It's time to bring the death penalty back!

[AnnaG]

The criminal justice system's emphasis on executions and the inevitible media coverage often create an impression that the much sought after resolution will come with the prisoner's execution, but the death penalty keeps the case alive for years, forcing the family to endure numerous appeals and parole board meetings. When the execution date arrives, if viewing the execution does not bring about the healing or closure expected, the family members may become even more skeptical about the healing process. Watching violence does not likely bring about healing. "We're talking about revenge, and it's not clear to me that revenge changes one's long term ability to deal with loss," stated one psychiatrist.[SIZE=-2][14][/SIZE] "Every culture has a different way of mourning, but witnessing executions isn't one of them."[SIZE=-2][15][/SIZE]

The vengeance offered by allowing families to view the execution also ignores the reality that victims often seek a meaning to their victimization, not revenge. "Healing has to be bigger and better than reducing ourselves to participating in gruesome acts."[SIZE=-2][16][/SIZE] Some family members have found healing through reconciliation. Brooks Douglass experienced a sense of satisfaction after meeting with George Ake, the other man convicted of killing his parents.[SIZE=-2][17][/SIZE] Because Ake showed genuine remorse, Douglass expressed his forgiveness.[SIZE=-2][18][/SIZE] "I felt a real closeness to him. We've been trapped in a foxhole together for all these years."[SIZE=-2][19][/SIZE] Paul Stevens, the father of a murder victim, now ministers to death row inmates at Eddyville Prison in Kentucky.[SIZE=-2][20][/SIZE] He found forgiveness allowed him to pay tribute to his daughter. Stevens described his transformation: "[h]ate absorbed every day of my life until I started talking to the inmates at the prison. One trip to death row and I was hooked, I couldn't quit. I'm still going eleven years later."[SIZE=-2][21][/SIZE] Other family members of murder victims have sought to abolish the very form of punishment that the state offers them as consolation. A murder victim's daughter-in-law formed a group opposed to the death penalty, reasoning, "[h]ow could we stand as murder victims, in our pain and sorrow, and give it to someone else's family as well?"[SIZE=-2][22][/SIZE] Offended by the state's offer of retribution, Marrietta Yeager, whose daughter was abducted and murdered during a family camping trip, stated "[t]o say an execution of some malfunctioning individual would help me heal insults the memory of my little girl. She is worthy of a more noble, honorable, and beautiful memorial."[SIZE=-2][23][/SIZE]

Bump.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJP - Could you give an example of where you think it would be OK to kill someone in "self-defence?"

That is easy. If somebody is attacking me, I would be justified in fighting back, even killing him. The law recognizes the principle of self defense. Or killing can be justified in a war.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

As I see it when one commits a crime one forfits any "rights" that others enjoy, particularily when the crime is eliminating someone elses right to life.
And this is where the death penalty comes in. It is the self defense of law abiding citizens to protect themselves from those with no respect for others.
If our prisons were run more along the Mexican model I might agree that life with no parole is a better solution than the death penalty.

A criminal certainly gives up many of the rights that we enjoy. However, certain rights are so fundamental that even a prisoner is entitled to them. The right not to be tortured, for instance. The prisoner has the right to sufficient amount of food, water, reasonable shelter, medical care etc.

So a prisoner clearly does not give up all the rights. And the right to life is the most fundamental right of them all, I think most civilized countries agree that a murderer does not forfeit the right to life, even if he is convicted of murder.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Anyway we could get that up here. Sounds too good. We are supposed to run, duck and cover when accosted by thugs. Then call 911, after your family has been beaten, wife raped, dog shot, money stole. Yep, call 911. Good deal.:angry3:

And just how many times do you think that happens? Contrary to continuous scare mongering by the conservatives, both the murder rate and the crime rate is dropping in Canada.

We have done very well indeed without death penalty. Canada is not about to change course and go back to the 'Good Old Days'.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

One murder, two murders. Whats the difference?

Quite so. One murder, two murders, zero murders, what is the difference?

 

[AnnaG]

A criminal certainly gives up many of the rights that we enjoy.

Many? Like which ones? I can think of only one; the right of liberty to go anywhere.

 

[petros]

If the Charter were to be changed by "wingnuts" I'm sure these "wingnuts" would change the definition of a person to alter abortion laws.

So what would we do grandfather all the millions of murderous women or hang them all later?

 

[petros]

If the Charter were to be changed by "wingnuts" I'm sure these "wingnuts" would change the definition of a person to alter abortion laws.

So what would we do grandfather all the millions of murderous women or hang them all later?

How many of us would lose a wife ,sister, aunt, cousin or even mother?

 

[gerryh]

LOL, now this is funny. Humor is good when you have nothing to say, or when you twist things to suit your purpose.
Where did I say I would kill a person if they were not guilty. If the courts and decent people found a kiddy diddler guilty,,, no problem,,, I would have no problem, ending 'it's' life, as some people in this world need killing...simple as that,
or some people do not deserve the gift of life, and a kiddly diddler is the only one I can think of that fits that category.

Simon Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, William Mullins-Johnson, Kyle Unger, Timothy Houlahan, all wrongly convicted, all would be dead under your laws.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Please stick to the Thread Topic & leave the childish personal insults out of
this Thread...and the quoting of those same childish personal insults that
double a Moderators clean up...

 

[petros]

If the courts and decent people found a kiddy diddler guilty,,,

Courts being unbiased jurists without emotional attachment using only the rule of law as their moral guide? Would you disqualifiy a jurist if he/she wasn't "decent"? What the hell does "decent" mean?

 

[petros]

Bump.

Thx.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If the Charter were to be changed by "wingnuts" I'm sure these "wingnuts" would change the definition of a person to alter abortion laws.

So what would we do grandfather all the millions of murderous women or hang them all later?

Indeed. There may be some inclusions and some exclusions. Fetus will be included of course, from the moment of conception. But there may be exclusions as well. Muslims may be excluded from being persons (can you really doubt that after reading some fo the comments here)?

Homosexuals will of course be excluded. Even murderers may be excluded from being persons (so that they may be killed).

Giving the wingnuts the power over the Charter would be the ultimate nightmare.

 

[petros]

Indeed. There may be some inclusions and some exclusions. Fetus will be included of course, from the moment of conception. But there may be exclusions as well. Muslims may be excluded from being persons (can you really doubt that after reading some fo the comments here)?

Homosexuals will of course be excluded. Even murderers may be excluded from being persons (so that they may be killed).

Giving the wingnuts the power over the Charter would be the ultimate nightmare.

It would also mean the end of ginormeous corporations losing their status as persons and thus liable to rule of law.

Do you think the definition of person will ever be altered?

 

[countryboy]

That is easy. If somebody is attacking me, I would be justified in fighting back, even killing him. The law recognizes the principle of self defense. Or killing can be justified in a war.

Hmm, I'm trying to connect all your dots on this issue...I'm thinking that if a person is in danger of being murdered but can't bring him/herself to defend him/herself effectively because they are against killing another person, and it they end up being murdered themselves, are they then committing suicide?

On the other hand, if they do succeed in killing the would-be murderer as part of self-defence, have they not then invoked the dealth penalty (without the help of the state, of course).

And, if killing can be justified in a war, are not most wars run by "the authorities" (the "state")? If so, how can that same state not be justified in invoking the death penalty (i.e. killing people)?

 

[JLM]

Hmm, I'm trying to connect all your dots on this issue...I'm thinking that if a person is in danger of being murdered but can't bring him/herself to defend him/herself effectively because they are against killing another person, and it they end up being murdered themselves, are they then committing suicide?

On the other hand, if they do succeed in killing the would-be murderer as part of self-defence, have they not then invoked the dealth penalty (without the help of the state, of course).

And, if killing can be justified in a war, are not most wars run by "the authorities" (the "state")? If so, how can that same state not be justified in invoking the death penalty (i.e. killing people)?

Maybe just an iota of hypocrisy there -after saying for months that killing is wrong even for those who kill children, it seems it's alright if he's the one in danger. (His debating skills still need a little work :lol::lol::lol

 

[petros]

Hmm, I'm trying to connect all your dots on this issue...I'm thinking that if a person is in danger of being murdered but can't bring him/herself to defend him/herself effectively because they are against killing another person, and it they end up being murdered themselves, are they then committing suicide?

On the other hand, if they do succeed in killing the would-be murderer as part of self-defence, have they not then invoked the dealth penalty (without the help of the state, of course).

And, if killing can be justified in a war, are not most wars run by "the authorities" (the "state")? If so, how can that same state not be justified in invoking the death penalty (i.e. killing people)?

India defeated the British Empire at it's peak by doing absolutely nothing.

 

[countryboy]

India defeated the British Empire at it's peak by doing absolutely nothing.

Well that's awfully nice, but it appears to have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

 

[petros]

Well that's awfully nice, but it appears to have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Appears.....That's exactly why it works because it confuses the hell out of your western thinking.

 

[petros]

Why do I need to harm someone to defend myself?