Thank you, China.
Good to see you weighing in on this debate with some careful, well thought out opinions.
I for one am glad you chose to share them with us.
If you should travel to another forum, please don't say you came from here.
Thanks.
It's time to bring the death penalty back!
- Thread starter Simpleton
- Start date
Thank you, China.
Good to see you weighing in on this debate with some careful, well thought out opinions.
I for one am glad you chose to share them with us.
If you should travel to another forum, please don't say you came from here.
Thanks.
I struggle with this issue.
Others have brought up cases like Milgaard and Truscott... men who should never have been convicted yet would have been executed if capital punishment hadn't been suspended. At the same time, I see the Cilfford Olsen's of the world and see nothing redeeming in letting them live. I see cases where police officers are shot in the line of duty and have a hard time convincing myself their murderers deserve to live. Cases of repeat pedophiles who damage and destroy innocent young lives who in most cases are too young to understand what is happening to them.
The best I can come up with is that capital punishment should be reinstituted but with very stringent guidelines. The circumstantial cases shouldn't be considered for more than life without parole. Capital punishment should require DNA evidence, photographic, multiple corroborating witnesses or the like. Guilty verdicts require "beyond a reasonable doubt", capital ones should be beyond any doubt.
Others have brought up cases like Milgaard and Truscott... men who should never have been convicted yet would have been executed if capital punishment hadn't been suspended. At the same time, I see the Cilfford Olsen's of the world and see nothing redeeming in letting them live. I see cases where police officers are shot in the line of duty and have a hard time convincing myself their murderers deserve to live. Cases of repeat pedophiles who damage and destroy innocent young lives who in most cases are too young to understand what is happening to them.
The best I can come up with is that capital punishment should be reinstituted but with very stringent guidelines. The circumstantial cases shouldn't be considered for more than life without parole. Capital punishment should require DNA evidence, photographic, multiple corroborating witnesses or the like. Guilty verdicts require "beyond a reasonable doubt", capital ones should be beyond any doubt.
Wulfie - I share the same problem. IF guilt could be proven beyond any shred of a doubt in cases like murder, I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty.
You presented a pretty decent case on your post.
There are two problems
1)Charter would need to be changed and that's one that won't go over well to start with.
2)How do you value one life over the other?
If I conceive a plan and successfully kill off an Olsen or a Picton I've commit 1st degree murder.
If you are my lawyer how would you get me off the hook?
That's just it. I wouldn't personally be too rambunctious about inflicting the death penalty with any regularity but it should be an on the books for the likes of Olson, Homolka and that little bastard from Saanich that had his mother and grandmother murdered out of greed. We know beyong a shadow of a doubt that the three mentioned were guilty. Why are we feeding and clothing. Deep six em.
Me, a lawyer? You gotta' be kidding.
PS - I think there are more than 2 problems here...
Quite simple defense - Insanity -
Tell them that you were a Liberal that was hard on crime - Off the hook -
No JLM. They had the right guy. The only screw up was with with the vigilanteism stuff. I'm sure there are people here that would take exception to the term "dumb newfie". Besides - he wasn't dumb. He got a juror on his side and he won. What does a guy look like that would hurt children anyway? Just curious since I doubt that anyone has the answer to that.
I have a relative who was an MP when they voted on the death penalty. He explained that, because there were cases of wrongful conviction, and it was very hard to be absolutely certain in every single case that the accused was guilty, he could not support a measure that could result in innocent people being executed.
I understood his position, and while I believe that child molesters should face capital punishment, it's hard to argue with his point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) -- the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s. The overall conviction rate for first-degree murder doubled in the decade following abolition (from under 10% to approximately 20%), suggesting that Canadian juries are more willing to convict for murder now that they are not compelled to make life-and-death decisions.
I understood his position, and while I believe that child molesters should face capital punishment, it's hard to argue with his point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) -- the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s. The overall conviction rate for first-degree murder doubled in the decade following abolition (from under 10% to approximately 20%), suggesting that Canadian juries are more willing to convict for murder now that they are not compelled to make life-and-death decisions.
Mistakes happen, live with it, and get on with life. Besides he was found guilty by the time the execution took place so it's not like I've done anything wrong. Maybe you should ask the Judge, jury and lawyers how they could've fouled up. The job of the executioner is too carry out the sentence, not place judgement. That's the job of the judge, lawyers and jury.
If you'd knew that you wouldn't be pointing the finger at me.
I didn't talk to just one cop. He was the first, and he is surely not a fool and neither are his fellow officers. You actually think every police officer believes in the justice system? Or that everyone who wants to become a cop wants to do it for the whole "good guy vs bad guy" thing? Hell no. Many do it for the wages, benefits and pensions and not some make believe quest.
Same goes for lawyers. Many people who want to become lawyers do it for the high wages that come with the proffession. Not because they believe we have a fair and just judicial system.
I've never said they become vigilantes. I said hey support vigilantes, ie: some one else takes out the scumbag that should've gotten what they deserved in the first place. Like Mindy Tran's killer.
Why do you want to know my age for? You ran outof arguments on the subject of capital punishment and want to resort to personal attacks?
Oh they can do their job quite well. They just get pissed at the fact that people they arrest and cases they prepare end up either dismissed by the courts, or given a slap on the wrist. That would demoralize any cop.
Murderers deserve nothing but the death sentence in my view. As do drunk drivers who kill people. To me, these people are just scumbags and forfit their lives just as they forfited the lives of their victims.
As for pedophiles, I'm on the fence about this one. Yes they did pretty much destroy the lives of the kids, but there was no actual murder commited. I don't know, right now I'd have to say it's a toss up between death and life in prison.
I'd like to put this to those who are firmly against have a return of capital punishment.
Some one said this in a previous post that killing some one any reason is murder. Do you agree with this statement?
Some one said this in a previous post that killing some one any reason is murder. Do you agree with this statement?
That is my opinion, just as capital punishment is your opinion. Having said that, I'm not sure what my reaction would be if I found some scum in the act of sodomizing a child. I might commit murder under that circumstance.
Now we are into semantics. "Murder" is just a word that means taking another person's life. If we are committing "murder" executing the likes of Karla Homolka or Clifford Olson, so what? I can see people who are committed to following the TEn Commandments being a little squeamish, but honestly I don't think there is anyone like that. For instance why would be person who covets be concerned about executing dangerous criminals?
Actually, murder is defined as an unlawful and unjustified killing of another human being.
Now, is executing a criminal still considered murder, despite the courts found it justified to put the criminal to death?
Is it murder if a police officer kills a criminal to save his/her own life? Is it also murder for a soldier that kills an enemy soldier during battle?
A drunk person gets into his car, and drives off. Obviously he has no reguard for any human life, if he did he wouldn't be driving in his condition. Now, due to his drunken state, he runs his car into a person walking on the sidewalk, and after a valiant but futile effort by the paramedics, the pedestrian dies. Did the drunk commit an act of murder?
Now, is executing a criminal still considered murder, despite the courts found it justified to put the criminal to death?
Is it murder if a police officer kills a criminal to save his/her own life? Is it also murder for a soldier that kills an enemy soldier during battle?
A drunk person gets into his car, and drives off. Obviously he has no reguard for any human life, if he did he wouldn't be driving in his condition. Now, due to his drunken state, he runs his car into a person walking on the sidewalk, and after a valiant but futile effort by the paramedics, the pedestrian dies. Did the drunk commit an act of murder?