While I agree that back in the day they would kill dozens of people per day, to say they had no mental scarring from it is probably untrue. I won't say it's completely untrue as, well, I didn't live in that time. My guess, and again it's just a guess, is that these people that were executioners were the people we now call serial killers and sociopaths. Just call it a hunch.
While I agree that back in the day they would kill dozens of people per day, to say they had no mental scarring from it is probably untrue. I won't say it's completely untrue as, well, I didn't live in that time. My guess, and again it's just a guess, is that these people that were executioners were the people we now call serial killers and sociopaths. Just call it a hunch.
Again taking a negative in society and making a positive out of it
Talk about SUCKAGE. So, you're saying that people sentenced to death should just be taken out back and shot?
The reason for all the appeals that you're complaining about is that they are REQUIRED, not by the defense, but by the State. This is done to ensure that the right person is getting the needle/bullet/axe. Here is the kicker . . .
SOMETIMES, THEY STILL GET IT WRONG . . .
Goes back to that whole paradox thingy I mentioned earlier. Are you willing to put your neck on the line, giving up your own life in the event of a wrongful execution?
I'm not complaining about the appeals, I'm saying that in typical red-tape laden government things that could be done cheaply and effectively are made infinitely more expensive. Think in terms of $700 for a hammer. (from US government info a few years back) A quick web search finds that expert witnesses can be paid up to $1000 an hour. Think that's reasonable? Just keep bloating the costs..
So to clarify, I'm not opposed to appeals. I'm not opposed to being as sure as you possibly can be before sentencing.
I'm opposed to the reasoning that because we have to have appeals and they are currently insanely expensive that's fine and dandy and should be the reason the death penalty isn't used.
I also agree with Caddy in that this isn't about the money (though those arguments hold no water), it's about personal responsibility and how we've cultivated a society who refuses to take any.
You spill coffee in your lap, sue the provider because it was too hot. Never mind the fact that you were the moron who put the piping hot beverage in that location.
Next thing that's going to come out of this is... Poor mother, she has a mental illness. So she can't be held responsible..
Back in the day, executioner's did their job, and never ever had a problem with it I'm sure!! And all you women going through hysterics just need to use a "Lady's aid" to calm down... and those nutcases that we keep sheltering in mental hospitals? Please, one twenty minute lobotomy and they are so TOTALLY manageable... I mean, pop out an eye, swish a scalpel and voila!! You know how much those fucking drugs COST?
Okay, okay, lobotomy is a little over the top for those that have the devil in 'em.... priests will do exorcisms for next to NOTHING.. fuck therapists and psycho-analysis, that shit takes months and sometimes YEARS...
Yup, things were much easier back in the day
Mark
P.S. - And fuck all you unclean pre-marital sex people... we`re sending you to your Aunt`s house in Minnesota for this school year...
Again taking a negative in society and making a positive out of it
I'm not complaining about the appeals, I'm saying that in typical red-tape laden government things that could be done cheaply and effectively are made infinitely more expensive. Think in terms of $700 for a hammer. (from US government info a few years back) A quick web search finds that expert witnesses can be paid up to $1000 an hour. Think that's reasonable? Just keep bloating the costs..
So to clarify, I'm not opposed to appeals. I'm not opposed to being as sure as you possibly can be before sentencing.
I'm opposed to the reasoning that because we have to have appeals and they are currently insanely expensive that's fine and dandy and should be the reason the death penalty isn't used.
I also agree with Caddy in that this isn't about the money (though those arguments hold no water), it's about personal responsibility and how we've cultivated a society who refuses to take any.
You spill coffee in your lap, sue the provider because it was too hot. Never mind the fact that you were the moron who put the piping hot beverage in that location.
Next thing that's going to come out of this is... Poor mother, she has a mental illness. So she can't be held responsible..
Are you saying mentally ill people are responsible? I would agree that some have a sufficient level of self-awareness, but certainly not all of them.
You mention personal responsibility, but that is addressed by the paradox.
If/when you execute an "innocent" are you willing to then put the "murderers" (ie prosecutor, witnesses, cops, jury) to death for it? If not, your position is hypocritical.
It is time to start beating a different drum Milo.
How many Innocent victims are we talking about here? The one who didn't actually pull the trigger but ran the videotape instead? Drove the getaway car?
What about the families of victims that are murdered by already convicted murderers who have escaped or gotten paroled? What do you say to them?
"Oh, sorry about your raped and mutilated daughter ma'am. I know that she was tortured and violated for the last 72 hours of her life. I know that she was only 11. I know that the man who killed her has killed several times before and has not contributed to society in any meaningful way for his entire life. I know that we have video of him committing these murders because he taped it himself so he could enjoy it later.
But really ma'am. Your daughters life is just part of the sacrifice we must make in order to be absolutely, positively, without a doubt sure that we have not killed an innocent man.
I know it's upsetting but here, let me tell you about a real logical way of looking at it..."
It is all poppycock. The general public is in favor of the death penalty and the numbers are like 2:1. It is a shame that we do not carry out the death penalty in Canada.
Soldiers are paid to kill. Executioners are paid to kill. Police are paid to kill in the proper situations. Drawing a parallel between an executioner taking a life of someone who proves later to be innocent and a cold blooded killer who has been found guilty by a court of law is not only reaching, it is irresponsible.
I will keep beating this drum until someone can refute the logic of it. So far you have not done so. All you have done is continued to make emotional arguments rather than rational/logical ones.
A person wrongly convicted and executed is as much an "innocent victim" as the raped and mutilated daughter you describe. Actually moreso, and here is why. There is a reason behind the daughter's death, albeit a heinously deranged one. The wrongfully executed person has no reason behind their death beyond, "oops".
Since 1973, 131 people have been released from (U.S.) Death Row due to new evidence securing their release. Before you say, "See, the system works", these people were released primarily due to the work of the Institute for Justice, a non-profit organization. Without the efforts of IJ, these innocent people would STILL be awaiting execution. Further, since 1989, there have been 8 people executed in the United States despite strong evidence that their convictions were improper. Once executed, prisoner records/files/evidence are routinely destroyed so we will never know for certain if the right person was executed or not.
Your analogy of a killer to the soldier, executioner, or police officer is spurious, as I never tried to compare them to one another. I am SPECIFICALLY discussing the WRONGFUL use of the powers of the State to kill an innocent person, so please stick to the point.
As for whether it is a shame that we do not have executions in Canada, tell it to Steven Truscott. He was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death by a system that had decided he was guilty DESPITE a large amount of evidence pointing to a different suspect. Now that Truscott's innocence has been established, I guess you would be satisfied telling his family, "Sorry". Wait, thats right, if we had (wrongfully) executed him, he never would have had a family.
Look, despite what you may think, I am not some bleeding heart, everybody just needs a hug, type of person. I believe in long sentences, few privileges, punishment before rehabilitation, and prisoners who earn their way back to release, if society deems that possible. I also beleive that Clifford Olsen, Robert Pickton, et al. should serve life sentences that actually ARE life sentences (ie they leave prison feet first). I just believe that the Death Penalty is not justifiable in our society. Other than this one point, I think our ideas on criminal justice would be fairly similar.
We have just become too sensitized to violence/death.
Not this.
It is because our society is too desensitized to violence/death that people think it is just easier and more appealing to kill offenders than imprison and attempt to rehabilitate.
They say 64% of the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot
82.4% of people believe them whether they're accurate statistics or not!
Caddy, please at least give some references for your statistics. And let's not forget that stats can lie as much as you need them to as well... anyways..
The murder rate in Canada has shown an overall downward trend since the mid to late 70`s (The death penalty was abolished in 1976), reaching an all time low (and 4 year consecutive drop) in 1995... As of 2006, the murder rate is 1.85 / 100,000 people, as opposed to the good old 3 / 100,000 of the mid-70's.
They say 3% of people use 5 to 6% of their brains, 97% use just 3% and the rest goes down the drain....
I'll never know which one I am am, but I bet you my last dime, 99% think we're 3%, 100% of the time...
As Caddy said earlier, the majority of a randomly sample Canadian population seems in FAVOUR of the death penalty... unless you check more recent studies... Of course.. there was a motion in 1987 that the death penalty be reinstated, and it garnered an astonishing 73%!!! However, after some of that pesky education, after 4 months, that number dropped to 61%....
I don`t know what you believe, but I do know there`s no doubt...
I need another double shot of something 90 proof, I got too much to think about...
Sure enough, good old 1995, our lowest homicide rate, and 69% of people want the return of the death penalty . Funny thing though.... if you read a bit further, the next year, a poll found that not one Canadian identified the return of the death penalty as a major concern.
Hey, one other neat little hiccup there... at the top of that article, it mentions that conviction rates of 1st-degree murder INCREASED, actually DOUBLED (OMG!)... seems that people didn't like the idea too much of killing someone when their finger was on the trigger... huh, who knew!?
So now, we have fewer murders, the ones that we do have are getting harsher stays in prisons, for longer amounts of time.... trends show that we can expect violent crimes to continue a downward overall leaning, oh, and a bit of education seems to change more than 1 in 6 people's opinions?
Damndest thing....
Seems like lately all's I can think about is how bad I wanna go out in style....
Zunni, you have to be very very careful about things like your comment about mental illness. I will readily agree that it, along with the temporary insanity plea, are overused tools of defense lawyers. However, there are people with severe mental illnesses that are completely mind altering, causing the person to have no clue what happened during certain time periods. There are also, as Milo was saying, high functioning people with mental illnesses. Lumping all people with mental illness together is just the wrong way to go about it.
- Virginia put to death a 41 year old woman - first time since 1912.
- Said woman was the "mastermind" behind a plot to kill her husband and stepson, recruiting two young accomplices
- Said "mastermind" has a tested IQ of 70. In standard measurements, an IQ of 69 and lower is mild mental retardation. 70 is considered Borderline Intellectual functioning*
- During the interrogation, the woman apparently answered "Yes" to every question asked of her, there is some debate as to her ability to fully understand the questions.
This shit makes me sick.
* - from Wikipedia Borderline intellectual functioning is a categorization of intelligence wherein a person has below average cognitive ability (an IQ of 71-85), but the deficit is not as severe as mental retardation (70 or below).
Persons who fall into this categorization have a relatively normal expression of affect for their age, though their ability to think abstractly is rather limited. Reasoning displays a preference for concrete thinking.
- Virginia put to death a 41 year old woman - first time since 1912.
- Said woman was the "mastermind" behind a plot to kill her husband and stepson, recruiting two young accomplices
- Said "mastermind" has a tested IQ of 70. In standard measurements, an IQ of 69 and lower is mild mental retardation. 70 is considered Borderline Intellectual functioning*
- During the interrogation, the woman apparently answered "Yes" to every question asked of her, there is some debate as to her ability to fully understand the questions.
Right up there with the guy in Texas that authorities executed last year. They now know, after the fact, that the "expert" testimony was BS, that the cops lied on the stand, and that the DA deliberately suppressed evidence that cast doubt on the man's guilt.
So, I am waiting for the clamor from you Death Penalty advocates to lethally inject those responsible for murdering an innocent man.
Don't worry, I won't hold my breath . . .
Slight threadjack . . . did anyone have her in the pool?
Right up there with the guy in Texas that authorities executed last year. They now know, after the fact, that the "expert" testimony was BS, that the cops lied on the stand, and that the DA deliberately suppressed evidence that cast doubt on the man's guilt.
So, I am waiting for the clamor from you Death Penalty advocates to lethally inject those responsible for murdering an innocent man.
Don't worry, I won't hold my breath . . .
Milo,
Let me start by saying I enjoyed our conversation at AJ’s during the tournament in regards to this topic. I hope that this thread can continue in the same thought provoking discussion without getting personal.
I have been back and forth on my views in regard to this particular topic. I have written papers on both sides while doing my undergrad and in seminary. So I definitely understand the arguments. I realize that the possibility exists that in states who carryout capital punishment risk the possibility of putting to death an innocent man as you stated. I don’t know the case you are referring too but want to talk philosophical for the time being.
I believe that if that was the case it would be a great tragedy if that were to happen. But wouldn’t it be just as great a tragedy if someone sentence allowed them to go through the appeals process to the point where a parole board decides that they had served enough time, were rehabilitated, or mentally stable to rejoin society and they killed, raped, molested a child again? Who then becomes responsible for the death of THAT person?
I am not saying I have the answers to it all, but I know this, there are some people who deserve to die for the crimes they have committed. The mother in Barrie started this debate with you and me at AJ’s. I said I put her on par with the likes of Clifford Olson, Susan Smith, Ted Bundy. Harsh? Yes. But what she did to those sweet innocent little girls so discussed me, it literally made me sick. Life in prison is too good for her.
One of the things you said to me was I sounded so Old Testament. I busted in the tournament before I got a chance to really comment on that question.
While it is true capital punishment is very Old Testament, there is New Testament evidence for the death penalty as well.
All you have to do is look to the crucifixion. Two men were sentence to die with Christ on the cross, and he saw fit to allow the government to carry out the laws of the land and have these men executed. And to the one thief He says, “Today thou will be with Me in paradise”.
I will leave it here for now and see where we go.
By mentioning the OT I was simply refering to the "eye for an eye" component of the Death Penalty.
People who support the Death Penalty generally use a few different justifications for doing so, and I will address them separately:
The Death Penalty acts as a deterrent.
This argument is demonstrably false. Look at the jurisdictions where the DP is most widely used, and you would expect that the murder rates (and therefore DP convictions) would be declining. They are not. What actually happens is that prosecutors make greater efforts to utilize the DP in an effort to "pad their stats" and appear tough on crime.
Well, at least that particular murderer won't do it again.
True, so long as you are 100% certain you have convicted the guilty party. I would urge you to google the name Radley Balko, as well as the organization "Institute for Justice". A little digging will reveal that a significant number of people in the USA are convicted every year, and sentenced to die, on evidence that is, to be charitable, suspect. Also, there are at least 8 known instances of an innocent person being executed in the USA, and more where the evidence has been destroyed so we will never know for sure. Combine that with the obvious fact that, if the wrong person was convicted, the actual killer remains at large.
Well, some crimes are so heinous, that the person deserves to die.
Here is where we can get philosophical. Discussions around death always stir the pot emotionally, and these instances are no different. I believe that killing is wrong. I believe that the State does not have the moral authority to decide who lives and who dies. If we, as citizens want to give them that power, where will it extend to next? Not trying to be hysterical, but we all know that government always attempts to extend, rather than curb, it's powers to control it's citizens. I do not think that we, as individuals or collectives (juries) are fit to play God.
Years ago, I trained to be able to kill without passion or hesitation, should my country call on me to do so. Fortunately, that training was never needed. But I know myself well enough to say that I would be hard pressed not to use those skills to avenge a family member's murder. Death penalty proponents like to use the "Gotcha" argument of "What if it was your child?", when all other avenues fail.
My response is this:
I think our society needs to be better than one where the State, as a matter of Law, sanctions revenge against any of it's citizens. If a person is considered anathema for killing an innocent victim, I expect the State, acting on my behalf, to be morally superior to that person when dealing with said perpetrator. I do not want the State lowering itself to the standards and moral equivalency of people like this Barrie woman, or Clifford Olsen, or Roberet Pickton. We are supposed to be better than they are, and the Death Penalty gives the lie to that . . .
I do not believe in the Death Penalty. I believe that a Life Sentence should be just that, LIFE. I believe that our prison system needs an overhaul to reflect certain criteria re: punishment v. rehabilitation. These changes would reflect a more austere existence for the worst members of society. Those changes, like a return of the Death Penalty, would require a radical change in the political landscape of this country.
I think our society needs to be better than one where the State, as a matter of Law, sanctions revenge against any of it's citizens. If a person is considered anathema for killing an innocent victim, I expect the State, acting on my behalf, to be morally superior to that person when dealing with said perpetrator. I do not want the State lowering itself to the standards and moral equivalency of people like this Barrie woman, or Clifford Olsen, or Roberet Pickton. We are supposed to be better than they are, and the Death Penalty gives the lie to that . . .
Just joining in on a pretty serious discussion here, so I will tread carefully. I have not given too much thought on the issue of the death penalty as in Canada it isn't a hot button issue like it is with our neighbors. That being said, in any debate I have heard in the past it has almost always been an issue of how do we know we're convicting the right person? Can we ever be too sure when someones life hangs in the balance? Even people who say it is morally wrong I think would admit that if there was 100% no question the person committed the crime that they are being convicted of ( ex. a man being caught on video molesting and killing a woman , combined with DNA evidence and the whole 9 yards ) that they would not be opposed to the use of the death penalty.
What Milo has said here, not only prompted me to post in agreement to a discussion I have merely been glancing at since it came up, but also to look at the matter in an entirely different light. In an ideal world our political system would be above reproach, and ultimately have the ability to look at the situation in a way and deal with it in a way that nobody even remotely affected by the crime ever could.
If you wanted to get really deep you could even go as far as to suggest that the courts now basically carry out the 'revenge' of the victims? If you really break the thought down to it's core it basically becomes the simplistic '' two wrongs don't make a right''.
Maybe I totally misinterpreted what you were trying to convey Milo and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, but it is an interesting take on the subject.
Having worked in the correction services, I always felt that the "inmates" were there as a punishment, period. Because that is what the law say needs to happen. The death penalty is just the ultimate punishment. You knew the rules, you broke the rules therefore this is the result - Death Penalty.
The tricky part I believe is, what the guidelines for giving out this ultimate punishment become. And do we, as a group, of people have the right to as the government the right for this ultimate punishment. Let us not confuse the issues. It a sentence is given as a result of an individual not following the laws that govern us. Revenge is not part of the equation.
With due respect, I think you are kidding yourself if you believe that revenge is not a motivating factor behind the clamor in favour of the Death Penalty. If not with a majority, than with a significant minority of those involved.
Jtothelew, brings up DNA. Again, we have dozens of Death Penalty cases in the USA where the DNA results were faulty. Or, closer to home, Dr. Charles Smith, who was basically convicting people by fraudulent means.
Human beings are NOT infallible. That is just one of the reasons to disapprove of a punishment with no means of remediation when errors occur. Combine that with the other aspects of the Death Penalty I have mentioned previous, and you will never get me to support it's sanction.
That being said, this is a democracy (I hear). If the majority can be swayed, than the Death Penalty will return. I just think we will be poorer for it.
The more I dwell on the subject the more I lean towards the argument that if a person is wrongly convicted to the death sentence, EVEN ONCE, it is probably not a wise thing to have in place ever.
It is unfortunate if someone is wrongly convicted and sent to jail and yes it would be a horrible experience for them and their family/friends but at least we aren't killing them, we are also leaving room for more discoveries to be made down the road where they can be at least released from prison and reimbursed for the time that they have missed.
The only argument I can see against this is the financial cost of our government for having to support said person, but many researchers have actually found that given the cost of the appeal and court process to sentence someone to the death penalty, and the costs associated with people serving on death row it is profoundly cheaper to house them for even up to 40 years. The most common example found and used by extreme leftists on the issue on this topic says that from 1995-2007 there were 7 men sentenced to death and it cost the state $200,000,000.00 to try these men, and to sentence them for 40 years would have cost roughly $11 million. (Note: I am not declaring that these stats are 100% true but it is what I have heard/been able to find on the internet regarding the issue)
I know that we are discussing them moral dilemma of the issue and I am sorry if I derail your discussion a bit, but I feel that it is somewhat relevant to the issue as if we can sentence them for life what is the downside to that? They get punished ( some people might even rather die then spend 40 years in prison ), nobody gets blood on their hands, and it totally removes the risk of us wrongfully killing someone. If we later find out we made a mistake we can at least do right on some level. The way it is now if it comes out that someone was wrongfully sentenced to death, someone most likely goes through great lengths to cover that up ( I know I would ) and really there is nothing we can do about it.
Read the article linked below, and tell me you still trust our legal system with life/death decisions. Yes it is an American report, but I believe it is relevant to the discussion.
I would like to play too...i came to this site for poker but was happy to find some well thought people, that fortunately ...are not like minded to me.
Small point about much of Milo's musings....if people who wrongfully sentence people to death should be killed themselves (or rather you said should be willing to die for the mistake)....then we must be able to say someone who gave a wrong sentence should have to serve the same time....true? im not arguing for or against but that assumption should hold true right? In our legal system too if you serve time before your sentenced your credited with double time (this is changing soon)...so perhaps under our law the wrongful accusers should serve twice the time...
my one thing id like to comment most about is what i want to propose the the country or the world. Law is not about revenge. Revenge is for people who don't understand true compassion. Intelligence realizes revenge gets you nowhere. In many fable even something like Batman the story goes after finally getting revenge the hero realizes hes still un-fullfilled. I have no proof but i am saying that law and jail should be for 2 things....rehabilitation (teach criminals to know better and act better), and to keep them from harming the public.
theres a book called the prophet by Khalil Gibran and it says 'of criminals' basically we shouldn't be so quick to condemn those that tripped over the rocks that we didn't pick up in the first place. To me that means we are all imperfect and bad at times, we all support a world that isn't very good at the moment it our fault there is bad people....theres people dying to war, people starving, people with no homes, people living with abuse, people who are cold, sick everything.....
im sure its not a far stretch to believe that most if not all criminals are victims themselves.....so we should re educate them and get them away from public if they are dangerous but certainly not get revenge on them
and if milo walked in on a serial killer and his family and he killed the killer....does he deserves the death penalty? i don't think he deserves punishment...
my point is different than milos but im glad someone like him believes that its fully flawed....
Nice post. I fully support the idea of removing what is called sovereign immunity from our legal system. Sovereign immunity is the concept that cops, judges, prosecutors, etc. are immune from sanction for doing their jobs. It is meant as a protection against mendacious lawsuits and is, in theory, a practical idea. In practice, it leads to things like in the story I linked above, or in the case of a wrongful execution, the ability to say, "my bad", and go on with your life regardless of the circumstance.
You asked if I felt a prosecutor (judge, cop) should serve the time equal to the wrongly convicted person's time. Not necessarily . . . I do think that all involved in what may turn out to be a malicious prosecution should be charged and put on trial for it. I believe a man like Charles Smith should be tried on multiple counts and, if convicted, should go to jail. I think the Crowns who relied on his testimony to convict innocent people should be tried and, if found to have known his testimony was bogus, stripped of their licenses and jailed, as well.
People would argue that there would be fewer people willing to lay charges and prosecute offenders. I would counter that we could have more confidence in those charges, given the cost of a wrongful arrest to the prosecution personally.
Just because someone is a victim themselves doesn't excuse the responsiblity of punishment for crimes committed. There will always be someone to blame for ones lot in life. It not an excuse. The Barrie woman blames her ex for beating her abusing her, so she in turn kills the kids? And that is just?
Humankind has and will always be accountable for his or her action. Even the cons no the difference between right and wrong and put a rapist, child murderer in genral pop. and they will take care of him or her.
Another point, you can't tell me that if Ted Bundy, John Gacy, Susan Smith, the DC Sniper were executed that it would be proven that they were innocent.
What you call revenge, I call justice.
And why one would oppose their execution is beyond me.
I am not arguing that ALL convicted killers might be innocent. Far from it. Nor am I advocating against personal responsibility. I am not some limp wristed social engineer who wants to hold a prisoners hand and tell him/her it is society's fault.
But neither am I willing to play God with another human being's life, even an execrable one like this Barrie woman. I simply believe that a better solution is to remove them from society forever. Study them, if possible, to learn more about mental illness/psychosis (where appropriate). But I do not wish to debase the society I live in by exacting revenge by killing them. And, whether you acknowledge it or not, emotion/revenge is a strong component in Death Penalty cases. Just re-read how you have referred to the woman in Barrie. Think back to our conversation at AJ's and the terms you used to describe your feelings about the case. Then try to tell me again how revenge plays no part in your thoughts about this case. If you're being honest, you will admit that it does play a part. That is as it should be, because you are human, and revenge/anger is a powerful emotion. But, in meting out punishment, we cannot allow ourselves to be swayed by emotion. We must lean towards our better angels, and demonstrate that we are better than those we would sit in judgemnt upon.
We must lean towards our better angels, and demonstrate that we are better than those we would sit in judgemnt upon.
a few times in this thread it touched on the mix of religion in our judicial system. years ago this was clear cut, like the US: government says whats right if you love god you will obey. then someone said...hey but its a free country and i don't want love your god.
theres a hidden problem with the mix of religion and law. they have to be fully separated....hence the beginning of gay marriage and the like. how Christians came to accept killing i don't know (well lack of intelligence) but i think if a country truly accepts all religions much of the justice system as it stands breaks down and needs to be grossly reforme....
First of all, it is a LEGAL system. Justice is merely a bonus, when/if it occurs. This idea of a "justice" as part of the system is a canard, and always has been.
Secondly, virtually all systems of law throughout the world devolve back to one form of religious practice or another, so you will never truly be able to separate the two. As for acceptance, that is a two way street. This country accepts a wide variety of religious practices. In return, it is incumbent on the adherents of those practices (imo) to accept that others may not hold their views on a given issue.
Your example from the US is faulty (unless you were being sarcastic), as it is the US Constitution which says what is right/legal, and not the government. The US government could enact a law that states, "All virgin women must be turned over to darbday on their 18th birthday for a period of 12 hours," but the Constitution would nullify it outright.
a few times in this thread it touched on the mix of religion in our judicial system. years ago this was clear cut, like the US: government says whats right if you love god you will obey. then someone said...hey but its a free country and i don't want love your god.
theres a hidden problem with the mix of religion and law. they have to be fully separated....hence the beginning of gay marriage and the like. how Christians came to accept killing i don't know (well lack of intelligence) but i think if a country truly accepts all religions much of the justice system as it stands breaks down and needs to be grossly reforme....
I don't think many Christians 'accept killing', and I think you should probably tread carefully insinuating something as big as a lack of intelligence for an entire ( also very large ) people group.
The reason a lot of conservative Christians get branded as supportive of the death penalty is because of conservative regions of North America, (ie. Texas). There are a lot of people in the world and North America especially that lightly say they believe one thing or the other, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. But are extremely ill informed on what they are actually saying and taking responsibility for when they make this declaration, and they definitely don't have an understanding on the finer matters of the doctrine of these religions. It's like the degenerate gambler who loses his wife and job because of his addiction, and then when I tell some people my primary hobby is poker they look at me like I'm a heroine addict because their friends husband blew their life savings on a trip to Vegas.
I know I've derailed here a bit, but people forget that almost every culture is rooted in a religion, in North America that religion is Christianity. The 10 commandments are basically the basis for our legal system, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc. You can discredit this all you want, but they are pretty good guidelines, and there will probably almost always be a tie from the legal system to religion in that regard.
If you could explain to me how religion is hampering Canada's justice system I would probably be willing to eat crow on this one, but I cannot see any bearing other then the correlation of some of the laws laid out in the Bible and some of the laws which are enforced in Canada. ( I don't believe the topic gay marriage to be an issue of justice, or at least not the type we are discussing in this thread ).
Comments
Again taking a negative in society and making a positive out of it
I'm not complaining about the appeals, I'm saying that in typical red-tape laden government things that could be done cheaply and effectively are made infinitely more expensive. Think in terms of $700 for a hammer. (from US government info a few years back) A quick web search finds that expert witnesses can be paid up to $1000 an hour. Think that's reasonable? Just keep bloating the costs..
So to clarify, I'm not opposed to appeals. I'm not opposed to being as sure as you possibly can be before sentencing.
I'm opposed to the reasoning that because we have to have appeals and they are currently insanely expensive that's fine and dandy and should be the reason the death penalty isn't used.
I also agree with Caddy in that this isn't about the money (though those arguments hold no water), it's about personal responsibility and how we've cultivated a society who refuses to take any.
You spill coffee in your lap, sue the provider because it was too hot. Never mind the fact that you were the moron who put the piping hot beverage in that location.
Next thing that's going to come out of this is... Poor mother, she has a mental illness. So she can't be held responsible..
I just remembered why I love you so much!
xoxoxoxo
Are you saying mentally ill people are responsible? I would agree that some have a sufficient level of self-awareness, but certainly not all of them.
You mention personal responsibility, but that is addressed by the paradox.
If/when you execute an "innocent" are you willing to then put the "murderers" (ie prosecutor, witnesses, cops, jury) to death for it? If not, your position is hypocritical.
How many Innocent victims are we talking about here? The one who didn't actually pull the trigger but ran the videotape instead? Drove the getaway car?
What about the families of victims that are murdered by already convicted murderers who have escaped or gotten paroled? What do you say to them?
"Oh, sorry about your raped and mutilated daughter ma'am. I know that she was tortured and violated for the last 72 hours of her life. I know that she was only 11. I know that the man who killed her has killed several times before and has not contributed to society in any meaningful way for his entire life. I know that we have video of him committing these murders because he taped it himself so he could enjoy it later.
But really ma'am. Your daughters life is just part of the sacrifice we must make in order to be absolutely, positively, without a doubt sure that we have not killed an innocent man.
I know it's upsetting but here, let me tell you about a real logical way of looking at it..."
It is all poppycock. The general public is in favor of the death penalty and the numbers are like 2:1. It is a shame that we do not carry out the death penalty in Canada.
Soldiers are paid to kill. Executioners are paid to kill. Police are paid to kill in the proper situations. Drawing a parallel between an executioner taking a life of someone who proves later to be innocent and a cold blooded killer who has been found guilty by a court of law is not only reaching, it is irresponsible.
A person wrongly convicted and executed is as much an "innocent victim" as the raped and mutilated daughter you describe. Actually moreso, and here is why. There is a reason behind the daughter's death, albeit a heinously deranged one. The wrongfully executed person has no reason behind their death beyond, "oops".
Since 1973, 131 people have been released from (U.S.) Death Row due to new evidence securing their release. Before you say, "See, the system works", these people were released primarily due to the work of the Institute for Justice, a non-profit organization. Without the efforts of IJ, these innocent people would STILL be awaiting execution. Further, since 1989, there have been 8 people executed in the United States despite strong evidence that their convictions were improper. Once executed, prisoner records/files/evidence are routinely destroyed so we will never know for certain if the right person was executed or not.
Your analogy of a killer to the soldier, executioner, or police officer is spurious, as I never tried to compare them to one another. I am SPECIFICALLY discussing the WRONGFUL use of the powers of the State to kill an innocent person, so please stick to the point.
As for whether it is a shame that we do not have executions in Canada, tell it to Steven Truscott. He was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death by a system that had decided he was guilty DESPITE a large amount of evidence pointing to a different suspect. Now that Truscott's innocence has been established, I guess you would be satisfied telling his family, "Sorry". Wait, thats right, if we had (wrongfully) executed him, he never would have had a family.
Look, despite what you may think, I am not some bleeding heart, everybody just needs a hug, type of person. I believe in long sentences, few privileges, punishment before rehabilitation, and prisoners who earn their way back to release, if society deems that possible. I also beleive that Clifford Olsen, Robert Pickton, et al. should serve life sentences that actually ARE life sentences (ie they leave prison feet first). I just believe that the Death Penalty is not justifiable in our society. Other than this one point, I think our ideas on criminal justice would be fairly similar.
Not this.
It is because our society is too desensitized to violence/death that people think it is just easier and more appealing to kill offenders than imprison and attempt to rehabilitate.
<From Todd Snider's: Statistician's Blues>
They say 64% of the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot
82.4% of people believe them whether they're accurate statistics or not!
Caddy, please at least give some references for your statistics. And let's not forget that stats can lie as much as you need them to as well... anyways..
According to Statistics Canada....
The murder rate in Canada has shown an overall downward trend since the mid to late 70`s (The death penalty was abolished in 1976), reaching an all time low (and 4 year consecutive drop) in 1995... As of 2006, the murder rate is 1.85 / 100,000 people, as opposed to the good old 3 / 100,000 of the mid-70's.
They say 3% of people use 5 to 6% of their brains, 97% use just 3% and the rest goes down the drain....
I'll never know which one I am am, but I bet you my last dime, 99% think we're 3%, 100% of the time...
As Caddy said earlier, the majority of a randomly sample Canadian population seems in FAVOUR of the death penalty... unless you check more recent studies... Of course.. there was a motion in 1987 that the death penalty be reinstated, and it garnered an astonishing 73%!!! However, after some of that pesky education, after 4 months, that number dropped to 61%....
I don`t know what you believe, but I do know there`s no doubt...
I need another double shot of something 90 proof, I got too much to think about...
Sure enough, good old 1995, our lowest homicide rate, and 69% of people want the return of the death penalty . Funny thing though.... if you read a bit further, the next year, a poll found that not one Canadian identified the return of the death penalty as a major concern.
Hey, one other neat little hiccup there... at the top of that article, it mentions that conviction rates of 1st-degree murder INCREASED, actually DOUBLED (OMG!)... seems that people didn't like the idea too much of killing someone when their finger was on the trigger... huh, who knew!?
So now, we have fewer murders, the ones that we do have are getting harsher stays in prisons, for longer amounts of time.... trends show that we can expect violent crimes to continue a downward overall leaning, oh, and a bit of education seems to change more than 1 in 6 people's opinions?
Damndest thing....
Seems like lately all's I can think about is how bad I wanna go out in style....
Mark
Still, you pro-death penalty types can believe what you will. Eventually you may recognize that it is an irrational belief . . .
or not.
I know, however, that I am on the side of the angels on this one.
Way to go death penalty!!
Protesters condemn US grandmother's execution - Yahoo! Canada News
Cliff notes:
- Virginia put to death a 41 year old woman - first time since 1912.
- Said woman was the "mastermind" behind a plot to kill her husband and stepson, recruiting two young accomplices
- Said "mastermind" has a tested IQ of 70. In standard measurements, an IQ of 69 and lower is mild mental retardation. 70 is considered Borderline Intellectual functioning*
- During the interrogation, the woman apparently answered "Yes" to every question asked of her, there is some debate as to her ability to fully understand the questions.
This shit makes me sick.
* - from Wikipedia
Borderline intellectual functioning is a categorization of intelligence wherein a person has below average cognitive ability (an IQ of 71-85), but the deficit is not as severe as mental retardation (70 or below).
Persons who fall into this categorization have a relatively normal expression of affect for their age, though their ability to think abstractly is rather limited. Reasoning displays a preference for concrete thinking.
fry the bitch!
So, I am waiting for the clamor from you Death Penalty advocates to lethally inject those responsible for murdering an innocent man.
Don't worry, I won't hold my breath . . .
Slight threadjack . . . did anyone have her in the pool?
Speaking of....what's a 16 year girl doing at a rave?
Milo,
Let me start by saying I enjoyed our conversation at AJ’s during the tournament in regards to this topic. I hope that this thread can continue in the same thought provoking discussion without getting personal.
I have been back and forth on my views in regard to this particular topic. I have written papers on both sides while doing my undergrad and in seminary. So I definitely understand the arguments. I realize that the possibility exists that in states who carryout capital punishment risk the possibility of putting to death an innocent man as you stated. I don’t know the case you are referring too but want to talk philosophical for the time being.
I believe that if that was the case it would be a great tragedy if that were to happen. But wouldn’t it be just as great a tragedy if someone sentence allowed them to go through the appeals process to the point where a parole board decides that they had served enough time, were rehabilitated, or mentally stable to rejoin society and they killed, raped, molested a child again? Who then becomes responsible for the death of THAT person?
I am not saying I have the answers to it all, but I know this, there are some people who deserve to die for the crimes they have committed. The mother in Barrie started this debate with you and me at AJ’s. I said I put her on par with the likes of Clifford Olson, Susan Smith, Ted Bundy. Harsh? Yes. But what she did to those sweet innocent little girls so discussed me, it literally made me sick. Life in prison is too good for her.
One of the things you said to me was I sounded so Old Testament. I busted in the tournament before I got a chance to really comment on that question.
While it is true capital punishment is very Old Testament, there is New Testament evidence for the death penalty as well.
All you have to do is look to the crucifixion. Two men were sentence to die with Christ on the cross, and he saw fit to allow the government to carry out the laws of the land and have these men executed. And to the one thief He says, “Today thou will be with Me in paradise”.
I will leave it here for now and see where we go.
Prophet 22
People who support the Death Penalty generally use a few different justifications for doing so, and I will address them separately:
The Death Penalty acts as a deterrent.
This argument is demonstrably false. Look at the jurisdictions where the DP is most widely used, and you would expect that the murder rates (and therefore DP convictions) would be declining. They are not. What actually happens is that prosecutors make greater efforts to utilize the DP in an effort to "pad their stats" and appear tough on crime.
Well, at least that particular murderer won't do it again.
True, so long as you are 100% certain you have convicted the guilty party. I would urge you to google the name Radley Balko, as well as the organization "Institute for Justice". A little digging will reveal that a significant number of people in the USA are convicted every year, and sentenced to die, on evidence that is, to be charitable, suspect. Also, there are at least 8 known instances of an innocent person being executed in the USA, and more where the evidence has been destroyed so we will never know for sure. Combine that with the obvious fact that, if the wrong person was convicted, the actual killer remains at large.
Well, some crimes are so heinous, that the person deserves to die.
Here is where we can get philosophical. Discussions around death always stir the pot emotionally, and these instances are no different. I believe that killing is wrong. I believe that the State does not have the moral authority to decide who lives and who dies. If we, as citizens want to give them that power, where will it extend to next? Not trying to be hysterical, but we all know that government always attempts to extend, rather than curb, it's powers to control it's citizens. I do not think that we, as individuals or collectives (juries) are fit to play God.
Years ago, I trained to be able to kill without passion or hesitation, should my country call on me to do so. Fortunately, that training was never needed. But I know myself well enough to say that I would be hard pressed not to use those skills to avenge a family member's murder. Death penalty proponents like to use the "Gotcha" argument of "What if it was your child?", when all other avenues fail.
My response is this:
I think our society needs to be better than one where the State, as a matter of Law, sanctions revenge against any of it's citizens. If a person is considered anathema for killing an innocent victim, I expect the State, acting on my behalf, to be morally superior to that person when dealing with said perpetrator. I do not want the State lowering itself to the standards and moral equivalency of people like this Barrie woman, or Clifford Olsen, or Roberet Pickton. We are supposed to be better than they are, and the Death Penalty gives the lie to that . . .
I do not believe in the Death Penalty. I believe that a Life Sentence should be just that, LIFE. I believe that our prison system needs an overhaul to reflect certain criteria re: punishment v. rehabilitation. These changes would reflect a more austere existence for the worst members of society. Those changes, like a return of the Death Penalty, would require a radical change in the political landscape of this country.
Just joining in on a pretty serious discussion here, so I will tread carefully. I have not given too much thought on the issue of the death penalty as in Canada it isn't a hot button issue like it is with our neighbors. That being said, in any debate I have heard in the past it has almost always been an issue of how do we know we're convicting the right person? Can we ever be too sure when someones life hangs in the balance? Even people who say it is morally wrong I think would admit that if there was 100% no question the person committed the crime that they are being convicted of ( ex. a man being caught on video molesting and killing a woman , combined with DNA evidence and the whole 9 yards ) that they would not be opposed to the use of the death penalty.
What Milo has said here, not only prompted me to post in agreement to a discussion I have merely been glancing at since it came up, but also to look at the matter in an entirely different light. In an ideal world our political system would be above reproach, and ultimately have the ability to look at the situation in a way and deal with it in a way that nobody even remotely affected by the crime ever could.
If you wanted to get really deep you could even go as far as to suggest that the courts now basically carry out the 'revenge' of the victims? If you really break the thought down to it's core it basically becomes the simplistic '' two wrongs don't make a right''.
Maybe I totally misinterpreted what you were trying to convey Milo and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, but it is an interesting take on the subject.
The tricky part I believe is, what the guidelines for giving out this ultimate punishment become. And do we, as a group, of people have the right to as the government the right for this ultimate punishment. Let us not confuse the issues. It a sentence is given as a result of an individual not following the laws that govern us. Revenge is not part of the equation.
Prophet 22
Jtothelew, brings up DNA. Again, we have dozens of Death Penalty cases in the USA where the DNA results were faulty. Or, closer to home, Dr. Charles Smith, who was basically convicting people by fraudulent means.
Human beings are NOT infallible. That is just one of the reasons to disapprove of a punishment with no means of remediation when errors occur. Combine that with the other aspects of the Death Penalty I have mentioned previous, and you will never get me to support it's sanction.
That being said, this is a democracy (I hear). If the majority can be swayed, than the Death Penalty will return. I just think we will be poorer for it.
It is unfortunate if someone is wrongly convicted and sent to jail and yes it would be a horrible experience for them and their family/friends but at least we aren't killing them, we are also leaving room for more discoveries to be made down the road where they can be at least released from prison and reimbursed for the time that they have missed.
The only argument I can see against this is the financial cost of our government for having to support said person, but many researchers have actually found that given the cost of the appeal and court process to sentence someone to the death penalty, and the costs associated with people serving on death row it is profoundly cheaper to house them for even up to 40 years. The most common example found and used by extreme leftists on the issue on this topic says that from 1995-2007 there were 7 men sentenced to death and it cost the state $200,000,000.00 to try these men, and to sentence them for 40 years would have cost roughly $11 million. (Note: I am not declaring that these stats are 100% true but it is what I have heard/been able to find on the internet regarding the issue)
I know that we are discussing them moral dilemma of the issue and I am sorry if I derail your discussion a bit, but I feel that it is somewhat relevant to the issue as if we can sentence them for life what is the downside to that? They get punished ( some people might even rather die then spend 40 years in prison ), nobody gets blood on their hands, and it totally removes the risk of us wrongfully killing someone. If we later find out we made a mistake we can at least do right on some level. The way it is now if it comes out that someone was wrongfully sentenced to death, someone most likely goes through great lengths to cover that up ( I know I would ) and really there is nothing we can do about it.
Misbehaving Federal Prosecutors - Reason Magazine
Small point about much of Milo's musings....if people who wrongfully sentence people to death should be killed themselves (or rather you said should be willing to die for the mistake)....then we must be able to say someone who gave a wrong sentence should have to serve the same time....true? im not arguing for or against but that assumption should hold true right? In our legal system too if you serve time before your sentenced your credited with double time (this is changing soon)...so perhaps under our law the wrongful accusers should serve twice the time...
my one thing id like to comment most about is what i want to propose the the country or the world. Law is not about revenge. Revenge is for people who don't understand true compassion. Intelligence realizes revenge gets you nowhere. In many fable even something like Batman the story goes after finally getting revenge the hero realizes hes still un-fullfilled. I have no proof but i am saying that law and jail should be for 2 things....rehabilitation (teach criminals to know better and act better), and to keep them from harming the public.
theres a book called the prophet by Khalil Gibran and it says 'of criminals' basically we shouldn't be so quick to condemn those that tripped over the rocks that we didn't pick up in the first place. To me that means we are all imperfect and bad at times, we all support a world that isn't very good at the moment it our fault there is bad people....theres people dying to war, people starving, people with no homes, people living with abuse, people who are cold, sick everything.....
im sure its not a far stretch to believe that most if not all criminals are victims themselves.....so we should re educate them and get them away from public if they are dangerous but certainly not get revenge on them
and if milo walked in on a serial killer and his family and he killed the killer....does he deserves the death penalty? i don't think he deserves punishment...
my point is different than milos but im glad someone like him believes that its fully flawed....
thx
You asked if I felt a prosecutor (judge, cop) should serve the time equal to the wrongly convicted person's time. Not necessarily . . . I do think that all involved in what may turn out to be a malicious prosecution should be charged and put on trial for it. I believe a man like Charles Smith should be tried on multiple counts and, if convicted, should go to jail. I think the Crowns who relied on his testimony to convict innocent people should be tried and, if found to have known his testimony was bogus, stripped of their licenses and jailed, as well.
People would argue that there would be fewer people willing to lay charges and prosecute offenders. I would counter that we could have more confidence in those charges, given the cost of a wrongful arrest to the prosecution personally.
Humankind has and will always be accountable for his or her action. Even the cons no the difference between right and wrong and put a rapist, child murderer in genral pop. and they will take care of him or her.
Prophet 22
What you call revenge, I call justice.
And why one would oppose their execution is beyond me.
Prophet 22
But neither am I willing to play God with another human being's life, even an execrable one like this Barrie woman. I simply believe that a better solution is to remove them from society forever. Study them, if possible, to learn more about mental illness/psychosis (where appropriate). But I do not wish to debase the society I live in by exacting revenge by killing them. And, whether you acknowledge it or not, emotion/revenge is a strong component in Death Penalty cases. Just re-read how you have referred to the woman in Barrie. Think back to our conversation at AJ's and the terms you used to describe your feelings about the case. Then try to tell me again how revenge plays no part in your thoughts about this case. If you're being honest, you will admit that it does play a part. That is as it should be, because you are human, and revenge/anger is a powerful emotion. But, in meting out punishment, we cannot allow ourselves to be swayed by emotion. We must lean towards our better angels, and demonstrate that we are better than those we would sit in judgemnt upon.
a few times in this thread it touched on the mix of religion in our judicial system. years ago this was clear cut, like the US: government says whats right if you love god you will obey. then someone said...hey but its a free country and i don't want love your god.
theres a hidden problem with the mix of religion and law. they have to be fully separated....hence the beginning of gay marriage and the like. how Christians came to accept killing i don't know (well lack of intelligence) but i think if a country truly accepts all religions much of the justice system as it stands breaks down and needs to be grossly reforme....
Secondly, virtually all systems of law throughout the world devolve back to one form of religious practice or another, so you will never truly be able to separate the two. As for acceptance, that is a two way street. This country accepts a wide variety of religious practices. In return, it is incumbent on the adherents of those practices (imo) to accept that others may not hold their views on a given issue.
Your example from the US is faulty (unless you were being sarcastic), as it is the US Constitution which says what is right/legal, and not the government. The US government could enact a law that states, "All virgin women must be turned over to darbday on their 18th birthday for a period of 12 hours," but the Constitution would nullify it outright.
You guys are kinda making me regret reviving this thread.
Seriously, aside from the tldr factor, y'all are just regurgitating the same shit we've heard over and over.
Bottom line: Capital punishment is a bad idea, and if you can't see that you're either foolish or stubborn.
Mark
I don't think many Christians 'accept killing', and I think you should probably tread carefully insinuating something as big as a lack of intelligence for an entire ( also very large ) people group.
The reason a lot of conservative Christians get branded as supportive of the death penalty is because of conservative regions of North America, (ie. Texas). There are a lot of people in the world and North America especially that lightly say they believe one thing or the other, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. But are extremely ill informed on what they are actually saying and taking responsibility for when they make this declaration, and they definitely don't have an understanding on the finer matters of the doctrine of these religions. It's like the degenerate gambler who loses his wife and job because of his addiction, and then when I tell some people my primary hobby is poker they look at me like I'm a heroine addict because their friends husband blew their life savings on a trip to Vegas.
I know I've derailed here a bit, but people forget that almost every culture is rooted in a religion, in North America that religion is Christianity. The 10 commandments are basically the basis for our legal system, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc. You can discredit this all you want, but they are pretty good guidelines, and there will probably almost always be a tie from the legal system to religion in that regard.
If you could explain to me how religion is hampering Canada's justice system I would probably be willing to eat crow on this one, but I cannot see any bearing other then the correlation of some of the laws laid out in the Bible and some of the laws which are enforced in Canada. ( I don't believe the topic gay marriage to be an issue of justice, or at least not the type we are discussing in this thread ).