The Capital Punishment Debate

[Ex-Dragoon]

Yeah I am in a morbid mood today.

 

[George Wallace]

I see.   So, if someone rapes a 15 year old, they should get the death penalty.   But if he waits untill she's 16, it's ok, just give him a few years in jail.

Yeah, I'm totaly with you on this one man   :

Actually, in Canada the age of consent is 14.

 

[kincanucks]

I like flaying but slowly over a couple of days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaying

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Consent? Then it would not be rape........

 

[48Highlander]

Actually, in Canada the age of consent is 14.

Yes, I know, but he was talking about raping a child vs raping an adult, which has nothing to do with age of consent since it's not consensual.  So what's the age of majority?  I know you're legaly allowed to move away from your parents at 16, so that's why I went with that number.

 

[Jarnhamar]

DNA evidence is not the be all and end all of the justice system, and I don't think that the argument of "the chances are pretty slim we'll kill an innocent man" holds water unless those chances are 100%. Until we gain the power to grant life to those who deserve it, we should not execise the power to execute those who we think deserve death.

I feel obligated to clarify that this opinion only applies to the justice system, and is completely seperate of my view in regards to the military and it's operations.

Using a previous argument- The death penalty for a criminal convicted of mass murder, raping children, throwing puppies in the river whatever is bad. They *might* be innocent, albeit with todays technology and CSI super cops and DNA a very very slim chance.

But, innocent civilians killed during wartime is an unfortinuate by product of a better world?

I'll pass on that one

The argument about child mollestation and the death penalty is a tricky one. As much as I'd love to see those monsters set on fire I think the death penalty should only be used for people conviced of 1st degree murder.

 

[George Wallace]

Age of Majority is 14, isn't it?

Pedophiles need to be dealt with severely.  Raping a child under the age of 14....10....6....4....is definitely a problem.

 

[Sh0rtbUs]

READY, AIM (for the groin) FIRE!!!

 

[Dog]

Using a previous argument- The death penalty for a criminal convicted of mass murder, raping children, throwing puppies in the river whatever is bad. They *might* be innocent, albeit with todays technology and CSI super cops and DNA a very very slim chance.

But, innocent civilians killed during wartime is an unfortinuate by product of a better world?

I'll pass on that one

The argument about child mollestation and the death penalty is a tricky one. As much as I'd love to see those monsters set on fire I think the death penalty should only be used for people conviced of 1st degree murder.

Not what I meant, I was referring to the killing of terrorists/badguys by the military, while engaged in conflict. I think that in that case it would be justified, no?

And yes, they *might* be innocent.... and until we come up with a foolproof method of determining, definitively the guilt or innocence of someone, then I say we can't, in good conscience, put people to death, as there is a risk that you may be killing the wrong man.

 

[AoD71]

I once read a newspaper article about Bernardo, a few months ago. The journalist was visiting his cell for an interview. He described the cell: It was in a separate section in the prison, for the f***ed up people like him. His cell had clear plastic walls covering the it, because the other inmates would throw their shit at his cell, and piss on it too. IF there isn't ever going to be a death penalty for people like him, I'd alteast like it if that plastic shield would go.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Makes you wonder what would happen if the minds of the world united and perfected the lie detector ... most importantly screen the politicians before they are ever put in power.

That's pretty simplistic; I suspect (not having been a politician myself) that telling untruths is part of the game. Everybody tells white lies at work.  It's how societies work.  "No, you don't look fat in those pants."  "Yes, I sent the cheque yesterday."

No?

 

[Kat Stevens]

My deterrent to "do these pants make me look fat?"  "No, your arse makes you look fat"  >

 

[COBRA-6]

Hanging! Cheap and effective.

The Old Bytown Jail in Ottawa (now a hostle and museum) still has it's gallows.  It's right across the street from NDHQ, three people were executed there, the tour of death row is very creepy.

 

[Kat Stevens]

A touch of the old William Wallace sentence might be applicable in certain (coff*Bernardo*cof) instances.  And, as a bonus,  if he can yell "freedom!" at the end, let him go..... >

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Ever see those big hopper devices that vibrate at very high speeds and turn big boulders into sand over time?  Wonder how and A$$hat *cough*Karla*cough* would make out? ;D

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Ever see those big hopper devices that vibrate at very high speeds and turn big boulders into sand over time?  Wonder how and A$$hat *cough*Karla*cough* would make out? ;D

'

So the state should turn into torturers?

What does that prove? 

The justice system prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment".  Even for a Karla Homolka.  Why turn them into martyrs, or even worse, sympathetic figures?  And why promote the idea that killing can be satisfying?

A sedative, followed by a lethal injection, followed by a burial according to the deceased's religious faith, would be in keeping with the tenets of our judicial system and our society.  The rest of the trash talk here is just that, in my opinion.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I once read a newspaper article about Bernardo, a few months ago. The journalist was visiting his cell for an interview. He described the cell: It was in a separate section in the prison, for the f***ed up people like him. His cell had clear plastic walls covering the it, because the other inmates would throw their shit at his cell, and piss on it too. IF there isn't ever going to be a death penalty for people like him, I'd alteast like it if that plastic shield would go.

Just make it simple:  A big yard.  Thats it.  You would have about thirty huge sociopaths that would crush and rape the newbies, especially pretty ones like Bernardo.  What dink would risk going into that?  Make that prison the "third strike" destination and let Darwinism take its course.
Human rights blah, blah, blah.  This is a fantasy train of thought, since we know the death penalty really will never be back regardless of what we want.

 

[R0B]

I think we should execute everyone found guilty of first degree murder, or multiple counts of second degree murder, as well as everyone who would be found guilty of homicide or sexual assault as a result of mental insanity.

Criminologists have offered many arguments for and against the death penalty, so there's really futile to argue one against another. I don't support the death penalty due to the results of some study, I support it because I think capital punishment is morally right, and because I think keeping people imprisoned for life is a waste of money.

"Recent studies support the view that the death penalty does not have any deterrent effect. Rather, these studies found support for the theory that the death penalty has a brutalizing effect.

A report released in September 2000 by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates that states with the death penalty. The Times reports that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

Furthermore, FBI data showed that ten of the twelve states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with capital punishment have homicide rates above. Based on the data in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, average of murder rates among death penalty states in 2001 was 5.2 per 100,000 population in contrast to 2.9 among states without death penalty.

There is no good evidence to support the concept of the brutalization effect, it's all mostly tautological. There's also much evidence to refute it, for one, Detroit and D.C., the most dangerous cities in the United States, are both free from the death penalty. All American states used to have capital punishment; those which abandoned it were those with low crime rates. Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin don't have the death penalty. With exception to Massachusetts and Michigan, you're left with mostly small states without any major cities, so it's no wonder that they have homicide rates below the national average.

Comparing homicide rates in the United States and Canada and Europe additionally supports the fact that the death penalty does not have any deterrent effect. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 population, while in Canada, which abolished the death penalty in 1976, the rate was only 1.8. Likewise, data released by the British Home Office reveals that the United States has a murder rate that is more that three times that of many of European countries that have banned capital punishment."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/dp200310_4.html

You can't compare America's homicide rates to those of European countries and Canada and then infer from them that the death penalty does not have a deterrent effect. The deterrent effect most certainly does exist, trouble is, those who are not deterred from a life sentence usually don't care if the penalty were upgraded to execution. Also, America's homicide rate was higher than that of Canada and many European countries a century ago when they all had the death penalty, suggesting that the correlation that has been implied is not as a result of the death penalty.

Canada carried out its last execution in 1962. Since then, the homicide rate has been going up. Despite a recent decrease, it's still higher than it was before.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

'

So the state should turn into torturers?

What does that prove?  

The justice system prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment".   Even for a Karla Homolka.   Why turn them into martyrs, or even worse, sympathetic figures?   And why promote the idea that killing can be satisfying?

A sedative, followed by a lethal injection, followed by a burial according to the deceased's religious faith, would be in keeping with the tenets of our judicial system and our society.   The rest of the trash talk here is just that, in my opinion.

Wow, Corp Wet Blanket.  Lighten up, Francis and have some fun with the dark side.  Jeez :-*

 

[Jarnhamar]

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37646.0.html

Not what I meant, I was referring to the killing of terrorists/badguys by the military, while engaged in conflict. I think that in that case it would be justified, no?

And yes, they *might* be innocent.... and until we come up with a foolproof method of determining, definitively the guilt or innocence of someone, then I say we can't, in good conscience, put people to death, as there is a risk that you may be killing the wrong man.

That stat is 30'000. Some sources have said it could be as much as 4 of 5 times that number. (of civilian deaths)

My point is that it's acceptable to kill "innocent" civilians while were targeting terrorists and insurgents BUT we can't sentence a mass murderer to death because of the tiny chance that he or she might be innocent? Regardless of the amount of evidence including DNA and video tapes of yes, them killing someone?

If were willing to accept civilian deaths of the people in countries we are trying to liberate and free, why can't we accept civilian deaths here at home?