The Capital Punishment Debate

[Container]

If said individuals are able to hurt another inmate or CO then that is a terrible circumstance but prisons are an inherantly dangerous place.  Inmates know this before they go and I feel its reasonable to assume that CO's know this when they accept employment.
RTG

Its not their job to get hurt. Its their job to monitor offenders and keep them safe and in jail. If they get murdered by a murderer inmate it was entirely preventable.

The CO is a productive, law abiding non murderer scum bag. His life IS worth more than the offenders. All animals are equal......some are more equal than others  ;D

 

[Container]

Oops-

Lastly there are about two dozen "dangerous offenders" with court designations and everything that are on parole right now.

It doesnt keep people in jail either.

 

[Brutus]

Its not their job to get hurt. Its their job to monitor offenders and keep them safe and in jail. If they get murdered by a murderer inmate it was entirely preventable.

But the prevention measure is admitidly extreme, and the cost/benefit has to be looked at. IMHO, it is too costly to to warrant this kind of thing. Also, it's not like executions are carried out the day after sentencing. In the States, death row inmates typically spend decades in limbo.

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that a CO is not aware prior to accepting employment that his workplace is a very dangerous place, and that violence up to and including death is possible. Of course it's a travesty whenever a CO is hurt or killed, but this is not reason on it's own to prevent it by killing all murderers. There is assumed risk here, and those that choose this career must assume it.

The CO is a productive, law abiding non murderer scum bag. His life IS worth more than the offenders. All animals are equal......some are more equal than others  ;D

We don't have the ability to place a quantitative value on a life, therefore, all life has equal value.

 

[canada94]

Hang 'em high.

In my eyes, the perfect system would include...

Murder: Death
Rape: Death
Pedophilia: Death
Theft (under $1000): 5 years
Theft (over $5000): 8 years
Drugs: 15 years
DUI: 20 years

etc.

Some may find it a bit extreme, but that's like your opinion, man.

The perfect system? Eek. By "drugs" what do you mean?. You can have 1 gram of marijuana on you and you will most likely not even receive a fine. But you should get 20 years in your system. Yet you can break into someones house steal 5000 dollars worth of material and get less?. Absurd.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The perfect system? Eek. By "drugs" what do you mean?. You can have 1 gram of marijuana on you and you will most likely not even receive a fine. But you should get 20 years in your system. Yet you can break into someones house steal 5000 dollars worth of material and get less?. Absurd.

So don't smoke Marijuana, problem solved.

Instead of having these jerks sit in prison for 10 years getting university degrees and shit we should put them to use in labour camps. Fixing roads.Helping the homeless somehow.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Don't we hand out sentences to criminals to punish them, not alleviate the grief of the family? If a habitual drunk driver kills someone, but the family forgives him, should we let him go free? No, we punish him.

The problem is that the entire prison system is based on rehabilitation.  Punishment is a severely minor element to being in jail.  Look at how hard and how much money is spent on making prisoners comfortable and happy. 

Again, back to the issue. We know it is a "slam dunk", but why? What set of legal guidelines can you put in place which can be followed in a future case?

Some of these most heinous cases have heaps of solid evidence.  Such as the degenerates video taping themselves.  As for legal guidelines, that would be as always up to a judge to decide. 

We can't exactly have a person's life sitting in the court of public opinion. That's fundamentally opposed to the purpose of the justice system.

Per se, it is only a legal system.  Justice took a big ole walk around, oh... 1982.  As for public opinion, we have more than enough examples that the judges have little or no regard for the publics opinion.  "Disdain" is the word that comes to mind for me.  There are a few decent exceptions, but judge-shopping for defense lawyers is pretty standard. 

Hang 'em high.

In my eyes, the perfect system would include...

Harsher penalties would be nice, but in reality the cost to house all those people would be stunning and unmanageable.  I'm all for the death suggestions you mentioned though.  FYI- "Rape" no longer exists in law, it's called sexual assault. 

I agree. If we argue what is moral for me vs. what is moral for you, it's a very short conversation. But I think we are talking about collective Candian moral standards here, and not mine or yours specifically.

When last I heard any polling done, I believe something to the tune of 75% of Canadians supported the death penalty.  Perhaps it is simply time to amend the Charter. 

What threat? If they are imprisoned for life, there is no chance of repeat offences barring an escape.

A "life" sentence is never that unless they have the dangerous offender status tacked on.  Even then, they can appeal every two years to have it lifted.  And getting DO is VERY rare.  As mentioned with Williams, if he doesn't kill himself (fingers crossed) he will likely be the model prisoner.  25 years hence he will have an excellent shot at getting out. 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying the Dangerous Offender designation hasn't worked? I think it works rather well due to it's simplicity - if you are designated, you are held indefinitely until you are deemed to not be designated.

That is much easier said than done unfortunately. 

This problem should be addressed by securing the offender better, protecting the CO better, etc. The solution is not 'well, shoot, let's just kill him then.'

Why would you make a death penalty sentence sound frivolous or arbitrary?  I think that we can all agree that were it to exist it would be leveled only after exceptional consideration and weighing of the facts. 

The perfect system? Eek. By "drugs" what do you mean?. You can have 1 gram of marijuana on you and you will most likely not even receive a fine. But you should get 20 years in your system. Yet you can break into someones house steal 5000 dollars worth of material and get less?. Absurd.

For the love of god, please lets not pick apart that post and turn this into a "Legalize the bud" discussion!  I think we have one of those already somewhere. 

 

[canada94]

So don't smoke Marijuana, problem solved.

Instead of having these jerks sit in prison for 10 years getting university degrees and crap we should put them to use in labour camps. Fixing roads.Helping the homeless somehow.

Yes a very smart way to solve our problems. Force labor upon people smoking marijuana. I don't smoke it myself, but I understand the complete stupidity of the money we spend on controlling it. Do you know what the largest source of economic income is in BC? Marijuana 6 billions dollars a year. I do understand what your saying though in SOME sense it seems people in prison for doing petty crimes end up receiving more then the law abiding citizen.

I won't lose the point of the topic on the other hand;

As i stated before the charter defends the fact that, that we don't have the right to put someone to death as they are allowed the right to LIFE.

 

[Container]

You either believe in justified killings or you dont. I do. I dont believe all life is equal- I believe it starts out that way and then through your actions you can reduce your value.

I refuse to offer protections to the rights of a person who refuses good people the same consideration. (in theory of course- as a member of society I have to go with some things i dont like!)

I believe in preemptive strikes on bombmakers. I believe that killing terrorists with UAV's is good. I believe that bombing Hiroshima was the correct course of action at that time.

Some people need to be stopped. Im not uncomfortable with the idea. They choose their actions.

The moral highground is a luxury not afforded by reality in my opinion.

 

[Brutus]

The problem is that the entire prison system is based on rehabilitation.

Is rehabilitation for those that CAN be rehabilitated a bad thing?

Punishment is a severely minor element to being in jail.  Look at how hard and how much money is spent on making prisoners comfortable and happy. 

This we can agree on. Prison needs to  return to a punishment mode. There's no reason why an inmate can't better himself and be rehabilitated while living in discomfort.

When last I heard any polling done, I believe something to the tune of 75% of Canadians supported the death penalty.  Perhaps it is simply time to amend the Charter. 

Could you post that survey? My understanding is that the vast majority of Canadians oppose it.

A "life" sentence is never that unless they have the dangerous offender status tacked on.  Even then, they can appeal every two years to have it lifted.  And getting DO is VERY rare.  As mentioned with Williams, if he doesn't kill himself (fingers crossed) he will likely be the model prisoner.  25 years hence he will have an excellent shot at getting out. 

Let's no resort to fear here. There is NO chance Williams, Pickton, Olsen, Bernardo, et.c will be released prior to their death. We should be looking at fixing the existing system (DO status), not throwing it out for a system rife with more problems and opportunities for heinous errors.

 

[Container]

If you were manning the C6 in a raid, would you not put a burst into the outhouse? The barracks/sleeping quarters? Clearly any enemy soldiers in either of these locations are not currently a threat at that exact moment, but we kill them anyhow...right?

How does the OP's scenario differ in principle or ethics?

????

These men wait for an opportunity to kill other people- but you suggest that we can just crate them? But sleeping enemy soldiers are okay?

Apologies for bringing in other posts- but Im just trying to get my head around your "rule set".

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let's no resort to fear here. There is NO chance Williams, Pickton, Olsen, Bernardo, et.c will be released prior to their death. We should be looking at fixing the existing system (DO status), not throwing it out for a system rife with more problems and opportunities for heinous errors.

While you are, in all likelyhood, probably right, you are neither qualified, nor clairvoyant enough, to make that statement.

 

[Brutus]

????

These men wait for an opportunity to kill other people- but you suggest that we can just crate them? But sleeping enemy soldiers are okay?

Apologies for bringing in other posts- but Im just trying to get my head around your "rule set".

I think you're asking me to reconcile the validity of killing sleeping enemy soldiers vs. not killing convicted murderers.

There are so many differences here that they are really not comparable. BUUUUT, I will try and explain my seemingly contradictory views.

Enemy soldiers are an uncontained threat. Incarcirated killers are not.

Enemy soldiers are killed as part of a military operation, executed murderers are not.

But the real big issue here is that many here propose the killing of a disarmed, captured civilian (say, Williams for example), but I think we all agree that we could not kill a captured, disarmed soldier. So the question is, if you are willing to accept that you must not kill a foreign enemy PW based on LOAC and ethical standards, why do you not offer the same mercy to a civilian killer?

 

[Brutus]

While you are, in all likelyhood, probably right, you are neither qualified, nor clairvoyant enough, to make that statement.

...but I'm probably right.

And if the slim hope that I'm wrong is the sticking point here, why not fix that? Make it mandatory that 1st degree murder is Life, no parole. Would that be ok?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Is rehabilitation for those that CAN be rehabilitated a bad thing?

Sure, it's a great concept.  However, there is no reason for criminals to change.  There is no genuine hardship caused by being incarcerated.  For most of them, it's a big joke and nothing to fear.  As one recidavist put it to me "Oh well, back into the penalty box for a five minute major". 

Could you post that survey? My understanding is that the vast majority of Canadians oppose it.

Looks like my info is outdated:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/international-polls-and-studies

•Although previous opinion polls have indicated over 70% support for the death penalty in Canada, that support has dramatically dropped. A poll showed an even split on the death penalty generally, with 48% supporting it and 47% opposing it. When asked which sentence they would favor for the most serious crimes, 53% supported a life sentence and only 42% supported the death penalty. (Montreal Gazette, 12/31/98).

Certainly not a "vast majority" are against it either.  I would be interested to see what the numbers would look like if it indicated that there was no chance of a wrongful conviction (lets not let that trigger a wrongful conviction discussion pls)

Let's no resort to fear here. There is NO chance Williams, Pickton, Olsen, Bernardo, et.c will be released prior to their death. We should be looking at fixing the existing system (DO status), not throwing it out for a system rife with more problems and opportunities for heinous errors.

At no time have I heard that anyone is seeking DO against Williams.  It has to be set out at the beginning, since that could affect how the defense counsell conducts the trial.  Thus, it would not appear that it is being sought.  If he studies, works hard, gets along with others, seeks couselling, finds God, knits doillies then mark my words: He has an EXCELLENT shot at making parole. 

 

[OldSolduer]

There is a big difference between a captured combatant and a serial killer.

A serial killer is a predator. He (for serial killers are primarily male) will continue to victimize people in one way or another. As an example, Clifford Olsen continues to torment the parents of the kids he murdered.
A captured combatant is afforded protection based on hundreds of years of custom, practice and law.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I think you're asking me to reconcile the validity of killing sleeping enemy soldiers vs. not killing convicted murderers.

There are so many differences here that they are really not comparable. BUUUUT, I will try and explain my seemingly contradictory views.

Enemy soldiers are an uncontained threat. Incarcirated killers are not.

Enemy soldiers are killed as part of a military operation, executed murderers are not.

But the real big issue here is that many here propose the killing of a disarmed, captured civilian (say, Williams for example), but I think we all agree that we could not kill a captured, disarmed soldier. So the question is, if you are willing to accept that you must not kill a foreign enemy PW based on LOAC and ethical standards, why do you not offer the same mercy to a civilian killer?

Good enough.  Shoot them, then take the corpse into custody... ethical dilemma solved.

Oh, sorry, forgot to add  >

 

[ballz]

if you are willing to accept that you must not kill a foreign enemy PW based on LOAC and ethical standards, why do you not offer the same mercy to a civilian killer?

Wow now you're treading into murky waters, careful the army.ca monster doesn't get you. I'm going to try and be level-headed since it wasn't you that brought your post from a completely different topic into this discussion. I was originally going to tell the person that did "how can you try and apply that to this discussion," but you just tried to cross the discussions as well.

You are comparing a professional soldier to a serial killer.

The LoAC sets out a set of rules that professional soldiers play by in an Armed Conflict. Professional soldiers accept that if they're going to try and destroy an enemy, the enemy will also try and destroy him and his comrades.

Serial killers victimize the weak and vulnerable. Civilians have the Criminal Code of Canada that they accept and follow, serial killers break it.

Come on, think twice before you go comparing "civilian killers" to professional soldiers in a war-time environment.

 

[Brutus]

Come on, think twice before you go comparing "civilian killers" to professional soldiers in a war-time environment.

I didn't, he did. I was answering a question.

 

[GR66]

As for the DNA links- those examples do not dispute the validity of DNA based convictions. They dispute shitty lab and court work. The DNA in your link on the 60minus link has to do with the amount of information looked at by the lab. They were able to make the mistake because they do not use appropriate  thresholds. In fact the probability was only 1 in about 600 000. Thats terrible.

In Canadian forensics we use thresholds that have prbabilities in the billions far exceeding the population of the planet (living now combined with the amount taht have EVER lived) 

All I'm suggesting is that we remember that we are only human and that we are NOT perfect.  Humans are collecting the DNA samples.  Humans are storing/transporting/handling the DNA samples.  Humans are testing the DNA samples and humans are analyzing those samples.  Mistakes CAN be made.  Even if the threshold of error is 1 in 100 billion what if that error occurs in the FIRST case as opposed to the LAST case?  Certainly change the system so that these guys (or gals as the case may be) are locked up FOREVER.  PERIOD.  END OF STORY.  At least in that case IF (or when?) a mistake does take place we have not taken an innocent life in error.  Just my personal opinion of course.

G

 

[Brutus]

Wow now you're treading into murky waters, careful the army.ca monster doesn't get you. I'm going to try and be level-headed since it wasn't you that brought your post from a completely different topic into this discussion. I was originally going to tell the person that did "how can you try and apply that to this discussion," but you just tried to cross the discussions as well.

You are comparing a professional soldier to a serial killer.

The LoAC sets out a set of rules that professional soldiers play by in an Armed Conflict. Professional soldiers accept that if they're going to try and destroy an enemy, the enemy will also try and destroy him and his comrades.

Serial killers victimize the weak and vulnerable. Civilians have the Criminal Code of Canada that they accept and follow, serial killers break it.

Come on, think twice before you go comparing "civilian killers" to professional soldiers in a war-time environment.

Actually, neither of us were...

We were comparing the ethics of killing a PW vs. the State killing a murderer. Any comparison of the serial killer to a professional soldier was intended to show that someone who we would agree is more deserving of death (the enemy soldier in an intense, kinetic, risky situation) is afforded his right to life, whereas a serial killer (captured, incarcirated, and posing virtually no imminent threat) is not.

And I don't buy the argument that we don't kill PWs because of custom or even law. We don't because it's wrong.