Informative websites on capital punishment if people are interested.
An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death. Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal’s deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.
— Albert Camus
This ought to give you an idea of my own personal bent on the subject.
These are worth checking out.
HANDS OFF CAIN against death penalty in the world
The Death Penalty in Canada: Twenty Years of Abolition
Death Penalty: Latest worldwide statistics released | Amnesty International
I even found this website containing one man's argument in favour. I didn't get a ton of time to review it so I'm certainly not endorsing it's value, or immediately writing off it's value either. I'm going to guess I'll disagree with basically every word of it, but it would be a guess.
For what it's worth, I'm feeling pretty bad about the personal attack on Pkrfce. I still loathe his comments, and will gladly tell him so, but I can acknowledge I was out of line in going off on him.
— Albert Camus
This ought to give you an idea of my own personal bent on the subject.
These are worth checking out.
HANDS OFF CAIN against death penalty in the world
The Death Penalty in Canada: Twenty Years of Abolition
Death Penalty: Latest worldwide statistics released | Amnesty International
I even found this website containing one man's argument in favour. I didn't get a ton of time to review it so I'm certainly not endorsing it's value, or immediately writing off it's value either. I'm going to guess I'll disagree with basically every word of it, but it would be a guess.
For what it's worth, I'm feeling pretty bad about the personal attack on Pkrfce. I still loathe his comments, and will gladly tell him so, but I can acknowledge I was out of line in going off on him.
Comments
Let's see some exemple on how this should be treated (my point of view of course) : Guy is drunk, comes back from the bar gets arrested, again and a third time. He doesn't have a license has already spent a year in prison for drunk driving. It's 3PM on a saturday he's wasted drives at 90km/h in a residential zones, run over 2 kids and a dog all dead.
How do you deal with this? We all know that in Canada he's going to stay what... 5-10 years in prison and out with good behaviour. Why? Why should that person be back in society? Especially when he's shown that he's going to do it again and again.
Next exemple :
47 yo dude likes little boys and girls. Rapes a couple, doesn't kill anyone though. Goes to prison a couple of years, released, for some weird reason finds a job as a school bus driver, rapes 5-6 kids. Back in prison... Why should this guy be back in society? I know for a fact if this happens to my kids the dude's dead.
Also... all those scumbags that are spending years and years in prison receiving a Salary 3 meals a day... WTF?
There's people in the street that don't even have one meal a day why should someone who killed/raped/stole get that AND a salary?
Is this really what we want for our society?
My biggest problem with capital punishment lies with a philosophy I heard somewhere once. If I lived in a state or a province / country / etc that employed capital punishment, and I was a contributing member of said location, I am also therefore agreeing to and promoting it's standards, morals, ethics, and government policies. Even if the current leadership is not one *I* voted for, my passive acceptance suggests that I approve, even if not my preferred ideal.
And then they start killing people. I become an indirect supporter of these actions.
A few months back, maybe a year + now (?!), the media was abuzz with the capture, trial, and execution of Saddam Hussein. Many people I'm sure viewed the CNN footage of Saddam being led to his gallows and prepared for his hanging. Although CNN opted to show only up until the point before the actual act of hanging occurred, there was a clip floating around that showed the act in its entirety. I have seen this clip, as I'm sure many others have too. And I am angered, and disappointed.
I know that Hussein was a cruel, immoral man, who visited misery and suffering on thousands upon thousands. So we got together, found him, and hung him - and people cheered world-wide. It's the year 200x, and people are happy to see a man at the end of a rope, just like the "good ole days". Obviously, I'm not saying that everyone was in agreement, as I was not, and for what it's worth, if you think that was a proper way to deal with it, that's your prerogative. But I have a train of thought there too... .
I watched that internet film, partially out of morbid curiousity, but partly also because I, as a member of the human race, know that I have it in me to commit this kind of barbarism (IMO). And we all need to face that sometimes. Along with this thought, I have a challenge to everyone (and I'm sure there are more than a few) who feels that what happened here was the right thing to do. I feel that if you agree with this action, you need to sit down, and watch the entire video segment, start to finish up to and including where they run up cheering to Saddam's corpse.
Then you need to sit down, rewind it, and watch it again with your kids.
Explain to them why this is civil, why this is an acceptable way for responsible, moral people to react to someone else's actions. Help your kids understand the difference between killing someone and executing them.
When you can do that.. let me know the difference too.
Mark
RCMP searching for father of slain B.C. children : Top Stories : News : Sympatico / MSN
Regardless if the father did do it, the villian should:
1) Be arrested, put on trial, spend 20 to life in prison, out in 12 yrs with good behaviour?
2) Get mental help for his apparent mental condition, paid for by the taxpayers upwards of $100,000, get out in 5yrs no better off?
3) Arrested, tried, put to death in less than 2 yrs?
4) Shot on sight by the mother?
I'm sorry, Dino, I am in complete disagreement with you. IMHO, there IS certain situations that warrant the death penalty. I'm not saying every jaywalker should be put down, but there are some individuals that simply do NOT deserve to live.
I will say that I think there are situations where an individual has clearly forfeited his right to live by taking it away from others.
That doesn't make any sense at all...
Basicly you would have put him in prison for the rest of his life?
Why does HE deserves life? He killed so many people in Irak it's not even funny.
I think the law is WAY too soft in Canada and we "forgive" people that shouldn't be forgiven.
Recedivist (is this a word in english?) are a big big problem.
As Str82Ace said... the dude killed his 3kids, should WE pay for his mistakes? (Prison life - Mental institution)
WHY ?!?
Why 99% of the freaking population can live peacefully but some can't? Why keep them in the Gene pool?
The world isn't a perfect place because of a selected few that thinks they have all the right in the world. Get rid of that and we'll all be better off.
As for my Saddam argument, your role as a parent is to raise children that understand what is right and wrong, and how people should act. Further, they are to apply these understandings. If someone were to believe that a person is deserving of death - role model it. I personally don't agree with it, but if you do, sit your kid down, and explain why it's a good thing to kill someone (again, someone explain that to me).
Further to the fact that we can get into a nature / nurture debate (to counter your "gene pool" argument). You are right however, the world is not a perfect place - but I would much rather display the human characteristics of empathy, nurturing, and faith in one's ability to change than decisive hatred, anger, and revenge.
Mark
Please don't take this the wrong way Mark...you know I value your opinion on almost everything...but come on.
No one person or group of people is going to make someone who is hellbent on killing another human being, or raping a child, or mass murdering innocent people, change the fact that that person is a complete and hopeless prick and doesn't deserve to spend another second breathing the same air supply you and I do.
All the faith and nurturing in the world can't change the fact that some people are beyond help. Their brain doesn't fire like the rest of us.
Again, I'm not advocating that EVERY criminal or insane person deserves the death penalty. But some do, and I for one would think that by disposing of them in such a matter would someday CREATE the idealistic world you're dreaming of.
People very much like to jump to conclusions about those that are painted as monsters. They WANT to believe they are different, the WANT to think there's something wrong with them.
I however do not like to think that we can simply lump them into the "misfiring brain" group. Bottom line, it's not true... Many of these people's NURTURING had more to do with their NATURE. Allow me use an example of one of my favorite groups that drive me nuts...
THIS LINK is a YOUTUBE clip.
If you don't want to check it out.... here's the cole's notes. It's an interview on the Tyra Banks show (I know, not exactly Barbara Walters) of members of the Westborough Baptist Church. This "church" is headed by Rev. Fred Phelps, and is comprised largely of his family. The woman who appears here has some VERY interesting outlooks on homosexuality, America, and people in general.
And she is sane. Perfectly sane.
She's a lawyer in fact, and quite an intelligent woman. However, even the "interviewer" is calling her crazy. It's easier that way. Now to my point about nurture... there are two young daughters with her, 21 and 18 I believe. They spout the same beliefs as their mother... how young do you think they were when first exposed to this? How young can we start executing that 1% of the population who feel similarly? Should we be hanging teenagers? Pre-teens? How about a 10 year old kid?
The point is... the reasons for such incredibly horrendous behaviours cannot be summed up as "they're nuts", and the contradiction in that is that if they are "nuts", then how can they be culpable?
Mark
I agree with you that most of what people believe and do is learned behaviour but there are clearly cases where someones brain is 'defective' for a lack of a better word/description.
When a person cannot be rehabilitaed or nutured or medicated back to health and they continue to be a threat to society....I'm sorry but they need to go. Of course, that leads to the debate of proving this condition which opens up another whole conversation that hurts my brain to think about.....
So people with "defective brains" should be done? Where is the line drawn? Is it a financial thing or a moral thing that defines your reasoning behind those that are "needing to go"
Mark
Unfortunately the chasm between the two is growing daily.
This is part of the debate I refered to as making my head hurt...
However, the point I did want to make was that while I agree with you in relation to 99% of the population...there are clearly people that are born with brain defects that in some cases cause violent behaviour. It's not their parents fault, it's not society's fault it just happens in nature. Some people are born with 11 fingers, some with no sex organs, some with bad wiring. In these cases where these abnormalities or defects cause a propensity towards violence then natural selection needs to be hurried along. I would sleep peacefully at night with them gone...where to draw the line....? See my 1st paragraph.
Indian baby with 2 faces being worshipped as goddess
These things happen in nature. And with an exploding population, it's happening more and more.
Okay, here goes nothing. Some of the early responses postulated situations that simply would not warrant the death penalty in this country, at least when we had it. As for that father in B.C., lets first get due process out of the way, shall we? Innocent until proven otherwise, right? If guilty, I'd like him to go to jail until he comes out feet first. No parole. That way he can be studied, and we can learn more about what makes us tick. More specifically, what makes some of us tick in horrible, vile ways.
The Saddam case is interesting, as he was convicted of War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity. He was also tried by the Iraqi system, not a Western one. Military Law, and tribunals, are different from civilian courts. Even there, the death penalty is a rare punishment, usually reserved for the ultimate crimes. I realize that this is what some of you have advocated here.
But a couple of things mitigate against the death penalty beyond what I mentioned in my first response. The first is the issue of mistakes being made, whether through honest errors, or deliberate malice. I will point to Steven Truscott as someone who was wrongly convicted of capital murder, and sentenced to death, based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Fortunately he has since been found to have been wrongly imprisoned. Now what if we had carried out the sentence? Would you then advocate executing everyone on the Crown's side of the case? If you say no, because honest mistakes were made, I can accept that. But then what of the case of Corey Maye, down in the States? He sits on Death Row, despite the fact that his conviction is the result of him acting in self defense, when police officers stormed into his house in error. There are serious questions surrounding the "quality" of his defense at trial, and of his conviction and sentencing, as well. How do you address those if he is executed before they are resolved? Which brings me to my second point.
Executing someone is an expensive proposition, and would probably be more expensive in this country than in the States. It is not like they are taken to the nearest tree after conviction and strung up. In the States, there are automatic appeals, at least up to the Circuit court level. And many go further than that, with the appeal process taking several years. In most cases the appeals are handled at taxpayers' expense, and I would expect the same to be true here. The cost analysis of execution versus life in prison is a virtual wash, with execution being more expensive in the majority of cases, only being balanced out by the age factor (younger means more $$$, obv.).
Even if only from a financial standpoint, the death penalty is worse than life w/o parole.
I have no problem sentencing someone convicted of egregious crimes to life behind bars. But I have real problems with being asked to play God. The death penalty asks society as a whole to assume that role and I, for one, am not up to the job. Most advocates at this point will ask, "What if it was your daughter?" And I usually answer like this:
Many years ago, the government of this country trained me to be able to kill another human being if required. Were someone to kill a member of my family, or visit unspeakable horrors against them, I would definitely be able to end that person's life without any qualms. And I probably would make evry effort to do just that. That does not make doing so right, no matter how understandable it may be. And that is the lesson. Revenge solves nothing. All it does is deprive society of the ability to study and learn form the perpetrator, and thus try to forestall future, similar, crimes by others.
I got interested in his case after reading your post, and it looks like Maye's Death Sentence was overturned in 2006. He's still in prison forever though.
The issue of quality of defence is a great one, since it's a factor in nearly every US capitol murder case. The simple fact is that rich people don't face the death penalty too often, and poor people get the best defence they can buy, which is usually not worth much. Murder trials are a tricky business, and when your life is on the line, I really don't think you want a fresh faced lawyer who was just called to the bar watching your back. I've heard of cases where the attorney defence attorney failed to meet with the client until the morning of his trial. Cases where the defence attorney fell asleep, and one case where a very honest young attorney showed up and informed the judge that he was grossly 'underqualified' to represent his client's best interests, and was ordered to proceed anyhow.
An interesting case some of you might remember is that of Guy Paul Morin. Convicted of the rape and murder of 9 year old Christina Jessop. Aqquited at his first trial, tried a second time(no double jeopardy rule in Canada), and convicted of First Degree Murder. throughout his case there was enormous evidence to suggest police misconduct, a judge accused of misleading the jury by openly favoring the prosecution during the trial(ironically, the judge who presided over Morin's second trial had been the Prosecuting attorney on the Truscott case).
DNA evidence later completely excluded Morin as a suspect. His case was after the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, but if we had it, it most certainly would have been pursued in his case. His is a great example of the sorts of crimes people have identified as demanding a penalty of death, a man brutally raping and murdering a little girl in a rural Ontario town. She was stabbed so severely in the back so many times that he spinal cord was nearly severed and her collar bone nearly broken in two. Any man who would do that has certainly forfeited his right to live.
The only problem is he didn't do it.
In the Morin case, once the police made up their mind that Morin had done it, they looked to no other suspects, and disregarded any evidence which might even suggest someone else was guilty of the crime. The end result was that not only did they get the wrong guy, they lost and destroyed so much evidence as to ensure that they'll never get the right guy.
Not only is the criminal justice system fallible, sometimes it's downright nasty, and completely untrustworthy.
There is no way that any group of human beings with all their faults, emotions, and differences of opinion is in a position to make the ultimate determination over the fate of another human being, regardless of what you might think of their crimes.
I agree that some people have forfeited their right to live among the rest of us, but I in no way feel that I am of such superior moral fibre as to be complicit in their murder. There's just too much room for error.
+1
I'm tired of this ego-centric nonsense.
You (world at large) do not have the right to murder...even if you're doing it to another murderer. I don't care what you think your reasons are.
Edit: by Kristy
Log Itsame Out Then Post
Kristy
errr, is this Mark? nope, Mario?, maybe Kristy....? Jeesh this is getting f**in confusing......
Well then, I guess that takes care of this debate......Wrapped up much quicker than usual......
Edit: by Kristy
I'm seriously going to throw this computer if it doesn't stop logging Mario in at random.
You need to remember to finish your thoughts. Oh, and write posts under your own name, okay Sybil? Jeez, if this threads dying, I might have to switch sides and fire it up again. To the bridge . . .
NONE OF US HAVE THE RIGHT TO MURDER, not even other murderers.
(and yeah, I'm frustrated about the posting under Mario's name too...this computer has his password saved on it and appears to log him in at random.)
MURDER: The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
Now I'm no lawyer.. but this is for the U.S. legal definition... and execution sounds to me like "deliberation or premeditation" to end someone's life..... but maybe without the malice...
Okay, let's get semantic then... anyone who commits execution is committing homicide.
HOMICIDE: 1.the killing of one human being by another. 2.a person who kills another; murderer.
Oh... wait a second... that would make the executioner a murderer?
I agree 100% with Kristy... the idea that nobody has the right to take the life of another, so if you do that, we're going to take your life is a contradiction/ hypocrisy.
Mark
First: Joke
"Yes for an answer"? I've never had THAT happen before....
Second:
Huh? I'm just qualifying Kristy's statement
Mark
April 10, 2008: Japanese authorities hanged four convicted murderers in Tokyo and Osaka.
Those hanged were Kaoru Akinaga, 61, Masahito Sakamoto, 41, Masaharu Nakamura, 61, and Katsuyoshi Nakamoto, 64.
The round of executions was the third since December, when the Justice Ministry first started disclosing the identities of those hanged and details of their crimes.
Japan has executed 10 criminals in the past four months under Justice Minister Kunio Hatoyama, an outspoken supporter of the death penalty.
Hatoyama, who took office last August, denied his ministry was purposely picking up the pace of hangings. Three men were executed in December, and three more in February.
"I just carry out executions solemnly as justice minister in response to what the law requires," Hatoyama told reporters.
The number of executions in Japan has increased sharply in recent years. Four people were executed in 2006 and nine last year. So far this year, seven have been executed — far ahead of last year's pace.
Got this from Hands off Cain in my inbox today.
I think the quote from the Justice Minister is a great example of the way the entire capitol punishments system is designed to ensure that no specific person need accept the responsibility for the death of another human being.