|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 19, 2010 13:37:06 GMT -5
Former Base Commander of CFB Trenton, whose name I will not type here, has freely admitted to his guilt to all charges brought against him, which include two murder charges.
Certainly the justice system is flawed. It's entirely possible Steven Truscott could have been executed for a crime he didn't commit. And he might have not been the only one.
So, should we reinstate an old law? Should it be left up to the provinces?
What's your take?
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Oct 19, 2010 13:48:28 GMT -5
I answered "others" because I don't think there is a right or wrong answer....
In this case, after reading the article of the trial on the CBC web site, I would not hesitate one second to answer yes. I don't care if he is declared insane or whatever. This guy deserve to die for the atrocity he did....
If I was the father of one of those girl, I would want to pull the trigger myself !
However, the problem is: where do we draw the line....... ?
If we kill 1 innocent person for every 1000 guilty, it is still one too many !
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 19, 2010 14:13:35 GMT -5
I answered "others" because I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.... Glad you included this, HS. Thanks very much. I originally wanted to add this as an 'edit' to the original post, but then I was pulled away. This is what makes it different for everyone I think. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 19, 2010 18:15:37 GMT -5
There are liberals that think the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. They favor 2 minutes for attempted murder, 4 minutes for drawing blood and a five minute major for murder. After all, the killer had a hard life, his mother drank when he was in the womb and the priest abused him. Makes it OK!
The death penalty is a great sentence where warranted. No rehab, no psychological counseling, no 10th, 11th and 12th appeals.
I'll censure myself to the code of conduct before I get carried away......................
$##@%&^%$#%^
|
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Oct 19, 2010 18:37:18 GMT -5
There are liberals that think the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. They favor 2 minutes for attempted murder, 4 minutes for drawing blood and a five minute major for murder. After all, the killer had a hard life, his mother drank when he was in the womb and the priest abused him. Makes it OK! The death penalty is a great sentence where warranted. No rehab, no psychological counseling, no 10th, 11th and 12th appeals. I'll censure myself to the code of conduct before I get carried away...................... $##@%&^%$#%^ I mostly agree with you.... The death penalty is a great sentence where warranted.but this is where the first problem start...IMO ! |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 19, 2010 19:03:22 GMT -5
I voted "other" but it's with a heavy list to the "no" side. In a perfect world, perhaps - but I'm not sure there's any practical way to make it work in our world. Does the former base commander who shall not be named deserve to die? Without a doubt yes. For what he has confessed to alone he deserves to suffer the most agonizing death. But can we be certain he has confessed to all his crimes? Can we be certain he can no longer contribute anything to our society - perhaps by helping us understand what is wrong with him? Same with Bernardo (who, in fact, may be guilty of other murders) or Pickton (there's a whole lot of weirdness going on there). All are deserving to die, without a doubt. But there is still value left in them.
Do not get me wrong. I think our justice system is just this side of failing. It costs too much and fixes too little. But I don't think killing people - even people like the former Colonel - is the solution to the problem. In fact I think it might make matters worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 19, 2010 21:07:46 GMT -5
When a person is found guilty....there can always be the chance of a mistake, as outlined in Dis' first post.
When a person pleads guilty....it's a different story...and the door for capital punishment is pushed further open.
Something to be learned from them? I suppose...what traits did they exhibit as children....as teenagers. When did the sickness begin to manifest itself? What is their brain chemistry as compared to a "normal" person?
Then what? Parents and teachers look for such personality traits at home and in the classroom? Action to be taken in the form of cognitive/behavioural therapy...medication? It wouldn't be an exact science, that's for sure. Kids would very well be labelled and treated unjustly.
Reminds me of the movie "Minority Report" in which technology exists enabling criminals to be arrested before they commit the crime. That would be a most welcome endeavour.
As it stands...all we can do is keep our wits about us. Some people are monsters. As Dennis Miller said, "You can't save everybody...just try not to be living next door to them when they go off." As flippant as that is for comedic purposes....it's closer to where we are right now, I think.
EDIT: Do studies exist on whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent for these sociopaths?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 20, 2010 1:02:07 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, any particularly heinous crime or serial murderers that is beyond a shadow of a doubt should meet a large dose of electrons.
Homolka/Bernardo
Olsen
Williams
And the like....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 20, 2010 1:07:37 GMT -5
EDIT: Do studies exist on whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent for these sociopaths? I don't know if there are any, but I doubt it would be a deterrent. To me, there is a difference between somebody capable of planning and committing serial murders and someone and someone who "loses" it. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2010 5:59:29 GMT -5
EDIT: Do studies exist on whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent for these sociopaths? I don't know if there are any, but I doubt it would be a deterrent. To me, there is a difference between somebody capable of planning and committing serial murders and someone and someone who "loses" it. lotsa studies, little to no deterrent. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Oct 20, 2010 6:50:04 GMT -5
"Some people should die, that's just unconscious knowledge." Perry Farrell
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 20, 2010 8:20:42 GMT -5
EDIT: Do studies exist on whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent for these sociopaths? I don't know if there are any, but I doubt it would be a deterrent. To me, there is a difference between somebody capable of planning and committing serial murders and someone and someone who "loses" it. Yep, a sliding scale. There are also those that kill because "voices" told them to do so. Paranoid schizophrenia can lead to that. Brain chemistry is such a precarious thing. I don't know if they'll ever figure out which meds/what kind of surgery will get the bubble between the lines, but I sincerely hope they're earnestly working on it. Somehow, though, I think there's a lot more money in treating symptoms than in righting the ship for good. A lifetime of meds vs. a one-time fix? Not difficult to do the cynical math there. Pharmaceutical companies have a lot of influence over what goes on, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Oct 20, 2010 8:37:20 GMT -5
I don't know if there are any, but I doubt it would be a deterrent. To me, there is a difference between somebody capable of planning and committing serial murders and someone and someone who "loses" it. Yep, a sliding scale. There are also those that kill because "voices" told them to do so. Paranoid schizophrenia can lead to that. Brain chemistry is such a precarious thing. I don't know if they'll ever figure out which meds/what kind of surgery will get the bubble between the lines, but I sincerely hope they're earnestly working on it. Somehow, though, I think there's a lot more money in treating symptoms than in righting the ship for good. A lifetime of meds vs. a one-time fix? Not difficult to do the cynical math there. Pharmaceutical companies have a lot of influence over what goes on, IMO. I don't buy the criminally insane bit, any person who murders has something not going on in their head. Just about all religions preach an eye for an eye, I've always believed that is the case!! |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2010 9:00:24 GMT -5
It seems to me that there are two questions being asked here: the poll question, and the thread question. I do not think that they are the same.
The poll question: are circumstances where the death penalty is warranted? . Answer: retributively yes. Retributively, because that's what the death penalty is: retribution, the old "eye for an eye tooth for a tooth" thing. We are merely saying that a person is so reprehensible or that the actions taken were so evil that the perpetrator does not deserve [in our eyes] to live. This can refer to any social deviant behavior, although serial murderers, serial rapists, and paedophiles are often the offenders most deemed "deserving" of the death penalty.
The use of the death penalty means that [1] [retributive] justice is served and that [2] society does not have to pay to house the offender in a jail for years, nor [3] think about the person again [Clifford Olson drawing old age pension, for example].
The thread question: Should there be a death penalty in Canada? is a different question altogether, and I find it interesting that many who consider themselves "pro-life" would answe3r this question "yes" -- and inconsistency, in my view. If a person is pro-life s/he should be anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia [most are], and anti-death penalty as well: conception to natural death [but that's just an aside].
As despicable and heinous as many of the acts that deserve the death penalty are, in the death penalty has no place in so-called advanced society. First, we say that we honour life, and in doing so must honour all life, not just those we think deserving of life. Second, there is indeed always the question of killing an innocent person. Third, a person that perpetrates such crimes must in some way be mentally incompetent. I am not saying that they are not responsible for what they have done; just that they may have limited capacity. I say: use them as psychological studies!]. Fourth, if the death penalty is an option a guilty party may chose to go to trial and drag things out, putting the already suffering families in even more turmoil. Fifth [following the fourth], other crimes may be admitted to if there is no death penalty [this is iffy, I realize].
So . . . the answer to the poll question is yes, and the answer to the thread question is no.
Now if you are asking if such people should be kept in protective custody or coddled with every creature comfort that they want while behind bars . . . that's another matter.
[by the way, this response is why you cannot paint evangelicals as brainless right-wing fundamentalist Neanderthals]
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 20, 2010 10:47:48 GMT -5
It seems to me that there are two questions being asked here: the poll question, and the thread question. I do not think that they are the same. The poll question: are circumstances where the death penalty is warranted? . Answer: retributively yes. Retributively, because that's what the death penalty is: retribution, the old "eye for an eye tooth for a tooth" thing. We are merely saying that a person is so reprehensible or that the actions taken were so evil that the perpetrator does not deserve [in our eyes] to live. This can refer to any social deviant behavior, although serial murderers, serial rapists, and paedophiles are often the offenders most deemed "deserving" of the death penalty.
The use of the death penalty means that [1] [retributive] justice is served and that [2] society does not have to pay to house the offender in a jail for years, nor [3] think about the person again [Clifford Olson drawing old age pension, for example].
The thread question: Should there be a death penalty in Canada? is a different question altogether, and I find it interesting that many who consider themselves "pro-life" would answe3r this question "yes" -- and inconsistency, in my view. If a person is pro-life s/he should be anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia [most are], and anti-death penalty as well: conception to natural death [but that's just an aside].
As despicable and heinous as many of the acts that deserve the death penalty are, in the death penalty has no place in so-called advanced society. First, we say that we honour life, and in doing so must honour all life, not just those we think deserving of life. Second, there is indeed always the question of killing an innocent person. Third, a person that perpetrates such crimes must in some way be mentally incompetent. I am not saying that they are not responsible for what they have done; just that they may have limited capacity. I say: use them as psychological studies!]. Fourth, if the death penalty is an option a guilty party may chose to go to trial and drag things out, putting the already suffering families in even more turmoil. Fifth [following the fourth], other crimes may be admitted to if there is no death penalty [this is iffy, I realize].
So . . . the answer to the poll question is yes, and the answer to the thread question is no.
Now if you are asking if such people should be kept in protective custody or coddled with every creature comfort that they want while behind bars . . . that's another matter.
[by the way, this response is why you cannot paint evangelicals as brainless right-wing fundamentalist Neanderthals]Thanks Franko. There's nothing I can do about the questions now, though. I'd have so delete the thread and start anew. I like your advanced society reference, because it's an identity many nations strive for, but have difficulty in achieving. In that context, I think we, as a nation, continue to make strides towards that goal, but we're still very far from it. And I find that a situation like this challenges that goal as well. Just about everyone has an opinion on this matter and like HS said, there's no right or wrong answer to it. Having said that, I find it hard to judge people for believing what they choose. For the most part, we all come from different backgrounds and were all probably reared differently. However, what I find generates a lot of feelings and perceptions on this topic, and how we react to it, is fear. The fear of having a person like this on the planet. The fear of having to deal with similar 'animals' in the future if we don't send out the right message, etc. Here's a cut and paste from Wikipedia. A few years ago a gunman killed 6 Amish school children and wounded 5 more. Check this out when you have the time: On the day of the shooting, a grandfather of one of the murdered Amish girls was heard warning some young relatives not to hate the killer, saying, "We must not think evil of this man." Another Amish father noted, "He had a mother and a wife and a soul and now he's standing before a just God."
Jack Meyer, a member of the Brethren community living near the Amish in Lancaster County, explained: "I don't think there's anybody here that wants to do anything but forgive and not only reach out to those who have suffered a loss in that way but to reach out to the family of the man who committed these acts."
A Roberts family spokesman said an Amish neighbor comforted the Roberts family hours after the shooting and extended forgiveness to them. Amish community members visited and comforted Roberts' widow, parents, and parents-in-law. One Amish man held Roberts' sobbing father in his arms, reportedly for as long as an hour, to comfort him. The Amish have also set up a charitable fund for the family of the shooter. About 30 members of the Amish community attended Roberts' funeral, and Marie Roberts, the widow of the killer, was one of the few outsiders invited to the funeral of one of the victims. Marie Roberts wrote an open letter to her Amish neighbors thanking them for their forgiveness, grace, and mercy. She wrote, "Your love for our family has helped to provide the healing we so desperately need. Gifts you've given have touched our hearts in a way no words can describe. Your compassion has reached beyond our family, beyond our community, and is changing our world, and for this we sincerely thank you."In my opinion, the Amish demonstrated many advanced traits that we, as a society, don't always apply consistently; control (of their fears?), forgiveness and mercy only to name a few. On the other hand, I have a Menonite friend (who's in the military ... unusual for a Menonite, no? And who's from Alberta to boot). He just shook his head when he heard how the Amish handled the massacre. In his opinion, the Amish simply took an easy way out and avoided handling the problem straight on. I don't think my friend is wrong and neither were the Amish for that matter. It all depends on who we are and what we believe. However, until we harness the 'fear factor' we're going to continue to lose ground in gaining our goal as an advanced society. Me, I've tried to consider as many perspectives as I can. However, I keep coming back to the same point; how would I react if one of my family were the victim? Well, I can't say for sure, but the feelings I get from just thinking of this happening in no way reflect that of an advanced society. In fact, the words 'digress' and 'primitive' come to mind immediately. I'm sure I have the traits the Amish have shown time and time again. But, unlike the Amish I find situations like the colonel is responsible for to be exceptional. It affects my forgiveness factor in a huge way. More so, as I continue to discuss it. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 20, 2010 10:51:07 GMT -5
I’ll vote no, though I can certainly understand the appeal of it. Especially in cases like Williams, or Bernardo, where their guilt is so far beyond the shadow of doubt it might as well be living on the sun.
But…
What, exactly, do we want from our justice system? In my opinion there are four possible answers:
1. Punitive: Eye-for-an-eye. Not just with murder, but with every crime. We are going to put you in a “penal” institution, to punish you.
2. Rehabilitative: You had some issues in your life, perhaps a bad start, drugs, whatever. But we think that you can still be a functional and productive member of society, so we are going to send you to a “correctional” institution and teach you a better way.
3. Deterrence: Don't do it, because...
4. Protective: We are going to “lock you up” and keep you away from the rest of society so that you can’t harm anybody else any more.
For capital punishment I think we can eliminate “rehabilitative” for obvious reasons, and “deterrence” because I don’t think there is really anybody who thinks this works. I doubt there have been many psychopathic serial killers who said "but wait, there is the death penalty…”
So that leaves us with “punitive” and “protective.” For “protective” I don’t think there is a valid argument for capital punishment. Locked up in a cell for the rest of their lives does a pretty good job of protecting society, there is no need to take it to that next level. It’s cheaper, and probably more punitive in the long run anyways. But speaking of punitive…
There is an emotional, and even logical appeal to the eye-for-an-eye argument, so it’s hard to argue against it. Why should Williams or Bernardo be allowed to live? There really is no good answer. They don’t. So why should we “let” them?
I’ll fall back on the slippery slope/mistake argument. Right now nobody here wants to execute a shoplifter, but of course we know of societies even today that don’t think that’s such a bad idea. Heck, in the US you can execute a 16 year old retarded kid. Once you get on the slope… And what if you make a mistake? Again, with Williams and Bernardo there is no mistake to be made, we are sure of their guilt, 100%. But what about somebody who’s guilt we are only 99.99% sure of? Chances are you are right, .01 percent is not a lot… but then people play the lottery expecting to beat longer odds, and somebody does, every week…For the one or two “no doubters” like Williams and Bernardo there are probably 1000 “almost no doubters” that could cause a mistake to be made.
Lock them up I say, and then forget about them. That would be punishment enough, and it would still protect society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 20, 2010 12:14:27 GMT -5
I’ll vote no, though I can certainly understand the appeal of it. Especially in cases like Williams, or Bernardo, where their guilt is so far beyond the shadow of doubt it might as well be living on the sun. But… What, exactly, do we want from our justice system? In my opinion there are four possible answers: 1. Punitive: Eye-for-an-eye. Not just with murder, but with every crime. We are going to put you in a “penal” institution, to punish you. 2. Rehabilitative: You had some issues in your life, perhaps a bad start, drugs, whatever. But we think that you can still be a functional and productive member of society, so we are going to send you to a “correctional” institution and teach you a better way. 3. Deterrence: Don't do it, because... 4. Protective: We are going to “lock you up” and keep you away from the rest of society so that you can’t harm anybody else any more. For capital punishment I think we can eliminate “rehabilitative” for obvious reasons, and “deterrence” because I don’t think there is really anybody who thinks this works. I doubt there have been many psychopathic serial killers who said "but wait, there is the death penalty…” So that leaves us with “punitive” and “protective.” For “protective” I don’t think there is a valid argument for capital punishment. Locked up in a cell for the rest of their lives does a pretty good job of protecting society, there is no need to take it to that next level. It’s cheaper, and probably more punitive in the long run anyways. But speaking of punitive… There is an emotional, and even logical appeal to the eye-for-an-eye argument, so it’s hard to argue against it. Why should Williams or Bernardo be allowed to live? There really is no good answer. They don’t. So why should we “let” them? I’ll fall back on the slippery slope/mistake argument. Right now nobody here wants to execute a shoplifter, but of course we know of societies even today that don’t think that’s such a bad idea. Heck, in the US you can execute a 16 year old retarded kid. Once you get on the slope… And what if you make a mistake? Again, with Williams and Bernardo there is no mistake to be made, we are sure of their guilt, 100%. But what about somebody who’s guilt we are only 99.99% sure of? Chances are you are right, .01 percent is not a lot… but then people play the lottery expecting to beat longer odds, and somebody does, every week…For the one or two “no doubters” like Williams and Bernardo there are probably 1000 “ almost no doubters” that could cause a mistake to be made. Lock them up I say, and then forget about them. That would be punishment enough, and it would still protect society. Good post, BC. There's only one handgrenade you left smoking out there. I'd like to ask you, how is locking up an inmate for life cheaper in the long run? OK, another story ... I was in the Golan Heights for six months back in '96. We were briefed very well on local customs and laws before heading over. We were also told that if we were arrested for anything it would result in a very difficult situation to settle, so knowing and understanding the laws was important. Case in point: When we were in the Golan Heights, we were told of two Canadian women who were incarcerated for drug offenses. They were both sentenced to life and their needs were being looked after by the Canadian embassy. Why? Because in Syria, if you don't have anyone looking after you while you're in prison you're basically done. Little to no food on some days and less than sanitary water, and other basic needs; proper (or maybe minimal, really not sure) medical care, toiletries and the like. Supposedly a representative of the embassy was up to see them once a week. However, some in our contingent felt it necessary to augment that support, so they put in a request to do so. The request was denied, not by the Canadian embassy, but by the Syrian authorities themselves. Still, if it weren't for the embassy, those women would have nothing. Compared to a system like this, we really are an advanced society, I believe anyway. Inmates are fed very well (not if you ask them mind you), they're given excellent medical attention (more so than some of our citizens), austaire accomodations compared to our standard of living and some are even given opportunities for educational upgrade (that many Canadians, through no fault of their own, can't afford) as part of a program designed to rehabilitate them back into society. A CSC counselor came through my classroom about a year ago or so, and she told me it's very difficult to rehabilitate inmates who simply 'don't get it.' But, whether they 'don't get it' or just don't appreciate the efforts, CSC keeps trying. The ones who are beyond help are locked up for varying periods of time, including life. Clifford Olson is one such animal. Given all of the support an inmate like him is afforded, that is, security (the CSC officers), counceling (councelor wages), medical (the cost of a doctor, meds, et al), food (the cost of the cooks too) and accomodations, how is this a cheap process? Gotta go. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 20, 2010 12:21:10 GMT -5
It seems to me that there are two questions being asked here: the poll question, and the thread question. I do not think that they are the same. The poll question: are circumstances where the death penalty is warranted? . Answer: retributively yes. Retributively, because that's what the death penalty is: retribution, the old "eye for an eye tooth for a tooth" thing. We are merely saying that a person is so reprehensible or that the actions taken were so evil that the perpetrator does not deserve [in our eyes] to live. This can refer to any social deviant behavior, although serial murderers, serial rapists, and paedophiles are often the offenders most deemed "deserving" of the death penalty.
The use of the death penalty means that [1] [retributive] justice is served and that [2] society does not have to pay to house the offender in a jail for years, nor [3] think about the person again [Clifford Olson drawing old age pension, for example].
The thread question: Should there be a death penalty in Canada? is a different question altogether, and I find it interesting that many who consider themselves "pro-life" would answe3r this question "yes" -- and inconsistency, in my view. If a person is pro-life s/he should be anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia [most are], and anti-death penalty as well: conception to natural death [but that's just an aside].
As despicable and heinous as many of the acts that deserve the death penalty are, in the death penalty has no place in so-called advanced society. First, we say that we honour life, and in doing so must honour all life, not just those we think deserving of life. Second, there is indeed always the question of killing an innocent person. Third, a person that perpetrates such crimes must in some way be mentally incompetent. I am not saying that they are not responsible for what they have done; just that they may have limited capacity. I say: use them as psychological studies!]. Fourth, if the death penalty is an option a guilty party may chose to go to trial and drag things out, putting the already suffering families in even more turmoil. Fifth [following the fourth], other crimes may be admitted to if there is no death penalty [this is iffy, I realize].
So . . . the answer to the poll question is yes, and the answer to the thread question is no.
Now if you are asking if such people should be kept in protective custody or coddled with every creature comfort that they want while behind bars . . . that's another matter.
[by the way, this response is why you cannot paint evangelicals as brainless right-wing fundamentalist Neanderthals]Wait a minute....did you just use "advanced society" as a excuse? Tell me something....how "advanced" is a society who locks a man up worrse then a caged animal for the rest of his life and denies him the right to end the misery of this "advanced" treatement? Basically, we are torturing him for the rest of his life.......and justifying it as "advanced" and "morally compasionate". |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 20, 2010 12:24:55 GMT -5
I I’ll fall back on the slippery slope/mistake argument. There is no slippery slope. Your choice is to either kill them ot cage them. If you kill them, it's over. If you cage them, you are torturing them for the rest of their lives. Torture or kill? Choose. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 20, 2010 12:26:57 GMT -5
Good post, BC. There's only one handgrenade you left smoking out there. I'd like to ask you, how is locking up an inmate for life cheaper in the long run? Dis, see here: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/Of course you could shorten or tighten up the appeal process... but then if you do that aren't you increasing the risk that you execute an innocent person? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2010 12:53:35 GMT -5
Wait a minute....did you just use "advanced society" as a excuse? Well, yes, it seems that I did: As despicable and heinous as many of the acts that deserve the death penalty are, in the death penalty has no place in so-called advanced society. Is that where you stopped reading? I defined “advanced society” [and, fwiw, I often question whether we are one] by saying that such a society must Otherwise, we sink to the level of those who are base. Tell me something....how "advanced" is a society who locks a man up worrse then a caged animal for the rest of his life and denies him the right to end the misery of this "advanced" treatement? Basically, we are torturing him for the rest of his life.......and justifying it as "advanced" and "morally compasionate". and Your choice is to either kill them ot cage them. If you kill them, it's over. If you cage them, you are torturing them for the rest of their lives. Torture or kill? Choose. I think if you offered the choice of a cage or a coffin, most humans would choose the cage. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2010 13:09:54 GMT -5
Thanks Franko. There's nothing I can do about the questions now, though. I'd have so delete the thread and start anew. no no no . . . I was in no way suggesting that you do so . . . and I may be the only one to see it as two questions. I'll say. Michael Moore based his Bowling for Columbine movie on the premise that we are too fearful -- I wonder what he'd say about this. Probable that it's a one-off, or the percentage is too small to worry about . . . though fear and worry drive parents to have a much tighter control of their childrens' lives than our parents did -- not too many parents let their young kids play outside at night without supervision for fear of them being kidnapped. I think we've had this discussion before, and I till think that the information age/media has pushed the possibility into the open more-so than it was in the [well, I'm not going to fill in the decade] -- I don't know if the percentage of crimes is higher now than "then", but the perception is that it is higher because we hear of every little thing [and the urban myths are propagated because of the internet]. Indeed. And forgiveness is a difficult thing to offer, no matter if it is a "little wrong" or a "huge wrong" -- the breaking of a plate glass window or the braking of a life. A window can be replaced so one would at least think it would be an easier "forgive while the breaking of a life/the destruction of a family not so much. I'll be honest -- in the realm of "what if" I like to think that I would be able and willing to forgive. In reality [because I know myself] I'm not so sure. It would take a long time, I think, and I well imagine that I'd want the [fill in every vile name you can think that I would utter] to rot you-know-where as long as possible . . . which goes against the core of my beliefs. Unless I am in the situation I just don't know. But this I do know -- having the rotten you-know-what executed isn't going to bring anyone back. So if I want punishment do I want him to rot in jail until he dies or do I want him to have a quick and relatively painless death? [see, I do have an emotional human side. and maybe I'm more like you and HA than I like to admit (insert some kind of smiley here)]. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 20, 2010 18:58:35 GMT -5
I think if you offered the choice of a cage or a coffin, most humans would choose the cage. Not true. Given a chance of life in a cage with no parole, a lot would chose coffins. This is what you said.... As despicable and heinous as many of the acts that deserve the death penalty are, in the death penalty has no place in so-called advanced society. First, we say that we honour life, and in doing so must honour all life, not just those we think deserving of life.Which means what? And also this..... Otherwise, we sink to the level of those who are base.So riddle me this.... What is more moral? Putting a man in a a cage for the rest of his life or killing him? (You KNOW I'm setting you up. *evil smile*) |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 20, 2010 20:00:31 GMT -5
When a person is found guilty....there can always be the chance of a mistake, as outlined in Dis' first post. When a person pleads guilty....it's a different story...and the door for capital punishment is pushed further open. I kinda disagree with this ... I understand what you are saying, but in our justice system you get lighter sentences when you plead guilty (usually through plea bargaining, and even without) and you get stiffer penalties when you make the courts endure a trial typically. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 20, 2010 20:02:49 GMT -5
Yep, a sliding scale. There are also those that kill because "voices" told them to do so. Paranoid schizophrenia can lead to that. Brain chemistry is such a precarious thing. I don't know if they'll ever figure out which meds/what kind of surgery will get the bubble between the lines, but I sincerely hope they're earnestly working on it. Somehow, though, I think there's a lot more money in treating symptoms than in righting the ship for good. A lifetime of meds vs. a one-time fix? Not difficult to do the cynical math there. Pharmaceutical companies have a lot of influence over what goes on, IMO. I don't buy the criminally insane bit, any person who murders has something not going on in their head. Just about all religions preach an eye for an eye, I've always believed that is the case!! Every religion also believes in "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 20, 2010 20:13:23 GMT -5
To answer the question ... no, absolutely not ... Canada should never entertain the idea of bringing back the death penalty.
For one, when do you execute? The cases of people being exonerated for wrongful convictions is a long one. Donald Marshall may not be alive today. (as an aside, it was my great uncle that actually committed that crime) In NL, in the past few years we have had at least 5 cases where people were wrongfully convicted of murder. One out of a thousand? It is way more than that in Canada in recent years ....
The only reasons I have heard from the other side of the debate is vengence and cost. Well vengence or retribution can be handled quite easily with life in prison with no parole, EVER. The cost? Well when you consider that by the time the appeals, and the process comes to its final conclusion, 10 years or more usually passes. The cost should not enter the debate in my opinion. It is society's duty to absorb that cost to give some semblence of peace of mind to the victim's family, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 20, 2010 20:21:35 GMT -5
The thread question: Should there be a death penalty in Canada? is a different question altogether, and I find it interesting that many who consider themselves "pro-life" would answe3r this question "yes" -- and inconsistency, in my view. If a person is pro-life s/he should be anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia [most are], and anti-death penalty as well: conception to natural death [but that's just an aside]. I'm anti capital punishment but pro-abortion. My stance on capital punishment is based on knowing that society WILL without a doubt execute innocent people. THAT has to be prevented at all costs, and the only way is to never execute. My stance on abortion is based on knowing that society will never agree on legislation that HAS to be flexible enough to not force a woman to carry a fetus/baby to full term as a result of being raped. Orphanage you say? Nope, no way, its a non-starter. No woman should have to be forced to go through that trauma as a result of another trauma and have her pscychological scars magnified .... ... now if you are talking strictly as a form of "oopsie the pill/condom didnt work" birth control. Yes, I am against that. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 20, 2010 20:24:18 GMT -5
I don't think religions take into consideration the criminally insane....unless they're talking about "possession by demons" and the casting out of such.
And I don't think religion can be applied to circumstances involving psychology and brain research. Most religions were written/developed during a time of virtually no science at all....not as we know it today, for sure.
But I don't want to get into a validity of religion debate. Only as it pertains to this case.
The basic "how to treat each other" religious guidelines are pretty basic/common sense and meant for people who function "normally" in day-to-day life.
"Thou shalt not kill" doesn't mean too much to a sociopath with murderous tendencies. And that's what we have with this case. His brain chemistry is all messed up.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2010 20:31:22 GMT -5
I wonder how much time I'll have sitting in airports tomorrow so I can fully answer . . . I have a few where "religion" comes into the picture . . . and I especially look forward to HA's lob ball!
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 20, 2010 20:35:02 GMT -5
I wonder how much time I'll have sitting in airports tomorrow so I can fully answer . . . I have a few where "religion" comes into the picture . . . and I especially look forward to HA's lob ball! I don't know, buds. I mean ... religion and law in the same discussion? Can we be objective about it? Cheers. |
|
