# execution by firing squad: interesting article



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

Interesting article in the National Post on the choice that Utah death row inmates were given before 2004. Death by firing squad or lethal injection (lethal injection is the only option now). This guy chose firing squad and the article discusses whether he's trying to go out in a blaze of glory:

Should killer get 'one last hurrah'?

Reminds me of that great punk song by the Adverts - "Gary Gilmores Eyes". He was similarly convicted in Utah and chose the firing squad.


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

i think he's trying to die of (hot) lead poisoning...

did his victims have a choice on how they were die...???...

maybe the firing squad should all be supplied with blanks...no live rounds...when the convict craps his pants after the "failed" execution...the firing squad should use the butts of their rifles on his hooded pinata head...


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

lethal injection does seem kinda gay lol.
but any way you look at it, theyre just putting him to sleep. its not like theyre going to start with his kneecaps and work there way up-
good, hardworking folks who never hurt anyone die far more horrible deaths every day.
5 marksmen, 4 bullets- he wont even feel it.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

The article gives the reason-


> Back in the 1800s, when Joseph Smith’s fledgling church was just finding its feet, Mormons believed the only way murderers could be forgiven by God was to shed their own blood.


I'm not a Mormon, so I don't agree with this, and I don't want to get into a religious debate (Which is against forum rules) but if you claim to have freedom of religion, and this doesn't infringe on others' rights--you 'd think Utah should be allowed to offer it as an option.


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2006)

I think when you commit a murder your religious rights go out the window, those who find god still have to pay for what they did reguardless of what they belive.
The right person with the wrong idea can influence millions of people to do his will, this can be good or bad.
Makes you wonder if the followers think he is a god?

End of the day no matter what you belive it was your decision to act, it should not be your decision as to how you go out, you lost that priveledge.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

*Mods - opinion alert here*

I have not, do not and never will condone the death penalty.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I have no problem with the death penalty, WHEN and ONLY when there's zero doubt as to guilt. That is seldom the case.

As to firing squad vs lethal injection, a firing squad seems every bit as quick and painless as a series of injections, more so in fact. A guillotine would be best. I don't think the inmate should be allowed to choose.

For those who kill children, put them in feet first and keep moving them in as you lop off a chunk.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

I like the Australia solution.

We should build an Australia of our own here. 400 foot high wall, 100 miles diameter, auto cannon gun turrets every 50 feet with a 1000 foot buffer of broken glass and barbed wire, and just parachute them in ...


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

Personally, I'd rather go by firing squad than lethal injection. I consider it more humane. It's immediate and the pain is in one flash. 

In lethal injection, the paralyzing agent that they use, Pancuronium bromide, relaxes you muscles and breathing to the point that you can't show pain, but you can still feel it. And from what I understand, death by potassium chloride is supposed to be a very painful death.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

According to ad-man Terry O'Reilly, the Nike catch-phrase "Just do it!" was originally suggested by someone in an ad firm after reading about Gary Gilmore's penultimate phrase to the firing squad.

Personally, I don't factor vengeance/revenge into my views of the justice system. Often the strongest demands for it are from those who were unaffected by the crime itself. Pulling a trigger, or calling for it, is easy. If you want the brutal end for someone, then you should be willing to come in and clean up the blood yourself.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

an article on google new this morning said it only took two bullets...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

It probably only TOOK one bulet, but they fired four according to MSNBC. There are four holes in the wood behide where he was sitting.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

mhammer said:


> According to ad-man Terry O'Reilly, the Nike catch-phrase "Just do it!" was originally suggested by someone in an ad firm after reading about Gary Gilmore's penultimate phrase to the firing squad.
> 
> Personally, I don't factor vengeance/revenge into my views of the justice system. Often the strongest demands for it are from those who were unaffected by the crime itself. Pulling a trigger, or calling for it, is easy. If you want the brutal end for someone, then you should be willing to come in and clean up the blood yourself.


This may be a bit of a sretch, but would you insist that anyone who eats meat should clean up the slaughter house?

It's not necessarily vengance to want a punishment that fits the crime. Regardless of one's position on capital punishment, one thing is undeniable. An executed murderer will not re-offend.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

and that's really what it's all about, isnt it? it's not a punishment. it's a final solution. remove the offender from society. cutting out a malignant tumor. if it was about punishment the justice system would look and act far different than it does.

i don't believe in capital punishment the way it's done currently. imo, it should be like "escape from new york"
put them on an island and leave them there. asta la bye-bye. an island of predators will control it's population on it's own i suspect.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Milkman said:


> It's not necessarily vengance to want a punishment that fits the crime. Regardless of one's position on capital punishment, one thing is undeniable. An executed murderer will not re-offend.


No, but a person on death row will cost the system well in excess of what they cost to be incarcerated, simply because of the legal cost of appeals. So, from where I stand, a person locked up will not re-offend either. Capital punishment may seem expedient on paper, but is generally not nearly as expedient and cost-effective as people think. This fellow in Utah who was shot this morning was on death row for 25 years, and was only shot today because his last route of appeal had recently been exhausted.

Now, if one is willing to spend more to kill someone than to simply lock them up, then I say it's vengeance, and much less a matter of public protection than some would like to think.

Sadly, what captures the public imagination more is a sense of outrage over the grisly and extreme, rather than a sense of pragmatism about how to make daily life safe as consistently as possible. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" sounds great, and may reflect your gut reaction to perpetrators well, but it is accompanied by an enormous number of social and financial implications that people and legislators never think much about. And like I say, capital punishment doesn't necessarily reduce the number or cost of those implications.

Case in point (though not about death penalty). A buddy who worked in the federal system with violent sexual offenders for many years comnveyed to me that the typical scenario was the guy would get 7 years. The first 6 would be spent in a masturbatory fantasy world entrenching the stupid belief system that got him there in the first place. A year before release, there would be an attempt at treatment, but by then it was going to take a lot of willpower on the part of the perp to make that work. So, if we wanted to be harsher, and up the mandatory sentence to 8 or 9 years minimum, would we have a better outcome? Likely not, because now we'd be dealing with a guy who has spent even more time in that fanstasy world prior to the same amount of time in treatment. Doubtless the budget for treatment would need to be reduced to compensate for the budget drain used to house and guard those guys. The public is "protected" for another year or two, but when the person gets out, they are not likely to be any safer, and possibly LESS safe.

The goal here is not what makes you as an individual feel better, or publicly express your values and disdain for the crime itself, but what gets the job done, and the primary job is making daily life safer for more people.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

LowWatt said:


> In lethal injection, the paralyzing agent that they use, Pancuronium bromide, relaxes you muscles and breathing to the point that you can't show pain, but you can still feel it. And from what I understand, death by potassium chloride is supposed to be a very painful death.


If this is true then thats the least we can do. My opinion is criminals should not be given options as to the condition of their sentence. Many violent criminals who rape, murder and torture get off on the control aspect. Why should they have a right to control how their sentence is carried out?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Now, if one is willing to spend more to kill someone than to simply lock them up, then I say it's vengeance, and much less a matter of public protection than some would like to think.
> 
> .


well... yeah. Part of the process of any sentence is some matter of vengeance for the victim and victims family. Wouldn't have it any other way. Whether intentional or not vengeance is part of it. 
I'm a "death Penalty" advocate. I never understood how those opposed to death penalty could stand to see criminals in thier nice little cells with access to university educations (IE: Karla) and their tennis courts, mini golf courses, handball courts. And if you think I don't know what I'm taking about, I've seen it first hand back in the late 70's early 80's. I can't imagine how much more cushy it is now.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

mhammer said:


> According to ad-man Terry O'Reilly, the Nike catch-phrase "Just do it!" was originally suggested by someone in an ad firm after reading about Gary Gilmore's penultimate phrase to the firing squad.
> 
> Personally, I don't factor vengeance/revenge into my views of the justice system. Often the strongest demands for it are from those who were unaffected by the crime itself. Pulling a trigger, or calling for it, is easy. If you want the brutal end for someone, then you should be willing to come in and clean up the blood yourself.


Oh you can bet if one of my family members fell victim to a Bernardo like criminal I'd have no problem flipping the switch my self.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

guitarman2 said:


> well... yeah. Part of the process of any sentence is some matter of vengeance for the victim and victims family. Wouldn't have it any other way. Whether intentional or not vengeance is part of it.
> I'm a "death Penalty" advocate. I never understood how those opposed to death penalty could stand to see criminals in thier nice little cells with access to university educations (IE: Karla) and their tennis courts, mini golf courses, handball courts. And if you think I don't know what I'm taking about, I've seen it first hand back in the late 70's early 80's. I can't imagine how much more cushy it is now.


I am opposed to the death penalty (in most cases), but I'm also opposed to the cushy treatment criminals get in prison. Those ideals are not mutually exclusive. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

well I am all for the Death Penalty and I think we need to bring it back here and I also believe that it should be as pain-ful as it was for the victims of these criminals. I see no problem in taking a persons life away when they have taken someone else's life with often little to no regard for their well being an so many times over nothing to so very little. 
For me its like when you see a gang banger who has been shot and we waste all of these medical resources ( blood, operating time and etc. ) on someone who clearly does not care about our lives or are loved ones and was willing to participate in their criminal enterprise, and don't get me wrong I believe if you want to do the crime then do the time, but when your crime takes a life, then shouldn't you be willing and able to give yours for what you took form the rest of us.To many good ones are gone and yet we feed and give them what they want food, shelter free medical and dental, the right to smoke, get tattoo's or whatever, and society gets the right to bury loved ones, not a fair exchange in my books.Ship


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

guitarman2 said:


> Oh you can bet if one of my family members fell victim to a Bernardo like criminal I'd have no problem flipping the switch my self.


The difficulties in pursuing this are many. Where is the dividing line between those instances where the victim is entitled to suitable retribution, and those where they aren't? So, if someone was stoned or drunk, went "Oh crap!" and slammed on the brakes a little too late, killing my child and pregnant wife, do I have a right to "flip the switch"? Yes, I realize the infamous Mr. B is not nearly as unintentional a perp as that, but the question I am asking is where one would, could, and should insert that right for family-members of victims.

So let's take another example. The guy who carried out the terrible Greyhound bus killing in Manitoba is undisputably the perpetrator of something that could in no way be considered an accidental death, and is clearly off his rocker. Does one impose a death penalty for such persons, and impart rights to flip switches to surviving family members of the victim? And if the right to flip switches or pull triggers hinges on official declarations of sanity vs non compos mentis (Non compos mentis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), you can bet that the courts will be tied up even more than they presently are.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that all these passion-driven pronouncements are well and good, and motivated by honest and true human feelings...but there has to be a policy in place to govern how they are expressed and implemented, with clear rules, and the longer one thinks about how that could possibly be done, the more one realizes how untenable it is. What we often think is the only right and just thing to do is all too often a gateway to chaos and unintended outcomes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2010)

Ah hooo ho! IBTL!


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Also, living too near where the Steven Truscott Steven Truscott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia fiasco happened, I find it hard to trust the judicial system to do the right thing *every* time.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Mooh said:


> I am opposed to the death penalty (in most cases), but I'm also opposed to the cushy treatment criminals get in prison. Those ideals are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


that's what i was trying to say, only better said than i could




mhammer said:


> And if the right to flip switches or pull triggers hinges on official declarations of sanity vs non compos mentis (Non compos mentis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), you can bet that the courts will be tied up even more than they presently are.
> 
> I guess the point I am trying to make is.....
> 
> ...


in my mind wether or not someone is insane at the time of the murder is irrelevant. if they were insane to the point where they killed someone they are a danger to society and need to be removed from it, permanently. 

that said, your last statement is an important point to ponder, i think. in alot of ways, that's a very valid statement. however, i do believe that it's easy to get mired down trying to sort out things to the nth degree, creating laws intended to cover every situation. in my mind, if each case were considered individually, without the burden of legal precedent, it might be possible to accomplish more.


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2006)

Mooh has a great point and i agree, I hate to see anything killed so much I won't eat meat because of it.
I always feel that no animal should give up there life for me, so taking a life means you should give up what you took.

I could never flip the switch but my brother would so I am ok.

Locking them up for life is a great idea but i think they should not stay for free, I would make them work, earn a pay cheque and pay rent. They can have a better quality of food if they pay for it and earn degree's if they pay for it. If you do nothing then 100 people to a room and its bread, water and coffee on sundays..that it. 
The work/products they make should go back into our world, so we should benifit from them.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

while i could conclude the same reasoning as in here (drop the offender on an island and let them fend for themselves...that's how Australia came about)...i think it should be an eye for an eye...you kill someone...you get killed...none of this life in prison...like others said...it costs a fortune to keep them there...let alone the three meals a day, cable tv, fresh air...

but...there's a lot i don't agree with...the workings of the world...which is governed by the wealthy...is definatly not the way it used to be...

sometimes i just wish for the good ol days...

[youtube]zRX4mlFi06A[/youtube]


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2010)

You guys crack me up. If you think prison is a cakewalk: visit one. Ain't nothing nice about incarceration. Fresh air...cable TV...that's funny stuff that is.


----------



## Cort Strummer (Feb 16, 2009)

iaresee said:


> You guys crack me up. If you think prison is a cakewalk: visit one. Ain't nothing nice about incarceration. Fresh air...cable TV...that's funny stuff that is.


It cant be that bad if people keep going back to it....

I wish they would bring capital punishment back to Canada, lose this lethal injection BS (it is like putting an animal down) they do NOT feel anything; if they wanna keep it then it should be like the lethal injection from the movie Law Abiding Citizen. The Electric Chair is awesome, definitely need more of those. Can't forget the classic, string'em up from a tree; and why not a Firing Squad? But we cant forget the child molesters and other perves.... they can have the famous Stoning.

seriously if we actually increased the penalties for the crimes and brought back the death penalty I think there would be a sever drop in crime and murders... people get a way with 5-8 yrs now for killing someone WTF is that? than you get people that are in and out of jail every few months.

Sorry but our justice system is a freaking joke and it Pee's me off as well as other government factors although our whole government system is a joke.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Robert1950 said:


> I have not, do not and never will condone the death penalty.


For the murdered or the murderer?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Here is the fundamental problem with the death penalty: You give the government power over life and death. The government has too much power to begin with, and bringing back this sets up a precedent for even more power. Beyond that, our justice system is a joke, so when people who cant tie their own shoes now have the power to kill, it becomes like Texas. In the US the death penalty has already been known to kill the wrong people, its been used to put the wrong people on death row fraudulently for the purposes of a politician winning an election, its been used to catapult criminals to superstar status, its just a complete history of misuse. Then theres that government power thing again. Whats next, a mandatory draft for some bullshit war?...............


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Here is the fundamental problem with the death penalty: You give the government power over life and death. The government has too much power to begin with, and bringing back this sets up a precedent for even more power. Beyond that, our justice system is a joke, so when people who cant tie their own shoes now have the power to kill, it becomes like Texas. In the US the death penalty has already been known to kill the wrong people, its been used to put the wrong people on death row fraudulently for the purposes of a politician winning an election, its been used to catapult criminals to superstar status, its just a complete history of misuse. Then theres that government power thing again. Whats next, a mandatory draft for some bullshit war?...............


You make a very good point. The list of wrongfully convicted people is the one thing that prevents me from wholeheartedly supporting the death penalty. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone abut to be executed for killing a kid (when you didn't do it). That's a nightmare beyond most of our imaginations.

Still, speaking idealistically, if there was a way to be absolutely certain, I would pull the switch myself. There are people out there who most assuredly do not deserve to live. 

Interesting topic.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

The nice thing about not having a death penalty and having a lenient justice system is that if someone killed someone I loved, I could hunt them down and kill them in a painful way, and get out in a few years for good behaviour.

See? There's always a "cup is half full" perspective.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

iaresee said:


> You guys crack me up. If you think prison is a cakewalk: visit one. Ain't nothing nice about incarceration. Fresh air...cable TV...that's funny stuff that is.


well then you crack me up in my younger days I had the displeasure of visiting 4 different provincial prisons and 2 federal. The only thing not a cakewalk about it is that you're locked up with some other tough mothers that if you have a problem with there is no where to run. But as far as the comforts of home. Trust me they are all there. I took a college level carpenter course in a shop that was way better equiped then any college on the street at the time. The college was a legitimate registered college. And when I got out they sent me to another college on the street. Nice reward for a scourge on society eh?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> The nice thing about not having a death penalty and having a lenient justice system is that if someone killed someone I loved, I could hunt them down and kill them in a painful way, and get out in a few years for good behaviour.
> 
> See? There's always a "cup is half full" perspective.


The problem is that vigilantes usually get the heaviest sentences.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2010)

guitarman2 said:


> well then you crack me up in my younger days I had the displeasure of visiting 4 different provincial prisons and 2 federal. The only thing not a cakewalk about it is that you're locked up with some other tough mothers that if you have a problem with there is no where to run. But as far as the comforts of home. Trust me they are all there. I took a college level carpenter course in a shop that was way better equiped then any college on the street at the time. The college was a legitimate registered college. And when I got out they sent me to another college on the street. Nice reward for a scourge on society eh?


Interesting. So let me make sure I understand your position here:

As a former convict, someone who was incarcerated, shown _leniency_ by the justice system and allowed to prove that reform, rehabilitation and reintegration are actually possible, your takeaway from that experience is:

1) It's a state-run country club; and
2) You're now the only human who should act as judge, jury and executioner should a crime be committed against you or your loved ones.

You're right: if that's how you come out the other end of the system, it's _definitely_ broken. What if your crime had been a hanging crime? Why just hang the murderers? Why keep _anyone_ locked up to begin with? A bullet is certainly a helluva lot less than three squares a day, a roof over your head and a cell to sleep in for 10 years. Where's the line? And why does _any_ man or woman think they're capable of drawing it best? That your killing is righteous and justified and not any other killing?

Should the people _you_ wronged in your youth have been allowed to choose your punishment? Even if their decision was death?

Finally, look at it this way: you kill your loved one's killer and your family hasn't just lost one person, they've now lost two.

No thank you. I'll take our system any day over Texas or Utah. I don't need our attorney general tweeting psychopathic statements about killing people.

(Oh yea: IBTL, again)


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2006)

That did sound pretty easy, I can imagine if your right guy in the right place it could go very decent.
I guess like everywhere else in the world you are judged by others and classified to a group, prison would be no different.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> The problem is that vigilantes usually get the heaviest sentences.


I wouldn't consider a man killing the man who raped and murdered his child a vigilante. That's a distraught man who has suffered a devastating psychological blow, lashing out in a moment of extreme emotion.

I'd take my medicine.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Self-control, man. A close relative was a home invasion and rape victim (I'll spare you the details, it would turn your collective stomachs) and it was all I could do to stop myself from hunting the perp down and sparing society the hassle of dealing with him. Lives were all but ruined, and I didn't ultimately want to add mine to the list. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

I still like Australia.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)




----------



## the_fender_guy (Jul 22, 2008)

Interesting discussion.
I don't support capital punishment yet I question myself when the likes of Bernardo or Olsen come along.
Taking a life is serious business and I think any proponent of capital punishment should have their name entered into a lottery. If selected they get to be executioner. I'm pretty sure many who talk about it would think hard before proceeding with an execution.
As far as economics of incarceration vs. death penalty IMO that is a pretty repugnant argument when killing a person. I do think the most egregious offenses should get life(to the end of their natural life - no parole)
Another point - lethal injection is not pain free.
Current polls in Canada suggest that support for the death penalty is now a slight majority.
Whatever your opinion is I hope you have put some thought into it.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I wouldn't consider a man killing the man who raped and murdered his child a vigilante. That's a distraught man who has suffered a devastating psychological blow, lashing out in a moment of extreme emotion.
> 
> I'd take my medicine.



Yes I agree with you but its still vigilante justice.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

That's the very definition of vigilante justice ie taking the law into your own hands. Whether *you *consider it vigilante justice or not is irrelevant.



Milkman said:


> I wouldn't consider a man killing the man who raped and murdered his child a vigilante. That's a distraught man who has suffered a devastating psychological blow, lashing out in a moment of extreme emotion.
> 
> I'd take my medicine.


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

Cort Strummer said:


> seriously if we actually increased the penalties for the crimes and brought back the death penalty I think there would be a sever drop in crime and murders... people get a way with 5-8 yrs now for killing someone WTF is that? than you get people that are in and out of jail every few months.


Harsher punishment hasn't really curbed crime in the US. Nor has it prevented crime in many of the societies that still allow stuff like corporal punishment, stoning, hanging, etc.

The real issue is the source of the crime - whether it be poverty, boredom, survival, perversity, social, etc. Until society finds a way to treat the source they'll have to continue to deal with the symptoms.

Add to that that if your personality profile is such that you're a risk taker then the punishment usually isn't the deciding factor... it's more a matter of whether you think you'll get caught or not.



guitarman2 said:


> The problem is that vigilantes usually get the heaviest sentences.


The problem is the corrections system wants you to admit you feel remorse about your crimes... which is kind of hard when you feel good about having done it and would gladly do it again.

Oddly enough, it's also why many 'innocents' spend so long in prison. It's hard to be remorseful when you didn't commit the crime.



the_fender_guy said:


> I don't support capital punishment yet I question myself when the likes of Bernardo or Olsen come along.


Same here. It would be nice if there was a method of instituting the death penalty in extreme cases. Only problem is that it would quickly become a political tool so that politicians can be seen to be dispensing justice...

And for the record, I'm not anti capital punishment because I'm some bleeding heart. I'd rather see someone waste away in prison.... though admittedly it would be more effective if we still had dungeons...


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

"When it gets right down to it, I don't think this is about George W. Bush," he says. "I think it's about all of us. We are all responsible every time someone's executed. There is no "them.' That's where my objection to the death penalty comes from. I object to the damage it does to my spirit if I kill somebody. And if my government kills somebody in what's ostensibly a democracy, then I'm killing somebody, period. "I'm much more worried about me going to hell than Timothy McVeigh being executed. It's really that simple. It's really about protecting me and my children. Look, I figure odds are that Timothy McVeigh is an ---hole. And I think he's a cold-blooded murderer. But he's also a human being. And I think that when we kill any human being, we perpetuate violence.

-- Steve Earle

Steve's opinion about the death penalty helped to shape mine. i read an article he wrote about his experience with Jonathan Nobles, a death row inmate. Earle spent a lot of time conversing with and corresponding with Nobles. Nobles admitted his guilt, expressed remorse, and found Jesus (if that matters) while on death row. 

Like Steve, I just can't fathom a true democracy that has a death penalty. The fact that people in power make mistakes quite frequently aside, I don't want to be responsible for killing anyone. I don't see it as a way to bring closure to the victims of crime, and it's well documented that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent.

All that being said, I'd choose firing squad over injection too; injection seems the more cruel of the two options.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

screamingdaisy said:


> And for the record, I'm not anti capital punishment because I'm some bleeding heart. I'd rather see someone waste away in prison.... though admittedly it would be more effective if we still had dungeons...


Therein lies the rub right? When "Solitary" confinment is seen as being "Too harsh" for some of thes emofo's who have done some pretty bad stuff, there is a problem with the justice system. When someone like Karla Holmolka can get a University degree (or certification for whatever) on my, your and her victims families dollar, there is a problem with the justice system. When the law is based on nothing more than precident the lines of wrong and right get pretty blurred.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

When everybody gets their shorts in a knot over this kind of discusion, it often doesn't occur to people how rare these kinds of crimes are in Canada. Certain powers that be know this, that's why they like to use sensational cases when talk of the death penalty rears it's head. It's never the Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, and Tresscot stories that are trotted out when pushing for capital punishment. These are just three cases I can think of, there are many more. The "mob mentality" is a real phenomenon and it's used to push all kinds of law and order crap that doesn't work, but satisfies that need in many of us to "see someone pay".

Shawn.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Which is why I like Australia.

The people put there were prisoners of the island nation. They had a rough go at first yes, but they managed. They managed far better in Australia than the gaols of London.

We do have enough technology, and land, to create a contained area that IS in essence our own Australia. Yes, in ways similar to Escape from New York.

The way I also look at this; my son is disabled. He does some real head shake things. Some will get him in a lot of trouble as he ages if he cannot manage to internalize the lessons he is being given. All this being way way way outside of his ability to independently control or contain, he is simply not DNA ready for "modern society" in many ways. Often when psychologists talk about rapists and murderers and various other 'bad guys' it is also in the same tack, that these people are simply not wired up the way 'modern' man is, they are genetic artifacts, throwbacks, or boo-boos.

Ok, yes, there are people that have caused a great deal of pain and hurt. And for this they do need to be made aware that the GREATER society of fellow humans do not find their actions acceptable. The trouble is, just as with my son, they simply do not get it. We Canadians do always hold out hope even in hopeless situations. We don't drown our broken children or castrate the retarded (anymore). We always hold some hope for our broken peoples, be they ones whose breakage is in the nature of being physically/mentally disabled or in the nature of being socially disabled, that we can somehow fix them or make them better.

So, there is the animal in me that does express its desire for bloody retribution on those 'socially' disabled people. Rape and Murder and Economic Malfeasance are abhorrent crimes and should be dealt with most severely. But, in punishing these people, it is like punishing a person because they are blind, or because they have a syndrome, or because they need a chemical such as insulin to live.

So, yes, Australia to me makes the best of sense. These people that are not capable of being a part of the greater society, locked to a piece of land that is their own, separated for life from the greater society, not "in jail" not "executed" not monitored by guys with guns and attitude, simply parachuted in and left alone to be the people they are with others of their own kind. Maybe it can work here in Canada, maybe the issues in the USA ... well let us be real, the USA has murder and death and rape and economic terrorists in a quantity that rivals some small European nation populations, their problems are very much unique to their own nation, but in all the rest of the world, where there is enough of a spot of land, building Australia I think could be the better solution.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> Which is why I like Australia.
> 
> The people put there were prisoners of the island nation. They had a rough go at first yes, but they managed. They managed far better in Australia than the gaols of London.
> 
> ...



Well when you put it that way. Isn't that the way it already worked for the "new World" If you were a criminal let loose at the Kings lesiure you were deported and the rest of the folk in North America were teh military. Cept for those of course who just wanted their own land and braving the unknown was the only way to do it.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

XD Indeed, Canada was a designated point of deportation into I think the 1950's (very rich history that actually). Canada and the USA were populated by a blend of criminals and people SO unable to get along at home they were driven inside to get as far away as they could. Arriving where they did, many that did not bring with them wives got them by mail order (you can still get a wife this was today and it isn't so very frowned on). Many women also came here single and alone for a multitude of reasons, and they either married in on the men already here, or they worked brothels and so on.

The Lawless Olde West arose from the mix of the absence of regular army, and because many people were either set loose criminals, or criminals running from capture. It is shocking to think that those days were still happening at a time when the first movies began to be shown in theaters. As the Olde West became tamed, many of those guys of legend ended up acting in the first movies. Also a fascinating bit of North American history sadly not taught in schools here.

I do think the number of people that would ever face "execution" here is very very slim. Slim in comparison to any other identifiable population group. As much as would LOVE to take a trip to Mars, I really do not see us colonizing the red planet the way North America was. Personally, I would recruit girls 12 to 14, trained and educated, I would use them and frozen embryos to do so. Much more economical means of colonizing. 8 women of child bearing years, able to provide 20 live births could be sufficient number for a successful gene pool provided the eggs were all different and there were no birth losses. Of course, that would only leave 8 strains of primary mitochondrial DNA as you get that from your MOM...

Yes, criminals occur, same as bad appendixes and schizophrenia. In predictable numbers and blanketed across all the groups protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many generations have invented ways of dealing with this population, from nailing them to trees to sticking them in very deep holes in the ground to all manner of killing them out-rightly and still the population can expect that at any given time there is a 10% criminal element within it (just like any captive population given time will develop 1 in 100 with schizophrenia it will also develop 10 in 100 that don't play nice with others). I just happen to feel that it would be of greater benefit to create a patch of land wherein these people can be released to their own resources for their natural lives. Build our own Australia here, slap a tracker chip in them, give them the inability to have kids (vasectomy is reversible so is tube tying and it is not seen as a form or neutering), and give them that space to either live or die as their will to live or die allows. Society is served in many ways; these people are removed from it, and the collective conscious is absolved of the stain of state driven murder or of state driven being locked in a room, and at an economic cost that isn't in the many thousands of dollars per year per person that it currently is.

If a person so imprisoned wanted an "out" to run through 1000 feet of broken glass at auto cannon gun turrets, I am sure such an out would rapidly be forthcoming.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Let's get analytic for a moment.

What do people expect a correctional system to do?

1) They want it to remove those considered dangerous from circulation, for as long as they are considered dangerous. This is partly why maximum security jails are not in the middle of densely populated cosmopolitan areas.

2) They want it to reflect their sense/level of moral outrage over the acts that resulted in the perpetrators being incarcerated. This is why we have minimum/maximum sentences.

3) They want it to provide a sense of "justice", vindication, revenge, whatever you want to call it; a sense that things have been "made right".

4) They want it to result in a better public sense of what is considered to be acceptable or unacceptable in the society of the day, and the ranking of "unacceptabilities" (e.g., manslaughter via DUI should not result in the same punishment as being underage in a drinking establishment, or engaging in "sodomy"...as they used to call it).

5) They want the offender to be penitent (which is why they are called "penitentiaries") and recognize the error of their ways. This is why we have parole; people vary in terms of how long it takes them to reach the penitent point.

6) They want the offender to emerge at the other end as someone who is rehabilitated, and not only pentitent, but "improved".

7) They want the punishment to serve as a deterrent to committing those acts considered to be anti-social, unethical, or morally reprehensible.

8) They want it to be flexible enough to recognize and recover from errors in sentencing.

(_I think that pretty much covers it. If there is anything you feel I've left off the list, it may well be covered, just not articulated well enough._)

Now, for this to work, there needs to be a gradient where all these elements are in a nice balance, and applied in a manner that demonstrates some consistency. It should not be the case that for crime cluster X (e.g., white-collar crime), all these things apply in a certain balance, and for crime cluster Y (e.g., drug offenses) everything changes. Indeed, some of our moral outrage over injustices carried out by authorities in other jurisdictions - whether than be stonings for Nigerian of Afghani women who have been "unchaste" as a result of rape, the Malawian same-sex couple who were to face decades of hard labour, or people who smuggled a bit of dope in Singapore and were sentenced to death - stems precisely from our perception that one or more of the 8 precepts listed have been violated.

So, the question I pose to folks is how they feel the death penalty, and threat thereof, gets all these elements to work together properly, keeping in mind the real world, and real-world data from criminologists.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

bagpipe said:


> That's the very definition of vigilante justice ie taking the law into your own hands. Whether *you *consider it vigilante justice or not is irrelevant.



Well ok, how about what the JURY considers it? That's what it really comes down to if you want to get down to it. I'd take my chances with a jury. Yup, I'd do some time, but I'll wager a good lawyer could minimize that.

Vigilantes generally don't exact justice ONLY from someone that harmed a loved one of theirs. Vigilantes act on society's behalf when the justice system lets us down. That may be my intrepretation of the term but vigilantes don't stop at their personal vengence.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

This is a tricky one and every person has their own feelings on the subject. Some opinions are formed based on personal experience (maybe a family member was murdered) and some may come at it on a religious angle. One of the things I have done now for about 4 years is to check into the Texas death row website and read the last statements from the condemened. I also look at the criminal background and the offense that was committed to land them on death row. I wanted to know how these people fealt about it when the time came for them. What were the thoughts? Were they truly sorry for what they had done and were some of them "rehabilitated" to the point that if they were to re-enter society would they become a better person.

First off, 95% of them found Jesus when it was about the last thing they could do. They needed to make sure that Jesus was going to let them off the hook for the crime that they committed because they were now going to meet him in person. So for most of them, that was the paramount goal. Then I would say that maybe 30% of them told the gallery that they were truly sorry for what they had done and some even said they deserved to die. A large contingent maintained that it was not them that committed the crime, they just happened to be there at the time. 

For the families, I am not sure that having the person put to death really helps all that much. Some say it brings closure. I dont know about that. Their son or daughter or wife or husband is still dead and they are never coming back. To see a stranger die after the fact cant really change that feeling much. Making sure that the person got caught and punished, that I can understand totally. 

I dont think its a deterrent at all. its a way to claim "justice is served" and maybe some people need that, most wont care. Their loved one is still gone and thats the real tragedy. When you read the crime reports and see how these people ended up on death row, the fact that the crime meant death if caught did not enter too many minds. 

Someone mentioned that the root causes need to be recognized and fixed. That is the true problem. When you start to understand why a child would burn his parents to death for money, or why a 40 year old man would rape and kill a 6-7 year old girl or why so many young kids belong to gangs and see drugs and violence as the only way to make a living, then we will be getting somewhere. Until then its all just a huge waste of time and such a waste of human life.


----------



## Bobby (May 27, 2010)

Rugburn said:


> When everybody gets their shorts in a knot over this kind of discusion, it often doesn't occur to people how rare these kinds of crimes are in Canada. Certain powers that be know this, that's why they like to use sensational cases when talk of the death penalty rears it's head. It's never the Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, and Tresscot stories that are trotted out when pushing for capital punishment. These are just three cases I can think of, there are many more. The "mob mentality" is a real phenomenon and it's used to push all kinds of law and order crap that doesn't work, but satisfies that need in many of us to "see someone pay".
> 
> Shawn.


this^^^^

when i read threads like this(and its not exclusive to this forum,i mean pretty much anywhere). i cant help but feel a good dose of anger. there are alot of posts to the effect of "oooooooh,if someone like that guy did something like that,id like to see his nails pulled out,id do it myself....i want him to suffer" or something to that effect.

it just irks me a bit,considering crimes of this gravitas will rarely affect too many people on this board,i suspect. i know things like this DO happen,and its horrible that they do.it is (the correctional system as a whole),an important thing to consider. but i suspect that many people are talking more out of anger. and it isnt even anger because it has happened to them. its anger because they havent gotten laid in awhile,or they lost their job,or they have a toothache,etc...

i really,really,dont want to make a blanket statement about posters on a forum,much less here,where people seem very congenial most of the time. but damn,i can almost FEEL the anger leap off the page. and you know what? it aint anger at paul bernardo or whoever,its anger about their own lives.....as i said,i SUSPECT this to often be the case.

just my opinion.

Bobby


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> and that's really what it's all about, isnt it? it's not a punishment. it's a final solution. remove the offender from society. cutting out a malignant tumor. if it was about punishment the justice system would look and act far different than it does.
> 
> i don't believe in capital punishment the way it's done currently. imo, it should be like "escape from new york"
> put them on an island and leave them there. asta la bye-bye. an island of predators will control it's population on it's own i suspect.


...fellow neanderthals will enthusiastically concur! team grunt!

however, it may come as a suprise to you that there are people who want to see society move forward, rather than backward, away from superstition, witch hunts, mob justice and childish concepts of good vs evil and the "good guys" vs the "bad guys".

the best your team can do is call us names and label us as "bleeding hearts" etc. eventually, that just becomes tiresome and transparent.

the death penalty, like all culturally "approved" forms of violence, simply sends the message that, under "special" circumstances, its really okay to kill.

given the opportunity and the will, we human beings can rationalize virtually any act, under "special" circumstances.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Cort Strummer said:


> It cant be that bad if people keep going back to it....
> 
> I wish they would bring capital punishment back to Canada, lose this lethal injection BS (it is like putting an animal down) they do NOT feel anything; if they wanna keep it then it should be like the lethal injection from the movie Law Abiding Citizen. The Electric Chair is awesome, definitely need more of those. Can't forget the classic, string'em up from a tree; and why not a Firing Squad? But we cant forget the child molesters and other perves.... they can have the famous Stoning.
> 
> ...


...you do realize, of course, that you are describing the tough on crime justice system in many US states, where it has been proven time and time again that it simply does not work that way. if anything, it results in a rise in violent crime, not a drop.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...some day, a forward-thinking and enlightened culture in some country, probably sweden or denmark, is going to figure out that the first step is to draw a broad distinction between violent and non-violent crimes, including completely separate prison systems.

in the meantime, i thank the suns and stars that canada is not, so far, run by talk show radio hosts and their knuckle-dragging callers.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...some day, a forward-thinking and enlightened culture in some country, probably sweden or denmark, is going to figure out that the first step is to draw a broad distinction between violent and non-violent crimes, including completely separate prison systems.
> 
> in the meantime, i thank the suns and stars that canada is not, so far, run by talk show radio hosts and their knuckle-dragging callers.


You mean this guy is calling the shots over there?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

david henman said:


> ...fellow neanderthals will enthusiastically concur! team grunt!
> 
> however, it may come as a suprise to you that there are people who want to see society move forward, rather than backward, away from superstition, witch hunts, mob justice and childish concepts of good vs evil and the "good guys" vs the "bad guys".
> 
> ...


play nice, mr. no need to go name calling. i freely admit that my opinion is just that. (my opinion)
if i'm wrong, so be it. first time for everything i suppose. but maybe you misunderstood part of what i said. i don't approve of the death penalty. i totally agree with your opinion of it. it's state sanctioned murder. my reference to "escape from new york" was as a substitute to the death penalty. predators need to be removed from polite society. (i think)
i think that because i don't believe those people can be rehabilitated. but i do think killing them is wrong. so my solution of putting them in a habitat of their own creation relieves the rest of us of the burden of supporting them. i don't feel that those people deserve for me or the rest of "polite society" to pay for their medical care, their 3 hots and a cot. 
if that makes me a "knuckle dragger" well then, so be it. i am what i am, whatever that is. 
i have no guilt for feeling as if i'm better than them. i get up every morning and go to work and pay may bills and i don't prey on others. whether you agree with me or not, that's just me bein me and you bein you. i guess we're both lucky that the other one of us isn't in charge, eh?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...some day, a forward-thinking and enlightened culture in some country, probably sweden or denmark, is going to figure out that the first step is to draw a broad distinction between violent and non-violent crimes, including completely separate prison systems.
> 
> in the meantime, i thank the suns and stars that canada is not, so far, run by talk show radio hosts and their knuckle-dragging callers.


In my mind, this is not the answer either.

Anti-crime laws will cost billions: watchdog- Politics - Canoe.ca


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Did anyone notice my support for Australia. Once build, it runs itself; very low cost and low maintenance.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but my wife and I have been personally affected by no less than six murders in the past 5 years, either family members or professional relationships. I've never been pro-death penalty before, but I'm starting to change my mind. There is no question of guilt in any of the cases, and I wouldn't care if any of the perps ever breathed another breath. I pay too much tax already and it bothers me immensely to know that even one cent of my tax dollars is going to keep these [email protected]<K3r5 alive.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> Did anyone notice my support for Australia. Once build, it runs itself; very low cost and low maintenance.


I dont see the point of your "Australia" paradigm that you keep belabouring.

What it says to me is "I actually dont care if convicts live or die, I just dont want to directly dirty my hands with ridding the world of the scum, rather let them take their chances with some other scum doing it". To me this this is much less humane that capital punishment. Why not use them as gladiators instead? Or put them in with some lions? Maybe have them spin a wheel like on Price is Right...the wheel could land on death penalty, or college education, rapist for a cellmate, or walk free? Its the same thing. Avoiding getting your hands "dirty" by disguising it with the *possibility* things might not end badly. 

I have no problem with Capital punishment. And I dont ascribe to this notion that few ppl in prison are actually angels with dirt faces and have been put away in innocence. The handful of famous cases where this may have occurred is statistically insignificant when the entire prison population is considered. And I dont need a confession to be satisfied of someone guilt. Few perps of serious crimes have spotless records.

As to the earlier comment about how to deal with the mentally ill such as the Manitoba bus guy, how can we say he is "clearly deranged"? Is he more clearly deranged than Karla Homolka? I dont think so. Anyone who would perversely victimize their own family member for sexual kicks, leading to their death ranks at about the top of mental derangement IMO. Yet we are supposed to look on them differently in terms of punishment or rehabilitation opportunities? Not IMO. They're both sick animals, put them out of misery, for the benefit of society. Consider it a form of evolution if it makes the pill easier to swallow. Dont left wingers love Darwin as much as the rest of us? 

I wonder how many bleeding hearts that have so much compassion for the convicts would support a halfway house with them living next door to them and their families? Never seem to hear from those people whenever a new one opens up in a residential neighborhood . No better way to silence a liberal than make them have to live beside the outcome of their ideals...and the resulting blow to their property values


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Back to the original topic of this thread, theres no right answer that will please everybody.

If they shoot him, some will say he's given a bad ass death. If hes given an injection, some will say he's getting off easy. If hes locked up forever some will say either a) he's let off easy, or b)its inhumane to cage someone like an animal for the rest of their life.

I personally believe, if someone is sentenced to death, the one basic privilege they should be allowed is the method. I dont see it as any more disrespectful to the victim than letting them pig out with a last meal feast, which they already get as well.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Life lived or died on their own dime, in their own spot of land from which no one goes in or out past the wall. No one has blood on their hands, society has no guilt how these people do live or die, no one pays for their upkeep or funerary expenses, no one can raise their hand and say "I am guilty" of either killing them or keeping them alive in a small cage. In all manners no one is in any way open for a "debate on the ethics of..." they are gone and removed, they live, they die, they do it on their own in a place they have no contact or impact on the rest of society.

Here is a run on debate:

Kill em outright and be a neanderthal
Coddle them and hope they don't do bad things again and be a bleeding heart.

I say, take them out of the equation entirely. Send them to live out their lives where there is no release, no parole, no guards, no doctors, no nothing, a patch of dirt with enough wild animals and fish and plants they can survive and live if they keep their wits and being naturally aggressive people, they will. No one will have to carry their stains no matter what happens to them, the kill em crowd will have nothing to point at with derision on the costs of keeping killers alive and the bleeding hearts wont have to face the ugly reality that bad men do bad things because that is what they do.

Far from blather, it is a far more realistic a solution for people that have little to no chance ever of being able to be a part of society at all ever. One that leaves on the hands of any one no guilt in any way. Just like a mother tosses a baby from the nest to survive or not, we toss them from our society to live or not it is up to them, not us. In the meantime they are where we will never have to interact with them or fear them again.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

KOTG, that's pretty much what i'm saying too.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Sneaky said:


> I haven't read all the posts in this thread but my wife and I have been personally affected by no less than six murders in the past 5 years, either family members or professional relationships. I've never been pro-death penalty before, but I'm starting to change my mind. There is no question of guilt in any of the cases, and I wouldn't care if any of the perps ever breathed another breath. I pay too much tax already and it bothers me immensely to know that even one cent of my tax dollars is going to keep these [email protected]<K3r5 alive.


I know this wasn't your point, but six people whom you know, murdered in five years?

Time to move IMO. I've lived all over Canada at various times in my life and I can't think of ANYone I know (or knew) who was murdered.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> I say, take them out of the equation entirely. Send them to live out their lives where there is no release, no parole, no guards, no doctors, no nothing, a patch of dirt with enough wild animals and fish and plants they can survive and live if they keep their wits and being naturally aggressive people, they will. No one will have to carry their stains no matter what happens to them, the kill em crowd will have nothing to point at with derision on the costs of keeping killers alive and the bleeding hearts wont have to face the ugly reality that bad men do bad things because that is what they do.
> 
> Far from blather, it is a far more realistic a solution for people that have little to no chance ever of being able to be a part of society at all ever. One that leaves on the hands of any one no guilt in any way. Just like a mother tosses a baby from the nest to survive or not, we toss them from our society to live or not it is up to them, not us. In the meantime they are where we will never have to interact with them or fear them again.


So..... send them to Hamilton?


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

Diablo said:


> I dont see the point of your "Australia" paradigm that you keep belabouring.
> 
> What it says to me is "I actually dont care if convicts live or die, I just dont want to directly dirty my hands with ridding the world of the scum, rather let them take their chances with some other scum doing it". To me this this is much less humane that capital punishment. Why not use them as gladiators instead? Or put them in with some lions? Maybe have them spin a wheel like on Price is Right...the wheel could land on death penalty, or college education, rapist for a cellmate, or walk free? Its the same thing. Avoiding getting your hands "dirty" by disguising it with the *possibility* things might not end badly.


I totally agree with you here. Throwing your hands up and "ridding" yourself of the criminal problem is inhumane and unfeasible. Building a huge compound is NOT anything like sending people to colonize a new continent either. It also completely precludes the possibility of rehabilitation - which is the USUAL outcome of prison (somewhere around 80% in Federal prison - my stats finding mission this morning was not terribly successful). 




Diablo said:


> I wonder how many bleeding hearts that have so much compassion for the convicts would support a halfway house with them living next door to them and their families? Never seem to hear from those people whenever a new one opens up in a residential neighborhood . No better way to silence a liberal than make them have to live beside the outcome of their ideals...and the resulting blow to their property values


Yikes! I love being called names like bleeding heart liberal when I don't agree with someones position on the death penalty. But you have a point. I'd be PISSED if the house next door became a halfway house, or even a shelter for the homeless. That's why we have zoning laws and a municipal process that allows for public consultation.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> Here is a run on debate:
> 
> Kill em outright and be a neanderthal
> Coddle them and hope they don't do bad things again and be a bleeding heart.


...see, this is what i simply do not get: if you don't ascribe to the most brutal forms of violence, you are, therefore, a bleeding heart.

nonetheless, this is what most of the testosterone crowd believes.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...this would make perfect sense if the human race was neatly divided into 100% good people and 100% evil bastards.

the reality is, that only happens in comic books, cartoons, old tv shows and hollywood blockbusters.




keeperofthegood said:


> Life lived or died on their own dime, in their own spot of land from which no one goes in or out past the wall. No one has blood on their hands, society has no guilt how these people do live or die, no one pays for their upkeep or funerary expenses, no one can raise their hand and say "I am guilty" of either killing them or keeping them alive in a small cage. In all manners no one is in any way open for a "debate on the ethics of..." they are gone and removed, they live, they die, they do it on their own in a place they have no contact or impact on the rest of society.
> 
> Here is a run on debate:
> 
> ...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Diablo said:


> I wonder how many bleeding hearts that have so much compassion for the convicts would support a halfway house with them living next door to them and their families? Never seem to hear from those people whenever a new one opens up in a residential neighborhood . No better way to silence a liberal than make them have to live beside the outcome of their ideals...and the resulting blow to their property values


...you can hear this utterly illogical and senseless tripe on right wing hate radio practically any day of the week. the message is, if you don't want the so-called "bad guys" subjected to the most violent forms of vengeance that the so-called "good guys" can imagine, then that automatically means that you want to "coddle" them and place their comfort and happiness above that of their victims.

and, amazingly, people actually buy into this crap.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...yeah, i know...i don't believe you are a neanderthal. as you can see from my other posts, what i'm getting at is neanderthal/meathead attitudes.

my contention is that our emotional/irrational desire to see the criminal suffer renders us no better than the criminal who desires to see his victim suffer.

does that mean i don't want the criminal to suffer? does that mean that i think the criminal should be coddled, pampered?

i would also like to suggest that we don't give in the transparent attempts by our current adminsitration to cater to outrage and shape the justice system based on the most nefarious criminals, like homolka, bernardo and olsen. 





cheezyridr said:


> play nice, mr. no need to go name calling. i freely admit that my opinion is just that. (my opinion)
> if i'm wrong, so be it. first time for everything i suppose. but maybe you misunderstood part of what i said. i don't approve of the death penalty. i totally agree with your opinion of it. it's state sanctioned murder. my reference to "escape from new york" was as a substitute to the death penalty. predators need to be removed from polite society. (i think)
> i think that because i don't believe those people can be rehabilitated. but i do think killing them is wrong. so my solution of putting them in a habitat of their own creation relieves the rest of us of the burden of supporting them. i don't feel that those people deserve for me or the rest of "polite society" to pay for their medical care, their 3 hots and a cot.
> if that makes me a "knuckle dragger" well then, so be it. i am what i am, whatever that is.
> i have no guilt for feeling as if i'm better than them. i get up every morning and go to work and pay may bills and i don't prey on others. whether you agree with me or not, that's just me bein me and you bein you. i guess we're both lucky that the other one of us isn't in charge, eh?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Sneaky said:


> I haven't read all the posts in this thread but my wife and I have been personally affected by no less than six murders in the past 5 years, either family members or professional relationships. I've never been pro-death penalty before, but I'm starting to change my mind. There is no question of guilt in any of the cases, and I wouldn't care if any of the perps ever breathed another breath. I pay too much tax already and it bothers me immensely to know that even one cent of my tax dollars is going to keep these [email protected]<K3r5 alive.


...of course, you do realize that it costs considerably of your tax dollars more to kill them.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

I know far too many folks who've gotten their lives back together after drug/alcohol and resultant criminal problems, to deny the place rehabilitation has in a healthy society. Our present government has done an excellent job of whipping the law & order crowd up into a frenzy over our "serious crime problem" in Canada. The issue here is that our crime rates have been steadily dropping for decades. The best way to deal with this "problem" seems to be: do away with the pardons system, legislate mandatory minimum sentencing for pot smokers, build more prisons, and extend sentences by up to 159 days per inmate with new legislation that's recently passed in the House of Commons. Thankfully, most conservative law & order types might just hate spending money more than they hate criminals, because these new laws are going to cost over $5 billion. $5 billion !! for a "problem" that was basically manufactured by our government. As our cities grow so will the criminal element that operate within them. Focussed police work is a far better solution than blanket laws that do little to rehabilitate or deter offenders, and cost taxpayers exorbitant amounts of money.

Shawn.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...we too quickly forget or simply ignore/deny the fact that we are not born "evil". neither are we born weak, deceptive, dishonest, cruel, self-absorbed, irresponsible, callous, inconsiderate, thoughtless, disprespectful, perverse, destructive etc etc etc.

those qualities are created. by bad-parenting, destitution, hopelessness, ignorance, lack of education and many, many other societal ills. in other words, our society, intentionally or not, creates the problem.

we open the door, allow the horse to escape from the barn and then complain "bad horse, get the whip."

add to this the fact that, as a society, we endorse, promote and celebrate many forms of violence. not to mention the concept that, unless you are rich, thin and beautiful, you are a loser.

so, instead of trying to solve the problem at its core, we look for someone to blame.

i'm not suggesting that we abdicate personal responsibility, either for ourselves as fellow citizens, or for those who choose to disobey our laws.

but these choices are easier for some than others. let me explain.

i was brought up in a family where love was unconditional, and i received excellent guidance, discipline, structure and, more than anything else, a sense of self-worth and self-respect.

years ago, when i lived in NDG in montreal, i would read reports in the local weekly of young men beating up a woman in her 80s for the $20 she had in her handbag.

i was outraged! how can anyone have so little regard for others.

then i looked across the tracks from the high-rise where i was living, and i saw children who were literally despised by their own parents.

and i realized, how in the world could these children develop anything resembling respect for themselves, much less other human beings, under such circumstances?

these choices, for me and probably for most of you, were dead easy. i never had to struggle with any of the issues that change us from innocent babies into callous murderers.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

> ...we too quickly forget or simply ignore/deny *the fact that we are not born "evil". neither are we born weak, deceptive, dishonest, cruel, self-absorbed, irresponsible, callous, inconsiderate, thoughtless, disprespectful, perverse, destructive etc etc etc*.
> 
> those qualities are created. by bad-parenting, destitution, hopelessness, ignorance, lack of education and many, many other societal ills. in other words, our society, intentionally or not, creates the problem.
> 
> we open the door, allow the horse to escape from the barn and then complain "bad horse, get the whip."


LOL...There is nothing FACTUAL about that statement. There are many cases where criminals esp in the more heinous crimes were not simply victims of the way society formed them. For the most part, in this thread, we are not talking about someone who for example, steals bread to feed his family. Lefties would have everyone believe that the "Right" wants to execute jaywalkers. IIRC, this topic is about MURDER. And for that matter I dont care what someones hard luck story is, if you intentionally take a life, there is no excuse/copout that can justify it.

The whole world has been debating Nature vs. Nurture for umpteen years, but apparently David has had the "facts" all this time 
Nice try to pass off your belief system as "fact" simply by stating it as such.
Your arguments are pretty weak and juvenile if you need to dismiss others as "crap" "illogical" "tripe" "senseless" by overgeneralizing them and not actually disproving anything, yet somehow your position magically became an indisputable "fact". 
Disappointing.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...shall we look forward to your fact-based proof that some people are born evil?

didn't think so....




Diablo said:


> LOL...There is nothing FACTUAL about that statement. There are many cases where criminals esp in the more heinous crimes were not simply victims of the way society formed them. For the most part, in this thread, we are not talking about someone who for example, steals bread to feed his family.
> The whole world has been debating Nature vs. Nurture for umpteen years, but apparently David has had the "facts" all this time
> Nice try to pass off a belief system as "fact" simply by stating it as such.
> Your arguments are pretty weak and juvenile if you need to dismiss others as "crap" "illogical" "tripe" "senseless" by overgeneralizing them and not actually disproving anything, yet somehow your position magically became an indisputable "fact".
> Disappointing.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...not to mention that, if it is true that some of us are "born evil", as diablo seems to be suggesting, then that kind of takes personaly resonsibility and choice right out of the equation, don't it.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mrmatt1972 said:


> I totally agree with you here. Throwing your hands up and "ridding" yourself of the criminal problem is inhumane and unfeasible. Building a huge compound is NOT anything like sending people to colonize a new continent either. It also completely precludes the possibility of rehabilitation - which is the USUAL outcome of prison (somewhere around 80% in Federal prison - my stats finding mission this morning was not terribly successful).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for your post.

I have to admit, I find it a little contradictory however. Here's why, and maybe you can clear it up for me.
1) you seem to have faith in our legal system
2)you seem to believe that people can be rehabilitated
3)you ascribe to the idea that at least part of the purpose of incarceration is to rehab someone and re-integrate them back in to society.
4)BUT after steps 1-3 you still wouldnt want them in your neighborhood.

If you dont want/trust them in your neighborhood, why should more jaded folks like myself want them in mine? If we each got our way, that doesnt leave any place for them to go, but KOTG's Australia, lol. 
The breakdown in #4 tells me that even if you dont want to admit it, theres some part of 1-3 that you feel very shaky about, even if they sound good as ideals.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...this is one of those idiotic talk radio talking points that is completely void of logic.

why does anyone need to live next door to a criminal in order to justify their belief in a justice system based on rehabilitation?





Diablo said:


> Thank you for your post.
> 
> I have to admit, I find it a little contradictory however. Here's why, and maybe you can clear it up for me.
> 1) you seem to have faith in our legal system
> ...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Think some more then...Too easy.

Ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer?
Where's the terrible ills of society in his background that turned him into an animal?
Jeffrey Dahmer - Profile of Serial Killer Jeffrey Dahmer


Here's another less bizarre example:
Bernie Madoff. Pretty normal upbringing. ALTHOUGH I suppose we should all pity him for not being able to finish law school, for which we all must share the blame (?)...and accept that as an excuse for committing serious financial crimes. Poor Bernie! 
NB. not that anyone is suggesting that someone should be executed for white collar crimes. Just an example of how being morally bankrupt may not be the fault of society.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Diablo said:


> LOL...There is nothing FACTUAL about that statement. There are many cases where criminals esp in the more heinous crimes were not simply victims of the way society formed them. For the most part, in this thread, we are not talking about someone who for example, steals bread to feed his family.
> The whole world has been debating Nature vs. Nurture for umpteen years, but apparently David has had the "facts" all this time
> Nice try to pass off a belief system as "fact" simply by stating it as such.
> Your arguments are pretty weak and juvenile if you need to dismiss others as "crap" "illogical" "tripe" "senseless" by overgeneralizing them and not actually disproving anything, yet somehow your position magically became an indisputable "fact".
> Disappointing.


I would have to agree in part with what David is saying. I was raised in the same kind of home. I was also raised to respect others and to treat people as I would want to be treated. We never went to church and had no religious upbringing, we were simply raised to have respect for our family, friends and strangers as well. My kids were raised the same way and they also live by those concepts. I never swore in front of my parents even when I was in my 40's and I dont allow my kids to talk that way either, not in the house. When my Father told us to do somethng we did it and I can honestly say that the man never raised a hand to us, ever. I never beat ny kids either but I never played the time out game with them. When I spoke that meant get moving.

I see all too often kids the age of 12 and 13 cursing out loud in public and I can tell you that this is becuase they are not taught anythng at home. They are allowed to do what they want and when they want it. Does this mean that those kids will grow up to be murderers? I dont know. But I can tell you that my two were raised that if a cop ever brought them home (once) that they would live to regret it. They never did and have never been in any kind of trouble. But they have also never wanted for anything and they have never had issues like drug addiction and poverty and all of these things that make people do desperate things sometimes. I know that if my kids were starving and if I had no other option but to steal food for them, I probably would as a last resort. So we need to look at the reasons people do what they do. In terms of people like child molesters etc, I am not sure what you can do there. It is clearly a mental disorder of some kind.

But I agree that we are not born to steal and cheat and rob. Those things are brought on by circumstance and lack of respect for society in general. I would rather stand in a food line than to go and steal from a person that is working hard to feed his or her own family. Its just not right to do that and that was the way I was raised.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...this is one of those idiotic talk radio talking points that is completely void of logic.
> 
> why does anyone need to live next door to a criminal in order to justify their belief in a justice system based on rehabilitation?


Really????
You dont see the disconnect between believing in rehabilitation and then a fear of being in proximity of those that have supposedly been rehabilitated?
Its your logic that appears to be suspect, sir.
Not to mention your rude and insulting tone.
David please dont talk like another "internet tough guy" who goes around referring to others as idiots simply because your arguments arent as convincing as you deem them to be. If you cant take the heat in the kitchen, perhaps you should leave before getting the thread locked for the rest of us.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Diablo said:


> Really????
> You dont see the disconnect between believing in rehabilitation and then a fear of being in proximity of those that have supposedly been rehabilitated?
> Its your logic that appears to be suspect, sir.


...sorry, no, i see no inconsistency or lack of logic anywhere here, but i'm sure you can explain it to me.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...if jeffrey dahmer was simply born evil, then how can you hold him responsible for his crimes?



Diablo said:


> Think some more then...Too easy.
> 
> Ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer?
> Where's the terrible ills of society in his background that turned him into an animal?
> Jeffrey Dahmer - Profile of Serial Killer Jeffrey Dahmer


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Diablo said:


> Not to mention your rude and insulting tone.
> David please dont talk like another "internet tough guy" who goes around referring to others as idiots simply because your arguments arent as convincing as you deem them to be. If you cant take the heat in the kitchen, perhaps you should leave before getting the thread locked for the rest of us.


...you need to practice what you preach, my friend.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...if jeffrey dahmer was simply born evil, then how can you hold him responsible for his crimes?


Very simply.
_I dont consider "being born evil" to be an excuse or justification for committing the most heinous of crimes _and then the rest of society having to go on living with them in their midst. We have very basic rules that are required from all of us in order to conform to society. Not killing is one of them. What kind of world would it be if we could commit any nature of crime without impunity by pointing back to something in our genetic makeup or past experience? That sort of thing is unfortunate, but should be of no consequence or burden to the victim. The crime was committed, thats really all that matters.

If someone has a premature but natural failure of a vital organ, is it permissible for them to kidnap me, or perhaps one of your loved ones in order to harvest a replacement from them? Of course not. Their misfortune does not give them the right to attack anothers freedoms. That shortcoming isnt the involuntary donor's burden to suffer through. Same if someone happens to have a "serial killer gene" (a fictitious euphemism for whatever it is that makes someone kill in cold blood, whereas the rest of us , dont in spite of the many hardships almost all of us have endured in our lives).


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...you need to practice what you preach, my friend.


I will endeavour to do so.
Please guide me by highlighting some examples of things I have posted which you found personally insulting and I will refrain from continuing to do so.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...sorry, no, i see no inconsistency or lack of logic anywhere here, but i'm sure you can explain it to me.


See: Hypocrisy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *Hypocrisy is the act of persistently professing beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that are inconsistent with one's actions*. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I know this wasn't your point, but six people whom you know, murdered in five years?
> 
> Time to move IMO. I've lived all over Canada at various times in my life and I can't think of ANYone I know (or knew) who was murdered.


Well, I was the same way up until 5 years ago. Three of them were children under the age of 12, and all six were I guess what you would call "domestics" (ie. parent, daughter, boyfriend) that could have happened anywhere. Nothing to do with where I live.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Hmmm. This is going well.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...of course, you do realize that it costs considerably of your tax dollars more to kill them.


I'm trying to do the math here, and I'm coming up with a different answer. But anyways, I'm good with it either way.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I would have to agree in part with what David is saying. I was raised in the same kind of home. I was also raised to respect others and to treat people as I would want to be treated. We never went to church and had no religious upbringing, we were simply raised to have respect for our family, friends and strangers as well. My kids were raised the same way and they also live by those concepts. I never swore in front of my parents even when I was in my 40's and I dont allow my kids to talk that way either, not in the house. When my Father told us to do somethng we did it and I can honestly say that the man never raised a hand to us, ever. I never beat ny kids either but I never played the time out game with them. When I spoke that meant get moving.
> 
> I see all too often kids the age of 12 and 13 cursing out loud in public and I can tell you that this is becuase they are not taught anythng at home. They are allowed to do what they want and when they want it. Does this mean that those kids will grow up to be murderers? I dont know. But I can tell you that my two were raised that if a cop ever brought them home (once) that they would live to regret it. They never did and have never been in any kind of trouble. But they have also never wanted for anything and they have never had issues like drug addiction and poverty and all of these things that make people do desperate things sometimes. I know that if my kids were starving and if I had no other option but to steal food for them, I probably would as a last resort. So we need to look at the reasons people do what they do. In terms of people like child molesters etc, I am not sure what you can do there. It is clearly a mental disorder of some kind.
> 
> *But I agree that we are not born to steal and cheat and rob.* Those things are brought on by circumstance and lack of respect for society in general. I would rather stand in a food line than to go and steal from a person that is working hard to feed his or her own family. Its just not right to do that and that was the way I was raised.


The problem is, GC, that not all crimes are committed by the poor, or those that have been diagnosed as mentally deranged etc. Some of them have seemingly normal upbringings that dont hint at events to come.
And some ppl from impoverished backgrounds with absent, abusive or weak family structures, turn their lives around and make great success stories. So what is the difference
between them???? We all have to admit, that there is a lot that NONE of us know about what makes someone bad to the bone and someone else an exemplary citizen.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...this is one of those idiotic talk radio talking points that is completely void of logic.
> 
> why does anyone need to live next door to a criminal in order to justify their belief in a justice system based on rehabilitation?


If anybody would have criminals next door to them I thought it would be you david. Right along with the gay parade right down your street past your front door.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Sneaky said:


> I'm trying to do the math here, and I'm coming up with a different answer. But anyways, I'm good with it either way.


I think he's hinting at the astronomical legal costs in terms of appeals etc. Completely true>but imo a separate issue.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

> And some ppl from impoverished backgrounds with absent, abusive or weak family structures, turn their lives around and make great success stories. So what is the difference
> 
> 
> > That would be my story. There comes a time when you have to look inside your self and take accountability. I knew some people in jail that blamed their parents and everyone else for their actions. Those people are still most likely serving time or dead.
> > At age 20 I took accountability for my actions and no longer blamed my alcoholic and physically abusive parents and took accountability for my actions. Since that time I never saw inside another jail cell.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Diablo said:


> The problem is, GC, that not all crimes are committed by the poor, or those that have been diagnosed as mentally deranged etc. Some of them have seemingly normal upbringings that dont hint at events to come.
> And some ppl from impoverished backgrounds with absent, abusive or weak family structures, turn their lives around and make great success stories. So what is the difference
> between them???? We all have to admit, that there is a lot that NONE of us know about what makes someone bad to the bone and someone else an exemplary citizen.


I wont argue with that. How many times have we seen someone say "he was the nicest guy, never cuased any trouble, was a great nieghbor" this just after he hacked his entire family to death with a dull meat cleaver. If we knew the answers to these things I guess we could prevent some of them. The human mind is a very complex and mysterious thing and I am not sure we will ever be able to fully understand what goes on inside any given persons head at any given moment. But going back to the original question, when someone does cross that line what do you do with them. If once capable of that sort of deed, can they really ever be trusted in society again?


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> ... when someone does cross that line what do you do with them. If once capable of that sort of deed, can they really ever be trusted in society again?


Damn good question. I don't think there is ONE answer. I think that's why the parole system has guidelines, but does things on a case-by-case basis.

Murder, as with most crimes, boils down to means, motive and opportunity. Regardless of opportunity and motive I don't think I have the psychological means to commit murder - I just don't think I could do it. Maybe that's what a parole board member looks for, a fundamental change in a murderer's outlook. In most cases, the motive is not likely to ever reoccur either.

I somehow missed guitarman2's last post before writing this one. His acceptance of personal responsibility and accountability is the kind of psychological change I'm talking about.


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

Diablo said:


> I think he's hinting at the astronomical legal costs in terms of appeals etc. Completely true>but imo a separate issue.


Well, there's that, and the fact that most people on death row effectively serve the bulk of a life sentence while waiting for their execution. And death row inmates are housed alone, so cost more than a regular inmate to begin with.


----------



## Bobby (May 27, 2010)

guitarman2 said:


> If anybody would have criminals next door to them I thought it would be you david. Right along with the gay parade right down your street past your front door.


David looks to me like he actually puts some thought into his posts and how he expresses himself.

you on the other hand,just lumped criminals and homosexuals together,in a very insidious manner.which i guess also takes thought. but its not in good faith.

do you live next to a millitary base? or are you part of the armed forces? because if the answer to either is no. you dont support the troops.you are a terrorist,you dont love freedom. its essentially the same logic you presented in your reply to David.

ok,its not logical,i went way far out and morphed the argument. but thats how we play the right wing game,right?

Bobby


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

well there is a big difference between your garden variety criminal and the sort that winds up on death row. lets face it- you don't get sentenced to the firing squad for jaywalking or not paying your parking fines, or even for smoking a doobie or shoplifting. sure i can believe in rehabilitation for someone who had a lapse in judgement or felt desperate and in a moment of weakness broke the law. on the other hand, there are certain people who for whatever reasons, be it abnormal mental or emotional genetics, socio-economic deprivation or lack of breastfeeding, exhibit psychopathic behaviour and commit heinous acts. The question is what do you do with these creatures? in a perfect world it would be great to know they could be "cured" helped or whatever. but the reality is that simply is not going to happen. so then it is a situation of lifetime incarceration or in some jurisdictions, execution. is one more cruel than the other? that's a personal judgement people make based on their own beliefs. is the death penalty a state sanctioned murder? maybe. but so is sending our armed forces to foreign lands with weapons to kill the locals. yes we justify it by saying it is a "peacekeeping mission" or we are defending someone's rights or freedoms, but in the end, our gov't is still killing other people with our support and consent. so is killing a convicted murderer to protect society from them commiting the same act over again, any worse? again, i think that is a personal decison. some people who have been personally affected by violent crime are more likely to feel different than those who have not.
like it or not, in some respects, life is cheap. sadly, innocent people die every day, and often no one is held accountable. in Toronto, you can die just trying to cross an intersection, or maybe riding your bike, and the odds are the person who is responsible will not suffer any loss of their liberty. they call it "an accident". but is it? that's just a social convention we all agree to. 
in the American justice system, (where the OP story came from that started this) it is most often about money. most convicts who wind up on Death Row are poor and black or brown. if they could afford better lawyers they wouldn't be executed. its a messed up system for sure. but Canada is only marginally different. much of Canada's prison population are First Nation and Inuit...and/or poor. 
but still...regardless of race or economics, if someone commits repeated violent crimes, they should be held to a higher accountability.
i'm not sure if Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, or Robert Pickton could ever be considered rehabilitated and ready to become contributing members of society?
and i'm not sure i see what value there is for either them individually or society at large, in keeping them alive in a jail cell until they die naturally.
personally, i would not lose a moments sleep if they were executed. 
just my 2 cents.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Bobby said:


> David looks to me like he actually puts some thought into his posts and how he expresses himself.
> 
> you on the other hand,just lumped criminals and homosexuals together,in a very insidious manner.which i guess also takes thought. but its not in good faith.
> 
> ...


I was making reference to his earlier posts in regards to pride parade. I wasn't lumping homosexuals in with criminals.


----------



## the_fender_guy (Jul 22, 2008)

In the nature vs nurture discussion I don't completely subscribe to the John Locke theory of Tabula Rasa as David seems to.
We may be shaped by our environment/parents/social and economic settings but there are people who are wired differently.
The Bernardos and Olsens of the world are wired differently and don't give any thought to their victims. I have no idea what to do with them but I can live comfortably with them spending the rest of their natural lives in prison.
My thoughts on Vince Li are different. He lives with the horror of his actions and was not criminally responsible for his actions. Properly medicated I doubt he ever would have committed his crime.
Same with David Carmichael. If not experiencing psychosis from Paxil he wouldn't have killed his son and the courts found him not criminally responsible.
David Carmichael is a productive member of society living with the death of his son at his own hands.
It is not always as simple as some people think.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Bobby said:


> do you live next to a millitary base? or are you part of the armed forces? because if the answer to either is no. you dont support the troops.you are a terrorist,you dont love freedom. its essentially the same logic you presented in your reply to David.
> 
> *ok,its not logical,i went way far out and morphed the argument*. but thats how we play the right wing game,right?
> 
> Bobby


Ya, I dont really get your analogy.

And regarding the "right wing game", if nothing else, this thread should point out that when it comes to argument tactics, the right and the left arent really that different in the end.
This struck me during the last US election as well. Prior to that, I had always thought it was only the Republicans that played dirty pool with smear compaigns. But in this last election it was obvious thta both sides could stoop to some pretty low levels....actually it was the first time that I thought the Dems at times went too far in crossing some lines.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

the_fender_guy said:


> In the nature vs nurture discussion I don't completely subscribe to the John Locke theory of Tabula Rasa as David seems to.
> We may be shaped by our environment/parents/social and economic settings but there are people who are wired differently.
> The Bernardos and Olsens of the world are wired differently and don't give any thought to their victims. I have no idea what to do with them but I can live comfortably with them spending the rest of their natural lives in prison.
> My thoughts on Vince Li are different. He lives with the horror of his actions and was not criminally responsible for his actions. Properly medicated I doubt he ever would have committed his crime.
> ...


Good post. To keep the thread moving along, I'll play Devils Advocate. 
In the case of someone like Vincent Li, should it be considered a crime if he refuses psycho-medical treatment after his release? Should he be criminally charged with endangering society if for example he stopped taking his meds?


----------



## the_fender_guy (Jul 22, 2008)

Diablo said:


> Good post. To keep the thread moving along, I'll play Devils Advocate.
> In the case of someone like Vincent Li, should it be considered a crime if he refuses psycho-medical treatment after his release? Should he be criminally charged with endangering society if for example he stopped taking his meds?


I'm not sure Vincent Li should ever be released except under the strictest supervision including monitoring his meds.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> If anybody would have criminals next door to them I thought it would be you david. Right along with the gay parade right down your street past your front door.


...okay, i see where this is going. pretty much what i have come to expect.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Diablo said:


> I think he's hinting at the astronomical legal costs in terms of appeals etc. Completely true>but imo a separate issue.


...uh, no...sorry, its is exactly the same issue. the cost of killing the person vs the cost of not killing the person.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...still, if you believe that some people are literally "born evil", its not exactly a level playing field, is it. makes it just a little easier for someone like you, who was born "good", to conform to the "basic rules", yes?

in any case, no here is suggesting that any of life's circumstances serve as "justification" or a convenient "excuse" for criminal behavior, although we will always be accused of that by the manly, tough-on-crime types, who also love to label anyone who expresses even a modicum of compassion and understanding as "bleeding hearts".

all we are suggesting is that, if specific circumstances create a breeding ground for criminal behavior, would it not make sense to address those specific circumstances as a means of crime prevention?





Diablo said:


> Very simply.
> _I dont consider "being born evil" to be an excuse or justification for committing the most heinous of crimes _and then the rest of society having to go on living with them in their midst. We have very basic rules that are required from all of us in order to conform to society. Not killing is one of them. What kind of world would it be if we could commit any nature of crime without impunity by pointing back to something in our genetic makeup or past experience? That sort of thing is unfortunate, but should be of no consequence or burden to the victim. The crime was committed, thats really all that matters.
> 
> If someone has a premature but natural failure of a vital organ, is it permissible for them to kidnap me, or perhaps one of your loved ones in order to harvest a replacement from them? Of course not. Their misfortune does not give them the right to attack anothers freedoms. That shortcoming isnt the involuntary donor's burden to suffer through. Same if someone happens to have a "serial killer gene" (a fictitious euphemism for whatever it is that makes someone kill in cold blood, whereas the rest of us , dont in spite of the many hardships almost all of us have endured in our lives).


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

the_fender_guy said:


> In the nature vs nurture discussion I don't completely subscribe to the John Locke theory of Tabula Rasa as David seems to.
> We may be shaped by our environment/parents/social and economic settings but there are people who are wired differently.
> The Bernardos and Olsens of the world are wired differently and don't give any thought to their victims. I have no idea what to do with them but I can live comfortably with them spending the rest of their natural lives in prison.
> My thoughts on Vince Li are different. He lives with the horror of his actions and was not criminally responsible for his actions. Properly medicated I doubt he ever would have committed his crime.
> ...


...excellent points. while i don't for a minute believe that people are born evil, i can certainly appreciate that we might be "wired differently". and yes, absolutely to your closing statement - precisely my point!


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...okay, i see where this is going. pretty much what i have come to expect.


It was just a joke david, lighten upkkjuw


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> the cost of killing the person vs the cost of not killing the person.


In the case of someone like Bernardo, who has a video to prove without a doubt, his guilt, it would be money well spent.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> It was just a joke david, lighten upkkjuw


...okay, you got me - but the fact is, it usually ISN'T a joke.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> In the case of someone like Bernardo, who has a video to prove without a doubt, his guilt, it would be money well spent.


...to reduce ourselves, as a society, to his level? not really.

personally, i'm quite happy to know that he is stewing in his own juices. for as long as humanly possible.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...to reduce ourselves, as a society, to his level? not really.
> 
> personally, i'm quite happy to know that he is stewing in his own juices. for as long as humanly possible.


aahhh, so I am more humane than you.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> aahhh, so I am more humane than you.


...no doubt!

personally, i want to see bernardo, olsen et al suffer a little. hell, maybe a lot. that's only human, i suspect. same as i want to make love to practically every woman i see.

thus, i don't see any inconsistency in desiring to NOT see our justice system based on our more primitive human instincts.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...no doubt!
> 
> personally, i want to see bernardo, olsen et al suffer a little. hell, maybe a lot. that's only human, i suspect. same as i want to make love to practically every woman i see.
> 
> thus, i don't see any inconsistency in desiring to NOT see our justice system based on our more primitive human instincts.


I could almost agree with you to a point with one concession. When the government needs to make cuts to services or things that benefit us tax payers, I'd rather they start at top of the list for notorious serial murders/child killers/molesters and execute them to save tax payer money.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> I could almost agree with you to a point with one concession. When the government needs to make cuts to services or things that benefit us tax payers, I'd rather they start at top of the list for notorious serial murders/child killers/molesters and execute them to save tax payer money.


...they like killing people. you like killing people. i get it. do you?

oh, right. you're one of the "good guys". you're doing it to save tax payer money. that's okay then.

but why stop there? why not kill everyone who commits a crime? people who break the speed limit, for example.

hold public executions to raise money for taxes.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...they like killing people. you like killing people. i get it. do you?
> 
> oh, right. you're one of the "good guys". you're doing it to save tax payer money. that's okay then.
> 
> ...



So you don't beleive there are levels of punishment to befit a crime? A speeder should get the same as a CHild killer.
I'm all for speeders getting tickets, I'm all for thieves getting incarceration and I'm all for extreme murder cases such as cop killers, child killers and serial killers. If it were ever to be legal to execute in Canada, of course I wouldn't want to see it in every case. But c'mon if you'e got a video of the ordeal its a slam dunk.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> So you don't beleive there are levels of punishment to befit a crime? A speeder should get the same as a CHild killer.
> I'm all for speeders getting tickets, I'm all for thieves getting incarceration and I'm all for extreme murder cases such as cop killers, child killers and serial killers. If it were ever to be legal to execute in Canada, of course I wouldn't want to see it in every case. But c'mon if you'e got a video of the ordeal its a slam dunk.



...just having a little fun witcha, dude. happily, we live in a society that doesn't believe in killing its own citizens. however, you will be pleased to know that there are lots of countries, governments and cultures that do.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> .........I'm all for speeders getting tickets, I'm all for thieves getting incarceration and I'm all for extreme murder cases such as cop killers, child killers and serial killers. If it were ever to be legal to execute in Canada, of course I wouldn't want to see it in every case. But c'mon if you'e got a video of the ordeal its a slam dunk.


Exactly. 

I disagree with David's statement "they like killing people. you like killing people. i get it. do you?" There's nothing pleasant about the concept. It's about ridding society of someone who has no chance to ever be a usefull contributor, is dangerous to the public well being. Suffer in prison? Why bother? That's one I don't understand. It's not all about money, but *to me* there is substance to the argument of 'why should we pay to house Olsen at high cost for X years.'

I would like to see the death penalty in murder cases where there is incontrovertible proof (Bernardo video). With aggravating events, like serial killing/cop killing. Confessions don't count. Circumstancial evidence, no way. No 'questionable character' witnesses. Ergo, no Prescotts or Milgards. Not for single incident 'crimes of passion', and I'd give that a very broad definition.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

keto said:


> Exactly.
> I disagree with David's statement "they like killing people. you like killing people. i get it. do you?" There's nothing pleasant about the concept. It's about ridding society of someone who has no chance to ever be a usefull contributor, is dangerous to the public well being. Suffer in prison? Why bother? That's one I don't understand. It's not all about money, but there is substance to the argument of 'why should we pay to house Olsen at high cost for X years.'
> I would like to see the death penalty in murder cases where there is incontrovertible proof (Bernardo video). With aggravating events, like serial killing/cop killing. Confessions don't count. Circumstancial evidence, no way. No 'questionable character' witnesses. Ergo, no Prescotts or Milgards. Not for single incident 'crimes of passion', and I'd give that a very broad definition.


...and i disagree with yours, because i think there is a primitive bloodlust at work here. not to mention vengeance..

in any case, what are the benefits to our society of killing people like bernardo?

it has been proven, time and time again that the death penalty does not save money, does not act as a deterrent, does not reduce violent crime, etc.

so, what does society achieve?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

keto said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I disagree with David's statement "they like killing people. you like killing people. i get it. do you?" There's nothing pleasant about the concept. It's about ridding society of someone who has no chance to ever be a usefull contributor, is dangerous to the public well being. Suffer in prison? Why bother? That's one I don't understand. It's not all about money, but there is substance to the argument of 'why should we pay to house Olsen at high cost for X years.'
> 
> I would like to see the death penalty in murder cases where there is incontrovertible proof (Bernardo video). With aggravating events, like serial killing/cop killing. Confessions don't count. Circumstancial evidence, no way. No 'questionable character' witnesses. Ergo, no Prescotts or Milgards. Not for single incident 'crimes of passion', and I'd give that a very broad definition.


I'm agreeing right along with you. The problem is that the theory of only executing in cases of irrefutable evidence will never work.
Every single person the crown puts away at the time, whether by video tape evidence or circumstantial evidence, the law recognizes the person as truly guilty. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence. And once the law makes up its mind its near impossible to have it overturned. We have the millgard and donald marshall cases where they were at least able to go back and correct it. I wonder how many more are still sitting in jail never to ever to be released and expunged because they don't have a mother to fight tooth and nail or a past witness to come clean with the truth. 
So you have maybe innocents that will spend the rest of their lives in jail, and as David Henman says, this is a far more punishing end to murderers. So in the case of innocents is it better for them to be executed and not have to face a life of incarceration. The odds that their convictions will be overturned is probably a million to one. So maybe this nuetralizes the "what if they are innocent", argument. 
There are a million ways to die based on accidents in our world. Being wrongfully executed would be a small price to pay to take murderers off the street, who execute innocents all the time.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> I'm agreeing right along with you. The problem is that the theory of only executing in cases of irrefutable evidence will never work.
> Every single person the crown puts away at the time, whether by video tape evidence or circumstantial evidence, the law recognizes the person as truly guilty. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence. And once the law makes up its mind its near impossible to have it overturned. We have the millgard and donald marshall cases where they were at least able to go back and correct it. I wonder how many more are still sitting in jail never to ever to be released and expunged because they don't have a mother to fight tooth and nail or a past witness to come clean with the truth.
> So you have maybe innocents that will spend the rest of their lives in jail, and as David Henman says, this is a far more punishing end to murderers. So in the case of innocents is it better for them to be executed and not have to face a life of incarceration. The odds that their convictions will be overturned is probably a million to one. So maybe this nuetralizes the "what if they are innocent", argument.
> There are a million ways to die based on accidents in our world. Being wrongfully executed would be a small price to pay to take murderers off the street, who execute innocents all the time.


...the line forms to the left. step right up. first come, first...um...served.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...and i disagree with yours, because i think there is a primitive bloodlust at work here. not to mention vengeance..


Why is it blood lust to want killers removed from our society in a way that even escape from prison is not a possibility?
Did Canada not support the efforts to capture Sadam Hussien, who was then subsequently executed? We must have known that would be the outcome.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> in any case, what are the benefits to our society of killing people like bernardo?


We will never have to here his name other than anything referring to the past tense
Families will not ever have to show up to parole hearings to give victim impact statements.
If our judicial system is stupid enough to let Karla walk the streets I don't trust that our parole system isn't stupid enough to someday let Bernardo, again walk the streets.
Can anybody add the benefits to this list. I'm sure there is a lot more I just don't have the time to think of them right now.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Why is it blood lust to want killers removed from our society in a way that even escape from prison is not a possibility?
> Did Canada not support the efforts to capture Sadam Hussien, who was then subsequently executed? We must have known that would be the outcome.


...in rare instances, you may actually be right.

however, it has been my experience that it is the more "manly" types who favour execution. the language they use, especially in america, and on barking dog am radio talk shows in canada, not to mention the letters to the editor in tabloid style newspapers, suggests a high degree of personal "gratification", to put it nicely.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> We will never have to here his name other than anything referring to the past tense
> Families will not ever have to show up to parole hearings to give victim impact statements.
> If our judicial system is stupid enough to let Karla walk the streets I don't trust that our parole system isn't stupid enough to someday let Bernardo, again walk the streets.
> Can anybody add the benefits to this list. I'm sure there is a lot more I just don't have the time to think of them right now.



...none of these benefit society.

obviously, homolka was a mistake. still, killing people based on the fact that no justice system is perfect holds no benefit to society, either.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Why is it blood lust to want killers removed from our society in a way that even escape from prison is not a possibility?
> Did Canada not support the efforts to capture Sadam Hussien, who was then subsequently executed? We must have known that would be the outcome.


...killing people because they might escape makes about as much sense as killing people because they might some day commit a crime.

again, i took great personal satisfaction in hussein's death.

but i don't want a justice system based on my personal satisfaction.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...in rare instances, you may actually be right.
> 
> however, it has been my experience that it is the more "manly" types who favour execution. the language they use, especially in america, and on barking dog am radio talk shows in canada, not to mention the letters to the editor in tabloid style newspapers, suggests a high degree of personal "gratification", to put it nicely.


Sounds like a generalization. You'd be the first to screem if someone made a generaliztion about you.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...killing people because they might escape makes about as much sense as killing people because they might some day commit a crime.
> 
> again, i took great personal satisfaction in hussein's death.
> 
> but i don't want a justice system based on my personal satisfaction.


You took personal satisfaction from the execution of Hussien yet morally stand in the way of the families of bernardo's victims to experience the same gratification. It seems you're a walking contradiction. You either believe in it or not. If Bernardo had the political power at his command that Hussien did, I fear Hussien would have looked like a choir boy. The only reason bernardo doesn't have as many notches on his belt is lack of opportunity.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Sounds like a generalization. You'd be the first to screem if someone made a generaliztion about you.


...bingo! it IS generalization!

well done, lad.

and i would absolutely welcome a generalization about me. bring it, baby.

just be careful not to confuse a generalization with an assumption...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> You took personal satisfaction from the execution of Hussien yet morally stand in the way of the families of bernardo's victims to experience the same gratification. It seems you're a walking contradiction.



...only to you. i thought i made it pretty clear that no justice system should be based upon my personal satisfaction.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...only to you. i thought i made it pretty clear that no justice system should be based upon my personal satisfaction.


Well if a justice system didn't personally satisfy most of us, what good is it?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Well if a justice system didn't personally satisfy most of us, what good is it?


...perhaps i could explain to you the distinction between personal satisfaction, as in "gratification", and the overall good of society, yes?

would that work for you?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...perhaps i could explain to you the distinction between personal satisfaction, as in "gratification", and the overall good of society, yes?
> 
> would that work for you?



You could try explaining it to me but I can't help feeling that if society subscribed to your theories that we'd have more to worry about than just Karla walking among us.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> You could try explaining it to me but I can't help feeling that if society subscribed to your theories that we'd have more to worry about than just Karla walking among us.



...how so?


----------



## the_fender_guy (Jul 22, 2008)

guitarman2 said:


> I could almost agree with you to a point with one concession. When the government needs to make cuts to services or things that benefit us tax payers, I'd rather they start at top of the list for notorious serial murders/child killers/molesters and *execute them to save tax payer money*.


$$$$$ IMO is the most repugnant argument in support of capital punishment. But it often comes up in the discussion so you're not alone. I think it's important that the USA has what seem like endless appeals at exorbitant costs before they execute a person. It should never be cheap or easy to take *any* life. As soon as it becomes cheap and easy to kill we are reduced to the same level as those we wish to execute.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...uh, no...sorry, its is exactly the same issue. the cost of killing the person vs the cost of not killing the person.


Not at all. They are separate. Legal costs for appeals are only 1 small consideration in the bigger picture of capital punishment. The same way if your car gets a flat tire, you dont write it off and send it to the scrapyard. You fix the tires and hit the road. Fix the issue with the appeals process, and capital punishment *may* still be a viable solution in certain circumstances. (or at least, become more economically feasible).

The problem in this case is a ridiculous, seemingly endless legal process that lets convicted criminals waste resources on countless appeals simply because they have nothing better to do, or delight in their ability to continue making mischief for the victims families by doing so, all from the comfort of their jail cells.
This has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of capital punishment.

A simple solution is a limit to the amount of appeals that can be made. 1-2 max and you're done, deal with it. Astronomical legal costs to society go down, victims get closure, scumbag deals with now having to accept/pay for his sins. The legal system shouldnt be treated like a slot machine by people who arent even paying for it....keep spinning the wheels (because it doesnt cost you anything and you have all the time in the world and nothign to lose) until you get the result you like (payout), isnt right.
Or, make the prisoners have to earn their legal representation through a credit system while in prison...based on a combination of work performed and of course good behaviour. Y'know, kinda like the way the rest of us have to earn/pay for access to lawyers.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

the_fender_guy said:


> $$$$$ IMO is the most repugnant argument in support of capital punishment. But it often comes up in the discussion so you're not alone. I think it's important that the USA has what seem like endless appeals at exorbitant costs before they execute a person. It should never be cheap or easy to take *any* life. As soon as it becomes cheap and easy to kill we are reduced to the same level as those we wish to execute.


Its a nice thought to say "you cant put a price on life...any life, ever", but that isnt really realistic. We're pretty spoiled here, but in many parts of the world, life is really cheap.
In some places, even your life may only be worth whatever is in your wallet....or a bullet. Its all relative.

Re: Can't put a price on life, let me pose a scenario...I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Lets say an 89 yr old man developed a rare, bizarre, fatal ailment...one that only occurs in a handful of human beings on the earth. So rare that no cure has been discovered. BUT, the ailment can be controlled with a treatment that is very expensive due to specialized equipment, drugs, whatever. Now lets say, the cost of this treatment was $50M per year, and of course due to the age of the patient, there could be no guarantees. Would you be in favour of our healthcare system providing him with this treatment? What if it costed $100M, or $500M per year? Would you still be in favour of subsidizing this treatment, bearing in mind that the healthcare system we all use is not a bottomless pit of funds?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...still, if you believe that some people are literally "born evil", its not exactly a level playing field, is it. makes it just a little easier for someone like you, who was born "good", to conform to the "basic rules", yes?


Ya, life isnt fair, is it? 
And you are correct, I dont really have any mercy /sympathy for someone who cant "conform to the basic rules" eg. not to rape, murder innocent people etc. and I'm pretty honest about it. To me, their subhuman and not equal to the rest of us without these urges/impulses or the ability to control them.
FWIW, I dont consider myself "born good"....more like "minimally decent" in that I havent killed, raped or destroyed peoples lives, and I dont expect a medal for that. Perhaps I set the bar for being "good" much higher than you do. But I suppose we're splitting hairs.


david henman said:


> in any case, no here is suggesting that any of life's circumstances serve as "justification" or a convenient "excuse" for criminal behavior, although *we will always be accused of that *by the *manly, tough-on-crime types*, who also love to *label anyone *who expresses even a modicum of compassion and understanding as "bleeding hearts".


Pick yourself up off the floor, man! Whining is very unbecoming  Not to mention you've done more than your fair share of labelling (neanderthal, idiotic, etc), so its waaay too late for you to start playing the victim.
This is a forum for musicians. I wouldnt worry too much about anyones uber-manliness here.


----------



## the_fender_guy (Jul 22, 2008)

Diablo said:


> Its a nice thought to say "you cant put a price on life...any life, ever", but that isnt really realistic. We're pretty spoiled here, but in many parts of the world, life is really cheap.
> In some places, even your life may only be worth whatever is in your wallet....or a bullet. Its all relative.
> 
> Re: Can't put a price on life, let me pose a scenario...I'd be interested in your thoughts.
> ...


Sorry, due to my own health, I can't even begin to think of this objectively.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...it was fairly easy to see where you were going with this, but thanks for making it a bit clearer. and even uglier.





Diablo said:


> Its a nice thought to say "you cant put a price on life...any life, ever", but that isnt really realistic. We're pretty spoiled here, but in many parts of the world, life is really cheap.
> In some places, even your life may only be worth whatever is in your wallet....or a bullet. Its all relative.
> 
> Re: Can't put a price on life, let me pose a scenario...I'd be interested in your thoughts.
> ...


----------

