

18 hours ago, User said:

America does not have judges saying the President is above the law.

In Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court ruled that U.S. presidents have absolute immunity for actions within their core constitutional authority and at least presumptive immunity for all official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.

23 hours ago, John Stone said:

That's like being sorta pregnant? 

No.

[cannuck]

On 1/30/2026 at 4:57 PM, eyeball said:

No, that's not it at all. I am pretty leery however of having a justice system that's been steeped in a bunch of religious hooey or communist hooey for that matter.

I have to agree with this position.  Religion is pretty much the most divisive force I can think of, but being raised in a Judeo-Christian environment one does have to recognize the "ideals" are reasonable, even if the reality falls very much short.  We need to think of law in terms of what is fair, what is right (not necessarily what is "Right").

I can't forget the stories of David Milgaard, Donald Marshall, Guy Morin and Thomas Sophonow - all falsely accused of murder, convicted, found guilty and jailed by a "justice" system that doesn't come close to "working".  I have had the unusual experience of watching a murder investigation of a crime that occurred 3 doors West of our home.  My friend and neighbour was a recently retired RCMP officer who worked for another friend.  He followed and explained to my friend (a government Minister) in meetings I attended as this investigation unfolded.   What happened - and I have since seen happen regularly - is the investigators (at least the majority of them) kick around several theories then hone in on one - right or wrong - and from that point forward anything supporting that theory is promoted and any evidence to the contrary is pretty much ignored.  It took a downgraded POI to stab a second girl in our back alley for the lead investigators to realize the small cadre who favoured him for the crime switched to looking the right way.  The second victim should never have BEEN a victim if the investigative process did what the fairy-tale TV shows always claim and followed the actual evidence and worshipped the truth.

Then we have the courts:  We must first remember that 1/2 of everyone there is lying - maybe even everyone,  Lawyers are generally those who have chosen to make their living by exploiting or causing the misfortune of others.  They are liars-for-hire and they sit before a judge who is also a lawyer.  The sea of total bull crap is so deep, an innocent person can easily be drowned in it.  Ask the 4 people I cited (or read the accounts and books written about them).  When I get off of the plane in Riyadh and see the signed warning that the penalty for dealing drugs is death - I feel a bit of comfort.  When I think about how bad the criminal justice system malfunctions at home and I think of how things might go in KSA I start shaking in my boots.  I have no sympathy for the criminal who dies in the commission of a crime, but I can't help but note that once the investigative, prosecution and judgemental processes are involved, things often don't play out the way they should.

I can't support a return to capital punishment - but I sure can't support the current "catch and release" extreme either.

[Gaétan]

On 1/28/2026 at 10:32 AM, blackbird said:

The answer is simple.  Tighten up the justice system and correct any problems that cause wrongful convictions.

How many people have been murdered or maimed (including prison guards) by murderers who were given life or let out on parole?   What about the native guy who was let out and went a killed about eleven people on the Cree nation in Saskatchewan a few years ago?   Countless cases of criminals being let out and re-offending in Canada.

A person who commits murder may suffer from mental disorders, may have been raised in an inappropriate environment, and therefore sometimes may not be fully responsible for their act. President Trump has committed more than two hundred murders, but is he truly responsible? He is a psychopath.

[User]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

In Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court ruled that U.S. presidents have absolute immunity for actions within their core constitutional authority and at least presumptive immunity for all official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.

Describe how that is above the law.

 

[Gaétan]

23 minutes ago, User said:

Describe how that is above the law.

 

This is not above the law because; The King can do no wrong

[User]

45 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

This is not above the law because; The King can do no wrong

Where does this ruling say the king can do no wrong?

It states that if the President is charged with executing the laws of the country, that can't be unlawful, because he is executing the laws. 

I realize this little factual nuance is too much for you folks or maybe you just don't care, because you want to push your nonsense fear-mongering talking points. 

 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

In Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court ruled that U.S. presidents have absolute immunity for actions within their core constitutional authority and at least presumptive immunity for all official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.

 

That's not what they found and it's dishonest of you to say so.

They have immunity from prosecution in the courts. The court ruled that the correct venue for that is impeachment. They did not say that the is completely immune.

[eyeball]

On 1/29/2026 at 4:59 PM, CdnFox said:

Post me a court case where the person who hired the Hitman was charged with murder.

Hey doofus, run away much?

On 1/29/2026 at 6:14 PM, eyeball said:

Just charged how about convicted?

....

LMAO!

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Hey doofus, run away much?

 

sure you run away all the time.  

I didn't notice your example because you didn't actually link to it. And I can see why. The murder thing was thrown out.

Didn't actually read the case did you   LOLOLOL  Yeah turns out can't really actually charge them with murder just because they hired somoene   LOLOLOLOL!

You know without even looking I knew you were going to wind up being wrong and looking like a twat   

The reason they even considered the murder charge in that case as well is because she didn't just hire it done, she was there and they argued she participated in it directly. And that's basically why it got thrown out.

But if you hire someone and then you help them kill someone then yes you can be charged with murder. But that's not the case in an abortion. And just hiring someone isn't actually murder

ROFLMAO!! You lose again kiddo  

You spend your time spinning your wheels on your own stupidity    WHEEE look at him go!!!!!