The Death Penalty to 40 years old Vince Li !! See him I have the link !!
- Thread starter korbel
- Start date
- Status
Dee said:
The article you quote is from 1999. In 2007 New Jersey abolished the death penalty so you can add NJ to the list. It's 13 states plus DC that have no death penalty statutes, and 37 states that have death penalty statutes. And only 3 states really imposing it with any degree of consistency, with Texas leading the way (Virginia #2 and Oklahoma #3 since 1976- Texas is #1 by a lot).
Last edited:
Regular Guy said:
I welcome the facts posted by EB but it doesn't change the reality that the US stands out like a sore thumb (see posted list of top executioners again) when it comes to the death penalty. And while the issue will continue to be controversial in the US, this is certainly not the case in countries like Canada. The death penalty and abortion have stopped being important/controversial issues for the majority of Canadians decades ago.
Last edited:
This is Canada. A country of sheep. We have a very bad problem of accepting whatever our government decides without even raising a voice. How do you think our justice system ever got in such a pitiful state in the first place? Here in Quebec we have taxes on taxes! Do you think any other country would get away with doing that? Can you imagine what would happen in the US if they tried to pull something like that?
Damn! We worry more about cigarette smuggling than we do about real crime. Our justice system is a joke.
bond_james_bond said:
Honestly 007 it seems quite ironic that a man with a license to kill is opposed to the death penalty.
As for your 5 points:
a) True but irrelevant. As an example, if someone burns down your house, destroying all your worldly possessions and perhaps killing you and your family, punishing the culprit won't bring anything back...but maybe (just maybe) most people (even the other bleeding hearts) would feel he deserved some sort of punishment anyway (oh, but of course not death - no, heaven forbid!).
b) Incorrect. It would be a deterrent for the killer in question. At the very least HE would be prevented from ever killing again.
c) The bleeding hearts usually argue that economic concerns are irrelevant to justice so why is this even being mentioned? Since it HAS been mentioned however, here's the response: It may not be cheap...but it's a LOT cheaper (and more efficient
than keeping the prick alive!d) In this case the man is definitely not innocent. There is zero risk.
e) Apples to oranges. This bastard viciously took the life of an innocent human being, not only ending a valuable life but also inflicting untold misery on many others (family, friends, even the outraged population of Canada, which has just lost a little bit more of its innocence and optimism - if any still remains). Executing this piece of dirt would not be an evil act but a noble and intelligent act of prevention and (yes) revenge...but justified revenge.
Techman said:
"Our justice system is a joke"
That sounds like an opinion to me, not a statement of fact. So how did you come to that conclusion and how is our justice system any more or less of a joke than that of other democracies? Or are all justice systems which have abolished the death penalty a de facto "joke" as far as you are concerned?
And if Canadians are such a bunch of sheep, I suggest that, instead of raising your voice on an internet forum, you do something more productive like start some pro-death penalty group or something.
EagerBeaver said:
I just wanted to add one caveat to my last post, quoted above. The New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the state's death penalty statute was unconstitutional in June 2004, in the case of People v. LaValle. Since that time, a bill has been introduced which would apply the death penalty only to cop killers. New York Governor David Paterson has not yet taken a position on or signed the bill.
So technically until Paterson does something, it's now 14 states that have no death penalty statutes (since New York's has been struck down by judicial decision) and 36 states with death penalty statutes.
However, several other states including California and North Carolina have declared moratoriums on the death penalty and the law looks very unsettled in those States, with nobody likely to be executed any time soon.
Last edited:
D
Daringly
JustBob said:
Whether it is the death penalty we revisit or confinement for life (and life means life) is long past due. If what I am hearing on talk radio and reading in the newspapers is a developing trend we are beginning to hear from Canadians everywhere that we are soft on crime. It is like a rot that has permeated our society. We love to berate the Americans because we want to prove just how morally superior we are. BS! We need to clean up our own mess before we can point any fingers. I still maintain that any argument should stand on its own merits. The criminal element loves to hear how we are all about rehabilitation. They are out in 5. Sadistic psychopaths are beyond moral considerations of any kind. They are in their own world and in terms of beating the system anything is grist for the mill. The sociopath will have you believe that the minute he is out he is on a bus to the nearest leper colony to devote the rest of his life to healing. In terms of our approach to capital crimes the protection of society is paramount. Deterrence is a function of how well we socialize our citizenry to a value system that puts human life and the right to life at the top. We express that value through our system of justice with laws that reflect our abhorrence of the monstrous acts of, for example, a Clifford Olsen. That the consequence gives meaning to the seriousness of the crime. Then and only then do we have the luxury of exploring the possibilities of rehabilitation for a segment of the criminal population. You make the claim that the execution of psychopathic monsters or their incarceration for life without recourse to parole makes us just as bad as they are. This would be true if we allowed lynch mobs to dispense kangaroo justice. But we have a legal system precisely because we will not be dragged down to their level. Our legal system does not reflect the lynch mob but the sober consideration of the acts of the individual and a response which reflects this. That is the purpose for the robes mandated to be worn in court. You want to cheapen human life. Give a slap on the wrist for murder. I don't care what noble clothing you want to dress it up in. The populace may buy it but the criminals wont. In their world it is an acceptance or a sign of weakness. Take your pick. It may be that some day we can pat ourselves on the back at how superior we are to our ancestors in eliminating psychopathic behaviour from the gene pool. But it isn't here yet and I'll believe it when I see it. Until then we need a response which is appropriate for our times.
Okay Can we agree then that incarceration for life without recourse to rehab or early parole is acceptable? Okay I can live with that. Expensive but if it will get the point across then I guess I can compromise.JustBob said:
Let me be clear about a couple of things. When I say I agree to life imprisonment for the rest of their natural lives without recourse of any kind, I mean just that. Second this is not about a trip to Club Fed. I have no intention of paying for that. There will be no elaborate schemes geared to rehab. TV? Maybe but on my terms not theirs. (Maybe a cheap black and white). No privileges of any kind. There will be no recourse to free lawyers or the law. They are to be virtually cocooned for the rest of their natural lives with only the basics in food exercise reading and TV. That's more than they gave those whose lives they so carelessly touched.
Korbel said:
Until there is a complete and through investigation there is no way of knowing if any of the above is true.
hungry101 said:
The US, god, i don't even know where to start with this mess. Do you know anything about the history of either of the two world wars? how about the 3rd, which the US has started?
Daringly said:Thats a shame
The problem with the death penalty, as told by judicial experts on Larry King several months ago, is that it costs a fortune to prosecute them. The trials are also very time-consuming & there's no proof that the accused will be given the death penalty even if he or she is found guilty. That's why many states that still have the death penalty are not pursuing it 95% of the time & are heading towards abolishing it.
Techman said:
Really? Then how do you explain the FACT that crime rates are the lowest they have been in TWENTY FIVE YEARS???
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/stats.html
By the way, the sheep spoke and made it a minority government upon the the hill. Bah! BAH!
Now, in Quebec, there is no doubt there is a lamb lobby of English people who don't seem to mind our rights and language being trampled and spit upon, but all of this is off-topic to a discussion about the death penalty. Start another thread if you want to debate language rights, or lack thereof.
These are conviction rates for God's sake. They don't reflect anything other than how many are getting off because we are a society increasingly soft on crime.YouVantOption said:
Regular Guy said:
More empty rhetoric 'soft on crime'. Right. We have increasingly weakened the laws have we? I must have missed that news report. Cops are letting people off, because it interferes with their trip to Parasuco for new jeans and red hats?
They've got this new thing called Google, and StatsCAN:
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02.htm?sdi=crimes
OMG! You are right! Traffic offenses are going up, drastically.
What we do have is news media stoking the hysterical fires of sensationalism, and so each crime that does occur is examined for any manner of titillating, lurid content, and those aspects are played up.
Oh right, add another to the list of murders I know about personally, I just remembered one where this latter is precisely what happened.
Last edited:
Well let's put this into perspective shall we. First off the most powerful nation on earth can do pretty much as it wishes. So let's look at our choices. If the result of the last war would have been different Nazi Germany? No messes there. Summary executions solve that problem. Nazis? Naw. The Soviet Union? Same deal. China? Same Deal. The Brits? They put up with less crap than the Americans do. I know. The Iranians. Now there's a democratic outfit. You know? We get on the Americans' case because in reality it has been a long time since we had anything to compare them to. But I will tell you one thing. They have one redeeming quality. Their system is like ours. It is a democracy. With the exception of the Brits it is the only country which will criticize its own president if they think he is wrong. They are sensitive to causing hurt to others and will speak up. They blunder at times and wrestle with keeping the more radical elements of their ruling elite from being self serving. They don't always succeed. But I can cross the border and speak my mind among them. I wont disappear into some gulag or worse. I wonder if we could do any better. Stephane Dionne to plan for world stability. Give me a break. You think we got troubles now. Just let the red army loose before the end of the cold war and watch out. They'd make any conflicts the US have gotten into look like a schoolyard brawl. So cut them some slack eh? Standing between us and those thirsty to exercise a totalitarian brand of power over us is not an easy go. And if there is a valid third world war in progress it is news to me. Did I miss a step here? Must have missed that issue of the paper.YouVantOption said:
- Status
Similar threads
