Latest poll on Capital punishment

[lone wolf]

Did proof ever immerge that Truscott was definitely innocent or is it still a case of a "shadow of a doubt"?

It's still shadow of a doubt as far as I know. He was acquitted ... but only for lack of evidence.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=005554cb-1cfa-45f7-b04a-e5e18f02ee05

 

[AnnaG]

That is not opposing death penalty, JLM. That is supporting death penalty in some instances. Which means you support death penalty. Opposing death penalty means opposing it in all circumstances, no exceptions. I oppose death penalty.

Some folks are just so dense, it's hilarious. So according to you, people either like apples or they don't and the ones that do like them don't care if the apple is rotten or green or ripe. roflmao

Sure it does. It says that you are in favor of amputation in some circumstances (when doctor deems it medically necessary and the patient also agrees). That does NOT mean that you are opposed to amputation.

It is you who seem to have problem with English language. Supporting something under limited conditions is supporting it, not opposing it.

Sorry, it isn't JLM with the comprehension problem, it's you. lmao "Whatta maroon" B Bunny

 

[Libertarian]

It's still shadow of a doubt as far as I know.

What do we have to condemn murderers?

Eye witness? Easily skewed. DNA? Easily misread.

So we have virtually no way of actually knowing anything, unless it is video recorded, and even then, with advanced enough editing software/time, you can fake a murder, probably.

 

[AnnaG]

Canadian society as a whole benefits by keeping people like Olson or Bernardo alive. By keeping them alive, Canada is saying that here in Canada, we value human life, we don't take the life of our citizens, no matter what the provocation.

Right to life is very basic, it even overrides free speech, or freedom to worship. Banning death penalty is an essential part of the civilized society.

Hey waitaminit! A different thread and a few weeks ago you said that people don't have rights to things that enable life, but you now spout about "the right to life". Make up your little mind.

 

[lone wolf]

What do we have to condemn murderers?

Eye witness? Easily skewed. DNA? Easily misread.

So we have virtually no way of actually knowing anything, unless it is video recorded, and even then, with advanced enough editing software/time, you can fake a murder, probably.

If you're on camera within a Legislative building and squeezing off rounds, can it be denied? If it is done before witnesses - especially cop witnesses - can it be denied? If one leaves video evidence around for posterity, can it be denied? Without a shadow of a doubt means just that.

 

[AnnaG]

Did someone push his badger button again?

I think he's sitting on his DUH button.

 

[Libertarian]

If you're on camera within a Legislative building and squeezing off rounds, can it be denied? If it is done before witnesses - especially cop witnesses - can it be denied? Without a shadow of a doubt means just that.

Corrupt cops, corrupt people? I suppose we need some faith in our law, but most murders don't happen in the open, and many, aren't even solved for weeks, if not months later, no?

It's a hard system to catch people, but even falsely convicted, better to serve in jail for life then be executed. Although jail isn't a great place. If not the crazies that might shank or rape you, you have to deal with poor food and corrupt abusive prison guards.

And it is boring too. I imagine solitary confinement would be maddening.

 

[Libertarian]

Just imagine being put in jail for life because you were in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and said the wrong things to cops in your anxiety. Man that would suck, I hope that never happens to me...

PS: I've never been to prison, but know people who have.

 

[AnnaG]

Again, that is supporting death penalty, in some circumstances. Not opposing it. In the poll which started this thread, you will be counted as a supporter of death penalty, not as an opponent.

The 46% who don't want to bring back the death penalty don't want it back under any conditions. Those 40% who want to bring back death penalty, want to bring it back under limited circumstances, like you do.

Where did it say anything about circumstances in the poll? Or are you just projecting your own opinion into it?

You evidently have difficulty grasping the concept of support and oppose.

No, that isn't evident at all. However, it is evident that you don't believe in exceptions except when they suit you.

 

[AnnaG]

I've seen too many innocents put on death row to support it at all.

Me, too. But that's not saying I'd miss Pickton, Olson, or Bernardo.

 

[AnnaG]

Stephen Truscott comes to mind fast. It was the shadow of a doubt that kept him alive.

Marshall is the first that pops into my noggin.

 

[AnnaG]

And if one innocent man is executed unfairly, the whole system falls apart. We can NEVER support a system that is that faulty.

Plus the psychological torture of putting people on death row is inhumane.

It could be said that taking away people's liberty by confining them for the rest of their lives is also inhumane. There has to be a balance struck somewhere.

 

[Libertarian]

Hmm... it is a hard issue.

 

[Libertarian]

It could be said that taking away people's liberty by confining them for the rest of their lives is also inhumane. There has to be a balance struck somewhere.

True. But it still is better to be locked away, then murdered, I suppose.

Maybe give the convicted the choice?

 

[AnnaG]

Yes. It goes against liberty. And regardless of how one wants to sugar-coat it, for the state to kill someone, makes the state murderers. I know modern executions are done by machines, but whoever programmed/built those machines, are just as much a murderer as the murderer himself.

Yup. The State is an entity comprised of the people that support it.

Think about it. The only difference is the legality of it. You are still snuffing out a life, forever.

Which puts the executioner and its bosses in the position of murderers, too.
I'm perfectly content to let them rot miserably in prison.

 

[AnnaG]

True. But it still is better to be locked away, then murdered, I suppose.

Maybe give the convicted the choice?

I'm not against assisted suicide.

 

[JLM]

That is not opposing death penalty, JLM. That is supporting death penalty in some instances. Which means you support death penalty. Opposing death penalty means opposing it in all circumstances, no exceptions. I oppose death penalty.



Sure it does. It says that you are in favor of amputation in some circumstances (when doctor deems it medically necessary and the patient also agrees). That does NOT mean that you are opposed to amputation.

It is you who seem to have problem with English language. Supporting something under limited conditions is supporting it, not opposing it.

OK, so are you in favour of amputation or against amputation?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I've seen too many innocents put on death row to support it at all.

For a change we agree on something.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

One of the main flaws to your argument is your generous use of the word "citizen"- Since when are these bastards "citizens"?

Committing crimes, however horrible does not deprive one of citizenship. Unless he was a naturalized citizen. Then he may be deported to his country of birth.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What do we have to condemn murderers?

Eye witness? Easily skewed. DNA? Easily misread.

So we have virtually no way of actually knowing anything, unless it is video recorded, and even then, with advanced enough editing software/time, you can fake a murder, probably.

I agree. Life without parole is the proper punishment for murderers.