Greyhound: Apart from that, how was your experience today?

[Just_Chris]

I am very strongly against the whole idea of capital punishment. If people like Just Chris were in charge, as soon as that guilty finding was entered, Truscott would have been dragged outside that Goderich courthouse to the nearest tree.

If there's no mens rea (guilty mind) there has to be provisions to protect the public as well as address the problem. As for the judicial system, I strongly believe that the goals of punishment should be 1) Rehabilitation, 2) Deterrence, 3) Protection, 4) Punishment, in that order.

Capital punishment violates Goal #1. How can a dead person be rehabilitated? Secondly, Goal #2, deterrence - the presence of the death penalty has been proven not to be effective. Also consider that several US states have historically not executed people for years. In Michigan's case, that wasn't since the 1840s! And Canada, which last hung people in 1962, has a lower violent crime rate. Go figure!

As for our "liberal" sentencing, harsh sentences like the Rockefeller Drug Laws or "Three Strikes" laws, or "life means life" has not been proven to be an effective deterrent. Certainly some people should be confined indefinitely. But should this be a one sentence fits all? No.

I suggest people like Just Chris move to Saudi Arabia or Singapore or Texas, where their desire for vengeance shall be satisfied.

I suggest you stop speaking for me. You're making yourself look like a fool because you don't know a thing about me. I'm not here speaking for you, and you shouldn't be speaking for me.

And you still haven't answered my question, what possible good can come out of releasing a murderer, any murderer, onto the streets? I can't think of a single advantage to society. Best case scenario is he doesn't kill another innocent civilian, which he wouldn't have been able to do in jail either. Why should a murderer be allowed to walk free EVER again when his victim will never get such a chance.

Give me a logical answer to these two questions, and I'll agree that murderers should be allowed to walk free. I've yet to hear anyone give any reasons.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Their victims will never be able to walk free again, so why should they? Why should they even be allowed to live?

You're still new here, so I'll spare you the headache, very few people here on the left leaning UT will share your opinion. I'm with you, but it's a party of two I'm afraid. It's still a great place to chat.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Just Chris:

And you still haven't answered my question, what possible good can come out of releasing a murderer, any murderer, onto the streets? I can't think of a single advantage to society. Best case scenario is he doesn't kill another innocent civilian, which he wouldn't have been able to do in jail either. Why should a murderer be allowed to walk free EVER again when his victim will never get such achance.

Very simple answer - incarceration is expensive. That's not to say that it isn't the desirable solution for dealing with some of those who committed murder, but to propose that as the blanket solution for everyone ranging from incurable psychopaths to those who committed second degree murder with low likelihood to do so again is overkill.

As to the answer to the second question - the criminal justice system is there to maintain law and order, not to dispense the emotionally-laden need for vendetta.

He deserves to have done to him what he did to the victim. Do you really think he should EVER be allowed to be a free man again?

I wouldn't be surprised if he gets what he has coming to him in prison.

Really? So you think having his throat stabbed, his head cut off, his body mutilated AND his flesh consumed is a desirable and just outcome? What have you been watching, justice Oz styled?

AoD

 

[ShonTron]

Exactly. And does someone like Robert Latimer (who is now free on parole) deserve the same punishment as a Bernardo or Olsen?

Odds of Latimer re-offending: Extremely slim to nil. There are means to deal with the worst of the worst without resorting to a method of punishment that is increasingly rejected across the world.

Incarceration is expensive, and longer sentences don't necessarily reduce crime or act as a possible deterrence. It is the result of right-wing politicking (a classic wedge issue) and a demand for vengeance, which isn't one of the four valid goals of sentencing.

I also think that most people are capable of change and have a conscience - that many, if not most, truly regret their actions later on and can re-enter society and be useful. Permanent incarceration or death gives them little to no chance or even a reason to fully rehabilitate.

 

[Chuck]

I have no objection toward paying higher taxes if it means keeping criminals in jail permanently. I would also support creating more institutions (I wish that word didn't sound so harsh) to care for who pose a risk to society due to a mental illness. Much better use of taxpayer's dollars than our bloated subsidized housing system which is too easily abused.

 

[Just_Chris]

You're still new here, so I'll spare you the headache, very few people here on the left leaning UT will share your opinion. I'm with you, but it's a party of two I'm afraid. It's still a great place to chat.

It's got nothing to do with being "left-wing" or "right-wing". Several decades ago we had capital punishment in this country, and Canada was no less "left-leaning" back then. In fact, in many ways it was more "left" then than it is now. Unlike some people, I'm not brainwashed to think that Canada is currently a utopian society. In some ways other countries do things better. In some ways WE used to do things better. This is one of them.

Really? So you think having his throat stabbed, his head cut off, his body mutilated AND his flesh consumed is a desirable and just outcome? What have you been watching, justice Oz styled?

Whether or not I think it's "just" is moot. I just wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Whether or not I think it's "just" is moot. I just wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.

Actually it isn't moot. You've stated clearly that's an outcome you desire to see, and that it is just:

He deserves to have done to him what he did to the victim. Do you really think he should EVER be allowed to be a free man again?

I think it's fair to say one should question your stance, if you think that such a brutal and violent incident should be repeated for the sake of your vengence.

AoD

 

[doady]

If hospitals cure
Then prisons must bring their pain
Don't be ashamed to slaughter
The centre of humanity is cruelty
There is never redemption
Any fool can regret yesterday...

Execution needed
A bloody vessel for your peace
If man makes death then death makes man
Tear the torso with horses and chains...

 

[Just_Chris]

Yeah, you're all correct. This poor murderer is a "victim of the system" and deserves to one day walk a free man.

Somehow I think if he moved next door to you, you'd change your stance.

 

[ganjavih]

Yeah, you're all correct. This poor murderer is a "victim of the system" and deserves to one day walk a free man.

Who are you speaking with? Who's correct? No one suggested that.

 

[Archivist]

It doesn't require that one be left leaning to abhor capital punishment, very few countries in the world still have capital punishment, and those that do have extremely high crime rates and regrettable justice systems.

I can't believe this case, where its seems clear that the person who did the murdering is insane, has trotted out all the old canards about capital punishment.

As for Just_Chris' assertion that "we used to do things better" here, I have idea what he is talking about. Given the graph below, it's obvious that banning capital punishment in 1976 had no effect on the murder rate, which is lower today than for about a decade.

 

[adma]

Exactly. And does someone like Robert Latimer (who is now free on parole) deserve the same punishment as a Bernardo or Olsen?

Odds of Latimer re-offending: Extremely slim to nil. There are means to deal with the worst of the worst without resorting to a method of punishment that is increasingly rejected across the world.

Incarceration is expensive, and longer sentences don't necessarily reduce crime or act as a possible deterrence. It is the result of right-wing politicking (a classic wedge issue) and a demand for vengeance, which isn't one of the four valid goals of sentencing.

I also think that most people are capable of change and have a conscience - that many, if not most, truly regret their actions later on and can re-enter society and be useful. Permanent incarceration or death gives them little to no chance or even a reason to fully rehabilitate.

Then there's a case like this.

Not to mention this.

 

[Just_Chris]

I can't believe this case, where its seems clear that the person who did the murdering is insane, has trotted out all the old canards about capital punishment.

I still have yet to hear why this guy should be allowed to live when his victim is not. Let "the punishment fit the crime". A crime the most severe and reprehensible imaginable should be punished with a penalty the most severe and brutal imaginable. Is allowing this guy to live and maybe even be a free man some day the most severe and brutal penalty imaginable? I don't think so.

There is no doubt in my mind that the murderer is "insane". I can't imagine any sane person perpetrating such a crime. To suggest though that he has the mental capacity of a child, which is an argument I've seen, is preposterous. To cut someone's head off with a knife proves that he knew what he was doing far more than any normal person would.

I said that we used to do some things better here than we do now. But if you choose to believe that modern Canada is some kind of utopian society when something like this can happen, go ahead.

 

[Hydrogen]

I still have yet to hear why this guy should be allowed to live when his victim is not.

It's clear from your posts that what you want is revenge, and not justice. Revenge is easy; justice isn't. There is a high likelihood that the killer is insane, or has suffered some kind of mental breakdown. For some people, the solution to this crime is to kill the person who committed it; for those who oppose capital punishment the idea is that maybe this person is somehow salvageable as a human being. By extension, there is then a possibility that any other person suffering mental illness or suffering from some kind massive mental breakdown has a chance in society - maybe.

If you want to denigrate the situation by suggesting that failure lies in believing in utopia, may I suggest to you that it will be highly doubtful to find anyone here who actually believes that Canada is a utopia (regardless of your clear desire to miss-represent the thoughts of people you don't know). If anything, the idea of a utopia, or some form of ideal society, is what some people aim for. Some of us would think it to be a worthy aim - even if it is unachievable.

 

[CDL.TO]

Still too soon?