New Mexico Abolishes Death Penalty.

[Francis2004]

I thought my answer was implied when I said even one or two executions in Canada will be scandalous. But if you want direct answer then yes. Any executions n Canada would be an indication of Canadian love affair with death penalty.

It is not really how many executions are carried out, but what is peoples’ attitude towards death penalty. If people support death penalty by a big margin, that can be viewed as love affair with the death penalty, even if no executions are carried out.

And for the record, I am not a critic of USA, but a critic of death penalty.

SJP, for the record, you and i have discussed this point before. But here is the cost, as per the attached document, from the State of California between incarceration and the death Penalty.

The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life.
Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state’s executions. (L.A. Times, March 6, 2005)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf

California had the most Death Row inmates.. More then Texas..

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sir Francis, 250 million $ per execution? I had no idea. I knew the costs to administer death penalty were substantial, I had no idea they were astronomical.

So in 250 million $ how many prisoners can California keep locked up for life without parole? Even if one assumes the cost of 100,000 $ per year and each prisoner lives for 100 years in the prison, that comes to 25 criminals, which can be locked up for life in 250 million $.

What some people wouldn’t pay for revenge (and for Biblical convictions).

Also, I didn’t know that California had more criminal son death row than Texas. But I think Texas executes more.

 

[JLM]

The costs of executions are just an administrative thing, the execution can actually be done for just a few dollars. The important thing about executions is not if or how many, but to make sure the proper people are executed. Like maybe Scott Peterson and a few others should be done forthwith and that would start reducing overall costs. A lot of people like to throw in a red herring by bringing up Milgaard, Marshall, Truscott etc. but it has little to do with the argument of executing "guilty" people.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

A lot of people like to throw in a red herring by bringing up Milgaard, Marshall, Truscott etc. but it has little to do with the argument of executing "guilty" people.

JLM, it has everything to do with executing ‘guilty’ people. If Canada had had death penalty at the time when Milgaard, Marshall etc. were found guilty, they would have been executed. Later when it turned out that they were not really guilty, it would be too late.

The state cannot give them back their life. If state cannot give anybody, life, it stands to reason that it should not give anybody death either. Death penalty is the final act, which cannot be undone.

In fact, in Britain it was precisely this argument (a couple of innocent men were executed) which finally persuaded people to get rid of death penalty. In this respect, Britain was way ahead of Canada; they abolished death penalty in 1965.

 

[ironsides]

Could it be that the larger states with a larger brain trust have a better method for handling convicted murders etc.? What makes banning the death penalty the right thing to do, just because a minority speak out against it does not make it right. I would respect a answer from someone who said it is a sin to kill and against one of Gods Commandments (I do not argue ones belief), but just to say it is wrong with nothing tangible supporting that decision. Right now the death penalty is a method to remove the convicted permanently from society. The guilty are not worthy of any more taxpayer support.

By the way, Israel was a good example but I don't know if having a death penalty that can be turned on or off like a water faucet would help as a deterrent to crime.

 

[JLM]

A lot of people like to throw in a red herring by bringing up Milgaard, Marshall, Truscott etc. but it has little to do with the argument of executing "guilty" people.

JLM, it has everything to do with executing ‘guilty’ people. If Canada had had death penalty at the time when Milgaard, Marshall etc. were found guilty, they would have been executed. Later when it turned out that they were not really guilty, it would be too late.

The state cannot give them back their life. If state cannot give anybody, life, it stands to reason that it should not give anybody death either. Death penalty is the final act, which cannot be undone.

In fact, in Britain it was precisely this argument (a couple of innocent men were executed) which finally persuaded people to get rid of death penalty. In this respect, Britain was way ahead of Canada; they abolished death penalty in 1965.

Probably wrong, Canada had the death penalty when Truscott was convicted. I don't recall the details of the Marshall case, but Milgaard's conviction was due to a "kangaroo court"- the one witness that could have exonerated Milgaard was disallowed, so obviously quite a few people knew of Milgaard's innocense. Using your argument, you'd never allow open heart surgery because a few patients don't make it.

 

[petros]

due to a "kangaroo court"

The legal system has more kangaroos than the outback. It's a huge joke on the people and doesn't work to benefit the people.

 

[ironsides]

Look, even in California which has the death penalty Charles Manson is still breathing and peacefully getting old. Jeffrey Dahmer recieved life and was murdered by fellow inmates in 1994. Point being that he outlived his victoms by 16 years. (for those who forget In 1992 he confessed to killing, dismembering, and, in some cases, cannibalizing 16 young men, chiefly near his Milwaukee home.) Why should people like this live?

 

[JLM]

The legal system has more kangaroos than the outback. It's a huge joke on the people and doesn't work to benefit the people.

Not only kangaroos but kangaroos in the bottom I.Q. bracket.

 

[JLM]

Right on Ironsides.

 

[petros]

Look, even in California which has the death penalty Charles Manson is still breathing and peacefully getting old.

Because Charlie Manson is a scientific asset. He is the most studied criminal in the system by far. He makes them money instead of costing to incarcerate. Death penalty is also handed out by how much the victims were worth to society. Think about it.

Not only kangaroos but kangaroos in the bottom I.Q. bracket.

But you and I aren't kangaroos. They are members of another society called the Bar. It is one society managing another. As a professional I have to join associations and societies if I want to work in my chosen profession. The Law Society is not your society. You aren't a member.

 

[Colpy]

Look, even in California which has the death penalty Charles Manson is still breathing and peacefully getting old. Jeffrey Dahmer recieved life and was murdered by fellow inmates in 1994. Point being that he outlived his victoms by 16 years. (for those who forget In 1992 he confessed to killing, dismembering, and, in some cases, cannibalizing 16 young men, chiefly near his Milwaukee home.) Why should people like this live?

In the middle 60s the Death Penalty was banned by the US Supreme Court as cruel and unusual punishment.

Charlie Manson was arrested in 1969 and tried in 1970......he was sentenced when there WAS no death penalty.

Unfortunately.

In the later 70s Gary Gilmore was arrested for murder and insisted on execution. The Supreme Court overturned their previous decision, and re-instated Capital Punishment.....Gilmor was executed by firing squad, as he wished.

(from memory)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In the later 70s Gary Gilmore was arrested for murder and insisted on execution. The Supreme Court overturned their previous decision, and re-instated Capital Punishment.....Gilmor was executed by firing squad, as he wished.

(from memory)

Your memory serves you right, Colpy. I was living in Utah at that time. It happened in Utah.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why should people like this live?

Ironsides, the right question to ask is, does the government have a right to kill ‘people like this’ kill its own citizens? My answer is an absolute no. No matter what the crimes, government has no business getting involved in killing its own citizens.

Every human being has an inalienable right to life (this comes from Darwin, not the Bible). The fact that some humans ignore that and kill their fellow human beings does not mean that government has to follow the example of murderers and become a murderer itself.

 

[RanchHand]

The death penalty as implemented in the US is far superior form of punishment to what you have in Canada. There are 3,300 people on death row in the US. Last year 38 were executed. The remaining 3,262 fiends go to bed every night with the knowledge that there's' a distinct possibility that they are on borrowed time. I have no problem at all viewing the 1 in 100 who were executed as examples to the others on death row. Let them have nightmares about it for the rest of their life.
Does Canada even have life without parole? I only looked as far as Wikipedia but it almost looks like there's no such thing. Even Canadian cannibals get off easy.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What makes banning the death penalty the right thing to do

Every human being has an inalienable right to life. That is what makes banning death penalty the right thing to do.

Right now the death penalty is a method to remove the convicted permanently from society. The guilty are not worthy of any more taxpayer support.

Right now death penalty is a way to take revenge, to satisfy the bloodthirst generated by the Bible (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, the Old Testament Law), nothing more. There is no evidence it acts as deterrent to crime (USA has one of the highest crime rates, murder rates in the developed world, it is also alone in having death penalty), it is actually more expensive than life without parole. The only reason I can think why death penalty is legal in USA is a desire of revenge and Biblical (Old testament) bloodthirst.

 

[ironsides]

Every human being has an inalienable right to life. That is what makes banning death penalty the right thing to do.


[SIZE=+0]In most cases I would agree with you, but when one takes a life or multiple lives, that person deserves to have their right to life forfeited.



Right now death penalty is a way to take revenge, to satisfy the bloodthirst generated by the Bible (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, the Old Testament Law), nothing more. There is no evidence it acts as deterrent to crime (USA has one of the highest crime rates, murder rates in the developed world, it is also alone in having death penalty), it is actually more expensive than life without parole. The only reason I can think why death penalty is legal in USA is a desire of revenge and Biblical (Old testament) bloodthirst.

You are right, in one respect it is a form of revenge, and it may not be deterrent to crime (we do not have any statistics of those who did not murder someone out of fear of the death penalty). Call it what you will, most of the time it gives closure to the aggrieved families and that alone is worth it.
[/SIZE]

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Closure is subjective, ironsides. In Canada when the criminal is convicted and finally locked up, it gives closure to the family. So it does (I assume) in the states which do not have the death penalty).

 

[ironsides]

Closure, that is a big question hope we never have to know how it feels. What ever the answer is, it doesn't matter who or where you come from.

 

[JLM]

The death penalty as implemented in the US is far superior form of punishment to what you have in Canada. There are 3,300 people on death row in the US. Last year 38 were executed. The remaining 3,262 fiends go to bed every night with the knowledge that there's' a distinct possibility that they are on borrowed time. I have no problem at all viewing the 1 in 100 who were executed as examples to the others on death row. Let them have nightmares about it for the rest of their life.
Does Canada even have life without parole? I only looked as far as Wikipedia but it almost looks like there's no such thing. Even Canadian cannibals get off easy.

You're right on Ranch hand. It's so ironic, that it should be evil to kill the same people who would kill us at the bat of an eye while we are minding our business doing something as simple as walking down the street or eating in a restaurant. As far as "the Government" killing people that is nonsense, "the Government" is just a nebulous term for the poplulation of which I am one and I have no problem at all "deep sixing" the likes of Clifford Olson or Karla Homolka.