Having made it apoint to learn something on the subject, I have to go along with the death penalty when DNA evidence proves it beyond reasonable doubt.( O J Simpson notwithstanding) I have seen a number of interviews with people who are facing the death sentence, predictably enough, not one was in favour of the death sentence. That told me the death sentence might be a good thing after all. The Russian method might be the most terrifying of all, the person is put in a room with a drain in the floor, bend your head forward, BANG, a single round through the back of the head, and instant eternity. Imagine if our criminals had to face stark justice like that. Further to the life sentence, if the killer can be declared a dangerous offender, then there is almost no probability that they will ever be released. My personal opinion is that the death penalty is revenge, I'm not sure I would want my thoughts of the person who was murdered to be marred by my knowledge that I had my revenge. This is what makes the subject so complex, far too many emotions are involved, and those who involve themselves in the subject don't have first hand personal experience. Perhaps, this is one of those topics that should be decided by those who have personal experience. A poll of those who had the experience should be taken, majority opinion should prevail, and let the pieces fall where they may.
Yay, or Nay... Death Penalty.
- Thread starter Libra Girl
- Start date
I don't agree with that argument.
What if someone was taken to court for holding a person hostage by locking them in a tiny, windowless cell and giving them nothing but bread and water to eat?
Does that mean you shouldn't lock them up in jail as you would be doing the same thing as the criminal did?
Why lock up people who lock up people to show that locking up people is wrong?
If you google Robert Pickton you will find all the information you might want. Robert Pickton is in court as we speak. The court alleges he murdered six women out of at least twenty two on his pig farm.. He has yet to be tried for the rest of them.
http://tinyurl.com/ad7yv
Ah, Blackleaf... just making a point that that particular question, I can't remember which one it was from my op, was not actually my query. I should have posted the link, as I usually do, it's a copy and paste, sorry. As I said in my op, I personally 'sit on the fence' over this issue. :smile:
In fact using that argument, you'd NEVER be able to punish anyone.
You couldn't lock someone in prison as some criminal, somewhere, will be holding a person hostage in tiny room for years.
You couldn't give them forced labour, as a criminal somewhere will be using slaves illegally.
Most other punishments that you can think of, you can guarantee that there'll be at least one criminal in the world doing a similar thing illegally.
So punishment would be impossible.
You couldn't lock someone in prison as some criminal, somewhere, will be holding a person hostage in tiny room for years.
You couldn't give them forced labour, as a criminal somewhere will be using slaves illegally.
Most other punishments that you can think of, you can guarantee that there'll be at least one criminal in the world doing a similar thing illegally.
So punishment would be impossible.
Whilst I take you point able, it's rather presumptuous to think that people here are speaking blind. This issue interests me not only from an intellectual point, but also as one who has had experience of murder. Some years ago, a family member was murdered. Now, most of my family are either against the death penalty, or, like me, 'on the fence' over the issue. I don't think that anyone, even in our extended family are for the 'ultimate sentence,' I could be wrong, but I don't think so. The murderer/s were never apprehended in our case, yet, I do believe that if they ever are, most of my family would not want to see them sentenced to death. Indeed, I know for a fact that the victim would not have wanted it. Many of us would not even want to attend a trial for it. I cannot understand those people who wait outside prisons, for someone to be executed, whilst chanting hate slogans. Incomprehensible...
Wow, even over here in Germany people seem to know about the Pickton case. Basically Robert Pickton is an alleged serial killer. His victims were contact sexual trade workers. He is supposedly connected to many of the disappearances that have happened in the downtown eastside of Vancouver over the years. The trial is ongoing but the public has long since judged him, he is now widely infamous as a monster.
You are right about the public already judging him, but there has been a lot of disgusting evidence found on that farm suggesting that at least twenty two women met their end there, it is difficult not to judge. I don't think there is much chance he is innocent.
Indeed, even I have my opinion, but I choose my words carefully to pay homage to our idea of justice, even in such an intensely emotional case. On the outside of the courthouse, we do not have all the facts, and it would not be the first time that a trial by public opinion was the judge, jury and executioner for the wrong person. Even on the inside, they don't have all the facts and every precaution must be used (including shielding the jury from public opinion) to ensure that the criminal is caught. Nobody wants to imprison the wrong person when the killer is still out there, that is the point of a fair trial.
Absolutely. I just think we will all be a good deal older before the courts are finished with this.
- 1.About 10% of Canada's prisoners are minimum risk and cost about $60K each per year. About 65% are medium risk and cost about %85K each/year. About 15% are maximum risk and cost over $100K each/year. There are about 36-37,000 prisoners in Canada (2003 stats). The appellate branch of the Supreme Court of Canada sits 3 times per year and reviews about 120 cases each sitting. Costs of the appellate court were about $15.5M in 1999. In 2000 it cost $3.2M after the SCOC appellate division got tired of looking at one fella's face on a life sentence in Canada. So one can conclude that the fella was a maximum security prisoner because of his sentence of life; if he was 30 (for instance), it is possible that he would die in his mid seventies. Say if he was incarcerated for 45 years; in maximum security it would cost (if the cost remained the same) a minimum of $4.5M. It would even out if the fella was about 43 years old. Clifford Olsen was 42 when convicted to life. Pickton is 57.
3.Criminals who whootherwise be executed clog the penal system
4.Well, punishment is punishment. The "eye for an eye" concept can hold for everything, not just death penalties. Therefore, we should leave all punishment up to the perp, or the Christian god, or fate, or whatever.
5.Why tell people that killing is wrong and then kill the ones who kill? Because these people need punishment and not adhering to societies principles will not be tolerated and the worse the crime, the worse the punishment should be.
6.Life in prison as a deterrent works once and only for about a year or two at the most. If someone murders someone and spends 3 years in prison, the deterrence factor is gone because prison is not all that horrible a place to be according to perps. That's why we have repeat offenders: they aren't scared of prison.
7.I think the States could quit other bad habits and impress folks from elesewhere a lot more than if they quit the death sentence.
8.Jury members are screened in selection.
9.The perps families probably suffered from finding out that a member of them was a foul waste of skin & air and probably would have written the perp off anyway.
10. Yes.
11.Perps convicted of capital crimes are obviously not right in the head to begin with. The issue hinges on whether they know what they do/did is/was wrong. If they didn't know it was wrong they would be stuck in a mental institution for an indeterminate length of time.
12.I really doubt that people would feel sorry for Olsen or Pickton were they sentenced to death.
13.And incarcerating perps for life doesn't bring victims back either.
1.Perhaps. But, the value of closure is debatable balanced against revenge.
2.It's been shown that this is false. People do things without even having the thought they might get caught.
3.Justice has little to do with the legal system.
4.I don't think it's a matter of sympathy as much as a lack of a sense of justice. IOW the "justice" system isn't just.
5.See comment #2.
6.Everything people do has a possibility of being fallable, so it's still possible someone could be unjustly killed.
7.Yup.
8.They have to have an extremely compelling reason why someone should have their sentence commuted.
I'd like to add one item to the list for the death penalty. The entire society suffers because of these people and continue to suffer as long as they realize these people are still breathing. Once put to death, they can no longer cause any more suffering for anyone. I still am angry every time I think those SOBs are still walking around after what they have done to innocent people.
I think that the death penalty is justified under certain circumstances. EG, Olsen and PIckton should be put out of people's misery.
Morals? I think the difference between people who commit crimes and the people who remove the perps' lives, freedoms, rights, and happinesses is the concept of motive. No-one would want to see people suffer needlessly so if these people didn't have intentions to commit crimes against others, there'd be no-one seeing a need to remove their lives, freedoms, rights, and happinesses.
BTW, as an addendum to YES #1, I would off Pickton even though it wouldn't be monetarily practical simply because he is still causing grief.
Ok, I take all of your points on board, both for and against, and those like me, who dither over the issue, but... to those that are for the death penalty, are you still in favor of it when the convicted are sentenced to death purely on circumstantial evidence alone? Just curious...
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109
The exact moment that someone takes someone's life, (in my opinion), they are giving us permission
to take theirs.
In the case of 'little' Jessica, who was kidnapped, kept in a mobile for days, with two sex perverts, then put in a plastic bag, tied at the top, and buried 'ALIVe", as they found her scratch marks on the
inside of the bag when they dug her up, SO, my justice for this crime is - continue Jessica's side of
the horrible incidents, and allow her to defend herself SUCCESSFULLY', by completing the struggle
she went through, by ending HIS life, her life was a young and innocent one, and now she has no life at all.
I don't see much point of allowing murdurers to sit in jail for the rest of their lives, as they don't have
it so bad, all the comforts of home, foods OK, the only thing they can't do it 'leave', so what.
I wouldn't allow them to have those comforts, while their victim is 'rotting' in the grave, no way.
to take theirs.
In the case of 'little' Jessica, who was kidnapped, kept in a mobile for days, with two sex perverts, then put in a plastic bag, tied at the top, and buried 'ALIVe", as they found her scratch marks on the
inside of the bag when they dug her up, SO, my justice for this crime is - continue Jessica's side of
the horrible incidents, and allow her to defend herself SUCCESSFULLY', by completing the struggle
she went through, by ending HIS life, her life was a young and innocent one, and now she has no life at all.
I don't see much point of allowing murdurers to sit in jail for the rest of their lives, as they don't have
it so bad, all the comforts of home, foods OK, the only thing they can't do it 'leave', so what.
I wouldn't allow them to have those comforts, while their victim is 'rotting' in the grave, no way.
One more thought to add to the issue of the death penalty.
Victims aren't the only ones with family. So, if person A kills person B, then not only are person B's family suffering, but so are person A's family. Everyone tends to forget about the parents, wives, and children, of murderers. The death penalty can simply broaden the circle of mourning and pain, rather than eliminate it.
Just a thought.
Victims aren't the only ones with family. So, if person A kills person B, then not only are person B's family suffering, but so are person A's family. Everyone tends to forget about the parents, wives, and children, of murderers. The death penalty can simply broaden the circle of mourning and pain, rather than eliminate it.
Just a thought.
So then, we should allow all of those people to become part of the problem, and 'again', it seems to
me that is not remembering the victim, just because the victim is dead, do we then push on to make everyone comfortable. The victim is DEAD, and for me, that is the priority, and the families
connected to the perp. will have to live with the fact that their relative is a murdurer, and they
also, should be putting their energy toward the VICTIM, and the fact that he/she is DEAD.
It seems to me that it is a MUCH bigger crime, in my mind, than it is in many others minds.
If a relative of mine murdured someone, I would not be running around trying to figure
out how to save his/her life, as he/she has to pay dearly for that horrible crime.
The suffering I would endure when he/she's life comes to an end, was brought on by
the murdurer.
Yes, some folk are begging to be killed, but it's barbaric and unnecessary. Better that 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent found guilty and all that.
In Robert Sawyer's science fiction book, Neanderthal, the Neanderthal society has a rule - if you commit a serious crime, not only are you sterilized, but your children, your siblings, and your parents are, too. On the idea that being a bad person is a genetic trait.