Latest poll on Capital punishment

[SirJosephPorter]

YOu can go ahead and define anything any way you want to if it makes you feel better, I've stated my position and obviously I'm not ashamed of it or I wouldn't advocate it. By your definitions if I suffer from the flu once a year, I'm an unhealthy person. If I have sex once a week, I'm a sex maniac.

If you have flu once a year, that means you have flu occasionally, you cannot claim that you never have flu. If you have sex once a week, you cannot claim that you abstain from sex.

That is what you are trying to do here. You support death penalty for some crimes, yet you claim that you oppose death penalty. You evidently have a problem with English language. Whenever they conduct opinion polls on death penalty, people like you are counted among supporters of death penalty, not opponents. But somehow you seem to be ashamed of your position.

 

[Kreskin]

It is not that simple, Kreskin. What does ‘beyond any doubt’ mean? If the accused himself claims that he is innocent, that by itself may raise some doubt. So does that mean that all the accused has to do is claim he is innocent and that negates ‘beyond any doubt’? If that is the case, nobody would get the death penalty.

‘Beyond any doubt’ is not as clear a phrase as you seem to think, lawyers could have a field day with it. They will file lawsuit after lawsuit, keep the process going and the criminal alive. Just look at what happens in USA, the average time a criminal stays on death row before being executed is more than 10 years. We will go down the USA route, where it is more expensive to execute a criminal than to lock him up for life.

Anyway, I don’t think there is any reason to dig up this issue. Crime rate in Canada is low and falling, what we are doing currently plainly seems to work. No political party is going to touch the issue; Charter probably forbids the use of death penalty.

It may be an OK subject to discuss here, but that is where it ends. I don’t see this issue going anywhere.

Well, you define it just like anything else and let a jury rule on it, where applicable. They do that with 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I'm sure lawyers can debate 'reasonable' until the cows come home too. There are plenty of cases where there is no doubt at all. Olsen is one.

 

[taxslave]

Rope is cheaper than club fed. Can be reused too. Guarenteed no repeat offenders. I am in favor of capital punishment under certain circumstances.

 

[JLM]

If you have flu once a year, that means you have flu occasionally, you cannot claim that you never have flu. If you have sex once a week, you cannot claim that you abstain from sex.

That is what you are trying to do here. You support death penalty for some crimes, yet you claim that you oppose death penalty. You evidently have a problem with English language. Whenever they conduct opinion polls on death penalty, people like you are counted among supporters of death penalty, not opponents. But somehow you seem to be ashamed of your position.

You seem to want one set of rules for you and one set for everyone else. I'm for the death penalty in certain instances and I'm against it in the majority of instances, so I'd say I'm more against it than for it, but you go ahead and spin it anyway you like.

 

[JLM]

Rope is cheaper than club fed. Can be reused too. Guarenteed no repeat offenders. I am in favor of capital punishment under certain circumstances.

Same with the guillotine, although I'd recommend sharpening every 100 heads.

 

[Machjo]

Death penalty is always wrong, no matter what the crime.

That's subjective.

 

[taxslave]

That's subjective.

And one simple mans opinion.

 

[taxslave]

And one simple mans opinion.

That was supposed to be
Simply one mans opinion. My bad.http://forums.canadiancontent.net/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[JLM]

I don't think he will appreciate you hijacking the thread to discuss abortion. But if you want to, I am game.

Definition of abortion is a scientific issue. When it comes to matters of science (when does life begin), I prefer to listen to scientists, doctors and biologists, rather than self appointed conservative guardians of peoples’ morals, like yourself, or Pope or Pat Robertson etc.

Doctors, biologists tell us that they don’t’ know when life begins and that is good enough for me. Conservatives have a political and religious agenda to promote in opposing abortion.

That won't fly. How can I be accused of "hijacking" the thread. Abortion was introduced into it in post # 102, it was #105 where I responded in a vague manner- I made no mention of abortion until much later. :smile:

 

[JLM]

That was supposed to be
Simply one mans opinion. My bad.http://forums.canadiancontent.net/images/icons/icon12.gif

Ya did good the first time.................:smile:

 

[lone wolf]

I'll second that!

 

[dreamwatcher]

I disagree. Allowing a single group to have a priviledge that the others don't in prison will just aggravate the ones not allowed to have that particular "extra". No smoking should mean no smoking, all across the board.

I agree with shadow. If natives are allowed to smoke, it wouldn't be long until all prisoners would claim native status. :lol:

 

[Francis2004]

YOu can go ahead and define anything any way you want to if it makes you feel better, I've stated my position and obviously I'm not ashamed of it or I wouldn't advocate it. By your definitions if I suffer from the flu once a year, I'm an unhealthy person. If I have sex once a week, I'm a sex maniac.

Nope.. I believe what is meant is as follows.. But keep in mind I am being very sarcastic and did not read ANY of the other postings..

If you have the flu more then once a year and sex more then once a week, you have been confusing The two V Pills.. The Vitamin pill with the Viagra one.. ;-)

Man I just couldn't resist.. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[JLM]

Nope.. I believe what is meant is as follows.. But keep in mind I am being very sarcastic and did not read ANY of the other postings..

If you have the flu more then once a year and sex more then once a week, you have been confusing The two V Pills.. The Vitamin pill with the Viagra one.. ;-)

Man I just couldn't resist.. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Your explanation makes more sense than any others I've heard today................:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Well, you define it just like anything else and let a jury rule on it, where applicable. They do that with 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I'm sure lawyers can debate 'reasonable' until the cows come home too. There are plenty of cases where there is no doubt at all. Olsen is one.

No doubt that is how it will work. But then can we really be sure that there really wasn't any doubt? The jury system is not perfect. During the segregation period, could a black accused be confident of getting the proper verdict from an all white jury? There were many miscarriages of justice in the South during Civil Rights struggle. People who were plainly guilty were found innocent, largely on racial grounds.

Or what about the all black jury which found O.J.Simpson not guilty of murders? Or do you remember Rodney King case in Simi Valley, California? Four white policemen beat him up to within an inch of his life. But Simi Valley was a friendly community to the police, many police live there. Some jurors were personal friends with the police. The jury found them innocent in the face of overwhelming evidence and it caused a riot. They got the policemen on civil rights charge after that, but that is a different story.

What if something like that happens, a jury returns the verdict of 'guilty beyond any doubt' due to their prejudices? What recourse would the defendant have?

The point of life without parole is that if 15 or 20 years later it turns out that the verdict was wrong (and it has happened), the state an at least make partial amends. No such option is available with death penalty.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You seem to want one set of rules for you and one set for everyone else. I'm for the death penalty in certain instances and I'm against it in the majority of instances, so I'd say I'm more against it than for it, but you go ahead and spin it anyway you like.

More against than for it. That would make sense. That is how most death penalty supporters feel, they are more against than for death penalty, most fo them support death penalty only under exceptional circumstances (serial killer, child killer, cop killer etc.).

But when asked if you are for or against it, your answer has to be that you are for it. In the CBC opinion poll, you count among the 40%, who want to bring back the death penalty. I would count among the 46%, who don't want to bring it back.

 

[Colpy]

More against than for it. That would make sense. That is how most death penalty supporters feel, they are more against than for death penalty, most fo them support death penalty only under exceptional circumstances (serial killer, child killer, cop killer etc.).

But when asked if you are for or against it, your answer has to be that you are for it. In the CBC opinion poll, you count among the 40%, who want to bring back the death penalty. I would count among the 46%, who don't want to bring it back.

This is completely incorrect......

For instance, I would support the death penalty only under the following circumstances:

Conviction in three separate trials for three separate murders, in front of three separate judges and juries......a sort of triple safety against wrongful conviction....and only for mass murderers...

But in any poll that asks if I would support "a return" to the death penalty, I would have to vote "no". The phrase "a return to" indicates the law would largely resemble the old one....and I could not support that....

I doubt I am alone.

 

[JLM]

More against than for it. That would make sense. That is how most death penalty supporters feel, they are more against than for death penalty, most fo them support death penalty only under exceptional circumstances (serial killer, child killer, cop killer etc.).

But when asked if you are for or against it, your answer has to be that you are for it. In the CBC opinion poll, you count among the 40%, who want to bring back the death penalty. I would count among the 46%, who don't want to bring it back.

Actually it is 62% for it (or at least when that particular poll was taken)

 

[Kreskin]

No doubt that is how it will work. But then can we really be sure that there really wasn't any doubt? The jury system is not perfect. During the segregation period, could a black accused be confident of getting the proper verdict from an all white jury? There were many miscarriages of justice in the South during Civil Rights struggle. People who were plainly guilty were found innocent, largely on racial grounds.

Or what about the all black jury which found O.J.Simpson not guilty of murders? Or do you remember Rodney King case in Simi Valley, California? Four white policemen beat him up to within an inch of his life. But Simi Valley was a friendly community to the police, many police live there. Some jurors were personal friends with the police. The jury found them innocent in the face of overwhelming evidence and it caused a riot. They got the policemen on civil rights charge after that, but that is a different story.

What if something like that happens, a jury returns the verdict of 'guilty beyond any doubt' due to their prejudices? What recourse would the defendant have?

The point of life without parole is that if 15 or 20 years later it turns out that the verdict was wrong (and it has happened), the state an at least make partial amends. No such option is available with death penalty.

They would need to meet specific criteria, sample;..video taped, caught in the act, admitted guilt with demonstrable inside infomation, written confessions, own blood all over the victims etc. Incorrect judgements are based on thin circumstantial evidence or a witness who wrongly identifies someone. I doubt any of the erred decisions would meet it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Actually it is 62% for it (or at least when that particular poll was taken)

No it is not. Show me the poll where it says 62%. News report on a TV station does not mean a whole lot, it is easy to misspeak and not even know that you have misspoken.

Show me the poll, I don't think one exists. That would to totally contrary to what we know about Canadian attitude towards death penalty, a majority are opposed to it. CBC report was probably referring to the CBC poll which I mentioned (which said only 40% Canadians want to bring back the death penalty). Very likely the reporter misspoke.