Death Penalty

[Knightman]

Re: RE: Death Penalty

I don't see any reason why they just can't lock them up permanently instead of killing them.

They can, if you followed through my earlier post on this thread I point to the dangerous offenders act such as Paul Bernado is under, he is not eligable for parole and will never be released.......

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Death Penalty

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.

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.

I don't see any reason why they just can't lock them up permanently instead of killing them.

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 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?

I love it, how does Cuba in the Atlantic sound :wink:

 

[no1important]

Cuba is a nice place to vacation, though.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Death Penalty

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.

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.

I don't see any reason why they just can't lock them up permanently instead of killing them.

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 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?

I love it, how does Cuba in the Atlantic sound :wink:

Nah, the Cuban people have been through enough already. French Guiana known as Devil's Island was a good idea, but they were busy torturing, we can just leave them alone. The Brits had a good idea but they picked too big of an island (Australia) to implement this. Alcatraz was another good idea, but too close. Hmmmm. We could always break off Texas somehow and stick it in a galaxy far far away I'd vote for that.

 

[passpatoo]

Re: RE: Death Penalty

[quote="bluealberta
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.[/quote]

I would agree with this except we would be putting $ ahead of innocent lives. As hard as we may try, our justice system is imperfect and will always be. Because of this, there will always be innocents convicted of murder. Bad enough that they will have to spend years in prison for this, but at the very least they have some hope of the truth comming out and obtaining eventual release. Many examples of this already exist in our country.

Capital punishment is definitive. It leaves no opportunity for correction should a error of justice occur.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Death Penalty

[quote="bluealberta
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 would agree with this except we would be putting $ ahead of innocent lives. As hard as we may try, our justice system is imperfect and will always be. Because of this, there will always be innocents convicted of murder. Bad enough that they will have to spend years in prison for this, but at the very least they have some hope of the truth comming out and obtaining eventual release. Many examples of this already exist in our country.

Capital punishment is definitive. It leaves no opportunity for correction should a error of justice occur.[/quote]

I agree, but maybe I did not make it clear what I meant. For the Bernardos and Olsens of the world, where there is no doubt at all, then I have no problem with the death penalty. Perhaps a sentencing system like the US where the jury that finds someone guilty also rules on the sentence. That way, any doubt could be taken into consideration during the sentencing phase of a trial.

In my opinion, the death penalty for the "no doubt" killers should be an option.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Death Penalty

[quote="bluealberta
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 would agree with this except we would be putting $ ahead of innocent lives. As hard as we may try, our justice system is imperfect and will always be. Because of this, there will always be innocents convicted of murder. Bad enough that they will have to spend years in prison for this, but at the very least they have some hope of the truth comming out and obtaining eventual release. Many examples of this already exist in our country.

Capital punishment is definitive. It leaves no opportunity for correction should a error of justice occur.

I agree, but maybe I did not make it clear what I meant. For the Bernardos and Olsens of the world, where there is no doubt at all, then I have no problem with the death penalty. Perhaps a sentencing system like the US where the jury that finds someone guilty also rules on the sentence. That way, any doubt could be taken into consideration during the sentencing phase of a trial.

In my opinion, the death penalty for the "no doubt" killers should be an option.[/quote]

Hmmm. OJ Simpson comes to mind.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Death Penalty

[quote="bluealberta
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 would agree with this except we would be putting $ ahead of innocent lives. As hard as we may try, our justice system is imperfect and will always be. Because of this, there will always be innocents convicted of murder. Bad enough that they will have to spend years in prison for this, but at the very least they have some hope of the truth comming out and obtaining eventual release. Many examples of this already exist in our country.

Capital punishment is definitive. It leaves no opportunity for correction should a error of justice occur.

I agree, but maybe I did not make it clear what I meant. For the Bernardos and Olsens of the world, where there is no doubt at all, then I have no problem with the death penalty. Perhaps a sentencing system like the US where the jury that finds someone guilty also rules on the sentence. That way, any doubt could be taken into consideration during the sentencing phase of a trial.

In my opinion, the death penalty for the "no doubt" killers should be an option.

Hmmm. OJ Simpson comes to mind.[/quote]

There is a point there, ITN. However, at the time of that trial, I had the opportunity to watch it virtually every day, and was not surprised and the verdict. Disappointed, but not surprised. There was doubt raised, so this was not one of my "no doubt" examples. In the OJ case, the prosecution really screwed up, and with Furman types as key witnesses, trying the glove on, etc., reasonable doubt was there. I thought he was guilty, but was not surprised at the verdict.

 

[Reverend Blair]

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.

Except we know that in the US it costs more to kill somebody than it does to "warehouse" them. Never mind the complete immorality of putting a price on human life, what you are suggesting is neither cost-effective nor factual.

 

[Gordon J Torture]

The death penalty is absolutely counterproductive.

Increasing the probability that offenders will be captured, is a much more effective way to fight crime than increasing the severity of punishment. Attempting both, while implementing the death penalty will prove as nothing more than the promotion of hatred, revenge, and fear, which are things that inevitably lead to more hatred, revenge, and fear on both sides of the table.

 

[passpatoo]

Re: RE: Death Penalty

[quote="bluealberta

In my opinion, the death penalty for the "no doubt" killers should be an option.[/quote]

The trouble is, how do you define this well enough to be written into law? Some doubt will almost always remain. Let's use Homolka for example. Apparently, the video tapes explicitly show her participating horrendous acts. No doubt left here? Maybe there is. Some still percieve her to be the victim of Battered Wife Syndrome. If this is true, is she therefore responsible for the acts performed on the tape. Or does this make Bernardo solely responsible, and Homolka merely a tool to commit the crime with?

I don't believe prison terms should be veiwed as preventative. The people who commit these crimes do so with little or no forethought as to the consequences. In the absence forethought of potential punishment, prison terms will never serve to be preventative. In this light, the best function of a prison should be to keep dangerous elements of our population away from further harming the general populace. Therefore, if Homolka is still likely to "re-offend", then she should still be in prison.[/i]

 

[bluealberta]

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.

Except we know that in the US it costs more to kill somebody than it does to "warehouse" them. Never mind the complete immorality of putting a price on human life, what you are suggesting is neither cost-effective nor factual.

In my opinion, what these scum do, especially the ones who kill kids, is far mor immoral than anything we could do to them. Do do something immoral to someone, that person has to have morals and the Clifford Olsens of the world have no morality, ethics, or in my opinion, right to live.

 

[bluealberta]

The death penalty is absolutely counterproductive.

Increasing the probability that offenders will be captured, is a much more effective way to fight crime than increasing the severity of punishment. Attempting both, while implementing the death penalty will prove as nothing more than the promotion of hatred, revenge, and fear, which are things that inevitably lead to more hatred, revenge, and fear on both sides of the table.

How about making sure these "offenders", or scum as I call them, get no more than one opportunity to perform their sick acts. If there were some way to identify them before their first act, then I would support that too, but there isn't, so it is incumbent upon us as a society to make sure they get no more than one opportunity, which is still two too many.

 

[Twila]

he trouble is, how do you define this well enough to be written into law? Some doubt will almost always remain. Let's use Homolka for example. Apparently, the video tapes explicitly show her participating horrendous acts. No doubt left here? Maybe there is. Some still percieve her to be the victim of Battered Wife Syndrome. If this is true, is she therefore responsible for the acts performed on the tape. Or does this make Bernardo solely responsible, and Homolka merely a tool to commit the crime with?

Seriel killers (which Hamolka is) are a completely different breed of criminal. there is science behind the profiling that's used to identify these people. There is a legal definition of seriel killer and a different definition of mass murderer. It's already catagorized legally.

With regards to the battered wife syndrome. That's an entirely different kettle of fish. And a rather smelly one at that. I believe that she is responsible for her actions....no matter what kind of abuse she supposedly was put through.

You hear stories of the heroics people performed while under extreme mental and physical duress both men and women. How come when it comes to responsibility for negative actions women find themselves powereless victims? I do not like the idea that women want equality but not equal responsibility. Are we or are we not equal?

 

[peapod]

I don't agree with the death, they make to many mistakes, just ask david milgard, or guy paul. Some of these cases make for very emotional stuff, but in the end, a cage and no tv is the best punishment.

http://www.mcgill.ca/innocence/

 

[bluealberta]

I don't agree with the death, they make to many mistakes, just ask david milgard, or guy paul. Some of these cases make for very emotional stuff, but in the end, a cage and no tv is the best punishment.

http://www.mcgill.ca/innocence/

But you just made the point that the system works. Neither would have actually been executed due to the years and years of appeals that would have taken place. It is also worth noting that the technology now is so far superior to that of past years it is like comparing stone age to nuclear age. With the appeal process and with the new technology and science, I would have faith that the system would work.

However, if these people were actually locked up and made to do hard labor without any kind of perks, I could be persuaded to change my mind. Until that happens, and until a life sentence means a life sentence, my opinion will remain. Kill the creeps, we will be better off without them anyway.

 

[peapod]

Lucky for them...if they lived in texas, I think they have been toasted...and last time I looked we hanged an innocent man called louis riel

 

[bluealberta]

Lucky for them...if they lived in texas, I think they have been toasted...and last time I looked we hanged an innocent man called louis riel

Well, I thought we were talking about the Canadian death penalty debate. And the Romans crucified an innocent Jew. How far back do you want to go? I thought the debate was about the here and now, not the there and gone. :wink:

 

[Reverend Blair]

You are fighting to bring in American-style laws and policies, Blue. Then you turn around and say we were talking about Canada? Nice try.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Death Penalty

You are fighting to bring in American-style laws and policies, Blue. Then you turn around and say we were talking about Canada? Nice try.

Swerve all over the place to try and change the topic. When did I fight for Amercan laws? Or policies? Never have. I think some of theirs policies are better than ours, I think some of ours are better than theirs.

If you will notice, BTW, Peapod mentioned Texas. I brought it back to topic, which is a Canadian debate about the death penalty in Canada, not Texas, not 150 years ago either.