Should the death penalty for murder be reintroduced?

[Machjo]

I personaly like Colpy's three strikes you're out Idea...

I'd say one strike but with a higher standard of evidence requirement, though Colpie's three separate trials each with a conviction is a good alternative. I also like his idea of a cut-off period. Granted a 30-day cut off period increases the chances that he will get executed compare to let's say a 48-hour cut off period. On the other hand, for the sake of the family of the murderer, I'd say it should be done fast or not at all, and 30 day seems like a long time to torment the family of the murderer who are likely tormented enough as it is. We hould remember that they are victims too, of betrayal of the family name and reputation and its trust, etc.

 

[JLM]

For murder, life without parole must be the minimum possible sentence.

I think there are certain instances where lesser sentences are appropriate, eg. I catch an S.O.B. in the act of molesting my grand daughter and in a rage I sucker punch the bastard and he dies of a cerebral hemorrage.

 

[Unforgiven]

Only when someone can be found who has never and will never make a mistake. Until then, no death penalty.

 

[JLM]

Only when someone can be found who has never and will never make a mistake. Until then, no death penalty.

You don't leave it up to any ONE person. First you have a set of criteria that have to be met, and after that unanimous approval by a panel of three people.

 

[gopher]

''proven murders''

What happens if you find out later that evidence was fabricated or planted as Mark Fuhrmann boasted of doing in LA?

 

[Machjo]

''proven murders''

What happens if you find out later that evidence was fabricated or planted as Mark Fuhrmann boasted of doing in LA?

Try this for evidence:

YouTube - Video: Russell Williams confession, Pt. 1

Along with the complete transcript of the interrogation(warning: the last part of the transcript is graphic):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/edited-williams.pdf

Along with a transcript of his handwritten letters to his wife and other victims:

CBC News - Canada - Transcripts of Williams's letters to victims, wife

How many more times needs he confess and in how much more detail before we have sufficient evidence? This is not a case of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This is well beyond 'reasonable doubt'. I'd be absolutely shocked to find out he was innocent. I could not even begin to see how it would be possible, to produce fake videos, have him confess (or was it someone disguised as him while the real Williams is kidnapped and locked in in some room somewhere right now?), have all the evidence match his detailed confession details, etc. It would be the framing job par excellence!

 

[gerryh]

all I can say is, you are turning out to be one sick f*ck.

 

[gopher]

I am also referring to a series of abuses that were uncovered in Chicago where the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence and kept several people on death row despite their innocence. Also recall the Charles Stewart case in Boston where a white guy faked an injury while murdering his wife in cold blood - he said a black guy did it and the police forced that guy to confess even though he was innocent.

Again, what do you do in those cases?

 

[damngrumpy]

Some interesting stuff here. First the three strikes your out would actually result in more
risk of someone getting killed. If you had a criminal who was facing the third strike for a
lesser crime, he may well kill his witnesses to ensure his prison cell won't become his
ever lasting home. I remember the jerk who killed someone in Vernon. The lack of a death
penalty was not the problem here it was the parole board, who let the killer out of prison,
I agree life should mean life.
To say the charter has created problems is an understatement, of course the charter has
created problems it ensures people have rights and its the responsibility of the state to
prove its case before throwing people into prison for life.
The other thing that bothers me is not prison farms for low risk offenders, as it could instill
discipline and create an interest in opting in to society. Its the high risk isolated prison camp
idea that bothers me., At some point under a less scrupulous government they could turn
into the kind of camps that prevailed in parts of Europe during world war two. And the
criteria that could put certain people in those camps could change. The future is an unknown
quantity and we must never lose sight of that.
If someone has new evidence they deserve a new trial and if society robs someone of their
freedom the society collectively is responsible to make amends.
I say for first degree murder you never get out. For other degrees of killing we may well have
to channel the offender back into mainstream society, therefore work, life skills, discipline,
and career skills are a must. Every case is therefore determined on it merits.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Some interesting stuff here. First the three strikes your out would actually result in more
risk of someone getting killed. If you had a criminal who was facing the third strike for a
lesser crime, he may well kill his witnesses to ensure his prison cell won't become his
ever lasting home. I remember the jerk who killed someone in Vernon. The lack of a death
penalty was not the problem here it was the parole board, who let the killer out of prison,
I agree life should mean life.
To say the charter has created problems is an understatement, of course the charter has
created problems it ensures people have rights and its the responsibility of the state to
prove its case before throwing people into prison for life.
The other thing that bothers me is not prison farms for low risk offenders, as it could instill
discipline and create an interest in opting in to society. Its the high risk isolated prison camp
idea that bothers me., At some point under a less scrupulous government they could turn
into the kind of camps that prevailed in parts of Europe during world war two. And the
criteria that could put certain people in those camps could change. The future is an unknown
quantity and we must never lose sight of that.
If someone has new evidence they deserve a new trial and if society robs someone of their
freedom the society collectively is responsible to make amends.
I say for first degree murder you never get out. For other degrees of killing we may well have
to channel the offender back into mainstream society, therefore work, life skills, discipline,
and career skills are a must. Every case is therefore determined on it merits.

Well said. There is also the fact that in the case of people like Clifford Olson and Russell society is dealing with psychopathic behaviour. The death penalty will in no way deter the actions of these people and as a result the only motive for the death penalty is one of vengeance. No matter how disgusting and hateful their behaviour, they must be treated in accordance with the law and currently the law is that revenge is not a proper response to a criminal action.

In addition this week we just had one more case of a wrongful conviction. How many innocents would be put to death in error in order to satisfy the demand for vengeance?

 

[shadowshiv]

How can you say that when someone just won $4 million after being wrongfully convicted for murdering his niece, based on the evidence of a pathologist who made stuff up?

How can anyone make the distinction between 'unquestionably guilty' and 'unethical forensic experts'?

Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olson, Russell Williams. They are unquestionably guilty. They would be good candidates for the Death Penalty.

However, I could accept life in prison if it actually meant life in prison(not the "25 years before parole is available" crap). If you commit murder, especially if it occurs to children or to more than one person, it should be life with NO parole. The fact that Olson can even apply for parole is sickening to say the least.

 

[Kreskin]

I believe if we had a speedy DP there would be more murders. If someone is borderline suicidal and likes the idea of someone else taking their life for them, they could act out whatever homicidal impulses they have to achieve their suicidal goal.

 

[Machjo]

Now to be fair to Williams, even if we did have the death penalty, and even if it was the default charge for clearly proven crimes like his, we'd still have to consider the fact that he did collaborate with police, which has likely reduced the suffering and trauma at least somewhat. Seeing that not waving the death penalty in his case could make future criminals more hesitant to confess, it would be appropriate to at least give him the option of life without parole as a reward for this, so as to send a message to future murderers that cooperation with the police can have its reward. Not having any death penalty at all though removes this card from the police. In Williams' case, he'd likely have confessed even sooner than he'd done had capital punishment been in place, just to avoid the death penalty. Future murderers would likely take a cue from this too by also confessing quickly when caught, again to avoid the death penalty, and then we'd reward them with life in exchange for that.

all I can say is, you are turning out to be one sick f*ck.

Can you explain that?

I am also referring to a series of abuses that were uncovered in Chicago where the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence and kept several people on death row despite their innocence. Also recall the Charles Stewart case in Boston where a white guy faked an injury while murdering his wife in cold blood - he said a black guy did it and the police forced that guy to confess even though he was innocent.

Again, what do you do in those cases?

Obviously if there is the least doubt about a forced confession, then no. But if you look at the video above, it's clear that William's confession is totally voluntary.

Now of course seeing that a confession is the clearest proof, yet a confession is also a reason to wave the death penalty, it would mean that the death penalty would rarely be used except perhaps when all is on film and the person confession comes only after a lengthy drawn out court case where the guy tried to lie to the court. Those would be rare cases indeed. So in reality the death penalty would almost never be used, if ever. Yet the fact that it would be in the books would serve as a negotiating tool for the police. And as for an innocent confessing just to avoid the death penalty, the police ought to make it clear that even if he doesn't confess, he's more likely to et life unless the evidence is absolutely damning like a snuff film for example.

I believe if we had a speedy DP there would be more murders. If someone is borderline suicidal and likes the idea of someone else taking their life for them, they could act out whatever homicidal impulses they have to achieve their suicidal goal.

That could be worrisome, but then such a person is likely to turn himself in too, with cooperation with the police likely to kill his chances of death. Yet if he doesn't cooperate, his only option is to tape all the proof and then somehow get caught. Add to that that psychiatric examinations would play a role too. So such a person is not likely to get what he wants, and if is psycho but smart, as many are at least to a reasonable degree, he's likely to know that that won't likely work. In that case, he's better off just turning himself in to a hospital.

Thinking more on it now, though I still agree with the death penalty in principle, considering overall international opinion on the issue and the impact it can have on international relations (such as countries modifying extradition treaties with Canada if we reintroduced it, and criticisms of Canada's respect for international norms, etc. impacting on Canada's criticisms of other countries violating various international laws), now would certainly not be the time to reintroduce it in Canada.

One clear indication of international opinion on the matter can be found here:

ODS HOME PAGE

I don't see why Canada could not try to influence opinion on the matter at the UN over time, though this should not be a priority of course. But as long as international opinion is officially against it, it's probably better to respect that opinion so as to avoid other issues such as extradition treaties, etc. in future.

 

[Goober]

I believe if we had a speedy DP there would be more murders. If someone is borderline suicidal and likes the idea of someone else taking their life for them, they could act out whatever homicidal impulses they have to achieve their suicidal goal.

Even the US does not have a speedy DP procedure - Other countries yes -
Next - a person who is suicidal will kill themselves before someone else as the trial etc can take years.

 

[Machjo]

Even the US does not have a speedy DP procedure -

If it can't be speedy, then it shouldn't be done. Again, there ought to be a cut off period. Personally, I'd say 48 hours. Colpy proposed 30 days. Either way, there ought to be a cut off period after which the death penalty is no longer an option. The purpose for this is to avoid drawn out and expensive legal processes. Besides, if there is not enough evidence to carry it out swiftly without all kinds of legal play, then perhaps he should not be put to death anyway. Sure a cut off time would reduce the number of people being killed, but again, if for whatever reason the case is not so solid as to be able to get it done and over with without more legal challenges, then that would suggest it's not such a tight case, in which case he certainly ought to live.

 

[Goober]

If it can't be speedy, then it shouldn't be done. Again, there ought to be a cut off period. Personally, I'd say 48 hours. Colpy proposed 30 days. Either way, there ought to be a cut off period after which the death penalty is no longer an option. The purpose for this is to avoid drawn out and expensive legal processes. Besides, if there is not enough evidence to carry it out swiftly without all kinds of legal play, then perhaps he should not be put to death anyway. Sure a cut off time would reduce the number of people being killed, but again, if for whatever reason the case is not so solid as to be able to get it done and over with without more legal challenges, then that would suggest it's not such a tight case, in which case he certainly ought to live.

If it can't be speedy then it should not be done - perhaps that could apply to all persons charged with an offense - now how long do you consider to be speedy and what is the time limit that it becomes unspeedy - not sure if that is a word.

Pause and think a tad, take a moment to ponder - Judge, fast trial, jury gotta make a verdict - a good old recipe for Justice gone awry -

Haste makes waste - and in this case a persons life.

Then watch a movie called 12 angry men. I recommend the original, not the remake.

 

[Bar Sinister]

The death penalty; the way it is applied in the US can be something of a drawn out ordeal. A classic example is that of Ronald Smith, on death row for 28 years in the US and counting. If he had been convicted of murder in Canada he would have been given a life sentence. While I have little respect for Mr. Smith it does seem inappropriate to have him serve the equivalent of a life sentence and then still be executed. It seems to me he is being punished twice. If there is to be a death penalty then there should be a way of processing the accused through the legal system in a reasonable amount of time. But be prepared to accept the consequences of such a system; as there will almost certainly be a number of errors and unjust convictions.

 

[JLM]

The death penalty; the way it is applied in the US can be something of a drawn out ordeal. A classic example is that of Ronald Smith, on death row for 28 years in the US and counting. If he had been convicted of murder in Canada he would have been given a life sentence. While I have little respect for Mr. Smith it does seem inappropriate to have him serve the equivalent of a life sentence and then still be executed. It seems to me he is being punished twice. If there is to be a death penalty then there should be a way of processing the accused through the legal system in a reasonable amount of time. But be prepared to accept the consequences of such a system; as there will almost certainly be a number of errors and unjust convictions.

But he can also enjoy the benefit of knowing what a blessing each day alive can be. He has had over ten thousand gifts.

 

[Cliffy]

But he can also enjoy the benefit of knowing what a blessing each day alive can be. He has had over ten thousand gifts.

I somehow doubt that being alive on death row is much of a gift.

Tell you what, I will sign onto the death penalty thing if politicians, CEOs of major corporations and lawyers are the first to go.

 

[Spade]

Them what gives others the cold or grippe should be capital punished!