Capital Punishment

[JoeyB]

You know, the one thing I find compelling in any capital punishment debate is the need for one to vindicate their own feelings about the choice to condemn or not, a person who is guilty of such heinous crimes as to actually warrant the necessity for the law in the first place.

Obviously I believe that there is a valid reason for capital punishment to exist, but my own personal view is that it should be reserved for the most evil of crimes, and further to that criminals who make no effort to repatriate. I'm talking the multiple murderers and serial rapists / pedophiles etc. The type of crimes that make even a hardened person sick in the stomach. Crimes like genocide etc, deserve a different kind of punishment. a solitary confinement of shame, disgrace and torture for each and every single victim until the felon cannot breathe.

my idea of punishment extends to the confinement of extremists and fundamentalists, but not their execution. where someone tries to instigate others into performing their dirty work, there should be no relief from punishment. capital punishment is a relief to these people who live by the sword.

I guess we could debate the merits of various forms of punishment, but as every case is individual, and should be treated accordingly, we can hardly say that there is no need for capital punishment somewhere in the world, and also we cannot consequently say that we need a guillotine or a noose on every street corner to remind us of the punishment for a crime...

I really don't think there is a blanket solution to crime and the people who commit it, but Justice should be fair and equitable, and that there should be a suitable punishment for the crimes people commit. Capital or not.

So yes, in summary I think there is a very valid reason for capital punishment. but maybe on an International, and a federal level, not a state level. persons seeking to escalate punishments to fit a crime might need to argue the validity of the case in front of a federal judge. An international heinous crime might be required to be argued at the hague for example... and the sentence of death, well it should be available as a means of punishment, but used sparingly and wisely. Not an easy task.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

No, I don't believe capital punishment should be reinstated. It's demonstrably ineffective as a deterrent, and there are enough false convictions on the record (Steven Truscott, David Milgard...) to give any thoughtful person pause about taking such an irrevocable step. More broadly, I don't want to kill anyone, and I don't want the state doing it on my behalf. Lock 'em up indefinitely, sure, and I'll cheerfully pay the taxes to support that, but don't kill them, because the justice system isn't perfect and might convict an innocent person. A civilized society must always leave the door open to the possibility that it might be wrong.

So much for idealism. If somebody killed my wife or children and I knew who it was because I saw it, I'd cheerfully pull the switch to fry the bastard in the electric chair, open the trap door under the gallows, or release the cyanide pellets. Actually I'd probably be more inclined to attack the slimeball with a chain saw...

A tough call, really. You have to make a distinction between general principles and personal feelings, which is rarely easy. In my private life I know from nasty experience that I'm capable of killing in defense of things I love (please don't ask, I'm not proud of it and won't talk about it, and no, I haven't killed anyone. But there was a close one once when all that saved me and the potential victim was general principles), but in general, no, it's never right to kill another person except in immediate self defence or the immediate defence of others (because there are homicidal maniacs you can't deal with any other way. Fortunately, they're rare).

 

[zoofer]

it's never right to kill another person except in immediate self defence or the immediate defence of others (because there are homicidal maniacs you can't deal with any other way. Fortunately, they're rare).

Good enough reason for the State to execute murderers before they are released to murder innocents again.

 

[Nuggler]

Capital punishment: most certainly, for murder, when you have absolute proof; DNA, smoking gun, found munching on human entrails, storeroom of body parts.

No death penalty but extreme punishment (branding, castration,etc.) for parole boards who release psychos who kill, rob, rape, again. God damn their lofty condescending ivory tower mentality. They keep on releasing them and they (the cons) keep on re-offending.

So.............when the trial is over, and the verdict (see paragraph one) is guilty, the poor unwashed, abused when a child, just so misunderstood, not responsible for his actions, it's his mummy's fault, party is led outside, given a bullet in the brain, and is dumped into a lime pit or unmarked grave. Sounds fair. He/she can come back when their victims get up and walk.

Case closed...............NEXT :!:

8)

 

[FiveParadox]

Not even DNA evidence is one hundred percent accurate.

I think that it would be quite appropriate to increase the range of sentences for serious crimes, so as to give the courts a greater range of discretion to exercise for particular cases and situations; for example, perhaps it would be appropriate to increase the maximum sentences that are given in An Act respecting the Criminal Law (or the Criminal Code of Canada, as it is more commonly known) for serious crimes.

 

[Curiosity]

No I do not advocate the death penalty....but I do not speak up against it either....because ...

I will only listen to those who have experienced violence and death at the hands of another...they are the only ones with a right to say whether death would "satisfy" their hatred of the
monster who killed or tortured their loved one.

None of us know how we would feel if it happened to us personally, therefore a discussion such as this is fine and comforting but entirely moot unless you have been in the
victim's family's shoes.

I have had to work with victims of violent crime who have had loved ones slain. There are no words to describe their agony. I am no position to question whatever they wish. Right or wrong.

 

[Sassylassie]

I agree with you WC, the victims' voices need to be heard. Sadly that is the one voice that often isn't heard. Canada needs to enact legislation to protect the rights of victims.

 

[FiveParadox]

Victims' Rights

I would agree, Sassylassie, that there should be a forum by which victims can voice their opinions and thoughts on the matter; however, I do not think that such expressions should have any bearing on the result of the case (with the exception of testimony as a witness, of course), or the sentencing decided upon by the judge or justice in question.

 

[Sassylassie]

I would have to say that depends on the crime. If someone spent months terrorizing you by stalking you and one day this person decides to rape and stab you and you survive then I think the victim should have a say in the sentencing visa-vie max or minimum sentence. There is random crime, a spontanious crime, but the most incedious is the calculated crime.

 

[FiveParadox]

Sassylassie, I think that it would be a violation of the integrity of the judiciary, however, for them to take the recommendations of the victims as lawful directives. I think that we should leave the decisions of sentences up to the judges and justices who are appointed for that particular purpose.

In my opinion, at least.

 

[Sassylassie]

Rationally you are correct in thinking this Five, but for those of us who have worked with the victims it's really hard to be rational. When I would sit in on group session (sexual offenders) all I could think was "I've looked into the face of evil and now I no it's name." I didn't last long in the Criminal Justice Field the sorrow of the victims became mine.

 

[Jay]

Sounds like tough work Sassy. Your brave.

 

[Tchernobill]

I think that there's no learning in death.

But I admit that some peoples will never learn.

 

[Curiosity]

The people who have had to go through the process would surprise most of us - as they have me....

Rarely do they advocate retaliation by taking an offender's life themselves - once the process of grief is explored - they find deep inside some kind of forgiveness. It is life (or death) at its very basic and often reaffirms to me what a wonderful creation we humans are if we allow the good things in us to take us through.

In major crises such as the Tsunami or Katrina - I have no experience in that kind of grief or anger - but only in victim crime and loss by violence (whether premediated or accidental) and I
am always fascinated at the wisdom grief brings to some.

For others who are not so lucky - retaliation and redemption seems to rule their lives. Becomes their reason to function. It then makes them even greater victims that the original crime.

And as Five writes - it is best left up to uninvolved persons who are able to step outside of their personal and emotional lives to weigh justice.

It is a fine line however between the desire to become violent in return when a perpetrator becomes part of an innocent life and destroys it forever. Especially children. In that case all innocence departs and we descend into terrible places. Those who withstand the basic urges seem to arrive at a destination beyond
understanding except by those who have been there.

Sassy it is easy to take on pain of those abused - or to find the need to defend all the victims. Very difficult to remain apart from it. It is also courageous of people to admit they have a difficult time in handling it. You are a good person - and your reaction is a testament to it. Your innate aversion to perps is absolutely normal.

 

[Sassylassie]

Wednesday, most people go their entire lives and never encounter the dark side of life. For those who have seen it and been victimized by it they are never the same. Child abuse and rape victims may recover but both groups will tell you something was broken and it can never be fixed. It's heart breaking. My empathy was crippling me so I had to move on because if I didn't my anger at the perpretrators would of evolved to vengence.

 

[FiveParadox]

However, the entire point of separating the decision-making process from those who are so charged with emotion (which is a human response, and cannot be helped, that isn't what I am trying to say), is to ensure that the decisions are made by persons who are objective and outside the situation.

While there should be a forum to air the grievances of the victims in such situations, these grievances should not have any sort of effect on the decision of a judge or a justice — to do otherwise would serve to undermine the independence and integrity of our robed arbiters.