It's time to bring the death penalty back!

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
yep,since 1976 - now the conundrum- were we right then or are we right now? I'll go along with what they did in '59..................................:lol::lol::lol:

Didn’t they convict and sentence criminals to death in 1959 (‘The good Old Days’) without the benefit of DNA evidence? So you would like to go back to those simpler times?
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
You have a good point on the extreme ones, and they are out there. Like they say down south, "some of 'em just need killin'"...if guilt could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I guess I would have to agree with it. Like you say, what's the alternative? Risking something like that getting loose again would be inexcusable..


That is where we disagree, nobody deserves killing, especially not by the government. The government has certain duties to the people, and killing them isn’t one of them.

Life without parole works just fine in most civilized, developed countries (except USA of course). It is probably more of a deterrent than death penalty, seeing that murder rate in USA (where death penalty is used liberally, eye for an eye etc.) is much higher than most other developed countries, where death penalty is illegal.

I am opposed to death penalty even in the most extreme of cases.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
So a person's age determines their opinion? Yeah, sure. Care to explain that?
Besides asking me about my age, you also made a pass at the avatar I'm using. So does the individual's avatar use determine their age and maturity as well?

By my stance on capital punishement, you determine that I'm a young person in my late teens, or very early twenties. Do you say that at everyone who has the same stance that I do on the subject? You do realise that there are people of all ages that support capital punishment right?

If you don't care how old I am then why speculate (as you claim) about my age?

I don't have an inkling how old you are but I can see where VanIsle is coming from. She's definitely hit on a strong possibility. I think there are three possibilities given you confrontational style, one is you are very young, two is you are so young, but your mentality hasn't progressed since you were a teenager and three you are a crusty old fart (we have one of those here, maybe a left over from the Klondike) So if you don't want people to get the wrong opinion about you act like a normal person.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Didn’t they convict and sentence criminals to death in 1959 (‘The good Old Days’) without the benefit of DNA evidence? So you would like to go back to those simpler times?

Well of course because THEY DIDN'T HAVE D.N.A. which is all the more reason to reinstate the death penalty now.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
There are two very good reasons to execute criminals.
1- There is zero possibility of repeat offenders.
2- Taxpayers do not have to support them.
The real problem is our soft on crime liberal joke of a justice system that gives criminals more rights than victims.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
There are two very good reasons to execute criminals.
1- There is zero possibility of repeat offenders.
2- Taxpayers do not have to support them.
The real problem is our soft on crime liberal joke of a justice system that gives criminals more rights than victims.

Yes, the victims are forgotten/ignored in our justice system. Pretty sad.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
There are two very good reasons to execute criminals.
1- There is zero possibility of repeat offenders.
2- Taxpayers do not have to support them.
The real problem is our soft on crime liberal joke of a justice system that gives criminals more rights than victims.

Yep.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
What rights does a criminal have, that a victim doesn't?

A few- the main one that comes to mind is the ability to carry on living. Others would include the freedom to enjoy the presence and company of loved ones, a third might be the absense of utter devastation and hopelessness one feels after the unnecessary loss of a love one. Need I go on? :lol::lol::lol:
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
A few- the main one that comes to mind is the ability to carry on living. Others would include the freedom to enjoy the presence and company of loved ones, a third might be the absense of utter devastation and hopelessness one feels after the unnecessary loss of a love one. Need I go on? :lol::lol::lol:

Are any of those rights?
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Killing someone does not necessarily constitute murder. I define murder as preplanned, cold blooded killing of a human being. There must be planning, premeditation. By this definition, capital punishment is definitely murder.
By your definition, execution isn't cold-blooded or planned? What zoo did you escape from?
(just what is "PREplanning" anyway? Is that like making plans before doing something? Wouldn't that be called just plain old "planning? Do you prepare to prepare for something? lol)

Anyway, killing is killing. Murder is killing someone with premeditation and intention of killing them.
From Princeton U. Press: kill intentionally and with premeditation
According to West's dictionary of American Law: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Duhaime defines it as premeditated and intentional homicide.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
The timeless art of drawing and quartering a person held some fascination for me as well. Current means of execution, like lethal injection, have taken all of the fun out of state sponsored murder. :cry:

A lot of drawing and quartering was tearing the convict's body apart after he/she was dead. Hardly any fun in that. The mistake was the sentence. To be hung, drawn, and quartered should have been drawn, quartered and hung.......The problem of course was that you had at least four bits to hang......Nasty business....;-):roll:
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Is the terminology important? Maybe prvileges would be a better term.

Well, you're claiming that criminals have more rights than victims. I'm asking what those rights are. It's a common cry from the right wing, but I've never seen an explanation of what those rights are, that criminals seem to have, that others don't.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Well, you're claiming that criminals have more rights than victims. I'm asking what those rights are. It's a common cry from the right wing, but I've never seen an explanation of what those rights are, that criminals seem to have, that others don't.
Good point. I think it used to be that criminals rights were limited to the rights to shelter, food/water, and warmth. Now the only right they seem to not have is the right to wander freely.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Yes, indeed. And your point is what?

OK, I'll type slow so you can keep up. Something needs to be done for the victim's family. The criminal has the rights and is living off your buck and mine until he is released. What does the victim's family get? Sweet diddley squat. The least that can be done is to execute the offender. The bleeding hearts don't care less about the victim.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
OK, I'll type slow so you can keep up. Something needs to be done for the victim's family. The criminal has the rights and is living off your buck and mine until he is released. What does the victim's family get? Sweet diddley squat. The least that can be done is to execute the offender. The bleeding hearts don't care less about the victim.

I'll type slow so that you can think about it:

What rights does a criminal have, that a victim does not?

You keep making this claim, so I'd like you to put your thinking cap on, and explain what you mean.
 

countryboy

Traditionally Progressive
Nov 30, 2009
3,686
39
48
BC
Rights and freedoms that are no longer extended to a victim of murder:

- freedom of conscience and religion
- freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
- freedom of peaceful assembly; and
- freedom of association

- Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified fo membership therein.

- Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

- Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

- Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. (Is murder "cruel?")

- Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.