Quebec Tory Senator: Give murderers rope for their cells

[buck13]

I am more than ok with this idea. I think that the Canadian prison system has moved away from the three pronged approach prison was originally intended to have. Prison is meant to a) be a bad place to be for the individual, b) keep individuals out of general society and, c) be a place where people can undergo some form of rehabilitation. I think that Canadian prisons are seriously dropping the ball with regards to prison being a terrible place which people desperately want to avoid. Maybe this would help. It's brutal but it might act as a scared straight kind of tactic.

 

[captloadie]

I think that prison should be a punishment first, with rehabilitation being offered to those individuals who it is likely to do good. I don't agree with the Senator, because this isn't capital punishment, it is letting a criminal get away with his crimes without paying his debt to society. We don't give criminals the option of where and when they go to jail (normally), nor should we give them control on when or how or if they die. My personal opinion is that prison, for the most heinous of criminals, should be like Dante's inferno.

As for the DP, I'm on the fence. I don't believe it is much of a deterant for the worst of offenders: the serial killers, the psychopaths, the drug induced crazies. Therefore, its real purpose is either a means of punishment, or to stop recidivism. For the first, as stated above, I think death is too good for them. For the second, I'd have to be convinced that there have been significantly more victims killed by repeat offenders than there have been innocent people wrongly accused.   

 

[armyvern]

Yes, DNA is awesome.  I'd agree.  I just don't know that our justice system is absolutely 100% reliable in every case as it would need to be before we justify killing someone.  How was the DNA obtained? Where was it obtained?  Was it transferred inadvertently?  Was it mixed up in a lab? Was someone set up by a cop convinced of a persons guilt but unable to prove it?  I could post dozens of links like :

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Error-prone-death-penalty-system-ensnares-innocent-1582882.php

In the end, we all want vengeance and we all abhor the idea of paying a bunch of bastards like the Shafia's (who really should be deported), but civilized societies rarely choose to place enough authority in the state to kill its own citizens.  Thank god for that.

In my original post, I also say who/circumstances I'd be OK with bringing the DP back for. You should read it.

Wow. You certainly make it seem like police officers "setting up" people is the normal and is to be expected. That's so far gone that I won't even bother to address it suffice to say, if that were normal, why are there thousands of "cold & unsolved" cases to our Southern border when those 'corrupt' /'set-up the boys we don't like in our little backwoods-town as a habit' police could have just done so? Because it isn't normal. It's extremely, extremely rare. BTW, your questions are usually asked of every jury by the defense having the prosecution show the chain of custody etc.

Yes, you probably could post dozens of links anti-DP up there. And for every one of those links, I could link you to a pro-DP site or to a serial killer or child sexual predator profile site where innocents/kids ended up dead because "civilized society" didn't deal with "possibly-innocent (my ass)" murderer the first time around.

I do NOT relish vengeance. I relish justice for real victims (not criminals) and deterrence for the worst of the worst who pray upon our helpless and there is a big difference between the two. I am far from "uncivilized". I am actually quite the average Canadian and the are many more out there who think just like me!! Thank god.

Oh yes, civilized people can and do advocate killing our own "citizens", our opposite viewpoint from yours does NOT make us uncivilized. While we are on that word "citizen", I'd like to state that I am also of the opinion that these now-society-coddled criminals once again lose their right to vote while behind bars.

 

[lethalLemon]

Yes, DNA is awesome.  I'd agree.  I just don't know that our justice system is absolutely 100% reliable in every case as it would need to be before we justify killing someone.  How was the DNA obtained? Where was it obtained?  Was it transferred inadvertently?  Was it mixed up in a lab? Was someone set up by a cop convinced of a persons guilt but unable to prove it?  I could post dozens of links like :

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Error-prone-death-penalty-system-ensnares-innocent-1582882.php

In the end, we all want vengeance and we all abhor the idea of paying a bunch of bastards like the Shafia's (who really should be deported), but civilized societies rarely choose to place enough authority in the state to kill its own citizens.  Thank god for that.

Except if they were to be deported, they've be welcomed back as heroes and would live magnanimous life with servants and whatnot - because "honour killings" are a culturally excepted practice in their homeland. They deserve to rot in our prison, not to go back home.

 

[jollyjacktar]

They deserve to rot in our prison, not to go back home.

Nope. Dirtnap.

 

[exabedtech]

Except if they were to be deported, they've be welcomed back as heroes and would live magnanimous life with servants and whatnot - because "honour killings" are a culturally excepted practice in their homeland. They deserve to rot in our prison, not to go back home.

Read an article about deporting them... says they need to serve out there sentence here first  :nod: 

In my original post, I also say who/circumstances I'd be OK with bringing the DP back for. You should read it.

Wow. You certainly make it seem like police officers "setting up" people is the normal and is to be expected. That's so far gone that I won't even bother to address it suffice to say, if that were normal, why are there thousands of "cold & unsolved" cases to our Southern border when those 'corrupt' /'set-up the boys we don't like in our little backwoods-town as a habit' police could have just done so? Because it isn't normal. It's extremely, extremely rare. BTW, your questions are usually asked of every jury by the defense having the prosecution show the chain of custody etc.

Yes, you probably could post dozens of links anti-DP up there. And for every one of those links, I could link you to a pro-DP site or to a serial killer or child sexual predator profile site where innocents/kids ended up dead because "civilized society" didn't deal with "possibly-innocent (my ***)" murderer the first time around.

I do NOT relish vengeance. I relish justice for real victims (not criminals) and deterrence for the worst of the worst who pray upon our helpless and there is a big difference between the two. I am far from "uncivilized". I am actually quite the average Canadian and the are many more out there who think just like me!! Thank god.

Oh yes, civilized people can and do advocate killing our own "citizens", our opposite viewpoint from yours does NOT make us uncivilized. While we are on that word "citizen", I'd like to state that I am also of the opinion that these now-society-coddled criminals once again lose their right to vote while behind bars.

Never suggested for a moment that screw ups are the norm.  Only that they can and do occur.  I'm ok with a death penalty where we are 100% accurate each and every time.  You seem to be ok with one where we are accurate most of the time.  That's the difference.  If the system were infallible, there would be no such thing as innocent persons be found no guilty years later.  It isn't infallible.
As for the 'deterrence' factor.  There isn't one.  Death penalty states in the US do not enjoy lower rates of violent crime compared to non-death penalty states.  It really is simply vengence and like I say, i'm fine with that as long as the system is 100% perfect.
I'd imagine most of us in this forum either are or have worked for the government.  Any out there agree that the government is completely infallible?  Didn't think so.

 

[armyvern]

Read an article about deporting them... says they need to serve out there sentence here first  :nod: 
Never suggested for a moment that screw ups are the norm.  Only that they can and do occur.  I'm ok with a death penalty where we are 100% accurate each and every time.  You seem to be ok with one where we are accurate most of the time.  That's the difference.  If the system were infallible, there would be no such thing as innocent persons be found no guilty years later.  It isn't infallible.
As for the 'deterrence' factor.  There isn't one.  Death penalty states in the US do not enjoy lower rates of violent crime compared to non-death penalty states.  It really is simply vengence and like I say, i'm fine with that as long as the system is 100% perfect.
I'd imagine most of us in this forum either are or have worked for the government.  Any out there agree that the government is completely infallible?  Didn't think so.

No. I'm not "OK with one where we are accurate most of the time."

I am awesome with death sentences for rapist murderers of children where DNA evidence exists."

And, I'd probably be quite fine with DP for any other murderous types where DNA also existed if the trail / Chain of Custody was shown to be sound during the trial.

I'm a huge advocate of DNA evidence. So no, I'd not go for a sentence of the DP (rather LWOP) for a child rapist-murderer if no DNA proof existed, but would till be fine with that guy sitting in jail for life. DNA exists?? Let 'em swing.

And, there's craploads of those boys where DNA exists proving they did these heinous crimes ... still out there breathing our oxygen. You may be OK with that; I am not ... especially when Life doesn't mean life.


Meanwhile, just found out that Loren Herzog (another convicted serial killer released because he didn't get the DP) ended up committing suicide at his home past fall. By hanging himself. What a shame; guess he didn't like the fact that his accomplice (Shermantine, who did get the DP) was giving up the location of the remains of his unfound victims.

Then, of course, we got boys like Westley Allan Dodd who'll flat out tell you that the only way to stop them is death. Really? Come on over then and allow us to oblige you.

In short, that's what the myriad of appeals process' are for; the way you seem to hold is that even after all that DNA (which must be there for a DP I'd support), trial and appeals, that "far too many innocent convicts" make it through to the DP being carried out.

Well, for me, every single murder victim was innocent and had their DP carried out by their killer without the right of evidence/appeal after appeal ... so I guess it all works out in the end.

Call me vindictive if you must, but I cashed my reality check years ago.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Death penalty states in the US do not enjoy lower rates of violent crime compared to non-death penalty states. 

For every murder put to death there are untold victims who live.
For every meal they eat is one less meal for the homeless sick and ill.

 

[OldSolduer]

For every murder put to death there are untold victims who live.
For every meal they eat is one less meal for the homeless sick and ill.

Well said.

To add, out here we have what we would term a "colourful" Member of Parliament who loves to Tweet obscenities about Conservatives and their mis steps. Pat Martin is his name.

Pat Martin objected to the opening of a teen drop in centre in the downtown core run by a Christian organization on the basis that the Christians would try to convert or recruit teens to their cause. I wanted to ask him, maybe the Hells Angels could open a club house there instead? Or Islamic Jihad more to your liking Pat?

Pat is a douche.

 

[Danjanou]

Except if they were to be deported, they've be welcomed back as heroes and would live magnanimous life with servants and whatnot - because "honour killings" are a culturally excepted practice in their homeland. They deserve to rot in our prison, not to go back home.

We do have weekly flights to their home country, and nobody said anything about the plane actually landing before they..... ahem got off it. >

 

[ballz]

On the death penalty / DNA evidence:

I remember well a post made by TV a while back about the death penalty for heinous crimes and hanging. I was and still am sold by it.

When it comes to DNA evidence being the required proof, I remember reading an article about lawyers talking about the "CSI-factor" they are witnessing in courtrooms. A jury is told the victim had the accused semen or blood on them, and now they are all convinced he must be guilty because DNA evidence must be bulletproof. I would be a bit worried about that. I'm especially sketchy on rape, because semen in a woman's vagina =/= rape, and there are some pretty sketchy cases that use DNA to evidence to prove that victim/accused definitely had sex... but all speculation/witnesses/circumstances to prove it was rape. The same goes with murder... DNA is often used to prove the accused was there "at some point" (like the accused's hair was found on the victim's clothes) etc.

Which brings me to the heinous criminal thing... A lot of these are slam dunks, even without any DNA evidence... Is there any DNA evidence involved in the case of Anders Behring Breivik? The Columbine shooters? Virginia Tech? Could we put him/them to death under this "DNA clause?" So these completely heinous, slam dunk cases, in which I think the convicted should definitely be put to death, they probably wouldn't be if it required DNA evidence. Some sketchy, one-time rape/murder case, could potentially put an innocent person to death based on DNA evidence.

So I will say there should be multiple victims or crimes involved (making it fairly more heinous). Because getting falsely convicted of one murder or rape, it's possible, statistically improbable, but possible.... But getting falsely convicted of 2 or 3? or 10? Statistically impossible*

*not literally impossible... but I mean much less than .0001% chance of a false conviction.... I could live with putting people to death at those kinda of odds.

 

[aesop081]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/02/03/boisvenu-death-penalty-complaint.html

A Quebec man has filed a criminal complaint against Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu for a comment he believes could incite suicide.

The complaint comes after the Conservative senator said this week that he was against the death penalty, but not opposed to ropes being left in the cells of serial killers who have no chance of rehabilitation. He said they should have the option of taking their own life.

The senator later apologized for the comment.

Jacques McBrearty, a Saguenay resident, said he was disturbed by Boisvenu’s remarks and decided to file a complaint with provincial police.

“I was quite shocked and upset about the way he talked about the people in jail,” McBrearty said.

“If I don’t [file a complaint], who will? I’m the kind of guy that if something needs to be done, I do it myself.”

Under the Canadian Criminal Code, it is an offence to counsel, assist or encourage anyone to commit suicide.

McBrearty said he has struggled with depression himself and said the senator’s comments were inappropriate. He said the point of the criminal system in Canada is justice, not vengeance.

They’re still human beings and the way that the future generations will judge us is the way that we treat the lowest of us,” he said.

McBrearty filed the complaint with the provincial police Thursday.

The Sûreté du Québec confirmed Friday they had received a complaint. A spokesperson said it would likely be forwarded to the RCMP since Boisvenu lives and works in Ottawa.

On Thursday, Boisvenu said he’s received significant support for his comments and that he was simply expressing an opinion many Canadians hold.

Boisvenu, whose daughter was murdered in 2002, said he does believe in rehabilitation.

McBrearty said the senator's apology doesn’t go far enough.

“I hope he will understand that what he did was wrong,” he said.

“Hearing what I heard since this morning and last night, that’s far from done yet.”

 

[GAP]

I'll bet the Libs or Dippers had to work hard to find someone.....

 

[aesop081]

I'll bet the Libs or Dippers had to work hard to find someone.....

Nah....i point the finger at the CBC..........

 

[OldSolduer]

I feel artisitic today, time for a demotivational saying, and hoping one of you can turn this into a poster:

"The CBC - undermining the criminal justice system for 40 years!"

 

[Robert0288]

kind of like that other thread. Here's one for you that may need condensing.

CBC - government news agency suing the government to keep it's budget a secret from the people.

 

[exabedtech]

Defining who should and who shouldn't receive the death penalty is easy if I simply ask "Should Bernardo get the death penalty".  I'd love the opportunity to shoot him, and i'm sure i'd have to take a number if the opportunity arose.

Of course that isn't the way it works.  We would have to define the parameters in legislation and then apply those parameters to the individual case.  At that point,  things get murkier.  After a while it may be tempting to change the parameters a bit after a high profile sadistic murderer escapes this penalty since his particular case does not, for whatever reason apply.  In any case, what exactly should those parameters be?  DNA found at the scene that matches?  I'm in and out of different homes all the time.  i'd have to work in a hazmat suit from now on to avoid leaving a hair in a home where someone may be murdered in the future.

I really am a big fan of DNA evidence, but then again, what does it really prove?  It proves a person's DNA made it to the scene where it was found.  It doesn't say when or how it managed to get there.  A few years ago, I had to change a tire on a country road near St Albert AB.  As it turns out, A military mechanic had dumped his wife's body within 50m of where i'd pulled over just the day before. She wasn't found until he led police to her some while later on, but I easily could have left DNA evidence as well as evidence of having pulled over in a truck at that very scene.

It is an extremely rare event for an innocent man to be convicted of a capital crime, but it does happen and still happens.  Imagine your own child being wrongfully put to death over a set of bizarre coincidences.  When debating the death penalty, you cannot consider the criminals we already know about, you can only consider the set of criteria under which you would judge defendants in the future.

 

[brihard]

Defining who should and who shouldn't receive the death penalty is easy if I simply ask "Should Bernardo get the death penalty".  I'd love the opportunity to shoot him, and i'm sure i'd have to take a number if the opportunity arose.

Of course that isn't the way it works.  We would have to define the parameters in legislation and then apply those parameters to the individual case.  At that point,  things get murkier.  After a while it may be tempting to change the parameters a bit after a high profile sadistic murderer escapes this penalty since his particular case does not, for whatever reason apply.  In any case, what exactly should those parameters be?  DNA found at the scene that matches?  I'm in and out of different homes all the time.  i'd have to work in a hazmat suit from now on to avoid leaving a hair in home where someone may be murdered in the future.

I really am a big fan of DNA evidence, but then again, what does it really prove?  It proves a person's DNA made it to the scene where it was found.  It doesn't say when or how it managed to get there.  A few years ago, I had to change a tire on a country road near St Albert AB.  As it turns out, A military mechanic had dumped his wife's body within 50m of where i'd pulled over just the day before. She wasn't found until he led police to her some while later on, but I easily could have left DNA evidence as well as evidence of having pulled over in a truck at that very scene.

It is an extremely rare event for an innocent man to be convicted of a capital crime, but it does happen and still happens.  Imagine your own child being wrongfully put to death over a set of bizarre coincidences.  When debating the death penalty, you cannot consider the criminals we already know about, you can only consider the set of criteria under which you would judge defendants in the future.

The Innocence Project in the U.S. has achieved something like 200 exonerations of individuals who had already been convicted and sentenced to death.

I have no *philosophical* objection to capital punishment. Many do not deserve to live. But I simply do not trust the state to be competent to do this one most irreversible thing. The state is just too fallible to chance it. And besides that, it's more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life, when all is said and done.

I've always found it odd that many of those who are in favour of capital punishment are disproportionately opposed to and skeptical of state authority in other matters. Doe snot computer to me. We can't un-kill someone...

We sure as hell need a real life without parole though. Go to jail and stay there til you die.

 

[Robert0288]

back to original topic

Go to jail and stay there til you die.

Then what about giving the person in jail the ability to say when provided there are steps and mandated wait times to ensure it wasn't a rash decision?

 

[Container]

The reliability of DNA and fingerprint evidence, when weighed objectively, is so dependable- it cannot be reasonably objected to- the standards are much higher than the United STates and their statistics have no place in our discussion- our DNA standard is thousands of time more reliable.

I would have no problem with death sentences in those cases.

Where the evidence isnt as cut and dry sure life in prison.