Death Penalty
- Thread starter Jay
- Start date
Is there no way that the courts can differentiate between seriel killers and crimes of passion/ or 1 off's?
There is a science behind serial killer profiling. There are definate patterns and characteristics of this type of person.
If we can make laws that state a 13 yr old cannot consent to sex but a 14yr old can then why not differentiate between somebody of pyschotic disposition with 3 or more kills under his belt and a husband who killed his wife in a fit of passion?
There is a science behind serial killer profiling. There are definate patterns and characteristics of this type of person.
If we can make laws that state a 13 yr old cannot consent to sex but a 14yr old can then why not differentiate between somebody of pyschotic disposition with 3 or more kills under his belt and a husband who killed his wife in a fit of passion?
Well you see the problem I have is that I dont believe anyone has the right to take away someone elses life be it an individual or state.
In my opinion, anyone that commits murder is not a mentally stable person. Under any circumstances. They should all be treated as patients with a mental problem. If they cannot be helped then they need to removed from society, permanently.
However I myself have said repeatedly for certain murders, that the person that has commited them should die a slow agonizing death. Thats mostly anger, not reason.
In my opinion, anyone that commits murder is not a mentally stable person. Under any circumstances. They should all be treated as patients with a mental problem. If they cannot be helped then they need to removed from society, permanently.
However I myself have said repeatedly for certain murders, that the person that has commited them should die a slow agonizing death. Thats mostly anger, not reason.
Hey I think you're on to something here....Besides when I mentioned castration usually the hormones go out the window too with that, since they are usually the cause of imbalance. However the lab animal replacement program is something to look into eh? My only other alternative would be forcing them to get sex changes and staying in prison to placate all the lonley boys there for their entire term.
Re: RE: Death Penalty
Toro, your comment about the mail is not true, and no, I don't work for the mail service.
However, while I agree with your comment about erring on the side of caution, with the built in reviews of cases, and newer technology such as DNA analysis, etc, the chance of an innocent person being put to death is so small as to be immaterial.
The persons who are known to be guilty, such as the Holmolkas, Bernardos, Olsens, etc., should be put to death, they have no contribution to society and never will. At some point, we must acknowledge there are evil and horrible people in this world, and to put them to death is not a bad thing. What is bad, is that these people have killed, tortured, raped, etc. other innocent people before society gets a chance to pass judgement, and lets never forget the innocent victims of these monsters.
In the past where the technology was not there to determine absolute guilt or innocence, I would agree that the death penalty was not appropriate. Given the technology today, though, the death penalty in Canada should be reinstated for the most heinous of crimes. Anyone who has kids and has seen the crimes some of these monsters have committed against kids would not disagree.
Toro said:
Toro, your comment about the mail is not true, and no, I don't work for the mail service.
However, while I agree with your comment about erring on the side of caution, with the built in reviews of cases, and newer technology such as DNA analysis, etc, the chance of an innocent person being put to death is so small as to be immaterial.
The persons who are known to be guilty, such as the Holmolkas, Bernardos, Olsens, etc., should be put to death, they have no contribution to society and never will. At some point, we must acknowledge there are evil and horrible people in this world, and to put them to death is not a bad thing. What is bad, is that these people have killed, tortured, raped, etc. other innocent people before society gets a chance to pass judgement, and lets never forget the innocent victims of these monsters.
In the past where the technology was not there to determine absolute guilt or innocence, I would agree that the death penalty was not appropriate. Given the technology today, though, the death penalty in Canada should be reinstated for the most heinous of crimes. Anyone who has kids and has seen the crimes some of these monsters have committed against kids would not disagree.
The point about the mail was rhetorical, not something I necessarily believe.
I have a child. If someone committed such a crime against my young son, not only would I want that person killed, but I would want to do it myself and I'd want to drag it out in the most painful manner possible. But that's wrong. Those are my emotions speaking. I understand why you'd want to put Olsen and Homolka to death. If they got their commupence in prison, wouldn't bother me a sec. I understand there is a large emotional component of justice, but the law should be written based on reason. Rev also made a good point earlier when he said that the death penalty would not just be applied to the Olsens and Homolkas of the world. Its easy to point those people out in retrorpsect, but remember, the RCMP paid Olsen $100,000 to turn himself in. If they hadn't done that, who knows who they would have wound up charging.
I'm not so certain about the science of evidence. It certainly helps but it is not infallible. And until it is infallible, I don't think we shouldn't even be having this discussion.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm hardly a bleeding-heart. I think the faint hope clause is a joke for example. But innocent people have been put to death in the past and it will happen in the future. You asked about children, let me ask you this - what if it was your child who was innocent and put to death by the state?
I have a child. If someone committed such a crime against my young son, not only would I want that person killed, but I would want to do it myself and I'd want to drag it out in the most painful manner possible. But that's wrong. Those are my emotions speaking. I understand why you'd want to put Olsen and Homolka to death. If they got their commupence in prison, wouldn't bother me a sec. I understand there is a large emotional component of justice, but the law should be written based on reason. Rev also made a good point earlier when he said that the death penalty would not just be applied to the Olsens and Homolkas of the world. Its easy to point those people out in retrorpsect, but remember, the RCMP paid Olsen $100,000 to turn himself in. If they hadn't done that, who knows who they would have wound up charging.
I'm not so certain about the science of evidence. It certainly helps but it is not infallible. And until it is infallible, I don't think we shouldn't even be having this discussion.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm hardly a bleeding-heart. I think the faint hope clause is a joke for example. But innocent people have been put to death in the past and it will happen in the future. You asked about children, let me ask you this - what if it was your child who was innocent and put to death by the state?
I don't support the death penalty. I think it's a barbaric practice that has no place in a free and just society.
What an excellent topic! Quite frankly, I'm surprised at some of the responses. Many of you I thought would be strongly supportive of the death penalty are not.
I support it whole heartedly, but not in the form it existed where people where held on death row for years on end. To me, that is just a form of torture, which I do not agree with. The death penalty for those proven beyond doubt (Olson, Homolka, etc.) in a swift and humane manner gets my vote.
I do think we have the right to kill, under certain circumstances. Ironically, I am anti-war since that is invariably rooted in business, profit and politics, but the death penalty is more like taking out the trash than killing. I also support an individual's right to protect self and home with deadly force.
Anyway, good thread. I'm enjoying reading the responses.
I support it whole heartedly, but not in the form it existed where people where held on death row for years on end. To me, that is just a form of torture, which I do not agree with. The death penalty for those proven beyond doubt (Olson, Homolka, etc.) in a swift and humane manner gets my vote.
I do think we have the right to kill, under certain circumstances. Ironically, I am anti-war since that is invariably rooted in business, profit and politics, but the death penalty is more like taking out the trash than killing. I also support an individual's right to protect self and home with deadly force.
Anyway, good thread. I'm enjoying reading the responses.
I am in favour of the death penalty for convicted dangerous and deadly offenders.
The crimes would have to be murder related that is the only way allowing the death penalty as a judicial option would make sense. The crime commited would have to be proven as a vicious act and also the perpetrator would have to be proven as permanently unstable with a high possibility of re-offending.There are many cases of "causing death" that would not fit under these critiera and would then not warrent the consideration of the death penalty as an option. We have actually very few criminals that would warrent such a punishment. If we picked from this short list how many would we want to see put to death?
Paul Bernardo (born 1964), murderer
Edwin Alonzo Boyd, bank robber
Marc Carbonneau, terrorist
Jacques Cossette-Trudel, terrorist
Louise Cossette-Trudel, terrorist
Larry Fisher, murderer
Karla Homolka, murderer (Mrs. Paul Bernardo)
Jacques Lanctôt, FLQ Terrorist
Yves Langlois, FLQ Terrorist
Robert Latimer, murdered his 12-year-old disabled daughter
Marc Lépine, killed 14 women at Montreal's École Polytechnique de Montréal in 1989
Bernard Lortie, FLQ Terrorist
Denis Lortie, killed three people at the Quebec National Assembly in 1984
Clifford Olson, serial child killer
Paul Rose, terrorist
Jacques Rose, terrorist
Francis Simard, terrorist
Colin Thatcher, murderer
Inderjit Singh Reyat -- the alleged bomb-maker of the device that blew up Air India Flight 182, pleaded guilty to the murder of the 329 passengers in 2003
Alleged criminals
Grace Marks -- convicted of murder in 1843, her role in the murder has never been clear, became the subject of Margaret Atwood's 1996 novel Alias Grace.
Robert Pickton -- charged with largest number of serial killings in Canadian history, and still counting
Nicholas Ribic -- charged with having taken UN hostages during the war in the Balkans
Steven Truscott -- convicted of murder in 1959; as of 2004, his case is pending its third appeal on grounds of wrongful conviction
Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri -- charged with first-degree murder in the deaths of 329 passengers and crew on Air India Flight 182 and attempted murder of passengers and crew of Air India Flight 301 and the murders of two baggage handlers at the airport in Narita, Japan.
(snip)
In the Canadian legal system Dangerous Offender is a status under which a convicted person can not apply for parole. It effectively means that the person has been given a life sentence with no chance of parole. According to Corrections Canada, on average 24 dangerous offenders are admitted to the Canadian prison system each year. Paul Bernardo is perhaps Canada's best known Dangerous Offender.
(snip)
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Offender
(snip)
^Statistics show increasing number of dangerous, long-term offenders in Canada
The number of dangerous offenders and convicts on long-term supervision has grown steadily over the past decade as courts and the Crown have increasingly used the designations to deal with repeat and violent offenders.
There were 331 dangerous offenders across Canada as of March 7, according to internal government documents obtained by the Canadian Press through access to information legislation.
The rate peaked in 2001 with 29 new dangerous offenders designated by the courts. Last year, 26 such designations were made.
Since the federal government added the category of long-term offenders to the law in 1997, 260 people have been ordered to be supervised for up to 10 years after their release.
"The courts are liking it. They're using it more and more," says Shandy-Lynn Briggs, a parole supervisor in Toronto and Corrections Canada expert in law.
"We've seen significant increases over the last couple of years now that they're starting to get familiar with it."
Ontario courts make the most use of the dangerous offender legislation, with 159 such offenders. Next is British Columbia, with 111 successful applications.
(snip)
source:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/05/16/international2016EDT0075.DTL
(snip)
"...significant numbers of offenders were sentenced to prison for crimes that are not particularly serious. For example, 528 individuals were incarcerated for possession of a firearm, 1,363 for possession of stolen goods under $1,000, fully 7,353 for theft under $1,000, 1,665 for mischief under $1,000, 854 for soliciting, and 3,455 were incarcerated for simple possession of a narcotic.
These crimes should not be dismissed as being trivial, but is incarceration an effective response? Is there no community-based sanction that will suffice to accomplish the goals of sentencing as specified by the statement of the purposes of sentencing contained in Section 718 of the Criminal Code? While these offenders were detained for short periods of time, they still nevertheless cost on average $127 a day while in detention, and short-term admissions are complicated for correctional authorities to administer. Several provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act are aimed at reducing the use of incarceration for such offenders." (Roberts, Julian V. & Birkenmayer, Andy, Sentencing in Canada: Recent Statistical Trends, Canadian Journal of Criminology, Vol. 39, No. 4, October 1997, p.470)
(snip)
This is an excellent article to read.
source:
http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/overc3.html
(snip)
For 2000-2001, the total number of prisoners for Canada was 117 per 100,000 total population, as follows:
Canada Total- 36,018
Federal- 12,732
Provincial/Territorial- 18,815
Young Offenders*- 4,471
(snip)
source:
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/faits/facts08-02_e.shtml
If we do some simple math and multiply $127 dollars a day times 36, 018 as of the year 2002 we get $4,574,286.00 per day. The number of inmates has not decreased since these statistic were compiled.
that is $1,669,614,390.00. per year which is no small amount.
Our prison system costs us a great deal and adding to that the costs of the judicial process for each of these prisoners we can see that it adds up to a massive expense. if we were to reduce the number of inmates and have our prisoners do useful and profitable work while incarcerated these costs could be reduced.
Re-implementing the death penalty would not make a significant differance in the overall costs of our prision system. It is more a matter of public safety than anything else and a proper application of justice. The appeals system and its costs should be looked at as well as the basic ideas of who actually needs to be put in jail.
Is there other options for minor (non-dangerous) offenders or one time offenders? Probably and if we are to work towards a better justice system we need to explore all the possibilities............
Jay said:
The crimes would have to be murder related that is the only way allowing the death penalty as a judicial option would make sense. The crime commited would have to be proven as a vicious act and also the perpetrator would have to be proven as permanently unstable with a high possibility of re-offending.There are many cases of "causing death" that would not fit under these critiera and would then not warrent the consideration of the death penalty as an option. We have actually very few criminals that would warrent such a punishment. If we picked from this short list how many would we want to see put to death?
Paul Bernardo (born 1964), murderer
Edwin Alonzo Boyd, bank robber
Marc Carbonneau, terrorist
Jacques Cossette-Trudel, terrorist
Louise Cossette-Trudel, terrorist
Larry Fisher, murderer
Karla Homolka, murderer (Mrs. Paul Bernardo)
Jacques Lanctôt, FLQ Terrorist
Yves Langlois, FLQ Terrorist
Robert Latimer, murdered his 12-year-old disabled daughter
Marc Lépine, killed 14 women at Montreal's École Polytechnique de Montréal in 1989
Bernard Lortie, FLQ Terrorist
Denis Lortie, killed three people at the Quebec National Assembly in 1984
Clifford Olson, serial child killer
Paul Rose, terrorist
Jacques Rose, terrorist
Francis Simard, terrorist
Colin Thatcher, murderer
Inderjit Singh Reyat -- the alleged bomb-maker of the device that blew up Air India Flight 182, pleaded guilty to the murder of the 329 passengers in 2003
Alleged criminals
Grace Marks -- convicted of murder in 1843, her role in the murder has never been clear, became the subject of Margaret Atwood's 1996 novel Alias Grace.
Robert Pickton -- charged with largest number of serial killings in Canadian history, and still counting
Nicholas Ribic -- charged with having taken UN hostages during the war in the Balkans
Steven Truscott -- convicted of murder in 1959; as of 2004, his case is pending its third appeal on grounds of wrongful conviction
Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri -- charged with first-degree murder in the deaths of 329 passengers and crew on Air India Flight 182 and attempted murder of passengers and crew of Air India Flight 301 and the murders of two baggage handlers at the airport in Narita, Japan.
(snip)
In the Canadian legal system Dangerous Offender is a status under which a convicted person can not apply for parole. It effectively means that the person has been given a life sentence with no chance of parole. According to Corrections Canada, on average 24 dangerous offenders are admitted to the Canadian prison system each year. Paul Bernardo is perhaps Canada's best known Dangerous Offender.
(snip)
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Offender
(snip)
^Statistics show increasing number of dangerous, long-term offenders in Canada
The number of dangerous offenders and convicts on long-term supervision has grown steadily over the past decade as courts and the Crown have increasingly used the designations to deal with repeat and violent offenders.
There were 331 dangerous offenders across Canada as of March 7, according to internal government documents obtained by the Canadian Press through access to information legislation.
The rate peaked in 2001 with 29 new dangerous offenders designated by the courts. Last year, 26 such designations were made.
Since the federal government added the category of long-term offenders to the law in 1997, 260 people have been ordered to be supervised for up to 10 years after their release.
"The courts are liking it. They're using it more and more," says Shandy-Lynn Briggs, a parole supervisor in Toronto and Corrections Canada expert in law.
"We've seen significant increases over the last couple of years now that they're starting to get familiar with it."
Ontario courts make the most use of the dangerous offender legislation, with 159 such offenders. Next is British Columbia, with 111 successful applications.
(snip)
source:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/05/16/international2016EDT0075.DTL
(snip)
"...significant numbers of offenders were sentenced to prison for crimes that are not particularly serious. For example, 528 individuals were incarcerated for possession of a firearm, 1,363 for possession of stolen goods under $1,000, fully 7,353 for theft under $1,000, 1,665 for mischief under $1,000, 854 for soliciting, and 3,455 were incarcerated for simple possession of a narcotic.
These crimes should not be dismissed as being trivial, but is incarceration an effective response? Is there no community-based sanction that will suffice to accomplish the goals of sentencing as specified by the statement of the purposes of sentencing contained in Section 718 of the Criminal Code? While these offenders were detained for short periods of time, they still nevertheless cost on average $127 a day while in detention, and short-term admissions are complicated for correctional authorities to administer. Several provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act are aimed at reducing the use of incarceration for such offenders." (Roberts, Julian V. & Birkenmayer, Andy, Sentencing in Canada: Recent Statistical Trends, Canadian Journal of Criminology, Vol. 39, No. 4, October 1997, p.470)
(snip)
This is an excellent article to read.
source:
http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/overc3.html
(snip)
For 2000-2001, the total number of prisoners for Canada was 117 per 100,000 total population, as follows:
Canada Total- 36,018
Federal- 12,732
Provincial/Territorial- 18,815
Young Offenders*- 4,471
(snip)
source:
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/faits/facts08-02_e.shtml
If we do some simple math and multiply $127 dollars a day times 36, 018 as of the year 2002 we get $4,574,286.00 per day. The number of inmates has not decreased since these statistic were compiled.
that is $1,669,614,390.00. per year which is no small amount.
Our prison system costs us a great deal and adding to that the costs of the judicial process for each of these prisoners we can see that it adds up to a massive expense. if we were to reduce the number of inmates and have our prisoners do useful and profitable work while incarcerated these costs could be reduced.
Re-implementing the death penalty would not make a significant differance in the overall costs of our prision system. It is more a matter of public safety than anything else and a proper application of justice. The appeals system and its costs should be looked at as well as the basic ideas of who actually needs to be put in jail.
Is there other options for minor (non-dangerous) offenders or one time offenders? Probably and if we are to work towards a better justice system we need to explore all the possibilities............
I'd just like to clarify something incase some reading this are unaware.
A mass murderer and a serial killer are not the same thing. When I stated I'm for the death penalty for serial killers this is a very small group of individuals. A group of individuals who will never be "productive members of society" and will always be dangerous to the public. It is a 100% guarantee they will re-offend.
A mass murderer and a serial killer are not the same thing. When I stated I'm for the death penalty for serial killers this is a very small group of individuals. A group of individuals who will never be "productive members of society" and will always be dangerous to the public. It is a 100% guarantee they will re-offend.
I do not support the death penalty. To me it is comparable to slapping a child because he hit another child while all the while yelling "We do not hit people". Society should not condone that kind of "eye for an eye" thinking, it is a hangover from a by-gone era.
If we are going to codemn killing, we should not turn around and kill people. It doesn't make any sense.
If we are going to codemn killing, we should not turn around and kill people. It doesn't make any sense.
Re: RE: Death Penalty
While I understand your analogy, I think the difference in slapping a child for his act is a form of discipline, while the death penalty is a form of punishment, albeit the ultimate one.
The one thing about the death penalty for those we are postive about is that they will never reoffend, which has been mentioned before. I would also be curious to see how many of those opposed to the death penalty would like to see Karla move in next door. I suspect that none would like that, nor would I.
Andygal said:
While I understand your analogy, I think the difference in slapping a child for his act is a form of discipline, while the death penalty is a form of punishment, albeit the ultimate one.
The one thing about the death penalty for those we are postive about is that they will never reoffend, which has been mentioned before. I would also be curious to see how many of those opposed to the death penalty would like to see Karla move in next door. I suspect that none would like that, nor would I.
Re: RE: Death Penalty
I don't see any reason why they just can't lock them up permanently instead of killing them.
bluealberta said:
I don't see any reason why they just can't lock them up permanently instead of killing them.
Re: RE: Death Penalty
Cost for one, including the yearly cost and the cost of buildings and staff. I am not sure the thought of tax money being used to warehouse these creeps is the best use of our money when there are other alternatives. In addition, life sentences, at least in Canada, rarely are life sentences. If life meant life, then I think your point is more valid, but still costly.
I think not said:
Cost for one, including the yearly cost and the cost of buildings and staff. I am not sure the thought of tax money being used to warehouse these creeps is the best use of our money when there are other alternatives. In addition, life sentences, at least in Canada, rarely are life sentences. If life meant life, then I think your point is more valid, but still costly.
Toro said:
Just a point in defence of the RCMP. At the time that Olsen was given the $100,000 the RCMP pretty well knew he had commited a string of murders but they didn't have enough evidence to be sure of a conviction. At that point it was either pay him to reveal the location of the bodies of the people they suspected were his victims and use the evidence obtained from that to get a conviction, or wait until he commited one more murder that they could definitly pin on him. IMHO paying $100,000 was a small price to pay to prevent someone else from dying at the hands of Olsen. As well, after the payment Olsen actually revealed more murders that he had commited that the RCMP had not linked him to, and his information also helped the families of his victims retrieve the remains. BTW Olsen still torments the families of his victims by writing letters to them describing what he did to them.
I am torn over the issue. I used to be very pro-death penalty when I was younger but now I believe that the death penalty really serves no purpose except revenge. On the other hand, people like Olsen, who continue to show no signs of remorse or rehabilitation, really deserve to be removed from society. For now, put me down as opposed to the reinstatement of the Death Penalty, but with reservations.
Re: RE: Death Penalty
I say we pick an island somewhere in the pacific, put all hard core criminals on it, and just patrol the island so they don't escape. They can hunt and farm for food and if they start to starve we drop them food. How expesnive can that be?
bluealberta said:
I say we pick an island somewhere in the pacific, put all hard core criminals on it, and just patrol the island so they don't escape. They can hunt and farm for food and if they start to starve we drop them food. How expesnive can that be?