HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Is it okay to kill?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-10-2012, 12:49 PM
  #1
MrAlfie
 
MrAlfie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rehab
Country: Spain
Posts: 5,249
vCash: 500
Is it okay to kill?

How come people that support the death penalty are against abortion, yet many pro-choice people are against the Death Penalty?

I personally am against the Death Penalty but believe that every woman should be able to make their own choice when it comes to aborting pregnancy.



By the way, I do not consider abortion killing which makes my post even more confusing.
I'll be back when I get some Xanax...

MrAlfie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 12:51 PM
  #2
cyris
On a Soma Holiday
 
cyris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 3rd Planet From Sun.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,444
vCash: 500
Why not put this in the thread where we are already talking about abortion?

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1276317

cyris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 01:19 PM
  #3
MrAlfie
 
MrAlfie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rehab
Country: Spain
Posts: 5,249
vCash: 500
The abortion topic is more of an afterthought here, I was more aiming for the death penalty.

MrAlfie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 01:26 PM
  #4
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,216
vCash: 800
I know if an innocent is convicted at least he'll still be alive if they find out about it 20 years later , I guess because of the mistakes committed in the past it's better to keep them alive.To me justice mistakes and convictions of innocents mixed with the indifference for prisonners safety by society is one of the most frightening thing to think about because it could be you.This is why I can't help but laugh at the condescendance of some judges and prosecutors.Not all of them of course.I mean chances are these people , while helping society , did destroy lives of innocent.I didn't.

What I care a lot more about is the safety of prisoners and the frightening tendencies of free citizens to put them all in the same basket and accept the violence commited by gang members on other prisoners as a ''part of their sentence''.


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 11-10-2012 at 01:36 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 01:26 PM
  #5
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlfie View Post
The abortion topic is more of an afterthought here, I was more aiming for the death penalty.
Canada for the win on this issue.

There are a number of reasons the death penalty has been abolished in the vast majority of civilized western democracies.

If murder is wrong (an offence in malum se - i.e. wrong in itself) then state sanctioned murder as punishment is worse because the state should know better. The idea of the state killing its own citizens as punishment for a crime (any crime) is barbaric.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Like virtually all enlightened western democracies (some US states are notable exceptions) Canada has rejected capital punishment politically and the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that is it unconstitutional. We have seen too many people wrongfully convicted of murder who were subsequently found innocent to be comfortable with capital punishment. Once the state has killed a person somehow "oops" just does not seem enough. It was just such a case that led Britain to abolish capital punishment.

Almost all European and many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste), and Canada have abolished capital punishment. South Korea abolished it about 2 years ago. The United States is one of only two industrialized democracies that still have it (the other, Japan has a de-facto moratorium in effect),

I am not sure I would want to be on board with this group of countries who impose capital punishment:
* China
* Iran
* Saudi Arabia
* Pakistan
* USA (some states)
* Iraq
* Viet Nam
* Yemen
* Afghanistan
* Libya
* Japan
* Syria
* Sudan
* Bangladesh
* Somalia
* Equatorial Guinea
* Singapore
* Kuwait
* Indonesia
* Botswana
* Belarus
* Ethiopia
* Egypt
* North Korea
The Supreme Court of Canada has made that abundantly clear in the recent cases dealing with extradition and the death penalty that it will not pass constitutional muster under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. See the death penalty cases of United States of America v. Burns, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283 and Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3.

Atif Rafay and Sebastian Burns were not surrendered to the United States until the state of Washington agreed to take the death penalty off the table. Britain, France and Australia have done the same with extradition requests made by the USA as well.

As the Supreme Court of Canada noted international law is moving towards the Canadian position.
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 44/128 of 15 December 1989

The States Parties to the present Protocol,

Believing that abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights,

Recalling article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on 10 December 1948, and article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966,

Noting that article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refers to abolition of the death penalty in terms that strongly suggest that abolition is desirable,

Convinced that all measures of abolition of the death penalty should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to life,

Desirous to undertake hereby an international commitment to abolish the death penalty,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1

1. No one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed.

2. Each State Party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.
In Europe the European Union bans the death penalty for members under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and is a major force pushing for a world-wide ban with Italy leading the way at the United Nations.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL0192317420070201

Protocol No. 13 to the ECHR

Article 1 Abolition of the death penalty

The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.

Article 2 Prohibition of derogations

No derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.

Article 3 Prohibition of reservations

No reservation may be made under Article 57 of the Convention in respect of the provisions of this Protocol.
As the Supreme Court of Canada has noted if an innocent person is executed there is no "do over" and there is convincing evidence of wrongful convictions. State sanctioned murder does not seem to be in the cards in Canada absent a constitutional amendment which I cannot see being passed under the amending formula. The only legally available option in Canada is incarceration and for those who remain a danger, continued incarceration.

If murderers cannot be rehabilitated and remain a danger to the public then you keep them locked up - rehabilitation is at the bottom of considerations for persons convicted of murder. That is why murder in Canada carries a sentence of life imprisonment and there is provision for the designation as a dangerous offender with an indeterminate sentence for other violent offences.

Most murderers in Canada do not get a second chance (and it is exceedingly rare for persons convicted of first degree murder where parole eligibility is set at 25 years). Those that do get paroled go through a rigorous screening process and since it is a life sentence even if they are paroled they are under supervision for the rest of their lives.

As to why parole at all for first degree murderers when the death penalty was abolished. The union for prison guards were concerned that without some faint hope of release it would be impossible to control inmates convicted of murder without the carrot of the possibility of future release on parole. As the Liberal Solicitor General of the day Warren Allmand noted during the abolition debate:
I disagree with those who argue that a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years is worse than death. A period of incarceration, with hope of parole, and with the built-in additional incentive for the inmate, and protection for the guards (is necessary).
As the statistics show murderers in Canada spend on average 28.4 years in prison which pretty well matches up with US figures of murderers with no chance of parole spending 29 years in prison while US murderers who do have an opportunity of parole spend 18.5 years in prison. As it is murderers in Canada spend way more time in jail than other western democracies that have abolished the death penalty.

Before abolition of the death penalty killers who avoided execution but received life sentences for the old offence of capital murder were being held, on average, for slightly over 13 years.
In comparison to most other Western democracies, sentences of imprisonment in Canada are lengthy and have been increasing in recent years. A 1999 international comparison of the average time served in custody by an offender on a life sentence for first degree murder shows that Canada exceeds the average time served in all countries surveyed including the United States , with the exception of U.S. offenders serving life sentences without benefit of parole.

Code:
Average Time Spent in Custody
Australia 	14.8 years 	        United States 	 
Belgium 	12.7 years 	        life without parole 	29 years
England 	14.4 years 	        life with parole		18.5 years
New Zealand     11 years 	  	 
Scotland 	11.2 years 	        Canada 	                28.4 years
Sweden 	        12 years
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-no...doc_31690.html

We do not kill persons convicted of murder because we are civilized society and we have evolved.

The official position of the Government of Canada:
The abolition of the death penalty is a significant development in the advancement of human rights. Everyone's right to life is enshrined in Section 7 of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This fundamental right is also enunciated in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Everyone's right to life is enshrined in Section 7 of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This fundamental right is also enunciated in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/...t/08-eng.shtml

Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said in Parliament during the debate leading to the abolition of the death penalty in Canada in 1976:
Well, you may say, let's execute the murderer for the crime he has committed. Let's take a life for a life. Let's remove a savage animal from the human race. I do not deny that society has the right to punish a criminal, and the right to make the punishment fit the crime, but to kill a man for punishment alone is an act of revenge. Nothing else . . .

My primary concern here is not compassion for the murderer. My concern is for the society which adopts vengeance as an acceptable motive for its collective behaviour. If we make that choice, we will snuff out some of that boundless hope and confidence in ourselves and other people which has marked our maturing as a free people.
Earlier in 1966 a compromise bill that limited the death sentence to murderers of on-duty police officers and prison guards passed by the slimmest margins. A young justice minister named Pierre Elliott Trudeau called it "one step further from violence and barbarism."

In 1976 we took a giant step away from violence and abolished the barbaric practice of state sponsored murder like the vast majority of civilized nations and we refuse to return fugitives to face the death penalty in jurisdictions that are unenlightened (as do other abolitionist countries such as Britain, France and Australia).

Parliament again reaffirmed its commitment to abolish the death penalty when a motion to reintroduce it was defeated during a free vote in the House of Commons in 1987.

Over the years public support for return of the death penalty has been steadily dropping. In an extensive poll in 1998 it was found 48 per cent of Canadians support the death penalty, 47 per cent are opposed and 6 per cent are unsure. But 8 years later:



Gallup, 2006

And more to the point the death penalty is not an issue that is in forefront of concern for Canadians - probably because we have not executed a person in Canada since 1962. In 1996, a cross-section of 1500 Canadians were asked to name the major concerns and issues facing the country; not one named reinstatement of the death penalty as a priority.

In the USA v. Burns case the Supreme Court of Canada found that the death penalty is unconstitutional under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As noted:

"Legal systems have to live with the possibility of error. The unique feature of capital punishment is that it puts beyond recall the possibility of correction."

And because there's no way to remedy a wrongful execution, the court continued, capital punishment violates Canada's protection of "life, liberty and . . . fundamental justice (under section 7 of the Charter)."

"The recent and continuing disclosures of wrongful convictions for murder in Canada and the United States provide tragic testimony to the fallibility of the legal system, despite its elaborate safeguards for the protection of the innocent."
Since abolition, 6 Canadian prisoners convicted of first-degree murder have been released on grounds of innocence. Two were incarcerated for more than 10 years before their innocence was established, after wrongful conviction for crimes that would likely have resulted in their execution if Canada had retained the death penalty. And since abolition not a single person convicted of murder who has been paroled has committed a subsequent murder.

In the USA, 138 people sentenced to death have subsequently been found innocent since 1970 - some posthumously.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled it has a duty to protect the innocent. This duty is based in part on section 7 - the right to life and security of the person and section 11 of the Charter, which includes, for example, the presumption of innocence. To illustrate this point, cases of wrongful convictions were cited from Canada (the case of Donald Marshall, Jr. was specifically mentioned), the US and the United Kingdom. While "These miscarriages of justice of course represent a tiny and wholly exceptional fraction of the workload of Canadian courts in murder cases," the Court wrote, "where capital punishment is sought, the state's execution of even one innocent person is one too many."

The removal of capital punishment from the Canadian Criminal Code in 1976 has not led to an increase in the murder rate in Canada as opponents of abolition feared. In fact, Statistics Canada reports that the murder rate has generally been declining since the mid-1970s. In 2006, the national murder rate in Canada was 1.85 homicides per 100,000 population, compared to the mid-1970s when it was around 3.0.

And the murder rate fell again in the last 5 year period as Statistics Canada reported in October 2011 that Canada's homicide rate has dipped to its lowest level since 1966 - the homicide rate fell to 1.62 per 100,000 population. This puts paid to the arguments in favour of a return to the death penalty as a matter of deterrence (which BTW would be unconstitutional based on the latest SCC case law).
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loca...hub=OttawaHome

The other interesting statistic is that although the murder rate dropped courts are more willing to find a person guilty of murder. The overall conviction rate for first-degree murder doubled in the decade following abolition (from under 10% to approximately 20%), so it seems courts are more willing to convict for murder now that they are not compelled to make life-and-death decisions.

The death penalty is clearly not a deterrent as study after study shows so the only rationale is imposition for vengeance. Even the Association of Canadian Chiefs of Police agrees with that saying:

"It is futile to base an argument for reinstatement on grounds of deterrence".

All that leaves is vengeance as Prime Minister Trudeau has stated and that is not justice.

So yes I consider state sanctioned murder to be barbaric - as does the Parliament of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada and noted Canadians such as Trudeau, Pearson and Diefenbaker and we have enshrined it in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the supreme law of Canada. Hence it has been abolished and next year it will be half a century since Canada last hung a convicted murderer - state sanctioned murder as punishment for a crime will not be re-enacted unless the Charter is abolished. And the chance of that happening? Slim and none - and slim has left the building.

The death penalty has no efficacy in terms of deterrence, nor does it impact crime rates and only serves the purpose of satisfying some base desire for vengeance.

In summary I prefer the high road of civilization to the low road of vengeance and barbarism. YMMV.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 01:37 PM
  #6
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,216
vCash: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
So yes I consider state sanctioned murder to be barbaric .
And you don't consider the atmosphere of prison and the threat to prisoner's physical and psychological safety to be barbaric?! Not all of them are serial killers or gangbangers.It's unacceptable to me that while being forcefully locked into a building by the state you risk being assassinated or injured physically and repeatedly intimidated.Way to make sure nobody gets better.

To me the whole idea of prison for none-violent criminals is barbaric in itself.It is sequestration.We lack creativity in our punishments.


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 11-10-2012 at 02:00 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 01:44 PM
  #7
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
And you don't consider the atmosphere of prison and the threat to prisoner's physical and psychological safety to be barbaric?! Not all of them are serial killers.It's unacceptable to me that while being forcefully locked into a building by the state you risk being assassinated or injured physically and repeatedly intimidated.Way to make sure nobody gets better.

To me the whole idea of prison for none-violent criminals is barbaric in itself.It is sequestration.We lack creativity in our punishments.
The Criminal Code generally provides for incarceration as a last resort after all other options are considered. I take it that you have read the Criminal Code provisions on sentencing and the principles which direct the Crown and judges. Sentencing creativity is promoted. And where the Conservatives seem to be moving away from this basic philosophy with some recent amendments, I have been critical. But more importantly the courts have found them to be unconstitutional and therefore of no force and effect.

And rehabilitation is the common goal since virtually every prisoner will be released so we have parole and mandatory release for all but a few dangerous inmates. It is why the Youth Criminal Justice Act was set up in the manner in which it was.

Is the system perfect? Nope but it is a far better solution than the using the death penalty as punishment for a crime... any crime.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 01:54 PM
  #8
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
The whole point of imprisonment is to make the criminal repent and think about the wrong he's done. The majority of inmates on deathrow are there because they're poor, which means John Q tax payer is footing the bill for their lawyer(s).

IMO, life without parole is the best option. I'd rather die than spend 20, 30, 40, maybe even 50 years of life behind bars, in the same cell, eating the same food, doing the same thing everyday. That'd drive anyone nuts.

And regardless of what the law says, murdering a murderer is murder, no matter how "humanely" it's done. The judge, jury, lawyers etc. are all accomplices to murder. But this is just called "justice" and is swept under the carpet.

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 02:06 PM
  #9
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansfield View Post
The whole point of imprisonment is to make the criminal repent and think about the wrong he's done. The majority of inmates on deathrow are there because they're poor, which means John Q tax payer is footing the bill for their lawyer(s).

IMO, life without parole is the best option. I'd rather die than spend 20, 30, 40, maybe even 50 years of life behind bars, in the same cell, eating the same food, doing the same thing everyday. That'd drive anyone nuts.

And regardless of what the law says, murdering a murderer is murder, no matter how "humanely" it's done. The judge, jury, lawyers etc. are all accomplices to murder. But this is just called "justice" and is swept under the carpet.
A position that we adopted in Canada decades ago.

In fact the last public executions in Canada (our only means was death by hanging) took place almost 40 years ago - the double hanging of Arthur Lucas and Ronald Turpin on December 11, 1962, at Toronto's Don Jail. Arthur Lucas, originally from the U.S. state of Georgia, was convicted of the murder of an undercover narcotics agent from Detroit. The murder took place in Toronto. Turpin had been convicted of the murder of Metropolitan Toronto police officer Frederick Nash. Nash had pulled Turpin over for a broken taillight while the latter was fleeing a robbery.

A moratorium on the death penalty was put in place after those executions until it was finally abolished.

And based upon what the Supreme Court has said in recent decisions any attempt by parliament to re-impose the death penalty would be found to be unconstitutional

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 02:13 PM
  #10
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,216
vCash: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The Criminal Code generally provides for incarceration as a last resort after all other options are considered. I take it that you have read the Criminal Code provisions on sentencing and the principles which direct the Crown and judges. Sentencing creativity is promoted. And where the Conservatives seem to be moving away from this basic philosophy with some recent amendments, I have been critical. But more importantly the courts have found them to be unconstitutional and therefore of no force and effect.

And rehabilitation is the common goal since virtually every prisoner will be released so we have parole and mandatory release for all but a few dangerous inmates. It is why the Youth Criminal Justice Act was set up in the manner in which it was.

Is the system perfect? Nope but it is a far better solution than the using the death penalty as punishment for a crime... any crime.
I have read some of it a while ago , section 718 to 700s something if I'm not mistaken.I still think a lot of it is to the discretion of the court , with some judges that can have a bad day or a lot of those.Everytime you give discretion you leave the written recommendations as theoritical until it's practical by choice.Maybe I am mistaken.

But the real problem is the way prisons are run and made.I think it should be a right for prisonners not to be put into dangerous situations while under the supervision of the state.

The reason I have this at heart is I was falsely accused of aggravated assault that caused lesions (not sure if those are the exact words in english ) until the victim dropped the charges weeks later.I think I weighted 140 lbs wet back then , I was in my early 20s and I was pissing my pants for weeks at the idea of facing jail time and being locked with violent and 220 lbs + guys for nothing.One of the scariest experience in my life knowing what goes on in these places.


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 11-10-2012 at 02:56 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 02:36 PM
  #11
disfigured
Registered User
 
disfigured's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lowell MA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,419
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to disfigured Send a message via AIM to disfigured Send a message via MSN to disfigured Send a message via Yahoo to disfigured
Capitol punishment might not be working in the modern society because it's done in secret and hidden. The trial may be public sometimes but the execution is not. Sometimes the execution is "open to the public" (usually a select public too), but it's not an actual public event. Which are two different things.

Our new town square is television. Executions would have to be televised events in large stadiums open to the public for free. Then and only then would we find out if capitol punishment is an effective deterrent.

Other than that it's a complete waste of time and resources.

disfigured is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 03:08 PM
  #12
Stylizer1
Stone Cold Stunner
 
Stylizer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,895
vCash: 709
* China
* Iran
* Saudi Arabia
* Pakistan
* USA (some states)
* Iraq
* Viet Nam
* Yemen
* Afghanistan
* Libya
* Japan
* Syria
* Sudan
* Bangladesh
* Somalia
* Equatorial Guinea
* Singapore
* Kuwait
* Indonesia
* Botswana
* Belarus
* Ethiopia
* Egypt
* North Korea

One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others By the time I finish my song?

Stylizer1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 03:14 PM
  #13
Fordy
the kid signify
 
Fordy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stylizer1 View Post
* China
* Iran
* Saudi Arabia
* Pakistan
* USA (some states)
* Iraq
* Viet Nam
* Yemen
* Afghanistan
* Libya
* Japan
* Syria
* Sudan
* Bangladesh
* Somalia
* Equatorial Guinea
* Singapore
* Kuwait
* Indonesia
* Botswana
* Belarus
* Ethiopia
* Egypt
* North Korea

One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others By the time I finish my song?
I would say the US, China, Japan, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and maybe Indonesia and Egypt are all industrialized to the point that they should be moving past capital punishment.

Fordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 07:44 PM
  #14
PSUCapsFan
Registered User
 
PSUCapsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Irvine, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fordy View Post
I would say the US, China, Japan, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and maybe Indonesia and Egypt are all industrialized to the point that they should be moving past capital punishment.
That's the least of their problems. They should start by allowing woman to drive.

In other news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20270325

Barbaric. Poor Brevik.

PSUCapsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 08:51 PM
  #15
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,290
vCash: 178
I have something of an indifferent toward capital punishment, whereas I had once staunchly supported it. There are simply some people I do not feel deserve rehabilitation or life at all. **** of a child and brutal murders both come to mind as crimes I simply would prefer the criminal dead. To quote a saying:

“I know it makes little sense to try and deter violence with more violence, but deterrence is not why I believe in the death penalty. There are some people that are so violent, so evil, that society has no choice but to be done with them. Vengeance is something that society needs from time to time, if for no other purpose then to keep the rest of us sane.”

Someone like say, Ted Bundy, simply deserves death, at least in my opinion.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 09:43 PM
  #16
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,999
vCash: 500
I support capital punishment and applaud the 35 or so States that still have it.

But..................it has to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. Beyond. Here is my take on certain things that give me more comfort in knowing an innocent man isn't killed.

- video evidence
- an admission of murder
- ample eye witnesses
- DNA evidence

Things like this give the public and the Prosecution little to no doubt they have the right man. In Canada, Paul Bernardo ticked off at least two of those boxes. To the dismay of many in Ontario he is still alive in solitary confinement. When you read about the crimes he did it's hard to feel sorry for him. Ted Bundy admitted to killing those girls and actually went to great lengths telling why he did it. He blamed it on pornography which is something he says had a hold over his brain since he was a boy. Bundy was executed in 1989 and few people feel sorry for him. Timothy McVeigh, no problem with him being gone. Throw in other names. Saddam. Osama. Hitler (although he killed himself). No issue at all with them being rid of the earth.

Now, there are questionable cases. If anyone knows about Jeffrey McDonald's case from 1970 there are a LOT of doubts about his guilt.



Watch the other parts if you'd like. It is a very intriguing case. As far as I know he is still locked up and maintains his innocence. Why I would be wary of executing him is because there was an admission from a cokehead none the less which corroborates his story of a bunch of hippies breaking into his home and killing his family. There is motive for the hippies and there are eyewitnesses who spotted the group near his home. It is a very inconclusive case and since it's over 40 years ago I doubt any new evidence will come forth. If it ever does though, he can be let free and a dead man can't.

Darlie Routlier is another one I'd be nervous about executing.



Alright she probably did it, at least that's which way I'd lean. But there are still a few things I question. Her injuries while not fatal were critically close to being fatal. If she killed her kids and then turned the knife on herself to make it look like she was attacked too then she's nuts. Still a possibility though of course but if she did that she damn near killed herself.

She looks guilty because no one saw an intruder, she couldn't describe him, for some reason he didn't finish her off but he ices her two young boys as well which is mysterious. And when he is confronted by her he has a knife in his hand and retreats, dropping the knife? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Plus nothing was stolen, there was no robbery and people don't just break into a house to kill two boys for no reason.

But I still have enough doubt to not execute her.

So in my opinion only the cases where it is beyond any reasonable doubt that I support the death penalty. Because you can't screw that up and fix it later. In Canada Steven Truscott was sentenced to hang as a teenager in 1959. It was reversed and he did some jail time for being found guilty of killing Lynne Harper. To this day he claims his innocence and even the Harper Government exhonerated him. I have never thought he did it and many others believe the same. He is alive today because he wasn't executed and I think that was the right decision. But if you kill someone and post it on Youtube. No dice, in my opinion.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 03:52 PM
  #17
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The Criminal Code generally provides for incarceration as a last resort after all other options are considered. I take it that you have read the Criminal Code provisions on sentencing and the principles which direct the Crown and judges. Sentencing creativity is promoted. And where the Conservatives seem to be moving away from this basic philosophy with some recent amendments, I have been critical. But more importantly the courts have found them to be unconstitutional and therefore of no force and effect.

And rehabilitation is the common goal since virtually every prisoner will be released so we have parole and mandatory release for all but a few dangerous inmates. It is why the Youth Criminal Justice Act was set up in the manner in which it was.

Is the system perfect? Nope but it is a far better solution than the using the death penalty as punishment for a crime... any crime.
Pursuant to s.718(1) of the Criminal Code Canada has 6 sentencing goals which include deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation (cannot remember the other 3). In reality, it is nice to believe we use deterrence as a last resort but that it not the case. Sure for minor crimes we will use non-custodial sentences such as diversion (which is unbalanced because the judge has no say and the Crown holds the monopoly of discretion). However, we employ deterrence far too much. Our sentences are much longer than they should be (both morally and economically). Finland for example uses day fines for many more punishments (also considered detereence) than we do and it. The principle is it affects the person monetarily and it is in proportion to how much they make. The Canada CJS system is one that needs infinite improvement. There is no empiricle evidence to suggest any "get tough on crime" initiatives actually work. I am a much bigger supporter of sentencing circles and restorative justice.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 04:05 PM
  #18
ChiGuySez
Showtime
 
ChiGuySez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 6,994
vCash: 500
Russia does not qualify for this list.

ChiGuySez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 04:12 PM
  #19
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
Pursuant to s.718(1) of the Criminal Code Canada has 6 sentencing goals which include deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation (cannot remember the other 3). In reality, it is nice to believe we use deterrence as a last resort but that it not the case. Sure for minor crimes we will use non-custodial sentences such as diversion (which is unbalanced because the judge has no say and the Crown holds the monopoly of discretion). However, we employ deterrence far too much. Our sentences are much longer than they should be (both morally and economically). Finland for example uses day fines for many more punishments (also considered detereence) than we do and it. The principle is it affects the person monetarily and it is in proportion to how much they make. The Canada CJS system is one that needs infinite improvement. There is no empiricle evidence to suggest any "get tough on crime" initiatives actually work. I am a much bigger supporter of sentencing circles and restorative justice.
That has not been my experience and most judges I know say that crafting a sentence they generally apply the direction in the Criminal Code to not incarcerate unless it is absolutely necessary.
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
My personal experience does not accord with your view and it encompasses over 25 years as a peace officer and then a lawyer.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 04:42 PM
  #20
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
That has not been my experience and most judges I know say that crafting a sentence they generally apply the direction in the Criminal Code to not incarcerate unless it is absolutely necessary.
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
My personal experience does not accord with your view and it encompasses over 25 years as a peace officer and then a lawyer.
I fully respect your opinion as you say you were an officer and now a lawyer. I am only a criminology graduate student; I only know academics. I am aware of the sentencing provision. In section 718.2(e), are they referring to R. v. Gladue (1999). If they are, I am in full support of of the gladue decision and the precedent set by it. I am heavily influenced by a current professor of mine (previously a 17 year defence counsel) who believes that sentencing incorporates too much deterrent theory. Again, now that I know you are a lawyer I fully respect what you have to say; you have first hand knowledge. What law school did you go to by the way?

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 04:46 PM
  #21
awfulwaffle
Registered User
 
awfulwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 7,766
vCash: 500
I don't approve of the death penalty because of those that have been killed that were actually innocent.

I don't approve to a female's choice to abort, unless it was done due to ****. If the female had a choice or not to have sex, they shouldn't have a choice in aborting the baby.

awfulwaffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 04:55 PM
  #22
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
I fully respect your opinion as you say you were an officer and now a lawyer. I am only a criminology graduate student; I only know academics. I am aware of the sentencing provision. In section 718.2(e), are they referring to R. v. Gladue (1999). If they are, I am in full support of of the gladue decision and the precedent set by it. I am heavily influenced by a current professor of mine (previously a 17 year defence counsel) who believes that sentencing incorporates too much deterrent theory. Again, now that I know you are a lawyer I fully respect what you have to say; you have first hand knowledge. What law school did you go to by the way?
UVic.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 04:56 PM
  #23
AfroThunder396
Lou's Secret Sauce
 
AfroThunder396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 23,905
vCash: 835
Both abortion and capital punishment are fine as they're currently implemented in the United States.

AfroThunder396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 06:13 PM
  #24
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,216
vCash: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
My personal experience does not accord with your view and it encompasses over 25 years as a peace officer and then a lawyer.
I didn't know you used to be a police officer.Mind to share how long you've been working as a lawyer?

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 06:18 PM
  #25
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
I didn't know you used to be a police officer.Mind to share how long you've been working as a lawyer?
I graduated from law school in the mid-1980's and have been on medical disability due to cancer for the last few years.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:23 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.