Death Penalty

View Poll Results: Choose:
In certain, rare circumstance, I believe the death penalty SHOULD be an option 14 56.00%
I think in absolutely NO circumstances, whatsoever the death penalty should be an option 11 44.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Tonington
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

Tonington

You are arguing law not humanity. If you had a hand in the deliberate voting for the death penalty to be acted against another - even within the legal limits of a series of trials - you would still have the
weight of responsibility as a member of the jury.

It can never be eraced, especially once the death penalty is carried out. It affects many people in terrible ways - whether "on the side of the law" or not.

If you killed another in a car accident without fault, would you not carry the burden even in innocence?

I'm sure I would carry a burden. It's all speculation as to how I would feel were I a juror and had the lamentable task of deciding anothers fate. The only solace I could take is that this persons fate was sealed when they committed the crime, if that is indeed what the evidence proved. As is often the case, the decision isn't easy I'm sure. You have to be able to rationalize in these cases. I'm a member of this society, it is my duty to weigh the evidence, it is my duty to rationalize what recomendations I would make to the Judge, and the fact that I am a juror is up to random chance, at least as far as the selection process.

I say now, that in cases like Picton, Bernardo, Olson, Legere, McGray, Lepine and most recently Kimveer Gill, I would recomend a death sentence. I don't think of them as particularly humane individuals, certainly not in societies best interests to keep around.

I also think people like Rozsko who kill police officers don't deserve to live either. I can't justify allowing members of my society with such contempt and malice to be allowed to live, of course given that they are proven so.
 
look3467
Conservative
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

Tonington

You are arguing law not humanity. If you had a hand in the deliberate voting for the death penalty to be acted against another - even within the legal limits of a series of trials - you would still have the
weight of responsibility as a member of the jury.

It can never be eraced, especially once the death penalty is carried out. It affects many people in terrible ways - whether "on the side of the law" or not.

If you killed another in a car accident without fault, would you not carry the burden even in innocence?

Their is guilt because we may not understand what happens to us after death.

If I were to tell you that I believe that at death, one would be face to face with Jesus, recognize who Jesus is, then all that has ever happened on earth is erased.

The very fact that your life was required, ended the privilege of living in the land of the living flesh.
Ecc 6:6 Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

All ends in death! For the rich, poor, the good the bad and the ugly.

The only thing that makes life worth living, is the good we do as having God in us.

Peace>>>AJ
 
Curiosity
#63
Tonington

Good reply as usual and I expected it coming from you - but you have the odds on your side that you will never have to make a decision over another's life no matter what the cirumstances.

Even an accidental fatality in which you played a primary role is a toss of the dice.

It is our protection so we may go on with our lives never fearing the impossibilities .... and expecting our days to continue without much strain on our conscience ..... it is what keeps us going ....

But....the impact of a juror's decision does stay on... becomes part of the life of the jury....even when adjudged a righteous "putting out".....it stays.

I hope you never have to weigh it's results in your heart ever. For those who do live through this experience, I hope they are strong and place their faith in the "right" of the law.
 
Tonington
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

Tonington

Good reply as usual and I expected it coming from you - but you have the odds on your side that you will never have to make a decision over another's life no matter what the cirumstances.

Even an accidental fatality in which you played a primary role is a toss of the dice.

It is our protection so we may go on with our lives never fearing the impossibilities .... and expecting our days to continue without much strain on our conscience ..... it is what keeps us going ....

But....the impact of a juror's decision does stay on... becomes part of the life of the jury....even when adjudged a righteous "putting out".....it stays.

I hope you never have to weigh it's results in your heart ever. For those who do live through this experience, I hope they are strong and place their faith in the "right" of the law.

It's unfortunate how some things can come down to a simple roll of the dice. The inevitable, "Why me?" is something most have had to deal with at some point, I'm not immune to that.

In an unrelated matter I had to deal with that very question, and when I look back now I still have doubts over what I know is true. When I talk about what happened with my close friends and familly, they always tell me things like, "I won't let you blame yourself", others sometimes say "Why didn't you persue it further?" The incident was so upsetting, it's very hard to look back without being overwhelmed by all the circumstances.

At least with something like a jury, theres an extra level of disconnect. It's not quite the same as a direct interaction like aggrssor and victim experience. Hopefully I never have to play the hand of juror. Who knows, as a juror I might have some resolve as a result of my own experience, or I might be unfavourable because of it. It would be so much better if we weren't capable of such horrible things, wishful thinking right?
 
AndyF
#65
Curiosity:

Good points.

I would like to add that it is not well known that we create non-citizens by the very process of the judicial system. Theoretically and actually, any citizen who has his rights removed is a non-citizen by definition of most constitutions. The constitution's purpose is to define the rights of a citizen. There is no definition of second class citizens in it, either you have full rights with full enjoyment of it's privledges or your a non-citizen.

A person with a criminal record and restrictions imposed on his activity is by definition a non-citizen. Forcing this constitutional travesty sets a dangerous precedent in today's terrorist world. Any terrorist could enlist any of these people on the grounds of their (mostly unrealized) state and that they have no moral bounds to abide by the country's law and that would be true.

It sets in motion another paradox. The post offender conscripted in war fights for lessor rights than his neighbour, and he does so in this non-citizen state. Restrictions to enlistment to the armed forces are hypocritically reinstated in war time, and seen by the benevolent society as a privledge to the offender, when in reality it wishes to take every measure to cover it's ass in this precarious position it finds itself. The offender is to put on hold all realities of his state to come to the aid of his society that offers so much. The thought of all these "non-citizens" walking the streets among their spouses while others in trenches defend their lessor rights is too much for society to bare. The enemy could just as well supply the rights that he could never hope to regain.

The remedy for this problem is simple. An offender should no longer be considered a write off, and the remedies applied seen as a process with a goal of restoring an offender's full status. All applications forced on an offending citizen should have a finite purpose, and that would include even execution if legal, finality in the true sense. A person should be considered corrected at some time in the process, and re-instated with full credentials and full rights restored.

All this is in keeping with Scripture and in the spirit of fraternal correction and the realization we are all fallible. It also mirrors the unital family, where the siblings who offend may be exiled(thrown out) , have privledges revoked, or any punitive measure applied. But one thing that never is considered, and that is the removal of his family name. He still remains as the "Smith" citizen in his family, and the family is too eager to see him return to the family unit.

There is a pardon process that a post-offender can apply for. It has an aura of vendetta around it and comes with a price tag of an astronomical price of over 300$, claimed to be "admin" fees, and comes with no guarantee of success. Nor does it do what it claims. It does not remove a person's file from the system, it just sends it further back into a more inconvenient drawer of that system. It is supposed to provide for a self imposed restriction of the judicial system that prevents it from acting out it's perpetual aggression to the offender, but does not do what he really would hope for, reconciliation. In a sense it only buys reprieve time.

AndyF
Last edited by AndyF; Feb 9th, 2007 at 03:00 PM..
 
hermanntrude
#66
surely this is nonsense. theives still get arrested when they get out of jail and steal again.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrude View Post

i thought you were a christian look?

ever remember this?:

"thou shalt not kill"

That is non-specific: does it mean do not kill ants, aardvarks, virii, etc? Does it mean do not kill anyone? and so on.
What is specific is written in the Bible also: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by look3467 View Post

Aspirin is a relief medication, not a cure! Well, does it work?

Peace>>>AJ

More specifically, does it work as a cure for cancer?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#69
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

.......I say now, that in cases like Picton, Bernardo, Olson, Legere, McGray, Lepine and most recently Kimveer Gill, I would recomend a death sentence. I don't think of them as particularly humane individuals, certainly not in societies best interests to keep around.

I also think people like Rozsko who kill police officers don't deserve to live either. I can't justify allowing members of my society with such contempt and malice to be allowed to live, of course given that they are proven so.

Quite right, Ton. If it were me, I would not hesitate nor would I feel any compunction about pulling the plug on people like Olson and Pickton. I don't believe in demons so I would quite likely be fine afterwards, and possibly even good that I may have given some victims' families relief or some sense of justice having been done, Canadians relief from paying $85K+ per subhuman, etc.
 
hermanntrude
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

That is non-specific: does it mean do not kill ants, aardvarks, virii, etc? Does it mean do not kill anyone? and so on.
What is specific is written in the Bible also: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

good point. seems i read details into it which weren't there. I've always thought of killing people as wrong. even if they ARE bad people. otherwise i would have done a lot of killing
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by westmanguy View Post

so we don't judge justice on trying to make no errors. There will be errors, but those lives are given for that well-being of society, meaning real criminals are put away too.

Just keep the gears rolling and ignore the few innocent one's who get smushed in the cogs during the process?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

Just keep the gears rolling and ignore the few innocent one's who get smushed in the cogs during the process?

.... and ignore the effects of those innocents' deaths on their relatives and friends, as well?
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#73
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

.... and ignore the effects of those innocents' deaths on their relatives and friends, as well?

Yeah, but according to Westman, it is done with the best intentions... sory about that.
 
AndyF
#74
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrude View Post

surely this is nonsense. theives still get arrested when they get out of jail and steal again.

While carrying out his second crime, he does so has a non-citizen, as society refused to fully reinstate him the first time around. This assuming that he paid his debt to society as stated by society's representative the magistrate, but known residual punishments not mentioned in sentencing are still being applied to him.

Every Canadian is revoked the privledge and the inalienable right to know all that is required by him to reconcile to society. By this proper act of society, it would show recognition that it has responsibilities and concerns of all it's citizens, just as the father would have in his unital family. The offender at the trial is told what he needs to do, but that is always an incomplete list, and is deliberately never officially told that he has no rights to enlistment,public jobs, and a whole slew of undercover applications. These are intended as unexpected additional "jabs" that he must endure.

It falls on the principles of what "stuff" your really made of, and in Canada the citizens say that offenders are write offs including first timers.

(Of course personal friends and family exempted if perchance they find themselves making any errors. As long has people are strangers, then what goes on here can be ignored. Just reading the public mindset.)

AndyF
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#75
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

Yeah, but according to Westman, it is done with the best intentions... sory about that.

lol Oh, I guess if it's all well intended that makes up for the grief and death of innocents, then.
 
hermanntrude
#76
i see. no MORAL bounds to co-operate.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#77
???
 
hermanntrude
#78
I thought that when andy wrote his post, he meant that when someone became a non-citizen, they actually had no legal obligation to follow the laws, since a non-citizen didnt come under the system. but he meant that some people might suggest to them that they have no MORAL obligation.

my bad
 
AndyF
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrude View Post

i see. no MORAL bounds to co-operate.

You got a lot more will power than I.

If it were my son pleading for me to get help convincing someone for a second chance, I think I would be morally bound to cooperate, and some would call me weak-kneed in this I suppose. But of course the Christian is obligated to take the next step, and here he has no choice, and no one said it was easy. He needs to accept the whole nation as his brother,sister,father,mother. Doing so he makes the solemn promise to not limit his mercy to biological relations, but to the whole world.

AndyF
 
hermanntrude
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

More specifically, does it work as a cure for cancer?

cancer isn't sentient. I don't think the metaphor applies
 
Alexander
#81
Why do people think that the death penalty should never be applied? Think you are going to kill someone or a family member of yours will kill someone? Should Hitler have got to live despite everything he did?
 
hermanntrude
#82
Quote: Originally Posted by Alexander View Post

Why do people think that the death penalty should never be applied? Think you are going to kill someone or a family member of yours will kill someone? Should Hitler have got to live despite everything he did?

yes. I honestly believe hitler should have been allowed to live. although he did us a favour killing himself
 
Alexander
#83
So you hate Jews?
 
hermanntrude
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by Alexander View Post

So you hate Jews?

that's a rather crazy conclusion to jump to. I try not to hate at all. I just think that killing Hitler, or anyone, carries a burden greater than the cost of putting him in prison for the rest of his life.
 
Alexander
#85
Being put in prison is just as barbaric as being killed. I would rather die than live the rest of my life in a jail cell. Now my conclusion is jumping to you favoring torture over murder?
 
hermanntrude
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by Alexander View Post

Being put in prison is just as barbaric as being killed. I would rather die than live the rest of my life in a jail cell.

say that when someone's about to put thousands of volts through you.

I don't prefer torture. I just don't think killing people is a good thing to do. especially in the name of 'justice'
 
china
Conservative
#87
look 3467

Aspirin is a relief medication, not a cure! Well, does it work?

Peace>>>AJ

You know that ,I know that ,but do they know ??????????
 
look3467
Conservative
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrude View Post

good point. seems i read details into it which weren't there. I've always thought of killing people as wrong. even if they ARE bad people. otherwise i would have done a lot of killing

I agree with you that killing is something that we good folk dont do.

You have to understand that the Ten Commandments were first given to add degree to sin.
After that: then the judgment.
Then: the penalty of death.
Then: payment for the transgression of it.

It can be looked at as four steps:

1. Introduction of the law
2. Weight of the law upon our shoulders
3. Penalty for the transgression
4. Payment required for the transgression and forgiveness.

So, the bible says that if we break one commandment, we are guilty of breaking all the commandments.
So, what is the difference between stealing and killing?



No one comamment is above the other.


No difference because they are both looked at as sin.

Sin than is a transgression of the law.

Who than can keep the whole law? I mean if I break one, I am guilty of breaking them all right?
I give up! Id say. Who then can be saved? No one: according to the law.

If I steal, I am guilty of killing also. If I dishonor my parents I am guilty of stealing and killing also.

My point is this: That to obey the commandments for salvation one must place ones faith on the one that fulfilled them all to a T for our sakes and took the penalty of death away from us.

So killing must be in the heart of the evil doer, and not in the heart of the good folk.

For us good folk, killing is not in our hearts to do.

But, there it is, But, a society has a right to institute the death penalty for the sake of eradicating an evil deed which is like a cancer to the body.

To imprison it in the body runs the risk of escaping and doing further damage to the body.

The more evil cancer cells running amuck in the body, the sooner death will come to that body.

Peace>>>AJ
 
westmanguy
#89
In Canada are laws are to lenient. (another reason I support Harper). Our system aids the criminal not the victim. Its supposed to be equal. But I end up always seeing a lean to the criminals side with petty sentences.

If victims are constantly denied rightful justice, then we will see vigilante justice.

Ok, say this. If someone murdered my mother, and they got something like 5 years. If I had the oppurtunity I would probably murder that criminal.

I am serious. If justice wasn't served for me, and I had a chance to serve it, I might just go through with that.

Apply that to yourselves, if your closest loved one was killed, and they got a petty sentence, would you not kill them if the oppurtunity was there?

I think ALOT of people would literally consider it.

Death penalty saves alot of time and money. And serves proper justice in some circumstances.

Rate now our "judges" are dispicable.. not all, but quite a few. I read weekly about a family devestated and breaking down in court, because of leanient sentences.

This is a lil off topic, but sort of the same branch of topic: our nation does not punish our criminals at appropriate rates.

Now in the USA, they are sometimes a bit over-the-top with sentences, but to me, they are fair, with there criminals. We are lenient on our criminals.
 

Similar Threads

251
New Mexico Abolishes Death Penalty.
by SirJosephPorter | Mar 27th, 2009
78
Canada won't oppose death penalty..
by Kreskin | Nov 6th, 2007
54
Yay, or Nay... Death Penalty.
by Libra Girl | May 9th, 2007
66
The Death Penalty
by missile | Jun 11th, 2005
67
Death Penalty
by Jay | Jun 6th, 2005