# The death penalty do you agree?



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

Do you feel that capital punishment is a good deterrent in preventing such violent crimes that we see today? I realize that this is a rather touchy subject but I am interested to hear about what everyone thinks about this.



RevMatt said:


> Anyone who thinks so is ignorant. There has never once been shown to be a link between the death penalty and crime reduction. You want to support the death penalty as a form of societal vengeance? Fine. But it is useless as a deterrent.


I remember seeing in a discussion forum one guy said that "if you take someone's life, then yours should be taken as well."

Personally I look at it two ways. First you just cannot play God and decide who gets to die. However I also look at it from a stand point of view were if you take someone's life then why should you live?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Must be time for me to go outside, I managed to vote the wrong way on a poll with two options...  

Anywho, can you clarify what you are asking? Are you asking if we agree that it is a deterrent, or if we want it? There are certainly some who want it as a punishment, regardless of the deterrence question.

In either case, however, my vote would be no. So subtract one from the yes and add it to the no, please


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

RevMatt said:


> Anywho, can you clarify what you are asking? Are you asking if we agree that it is a deterrent, or if we want it? There are certainly some who want it as a punishment, regardless of the deterrence question.


No problem. I am trying to see if everyone agrees if the death penalty should be reinstated as a feasible punishment for those who commit severe crimes such as murder. 



RevMatt said:


> In either case, however, my vote would be no. So subtract one from the yes and add it to the no, please


LOL. Ok. Will do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe it to be a just punishment in some cases. If it works as a deterrent as well--a bonus!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Capital punishment is not a deterent. There is so much evidence supporting this, it's amazing people still argue it. (case and point - Texas still has crime!)

However, a dead person can never commit a crime again. I would favour capital punishment, but only in circumstances that a persons guilt is proven 100% (not just beyond a reasonable doubt), AND it cost less than locking the person away in some hole for the rest of his or her life.


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

I wonder why the Liberal Government would abolish the death penalty?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In certain cases mass murderers have expressed a desire to be executed for their crimes. So we then have a judge, jury and criminal all arguing for execution--and someone else steps in to try to prevent the execution on the grounds that the murderer must be mentally ill for wishing to be dead.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

How did Guy Paul Moran (et al) vote?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

fellfromtree said:


> How did Guy Paul Moran (et al) vote?


and the better question is how could he have voted if he was dead by execution?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would certainly limit the death penalty to cases where the person has been seen committing the crime or admits to it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

police lie, witnesses lie, police intimidate

i wathched an american news program a few weeks back about how college students could be manipulated to sign a cofession for a crime they never committed, just by brow beating them long enough

if suicide is considered illegal, how can the state then turn around and commit state sanctioned murder?

the human race needs to stop its facination with death and get on with the business of living
this is the one place where modern democracies should be leading the way

thru peace we mature as a society so that state sanctioned murder is unfathomable and hopefully i will live to see that day


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Suicide should also be legal.


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

I will never agree with it, in the sole exception of the murder.


----------



## Visual-Q (Dec 14, 2003)

Execution has never been shown to be a deterrant.

As to whether I think it is a good idea... emphatically no...

There are certainly individuals who deserve it in my opinion, but that is an emotional response...

Ethically two wrongs do not make a right and execution is state sanctioned murder.

Even more compelling it the issue of whether you actually want to give the state the right to kill you... Do you trust the police, the government, the courts, and witnesses (whomever they may be) that much...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't trust the state to protect me from ruthless criminals--however, the state prevents me from protecting myself. When ruthless murderers die, I'm protected from them.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

If a mass murderers or other deranged criminal request execution, or attempt suicide- wouldn't the 'death penalty' proponents want those types to be kept alive? After all, isn't hell on earth the penultimate?

I saw that experiment about signing confessions. I can't say that I wouldn't do the same. People think short term. If I can just get out of this ridiculous situation, I can set it all straight rationally later... when I'm on death row...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Do you trust the police, the government, the courts, and witnesses (whomever they may be) that much...


exactly
just ask First Nations how "fair" things are when it comes to police, courts and witnesses


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I don't trust the state to protect me from ruthless criminals--however, the state prevents me from protecting myself. When ruthless murderers die, I'm protected from them.


and what do you suggest if the state kills the an innocent person?
oops?
here's your tax credit


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Bad guys are bad - smoke 'em.. I don't mean as a deterrent - I mean cleaning up proven crud one piece at a time: Clifford Olson for one, not only did he kill about 14 kids (some think the number is still uncertain) and he tried to sell the locations of the bodies to police. We don't need a turd like that bobbing around in the gene pool.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

rgray said:


> Bad guys are bad - smoke 'em.. I don't mean as a deterant - I mean cleaning up proven crud: Clifford Olson for one...


Guy Paul Moran was "proven crud" as well


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Those who oppose the death penalty will be concerned that Clifford Olsen happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time at least 11 different times, and was brow beaten into confessing. Maybe it wasn't Olsen, but the evil Olsen from a parallel universe--can we say with 100% certainty?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

if my choice is a few free criminals or a few jailed innocent people, i choose the former
the state already has massive resources against almost all citizens of society and the burdent of proof should be massive
the biggest problem with execution is that it doesn't allow for an appeal with new evidence
life in prison can be revoked, but the dead don't file appeals


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Apple101 wrote:


> I wonder why the Liberal Government would abolish the death penalty?


Perhaps you meant why "did" they abolish the death penalty?

And giving them all the credit is questionable. In 1967, Lester Pearson's Liberals placed a moratorium on use of the death penalty, except for murders of jail guards and police officers. 

Capital punishment wasn't actually abolished until 1976, under Trudeau's Liberals but in a free vote. It won by a six vote margin. Even then there were exceptions under the National Defence Act that weren't removed until 1998.

Mulroney's Conservatives held another free vote on capital punishment in 1987, and this time abolition was supported by a 21-vote margin. 

So I think the credit needs to be spread around.

As for me, I do not believe capital punishment is a deterrent, nor do I support it.

Steven Truscott, Donald Marshall, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, Thomas Sophonow, Jim Driskell, Rodney Cain, Jody Druken, Ronald Dalton, Clayton Johnson, Gregory Parsons, Peter Frumusa, Randy Druken, Gary Staples, Hugues Duguay, Felix Michaud, Kulaveeringsam "Kulam" Karthiresu, Chris McCullough, Benoit Proulx, Greg Parsons, Joe Warren, Robert Baltovich were all convicted of murder and imprisoned, only to be cleared of the murders years later.

The cases of Romeo Phillion, Bill Mullins-Johnson, Rodney Cain, all convicted of murder and imprisoned, are under judicial review to determine if they were wrongfully convicted or should be retried with new evidence.

Google any of those names if you're interested in finding out their stories.

And this is only a partial list of Canadians wrongly convicted of murder in the past forty or so years. 

Reinstate the death penalty? 

I don't think so.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> Mulroney's Conservatives held another free vote on capital punishment in 1987, and this time abolition was supported by a 21-vote margin.


I think this is an important fact that some people should make a point of remembering... especially those who seem to place blame solely on one party in particular.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Moran's case was never in the same league as Olson's.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I will say this--this sort of debate rarely changes anyone's minds on capital punishment. 

Those who oppose the death penalty on philosophical grounds will always wish the "chain of killing" to end with the death of the victim. No exceptions.

And yes, some people who have had relatives murdered have then gone on to support the death penalty. But others have not. It doesn't work as an agument.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Two Words:

Paul Bernardo.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Better that Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo be allowed to live in prison than any of the more than 20 men I name in my previous post be killed so that Olson and Bernardo can be killed.

The death penalty would only extend the murder streaks of those killers.


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

Being a St. Catharine's resident I would love to see Bernardo executed. That bastard should be dragged out to the street and shot, and thrown down the Niagara Falls to be never seen again. I am sure that allot of St. Kitts and Niagara residents feel the same way. Pricks who commit such cold crimes do-not deserve to live. Period.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

I agree with the majority of the voters in this poll. Don't bring back the death penalty. Our criminal justice system is complicated enough.
As for vermin like Paul Bernardo, shouldn't Karla be in jail for life too? That's why our system isn't perfect.

My opinion of what constitutes a fair punishment may differ from the present system, though. 
For example, in Paul Bernardo's case, I wouldn't feel remorse or guilt if they just put him in a 6 x 5 foot room, threw away the key and fed him through a trap door.


----------



## oldmachead (Nov 2, 2002)

*There's a place for it ...*

Selectively and judiciously applied (e.g. Bernardo - where there is no doubt of his guilt), there's a place for capital punishment in society.


----------



## Greenman (Feb 22, 2003)

ErnstNL said:


> I agree with the majority of the voters in this poll. Don't bring back the death penalty. Our criminal justice system is complicated enough.
> As for vermin like Paul Bernardo, shouldn't Karla be in jail for life too? That's why our system isn't perfect.
> 
> My opinion of what constitutes a fair punishment may differ from the present system, though.
> For example, in Paul Bernardo's case, I wouldn't feel remorse or guilt if they just put him in a 6 x 5 foot room, threw away the key and fed him through a trap door.



I agree with you ErnstNL. While I do not agree with the death penalty I do believe once you take a life you forfit you 'rights' in our society. People like Bernado and Olsen don't seem to have any compassion for others let alone value for life. Lock 'em up and provide the necessities for life - that's all. 

One thing to always remember...they have not only taken the lives of their victims but shattered the lives of the victims families.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> While I do not agree with the death penalty I do believe once you take a life you forfit you 'rights' in our society.


what about self defence?
what about police?
what about military?
what about drunk drivers?

it's a much more complicated issue that you make out


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I think that the death penalty, if it ever returns, should be carried out by those who voted for it... much like jury duty. Then we could see how many would actually follow through with their beliefs.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I think that the death penalty, if it ever returns, should be carried out by those who voted for it... much like jury duty. Then we could see how many would actually follow through with their beliefs.


i don't like that bet


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Why not just let the killers kill the killers and then let the killers kill the killers that killed the killers...

D


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

I voted "No" (let's be very clear about that!  )

However, I _would_ accept re-instatement of the death penalty on one condition:

The condition being that me, myself, only me, _*I*_ am the one to decide who dies and who lives.

SoyMac - King of the world, Dispenser of Ultimate Justice!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SoyMac said:


> I voted "No" (let's be very clear about that!  )
> 
> However, I _would_ accept re-instatement of the death penalty on one condition:
> 
> ...


 you could run for con leadership and be PM one day


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I voted no because too often there have been wrongly sentenced criminals put to death. Nor do I believe capital punishment serves as a deterrent. And I believe that those who clamour most for this kind of 'justice' would be the least capable of meting out that punishment themselves. Some would, of course; there are always would-be executioners in our midst.

Finally, as has been witnessed in America, those on Death Row ensure, through the legal process available to them as citizens, that it will take untold years to legally kill them... a lengthy, mind-numbing process which consumes millions of dollar's of state funds in lawyers' fees, tricky procedural maneuvers and other ancillary expenses... the whole surreal thing gets drawn out, much to the agony of both the victims' families and that of the convicted. I'm guessing it's cheaper to incarcerate the criminals for life. The only people who seem to regularly profit from the death penalty are the lawyers.


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

Max said:


> The only people who seem to regularly profit from the death penalty are the lawyers.


In some countries they dont have lawyers and all of this legal crap. You do something wrong like murder someone, "you will just disappear" so they say.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Apple101 said:


> In some countries they dont have lawyers and all of this legal crap. You do something wrong like murder someone, "you will just disappear" so they say.


or criticize gov't and powers that be


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Asking for those who support the death penalty to "push the button" or "flip the switch" is a poor argument against capital punishment. People could easily be found to do so.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

> Originally Posted by *Apple101*
> _In some countries they dont have lawyers and all of this legal crap. You do something wrong like murder someone, "you will just disappear" so they say._


And your point is, we should be like them?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Apple101 said:


> In some countries they dont have lawyers and all of this legal crap. You do something wrong like murder someone, "you will just disappear" so they say.


Can't say I'm impressed by the logic. That very legal crap you so disparage is the same crap which ensures you don't just disappear one day, thanks to someone who doesn't like the cut of your jib and decides, on the spur of the moment, to frame you for something he did. Bet you'd be pining for legal crap then!

On the other hand, we could always go further and kill women who have shamed their families for having been raped. We could cut off the hands of thieves, castrate sex crime suspects and we could kill all homosexuals before they (inevitably) grow up to be child rapists. We could also put to death any and all identified artists and intellectuals - because really, can you trust these types? You see how this goes... it's kind of fun, in a Darwinian kinda way.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> We could also put to death any and all identified artists and intellectuals


Hey--are you saying artists aren't intellectuals!!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No, they are perhaps the worst form of human vermin ever to plague humanity. I'm surprised you even had to pose the question.


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

Brainstrained said:


> And your point is, we should be like them?


NO!! Absolutely NOT!! I was only merely stating what some other countries do.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Brainstrained post is the best so far in putting names to the issue. Take a look at what the death penalty has achieved in the US. There is a significant skew against poor prisoners on death row being put to death compared to those with access to money. Who are we to play god? We know the criminal justice system is flawed - anything that involves a person has the potential to be biased, distorted, manipulated. Resorting to the death penalty is both hypocritical (some deaths are justified more than others - you've already lost the argument. When did you stop beating your wife?) and an admission of societal failure. I would not wish to defend animals such as Bernardo and Homolka, but the final solution solves nothing and risks everything.

The same flawed argument is being used to support minimum mandatory sentences which have NEVER been shown to act as a deterrant. There are several consequences of implementing minimum sentences. 1. No impact on crime rates. 2. An increase in the construction of prisons. 3. Loss of judgemental discretion. Why are such laws enacted? Because the public thinks harsher penalties will help protect them and politicians like to do anything that is popular regardless of whether it is effective.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If the risk of being wrong is only miniscule, it is far too great to chance executing an innocent person.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> If the risk of being wrong is only miniscule, it is far too great to chance executing an innocent person.


wow

let me mark the date and time
welcome to the light


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Thank you, SINC, for reaffirming why I like you, even when you are so often wrong on politics 

Glad my one mis-vote has seriously skewed things. I will always remember the button slogan that was floating around at the time of the Mulroney reconsideration: "why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" Simplistic? Sure. And, as we have already witnessed, there are many who want to kill people who kill people not to show anything, but simply to get revenge. But for me, the basic issue is about deciding what kind of community we want to be, and then modelling that behaviour in the very best way we can.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I want the kind of community that uses due process to kill people who kill people.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Ascertaining motive is a part of due process. What is your motive for wanting the state to murder people, where the people fit certain criteria based on their past actions?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Seems to me that incarceration for life is a far greater punishment than the death penalty.

Now all we have to do is get the justice system to make life, really life, not the farce of parole in 15 or 25 years as it now exists.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> Thank you, SINC, for reaffirming why I like you, even when you are so often wrong on politics


Not wrong Rev, just a difference of opinion between you and I, but even you are not wrong when you express your opinion.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Not wrong Rev, just a difference of opinion between you and I, but even you are not wrong when you express your opinion.


Well, I would argue that I am wrong on occasion, and my wife might argue it is more often than that. But I know what you mean


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

RevMatt said:


> What is your motive for wanting the state to murder people, where the people fit certain criteria based on their past actions?


I believe that ending their lives is a just punishment for their actions.

If we go with the argument that true life imprisonment is a much harsher sentence, though, I could argue that the death penalty is more humane.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> Now all we have to do is get the justice system to make life, really life, not the farce of parole in 15 or 25 years as it now exists.


Yep, that would be a decent start.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I believe that ending their lives is a just punishment for their actions.


So it is a dispassionate assesment you are making, which is how you distinguish it from revenge, as I put it? If so, I am curious to know on what basis you have reached your conclusion. I appreciate that you have expressed it as a belief rather than fact, but that doesn't mean that belief isn't built on something. Just curious what that something is.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*Revenge vs. justice*



RevMatt said:


> So it is a dispassionate assesment you are making, which is how you distinguish it from revenge.


I think that revenge is usually a desire to make the other person suffer in some fashion--like solitary confinement, torture, starvation, etc. A quick and painless death has none of those qualities.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macfury is welcome to his/her opinions but his/her argument might be less easy to dismiss if they cared to expound on the rationale rather use a passion of the moment/gut reaction posting (which, not coincidentally, is the reason the death penalty has absolutely no effect on detering murders).

As for the 25 year parole leniency, certain criminals can be declared to be "dangerous offenders": a danger to society who are at high risk of re-offence and can be kept in jail for true "life" (anyone have the stats on the number of people who end their lives in prison)? The "faint hope" clause makes their incarceration an easier job for the prison guards and provides incentive for rehabilitaiton and remorse. Whether or not the parole boards are strict enough is open to question, but removing the possibility of release at some later date is gives up on the individual. 25 years is one heck of a long time (not that it is necessarily long enough with respect to particular crimes).


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> removing the possibility of release at some later date is gives up on the individual.


My thoughts exactly. Do we want to be a society that gives up on it's members? Do we wish to foster the belief that some people are simply without value?

MacFury, perhaps you are unaware of the great saying: "Revenge is a dish best served cold". Revenge is, by defintion, the desire to get even. But yes, I see your point that by most definitions the quick and painless death of *modern* executions is different in some ways. I would still hope for an answer to my more substantive question, though, namely: upon what do you base your position? (Others who also support the Death penalty should feel free to join in, of course.)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, as I said Woodget, I'm not worried about its deterrent effect. You may have a "gut reaction" to the idea of capital punishment--I don't. Please don't assume that's how I arrive at my position. 

If you think 25 years is fair, then that's your opinion--I'm not dismissing it as you dismiss mine. I only hope that there are more of me than you.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macfury said:


> If you think 25 years is fair, then that's your opinion--I'm not dismissing it as you dismiss mine. I only hope that there are more of me than you.


Not currently, not in this country anyway. I was dismissing your one line replies, not your opinion.

Death by lethal injection has recently been shown to be an excruciating death, to the point that members of the medical profession are refusing to participate. Even Jeb Bush has placed a moratorium on the practice in Florida while the courts decide. The combination of drugs used is deemed inhumane in putting down a pet. There again, death is death. If you are going to kill someone as a form of punishment, why not drag them behind a car or hang, draw and quarter them? Do advocates of the death penalty care about how a prisoner is put to death? Is being humane in performing an inhuman act a paradox?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Making the death as painless as possible is not a paradox.

As a member of society, I am comfortable with giving up on some of its members. If we all continue to "belong" no matter how we behave, then we're no longer a society, just a DNA club.

I believe that in most crimes, it's possible to make some sort of restitution to the wronged party. Money can be paid back, property can be restored, apologies can be made. If that's no longer possible, society invents an equivalent incarceration period to stand in for the settlement. For deliberate murder, no restitution can be made--whatever settlement that may exist, exists beyond this life.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Is being humane in performing an inhuman act a paradox?


I don't think so. Forcible confinement (prison) is an inhumane act but doing it in a humane manner matters, to most. If there was a dealth penalty, the manner in which it was done would also matter.

I don't support the death penalty for a number of reasons (doesn't accomplish anything, irreversible, bad symbolic message, etc.). I can see reasons why people would support it (concept of 'justice' -- crime and punishment) that go beyond revenge. Of course, how different is punishment from revenge? They seem to be intertwined. Punishment is an act of revenge but can also just be a lesson (parental punishment). 

The death penalty, to me, serves no purpose because the individual deserving of punishment doesn't learn anything. Even if a case could be made that would-be criminals learn (mafia justice tactics?), that creates a substantial and uncomfortable divide between the individual's actions and the individual's punishment. There are judgements intended to 'send a message', but a general death penalty doesn't send a useful message, at least to me.

Forcible confinement can be justified on the grounds of protecting society from a dangerous individual, while maybe even trying to get the individual to become less dangerous, but the death penalty seems to have a weaker underpinning.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I might add that I don't NEED to have a death penalty, just that I'm in favour of it. The fact that simple, actual life imprisonment is so rare makes me more strongly inclined to go out of my way to support a death penalty. So far, I haven't seen any proof that the justice system is serious about offering protection from even recidivist murderers.


----------



## An Old Soul (Apr 24, 2006)

*Logic twisted*

Just keep saying this to yourself, if you're for the DP:

We should murder murderers because murdering is not acceptable.

Alright! That's your thinking, eh?

We should also eat people, because eating people is wrong.

_The insane are those that attempt to put out fires by lighting them._


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Old Soul:

I think whatyou were trying to say is: "We should eat cannibals, because eating people is wrong."

But we also must conclude then that:

"We cannot imprison people who are convicted of forcible confinement, because forcible confinement is wrong."

"We cannot restrict the freedom of kidnappers, because restricting people's freedom is wrong."

In fact, the only stricture here would be that the punishment could--in no way--reflect any aspect of the crime. However, I don't equate the murder of innocents with the orderly dispatch of one who murders innocents.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> However, I don't equate the murder of innocents with the orderly dispatch of one who murders innocents.


so most of the 1st world (our neighbour to the south being a big exception) has done away with executions and you wish that Canada to mature by making executions legal again?

capital punishment has rarely anything to do with punishment

One can only hope that the cons don't get a majority and open up this pandora's box


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

An Old Soul said:


> _The insane are those that attempt to put out fires by lighting them._


Firefighters are insane then?

http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/kootenay/plan/plan9_E.asp
....
The truth is that deliberately lit fire is a very important weapon in the firefighter's arsenal.
....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Firefighters are insane then?
> 
> http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/kootenay/plan/plan9_E.asp
> ....
> ...


Beej, it can be, in certain cases but I don't see the firemen burning down half a city block because there is a fire 2 KM away....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> so most of the 1st world (our neighbour to the south being a big exception) has done away with executions and you wish that Canada to mature by making executions legal again?


As I continue to repeat, I don't NEED a death penalty, but I would support it--no matter how you try to rephrase it MacSpectrum. Following "most of the 1st world" is not always a recipe for success. I wouldn't wish to live in any European country on a modest income.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, it can be, in certain cases but I don't see the firemen burning down half a city block because there is a fire 2 KM away....


:lmao: 

Not relevant, but still funny. In the end, the fire-with-fire statement failed. I think everybody understands the point, but the statement itself struck me as poorly chosen. No biggie; just having fun. With fire. Yippee!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Incredibly, the Allies thought they could use violence to defeat the Axis during WWII.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Incredibly, the Allies thought they could use violence to defeat the Axis during WWII.


Under which logical fallacies should be placed your statement? I'm thinking_ Dicto simpliciter _, what's your suggestion?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Under which logical fallacies should be placed your statement? I'm thinking_ Dicto simpliciter _, what's your suggestion?


I wouldn't call it fallacious at all. It certainly shouldn't appear under _ Dicto simpliciter _ since I don't suggest that the rule be thrown out to suit the exception--only that arguments which rely too heavily on the "rule" suggested here risk the danger of appearing absurd.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I think that the death penalty, if it ever returns, should be carried out by those who voted for it... much like jury duty. Then we could see how many would actually follow through with their beliefs.


What if the people who support the eternal imprisonment are the ones that actually support it financially. Then we could see how many would actually follow through with their beliefs.




« Max » said:


> I voted no because too often there have been wrongly sentenced criminals put to death.


But what about all the great movies we'll be missing ??!!


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I oppose the death penalty on the following grounds:

1. I believe all humans have a right to life.

2. As a conservative, I believe that the power of the state should be limited and that the rights of individuals should only be curtailed when necessary. I do not believe that the death penalty is necessary to protect society (certainly not in western nations) and therefore the state should not have this power.

3. No justice system is perfect and mistakes have been made, are being made, and will continue to be made. An innocent prisoner can be released from jail and partially compensated... but a dead man can not be returned to life. For that reason I am prepared to pay the extra taxes to keep people incarcerated rather than having them executed... it protects the right to life of all Canadians.

4. There is no evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. No criminal thinks he/she is going to get caught.

Finally, I've often heard it argued that criminals are released too soon and offend again... but this is a separate issue. To protect society there are certainly some people who should never be freed... but we don't need the death penalty to ensure that.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

gastonbuffet said:


> What if the people who support the eternal imprisonment are the ones that actually support it financially. Then we could see how many would actually follow through with their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Um, unless I'm missing something, we (the majority) do already support it morally and finacially. There are "lifers" who are in prison that will never get out--and we pay for them to be incarcerated as such.


----------



## markceltic (Jun 4, 2005)

How about treason? Does that qualify in anyone's book for execution?


----------



## An Old Soul (Apr 24, 2006)

*BEEJ: Quote not so literal, friend*



Beej said:


> The truth is that deliberately lit fire is a very important weapon in the firefighter's arsenal.
> ....


I didn't mean it literally. The purpose of my entry was to say that in deciding just punishment for a crime, we really undermine the purpose for the punishment when we use the same act to punish the crime.

For another quote: "_An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind_"
~Mohandas Gandhi

If we stole from theives, raped rapists, abused abusers and killed killers as our answer to those crimes... how just could our system of law and punishment for wrong-doing be? Would it not just be a system of crime multiplication, with the definition of wrongdoing being only that those commit the 'crimes' don't wear official-looking uniforms?


If we support the death penalty as a means to punish murderers, we are really saying that it's not so much a matter of _what you do_ that is wrong, but rather, _who it is_ that's doing it- where, when, and what for.

The grey area of this move allows for terrorists and heroins to be defined by proximity and whether you're watching Al Jazeera or CNN.

Just my two cents. Don't jump on me for it, I'm just adding to the discussion, and value everyone's input here. 

It's a difficult question, but when it gets down to yes / no right / wrong, I'm always against the death penalty, if not for any other reason than there is a marginal percentage of error in DP cases. If one person is wrongly convicted and killed, the 'system' has miserably failed, and we should consider such a thing to be a travesty. One innocent human life taken because of such a law is terribly barbaric and uneccessary.

I'd rather pay thousands of dollars in taxes to ensure that the incarcerated stay incarcerated, and live out the justice of punishment by confinement, than given the death penalty, and escape a life behind bars.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But if one "rehabiltated" murderer is freed to kill again, that is also a failure of the system. And more people have been killed by murdering recidivists than have been executed for crimes they haven't committed.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macfury said:


> But if one "rehabiltated" murderer is freed to kill again, that is also a failure of the system. And more people have been killed by murdering recidivists than have been executed for crimes they haven't committed.


Says who? The death penalty is a convenient way of executing people with no worry of later testimony.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh, I see. The argument has now has switched to "the death penalty was used to stop murderers from testifying." 

I'll just let that one lie there.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> And more people have been killed by murdering recidivists than have been executed for crimes they haven't committed.


What do you have to back this claim up?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

No you don't "see" Macfury, not testimony from the accused. Duh. Once someone has been executed, the case is effectively closed. Clearling the name of a dead person is not high on the priority lists, even of those lawyers who opposed the penalty. They would (understandably) rather spend their effort on saving a life.

Of course, you could have thought I meant "summary executions" which are a different ballgame but we're talking about state-approved killing of a person with "due" process. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford to pay their "dues" and avoid the penalty.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Oh, I see. The argument has now has switched to "the death penalty was used to stop murderers from testifying."
> 
> I'll just let that one lie there.


dead men don't file appeals or are around for new technologies to prove their innocence


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Apple101 said:


> In some countries they dont have lawyers and all of this legal crap.


Care to Justify the "legal crap" comment?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I want the kind of community that uses due process to kill people who kill people.


Drive south about 18 hours, then drive west about 10 hours... look for a place called Texas. Enjoy.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> But if one "rehabiltated" murderer is freed to kill again, that is also a failure of the system. And more people have been killed by murdering recidivists than have been executed for crimes they haven't committed.


Care to back that comment up with some Canadian statistics?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If I do go to the trouble of showing you how it was derived, I'm guessing you won't change your mind..


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> If I do go to the trouble of showing you how it was derived, I'm guessing you won't change your mind..


Go for it... actually I sit on the fence on this one. While in general I find the general notion of capital punishment appalling, I know for fact that if anyone ever harmed my family I could very easily find myself supporting capital punishment.

It is a very difficult subject for me to rationalize.

That being said... given we haven't had capital punishment in Canada for the better part of half a century, the only examples we have are really from a US perspective... and that doesn't apply to us, does it?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> If I do go to the trouble of showing you how it was derived, I'm guessing you won't change your mind..


I also would appreciate you going to the trouble. No point making grandiose statistical claims without the statistics.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Go for it... actually I sit on the fence on this one. While in general I find the general notion of capital punishment appalling, I know for fact that if anyone ever harmed my family I could very easily find myself supporting capital punishment.


Which is precisely why victims aren't supposed to have a say in punishment. They are incapable of being even remotely objective, for the most part. I don't mean that as criticism, I wouldn't be in that situation either. But a civil society should be governed by objective decision making who's primary aim is justice and the well being of society as a whole.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Which is precisely why victims aren't supposed to have a say in punishment. They are incapable of being even remotely objective, for the most part.


I agree with RM on this. First AS, then RM. These are the end of days.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

The plan is working! With Mr. Galbraith sadly departed, we need a new brilliant economic mind on our side of the spectrum. Your soul shall be mine some day!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> The plan is working! With Mr. Galbraith sadly departed, we need a new brilliant economic mind on our side of the spectrum. Your soul shall be mine some day!


"brilliant economic mind" and "spectrum" in the same sentence conjures up illusions of . . . oh, never mind.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Your soul shall be mine some day!


Obviously, reverend.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> "brilliant economic mind" and "spectrum" in the same sentence conjures up illusions of . . . oh, never mind.


Yeah, I was aware of that as I typed, but thought I would leave it in there as a linguistic landmine


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I agree with RM on this. First AS, then RM. These are the end of days.


Once you see things my way All the time, everything will be better - trust me on this.  and RM can have your soul...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Once you see things my way All the time, everything will be better


Now there is a statement I seriously doubt.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> Which is precisely why victims aren't supposed to have a say in punishment. They are incapable of being even remotely objective, for the most part. I don't mean that as criticism, I wouldn't be in that situation either. But a civil society should be governed by objective decision making who's primary aim is justice and the well being of society as a whole.



Ohh I understand that, however for myself, I certainly feel empathetic to the victim's family. How can anyone not? hence why I sit on the fence on the issue.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This should make us think about how humane the death penalty is


> *Condemned inmate asked guards to find other way to execute him*
> 
> "Can you just give me something by mouth to end this?" convicted killer Joseph Clark asked during the 90-minute delay, according to accounts written by members of the execution team and obtained by The Associated Press.
> 
> ...


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...s/20060512/ca_pr_on_od/ohio_bungled_execution

Maybe this guy should supply to the US?



> *Farmer's gallows sales attacked*
> 
> David Lucas said the sale of gallows was not "sick"
> A farmer who builds gallows and has sold them to African countries with poor human rights records has been condemned by Amnesty International.
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/4754515.stm
Wonder what he farms?


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Originally Posted by Macfury
But if one "rehabilitated" murderer is freed to kill again, that is also a failure of the system. And more people have been killed by murdering recidivists than have been executed for crimes they haven't committed. ..."

I would like to know your opinion on how many, exactly, innocent people we should agree we can morally, ethically, and democratically execute, and I would love to know how you came to determine the number of innocent people we executed in Canada prior to 1962, who they were, and why no-one spoke up sooner.

But, we don't need to guess as to what the repeat murder rate is. We happen to have excellent data.

The study covers the period from 1975/76 to July 31, 1999, a 25 year period.

Virtually every inmate convicted of murder and released during the 1970's portion would have to be an inmate who was sentenced to death and had his sentence commuted to life in prison. Futhermore, such commuted death penalty inmates would comprise part of the population for most, if not all, of the study; for example it's likely that those releases surveyed in the latter 1970's were convicted in the 1960's and perhaps earlier. The last persons subject to the death penalty in Canada could not be released on parole any earlier than 1986. Similarly, death-penalty inmates would continue to be eligible for parole right up to the study's end in 1999. So, don't tell me it could be worse with a death penalty; many of those who were released during the study period were sentenced to hang already.

So, what do we find?

The report includes all forms of homicide; in the time a repeat offense could be committed that would be first and second degree murder, and manslaughter. (Only first degree murder would be eligible for the death penalty).

The report tallies the number of releases rather than the number of offenders. Each release constitutes a risk period; normally an offender would be granted more than one release (ie day parole, then full parole, for a total of two releases). To limit the study to offenders only, I would expect the rates (% or statistical risk to re-offend per individual) would be roughly halved over those in the study.

Over the 24 years of the study, involving 4,131 releases, 4 day parole and 9 full parole murder offenders were subsequently re-incarcerated for a repeat homicide offense (11 for murder and 2 for manslaughter).
Of those, one was originally convicted of first degree murder (eligible for the death penalty) and 12 were originally convicted of Non-Capital or Second Degree murder (neither would be a death penalty offense). There were an additional 24 offenders whose original conviction was for manslaughter, for a total of 37 over the study period. Of those who were convicted of a second homicide:
29 are incarcerated and have not had any release;
4 died in prison;
1 is on day parole;
3 have reached warrant expiry (served the sentence in full).
All of those released were repeat manslaughter offenders.
No offender convicted of a second murder (15) has been released.

Note: above as of the study release date, November 1999.

<b>Therefore the death penalty would have applied to one inmate who committed a second homicide after release over this 25 year period; and in fact did apply to the inmate in question, but his first sentence was commuted to life in prison. During the same period, 15,266 homicides were reported to police in Canada. *1

To insure the number of wrongfully convicted is less than the number of recidivists whom we could legally hang were we to reinstate the death penalty, the number of wrongfully convicted can therefore be no more than zero. Since, in 1975 the sentencing date for someone convicted of Capital Murder must be 1965 or earlier (minimum 10 year parole eligibility) that means no errors for the last 40 years, at a minimum. </b> 

Canada has gone through 3 specific phases in the sentencing of those convicted of murder. They are:
Pre-1961
1961-1976 (introduction of capital and non-capital murder distinction) 
1976-present (1st and 2nd degree murder designation)

Average prison time served:
Pre 1961: 19.6 years
61-76: 15.8 years (capital) and 14.6 years (non-capital)
76-02: 22.4 years (1st degree murder) Note: since a significant number of inmates are currently incarcerated, the 76-02 number is increasing over time.

So, we send our murderers to jail for much longer today than we ever have in the past. *4

Some of the factors affecting the results:

Prior to 1961, the penalty for murder was hanging, and we wasted little time in Canada executing the sentence. In some cases, the Royal Prerogative of Mercy was applied whereby we let you out of jail (snowball's chance in hell) or commuted the sentence to life in prison. The 1899 Ticket Of Leave Act allowed the Governor General of Canada to offer a conditional release to any prisoner, but those serving commuted life sentences were ineligible.

Nonetheless, the result is a wide variety of incarceration periods; we don't keep counting the days once you're dead. 10% if inmates commuted to life prior to 1961 served more than 40 years, while another 10% of commuted inmates served less than 9 years. It should be noted that any release during this period meant a full release courtesy of the Federal Cabinet; there was no parole for murderers. The inmate had served his sentence in full and was free to do as he wished without supervision or the threat of a return to prison.

However, even going back to Confederation (1867) and on until 1962, the last time Canada executed a prisoner, just under half of all murder convictions were commuted to life by the Federal Cabinet. 

From 1961 to 1976, those who were still alive and had their sentences commuted to life, and those convicted of non-capital murder, slowly became eligible for parole. Non-Capital murder inmates were eligible after serving a minimum of 7 years. Under new rules enacted in 1968 (Parole Regulation 6(b)), those whose capital murder conviction was commuted to life were eligible for the first time, after serving a minimum of 10 years. *2

From 1976 onwards, 1st degree murder sentences extend the parole eligibility to 25 years, with "early parole" in some cases as early as 15 years. *3



*1 Repeat Homicide Offences Committed By Offenders Under Community Supervision; National Parole Board, November 1999.

*2 Amendment to the Criminal Code, 1961
Capital murder was defined as "murder that is planned and deliberate, murder committed in the course of certain crimes of violence by the direct intervention or upon the counseling of the accused; and murder of a police officer or prison warden, acting in the course of duty, resulting from such direct intervention or counseling." (Chandler, 1994). Such murder was still punishable by mandatory hanging, except if the accused was under eighteen years of age. All other murder, referred to as non-Capital, was punished by life imprisonment.

*3 The Criminal Law Amendment Act (No 2)
On July 16, 1976, the act was proclaimed, formally abolishing Capital Punishment in Canada.

" ... First-degree murder is one that is planned and deliberate, also encompassing contract killings and the murder of police officers and prison employees. Second-degree murder entails all murder that is not first degree. Since 1976, the mandatory penalty for an individual convicted of first-degree murder is life imprisonment, with no eligibility of parole before 25 years of the sentence has been served in prison. Second degree murder also carries a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment, with a parole ineligibility period of ten years minimum, however the sentencing judge may vary that period from 10 years to a maximum of 25 years.

For first and second-degree murder sentences without parole, the offender remains imprisoned for life. Offenders who are paroled while serving life sentences must remain on parole for life unless parole is revoked. If parole is revoked, the offender is re-incarcerated. In many cases, murderers remain in prison until they die. ..." *4

That isn't true for non-life sentences, where mandatory supervision rules mean you must be released on parole after serving 2/3rds of your sentence unless we go to court and get a judge to agree you are too nasty to let out until you've served the entire sentence in jail (see: Karla Homolka).

The most significant aspect of parole for murder in Canada is the inmate's participation in rehabilitation programs. Fundamental to that is the admission of guilt and accepting responsibility for their actions, without which many mandatory programs cannot begin. David Milgaard would have been eligible for parole more than 20 years ago, but would still be in jail today had he not been exonerated, because he maintained his innocence.

Similarly, Colin Thatcher, who won a "faint hope clause" hearing reducing his eligibility from 25 to 17 years, and has had a few parole hearings already, remains in jail and will continue to do so, because he refuses to admit his role in the crime he committed. Therefore, he can't be released.

*4 A review and estimate of time spent in prison by offenders sentenced for murder; Correctional Service Canada; 2002. PDF 2002 No B-27


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

gordguide said:


> " ... Originally Posted by Macfury
> But if one "rehabilitated" murderer is freed to kill again, that is also a failure of the system. And more people have been killed by murdering recidivists than have been executed for crimes they haven't committed. ..."


Blamo... Nail + Coffin... done deal. Amazing study there Gordguide.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> "brilliant economic mind" and "spectrum" in the same sentence conjures up illusions of . . . oh, never mind.


"Always two there are. Master and apprentice"
- Yoda


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ahh. Then how many people have been wrongfully executed?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gordguide said:


> And more people have been killed by murdering recidivists than have been executed for crimes they haven't committed. ..."
> .....
> Over the 24 years of the study, involving 4,131 releases, 4 day parole and 9 full parole murder offenders were subsequently re-incarcerated for a repeat homicide offense (11 for murder and 2 for manslaughter).
> .....


First, a very informative post.

Second, from the claim, it would seem you'd need 11+ to 13+ wrongfully executed people to exceed the number killed by murdering recidivists.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well it seems an exhaustive study by just one state led to this



> In April 2002, a bipartisan commission appointed by then-Governor George Ryan released the findings of its two-year study of the death-penalty system in Illinois. The commission recommended dozens of reforms to the state's criminal-justice system that would reduce the scope and arbitrariness of capital punishment and lower the risk of wrongful convictions and executions. The commission was unanimous in concluding that no system, given human nature and frailties, could ever guarantee absolutely that no innocent person would be sentenced to death. A majority of the commission favoured abolishing capital punishment entirely.


why did he do this



> llinois was the first state to declare a death penalty moratorium. Governor George Ryan temporarily halted executions two years ago after *13 of the inmates sentenced to death in the state since 1977 had been released from death row after being exonerated of their crimes.*


One state.....13 death sentences WRONG

Historically



> 1930-1967
> From 1930, the first year for which statistics are readily available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, to 1967, 3,859 persons were executed under civil (that is, nonmilitary) jurisdiction in the United States. During this period of
> 
> 
> ...


http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/history.html

and 374 since.

15 of them wrongfully to offset those released that killed again?.....I suggest far far more than that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: You jumped on my point--I kinda wanted them to slip their neck into this noose slowly.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Good info MD but, once you go to the U.S., you may end up with more 'recidivist murders'. Either way, I prefer a system that errs drastically on the side of caution if it chooses to execute. However, on the prove/disprove front, I'm not sure anything was disproven. The 11-13 number does raise questions and may 'prove' Macfury's statement. I don't know.

Two lines of discussion I guess. Prove/disprove something very specific (except for possible distinctions between casual use of 'murder' versus specific legal use) and the other line being the balance of caution in the system. Two interesting lines of discussion. I'm enjoying this.

I lean towards preferring to let 99 guilty people free before convicting 1 innocent person without the death penalty being a part of the system. So, with the death penalty, by 'drastic' I mean more than 99%.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: You jumped on my point--I kinda wanted them to slip their neck into this noose slowly.


My bad. Check my posts per day -- this is a habitual bad. Then go reread the internet addiction thread 300 times and you'll 'get' me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

At the same time, I'm trying to discourage the use of arguments that state: "better this system than one innocent human be executed." 

It's not an argument--it's a value judgement. 

As such, it has no more weight than: "better killers be executed than a single innocent person be murdered by a killer set free."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Ahh. Then how many people have been wrongfully executed?


Who's going to clear the name of the dead? As pointed out, this is a rather pointless question.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

With total executions we could get a picture of it, although the years may not match. Is it reasonable to say that greater than 11-13 wrongful executions occurred corresponding to a similar timeframe or, better yet, the same cohort? If the total is, for example, 15, then it is very likely proven (though not definite because we're mixing and matching data). If the number is 60 then we're in the 'who knows' area.

If the question is pointless, that's a fair point, but a different one. Why do you think it's pointless AS?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Why is the question itself pointless?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

It's pointless because no one bothers to try and clear the name of a dead person, so we will never be able to get accurate numbers. In any case, I don't consider value judgement pointless, so I don't feel the need to get into this hair-splitting. I would suggest, though, that very few people who post here actually do consider value judgements to be pointless. Funny how often that gets said when the value being expressed is one that someone doesn't share.

So, to be clear, I consider the death penalty to be wrong and immoral. Or, perhaps, amoral, which is even worse in my book. I consider value judgements based on an acceptance of the death penalty to be valid, but unacceptable and unwelcome in a society in which I live. And I feel more strongly about this issue than many, many others. I don't know if I would leave the country if the death penatly were brought back, I guess that would depend on how strong public support was, and whether there was an hope of a public uprising. But given that my church only exists in this nation, leaving would not only mean leaving behind 300+ years of family history here, but also my only marketable skills. So that gives you a clue how strongly I feel about it. Fortunately, it is exceedingly unlikely to be something I need to concerned about.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

So, in a system with the death penalty (despite personal desires), what realistic level of certainty/viciousness-of-crime would you be comfortable with? I understand you want a 'none of the above' type choice, and so do I, but we both face such choices in societies that stubbornly choose things we don't like and we are, therefore, working within an undesirable framework. Sad, but 30 million people aren't going to agree on much when the specifics are at hand.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Matt: I have no trouble with value judgements--I have trouble with calling them arguments. Merely stating: "I will accept this but not that" is not an argument no matter how it's phrased.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Matt: I have no trouble with value judgements--I have trouble with calling them arguments. Merely stating: "I will accept this but not that" is not an argument no matter how it's phrased.


Yes it is.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> So, in a system with the death penalty (despite personal desires), what realistic level of certainty/viciousness-of-crime would you be comfortable with? I understand you want a 'none of the above' type choice, and so do I, but we both face such choices in societies that stubbornly choose things we don't like and we are, therefore, working within an undesirable framework.


I will not even contemplate this Foot-in-the-door technique...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> So, in a system with the death penalty (despite personal desires), what realistic level of certainty/viciousness-of-crime would you be comfortable with? I understand you want a 'none of the above' type choice, and so do I, but we both face such choices in societies that stubbornly choose things we don't like and we are, therefore, working within an undesirable framework. Sad, but 30 million people aren't going to agree on much when the specifics are at hand.


Beej, I'm not sure if this was for me or not, but this is one issue on which I am not willing to compromise. If the system includes the death penalty, I would try and make a realistic assesment of whether there would be sufficient public support to force a change, and if so, I would stay and fight by whatever non-violent means I can muster, legal or otherwise. 
If there does not appear to be sufficient support for a change, then I would leave.

I am, as you know, usually inclined to be committed to compromise. I do not believe I am able to compromise on this subject. This is all theoretical, of course, as it must be until it actually happens.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

He's just a "new testament" kinda guy 

••

Society COULD just go back to lobotomies..


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Society COULD just go back to lobotomies..


TV's doing a pretty good job of that right now...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> TV's doing a pretty good job of that right now...


It's all in the way to you utilize it....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I think TV is merely a reflector of what we want, or think we want. TV's merely the delivery system. It largely delivers audiences/consumers to companies who want to sell things to us. For all its faults, the system must be working like gangbusters. How much does air time on American Idol cost? Or the Superbowl? There's a reason why it's so ridiculously expensive. They have the attention of a huge crowd of potential consumers. And in order to have them pay attention to you and your snake oil, you merely have to pony up.

The only way we could change TV is if, paradoxically, we were all to stop watching it for a good long time. That would make the network execs and programming nabobs twitch. Push that rock-solid business model right over onto its side and watch the ensuing panic and hand-wringing. However, those same honchos know with full confidence that we're already well hooked... so all we can do is protest individually by shutting the TV off... and getting onto the internet. Where you can talk about, say, the viability / morality / utility/ whatever of the death penalty, among other juicy topics. And really, it's sort of like TV, too - like reality TV actually, but with less commercials.

Better still, turn off the TV, push away from the Mac, and get out into meatspace from time to time. Works wonders.
_____________________________________________________________

Back to capital punishment. I wonder if the stats for Canadian views on the subject have moved much over the past 30 years. I'd like to see some comparisons in that regard. I have a feeling (not very scientific of me, natch) that the numbers have remained fairly static and the positions are well-entrenched.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

20 somethings are a big problem for ad agencies as they are apparently staying away from tv
cue internet advertising


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, TV is old school, the net is new school. The kids are all right - the net already feels like it's their thing, so they'll populate it and propagate it more readily than they will sit down in front of TV, which feels more static and inflexible in comparison..._maybe it was good enough for mom and dad but not for me_.

I don't know how TV and the net will converge, but in time there probably won't be a need to define one against the other. There will only be omnimedia. And the advertisers will be on board, too. Oh, yeah.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Second, from the claim, it would seem you'd need 11+ to 13+ wrongfully executed people to exceed the number killed by murdering recidivists. ..."

" ... Of those, one was originally convicted of first degree murder (eligible for the death penalty) and 12 were originally convicted of Non-Capital or Second Degree murder (neither would be a death penalty offense). ..."

I hoped to make it clear that during the period when the death penalty was available to judges, only one of the recividists would have faced the possibility of being sentenced to death for any murder trial from 1961 to the present (assuming the death penalty was still a sentencing option in Canada today). The other 12 would have faced the maximum penalty for Non-Capital Murder or Second Degree Murder, which is life in prison with parole eligibility.

Although one might argue we should have the death penalty for all murder offenses, as it was prior to 1961, there is very little possibility of that becoming law; no reasonably relevant jurisdiction (1st or 2nd world economy), death penalty or otherwise, does so today.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and the irony of it all is far more are killed domestic disputes or family disputes and by guns in houses than ever will be corrected or prevented through puishment of any sort.
Passion killings dominate far and away over stranger murder yet where do the fears, the hype and the resources go...???? ...the stranger breaking in and killing......

No norm indeed....nor common sense.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> and the irony of it all is far more are killed domestic disputes or family disputes and by guns in houses than ever will be corrected or prevented through puishment of any sort.
> Passion killings dominate far and away over stranger murder yet where do the fears, the hype and the resources go...???? ...the stranger breaking in and killing......
> 
> No norm indeed....nor common sense.


Sadly though, I believe those stats will change. The development of the hand gun / drug culture has fostered killings of rival gang members. Certainly not passion, but methodical and planned murder. In time if not checked, I fear it will prevail as the most often committed murders in this country.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

As for recidivism in the US, I'm simply not willing to dedicate the years, literally, it would take to come to any reasonable conclusion. Hundreds, if not thousands, have tried before me and if it's an exaggeration to say all have failed; it's probably not to say one has succeeded but we can't tell which one from the thousands of incompatible conclusions so far.

The administration of Justice in the US comprises 51 separate legal frameworks with vastly varying levels of penalty, incarceration, rehabilitation programs, parole frameworks, and historical practice. What's worse, terrible data collection and program assessment practices are the norm, not the exception.

There are thousands of examples where convicted murderers were released in the US with little or no punishment whatsoever. Many states collect little data on their own justice systems; roughly half cannot provide the information the Federal Department of Justice uses to determine crime data. Virtually all US justice data relies on the two states that do provide comprehensive assessments of their own Justice systems: California and New York.

There is currently a case in Louisiana where a man who was arrested and confessed to murder will never see a day in jail because the breakdown of the state's legal infrastructure in the wake of Hurricane Katrina prevents him from being tried in a timely manner, forcing authorities to release him. He will never face jail and cannot be re-tried any time in the future. Some reports say hundreds of serious felons are in the same situation.

In Utah, the Parole Board's role can be accurately described as <i>altering the sentence handed down by the judge and jury</i>, a practice so alien to Canadian Justice that professionals in Corrections, Law Enforcement, or the Judiciary are universally shocked and bewildered to learn of the practice. In practical terms, it means that sentencing information from Utah is useless; no inmate actually serves the sentence they are given.

But, I don't want to characterize that as the norm; it's not. The whole point is, however, that in the US there is no norm, no two states nor the federal government collect the same data; when you do find apparently identical data, you later learn it's not-it's measured in different ways and not directly comparable. The result is there is a nearly unlimited way to form the data you do find into the conclusion you've preordained, or if you happen to approach the issue with an open mind, your data is so bad that you are inadvertently sent in an unprovable conclusion, and even worse, you will likely be confidenent you have proved something.

Should there be a death penalty in the US? I don't know and I don't care. I'm concerned with Canada, and Canada only.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I dunno, Sinc. I hardly expect that things will escalate to the point where more people will belong to violent drug-running gangs than those who don't belong nor condone such behaviour. So we're seeing gang members killing gang members, with some civilians being caught in the crossfire. Unless the economy severely tanks and unemployment soars, I really do not expect gang activity to be the chief cause of murder in this country; good old domestic crimes will remain king.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, SINC, take heart in the fact that if you're going to be murdered, you'll likely die with someone you know nearby.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Sadly though, I believe those stats will change. The development of the hand gun / drug culture has fostered killings of rival gang members


"The development of the hand gun / drug culture" <span style="background:yellow"> - completely aided and abetted by drug prohibition - just as alcohol prohibition financed and capitalized the Mafia for generations after it ended - </span> "has fostered killings of rival gang members."

If we're really so worried about hand guns, and drug dealing gangs, then lets quit making the drug selling business such a fabulously lucrative enterprise by following the "war on drugs" prohibition model. Or is our moral panic over drug taking more important than the harm caused by organized criminals and gangs?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Thanks GordGuide for a typically deep and fact-based analysis. It's a shame people did not read it thoroughly enough. In this world of 20 second posts, research and references seem to come a distant second to reasoned argument. If I may take the liberty of paraphrasing your two recent posts in this thread, it is that over the course of recent history, the abolition of the death sentence in Canada has resulted in one proven case of a repreat crime. Since we have no way of knowing how many innocents were executed in Canada in, say, the prior 20 years, we are left with estimating that unless the sentencing and execution was 100% perfect in determining guilt, then recividist murders have not exceeded the number of innocent people being executed. 

But the bottom line here is that a SINGLE error in putting someone to death is unacceptable. Given that the death penalty is also a failed deterrent, ipso facto, the death penalty is a risk the most civilised societies are rightly not wishing to take.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> It's a shame people did not read it thoroughly enough. In this world of 20 second posts, research and references seem to come a distant second to reasoned argument.
> .....
> If I may take the liberty of paraphrasing your two recent posts in this thread, it is that over the course of recent history, the abolition of the death sentence in Canada has resulted in one proven case of a repreat crime.
> .....
> But the bottom line here is that a SINGLE error in putting someone to death is unacceptable. Given that the death penalty is also a failed deterrent, ipso facto, the death penalty is a risk the most civilised societies are rightly not wishing to take.


Keep that advice in mind.
....
Read the post again and carefully read Macfury's actual claim, not what has been assumed into the claim in 'this world of 20 second posts'.
....
I agree with the failed deterrent and don't want a death penalty, but the 'single error' argument is far too broad-based. If you feel that way, fine, but that's not a factual point to forward a position, it's a feeling. An important one, in my mind, but the funny thing about feelings is that everyone's is different.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

How many homicide offenders were released between 1975/76-1998/99 and how many were convicted of a repeat homicide offence?

Overall, over the 24 year period between 1975/76 And 1998/99, there were 11,783 releases of homicide offenders to conditional supervision. Of these:

5,254 were to day parole supervision;
3,739 were to full parole supervision; and
2,790 were to statutory release.
Over the 24 year period 1975/76 to 1998/99, 37 homicide offenders were convicted of a second homicide offence while on supervision in the community.

This represents about one-third of one percent of the 11,783 (0.3%, 37/11,783) released homicide offenders.
.......

For some reason, I feel the need to put disclaimers in here. I don't support a death penalty and I think the evidence in the report is a good example of how few murders are from 'recidivists' and how well our system works. However, the claim in question -- not the positioning of opponents -- remains. The numbers suggest that, indeed, there are a lot of 'recidivist' killings (not by proportion, by level). These are two separate things: the proving/disproving of a relatively specific claim and the general discussion. Many posts, with good intentions, blur this. There's nothing wrong with a claim you don't like being true or uncertain (as opposed to false). It's all a part of an excellent discussion here on ehmac.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I guess my frustration is the entanglement of three different principles in these discussions of the death penalty.

*Punishment* ( revenge if you like ) Is inflicting death a punishment a civilized society should undertake under any circumstances?

*Prevention* ( disincentive ) Does fear of a death penalty deter certain types of behavior ( it would appear it does not from many studies undertaken)

*Making society safer* ( removing future threat ). Well it does but at the risk of potential wrongful death and the incidence of repeat murder appears extremely low outside perhaps a professional hitman in a criminal organization. I suspect in the latter case the risk of death from "occupational hazard" is much much higher so a "death penalty" as a deterrent to this type of criminal is laughable.

If the answer to the first principal/question is no - then the others are moot.
Canadians I feel strongly would answer NO, it's not appropriate for the state to inflict death as part of the justice system regardless of the circumstances.

If that's the case then there are really valid arguments and discussion in how best to deal with three issues while taking state sanctioned death off the table.

What is appropriate punishment for violent crime up to and including murder??

What ARE proven deterrents to violent crime if any?

What actually DOES make society safer from violent crime?

In my mind EACH is a lifetime of study but the last one merits the most attention. Violent crime, poverty, criminal profit incentives ( abolition ) are tightly tied and for me addressing that ...ahem Gordian knot  ......merits the most scrutiny, serious study and reality checks.

There will always be a % of pyschopaths - society cannot eliminate those nor crimes of passion.
I do believing putting effort and resources into poverty/education and criminal profit issues are paths to a safer society, less violent society.......state sanctioned killing is not.

More prisons as breeding grounds for crime grads hardly strikes me as a viable path to a safer society either. Just the numbers of first nation citizens currently in our prisons is an admission of failure by Canada in the field of "justice" 

my 1.82¢ worth


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Good list of issues MD, although I'd only give you 1.79 cents. Budget cuts and all. 

A further addition is 'at what cost'? Personal freedoms, financial expense, the permanently undervalued personal ability to freely entertain oneself. This is a major issue, in my mind, especially in today's world. Sorry to use a Hollywood example but, despite its superficial treatment, Minority Report got at a basic point in a simplistic manner. At what cost.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's true - California is certainly a case study in $ per pupil versus $ per prisoner.

I'd say overall Canada has a reasonable balance - there will always be risk in any strategy - police states have their own risks versus the other end of anarchy.
I wonder if Torontonians would be tolerant of the video surveillance Brits undergo daily?

While I recognize the need for an offsetting system of forceful response to organized violence resources spent on proven areas, early education, job creation, challenged community focus of resources is better use of money than massive prisons.

Taking out the profit incentive is in my mind absolutely critical and only a combination of that and addressing systemic poverty has any chance of success - especially given the population squeeze coming up.

I'd hope we get it right in Canada and NOT go down the US path. 
Europe has programs we can benefit from their experience and success.

I see Sinc has yet to explain Edmonton's violence under Klein.
Should be cautionary.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Maybe it's about time to remember what we love while discussing how things can, and should, be better (whatever 'better' is to any given person). We all know the big picture in Canada is great but, sometimes, I suspect that we get overwhelmed with the problems. The problems should be addressed and fought against even when we disagree, but no one should lose sight of what we do well.

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=34476


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I see Sinc has yet to explain Edmonton's violence under Klein.
> Should be cautionary.


Never offered to even try as I recall.

Besides, what could ANY premier of ANY province possibly have to do with escalation or decrease in violence? That is simply absurd.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Besides, what could ANY premier of ANY province possibly have to do with escalation or decrease in violence? That is simply absurd.


This may spawn some dicussion.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Besides, what could ANY premier of ANY province possibly have to do with escalation or decrease in violence? That is simply absurd.


Economic policies that affect social policies affect the level of violence.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Economic policies that affect social policies affect the level of violence.


Not nearly as much as the lack of discipline and respect in today's society.


----------

