• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Capital Punishment Debate

Should it be brought back?


  • Total voters
    133

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
402
Points
910
Here's the link to another thread with an article about a multi-murderer in Canada that we had locked up who was apparently no longer able to continue killing people...

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97872.0.html

There are also a few comments in there which led to me reposting into this thread as to avoid derailing the other one.


So, what do you anti-capital punishment fellows have to say now? He sure managed to kill somebody despite his life sentence, and will do so again anytime he gets the chance, which he will, because as long as he's locked up and not dead, even in solitary confinement, somebody's got to bring him food/water, new linens, etc.

Nobody that comes into contact with him is safe, and he knows they can't really make his punishment any worse right now either.
 

old medic

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Just to fuel some more debate on this, here's a story from Friday's Sun chain.

Man deemed likely to kill to be set free
By Jason Halstead, QMI Agency
Last Updated: December 3, 2010 5:17pm
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/canada/2010/12/03/16422256.html

WINNIPEG – A convicted killer the National Parole Board says poses an unmanageable risk of violently re-offending will be out of jail before Christmas.

Brent Leask, who stabbed a man to death in a Winnipeg park in 2001 and later deliberately drove a vehicle into a crowd of people while on statutory release in 2006, will serve out his full sentence after the National Parole Board again decided he is too dangerous to release early.

While the board's decision to prevent Leask's statutory release — which had already been denied twice — means the 30-year-old will stay behind bars until his full sentence of eight years and six months expires, it won't mean he'll spend much more time behind bars. His sentence is set to expire Dec. 21.

Leask was initially given a four-year, six-month sentence for manslaughter for fatally stabbing 36-year-old Duane Iwanicki during a fight in 2001, but additional time was added to his prison term after he intentionally crashed a pickup truck into a group of people outside a downtown nightclub in March 2006. He had been freed from prison on statutory release only a month prior to the truck attack, but was promptly returned to custody thereafter.

In the most recent review of Leask's case on Nov. 22, the parole board ruled not to grant statutory release due to his behaviour in prison, which included fighting and manufacturing weapons, and also due to his case managers' assessment that "there are no reasonable conditions by which (he) can be managed in the community."

In its decision, the board also said Leask continues to display a pattern of behaviour that advocates violence and that he is "assessed as likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm."

Since his last assessment for statutory release one year ago, Leask has added to his already lengthy record of institutional charges, racking up four infractions — two for fighting and two for possession of weapons.
 

vonGarvin

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
20
Points
430
Ah, just the perfect Christmas present for our society: a homicidal maniac.  Awesome.


 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,120
Points
1,260
Technoviking said:
Ah, just the perfect Christmas present for our society: a homicidal maniac.  Awesome.

If it makes ya feel better they get everyday...............naw, I guess it wouldn't.

But they do, most even get out early, unlike this guy.
 

zipperhead_cop

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Set your calendars for 25 years.  That's when Williams will be out and given a new identity so he can start a new life. 
 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Mentor
Reaction score
34
Points
530
Bring it back; I'll even volunteer to pull the switch.

Luka Magnotta was mentionned in this thread back in 2010 ... He's now making the news big time once again. Kittens, Body parts, ice picks and videos ...

Previously it was for Karla ...
"She has had so much opportunity to get help in prison," Dr. Van Gijseghem said.
"But if we don't really recognize we have a problem that needs to be changed, how can psychotherapy have some impact?"
Karla Homolka now lives in the Caribean with her new husband Luka Magnotta and four year old son Damien.

Sick little man also has himself a blog:
Necrophiliac Serial Killer

Serial Killer eh? I won't be surprised if that bears out as true in the end. Something tells me that he's got some experience in this. Wonder if She-Devil assisted/lured any one for him. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that way either.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
426
Points
930
Abdullah, you are right on.  Before your time but there was once a PM who advocated for the end of the death penalty, promising that a life sentence meant a life sentence.  I could accept that but it never happens except in extreme cases like Paul Bernardo and even his case comes up for review regularly.  People consider the death penalty as cruel and unusual.  Well so is robbing another of their life.
 

AbdullahD

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
13
Points
210
Colin P said:
Life sentence with regular parole review is a life sentence to the victims families

https://www.citynews1130.com/2011/07/04/father-of-jamie-cliffs-murder-victim-speaks/

He was family to me, his family and ours grew up as one. Uncle Chris, and Aunty Darlene, never deserved this.

Since then the pos who Murdered Andrew has been appealing amongst other things, trying to get out of jail and they get to be notified of it constantly and have to fight to keep that pos behind bars. Also look at his rap sheep, what hes being doing behind bars etc.

I thought I heard he was a freeman now.. but that may be wrong...

But yeah. Torture is a better description of what they go through.

It isn't fair, they end up costing us more money, the families suffer more etc. A life for a life is justice. We throw out bad apples, bad meat, we put down rabid dogs, why is this different.

Abdullah
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
607
Points
1,260
For capital punishment debate,

The Capital Punishment Debate
https://army.ca/forums/threads/37415.25
24 pages.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,778
Points
1,010
>why is this different.

I'll be blunt: to me, your misery is the price I'm willing to pay to absolutely guarantee no innocent is executed.
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
165
Points
710
AbdullahD said:
https://www.citynews1130.com/2011/07/04/father-of-jamie-cliffs-murder-victim-speaks/
I thought I heard he was a freeman now.. but that may be wrong...

He was sentenced to 25 years in prison without parole; he is going to be in jail for a few more years.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
402
Points
910
Brad Sallows said:
>why is this different.

I'll be blunt: to me, your misery is the price I'm willing to pay to absolutely guarantee no innocent is executed.

Sure but we could at least have a true life sentence instead of this 25 years BS. One where after the normal appeals related to the trial are done, that's it, no more parole hearings, etc. unless there's been something such as new evidence to trigger a possible re-trial / exoneration of the accused.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,358
Points
1,110
ballz said:
Sure but we could at least have a true life sentence instead of this 25 years BS. One where after the normal appeals related to the trial are done, that's it, no more parole hearings, etc. unless there's been something such as new evidence to trigger a possible re-trial / exoneration of the accused.

That would be acceptable. Or, at a minimum, long term / dangerous offender status should be applied more readily. However the risk of a wrongful execution is absolutely unacceptable.
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
well, at least they have accepted consecutive rather than concurrent sentences
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,778
Points
1,010
>Sure but we could at least have a true life sentence instead of this 25 years BS.

I fully agree.
 

AbdullahD

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
13
Points
210
Brad Sallows said:
>why is this different.

I'll be blunt: to me, your misery is the price I'm willing to pay to absolutely guarantee no innocent is executed.

That is fine, we disagree and I suspect our views are not going to align any time soon.

I just feel if it is clear cut, clean verdict etc, then it is acceptable to execute murders. I also believe a waiting period should exist and if no new evidence, information or testimony comes forward to change the verdict then it should go forward.

Not all murderers would be executed or well I should say in my opinion should be executed in my view, in order to protect someone from being wrongfully convicted and executed.

But if it is an open and closed case, heck even with a prior criminal record etc.. string em up after the waiting period. Maybe I am a hardliner, maybe not, I do not know if it would curtail murders or not etc, I just feel it is right and just.

But any rate, agree to disagree?
Abdullah
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,248
Points
1,060
I'm pro death penalty but cases like Glen Assoun's wrongful conviction and spending 18 years in prison (after police eraced evidence) has me thinking maybe I have it wrong.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
607
Points
1,260
This is in US Politics. But, also has a couple of pages of recent opinion on capital punishment in general,

USA brings back death penalty for fed cases 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/130847.0.html

 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,069
Points
1,160
AbdullahD said:
. . .

I just feel if it is clear cut, clean verdict etc, then it is acceptable to execute murders. I also believe a waiting period should exist and if no new evidence, information or testimony comes forward to change the verdict then it should go forward.

Not all murderers would be executed or well I should say in my opinion should be executed in my view, in order to protect someone from being wrongfully convicted and executed.

But if it is an open and closed case, heck even with a prior criminal record etc.. string em up after the waiting period. Maybe I am a hardliner, maybe not, I do not know if it would curtail murders or not etc, I just feel it is right and just.

How would you define "clear cut, clean verdict" or "open and closed case"?  No need to get into the semantics, it was a rhetorical question.  Capital punishment, especially for anyone who may have a personal connection to it, is a very emotional issue.  Whether the connection is with a homicide victim, revenge is a justifiable reaction, or if the connection is with an alleged murderer, it's natural to want them to live.  For the rest of us, it is a philosophical question - should the state deliberately take the life of someone who has transgressed societal mores.

I have no problem with the imposition of a capital sentence for certain crimes, however my objection is with the all too often politicization of capital punishment.  Though the debate is mostly over in this country (and in most other developed western nations), south of the border it is still an issue in some jurisdictions and all too often politicians (whether running for legislative, executive or judicial positions) will use their support for or against as a campaign point.  It is very easy to say what the mob wants to hear.  But would those individual politicians sing the same tune if they were confronted with a more direct role in carrying out such a sentence.

The killing of someone is (or should be) a horrific act.  In those jurisdictions that still kill human beings following judicial approval, this act is usually carried out in a clean and clinical manner, well separated from public view.  But as the execution of a citizen is probably the most extreme action that a government official will approve, then that government official (the senior executive) should be the one to actually perform the execution.  And none of this "cruel and unusual punishment" BS, if someone deserves to die because they wronged society then that society should be there to witness it in all its horror.  My personal preference would be garroting,  Yes, there would obviously be some technical hitches with my proposal, the Governor of Texas would probably have to a facility set up in the State House just to keep up with demand and cut down on travel time, but that can be worked out.  Oh, and to ensure that they a personal stake in the game, if it transpires that a "mistake" was made and a innocent person was executed then the person who performs the execution would be subject to prosecution for murder.  It's only fair if that executioner (a politician) wants a single standard of justice.

The death penalty could be a highly effective deterrent, though probably not of murder.  While I would not solely advocate the widespread inclusion of the death penalty as a punishment for other violence offences, if it was required to be considered for any single illegal action that "directly wronged twelve persons" (if 12 bodies can decide one's fate, it's an appropriate threshold number), then a whole lot of white collar criminals would have received a more fitting punishment that a few months in a "Club Fed".
 
Top