Death Penalty

[The Blue Tory]

After the horrific events in relation to the murder committed by that monster Briere...

Should the death penalty be brought back for people such as this...

[M. Ward]

Personally, I think the Death Penatly is a horrible idea. And not so much for the fact that you'd are basically killing someone (And I know im going to get this eye-for-an-eye stuff) but I think living the rest of your life in a small cell would really make you think about what you have done.

Plus, im just against killing.

[Neo]

Executiton = State Sponsored Murder = Bad.

I think being in jail for a very long time is alot worse then being executed. Especially if its solitary, which I am expecting Briere will get (because General Population prisoners like to you know, beat the crapout out of/kill child rapists/killers).

It's also cheaper for the gov't to throw them in jail then it is to execute them. Another reason why not to execute people...

[DMCorrigan]

Be sure to watch how you put things this one, guys. I see it going nasty in the future.

[Zipperhead]

It's also cheaper for the gov't to throw them in jail then it is to execute them. Another reason why not to execute people...

I'd like to hear some rationale on this statement. Perhaps our Corrections friends can shed some light as to how much it costs the Tax Payer to incarcerate criminals.

[M. Ward]

Can you put a dollar sign on life? Honestly..This is a human life. Once it's gone, it isn't coming back.

[Thib]

Can you put a dollar sign on life? Honestly..This is a human life. Once it's gone, it isn't coming back.

Using the same argument: How can we put a dollar sign on Liberty and freedom? Honestly, we are talking about someone freedom, Once the years are gone, they ain't coming back... So we shouldn't send people to jail :confused:

So I am also interested to know the answer to the question that Captian Port ask.

[ctjj.stevenson]

Why am I not surprise that a right-wing "tory" opened up this subject. No one has the right to decide when someone dies. Also, if a person was wrongly executed, this will cost the state millions of dollars. The system should work to help the person become a better member of society, even if they will stay in jail for the rest of their days!

[Ching]

Using the same argument: How can we put a dollar sign on Liberty and freedom? Honestly, we are talking about someone freedom, Once the years are gone, they ain't coming back... So we shouldn't send people to jail :confused: .
That's different. And irrational. People need to be punished, but I'd rather put 100 innocent men in jail than execute one. There's always that possibility.. well, often. Not always.
Also, I don't approve of killing people. Period. Whether it's in the name of justice or in the name of "honour" or whatever gangsters kill people for.
And, chances are, a hardened criminal like a murderer convicted of First Degree murder would take a lethal injection willingly over the rest of his life in solitary confinement. Or the punishment the general prison population would be doling out. I know I would.
Life in prison isn't a life, those criminals might as well be dead, and I like that more than actually killing them.

[Juice]

Look at it this way. what does the death penalty do? Apparently nothing in the US. They have the death penalty, and obviously it isnt working as a deterrent. Crime is still on the rise. There are more murders every day in LA than there are total in Canada every year. So we should kill someone because they killed someone? How is that rational? How is that justified? It is a hypocritical and useless way of punishing. I've heard the arguments for the death penalty,like it is cheaper to execute than to keep in jail, but how long do these people wait in jail before they are executed? Half the time it is almost a full sentence anyways! Plus, where is the opportunity for rehabilitation, or restitution to victims? DO you honestly think that the death penalty brings any closure? It makes the state just as bad as the person who committed the crime. Plus, it doesn't bring back the victim, and it often does nothing to ease the pain of the family left behind. So if you ask me, there is no worse idea than the death penalty as a form of punishment. It is evil, it is barbaric, and it is the most hypocritical thing that could ever take place in any state, anywhere.

[Jiggy]

I dont believe in the death penalty at all. I think its total stupidity. Why kill someone for killing it doesnt make sense. PLus a lifetime in jail is worse then that.

[Juice]

I dont believe in the death penalty at all. I think its total stupidity. Why kill someone for killing it doesnt make sense. PLus a lifetime in jail is worse then that.

Not only is a lifetime in jail worse than that, it provides time for the inmate to be rehabilitated, to think about what he has done, to see why it was wrong and to learn from it, and hopefully, someday, return to society and gradually return to being an active member. The Death penalty gives no such option. As I said, it is the most hypocritical thing to do, in any situation.

I'd like to quote a band called Deep Forest by saying:

"An eye for an eye only makes you blind"

[Juice]

I'd like to hear some rationale on this statement. Perhaps our Corrections friends can shed some light as to how much it costs the Tax Payer to incarcerate criminals.

It is more expensive to incarcerate someone. But the time that is spent waiting for an execution, in a lot of cases, can be the same length as a jail sentence, so as taxpayers, not only would we be paying for the execution, but also for the time that was spent waiting for the time of the execution to come, which in the end, would make the death penalty a more expensive and more costly form of punishment.

[Juice]

Using the same argument: How can we put a dollar sign on Liberty and freedom? Honestly, we are talking about someone freedom, Once the years are gone, they ain't coming back... So we shouldn't send people to jail :confused:

So I am also interested to know the answer to the question that Captian Port ask.

Sorry I am putting in so many replies, but I see these things and I have to say something, it's my way, lol :D

You wanna talk freedom and liberty? The people who commit these crimes give up their right to liberty and freedom once they start taking those rights away from other people, so jail is the best solution because why should they have the right to freedom when they just took that right away from someone else?

[Thib]

You wanna talk freedom and liberty? The people who commit these crimes give up their right to liberty and freedom once they start taking those rights away from other people, so jail is the best solution because why should they have the right to freedom when they just took that right away from someone else?


So why should they be allowd to have life when they just tokk it away from someone?

[Thib]

That's different. And irrational. People need to be punished, but I'd rather put 100 innocent men in jail than execute one. .


Your using a diferrent argument, your argument is what happen to an innocent. But the argument of Ward1859 is different. It's the price of life, something that we can gave back wich is the same then time, last time I look I wasn't able to turn back time. He never said anything about innocent people.

[Juice]

So why should they be allowd to have life when they just tokk it away from someone?

Because society is supposed to be above these things. If we are above, we show mercy. if we decide to kill someone for killing another, then we make ourselves just as bad as the murderer and by that logic, if we condone it, we are just as bad as doing it, then we should all face the lethal injection.

"An eye for an eye only makes you blind"

[Lil Lightnin]

Not only is a lifetime in jail worse than that, it provides time for the inmate to be rehabilitated, to think about what he has done, to see why it was wrong and to learn from it, and hopefully, someday, return to society and gradually return to being an active member.

This is the trend that I'm seeing a lot of lately. It seems people are more concerned about having the prisoner rehabilitated and "ready to go" even before they've begun to serve their sentence. Just like you're putting a pricetag of someones life, how can you do the same with time? In my books, 25 years does not equal Life. If you aren't going to kill them, why can't you keep them locked away for the rest of their lives? If they've done something to put themselves in this position, the first priority really shouldn't be about getting them out as soon as we can. Perhaps some of these serial murders, rapists, etc do not deserve to ever be free again...is that a valid point? They've ruined someone elses life, or lives. It's not about them.

On another note, I remember reading somewhere about the Conservative position of having stricter sentences (possibley death penalty?) for those who kill Law Enforcement officers. I could not agree with this more.

[Ching]

I don't know. I think that killing a person is killing a person, law enforcement officer or not. So it should be the same penalty.
I agree with the first part of your post, though... it shouldn't be 25 to life, it should be either 25 or life, life in prison being reserved for those convicted of murder in the first degree.

[Juice]

This is the trend that I'm seeing a lot of lately. It seems people are more concerned about having the prisoner rehabilitated and "ready to go" even before they've begun to serve their sentence. Just like you're putting a pricetag of someones life, how can you do the same with time? In my books, 25 years does not equal Life. If you aren't going to kill them, why can't you keep them locked away for the rest of their lives? If they've done something to put themselves in this position, the first priority really shouldn't be about getting them out as soon as we can. Perhaps some of these serial murders, rapists, etc do not deserve to ever be free again...is that a valid point? They've ruined someone elses life, or lives. It's not about them.

On another note, I remember reading somewhere about the Conservative position of having stricter sentences (possibley death penalty?) for those who kill Law Enforcement officers. I could not agree with this more.

I dont believe the death penalty is rational for any crime.

However, on your statement about jail sentences, perhaps I wasnt clear. The purpose it was not to say we need to get them back out on the streets ASAP, I was only saying that while they serve their sentence, we should at least be making an attempt to make them feel remorse for what they did, apologize to the family of the victim, etc., etc. I am in no way for getting convicts back out on the street ASAP, but if we don't even give them that option at all, how does that help them realize that what they did was wrong? isnt that the purpose of making them sit in jail for all that time? or at least part of it? im not saying that parole should be given all the time, but the option should still be there so that the inmates have something to work towards.

And as I said before, the death penalty obviously doesnt seem to be working in the states. there are more murders in LA every day than there are in Canada every year. How does that show the death penalty is an effective deterrent?

[Lil Lightnin]

I think that killing a person is killing a person, law enforcement officer or not.

There's a huge difference from say 2 gang members shooting each other and someone shooting a police officer. It's the police officers job to ensure public safety, and they're constantly putting their lives in danger to protect the public. There should be NO remorse for people that commit such acts.

[Juice]

I don't know. I think that killing a person is killing a person, law enforcement officer or not. So it should be the same penalty.
I agree with the first part of your post, though... it shouldn't be 25 to life, it should be either 25 or life, life in prison being reserved for those convicted of murder in the first degree.

Yep, thats a good idea, but I still say the option of parole still needs to exist, but the parole boards need to be a lot pickier as to who gets to leave. Especially with the type of crime that was committed.

[Ching]

There's a huge difference from say 2 gang members shooting each other and someone shooting a police officer. It's the police officers job to ensure public safety, and they're constantly putting their lives in danger to protect the public. There should be NO remorse for people that commit such acts.
It's still ending a life.
Just because the police officer is a "better" person than the gangster doesn't mean he deserves more justice. Justice is justice, killing is killing. If you kill someone in cold blood, you should go to jail for the rest of your life. Period.

[Juice]

There's a huge difference from say 2 gang members shooting each other and someone shooting a police officer. It's the police officers job to ensure public safety, and they're constantly putting their lives in danger to protect the public. There should be NO remorse for people that commit such acts.

I see what you are saying, but if we are unwilling to show remorse for what we do to people who commit such crimes as a society, then why should the person who did the killing of the police oficer, or anyone who does it in the future show any remorse? Society as a whole needs to set an example for individual people to follow, and if we go around killing people for taking someone else's life, what kind of an example does that set? It sets the example that revenge is justified and nothing good can come of that. Revenge is never the answer, in any situation.

[offguard96]

So why should they be allowd to have life when they just tokk it away from someone?

How can we rightly punish a death with a death, and still claim to have bloodless hands, as a society? We can't. To claim that life is valuable (especially in the idealistic "everyone is special!" way we seem to adopt in Canada) and then take life as a punishment is hypocrisy.

The only way a society can truly prove that any life is worth protecting by law is by protecting all lives by law, regardless of whose life it is, and what they have done in it. Anything short of that is hypocritical, nearsighted and fallacious.

[TWoyma]

There are more murders every day in LA than there are total in Canada every year.

"In Los Angeles, the most populous city [in California], crime was up 1.8 percent overall and there were 653 homicides, a jump of 11.1 percent. "
This figure is from 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/28/california.crime.ap/

"The total number of murders in Canada in 2001 was 554"
http://canadaonline.about.com/library/weekly/aa072802a.htm

In 2002, there were around 1.79 murders a day in LA. Somehow I think more the 2 people were murdered in Canada in that same year.

[katielloyd]

Personally, I don't see how the death penalty is supposed to be punishement. Honestly, all it does is give criminals the easy way out. After you're dead you're dead (excluding all afterlife beliefs because, well, not everyone believes). They don't have to live with their actions, they don't have to face the everyday trials and tribulations of prison life and they even get a small degree of fame out of their death.

There's also the whole moral issue. Yes they killed a person but I don't see how that gives us the right to take their life in return. People always say "an eye for an eye" but that would be the same as beating some stranger you met on the street because you heard that he did the same thing back in 1986. And if the convicted is a murderer what does that make the executioner? Who decides who is justified and who isn't?

[Ching]

"In Los Angeles, the most populous city [in California], crime was up 1.8 percent overall and there were 653 homicides, a jump of 11.1 percent. "
This figure is from 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/28/california.crime.ap/

"The total number of murders in Canada in 2001 was 554"
http://canadaonline.about.com/library/weekly/aa072802a.htm

In 2002, there were around 1.79 murders a day in LA. Somehow I think more the 2 people were murdered in Canada in that same year.
I didn't think that figure was exactly right... :rolleyes: However, there are still more murders in LosAngeles annually than there are in Canada. And Canada is a lot bigger than LosAngeles.
I think that the point made is a valid one, that capital punishment isn't a very good deterrent to violent criminals. They're violent for a reason: they don't value human life.

[Juice]

I didn't think that figure was exactly right... :rolleyes: However, there are still more murders in LosAngeles annually than there are in Canada. And Canada is a lot bigger than LosAngeles.
I think that the point made is a valid one, that capital punishment isn't a very good deterrent to violent criminals. They're violent for a reason: they don't value human life.

I apologize for the error. But the fact remains, crime is still on the rise in the United States, regardless of the fact that the death penalty is used. The death penalty obviously isn't serving the purpose that it was meant to serve, which is to be a deterrent to other people not to commit these crimes in the future. The only thing that can be used to justify it now is revenge, but like I said earlier, that isnt justifiable.

[piper]

The death penalty is not a punishment, its a way of getting rid of people who, going to jail for murder and other very serious crimes, will contribute nothing to society and function simply as a drain on valuable resouces as they live out their days at our expense. Of course it isnt meant as a punishment, you kill someone, therefore you spend your life in jail. Why not just get rid of them now and save us (and them) the trouble. Harsh, but true. If your little girl got raped and murdered, would you want to see the guy out on the streets after 10 years in prison (thats the minimum you wait for parole after a life sentance)? No, I would want him to be given the death penalty, and I personally would be there to watch.

[SSYLC]

I think law enforcement should be for prevention, but the system's not perfect, so we can't really determine who should be given a second chance.

[Ching]

The death penalty is not a punishment, its a way of getting rid of people who, going to jail for murder and other very serious crimes, will contribute nothing to society and function simply as a drain on valuable resouces as they live out their days at our expense.
So should we kill off people on welfare, too? Because they're draining resources? Killing people is killing people, even if it's in the name of justice.

If your little girl got raped and murdered, would you want to see the guy out on the streets after 10 years in prison (thats the minimum you wait for parole after a life sentance)? No, I would want him to be given the death penalty, and I personally would be there to watch.
If my little girl got raped and murdered, I would be at every parole hearing to make sure that the perpetrator stayed in jail for the rest of his life. My best friend was raped, by a 'friend' of the family. His (the rapist's) mother goes to every parole hearing to personally ensure that he stays in jail. I think that knowing that your mother wants you to rot in jail is a far worse punishment than having a needle in the arm.

I will not ever condone killing another human being. For any reason, self defense excluded, and even then, as an absolute last resort.

[Juice]

The death penalty is not a punishment, its a way of getting rid of people who, going to jail for murder and other very serious crimes, will contribute nothing to society and function simply as a drain on valuable resouces as they live out their days at our expense. Of course it isnt meant as a punishment, you kill someone, therefore you spend your life in jail. Why not just get rid of them now and save us (and them) the trouble. Harsh, but true. If your little girl got raped and murdered, would you want to see the guy out on the streets after 10 years in prison (thats the minimum you wait for parole after a life sentance)? No, I would want him to be given the death penalty, and I personally would be there to watch.

Sure you can speculate about things like that, like what if your daughter got raped and murdered. Of course you would want the person who did it to die. it's in our nature to seek revenge. But at that point you can't have an unbiased opinion on the subject and you would let your emotions and feelings guide your decision. This causes rash action and nothing good ever comes from that. People do things they regret when they are angry. how can you say that someone cannot be rehabilitated? and how does the death penalty account for error? There are innocent people that have been executed? where is the justice for that? who do we hold accountable then? sure, time cant be replaced, but at least if someone is wrongfully in jail they can pick their life up. Rehabilitation should always be a factor, because despite the fact that they committed those crimes, that doesnt mean that 25 years down the road they will still be the same person they were when the crime was committed. And if its a result of a mental problem, then institutionalize them, so that they can be treated. Killing doesnt solve anything and it doesnt make the situation any better.

[Jiggy]

First - I dont agree at all that An officers life should be held above others. So they risk their lives every day, well.....Doctors save leives every day and teachers change lives everyday ....and so on....personally I think that isjust as important.

Secondly - Rehibilitation IS possible. I know it is. I know first hand that it is. So you cant say oh if they did it once theyre gonna do it again, its not true, maybe it may bethe case for some people. But it isnt for all.

I agree with Emily, Only in self defense and even then, only if absolutley neccasary.

[Wood]

The death penalty is a terrible, terrible idea for so many reasons I wonder if I should waste my time posting.

Firstly the objectives of sentencing in Canada are as follows: Deterance, punishment, rehabillitation, and segregation. Notice that there are 4 reasons as those who favour the death penalty generally fail to understand.

Punishment in almost every legal system with the exception of the US has been accepted as being the flimsiest objection of sentencing and does little for societal good. The call for punishment is too closely related to the feeling of revenge. The argument used here is usually what would you do if it was your daughter killed. There is a reason why all crimes that are committed are commited against the state and not against individuals. Vengence is not the purpose of Criminal Law, but rather a functioning society.

Deterance: the death penalty is not a more effective general deterance (detering society) than life imprisonment, both are strong enough that a person who commits a crime warranting this punishment either accepts the punishment or doesn't believe that they will be caught. The specific deterence aspect is obvious, a person will not recommit after he has been arrested, however not quite as obvious as you may think. The accused having committed the crime has forfeited all relationships with society and thus has no reason not to resort to extreme measures in avoiding arrest, thus making him an extreme danger to the society.

Just to re-emphasize the point about the US crime rate, I'm sure we are all aware that TO's police chief isn't allowed to mention TO's crime rate when he goes to meetings in the US, because its embarassing to the other police chiefs. And TO is probably as bad as its going to get in Canada, I know I feel pretty safe right here.

Segregation: Accomplished in a draconian way. But is over emphasized. The actual objective of segregation is towards rehabilitation. Isn't mre effective than imprisonment.

Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation works, however it is not generally accepted by those who want the death penalty based on idealology and not its actual merits. This is the main thrust of legal systems outside of the US, the idea is that it is perferable to have people functioning rather than to simply say they're not worth dealing with. The emphasis on rehabilitation instead of punishment is one of the reasons our system is quite frankly superior to American system. The death penalty actually directly violates one of the objectives of rehabilitation, on society as a whole the mentality that imposing death on another individual is in some cases morally justifiable is dangerous to the practical moral fabric of society. The law influences people's morality just like people's morality influences the law. Once people accept that if someone does something that you consider greatly immoral to be worthy of death, then the murder rate may in fact increase. As people use the excuse, he had it coming.

Let's see other reasons the death penalty is bad? Wrongful conviction based on both prejudice and pure incompetance. Even the famous faces should be enough for you to realize this, Milgaard, Morin, Marshall, there are others though. The interesting thing is that all these men were released more or less on luck after being jailed through obviously faulty precedures. Do we want the same systematic wrongful executions that occur in the US. At least if you put them in jail they have the time to prove there innocence.

We all know their are groups in this country that do to certain systematic social issues are more likely to commit crimes. Its an abandonment of the state's responsibility to its citizens to forget about fixing the problems and just start executing people.

The life naturally falls under the sovereignty of the individual, the individual has never authorized the state possession over their right to live. Anyone who takes this most fundamental right (the right to exist) from another has done great wrong. The state does not have the other worldly right to determine when a person has forfieted this right.

Looking specifically at the Charter and the idea that the state may infringe on the rights of the individual if they have accomplished a pressing governmental objective. Hmmm... saving money over lives, is contrary to the responsibility of government. Could be accomplished in a less invasive way... ie make people who are imprisoned because they are too dangerous to be in society work.

Right not to be subjefct to cruel punishment, hmmm isn't that what everyone who wants the death penalty wants... make them pay.

I think that's enough for now.

[condor888000]

I'd like to quote a band called Deep Forest by saying:

"An eye for an eye only makes you blind"

It was Gandhi who said that.

I'm gonna be raked over the coals for this..but...

I think that the death penalty should be in place. If someone kills someone they just gave up their right to live in my mind. And you all talk of rehabilitation. There are some people out there who are so evil, the only way to deal with them is to kill them. Paul Bernardo is one. Charles Manson was another. The Zodiac killer would be a third. I know that 2 out of 3 of these were American, and that they are mostly incarcerated now, but it doesn't make the point any less valid. I don't think that the average Gangster should be executed, but I think the person who plans to kill someone brutally or if the murder is premeditated should be exectued. Or the murderer of a police officer/fireman/paramedic. They are out there to help people. If they are killed, espically in the line of duty, their killer should suffer the ultimate penalty.

This is my view, I'm not going to argue this.

[Wood]

So should we kill off people on welfare, too? Because they're draining resources? Killing people is killing people, even if it's in the name of justice.

If my little girl got raped and murdered, I would be at every parole hearing to make sure that the perpetrator stayed in jail for the rest of his life. My best friend was raped, by a 'friend' of the family. His (the rapist's) mother goes to every parole hearing to personally ensure that he stays in jail. I think that knowing that your mother wants you to rot in jail is a far worse punishment than having a needle in the arm.


Despite personal feelings keeping a person in jail till their sentence runs out is VERY dangerous to society. The reason people are released early is so that they can be watched and slowly reintroduced to society, so that when their times up, they are definately no longer a threat. Prison fosters criminals, going from being imprisoned to being a free man is too great a leap for most people.

[condor888000]

I will not ever condone killing another human being. For any reason, self defense excluded, and even then, as an absolute last resort.

OK. What would you do with Hitler? I mean, it's not self-defence unless he's trying to kill you personally, right?

[Lil Lightnin]

First - I dont agree at all that An officers life should be held above others. So they risk their lives every day, well.....Doctors save leives every day and teachers change lives everyday ....and so on....personally I think that isjust as important.

I'm having a hard time explaining this. Doctors and teachers don't respond to disputes where people are often intent on killing them, in order to maintain a safer society.
I think it's a pretty crude thing you said: "So they risk their lives every day".
I might be a bit biased because members of my immediate family are involved in policing and were recently involved in the killing of an officer at a domestic dispute. It makes me sick to my stomach knowing that someone who was trying to protect innocent citizens, and even help those who were angery at ____ that people reply with "So what" or they choose to make weak arguements about this.
Obviously if major political parties in Canada adopt similar positions, my logic can't be that far off.

[Wood]

OK. What would you do with Hitler? I mean, it's not self-defence unless he's trying to kill you personally, right?

ooh Hitler, He must be the like the kiss of death of all reasonable debate, bringing up his name just kills it.

"I'd give the devil benefit of the law, for my own sake."
-Thomas Moore

You can't decide to pick and choose what applies to different individuals based on how you feel about them. Hmmm Hitler deserves cruel punishment therefore I better reserve that. Regardless of the injustice it causes for others.

What does killing Hitler do exactly, revenge isn't very filling, neither for the state nor for individuals.

[Jiggy]

I'm having a hard time explaining this. Doctors and teachers don't respond to disputes where people are often intent on killing them, in order to maintain a safer society.
I think it's a pretty crude thing you said: "So they risk their lives every day".
I might be a bit biased because members of my immediate family are involved in policing and were recently involved in the killing of an officer at a domestic dispute. It makes me sick to my stomach knowing that someone who was trying to protect innocent citizens, and even help those who were angery at ____ that people reply with "So what" or they choose to make weak arguements about this.
Obviously if major political parties in Canada adopt similar positions, my logic can't be that far off.



I still dont agree with that, Everyones live is of equal importance....They choose to have that lifestyle. I mean no disrespect i think its great what they do. But everyone is equal

[piper]

Its easy to poo-poo those who put their lives on the line every day when your sitting on the sidelines...

Now that I got that out of the way, I think the death penalty is appropriate in some situations. For example, Paul Bernardo (as was said before), when the find the killer of Cecilia Zong, the murderer of Ardeth Wood, the list goes on. Maybye I'm just cold-hearted and cruel, but thats how I see it. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. I work on that priniciple, and sometimes I think the justice system should to (to an extent). Anyone learn about the Code of Hammurabi?

One off to the side question, even I admit that there is one flaw to the death penalty. One day, someone is going to die for a murder they did not do....something to think about.

[piper]

But everyone is equal

So your saying I am equal to the cowardly terrorists who have beheaded two kidnapped civilians? Or equal to a certain Toronto man who likes to rape and kill little girls? Sorry, I find that statement wrong and a little offensive. No offence to you of course, but not everyone is equal, we are when we all start out, but it all goes either uphill or downhill from there.

[Meathead]

First - I dont agree at all that An officers life should be held above others. So they risk their lives every day, well.....Doctors save leives every day and teachers change lives everyday ....and so on....personally I think that isjust as important.


Wow its good to see I risk my life everytime I put on my uniform Im saving people who want to be saved. Reminds me of a situation that happed a while ago in my Department. One of our cars pulls over a male who had definatly been Drinking and Driving. Good on them for doing saving some lives by doing so. When our guys approach the car they notice that the guy has a shotgun in the back seat. As soon they start to walk away from the car to get back up the guy starts to reach to try and get the gun. Lucky for our guys he was so drunk he had a real problem with his hand eye cordination and they pulled him from the vehicle before he could get the weapon. Once out of the vehicle he started to fight with the officers. It took about 5 of us to get him cuffed but we got it.

Now your going to say that if he would have shot that officer that would have been the same and the doctor saving lives because thats what we do?

[The Blue Tory]

Wow its good to see I risk my life everytime I put on my uniform Im saving people who want to be saved. Reminds me of a situation that happed a while ago in my Department. One of our cars pulls over a male who had definatly been Drinking and Driving. Good on them for doing saving some lives by doing so. When our guys approach the car they notice that the guy has a shotgun in the back seat. As soon they start to walk away from the car to get back up the guy starts to reach to try and get the gun. Lucky for our guys he was so drunk he had a real problem with his hand eye cordination and they pulled him from the vehicle before he could get the weapon. Once out of the vehicle he started to fight with the officers. It took about 5 of us to get him cuffed but we got it.

Now your going to say that if he would have shot that officer that would have been the same and the doctor saving lives because thats what we do?
I agree that was a beyond ignorant statement...

I am offended by that as a security guard, as a soon to be MP, and as a police foundations student...

[condor888000]

ooh Hitler, He must be the like the kiss of death of all reasonable debate, bringing up his name just kills it.

"I'd give the devil benefit of the law, for my own sake."
-Thomas Moore

You can't decide to pick and choose what applies to different individuals based on how you feel about them. Hmmm Hitler deserves cruel punishment therefore I better reserve that. Regardless of the injustice it causes for others.

What does killing Hitler do exactly, revenge isn't very filling, neither for the state nor for individuals.

I wasn't trying to stop the debate. I was trying to bring up a point. If you only belive in the killing of people in self-defence, then what do you think of the rare situations when a police officer has to kill, for example, during a hostage situation. That may not quallify as self-defence. They aren't killing someone who is a direct threat to themselves, but to society in general and the hostage(s) in particular. That slips through the cracks doesn't it?

And my quote about Hitler was to point out that I can guarentee he would have been executed if he had been captured. So, would you rather have him in jail, where he can become the centre of a new NAZI movement? Or dead, along with those he killed? I'd rather see him dead. Some may disagree.

But this is getting too far off topic, so I'll stop.

[Ching]

OK. What would you do with Hitler? I mean, it's not self-defence unless he's trying to kill you personally, right?
I wouldn't kill Hitler. I don't know what I would do with him, but I wouldn't kill him. Maybe subject him to Clockwork Orange-style torture, but without the release into society after 2 weeks.
No matter who the person is, or how evil they are, I don't believe in capital punishment.

[condor888000]

Fair Enough, but isn't any form of torture corporal punishment?

According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, corporal Punishment is "Punishment inflicted on the body, esp by beating."
I belive that includes torture.

[Ching]

Now your going to say that if he would have shot that officer that would have been the same and the doctor saving lives because thats what we do?
... this is hard to convey. I know you feel very passionately about your job, as well you should. However, everyone knows the risk they take in becoming a police officer. The danger is part of the job, and anyone who can't handle that danger doesn't become a police officer. I'm not saying that all police officers should go to work every day prepared to die, BUT you do, obviously, know that there is that risk. Just like a doctor goes to work every day knowing that he might issue the wrong medicine, or a patient might die, or whatever. It's not a given, but it's more of a possibility. Police officers are more likely to be shot than doctors, and doctors are more likely to have their patients die than teachers.
You shouldn't HAVE to accept that danger as part of daily life, but this is the world we live in.
And as I've said, killing people is killing people. I think that each murder should get equal retribution, no matter who the victim is.

[Ching]

Fair Enough, but isn't any form of torture corporal punishment?

According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, corporal Punishment is "Punishment inflicted on the body, esp by beating."
I belive that includes torture.
my bad, I meant capital.

And in A Clockwork Orange, the torture wasn't physical, but mental. So it wasn't *technically* corporal punishment. ;)

[JGallagher]

Excuse me!! Can some one who has worked on the inside of a instituation speak on the matter. I will keep it short. I have been a firm beliver of the Death Penalty all my life. Right now in Canada we have persons that have been convicted of violent murders. These people have said that if they are ever on the street again that they WILL kill again. Now mind you that not all murders have said this. Most of Canada's seriel killers are kept at the SHU in Quebec.(Special Handling Unit) What I am getting at is that we are holding these people for the next 25+ years at an avrage of $65000 a person. They are dangerous and have murdered. Why should we give them life when they took so many!!

[SSYLC]

Now that I got that out of the way, I think the death penalty is appropriate in some situations. For example, Paul Bernardo (as was said before), when the find the killer of Cecilia Zong, the murderer of Ardeth Wood, the list goes on. Maybye I'm just cold-hearted and cruel, but thats how I see it. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. I work on that priniciple, and sometimes I think the justice system should to (to an extent).

Where do you draw the line though?

[JGallagher]

Where do you draw the line though?


These are people did not one day decide to commit a crime. They have been in the system for years. Allan Leger was on a ETA to the Moncton Hospital from Atlantic Instituation Renous!! He was serving time for a murder!!

[SSYLC]

So anyone who has be convicted for murder yet commits murder again should recieve the death penalty? What about people who commit multiple murders before being convicted, should they recieve the death penalty too?

[Lil Lightnin]

Where do you draw the line though?

Murder 1 would be a good start.

It isn't easy to shift anyones opinion on this subject. The arguements of "An eye for an eye" and "Governments should not kill, under any circumstances" are pretty much dead horses.
As James pointed out nonetheless, there are many people who insist that they WILL kill again once they are out. Its hard for any of us to think like a murderer, as I hope none of us have ever done something like that. Where we feel we would spend those 25 years feeling horrible and sorry for the crime we committed, I'd bet that a good percentage of those people feel little sympathy at all. Its not uncommon for these individuals to have an objective in mind when murdering someone. Rather than reflect on this horrible accident, how do you know they don't relish in their self-satisfaction for the remainder of the sentence, with the exact same mindset when they re-enter society.
If it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt (which is the only way they can be convicted in the first place) that they did indeed have the intent to kill someone, they should not be permitted to ever be part of society again. This would be a good time to play the eye for an eye card too as they're getting to spend the rest of their lives living...while their victim does not.

[JGallagher]

So anyone who has be convicted for murder yet commits murder again should recieve the death penalty? What about people who commit multiple murders before being convicted, should they recieve the death penalty too?


My beliefs are that any one who is convicted of murder should be punished by death.

[Logan]

problem with that is there is a man who got released a few years ago when they were able to prove in an appeal that he didn't commit the crime after 12 years in prison. if they had executed him then they would have killed an innocent man.

[JGallagher]

One thing about a murder, some of them get sexual gratifaction from murder. It is a thrill to kill. To them it is more gratifyig then sexual acts. In some casses this is there drive to kill.

[JGallagher]

problem with that is there is a man who got released a few years ago when they were able to prove in an appeal that he didn't commit the crime after 12 years in prison. if they had executed him then they would have killed an innocent man.



I will agree that yes it will happen. Thought the majority of people that do end up in jail are proven due to scientific facts.

[Logan]

But DNA evidence has only really become useful in the past decade what about people before then? it is hard to prove with out a shadow of a doubt that some one has commited murder because the ones that do it in public don't normally survive to trail. i'll let you take that as you will.

[Lil Lightnin]

if they had executed him then they would have killed an innocent man.

Although that is an indirect arguement against the death penalty, like I mentioned before the only way a person can be convicted of a crime is if they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is a problem that occured in the court system somewhere- not with punishing people with the death penalty. I agree though that this is a serious problem that would need to be looked into.

[JGallagher]

But DNA evidence has only really become useful in the past decade what about people before then? it is hard to prove with out a shadow of a doubt that some one has commited murder because the ones that do it in public don't normally survive to trail. i'll let you take that as you will.


The Criminal Justice System is not perfect and never will be. Yes we may put to death some people that were inocent but the majority of people were guilty. People are being exzornated every day for crimes they did not commit.

[SSYLC]

They wouldn't be getting exzonerated if they'd been killed . . .

[Jiggy]

I hardly think that I was being ignorant. I just dont think that an officers life is more important then any other persons. I do respect it, and IM thankful for everything they do.

I do however agree with whoever it was ( i forget) that brought up the equality issue. Im glad you made me think of it.

Still I keep my saying before. Doctors are equal to officers who are equal to teachers who are equal to single parents working in a variety store. Sorry thats just how I feel.

Oh and Meathead how did you get that I dont want to be saved and comparing to a drunk driver because I said people are equal?

[Meathead]

First - I dont agree at all that An officers life should be held above others. So they risk their lives every day, well.....Doctors save leives every day and teachers change lives everyday ....and so on....personally I think that isjust as important.




Thats where.

[condor888000]

problem with that is there is a man who got released a few years ago when they were able to prove in an appeal that he didn't commit the crime after 12 years in prison. if they had executed him then they would have killed an innocent man.

That's why in the States they have mandatory appeals. They have to be proven guilty in every appeal before they are executed.

[Juice]

Murder 1 would be a good start.

It isn't easy to shift anyones opinion on this subject. The arguements of "An eye for an eye" and "Governments should not kill, under any circumstances" are pretty much dead horses.
As James pointed out nonetheless, there are many people who insist that they WILL kill again once they are out. Its hard for any of us to think like a murderer, as I hope none of us have ever done something like that. Where we feel we would spend those 25 years feeling horrible and sorry for the crime we committed, I'd bet that a good percentage of those people feel little sympathy at all. Its not uncommon for these individuals to have an objective in mind when murdering someone. Rather than reflect on this horrible accident, how do you know they don't relish in their self-satisfaction for the remainder of the sentence, with the exact same mindset when they re-enter society.
If it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt (which is the only way they can be convicted in the first place) that they did indeed have the intent to kill someone, they should not be permitted to ever be part of society again. This would be a good time to play the eye for an eye card too as they're getting to spend the rest of their lives living...while their victim does not.

Well, if they are in jail for murder and their sentence is 25 to life, and they say the WILL kill again if they get out, then isn't that reason enough to keep them in jail and not let them out after 25 years? If the justice system lets them out anyways, then it is on their heads for what happens, because they know full well the intent of those people then.

And I totally agree that everyone should be equal, no matter what they do. Career is a choice, when it all comes down to it. I am grateful for everything that police and security and all that, but everyone is equal under the law, is that not what the Charter says? So no matter who the victim is and no matter who the defendant is, they still have rights and no one's life should be held above anyone else's. i'm sorry if I offend any police officers or anyone like that, but it's how I feel. I am so grateful for the wor that you do, but in the end, it comes down to the choice of lifestyle. I know I could never handle that kind of daily risk, no matter how minute or major it could be, so I am not going to try. I commend those who do, because you do great work.

[Juice]

Although that is an indirect arguement against the death penalty, like I mentioned before the only way a person can be convicted of a crime is if they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Beyond a reasonable doubt? I think we can all agree that our justice system (Western society I mean, not just Canada) is totally messed up. There is so much legal policy in it, it doesnt matter if a person is guilty or not, it's about what evidence is ALLOWED in the court room. That's what it comes down to. There have been cases where people have been convicted because certain evidence clearing them wasn't allowed in the trial and people have gotten off who are guilty for the same reason. The system is messed up and I think before bringing in a new form of punishing, we should first figure out a system that takes into account ALL the evidence so the true nature of the case and its circumstances can be determined, not just what is allowed in the court. Get rid of all the legal crap and get to the heart of the matter.

[Conquistador]

After the horrific events in relation to the murder committed by that monster Briere...

Should the death penalty be brought back for people such as this...

This, in my opinion, is simply a convinient execuse to attempt to bring back something that should've been abolished long long before it was actually abolished.

This kind of debate always springs up after a horrendous crime that gets lots of publicity and the public is 'outraged'... and gives politicians an execuse to remove our liberties. Capital punishment is an infringement on the basic principle that democracy is built on, which is such that everyone has the right to life. It doesn't say "everyone has the right to life... provided he's a good citizen who doesn't disobey the law." That doesn't sound very democratic to me... in fact, I just paraphrased a clause out of the Soviet Union Constitution of 1936 (not sure of date's correct...).

I do realize that this argument can potentially be defeated by the argument that states prisons repeal people's rights to freedom, but one must also have common sense. Democracy is dependent on the rule of law, and the rule of law is simply not effective without some sort of punishment. However, the extent to which punishment can go is imprisonment... not cruel tortures or death.

[Juice]

This, in my opinion, is simply a convinient execuse to attempt to bring back something that should've been abolished long long before it was actually abolished.

This kind of debate always springs up after a horrendous crime that gets lots of publicity and the public is 'outraged'... and gives politicians an execuse to remove our liberties. Capital punishment is an infringement on the basic principle that democracy is built on, which is such that everyone has the right to life. It doesn't say "everyone has the right to life... provided he's a good citizen who doesn't disobey the law." That doesn't sound very democratic to me... in fact, I just paraphrased a clause out of the Soviet Union Constitution of 1936 (not sure of date's correct...).

I do realize that this argument can potentially be defeated by the argument that states prisons repeal people's rights to freedom, but one must also have common sense. Democracy is dependent on the rule of law, and the rule of law is simply not effective without some sort of punishment. However, the extent to which punishment can go is imprisonment... not cruel tortures or death.

Hear hear! :D

[offguard96]

If you wish to protect any life without being a hypocrite, you must protect all lives. There can be no exceptions. To except is to play God, and nobody is qualified to do that.

[Jiggy]

Meathead, you are being way oversensitive. Me saying that oan officers life is equal to other life has nothing to do with me not wanting police help...or ESPECIALLY being compared to a drunk driver. Stop being so ridiculous

[Meathead]

Meathead, you are being way oversensitive. Me saying that oan officers life is equal to other life has nothing to do with me not wanting police help...or ESPECIALLY being compared to a drunk driver. Stop being so ridiculous


I dont recall ever compairing you to a drunk driver. Maybe your being too oversensitive.

[Juice]

Well, how about this, let's just leave the thread to it's original purpose, to debate the merits of Capital punishment. This shouldnt be anything personal, so lets get back to the issue at hand.

[Juice]

If you wish to protect any life without being a hypocrite, you must protect all lives. There can be no exceptions. To except is to play God, and nobody is qualified to do that.

Exactly. We live in a democratic society. When someone else commits a crime, they forfeit their right to freedom, but they do not forfeit their right to life. I know that they may have taken away that right from someone else, but that does not justify society doing the same thing.

[M. Ward]

I dont recall ever compairing you to a drunk driver. Maybe your being too oversensitive.


I assume you were refering to the drunk driver as an example of how you go to work everyday, just like a docter or a lawyer does, but a docter and lawyer don' have to worry about pulling over a drunk driver with a shotgun who could have the intent of using it?

(I just pulled docter and lawyer out of no where. lol)

[SSYLC]

What if someone kidnapped a child, put them in their basement, but fed them and treated them as their own child, but kept them inside the house. The kidnapper would be put in prison I assume. Now compare this to murder. Why wouldn't execution be the proper way to deal with it?

[Juice]

What if someone kidnapped a child, put them in their basement, but fed them and treated them as their own child, but kept them inside the house. The kidnapper would be put in prison I assume. Now compare this to murder. Why wouldn't execution be the proper way to deal with it?

Because execution is never the proper way to deal with things. No one has the right to play God and take away someone else's life. That doesnt stop people who murder, but isn't the state supposed to be above that and be a bit more mature than that? One ill turn does not deserve another. If we execute people, we may as well have committed the first murder ourselves, especially because it is out of revenge. You can cover it up all you want by saying it is just and its a good deterrent and that stuff, but when it comes down to it, its about revenge. Just the thought that we could kill someone out of revenge, no matter what they did, makes me sick to my stomach, and I for one, do not want to have that kind of blood on my hands. I do not condone the death penalty in any way, shape, or form, and never will. It never provides any closure and it never solves any problems.

[SSYLC]

That doesnt stop people who murder, but isn't the state supposed to be above that and be a bit more mature than that? One ill turn does not deserve another. If we execute people, we may as well have committed the first murder ourselves, especially because it is out of revenge.

But my example is exactly that, an eye for an eye. You take this person away from us, we put you in prison, away from everyone you know.

Prison is taking away peoples freedoms. You can cover it up all you want by saying it is just and its a good deterrent and that stuff, but when it comes down to it, its about revenge.

[Juice]

But my example is exactly that, an eye for an eye. You take this person away from us, we put you in prison, away from everyone you know.

Prison is taking away peoples freedoms. You can cover it up all you want by saying it is just and its a good deterrent and that stuff, but when it comes down to it, its about revenge.

Sure, but thats the rule of society. You break the law, you give up your freedom. Thats how a society works. We don't just go killing off people because they break the law (sorry if that sounds insensitive, I dont mean to). The Death PEnalty leaves no room for rehabilitation or human error. What happens then if we execute an innocent person? Do we just smile and say Oops? Do we call is collateral damage? Do we justify it by saying "So one innocent person went down in a sea of guilty people, it's all for a greater good in the end?" How would we reconcile with that? You cant give back time, but at least if someone is in jail who is innocent you can give them their life back. Once they are dead, they are dead, and theres no turning back once that needle is in their arm.

[SSYLC]

Hmmm. Well said.

[Juice]

So your saying I am equal to the cowardly terrorists who have beheaded two kidnapped civilians? Or equal to a certain Toronto man who likes to rape and kill little girls? Sorry, I find that statement wrong and a little offensive. No offence to you of course, but not everyone is equal, we are when we all start out, but it all goes either uphill or downhill from there.

Well, I am going to say that yes, you, and I, and everyone else is equal. Even if they commit horrendous acts like beheading a civilian. Under the law, everyone is equal. If you want to have a personal opinion that they arent equal then fine, more power to you, I may even agree with you, but the fact remains, under the law, EVERYONE is equal, no matter what they did. This is not a personal issue, this is a matter of law. If we let our personal feelings get in the way of justice, how much more blood would be spilt?

[DVessey]

The death penalty is not a punishment, its a way of getting rid of people who, going to jail for murder and other very serious crimes, will contribute nothing to society and function simply as a drain on valuable resouces as they live out their days at our expense. Of course it isnt meant as a punishment, you kill someone, therefore you spend your life in jail. Why not just get rid of them now and save us (and them) the trouble. Harsh, but true. If your little girl got raped and murdered, would you want to see the guy out on the streets after 10 years in prison (thats the minimum you wait for parole after a life sentance)? No, I would want him to be given the death penalty, and I personally would be there to watch.

Ok, I want to (hopefully) put this whole "drain on society" argument to rest. At the moment, no, I do not have anything to back me up other than memories of debates we had in class.
Incarcerating someone for life costs LESS than it does to go through all the appeals and whatnot to put someone to death. So putting them to death is MORE of a drain on society than it is to lock them up for life.

[Juice]

Ok, I want to (hopefully) put this whole "drain on society" argument to rest. At the moment, no, I do not have anything to back me up other than memories of debates we had in class.
Incarcerating someone for life costs LESS than it does to go through all the appeals and whatnot to put someone to death. So putting them to death is MORE of a drain on society than it is to lock them up for life.

I'll back you up a bit (I hope I'm not wrong :o ) Look at how long Timothy McVeigh (or however you spell his name) was in jail before he was executed. And he wasnt just in jail, he was also going through appeal after appeal in order to try and save himself (or at least I believe), so not only was he in jail that whole time, he was going through many different trials, which cost a TON of money. So Dave, I totally agree with your point that capital punishment, on the whole, costs more than incarceration.

[Lil Lightnin]

You shouldn't put a dollar sign on justice under any circumstances.

[Juice]

You shouldn't put a dollar sign on justice under any circumstances.

But where do you draw the line with justice? Justice is necessary, but so is mercy. We are supposed to be civilized, and killing out of revenge is not a civilized action. To me, the death penalty would be a step in the wrong direction towards barbarism.

[Lil Lightnin]

They were talking about the financial implications associated with executing someone. Whether or not someone is convicted of murder should not be determined by the amount it will cost to punish them.

Social implications are a completely different matter...

[Juice]

They were talking about the financial implications associated with executing someone. Whether or not someone is convicted of murder should not be determined by the amount it will cost to punish them.

Social implications are a completely different matter...

We were not in any way referring to that at all. I can't account for what Vessey said, but I never said or meant to imply that whether or not someone is convicted of murder should be determined by the cost it would be to punish them. I meant that for people who say it is cheaper to execute than incarcerate you are mistaken. if you commit a crime you should be convicted for it, but that does not mean that you should be put to death.

[DVessey]

They were talking about the financial implications associated with executing someone. Whether or not someone is convicted of murder should not be determined by the amount it will cost to punish them.

Social implications are a completely different matter...
That was in no way what I was trying to say.

Just to clarify, I think both sides are in agreement that the argument: "It costs more to keep a person in jail for life than to execute them" is:
1) Wrong
2) Moot, since "you can't put a price on justice"

So now that that's put to rest... how about that death penalty? :D

[Ching]

I think we've gotten to that magical point in the debate where nobody is bringing anything new into the debate, and everyone is getting upset about it. :rolleyes:
I don't think it's right to say that a (convicted) murderer gives up his right to life, because:
He's still a human being. Under the constitution, all human beings have the right to life. Saying that is like saying "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS".
"An eye for an eye" is a biblical quote. A much more straightforward and non metaphorical Biblical quote you all might be familiar with is "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Yes, the murderer didn't obey that commandment, but if a child rapist/murderer jumped off a bridge, would you? If you're into the whole following the Bible thing, you should know that the punishment for breaking the commandments is up to Him. Incarceration is more about getting these criminals away from the public so that they can't do any more harm to society.

[Juice]

I think we've gotten to that magical point in the debate where nobody is bringing anything new into the debate, and everyone is getting upset about it. :rolleyes:
I don't think it's right to say that a (convicted) murderer gives up his right to life, because:
He's still a human being. Under the constitution, all human beings have the right to life. Saying that is like saying "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS".
"An eye for an eye" is a biblical quote. A much more straightforward and non metaphorical Biblical quote you all might be familiar with is "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Yes, the murderer didn't obey that commandment, but if a child rapist/murderer jumped off a bridge, would you? If you're into the whole following the Bible thing, you should know that the punishment for breaking the commandments is up to Him. Incarceration is more about getting these criminals away from the public so that they can't do any more harm to society.

Very good point. :D

[Lil Lightnin]

I think we've gotten to that magical point in the debate where nobody is bringing anything new into the debate, and everyone is getting upset about it. :rolleyes:

I like how after you said that you wrote another paragraph on what you've been saying the whole time ;)

[Juice]

I like how after you said that you wrote another paragraph on what you've been saying the whole time ;)

Meh, it's all good. I think we all have emphasized our points really heavily throughout this thread. :D ;) I for one have had a ton of fun debating this topic. It's nice to see that there are people who think about these complex issues, because the world seems to be becoming more and more close-minded to issues such as this.

[Ching]

I like how after you said that you wrote another paragraph on what you've been saying the whole time ;)
It wasn't exactly the same. :p
And anyway, I was summing it up. ;)

[DVessey]

So I guess we all agree to disagree then?

Wow.. what a way for a debate to end. usually things like this get locked.. jeez, way to mature guys :p

Despite what my own personal opinion is (that the death penalty is ethically and morally wrong), I think that for a government to create/change policy on this would be to put it to a national referendum. Everyone's views on this are different, and whether or not everyone else who supports the death penalty is wrong {!} everyone has a right to their own opinion.

[Juice]

So I guess we all agree to disagree then?

Wow.. what a way for a debate to end. usually things like this get locked.. jeez, way to mature guys :p

Despite what my own personal opinion is (that the death penalty is ethically and morally wrong), I think that for a government to create/change policy on this would be to put it to a national referendum. Everyone's views on this are different, and whether or not everyone else who supports the death penalty is wrong {!} everyone has a right to their own opinion.

Thats about the best idea I have heard so far. Referendum would a good idea for something like this, because it would affect everyone in the country to a certain degree. I know we elect officials to make decisions for us and to represent us, but on an issue as sensitive as this, it should be decided by the whole country, not the 100 or so officials(if I got the number wrong, which I probably did, I dont care, you get the point :p ) that represent us in Ottawa.

[Lil Lightnin]

Wow.. what a way for a debate to end. usually things like this get locked.. jeez, way to mature guys :p

Lets break for lunch...

[Wood]

Thats about the best idea I have heard so far. Referendum would a good idea for something like this, because it would affect everyone in the country to a certain degree. I know we elect officials to make decisions for us and to represent us, but on an issue as sensitive as this, it should be decided by the whole country, not the 100 or so officials(if I got the number wrong, which I probably did, I dont care, you get the point :p ) that represent us in Ottawa.

I disagree. There should be no referendum. We have a constitution for a reason, so that minorities are not subject to the tyranny of the majority and so that there is a voice of reason in troubled times. The nations voice on this issue could be temperarily shifted based upon any current event, a decision that could be later regretted.

There is an amendment formula for the constitution, raise popular support to take away the people's right to life and right not to be treated cruely and unusually and then you can do whatever you want.

[Juice]

I disagree. There should be no referendum. We have a constitution for a reason, so that minorities are not subject to the tyranny of the majority and so that there is a voice of reason in troubled times. The nations voice on this issue could be temperarily shifted based upon any current event, a decision that could be later regretted.

There is an amendment formula for the constitution, raise popular support to take away the people's right to life and right not to be treated cruely and unusually and then you can do whatever you want.

Whoa, hold on a minute! I was in no way supporting the death penalty OR the option of taking away people's right to life! Have you read any of my previous posts at all? I was just saying that perhaps leaving the decision for an issue such as this wouldnt be good to be rested on the shoulders of our 100 or whatever number of MP's that we have, thats it. It does not change my stance on capital punishment. I feel it is wrong and was out of date long before it was abolished.

[Wood]

Whoa, hold on a minute! I was in no way supporting the death penalty OR the option of taking away people's right to life! Have you read any of my previous posts at all? I was just saying that perhaps leaving the decision for an issue such as this wouldnt be good to be rested on the shoulders of our 100 or whatever number of MP's that we have, thats it. It does not change my stance on capital punishment. I feel it is wrong and was out of date long before it was abolished.

I know your position on the Death Penalty. However, I strongly disagree with the idea that a referendum is more significant than the constitution. And that's what I take from advocating a referendum on the issue. If you start with that what's next, the rights of homosexuals and then the rights of immigrants and it keeps on going.

I don't think the issue is on the 300 or so representatives we have in Ottawa, its in the court of nine officials with the Charter open in front of them.

[Juice]

I know your position on the Death Penalty. However, I strongly disagree with the idea that a referendum is more significant than the constitution. And that's what I take from advocating a referendum on the issue. If you start with that what's next, the rights of homosexuals and then the rights of immigrants and it keeps on going.

I don't think the issue is on the 300 or so representatives we have in Ottawa, its in the court of nine officials with the Charter open in front of them.

Well then how about we just leave things as they are? Our system seems to be working just fine the way it is. Screw the referendum and screw changing the constitution amendments, just be glad with the way our country is, because it really isnt in that bad of shape that we would need the death penalty to control things anyways.

[Wood]

Sounds good to me.

[Juice]

Sounds good to me.

Beautiful. I love happy endings! :D

[Scoopable]

Without reading much of what others have said, I am going to put my two cents into it.

Many people find the act of killing someone, rather barbaric, giving a killer the death penalty is on the same lines. As well you have to look at the consequences, if the man who was given the death penalty and killed, was found to be innocent, you possibly ruin the lives of the jury who sentenced him, they will feel responsible for this persons death. The person who is innocent and dies on death row, will most likely have one of the hardest few years of their life ahead of them, to sit there, definitely knowing you did not do anyone harm, and your being put to death by the system that was put in place to protect you. The person who gives the lethal injection, or whatever they use to kill the person, will probably be affected knowing they directly killed an innocent person.

If you ask me, putting someone to death, is to risky, just one innocent person being put to death is worse then 100 crinimals being put to death.

[Juice]

Without reading much of what others have said, I am going to put my two cents into it.

Many people find the act of killing someone, rather barbaric, giving a killer the death penalty is on the same lines. As well you have to look at the consequences, if the man who was given the death penalty and killed, was found to be innocent, you possibly ruin the lives of the jury who sentenced him, they will feel responsible for this persons death. The person who is innocent and dies on death row, will most likely have one of the hardest few years of their life ahead of them, to sit there, definitely knowing you did not do anyone harm, and your being put to death by the system that was put in place to protect you. The person who gives the lethal injection, or whatever they use to kill the person, will probably be affected knowing they directly killed an innocent person.

If you ask me, putting someone to death, is to risky, just one innocent person being put to death is worse then 100 crinimals being put to death.

yep, thats basically what I have been saying all along. :D

[Scoopable]

yep, thats basically what I have been saying all along. :D
I am glad someone agrees lol...