[DerbyX]

DanSC DanSC:

In the USA at least, the appeals following a death sentence are far more expensive than locking the convicted in solitary confinement at a maximum security prison. Not the best argument against the death penalty, but perhaps the most effective.

Correct. The argument supporting the death penalty using says "well get rid of al that auto appeal crap and execute the guy behind the courthouse".

Reading the files of guys like Bernardo & Gacy & Olsen I can't say I disagree. Too many innocent people have gone on death row though.

I think every single death penalty proponent would agree that the level of evidence needed to secure a conviction be much higher then a jail term. The implications of what that means to the law is another matter.

[Lemmy]

No system is perfect and executing the wrongfully convicted is the greatest miscarriage of justice we can endure. But I dismiss Derby's claim that "too many people have gone on death row". Over the past 20 years, I doubt that number is very much bigger than zero. Sure, if we're gonna sentence someone to death, we ought to be absolutely sure they're guilty. But, at the same time, I think our definition of "guilty" ought to be expanded. I reject the defence of mental disorder for homicides. When the verdict is "guilty" and the crime is a crime of violence, the death penalty is warranted, on the grounds of segregation but also punishment. Killers should not be tolerated. Period.

[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

No system is perfect and executing the wrongfully convicted is the greatest miscarriage of justice we can endure. But I dismiss Derby's claim that "too many people have gone on death row". Over the past 20 years, I doubt that number is very much bigger than zero. Sure, if we're gonna sentence someone to death, we ought to be absolutely sure they're guilty. But, at the same time, I think our definition of "guilty" ought to be expanded. I reject the defence of mental disorder for homicides. When the verdict is "guilty" and the crime is a crime of violence, the death penalty is warranted, on the grounds of segregation but also punishment. Killers should not be tolerated. Period.

Really?

http://www.amfor.net/DeathPenalty/

1 is more then enough to prove my point.

[Lemmy]

1 is a lot, I'll grant you.

[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

1 is a lot, I'll grant you.

I have no moral problems with the application of the death penalty. I just think (and probably everybody who supports it) that guilt should be so undeniable its impossible to appeal.

[Lemmy]

Sure, but I think there are LOTS of cases where guilt is not in question that warrant the dirty syringe. Those on the anti-capital punishment side VASTLY over-estimate the incidence of wrongful convicition. We all fly even though we know planes sometimes crash. You can't get a 100% accuracy in law any more than you can in air travel.

[andyt]

It seems pretty meaningless to say it's OK use the death penalty because we only kill a few innocent ones. I mean either you buy the argument that it's wrong to kill innocent people or you don't. Indiana's governor commuted all death sentences in the state because of the uncertainty over guilt. They've now abolished the death penalty there. If you're willing to break a few eggs to make an omelette's, that's your rigth to feel that way, but then don't talk about caring if you kill the innocent or not.

It's been shown the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison. So unless you're willing to drastically slacken the rules now in place to prevent killing of innocents, there's no fiscal argument for it.

Basically it leaves revenge and deterrence. The death penalty is not a deterrent, as has been shown. Keeping somebody locked up for life is as much of a prevention of recidivism as the death penalty. But according to corrections Canada, the recidivism of a murderer killing again is 0.7% out of 650 released.

We should really move on from this. It's been settled. It puts us in company with other civilized nations, none of whom have collapsed when they abolished the death penalty.

Amnesty's critcism was actually focused much more on the Harper Governments Middle East policy than Harper's musing about the death penalty. Don't know why the latter aspect gets the big play.

[Yogi]

herbie herbie:

WTF are we having this discussion for? It was decided long before most posters were even born.
Hell I'm an old fart and I was maybe nine when they last executed someone in Canada.
Move on people. Tighten the parole system, don't roll back the clock and claim that's progress.

I vaguely remember that onetoo. Big news back then, and in my house, the 'news' was always 'front and center'. I have a copy of a book on that 'The Last Two To Hang' I think it was '64 at the Don Jail. I'll find the book and take a look.


Anyway, I don't think people would be 'out for blood' quite as much if 'life' meant 'life', and if prisons were actually prisons! Certainly, bring the death penalty back, for cases with irrefutable evidence.

[saturn_656]

$1:

Amnesty's critcism was actually focused much more on the Harper Governments Middle East policy than Harper's musing about the death penalty. Don't know why the latter aspect gets the big play.

People tend to care more about domestic policy than foreign policy.

[andyt]

Yogi Yogi:

herbie herbie:

WTF are we having this discussion for? It was decided long before most posters were even born.
Hell I'm an old fart and I was maybe nine when they last executed someone in Canada.
Move on people. Tighten the parole system, don't roll back the clock and claim that's progress.

I vaguley remember that onetoo. Big news back then, and in my house, the 'news' was always 'front and center'. I have a copy of a book on that 'The Last Two To Hang' I think it was '64 at the Don Jail. I'll find the book and take a look.


Anyway, I don't think people would be 'out for blood' quite as much if 'life' meant 'life', and if prisons were actually prisons! Certainly, bring the death penalty back, for cases with irrefutable evidence.

People are now convicted of murder if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - because the justice system recognizes that irrefutable evidence doesn't exist. You want to add another category - guilt with irrefutable evidence? Wonder what that could be. Despite CSI, it's well recognized that forensics isn't nearly as exact a science as the public believes, and in fact often isn't science at all. Then we have the interpreters of that Science, like Dr Charles Smith. I'm sure the juries that convicted people on his say so were convinced the evidence was irrefutable.

Eyewitness testimony has been shown to often be a joke.

DNA can't really prove guilt - it's better at proving innocence.

So what's left that's irrefutable?

Actually, for murder, the penalties are not too bad, and as I say, the recidivism rate is 0.7% The problem is that often the prosecutor makes a deal to drop down to manslaughter and then the perp walks after a few years and does it again.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

It's been shown the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison. So unless you're willing to drastically slacken the rules now in place to prevent killing of innocents, there's no fiscal argument for it.

That's not entireley true. The bulk of the cost is the trial, which is the same cost whether guilty or innocent. It's more expensive in SOME US States, because of appeals costs, but not all. There's no reason to believe it would be more expensive in Canada to execute than to incarcerate for life.

andyt andyt:

Basically it leaves revenge and deterrence. The death penalty is not a deterrent, as has been shown. Keeping somebody locked up for life is as much of a prevention of recidivism as the death penalty. But according to corrections Canada, the recidivism of a murderer killing again is 0.7% out of 650 released.

You're correct, the death penalty is not a deterrent. And I don't care about the recidivism rate. It's not about whether they kill again, it's about whether they deserve to live. It's not revenge either. It's punishment which is altogether different from revenge. From my perspective, if you kill or commit wanton violence in a civilized society, you ought to forfeit your right to live among civilized folks.