|
Death Penalty (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
ah, I like your posts ;) I understand what you're saying about his argument...
what I meant by refuting your analogy of pets (or people) being ill (physically or mentally) is this: A criminal is in prison (or sentenced to death) for their ACTIONS. Terminal illness, physical or otherwise (without getting too specific), generally does not occur as the result of one's illegal actions. Believe me...I'm just as conscious of mental illness as I am of physical illness...I have a degree in pschology after all, lol.
I also wasn't specific enough when I said "clearly absurd" with reference to execution being "better" vs. life in prison...I meant that it is absurd from society's standpoint, not the criminal in question. I find it absurd because it's more costly, not a deterrent, etc. etc. to execute vs. incarcerate. To achieve no measurably "better" situation for society, yet spend more, strikes me as absurd.
I think we're not far apart on our opinions...I agree that it doesn't follow that a terminally ill patiend OUGHT to be euthanized, but I support their right to choose...just as I support the criminal's right to choose their fate, if faced with life in prison with no parole vs. death penalty. I don't support the death penalty on it's own though. This way, the public motive for "revenge" is removed from the equation...it's the revenge facet of the capital punishment argument that supporters often refust to admit, and the facet that most bothers me when we should be a more "civilized" society, as a whole. |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut Honestly buddy what the are you smoking? How can you logically say that anyone with a strong opinion is really just asking for an opinion to be given to them?
What's "right" and "wrong" is defined by our federal Criminal Code. The "wrong" things are called crime. The sentences for those crimes are COMPLETELY independent of whether or not those acts are defined as "wrong" or not. The ONLY logical conclusion to your reasoning is that we should not have a criminal code at all.
Some places do this. Mostly in 3rd-world countries. In these places, there is no formal sentence, but the victim's family is allowed to take "revenge", or the convict can willingly go to a safe haven with other convicts to take refuge. In most of the developed world this is considered a generally nutty, barbaric practice. It's even worse than the death penalty because an ordinary citizen is granted the right to kill.
You've brought up absolutely no factual points in your argument, just a macaronic mix of prejudicial language, moral relativism and just plain old moralizing. If you want to say, "I don't support the death penalty because I think it's morally wrong", that's fine, but don't try to shove your personal feelings down other people's throats.
As for wrongful convictions, you're flogging the same dead horse that people in this debate have already identified. We aren't talking about run-of-the-mill trials here, we're talking about dangerous offenders, where the conviction process is far more stringent.
The "database" you posted lists 58 cases of people wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. The important things to note are:
- These people weren't actually executed, since the author himself states that a formal pardon or release is part of the criteria.
- The case list dates as far back as 1820, and only a small minority of cases are dated later than the mid-20th century. Forensic science was practically nonexistent back then, especially in areas like DNA.
- MANY of the cases, if you bother to actually read them, involve dirty cops - and in this case I think we're severely neglecting the real problem here.
All in all you've posted not much more than a lot of rhetoric with one very weak piece of factual evidence, gathered mostly from books written before 1960. |
OMG
Firstly buddy! aside from your WTF are u smoking insult (which is in very poor taste), my argument is based on facts and precedent legal/lobbyist arguments.
How interesting that you could say what I wrote was "not a coherent argument for that political platform" when it was the exact argument used by the likes of Greenspan and other great lawyers/politicians like Sir James Renwick of whom I've had the pleasure of meeting.
Frankly, unless your a lawyer or active in the system, I highly doubt that (as you put it) you have any logical argument to constitute or warrant a consideration of your strong opinion. There are many precedent cases that I could cite but I'm bound by ban of publication to discuss details that could quash your arguments.
BTW, I do believe in a criminal code. However, those of us that know the system know that the CCC has many flows. Both in written and in practice...
But the real issues against the DP is human rights! Reinstatement will effect us all, or do u think yourself safe from a wrong conviction? And how do we know that the government will introduce laws that are just and contain sufficient safeguards; and will the judiciary administer them properly? We don't know and that's the problem.
We are all potentially capable of murder (a lot of domestic murders, where one partner murders the other during a row, are first time crimes) and therefore we must each consider whether we and our loved ones are more at risk of being murdered or being executed for committing murder.
We must also consider what the likelihood is of innocent people being executed - it is inevitable that it will happen.
Can the police, the courts and the system generally, be trusted to get things right on every occasion? They never have been able to previously.
-Will juries be willing to convict in capital cases?
-Will the government really be willing to carry out death sentences or will they find every excuse for not doing so thus returning to the injustices of earlier centuries?
-Will executions really prove to be the deterrent that the supporters of capital punishment expect them to be? This is a very important point as it is always put forward by the pro-capital punishment lobby as the principal benefit from re-introduction. It is unlikely the very worst murderers would be deterred because they are typically psychopaths or of such dubious sanity that they are incapable of rational behaviour (often taking their own lives immediately after the crime as in the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres) Certain criminals e.g. drug traffickers may be deterred because they have a clear option with defined risks but would the person who has a violent argument with their parents give a second thought to what will happen to them when in the heat of the moment they pick up the carving knife?
It is unlikely that a handful of executions a year will have any real deterrent effect particularly on the people whom society would most like to be deterred, e.g. serial killers, multiple rapists and drugs barons. Yet these particular criminals are the least likely to be executed, the serial killers will be found insane and the drug barons will use any means to avoid conviction e.g. intimidation of witnesses. So we go back to the situation where only "sane" murderers can be executed. Thus a modern day Ruth Ellis would hang because she was sane whilst Beverley Allitt, who murdered four small children, would be reprieved after because she has Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, or so she and certain psychiatrists claim.
As for shoving your personal feeling....hmmm isn't that what you and some others here are doing. Honestly, how would you interpret "cut off their hands" or "Bring the death penalty back..."
And About dangerous offenders...I suppose you think that all those I mentioned who were unjustly convicted like GP Morin weren't considered to be dangerous offendors at the time. I think people like you who misinterpret what I wrote are the least qualified to discuss the DP, especially know that I know your not in the system or can give solid and structured arguments based on good foundations. So unless you can cite Regina v. "whoever" at this thread, your issue against what I've said is moot.
As to the database....do you actually think that someone will have a webpage discussing those that were innocently executed to death? Really, that's a really naive way of thinking...espec. cuz I know CSIS would come bursting thru the doors to shut em down.
NOTHING THAT I'VE WRITTEN HERE HAS COME FROM ANY BOOK OF THE 1960'S. THEY ARE ALL RECENT ARGUMENTS. DO THE HOMEWORK.
If I were you I would listen to MarkT, he's got a good and equitable head on his shoulder.
P |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
Morgan Freeman's line from The Big Bounce -- "God is an imaginary friend for grownups" :stongue: :haha:
Do you really believe that God decides who dies and who doesnt? Come on...:rolleyes: |
Nope I really don't believe that God decides. But presumably many do. So I have had to learn to respect that thought. Or we'll risk being ostracized for vocalizing that we're athiests. |
|
|
| Carney |
| quote: |
Moving on:
If your assumption is that they're going to die in jail anyway, what then is your basis for being against the death penalty? Frankly I think an execution is far more "humane" than tossing someone away to rot in a jail cell for the rest of their life.[/COLOR]
|
Then why the would you wanna spend more money on those peices of .... Who gives a flying about being humane |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Carney
Then why the would you wanna spend more money on those peices of .... Who gives a flying about being humane |
The basis for being against the death penalty is...that most dangerous criminals are the least likely to be executed, the serial killers will be found insane and the drug barons will use any means to avoid conviction. Only the sane criminals will be executed.
So basically if you don't wanna spend the money then what you really want is to threw out our human rights and our current criminal code....are you sure you want to open that pandora box?
I can see it now...your an eighteen year old girl or boy and you've just been convicted of drug trafficking and have been sentenced to death because you have no human rights (such was the case in Singapore where they hanged two girls for this crime in 1995 who were both only eighteen at the time of their offences and what about China that shot an 18 year old girl for the same offence in 1998.)
WTF...have you really given real thought to the consequences of our human rights being abolished. Don't you know it's that same law that allows you to speak your mind at this TA thread.
Do you really wanna open that box now?
Imprisonment, whilst expensive and largely pointless, except as means of removing criminals from society for a given period, is at least enforceable upon anyone who commits murder (over the age of ten years). However it appears to many people to be a soft option and this perception needs to be corrected. Because it isn't soft.
I think ideally to make everyone happy, perhaps sending criminals off to a penal colony may be the only solution that has some form of humanity attached to it. Only the fittest will survive there.
P |
|
|
| crazyadas |
| My question to you guys and girls is? Why isn't there a death penalty in Canada? Why Not? Look at Karla Homolka, the loser is getting out in 7 months, can u believe that, a confessed murderer who can reek havoc on society is going to be able to breath, watch tv, listen to music, in the same open free air...a person like this should have been hanged a long time a go, if you guys think its in humane, then why not same that murder is inhumane, no win-win situation but it does help the justice system set an example to the whitby fellons out there...the government really needs to take into account their credibility as our government |
|
|
| crazyadas |
| As an eyeopener, drive down to Hamtramck Michigan, or whenever your going south, there is a big sign, and shows how many murders committed yearly before and after the death penalty abolishment in Michigan, pretty desimal display but it brings thoughts to the old knoggan |
|
|
| MarkT |
| that's making a HUGE supposition that the death penalty is the cause of the decline in murders ;) |
|
|
| Crazy Serb |
| I agree with George Carlin on this one... Bring back the Death Penalty and broadcast the executions middle-ages style on the 6 o'clock news! |
|
|
| crazyadas |
| in reality, it does do that. but what kind of effect will it have on the people who follow the law, no effect. well canada is still in the old european philosophy, so we really can't make a decision on our own, so i guess more murder, more free murders on the street, you cannot repay society what you have taken from society, simple as that! taking a life cannot be substituted for 10 years in prison? |
|
|
| Crazy Serb |
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
I think ideally to make everyone happy, perhaps sending criminals off to a penal colony may be the only solution that has some form of humanity attached to it. Only the fittest will survive there.
|
yeah, send them off to a freakin' moon... with a 3 hour supply of oxygen. and then show that on TV as part of some reality show... "Who will be the last criminal standing and who will be allowed back on Earth?! Tune in this Friday for a season finale!" |
|
|
| dallastar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Waxen
Who here thinks that Canada should bring back the death penalty?
Often I think they should, because lately 1/2 the crimes I'm seeing make me sick to my stomach. |
not me... to brutal~! but i think we should lock up the crazy mo fo's~! |
|
|
|
|
