Should the death penalty for murder be reintroduced?

[Machjo]

While I can understand the concern for innocents being wrongfully convicted (which always has and always will happen), what about cases where it's clear that the person is unquestionably guilty?

Personally, I think for murder where the evidence is overwhelming, the death penalty ought to be the default punishment. I can see always granting the judge the option at his discretion of handing out a life sentence with no possibility of parole for life rather than the death penalty, as there will always be extenuating circumstances to consider; but even then, the death penalty ought to be the default punishment, with the judge having to explain on record the reason for handing out the life sentence instead.

I know some might be concerned about the psychological trauma the death penalty can cause. I don't see that as an issue though since a simple solution would be to require the death sentence to be carried out within a period of, let's say, 48 hours of sentencing after which it must default to a life sentence. This would ensure a swift carrying out of the sentence. I can't imagine it taking more than 24 hours to assemble a firing squad.

 

[gerryh]

well, I can think of more than just a couple of men that would be glad you're not deciding whether or not Canada has the death penalty.

 

[TenPenny]

While I can understand the concern for innocents being wrongfully convicted (which always has and always will happen), what about cases where it's clear that the person is unquestionably guilty?

How can you say that when someone just won $4 million after being wrongfully convicted for murdering his niece, based on the evidence of a pathologist who made stuff up?

How can anyone make the distinction between 'unquestionably guilty' and 'unethical forensic experts'?

 

[Tonington]

No. We already serve justice, and you can't make redress to someone wrongfully convicted and subsequently put to death. That's a fundamental flaw in justice meted out with capital punishment.

And I don't see how it's more just to kill someone than it is to incarcerate.

 

[gerryh]

instead of pushing for the state to become a murderer, how about pushing for true life sentences. Not these "minimum 25 year" sentences. Life without a chance for parole. Then when the system screws up, like it inevitably will, redress can be attempted.

 

[Machjo]

How can you say that when someone just won $4 million after being wrongfully convicted for murdering his niece, based on the evidence of a pathologist who made stuff up?

How can anyone make the distinction between 'unquestionably guilty' and 'unethical forensic experts'?

What about when we have a number of experts in different fields pointing the finger at guilty, videotaped footage of a murder, a voluntary confession without torture or any other kind of unreasonable pressure, with the original confession on tape, etc.?

Now even in such a case, the judge should still reserve the right to wave the death penalty and give him life instead with an explanation for the reason he did so. But in such unquestionably clear cases, capital punishment should still be the default punishment.

instead of pushing for the state to become a murderer, how about pushing for true life sentences. Not these "minimum 25 year" sentences. Life without a chance for parole. Then when the system screws up, like it inevitably will, redress can be attempted.

Life without a chance of parole ought certainly be the minimum for murder.

 

[petros]

If you want to drop the right to life from the Charter, be my guest.

 

[Machjo]

If you want to drop the right to life from the Charter, be my guest.

Absolutely. I do not believe we have a right to life; so yes, I would change the Charter.

 

[Tonington]

Absolutely. I do not believe we have a right to life; so yes, I would change the Charter.

So does that mean you would be cool with the government imposing abortions on whomever it decides? If you remove our right to life, then what is there to stop a government from imposing such laws? Or maybe they could make homosexuality a capital crime as well.

I think maybe you should ponder on that a little more...

 

[Machjo]

So does that mean you would be cool with the government imposing abortions on whomever it decides?

Absolutely not.

If you remove our right to life, then what is there to stop a government from imposing such laws? Or maybe they could make homosexuality a capital crime as well.

I think maybe you should ponder on that a little more...

Simple solution. Rather than a charter of rights and freedoms, I could see a charter of freedoms and obligations. Among the obligations would be that of preserving life. Those who fail to live up to their obligations would not be protected by this new charter.

 

[Risus]

If you want to drop the right to life from the Charter, be my guest.

Hmmm, tell that to the victims.
Kill 'em, that's what I say. You take a life, we take yours. Pretty simple, actually.

 

[Machjo]

Hmmm, tell that to the victims.
Kill 'em, that's what I say. You take a life, we take yours. Pretty simple, actually.

And if a murderer does get life, he should work to help make himself as economically independent of the taxpayer as possible. I don't want my taxes supporting him all his life. Make him work.

 

[gerryh]

Hmmm, tell that to the victims.
Kill 'em, that's what I say. You take a life, we take yours. Pretty simple, actually.

And for those that have been wrongly convicted?

 

[Machjo]

Another point concerns costs. The death sentence can also lead to all kinds of legal hassles which could mean that it would be less expensive to simply lock him up for life. Again, some kind of 48-hours clause could solve that. Unless the execution can be carried out within 48 hours of sentencing, the sentence automatically defaults to life, thus eliminating any possible legal hassles later. But in cases where the person is guilty beyond all doubt, I don't see why it would not be possible to have the sentence carried out within that time frame.

 

[gerryh]

And if a murderer does get life, he should work to help make himself as economically independent of the taxpayer as possible. I don't want my taxes supporting him all his life. Make him work.

So, there's 2 things in play here. Retribution and selfishness. Nice to have that out in the open.

 

[Machjo]

And for those that have been wrongly convicted?

Certainly the judge ought always to have the option of giving life instead, precisely for that reason. And what about those cases where it's proven beyond all doubt, to the extent that even the murderer himself confesses, and it's clear that the confession is sincere?

 

[Tonington]

Simple solution. Rather than a charter of rights and freedoms, I could see a charter of freedoms and obligations. Among the obligations would be that of preserving life. Those who fail to live up to their obligations would not be protected by this new charter.

So a wrongfully convicted person was living up to their obligations, and still executed...

How is that any different?

 

[Machjo]

So, there's 2 things in play here. Retribution and selfishness. Nice to have that out in the open.

I like your sense of humour. Now back on topic...

As for retribution, it's not really a matter of retribution of of justice carried out in an economically efficient manner.

As for selfishness, I have no issue paying taxes; it's a matter of where that money goes. I'd rather my tax dollars go towards paying off the national debt or education rather than feeding a murderer. Besides, if that murderer works hard and supports himself and maybe even ends up paying some taxes, then we could consider that a kind of amends to society in that he's still making a contribution to society from prison.

So a wrongfully convicted person was living up to their obligations, and still executed...

How is that any different?

If wrongfully convicted, then why confess? Again, the judge ought to reserve the right to sentence for life, but where the evidence is overwhelming, beyond all doubt, then why not death?

I'm not talking about cases where there may still be some doubt.

 

[Colpy]

While I can understand the concern for innocents being wrongfully convicted (which always has and always will happen), what about cases where it's clear that the person is unquestionably guilty?

Personally, I think for murder where the evidence is overwhelming, the death penalty ought to be the default punishment. I can see always granting the judge the option at his discretion of handing out a life sentence with no possibility of parole for life rather than the death penalty, as there will always be extenuating circumstances to consider; but even then, the death penalty ought to be the default punishment, with the judge having to explain on record the reason for handing out the life sentence instead.

I know some might be concerned about the psychological trauma the death penalty can cause. I don't see that as an issue though since a simple solution would be to require the death sentence to be carried out within a period of, let's say, 48 hours of sentencing after which it must default to a life sentence. This would ensure a swift carrying out of the sentence. I can't imagine it taking more than 24 hours to assemble a firing squad.

The problem with your premise is the idea that it must be clear the person was "unquestionably guilty".

How is that different from "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"?

I imagine that those on the jury in the trials of the wrongfully accused were sure he was guilty.....especially those misled by the psychotic and/or incompetent government pathologist.

Here's my proposal, as I have put forth many times before.........execution for mass killers.

Each murder tried individually...........each murder by law tried in front of a different judge, and a different jury...........each sentence passed down separately.....but on the third (and subsequent) convictions for murder, the judge has the option of sentencing the individual to death........within 30 days.

Some people are so evil they need to be cut away from the body of society and disposed of in the most effective, efficient way.......

 

[Tonington]

If wrongfully convicted, then why confess?

Who said anything about a confession? Plenty of people have been convicted erroneously without a confession. This is a red herring.

Again, the judge ought to reserve the right to sentence for life, but where the evidence is overwhelming, beyond all doubt, then why not death?

Because overwhelming evidence can still lead to wrongful convictions.

Are you willing to give up your life for this? It could happen.