The Capital Punishment Debate

[zipperhead_cop]

Ah, warm fuzzy dreams of State sanctioned killing.  Sadly, never to be.  :crybaby:
What I don't understand is why this clown isn't looking at a dangerous offender status, unless that is in the works and hasn't made the press (or I'm just inattentive  )

 

[Greymatters]

What is ridiculous is that he should ever be considered a 'responsible citizen' at some point in the future.  There are some crimes and circumstances that can be forgiven and persons rehabilitated.  This isnt one of them.  What, I should give this guy a job when he gets out?  Screw that!  And they wonder why the youth of today have no fear of breaking the law.  No punishment results in no incentive to obey the system in place. 

 

[TCBF]

- So.....

... is it safe to start eating pork again?

:-[

 

[zipperhead_cop]

... is it safe to start eating pork again?

Sure!  With a nice side of soyalent green. 

 

[X-mo-1979]

Never trust a man that keeps pigs-Snatch ;D

 

[KevinB]

I think we need a good old throw back to the days of old where we could burn people at the stake

 

[TCBF]

- The guillotine: quick, painless, cheap, RELIABLE.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Whatever the means, it should be the half time show on Hockey Night in Canada. It's the only way people will get the maximum exposure to it and won't have to depend on the slanted reporting of our media. ;D

 

[TCBF]

- Don Cherry can do the play-by-play.

;D

 

[tonykeene]

Hi!

When I was young, and full of piss and vinegar, I was in favour of the death penalty.  I no longer am.  Here are just a few of the reasons:

Milgaard
Marshall
Morin
Mullins-Johnson

I'm sure there are more.  And although now science has given us ever-more precise ways of determining guilt, such as DNA testing, we must always remember Dr. Smith.  As long as people are ready to lie and fabricate evidence in order to achieve their idea of justice, we can never, ever be absolutely sure.

You can free an unjustly-convicted person; you can never bring them back from the grave.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Yeah, that might have been the case pre- and just post charter, but not now.  Guilty people don't get convicted for crimes all that often, so innocents don't need to be that concerned. 
As with anything, decisions would have to be made.  If the death penalty came back, it would likely only be used in the most cut and dry cases.  If there was ever any doubt, and a death penalty was sentenced, that would be grounds for endless appeals. 
tonykeene, can you give me any reason that Paul Bernardo or this gear box pig farmer should be allowed to live?

 

[ZBM2]

Fix Bayonets!
They aint worth the price of a bullet!

 

[Bane]

I think one of the options should have been "In the name of Science" though I suppose you could slip that in with "Something more painful". 

 

[tonykeene]

Yeah, that might have been the case pre- and just post charter, but not now.  Guilty people don't get convicted for crimes all that often, so innocents don't need to be that concerned. 
As with anything, decisions would have to be made.  If the death penalty came back, it would likely only be used in the most cut and dry cases.  If there was ever any doubt, and a death penalty was sentenced, that would be grounds for endless appeals. 
tonykeene, can you give me any reason that Paul Bernardo or this gear box pig farmer should be allowed to live?

I can think of no reason.  Except one.

When I was working at a major news agency, at the height of the Guy-Paul Morin Case, I watched screaming crowds outside the court yelling:"Baby Killer!", and spitting at him.  The cops were sure, the Crown was sure, and the entire community was sure.  Most of the media were sure too.
There were strident pleas for a return to the death penalty.  MPs called for it just because of this case.

We know now that the cops were both incompetent and deceitful  They enticed a jailhouse informant to fabricate evidence.

He wasn't the guy.

Neither was David Milgaard.  Neither was Donald Marshall.  And now Mullins-Johnson, convicted on nothing less that the scientific evidence of a famed forensice pathologist.

We can't have a death penalty statute that says it is to be used "only when we are absolutely sure."  Because in each of these cases, we were absolutely sure.

And we were absolutely wrong.

As a journalist who has covered many trials over many years, I can tell you this:  Cops lie.  Cops tamper with evidence.  They entice jailhouse informants to lie.  They do this because they are absolutely sure they have "the guy."

Do I think those who kill policemen deserve to die?  I'm a cop's son.  I say yes.

Do I think those who rape and murder kids deserve to die?  I'm a parent.  I say yes.

BUT...the question still remains:  How many innocent people are we prepared to kill, in order to get the guilty ones?

 

[TCBF]

... BUT...the question still remains:  How many innocent people are we prepared to kill, in order to get the guilty ones?

- The innocent people killed by the state must be added to the innocent people killed by previously covicted criminals who are released.  That total is the price of liberty.  The goal is to tilt the death toll so that less innocents and more convicts are killed.  There is a death toll anyway, let's slant it in favour of society, rather than letting criminal sociopaths take a lifelong harvest of productive citizens.

 

[Teflon]

As a journalist who has covered many trials over many years, I can tell you this:  Cops lie.  Cops tamper with evidence.  They entice jailhouse informants to lie.  They do this because they are absolutely sure they have "the guy."

As a journalist who by your own words "has covered many trials over many years" you might want to reread your post and examine the part I placed in bold. Because it would seem that you presume to speak about all cops, and even to speak about their motives.  Seems strange that you would make such a huge generalization.  Maybe pointing out that cops could lie etc instead of indicating that they do, Unless of course you DO believe ALL cops lie, tamper with evidence and entice their informants in which case I would like to ask you to kindly recycle all that tin foil when your done with your hat.

 

[tonykeene]

As a journalist who by your own words "has covered many trials over many years" you might want to reread your post and examine the part I placed in bold. Because it would seem that you presume to speak about all cops, and even to speak about their motives.  Seems strange that you would make such a huge generalization.  Maybe pointing out that cops could lie etc instead of indicating that they do, Unless of course you DO believe ALL cops lie, tamper with evidence and entice their informants in which case I would like to ask you to kindly recycle all that tin foil when your done with your hat.

Dear Teflon,

You are absolutely right, and as the son of a policeman and friend of many others, let me rephrase:  Some cops lie sometimes, especially when they are under great pressure from the Crown and the community.  This was, I believe, epsecially the case in the Guy-Paul morin case.
My hmble apologies to all the great, honet police officers out there.

 

[Roy Harding]

I see tonykeene's point.  I don't necessarily agree with it - but I see it.  I don't THINK he meant to malign all LEOs - but he can correct me if I'm wrong.  What I took away from his post was that LEOs, Drs, prosecutors, defence counsel, judges, juries, et al are HUMAN - and subject to the limitations of that particular species.

Where tonykeene and I part ways is in considering whether the possibility of executing an innocent man is acceptable.  I have wrestled with this one, and I believe given the science available today, coupled with fail safes built into the system (appeals process, etcetera), and given carefully thought out, coherent, death penalty legislation, then the risk is acceptable (to me).

What needs to be separated from the capital punishment debate is the concept of "corrections" - when we are contemplating execution, "corrections" has nothing to do with it - it's society exacting vengeance, as well as protecting itself from future acts of this individual.  I think the defence from future acts is the more defensible of these two motives - the recidivism rate for executed individuals being zero, after all.  Do I think society has a right to exact vengeance?  Yes - but I do acknowledge that it is a difficult position to defend.

Edited to add:  tonykeene posted his clarification as I was typing this.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Milgaard--Jan. 31, 1969
Marshall--sentenced in 1971
Morin-October 3, 1984
Mullins-Johnson-1993

Nothing more recent than 14 years ago?  Have you not seen what a donkey show the legal system has become in the last ten years?  Those first three were found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  But if you look at the cases, there are a whole heap of technicalities that came into play in getting them off.  Found not guilty is not the same thing as innocent.  It does look like Mullins-Johnson got screwed, but by the CFS, not the police. 

You are absolutely right, and as the son of a policeman and friend of many others, let me rephrase:  Some cops lie sometimes, especially when they are under great pressure from the Crown and the community.  This was, I believe, especially the case in the Guy-Paul morin case.
My hmble apologies to all the great, honet police officers out there.

I find your invocation of police loyalty to ring hollow.  We don't get pressure from the Crowns or the community.  That's the kind of stuff you see on Law and Order.  No policeman wants the wrong guy to go to jail, because that means the actual killer is still out and about.  What, you think we play Wheel of Asshole, spin the board and just pick people to railroad?  And the Crowns don't even want to hear from us until we have a rock solid case.  They have enough on their plates without half-baked cases getting pushed forward.  As for the community, at least these days, most people get pissed if the news pre-empts Survivor: Campus Marshes, so that isn't really an issue either. 
However, I will believe that you are a reporter (or at least a journalism student).  God knows, most don't let facts get in the way of a good story. 

 

[Cliffy433]

I think all the reasonable arguments have been made... everybody has to have their turn crying for Milgaard.  The fact is, if the death penalty comes back - there is a risk of mistakes, and executing someone who is innocent.  A risk.  Could perhaps modern day forensics reduce that risk?  Just a little?

Of 4 examples - how many properly convicted felons in Canada have there been from the first one (1969) to now?  I'm guessing thousands - I'm willing to call that a lowball. 

How many of those were convicted of much lesser crimes than they are actually guilty of?  How many people have they hurt by selling them highly addictive agents?  Beating them?  Raping them?  Murdering them?  Keep in mind everyone they've permanently hooked on meth, coke, heroin, everyone they've disabled with violent crime - is now a social burden as well as an added strain on the family.  Multiple lives affected for one guilty verdict.  I'd be willing to wager 4 innocent lives, on thousands of convicts and their tens of thousands of victims.  It's harsh, but a fair trade.

How long from sentencing to cessation of vital signs does it take (on average) in comparable nations to Canada who still have the death penalty?  I bet we have time to ensure accuracy and completeness.  I'm pretty sure in the day and age of cellphones, there's gotta be a way, somehow, to quickly get a message to the warden in time to stop the event should new evidence come to light.  New rule - no executions on dark and scary nights... or when there's any risk of communication links being severed.

Back to the original poll... I chose "Some Other Way":

WHEEL OF DEATH!
List all the favourites - include a TINY wedge for "commuted to life sentence" - if luck is on their side...