Death Penalty

View Poll Results: Should the Death Penalty reinstated in Canada?
I want the Death Penalty reinstated in Canada 10 37.04%
I do not want the Death Penalty reinstated in Canada 16 59.26%
Undecided 1 3.70%
I am Non-Canadian and support the Death Penalty 0 0%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

Jay
#1
With Homolka in the news again, these sorts of things always bring up the death penalty, and mixed feelings.

If there is an old thread on this subject already, I apologize, but I would like to hear views from Canadians, and non-Canadians alike around here, about their feelings on the subject.

I will start.

I am pro death penalty for capital crimes such as murder in the first degree and rape (for repeat offenders). I feel that rehabilitation has its purposes in the ďcriminal justice systemĒ, but under these crimes it isnít warranted because of the nature of the offences.
I donít care about deterrent as the motivation for allowing these types of sentences to exist, as Iím more concerned with the idea of justice, and to me justice in these circumstances is not having to deal with those types of offenders (for 25 years and the money associated with it) and the satisfaction of knowing they donít exist anymore and neither will the next people who commit these crimes.

Of course I support the appeal process, and I do not wish for the not guilty to be put to death for crimes they simply did not commit, and I would like to see steps included that cut that risk to nil.
 
no1important
#2
I do not support it generally, but I would not shed a tear if it was brought back for the likes of Holmolka, Bernardo, Clifford Olsen and Willy Pickton and I am sure there are others. But there really is not much evidence to support it being a deterrent though.

here or here or here

"A number of papers have recently appeared claiming to show that in the United States executions deter serious crime. There are many statistical problems with the data analyses reported. This paper addresses the problem of "influence," which occurs when a very small and atypical fraction of the data dominate the statistical results. The number of executions by state and year is the key explanatory variable, and most states in most years execute no one. A very few states in particular years execute more than 5 individuals. Such values represent about 1% of the available observations. Re-analyses of the existing data are presented showing that claims of deterrence are a statistical artifact of this anomalous 1%."
 
Jay
#3
Well the poll thing didn't work out as intended....
 
Reverend Blair
#4
Killing is wrong. Not really that complicated.

There is also our long record of imprisoning the innocent.

Then there's the matter of it costing more to carry out a state-sanctioned murder in the US than it does to keep somebody imprisoned for life. That wouldn't be any different up here.

Capital punishment is a bad idea. It's easy to get carried away when we see monsters like Homolka and Picton, but those monsters came from someplace and we'd do way better to keep them around and see what the hell made them. Maybe we can manage not to create as many if we do that.
 
Jo Canadian
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

I do not support it generally, but I would not shed a tear if it was brought back for the likes of Holmolka, Bernardo, Clifford Olsen and Willy Pickton and I am sure there are others. But there really is not much evidence to support it being a deterrent though.

I agree with you on that one. It may not be a deterrant, but pragmatically it would save us a heck of a lot of tax money on feeding and confining people of that ilk.
 
Reverend Blair
#6
It doesn't save money though, Jo. With all of the appeals and court costs, it costs more to kill somebody than it dopes to keep them in jail.
 
no1important
#7
Yes, Rev it could be easy to get carried away but what about the likes of Olsen, Holmolka that are multiple killers and confess?

I would prefer we not have it, because I think state sanctioned killing is wrong. But for Clifford Olsen would not an exception be warrented? But then where does it end? So I dunno.

I do know since I grew up in Lower mainland during Olsens' rampage I still get shivers hearing the name Clifford Olsen.
 
Reverend Blair
#8
Who'd off Queen Lizzy?

The thing is that it doesn't just get brought back for Olsen and Homolka. It gets brought back for the plethora of innocents we've convicted. It eventually gets used against those who cannot afford better lawyers. It gets used on the mentally deficient.

Steve Earle has a song called Billy Austin. Listen to that and see if you still feel the same way.
 
mrmom2
#9
Kill'em all the bastards :P
 
no1important
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Who'd off Queen Lizzy?

The thing is that it doesn't just get brought back for Olsen and Homolka. It gets brought back for the plethora of innocents we've convicted. It eventually gets used against those who cannot afford better lawyers. It gets used on the mentally deficient.

Steve Earle has a song called Billy Austin. Listen to that and see if you still feel the same way.

No one would off Lizzy, I would hope.

Too many innocents would be executed, if it was brought back full or part time. 1 innocent killed is too many, thats why we are better off not to have it. It is better to be safe than sorry. But still on a personnel level, I would like to see Olsen. Bernardo et al hung.

Look at Illinois a while back. They had 13 innocent people on death row. here or here
 
Reverend Blair
#11
You can't bring it back on a case by case basis though. If it comes back it will be for everybody convicted of a certain level of crime.

On a personal level I'd like to string up the guy across the street. So what? The law has to be the same for everybody, so we have no death penalty.
 
Toro
#12
I've never underrstood why the same conservatives who tell you how inefficient and fat and lazy the government is can turn around and tell you that the government is ruthlessly efficient when it comes to justice. The government cannot deliver the mail, but it can, without doubt, determine who lives and who dies. There is nothing more big government than the death penalty. We should always err on the side of caution. It is better that a guilty person walk than an innocent person die. I'm against the death penalty.
 
The Philosopher
#13
I disagree with the death penalty being used in a democratic society. Fear mechanisms should not be used by the government, it is anti-democratic. Although they are trying to deter criminals for acting any type of punishment ends up detering EVERYONE from doing things.

People are not supposed to fear breaking the law they are supposed to respect the law. The best example of this is drivers. You have people who respect the law who drive casually. Then you have people who fear the law, they drive as fast as they can, but never over it, always looking to make sure they are over it.

If capitol punishment is the ultimate form of a deterrent then it should be the FIRST thing to be removed. Deterrents do not deter criminals they only deter people from being democratic.

I am all for life sentences for truly absurd and rehabilitation for others who can be saved.
 
Twila
#14
I'm all for the death penalty for convicted Serial rapists/ killers.

I'm all for no route to appeal for those particular individuals. I have no interest in deterring them. My only interest is in removing them from society and removing their ability to enjoy the crimes they've committed. I abhor the idea of them sitting in solitary reliving their crimes with enjoyment. I abhor taxes being spent on their "confinement".

No1. I hear the Clifford STILL writes letters to the families of his victims.....it seems it's with in his rights to do so........
 
missile
Conservative
#15
There has never been one case of a death penalty being carried out and the offender killing again. Bring the death penalty back and speed up the execution process-one appeal allowed. The other bad joke in our legal system is the Young Offenders Act;also,that should be abolished.
 
Reverend Blair
#16
[sarcasm]Yeah, and we should bring back floggings. Especially for recalcitrant workers and women of ill repute. We'll learn them. [/sarcasm]
 
Jo Canadian
#17
Quote:

I'm all for the death penalty for convicted Serial rapists/ killers.

I'm all that for the actual convicted (without a doubt) killers. But if a serial rapist that hasn't killed anyone should just be forced to sterilize his goods and become a Eunich.
 
missile
Conservative
#18
Re: The young offenders Act. I want to see their names printed. Why protect the little darlings when every kid in town knows who they are ,but not the general public?
 
Twila
#19
Jo Canadian. THink that'd work? Serial rapists are not doing it because they enjoy rough sex. I think that whether or not their equipment worked they'd still feel the need to sexually degrade. humiliate. and hurt others......how about we just opt for frontal labotomy or remove some of the innocent animals from the labs and replace them with these people........
 
MMMike
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Who'd off Queen Lizzy?

The thing is that it doesn't just get brought back for Olsen and Homolka. It gets brought back for the plethora of innocents we've convicted. It eventually gets used against those who cannot afford better lawyers. It gets used on the mentally deficient.

Steve Earle has a song called Billy Austin. Listen to that and see if you still feel the same way.

Actually agree with Rev here. I have no problem with the thought of capital punishment. In fact, I think the likes of Bernardo & Homolka deserve a slow, painful death. You can't make up laws on a case by case basis. To support the death penalty you have to accept that innocent people will die, and that the death penalty will be disporportionately applied to poor black men with bad lawyers.

I used to support capital punishment whole heartedly until I read that book by Barry Sheck (?) on the Innocence project. A real eye-opener!
 
I think not
#21
No one has the right to take away ones life, be it an individual or state.
 
I think not
#22
No one has the right to take away ones life, be it an individual or state.
 
Twila
#23
Is there no way that the courts can differentiate between seriel killers and crimes of passion/ or 1 off's?

There is a science behind serial killer profiling. There are definate patterns and characteristics of this type of person.

If we can make laws that state a 13 yr old cannot consent to sex but a 14yr old can then why not differentiate between somebody of pyschotic disposition with 3 or more kills under his belt and a husband who killed his wife in a fit of passion?
 
Twila
#24
ITN: What would you like done to these people?
 
I think not
#25
Well you see the problem I have is that I dont believe anyone has the right to take away someone elses life be it an individual or state.

In my opinion, anyone that commits murder is not a mentally stable person. Under any circumstances. They should all be treated as patients with a mental problem. If they cannot be helped then they need to removed from society, permanently.

However I myself have said repeatedly for certain murders, that the person that has commited them should die a slow agonizing death. Thats mostly anger, not reason.
 
Jo Canadian
#26
Quote:

......how about we just opt for frontal labotomy or remove some of the innocent animals from the labs and replace them with these people....


Hey I think you're on to something here....Besides when I mentioned castration usually the hormones go out the window too with that, since they are usually the cause of imbalance. However the lab animal replacement program is something to look into eh? My only other alternative would be forcing them to get sex changes and staying in prison to placate all the lonley boys there for their entire term.
 
Twila
#27
Quote:

My only other alternative would be forcing them to get sex changes and staying in prison to placate all the lonley boys there for their entire term.

Hmmm. pimped by the gov't. has a pleasant.....tweak to it.
 
Twila
#28
I'd change my mind about the death penalty sentence on Seriel's if I could be guaranteed that they would never leave a prison and society was able to get something back from them...
 
bluealberta
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

I've never underrstood why the same conservatives who tell you how inefficient and fat and lazy the government is can turn around and tell you that the government is ruthlessly efficient when it comes to justice. The government cannot deliver the mail, but it can, without doubt, determine who lives and who dies. There is nothing more big government than the death penalty. We should always err on the side of caution. It is better that a guilty person walk than an innocent person die. I'm against the death penalty.

Toro, your comment about the mail is not true, and no, I don't work for the mail service.

However, while I agree with your comment about erring on the side of caution, with the built in reviews of cases, and newer technology such as DNA analysis, etc, the chance of an innocent person being put to death is so small as to be immaterial.

The persons who are known to be guilty, such as the Holmolkas, Bernardos, Olsens, etc., should be put to death, they have no contribution to society and never will. At some point, we must acknowledge there are evil and horrible people in this world, and to put them to death is not a bad thing. What is bad, is that these people have killed, tortured, raped, etc. other innocent people before society gets a chance to pass judgement, and lets never forget the innocent victims of these monsters.

In the past where the technology was not there to determine absolute guilt or innocence, I would agree that the death penalty was not appropriate. Given the technology today, though, the death penalty in Canada should be reinstated for the most heinous of crimes. Anyone who has kids and has seen the crimes some of these monsters have committed against kids would not disagree.
 
Toro
#30
The point about the mail was rhetorical, not something I necessarily believe.

I have a child. If someone committed such a crime against my young son, not only would I want that person killed, but I would want to do it myself and I'd want to drag it out in the most painful manner possible. But that's wrong. Those are my emotions speaking. I understand why you'd want to put Olsen and Homolka to death. If they got their commupence in prison, wouldn't bother me a sec. I understand there is a large emotional component of justice, but the law should be written based on reason. Rev also made a good point earlier when he said that the death penalty would not just be applied to the Olsens and Homolkas of the world. Its easy to point those people out in retrorpsect, but remember, the RCMP paid Olsen $100,000 to turn himself in. If they hadn't done that, who knows who they would have wound up charging.

I'm not so certain about the science of evidence. It certainly helps but it is not infallible. And until it is infallible, I don't think we shouldn't even be having this discussion.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm hardly a bleeding-heart. I think the faint hope clause is a joke for example. But innocent people have been put to death in the past and it will happen in the future. You asked about children, let me ask you this - what if it was your child who was innocent and put to death by the state?
 

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
88
Death Penalty
by westmanguy | Feb 10th, 2007
66
The Death Penalty
by missile | Jun 11th, 2005