The Capital Punishment Debate

[brin11]

You can't execute people based on what they MIGHT do.   You can't even execute people on what they PROBABLY will do.   DP is not, say again "not",   a deterrent, it's a judicial response to a crime already commited.   I wouldn't want to live in a state where people were punished for what they "might" do.

Of course not.  They should have been executed for what they did before.  Whether it is a deterrent is not an issue to me.  See my post above for the reasons I believe CP is viable and necessary.  It is a punishment.  It is revenge; I just don't see what's wrong with revenge.

 

[The_Falcon]

Of course not.  They should have been executed for what they did before.  Whether it is a deterrent is not an issue to me.  See my post above for the reasons I believe CP is viable and necessary.  It is a punishment.  It is revenge; I just don't see what's wrong with revenge.

Because in this PC world of ours, we are to ignore our base more primal instincts because they are "bruttish" and "uncivilized", in favour of "rehabilitating" these pukes. 

 

[a_majoor]

I am somewhat conflicted here. On the one hand, people like "Tookie" are vicious criminals and a nice clean death is probably too good for them (He didn't have anywhere near the consideration for the people he gunned down as the State did for his welfare right up to the end).

On the other hand, the only place where criminals always get nailed is "CSI". Mistakes get made, the finger is pointed at the wrong person and then someone is wrongly convicted. Death is a pretty hard mistake to undo. Sadly the biggest problem is the number of crimes which are unsolved, which is where I would be putting resources and attention towards rather than the sterile "its a deterrent/no its not" arguments. I am happy enough that people like Paul Bernardo are going to spend the rest of their lives in a box. Karla may reoffend, in which case she will go in the box as well, cold comfort and none at all for the next victim's family, but this is the world we have to live in.

No one knows for certain where their breakig point is, the person who stabbed his wife to death with a screwdriver when she asked for a divorce probalby wasn't sitting there planning to do this (but since only God has perfect knowledge even this is only a guess). Bottom line, we have plenty of isolated locations and enough resources to make as many super max prisons as we like and house these people forever in case there was a mistake. It doesn't even have to have all the amenities that prisoners in Gitmo (who may also be there for all their natural lives) have, special meals, prayer mats and their own personal Korans are simply not nesessary for these people.

 

[GO!!!]

I believe that we should allow capital punishment, if for no other reason than a simple cost saving measure.

It costs something like 80K a year to keep a killer behind bars. I'd rather see two killers executed and another doctor hired than keep those worthless human beings alive.

And I fully agree with an earlier post about the recidivism rate. Prisoners now get three squares a day, cable TV, education, immediate medical care and free prescriptions, gyms, counselling and my personal pet peeve - free tattoos.

No Canadian soldier is entitled to all of these benefits, and we serve our country. Why are prisoners treated better than we are?

The people that are not hung should encounter conditions so horrible that the mere thought of re - offending creates a Clockwork Orange - style adverse mental reaction.

The measuring stick of the prison's success would be the vigor with which Amnesty international et al condemned it.

 

[Infanteer]

I think our justice system is geared more towards punishment (in a deterrent capacity) and behaviour correction (hence "Correctional Services Canada")than retribution. Revenge rarely serves any useful function, regardless of whether it feels good or not. There is, undoubtedly, a "payment of debt" aspect to sentencing but I don't think that really establishes a case for the death penalty nor should it be the primary concern of our justice system.

Well, that's probably why it isn't doing so hot - what good is a justice system based on deterrent punishment when it seems to be the general concenus that penalties don't serve as a deterent value?  No point trying to affect the behaviour of somebody you would just stick behind bars for life anyways; save that idea for lessor offences.

Revenge serves a useful function; it ensures the "golden rule" is fulfilled.  If someone commits depraved criminal acts, I have no problem with seeing the community lay vengence upon them.

Not really - it costs more. As for simplicity, I'm hesitant to use the KISS principle when considering someone's life.

Not if you do it right - I'm all for it in the right circumstances; I'd have no hesitation in marching Paul Bernardo to the gallows; hell, I'd even kick the chair out.

Yes, and our society views killing as something done in self-defence or defence of others where a threat is imminent or during times of war. Executing criminals fits neither - the murderer has been arrested, is incarcerated, and thus there is no imminent threat. The murderer is not a combatant and we are not at war. Even if he was a combatant, his disarmed and incarcerated status would make killing him a chargeable offence by our rules of war.

If society has the power to lock somebody up for the rest of their natural life, then I see no difference then allowing someone to hang from the neck - it's all a matter of time and space.

Yes, well we're don't really have a very strong Gulag tradition and incarceration, for all intents and purposes, effectively removes the person from society (as it is one of its purposes).

Well, maybe we should invest in one; I like the sounds of it.  It'd be a good place for Clifford Olson to work on his book about raping little boys....

We don't treat people as animals, that was my point, so such analogies suck.

Well, some people are animals, so it isn't an issue, is it?

 

[kcdist]

As a point of principle, I believe the death penalty should be mandatory in the the murder of a Peace Officer, as well as any pre-meditated, 1st degree convictions. The rest would be negotiable.

Sad....

As we're conducting an academic discussion on the pros and cons of the death penalty, yet another Canadian Peace Officer was murdered just yesterday. From the initial reports, it seems as if the shooter was waiting in ambush.

Could have the existence of the death penalty for the murder of Peace Officers maybe.....just maybe.....made this cowardly gunman think twice before he pulled the trigger? I think the answer is yes, but then again, I'm relying on a subjective feeling and not a university published research paper.

Fortunately in Canada, murder is not commonplace (certain parts of Toronto excepted). I believe the existence of the Death Penalty would make it less so.

My only experience with actual murder is having arrested a coward by the name of Ian Gordon in Calgary in the 90's. At the time of his arrest, following his 911 call, he had just taken an axe and smashed in the heads of his two daughters and his common law wife. He had made a pathetic attempt to cut his wrists, and when he realized he may have actually hurt himself, he called 911 for assistance. This weak, sick and twisted individual was more concerned about his own welfare than the fact that he has just splattered the brains of his two children throughout the house.

His crime was indeed pre-meditated, as he murdered his first child, went to school to pick up his second child, brought her home and then murdered her. He killed his wife last...

Motive? His wife was leaving him and he was mad....Punishment? Eight years per life taken, for a total of 24 years, less time served.

Would the Death Penalty have made this coward think twice? After talking to him while his children's bodies were still in the adjacent rooms........I think maybe it would have. As mentioned, his overriding concern appeared to be his own welfare.

Therefore, one can trot out all the academic studies that exist, and my mind will never change. As they say for the gun registry - 'it's all worth it if it saves just one life'.....I say the same for the Death Penalty - 'It is worth it if it saves just one INNOCENT life'

 

[Glorified Ape]

Actually there are jurisdictions in the states (and other countries) where premediated murder is not the only capital crime.   Some examples are Drug Traffic, Armed Robbery, Kidknapping of a minor, Sexual assualt, Sexual Assualt of a minor.

Great - there are jurisdictions in the US with laws as idiotic as those in Greece circa 620 BC.

Also if Tookie and other were not afraid of death, why do we see these last minute public appeals (especially in Tookies case) using high profile people including celeberities touting the scums merit and why they should live?

  The issue isn't whether criminals fear death, it's whether that fear translates into a deterrent to crime, which it doesn't.

Why, because they are at the end of the road, death is finally at their doorstep and not years away.   They have had years in most case to go for these stay of executions, but they wait till the last minute cause they are sh-iting bricks with realization that they are going to die.

You also have people who don't bother with the appeals process and go to their deaths confidently and quietly. Regardless, postulating as to the mindset of a death row inmate at the time of death is pointless and speculative at best. How this translates into a deterrent capacity for the death penalty is beyond me. Do you really believe that it's the appeals process that undermines the deterrent capacity of capital punishment? If so, you've only demonstrated that the institution of the death penalty in Canada would be useless as we're guaranteed to have a lengthy appeals process and thus the DP would serve no deterrent use. That's not to say I agree with you on the length of process and deterrent value (I disagree), but by your own standards, the DP is useless in Canada.

There's a consultation of the public at least every 5 years (often sooner) and the fact that the death penalty has been a generally non-existent issue would suggest that Canadians are happy with our abstention from its use.

Really and where does one view these public consultations and who conducts them?

I was referring to elections.

I did a quick search on public opinion about capital punishment and came up with:

http://www.cpa.ca/ogloff.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut3.htm

Public approval of the death penalty is currently about 70%. Public support is essentially the same in Canada, a country which abandoned capital punishment.

http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php

While this arctile shows a decrease in support for capital   punishment there are still more people that support it then who don't.

An Ipsos-Reid poll in 2001 found that only 52% of those polled supported the death penalty. That's down from 61% in 1995 and 73% in 1987. Support for the death penalty would appear to be decreasing steadily.

Well, that's probably why it isn't doing so hot - what good is a justice system based on deterrent punishment when it seems to be the general concenus that penalties don't serve as a deterent value?   No point trying to affect the behaviour of somebody you would just stick behind bars for life anyways; save that idea for lessor offences.

It's apparently doing hotter than the southern states which use the death penalty and the US in general. As I pointed out previously, the Northeast US (with 1% of executions) has a lower murder rate (the lowest rate of any region in 2001) than the Southern US (which has the highest murder rate) which accounts for 80% of executions.

Revenge serves a useful function; it ensures the "golden rule" is fulfilled.   If someone commits depraved criminal acts, I have no problem with seeing the community lay vengence upon them.

The community gets its vengeance with incarceration and there's no risk of executing the innocent.

Not if you do it right - I'm all for it in the right circumstances; I'd have no hesitation in marching Paul Bernardo to the gallows; hell, I'd even kick the chair out.

While I share your disdain for Paul Bernardo, I think "doing it right" is impossible as doing it at all is pointless. How do we "do it right"? No appeals? March them from the court to the gallows?

If society has the power to lock somebody up for the rest of their natural life, then I see no difference then allowing someone to hang from the neck - it's all a matter of time and space.

I see a very big difference. The right to life and the sanctity thereof is supposed to be utmost in our system. We already went over the times in which it's justified to take a life and the DP fulfills neither. The only appeal or argument left for the death penalty is the sick, sadistic "satisfaction" argument which hinges on normative grounds.

Well, maybe we should invest in one; I like the sounds of it.   It'd be a good place for Clifford Olson to work on his book about raping little boys....

Yes, then we can join the ranks of the former Soviet Union, China, and a host of other countries whose treatment of their citizenry is despicable (by our standards) to say the least.

Well, some people are animals, so it isn't an issue, is it?

I'm not even going to bother with that one.   ;D


Instead of looking at new and pointless punishments for criminals, we might do better to take a look at the factors which cause crime. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[Infanteer]

Instead of looking at new and pointless punishments for criminals, we might do better to take a look at the factors which cause crime. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Yeah, but once we're considering the death penalty (or life in Infanteer Gulag) then the horse has alread left the stables.  This debate is on what to do when prevention fails.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Yeah, but once we're considering the death penalty (or life in Infanteer Gulag) then the horse has alread left the stables.   This debate is on what to do when prevention fails.

Granted, but it's unlikely to be very productive as this limits the debate on the death penalty to its retributive value, which is an inherently normative topic.

That being said, the value of debate (especially here) is more often a function of the debate itself than the products thereof.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from: Hatchet Man on Yesterday at 17:04:40
Actually there are jurisdictions in the states (and other countries) where premediated murder is not the only capital crime.  Some examples are Drug Traffic, Armed Robbery, Kidknapping of a minor, Sexual assualt, Sexual Assualt of a minor.
Quote from Glorified Ape,
Great - there are jurisdictions in the US with laws as idiotic as those in Greece circa 620 BC.

Yes, and my list of "capital punishment" crimes would even be longer........and I was against it 17 years ago when I started working in Corrections, and there are a lot worse in the system than the ones I've dealt with.

So tell me GA, have you ever spent time inside?

 

[TCBF]

"Instead of looking at new and pointless punishments for criminals, we might do better to take a look at the factors which cause crime. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

- Well, the double envelopment has always appealed to me:

Let's do BOTH.

Let's test young offenders, track their treatment, adjust it as needed, and assess their ability to function in society.   This is a medical problem, so we apply a medical solution to all offenders (young and old) who test as possible to re-offend, as if they carried some new, contagious disease: we isolate them in secure hospitals - sanitariums - until a cure is found.

It isn't punishment - it's treatment.  

Tom

 

[Glorified Ape]

Quote from: Hatchet Man on Yesterday at 17:04:40
Actually there are jurisdictions in the states (and other countries) where premediated murder is not the only capital crime.   Some examples are Drug Traffic, Armed Robbery, Kidknapping of a minor, Sexual assualt, Sexual Assualt of a minor.
Quote from Glorified Ape,
Great - there are jurisdictions in the US with laws as idiotic as those in Greece circa 620 BC.

Yes, and my list of "capital punishment" crimes would even be longer........and I was against it 17 years ago when I started working in Corrections, and there are a lot worse in the system than the ones I've dealt with.

So tell me GA, have you ever spent time inside?

God no - the closest I ever came was a holding cell after a weapons/mischief arrest and those few times I went to visit my former friend at the Toronto West Detention Centre, Millhaven, and Bath. I have no doubt that there are some extremely unpalatable characters in the prison system - my former best friend (and sister's ex-boyfriend) was an ex-junkie/crackhead/cokehead/pothead, ex-enforcer for the Satan's Choice, car thief, burglar, drug dealer, etc. and spent about 7-10 years in prison (total, not all at once), some of which were during his relationship with my sister. He had no shortage of experiences with sickies (and arguably was one himself), usually violent, while he was in the clink and the few people I met which he knew from prison were unappealing, to say the least.

You may have run into him at some point during your career - last name Graham, about 5'10, 225 lbs, usually with a shaved head, from Toronto. Quite a smart guy, but very screwed up. He'd be about 37 now.

 

[Jarnhamar]

And I fully agree with an earlier post about the recidivism rate. Prisoners now get three squares a day, cable TV, education, immediate medical care and free prescriptions, gyms, counselling and my personal pet peeve - free tattoos.

No Canadian soldier is entitled to all of these benefits, and we serve our country. Why are prisoners treated better than we are?

Great point.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>You are right - the death penalty is NOT a deterrent.

There is general deterrence and there is specific deterrence.  The death penalty is specific deterrence.  So is natural life imprisonment (ie. irrevocable loss of freedom).  The problem with natural life imprisonment is that there's not much to deter the convict from killing inmates, guards, or anyone else he can get his hands on while incarcerated (not to mention if he escapes).  Here's a question: is there some fixed number of additional killings a convicted murderer could make before he was executed, or would every convicted murderer imprisoned with no prospect of release essentially have a lifetime of no bag limit?  IOW, draw the full sentence for the first one and you've already paid for all the rest.  Maybe the solution is simply to make the death penalty an option for #2 and all thereafter.  I believe that protecting prospective future victims is a rational and legitimate purpose, although it's secondary to the crime which has already been committed. Those of you who believe no amount of money is too large to spend or no amount of guns too many to confiscate to save even one life can ponder what you're willing to do what it takes to save those lives, but don't lose sight of the fact it isn't punishment on the basis of what might be done: it's sentence rendered for what was done.

Of course, nothing says life in prison has to be more than a mattress on the floor of a concrete cell with a hole in the floor punctuated by long days of exhausting physical labour.  The prospect of a lifetime of that might be a general deterrent.

>I don't believe the State has a moral right to kill (outside of national defence of course)

I find that belief odd to say the least.  It amounts to saying that we are willing to risk killing innocents abroad (we could, for example, send our F-18s to bomb Serbians in pursuit of some political goal), but we recoil in horror at the thought of cleaning up our own trash at home.  The life of a law-abiding not-Canadian who has the misfortune to be in a target area is worth less than that of a Canadian convicted of murder.

States go to war - kill people - for security reasons.  You're jerking yourself off if you think someone who kills for the sake of pleasure or financial gain isn't a security risk.

Depending on the standard of evidence required to apply the death penalty, the probability of executing an innocent can range down to a very close approximation of zero.  Nowhere is it written that the death penalty has to be an option for a guy convicted chiefly on the basis of motive, opportunity, and because his prints were found at the murder scene.

 

[TCBF]

While we are at it, there is no reason to limit the death penalty simply for cases where a death results, is there?  I like the ChiComs approach on this - who says we can't learn from the 'Middle Kingdom' (Britney, you reading this?).

Tom

 

[rifleman]

I would apply it to those people who unplug a block heater in the middle of the night in Winnipeg on a cold cold night

 

[Jarnhamar]

>I don't believe the State has a moral right to kill (outside of national defence of course)

I find that belief odd to say the least.  It amounts to saying that we are willing to risk killing innocents abroad (we could, for example, send our F-18s to bomb Serbians in pursuit of some political goal), but we recoil in horror at the thought of cleaning up our own trash at home.  The life of a law-abiding not-Canadian who has the misfortune to be in a target area is worth less than that of a Canadian convicted of murder.

Awesome.

 

[midgetcop]

Back to the issue of Tookie....

Although I don't agree with capital punishment in principle, I have no idea why clemency should have even been considered in this particular case. Unless there's some new evidence introduced that brings his guilt into question, then what makes this guy's life more valuable than any other prisoner on death row? Because he has a bunch of Hollywood celebrities clamouring for his case? Because he wrote a few children's books?

Gimme a break.

 

[TCBF]

" Re: Dead Man Eating - bye bye Tookie
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2005, 20:12:29 » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And hey, where were all of those anti-death penalty activists when Timothy McVeigh was executed?
All executions are equal, but some executions are more equal than others?

Tom"

Yup.  The Hollywood elite was just not there for Tim. Why not?

Hippocrites.

Tom

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Someone once said "the only people that truely feel better from charity are the ones who are giving it".  There are too many people out there that have some cage full of crap in their attics that need to push their huggy feely on everyone.  There does not need to be a big moral hang up over the death penalty.  It is a good idea from every practical standpoint.  More cost efficient, flawless results.  You should see the recidivism rates for executed criminals.  They never commit another crime!  That is proof enough that it works. 
Yes, people will throw themselves all over the floor screaming and whining "but an innocent could be killed".  There is that risk.  But if anyone is involved with the legal system, you know that criminals have every possible advantage these days.  Coupled with cutting edge DNA techniques, there are plenty of slam dunk murder cases in Canada.  The problem now is that if you can handle three squares a day, go to the gym, get all the free university courses you can handle for 10 years, you might as well pick someone and kill them.  Then, when you get to court, plead guilty to manslaughter and say that "I'm a desperate crackhead, he tried to kill me for my last rock, I'm so sorry and I need help".  The judge will let out an audible "aaawww" and lob you in, leaving the chance of early parole open wide open due to your demonstrated show of remorse. 
Why do we get hung up on this concept of "human life is precious"?  Says who?  Any of you that have been on taskings around the world could definately say that not everyone thinks that way.  Wouldn't it be nice if you had to re-apply for your Life Licence every year.  You go into a booth in a mall, type in "what I contributed to the betterment of the world" and a desicion is made.  All of a sudden, the crystal in the palm of your hand goes red, and you are taken away by the Sandmen to go to Carosel.  Or something like that.  A police state to be sure, but what a fun, safe environment for the kids!!