Quite likely with taxpayers' money, the daily stipend while sitting in jail is not high. I'm not sure if they get a raise when promoted to death row. Given the importance of the situation the courier would probably do it. (unless he's a real sh*t)
It's time to bring the death penalty back!
- Thread starter Simpleton
- Start date
Quite likely with taxpayers' money, the daily stipend while sitting in jail is not high. I'm not sure if they get a raise when promoted to death row. Given the importance of the situation the courier would probably do it. (unless he's a real sh*t)
We're dealing with a convicted murderer here, we are just trying to give him a sporting chance not make things convenient for him.
Where does the Crown and victim family get it's convenience or justice for that matter?
Does the vicitim really get justice or it's for your well being?
Does the vicitim really get justice or it's for your well being?
Money aside, Again - we've had people convicted in Canada who have later been exonerated. If Canada had had the death penalty, they would have been executed. Do you think that a few innocent executed is ok? And again - can you tell me that the death penalty actually deters crime? As for the $$$ What about all those people who have been interred in prisons for years for crimes they didn't commit - and they rightly sue for compensation?
Best scenario? All involved do their due diligence - police, lawyers. Stop tying to wrap the crime up and rather try to solve and try it properly
Next we could submit suggestions as to who should be done away with. We have
listed jaywalkers good start, what about those who spit on the street. Perhaps we
should be allowed to shoot or other wise kill people who commit traffic violations.
We should kill, Christians, Atheists, agnostics, conservatives, liberals, socialists,
communists, Nazis, intellectual degenerates and assorted enemies of the people.
No, I don't think we can trust the government with the death penalty, in fact we can't
trust the police to garner the evidence against people anymore. This country is by
and large law abiding, and peaceful. and is safe to live in in spite of itself. Why on
earth would we want to bring back the death penalty? And yes the above was in
jest.
listed jaywalkers good start, what about those who spit on the street. Perhaps we
should be allowed to shoot or other wise kill people who commit traffic violations.
We should kill, Christians, Atheists, agnostics, conservatives, liberals, socialists,
communists, Nazis, intellectual degenerates and assorted enemies of the people.
No, I don't think we can trust the government with the death penalty, in fact we can't
trust the police to garner the evidence against people anymore. This country is by
and large law abiding, and peaceful. and is safe to live in in spite of itself. Why on
earth would we want to bring back the death penalty? And yes the above was in
jest.
You'd have to be careful there, Damngrumpy or it might just end up where only you and me are left.......................:lol::lol::lol:
Maybe at the Saturday afternoon hangings which would be held next to the pub,
and would see a twenty dollar admission, we could hang three or four innocent
people so the others would pay attention. Who the hell would want to kill people
in this day and age. Even those who commit murder are not thinking or setting out
to kill someone, in most cases it happens by reaction to something. Therefore
execution would not be a deterrent.
and would see a twenty dollar admission, we could hang three or four innocent
people so the others would pay attention. Who the hell would want to kill people
in this day and age. Even those who commit murder are not thinking or setting out
to kill someone, in most cases it happens by reaction to something. Therefore
execution would not be a deterrent.
You said "The whole process is definitely flawed, but unfortunately there is nothing better." Agreed.
Should there be something better? If so, what would it be?
I am sure the current system we use is one that has evolved over a period of time, and thus simply can't be perfect. It is put together by humans, and fiddled with over a long period of time. I am familiar with the concept of "nothing is perfect", but that shouldn't prevent us from thinking about it, should it? It obviously has some problems, as evidenced by the discussions here.
I hear the phrase "in this day and age", and I can only assume that some of us think we have progressed to some higher station in our evolution and thus, what we have is "good enough." I disagree. Evolution means - among other things - ongoing change, does it not? If so, how can we be satisfied that we're in a "good enough" spot on the change scale right now?
So, is there a better way - for all of society, including the direct and indirect victims of the crime - to deal with murderers that would provide a more balanced outcome? What are your thoughts on that?
I already outlined one possibility (work programs) in an earlier post (#277).
Damngrumpy, I just can’t resist the temptation here to post a Gilbert and Sullivan song from ‘The Mikado’. The song is by the Lord High Executioner and in that he describes the kind of people he would like to execute.
SONG--KO-KO with CHORUS OF MEN.
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs--
All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs--
All children who are up in dates, and floor you with 'em flat--
All persons who in shaking hands, shake hands with you like
that--
And all third persons who on spoiling tte--ttes insist--
They'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed!
CHORUS. He's got 'em on the list--he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed--they'll none of
'em be missed.
There's the banjo serenader, and the others of his race,
And the piano-organist--I've got him on the list!
And the people who eat peppermint and puff it in your face,
They never would be missed--they never would be missed!
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
And the lady from the provinces, who dresses like a guy,
And who "doesn't think she waltzes, but would rather like to
try";
And that singular anomaly, the lady novelist--
I don't think she'd be missed--I'm sure she'd not he missed!
CHORUS. He's got her on the list--he's got her on the list;
And I don't think she'll be missed--I'm sure
she'll not be missed!
And that Nisi Prius nuisance, who just now is rather rife,
The Judicial humorist--I've got him on the list!
All funny fellows, comic men, and clowns of private life--
They'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed.
And apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind,
Such as--What d'ye call him--Thing'em-bob, and
likewise--Never-mind,
And 'St--'st--'st--and What's-his-name, and also You-know-who--
The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you.
But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be
missed!
Larry Niven, the famous sci fi writer speculated about this very thing. In a future society, they have developed the science of organ transplant to perfection. They can transplant just about any organ, heart, liver, kidney, spleen etc., even the skin.
Organ transplant saves many lives every year. But there is a critical shortage of organs. Where can one get more organs? The solution is to have death penalty for more and more offenses.
It started out with death penalty for all kinds of killing, murder, manslaughter etc. Then it was death penalty for rape. Then came robbery and so on, to the extent that eventually, there was death penalty for almost every crime.
There was no appeal, of course. Soon after a criminal was sentenced, his brain was flash burned and he was pronounced dead. Then they proceed to harvest all the organs, starting with the skin.
It was a very interesting example of how two well intentioned ideas (organ transplant and death penalty) can come together and produce totally unexpected consequences and produce a nightmare of a society.
But the basic point you make is valid one, death penalty cheapens the life. When something is sponsored by the state, declared by the state as being desirable, people tend to imitate it. When the state proclaims loudly that is it OK to take life in certain circumstances, that may well encourage citizens to imitate the state and issue death penalty on their own.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that USA is the only developed country to have the death penalty, and USA has one of the highest murder rates among the developed countries.
I don't think it's the system that is the problem, so much as it is the people who are running the system. There are two inherent problems with people, lack of honesty and lack of patience and I'm not talking about honest so much in the context of integrity but more to do in the context of rationalization and "fooling themselves". The one case where there was a miscarriage of justice that I'm familiar with enough to comment is the Milgaard case. Everyone, including cops, judges, lawyers wanted that case "solved", but yet ignored facts that were staring them right in the face. Maybe when people transform from being just people to being "professionals" they get too overwhelmed with "legalese" and common sense goes out the window. Maybe there is a problem with people being tried by their peers in their own community. Anyway ruling out the death penalty because "the system" is flawed is NOT the answer- the answer lies with making the necessary changes to the system/people running it, so if the death penalty is administered it can be done with out the fear of a mistake. Where there is not total certainty of guilt you just don't administer the death penalty. Two wrongs don't make a right.
We can't seem to trust the police to recognize how (not) dangerous an office stapler is, or to be able to tell the difference between house numbers, so why on earth would we allow the police to help determine if someone should suffer execution?
And how do you determine that? 'total cetainty of guilt'. Who makes that decision, and have you looked at the case of, say, Truscott, to see how that fits your plan?
It's easy in retrospect to decided that there was no 'certainty of guilt', but at the time, people are pretty convinced they've made the right decision.
Truscott was a bad example, first of all that case happened 50 years ago and second it didn't even look right to the average layman. You are simply NOT going to prove a lot of cases beyond enough doubt to administer the death penalty, but you can administer it in SOME cases for instance the one where the suspect took the cops out to the site where he buried one of the bodies and Lo & Behold there was the body. In a case like that you simply put him in the hole before you fill it back in.
How does the penalty have any bearing on the weight of evidence? We'll convict someone of murder, but we're not certain enough to do so when there is the threat of a death penalty? If that's the case then how has the crown overcome reasonable doubt to convict them of murder in the first place?
If you read through the stats, this is exactly what happens - the percentage of guilty verdicts in first degree murder cases went up when the death penalty was eliminated, and criminologists believed this was exactly the reason why - juries don't want to be responsible for killing a person.