This scum is the only reason to return the death penalty


View Poll Results: Should Olsen be put to death?
Yes 5 55.56%
No, just keep him in prison. 4 44.44%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

#juan
#1
british columbia news

Sunday, Jul 16, 2006
Families of serial killer Clifford Olson's victims brace for parole hearing




MONTREAL (CP) - Family members of victims of serial killer Clifford Olson will make their way to a federal prison in Quebec this week to face Olson in what they hope is a futile bid for parole.

Among them will be Gary Rosenfeldt, whose stepson Daryn Johnsrude was Olson's third victim, along with his wife and daughter.

"My little girl was nine-years-old at the time her brother was murdered," Rosenfeldt said in a recent interview.

"To sit and watch her in tears talking about her brother. . . it's not fair. She should not have to go through this. She should have other things on her mind than trying to keep a crazed convicted killer in prison."

For others, it's too much to bear, said Rosenfeldt, who founded the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime after Daryn's death.

"(One father) just could not allow Olson to see his pain and to know the pain he inflicted on him for the last 25 years," Rosenfeldt said. "I can understand that.

"He enjoys the pain and suffering he inflicts on families."



Olson admitted in 1982 to the murders of 11 young people in British Columbia, eight boys and three girls ranging in age from nine to 18.

Now 66, he's served 25 years in prison since his 1981 arrest and will be eligible for parole as of Aug. 12.

On Tuesday, a three-member parole board panel will hear Olson's parole application at the federal prison in Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, north of Montreal.

It is expected the hearing will wrap up in a day.

Olson worked out a notorious cash-for-bodies deal with the Crown and RCMP that provided his family with a $100,000 trust in exchange for information about the deaths and the locations of bodies.

After he sent graphic letters detailing his crimes to some victims' families, Corrections Canada obtained a gag order stopping Olson from communicating with families or the media.

It took just 15 minutes of deliberations for the jury at his 1996 faint-hope hearing to reject the possibility of early release but public outrage over the hearing prompted lawmakers to amend the Criminal Code, stripping serial killers of the right to the 15-year review.

"The guy should be dead for what he's done," said Darryl Kettles, a retired RCMP officer who worked on the Olson case.

Forced to retire due to health problems and what he now recognizes as post-traumatic stress, Kettles said the case had devastating effects on everyone it touched.

"He is the devil himself," Kettles said of Olson.


"They were children. Murder scenes are bad enough but when it's children who are victims. . . it's pretty hard to live with."

Olson had a long criminal history prior to his arrest in the murders, mostly for fraud, petty thefts and break and enter.

He was jailed for the indecent assault of a four-year-old girl in Sydney, N.S., in 1978, emerging from prison in July 1980.

Four months later, his first victim, 12-year-old Christine Weller, disappeared.

"There is no treatment devised for such a personality," said Elliot Leyton, professor emeritus of anthropology at Memorial University of Newfoundland and author of Hunting Humans: The Rise of the Modern Multiple Murderer.

"There is no chance of being rehabilitated."

Even the remotest possibility of parole is frustrating for the public but there is no reason for alarm, Leyton said.

"No government would allow the release of this kind of vicious and barbaric criminal."

Under Canadian law, Olson is now entitled to a parole hearing every two years - something the Canadian Professional Police Association wants to change.

President Tony Cannavino said the public will face similar outrage when Paul Bernardo and others come up for parole.

"When we have a guy like Clifford Olson, after 25 years do we think that person should be entitled to get out of jail?" Cannavino said.

"No way. They should lose the jail key of Clifford Olson."

Federal Justice Minister Vic Toews said last week the Conservatives are looking at changes.

A spokeswoman for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said it's something the government will work on when the House resumes this fall.

"We've got to be tough on crime and give a stronger voice to victims," said Melissa Leclerc. "That's definitely something that we committed on. . . but I don't have any details or a time frame at this point."

Rosenfeldt would like the federal government abolish mandatory release, concurrent sentencing and the two-year parole review.

But if that doesn't happen, he'll be back in Ste-Anne-des-Plaines in two years.

"If it's every two years, I guess we'll be always there," he said.

At the very least we should have a "dangerous offender" clause that would keep him behind bars for the rest of his life.
 
lo2
#2
Does Canada have death penalty?
 
Nikki
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by lo2

Does Canada have death penalty?

No we don't.

The only problem I see with the death penalty system is if anyone who is innocent gets put to death. In my eyes putting 1000 guilty people to death is not worth the life of one innocent person.

If there was anyway to know 180% that this person is a murderer I say put em to death. You killed one or more people they all deserve to die. I know if someone killed someone I loved I would want that person 6ft. under.
 
Simpleton
#4
It's too late to put this bastard to death. He has already had his day in court, and has been sentenced to serve time in prison. Although, I will say that he is a prime example of why Canada needs to bring the death penalty back.
 
Nuggler
#5
Lo2;
Nope, we're too civilized.

In the past few years there have been cases of men convicted of murder, serving many years in prison, then found innocent due to DNA evidence which was not around when they were tried.

If we had the death penalty, all we could say in their cases is........woops Still, wrongly convicted is wrongly convicted and they will never get their lost years back. Flimsy evidence, fabricated evidence, false evidence, overzealous prosecution, all convicted these men. Shame on us.

Back to Cliffy:

The death penalty is far too good for this murderous bastard.

If you have never seen a true castle dungeon, let me describe one I saw: A hole in a stone floor covered by a huge block which had to be lifted via block and tackle. It was, and the miscreant was hurled into the room below. Ceiling was 10 ft. high, so he couldn't even attempt to climb out. Then the block was lowered back into place and the dungeon below was completely dark as in "coal mine" dark.
A stream of filthy water leaking from one wall constituted drinking supplies. No toilet of any kind. From time to time, when they thought of it, the stone was lifted, and slops (food) were thrown in. No hope. You stayed there until you died.

Cliffy you prick, your'e lucky I'm not in charge. I'd have one built just for you.

Ugg.
 
#juan
#6
Nikki

In cases like Olsen, where there is absolutely no doubt about their guilt, I see no reason to pay extra to keep them alive. If we can't make the decision to execute them, put them among the general prison population and the decision will likely be made for us,
 
Nikki
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Nikki

In cases like Olsen, where there is absolutely no doubt about their guilt, I see no reason to pay extra to keep them alive. If we can't make the decision to execute them, put them among the general prison population and the decision will likely be made for us,

I realize that. But you can't just bring it back for one person. You know what I mean? I realize there is a 200% chance this guy is guilty but like I said I would rather just keep them in jail then risk putting one innocent to death.
 
Kreskin
#8
While I wholeheartedly agree Olsen is the absolute scum of the Earth I'd rather see the no-parole version of life in his kind of circumstances. Lock him up in a dungeon and let him rot for good.

My biggest concern with the DP is, as an example, what was just posted here http://www.canadiancontent.net/forum...=233599#233599 . It wouldn't be the first or last time a false charge was made and even falsely/mistakenly prosecuted. The native guy would've been known as the sicko who can't be redeemed and thus not worth supporting in a prison cell. Not everyone has the $$ to get the best defense.

I'm also not comfortable with my government killing people on my behalf.
 
Nikki
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

I'm also not comfortable with my government killing people on my behalf.

Especially the current one...
 
GreenGreta
#10
I don't want our government deciding who lives and dies. You'd need to be perfect to make those decisions, and perfect we ain't.
 
Kreskin
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Nikki

Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

I'm also not comfortable with my government killing people on my behalf.

Especially the current one...

Especially any one. Find me one that has never had corruption and then we'll talk.
 
Nikki
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

Quote: Originally Posted by Nikki

Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

I'm also not comfortable with my government killing people on my behalf.

Especially the current one...

Especially any one. Find me one that has never had corruption and then we'll talk.

I think out of all of them Harper makes me the most nervous.
 
Simpleton
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

Quote: Originally Posted by Nikki

Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

I'm also not comfortable with my government killing people on my behalf.

Especially the current one...

Especially any one. Find me one that has never had corruption and then we'll talk.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be a judge or jury that would decide to execute? It certainly wouldn't be the government that decided who would live or die. It would be "we the people of the jury" that would sentence the condemned to death.

I also see that people are bringing up matters where convicts have spent years in prison, only to be later found innocent. I note that people are attributing relatively recent advances in DNA technology to the overturning of these injustices. Let's not forget that there are many justice advocates out there that work for and on behalf of those wrongly accused and convicted. Let us also remember, that the odds of convicting an innocent person are growing more and more remote.

With advancing technologies such as DNA fingerprinting, and to some extent, surveillance and electronic eavesdropping, it's becoming harder and harder for police and prosecutors to railroad innocent people. I would guess that shopping mall surveillance cameras helped prove that one teen female was lying about having been assaulted in a restroom.

The public scutiny of officials and authorities is at an all time high, and I see no reason for this trend not to continue.

Another development in crime fighting that I'm having a great deal of concern with, is over-zealous women's advocates. I'm deeply disturbed by developments like "hollaback girl" and victim's rights agencies misrepresenting statistics through misdirected propaganda. A local agency director, who shall remain nameless, has recently expressed public concern over men being found "innocent" in a court of law. I'm gravely concerned with this movement toward "he's accused, so he must be guilty."

The comments of this lady are most troubling, in light of the fact that several local females have been exposed as having fabricated their allegations. I cannot and will not support the idea of women taking their frustrations out on innccent men, just because they feel they have a point to prove. These sorts of tactics can and will only backfire.
 
Kreskin
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Simpleton

Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinQuote: Originally Posted by NikkiQuote: Originally Posted by KreskinI'm also not comfortable with my government killing people on my behalf.Especially the current one... Especially any one. Find me one that has never had corruption and then we'll talk.Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be a judge or jury that would decide to execute? It certainly wouldn't be the government that decided who would live or die. It would be "we the people of the jury" that would sentence the condemned to death.
I also see that people are bringing up matters where convicts have spent years in prison, only to be later found innocent. I note that people are attributing relatively recent advances in DNA technology to the overturning of these injustices. Let's not forget that there are many justice advocates out there that work for and on behalf of those wrongly accused and convicted. Let us also remember, that the odds of convicting an innocent person are...

Quote has been trimmed
The Criminal Justice System is run by government. The jury is only as effective as the framework it works within.

I believe OJ Simpson was 100% guilty, who doesn't, but in his case the DNA was all there but his defense convinced a jury that it was being used by government agencies falsely and corruptly against him. DNA isn't the end all to be all.
 
Simpleton
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin


The Criminal Justice System is run by government. The jury is only as effective as the framework it works within.

I believe OJ Simpson was 100% guilty, who doesn't, but in his case the DNA was all there but his defense convinced a jury that it was being used by government agencies falsely and corruptly against him. DNA isn't the end all to be all.

No! The Criminal Justice System is not run by the government. The government merely creates the framework in which the Criminal Justice System operates. For example, the government enacts legislation that specifies what is and isn't criminal. The government also specifies what punishments can be levied against a person or entity that contravenes the law. These punishments can range anywhere from a fine or probation, to incarceration, or some varied combination of these. Incarceration and probation, or probation and a fine, or incarceration, probation, and a fine, for example. The judge is permitted discretion in levying the punishment, but is restricted in the degree of severity. Basically, a judge does not get the discretion to impose a penalty that is greater than that prescribed by law.

I don't understand your example. You suggest that a guilty man was set free, even though you believe that the evidence proved conclusively that the accused was indeed guilty. This is how our justice system is designed to work.

The premise of our justice system, is that the benefit of the doubt shall be applied to the accused. The burden of proof, meanwhile, rests entirely on the back of the prosecution. This system is designed to ensure that the accused has every opportunity to maintain his/her innocence in the face of questionable evidence or testimony. This also helps to ensure that over-zealous prosecutors do not continuously harass persons by continuously bringing weak prosecutions, thus ensuring that the justice system operates efficiently and with relative certainty that the accused is indeed guilty.

We protect people from double-jeopardy to ensure that the prosecution is damn certain of their facts before bringing a person up on charges. Basically, the prosecution gets one shot. If they screw it up, the accused walks free -- whether they are guilty or not. This is meant to protect the public from the government.

As you so candidly point out, O.J. Simpson was permitted to walk free because the prosecution screwed up. Mr. Simpson's lawyers took advantage of the prosecution's ineptitude, and successfully secured an acquittal for their client. Do we fault Mr. Simpson's lawyers for this? No Way! The prosecution knew that they would be getting only one chance to convict. The burden of proof rested solely in their hands, and they had every obligation to ensure that the evidence stood up to the test of scrutiny. The prosecution failed to do that.

I'm not saying that O.J. Simpson was in fact guilty, I'm just saying that the justice system did not find sufficient evidence to convict him. Does that mean that there's a problem with the justice system? Absolutely not! It simply means that the prosecution dragged a man into court with flimsy evidence, and they blew it.

This helps illustrate some of my earlier comments however. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for governments and officials to railroad innocent people. It is time to bring the death penalty back to Canada.
 
Riyko
#16
I just wanted to say this really quickly O.J. Simpson admitted to the crimes he did, but they can't retry him for it because of the double jeopardy, but if they found new evidence that can point the murder on him they can try him for a lesser charge like manslaughter.

Excuting him won't bring back the people's lives he took without remorse and keeping him in prison will make him think about what he did and he'll have to live with all of those murders until the day he dies. just my two cents
 
Simpleton
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Riyko

I just wanted to say this really quickly O.J. Simpson admitted to the crimes he did, but they can't retry him for it because of the double jeopardy, but if they found new evidence that can point the murder on him they can try him for a lesser charge like manslaughter.

Excuting him won't bring back the people's lives he took without remorse and keeping him in prison will make him think about what he did and he'll have to live with all of those murders until the day he dies. just my two cents

Lesser charges? That would never fly.

If he had in fact committed the murders, he's showing absolutely no remorse for having taken their lives. As for his conscience, he apparently lives with it everyday -- on the golf course. Fore....
 
SaintLucifer
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by lo2

Does Canada have death penalty?

In a weakling society such as ours? We are run by commie-pinko socialist liberals. You must be joking.
 
SaintLucifer
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Riyko

I just wanted to say this really quickly O.J. Simpson admitted to the crimes he did, but they can't retry him for it because of the double jeopardy, but if they found new evidence that can point the murder on him they can try him for a lesser charge like manslaughter.

Excuting him won't bring back the people's lives he took without remorse and keeping him in prison will make him think about what he did and he'll have to live with all of those murders until the day he dies. just my two cents

Under my fascist system OJ would be quickly snatched out from his bed in the middle of the night, taken to an unpopulated area and shot in the back of his head. The only news would be his sudden disappearance. Fascists do not waste the public's time with needless trials. They look out for the State which in this case OJ has clearly acted against.
 
#juan
#20
My point was,

that Clifford Olsen is guilty beyond all doubt. Clifford Olsen killed 11 children and did despicable things to them. Clifford Olsen managed, for a time, to harass the families of his victims by phone and by mail. Why should we be paying in excess of a hundred thousand dollars a year for extra guards to keep this creep alive. Would it bother any of you if Olsen didn't show up for dinner one night? It wouldn't bother me.

There are about thirty others in the system, including Bernardo, who are also guilty beyond all doubt. I think the extra money should go to a more worthy cause than people like Bernardo. Put them all in the general prison population. Maybe they will survive, maybe they won't. Who cares?
 
SaintLucifer
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

My point was,

that Clifford Olsen is guilty beyond all doubt. Clifford Olsen killed 11 children and did despicable things to them. Clifford Olsen managed, for a time, to harass the families of his victims by phone and by mail. Why should we be paying in excess of a hundred thousand dollars a year for extra guards to keep this creep alive. Would it bother any of you if Olsen didn't show up for dinner one night? It wouldn't bother me.

There are about thirty others in the system, including Bernardo, who are also guilty beyond all doubt. I think the extra money should go to a more worthy causes than people like Bernardo. Put them all in the general prison population. Maybe they will survive, maybe they won't. Who cares?

The moment Clifford Olsen was caught he should have been taken to a quiet area with no witnesses and shot in the back of the head. Those who shot him would then defecate all over him. I would then feed his carcass to starving hogs. No trial. Nothing. Kill the man.
 
Riyko
#22
Simpleton

Why should OJ Simpson show remorse especally with knowing he got alway with it and knowing he beat the US justice system and that they can only charge him with lesser charges if they can find new evidence that he did infact commit the crimes.

SaintLucifer

look at the country your talking about and you'll find out why that'd never happen, hell in LA alone they have I think 175 people awaiting death row who will in fact never come face to face with the lethel injection because it's just a silly little threat used against them yet never taken action towards those people.
 
Kreskin
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by SaintLucifer

Quote: Originally Posted by Riyko

I just wanted to say this really quickly O.J. Simpson admitted to the crimes he did, but they can't retry him for it because of the double jeopardy, but if they found new evidence that can point the murder on him they can try him for a lesser charge like manslaughter.

Excuting him won't bring back the people's lives he took without remorse and keeping him in prison will make him think about what he did and he'll have to live with all of those murders until the day he dies. just my two cents

Under my fascist system OJ would be quickly snatched out from his bed in the middle of the night, taken to an unpopulated area and shot in the back of his head. The only news would be his sudden disappearance. Fascists do not waste the public's time with needless trials. They look out for the State which in this case OJ has clearly acted against.

Whatever made me see a correlation between your vision and the actions of the government of North Korea? This really clears it up.
 

Similar Threads

6
54
Yay, or Nay... Death Penalty.
by Libra Girl | May 9th, 2007
88
Death Penalty
by westmanguy | Feb 10th, 2007
66
The Death Penalty
by missile | Jun 11th, 2005
67
Death Penalty
by Jay | Jun 6th, 2005
no new posts