I'm curious given the recent hanging of an Australian citizen in Singapore (for trafficing 400grams of heroine) whether there is an opinion amongst those at Susan's that this is right or wrong.

I personally do not condone the death penalty for any crime. I cannot come to terms with the idea of carrying this penalty on another human being. Taking the life of another is not right. Lock them up for the rest of their lives but do not take their lives. Some will probably argue an eye for an eye but still I cannot condone judicial murder.

Shelley

As an ex police officer I find it very disturbing.  If I worked under the kind of law that executed an individual for drugs I couldnt in good faith arrest anyone for those offenses.  Conversely, who in their right mind would take that chance knowing how psychotic the laws are in that country.  As to the death penalty for killers, tough call.  A man who murders a small girl to keep her from identifying him as the one who murdered her mother (recent in news), I would say the penalty fits the crime.
Kristina

I think the death penalty is a barbaric ritual that has no place in modern society.  What a huge hypocrasy in any country with Christian roots to punish killing by killing.  Life without possibility of parole should be the penalty for murder.

Dawn

I agree with Dawn. One of my objections (but not the only one) to it is the number of wrongful convictions that we've had in Canada and the US. Bad enough to wrongfully take years away from a person's life. To take their life as well is an irreparable harm.

Dennis

Well no one ever said I fit in with the norm.

You would not be able to imagine the novel ways I would end someones life for rape or child molestaton.

If the verdict was death I would go for a specified time period before execution but when it was up--no further extensions.

QuoteWell no one ever said I fit in with the norm.

Yep I have to say that is one thing that  I would accuse you of Leigh.

(Ducking)

Shelley

I agree with the death penalty, but I think it needs to be carried out in a reasonable time frame.  Twenty to thirty years later is meaningless.  There should be time for one appeal then carry out the sentence.

I think it is poor to expect society in general to pay for this person to be kept in jail forever, the cost of keeping just one prisioner in jail is way too high..

Sarah

Quote from: Sarah Louise on December 02, 2005, 09:44:56 AM
I think it is poor to expect society in general to pay for this person to be kept in jail forever, the cost of keeping just one prisioner in jail is way too high..
Sarah

That is one of the costs of maintaining a civil society.  It often costs more in legal expenses (appeals, etc) to put someone to death than to jail them for life.  Sorry, that doesn't fly and while Leigh may want to personally deal with some of these people herself, the state is held to a higher standard and cannot undertake torture or cruel and unusual punishments.  That's one of those funny details in the Constitution that makes us a supposed beacon of civil liberties.  If murder is wrong, murder is wrong, be it by an individual or the state.  Most of all, having discovered with DNA testing that mistakes were made, the state needs to drop this butchery now.

Dawn

              I have a different take on this than most.  I am strongly for the death penalty for a different reason than most and I have a solution to what I see as the problem.

              I am for the death penalty for those committing terrible murders because the victims have those that love them.

              If your 15 yo daughter were rapped, tortured and murdered, maybe cut into pieces and dumped in a field.  how would you feel when 10 years later you turn on the TV and he is smiling from prison being interviewed by Oprah?  Or you go to the book store and see a table of his books with his face on every one?   Or he does good in prison working with youth or whatever so the governor pardons him?  You open the local paper to see he was beat up in prison with a description of what he did to your daughter all over again? Don't say this does not happen because it does.  Death brings closure for the living victims. I don't care about deterence, barbarism or anything else, the living victims come first. The fact that there are mistakes is a seperate issue that needs to be delt with. I am sure 20% of traffic tickets are undeserved so lets stop fining people, no lets train the traffic officers better. I am sure many will use that sentence to rebut by saying I am comparing a fine to an execution but it is the same law principle, once you get a ticket and are found guilty and appeal that is it.  Address the racism and incompetent legal system and fix it. All the mistakes that DNA testing found are not happening now because of DNA testing.    Duhhh....

                 My solution is to have a "living death" sentence.  After a fair period for mandatory appeals etc, maybe 5 years, those with this sentence cannot be heard from again unless there is a compelling public interest decided by a panel of judges.  No visitors, no interviews, no prison news of them released. A gag order is in place so those released who knew the murderer cannot write a book or whatever. Basicly it is a done deal like an excecution but with out the state murder. No it is not cruel and unusual to take away a murderer's freedoms. If you think that was what the constitution means then you must not know much about history. Just my view, fire away.

beth

I voted no simply because justice is not preferct. Up here in Canada we have had a number of cases overturned 10, 15, or even 25 years after the crime when new evidence came to light showing the accused was not guilty. You can't un-do the death penalty.

On the other hand, the present system if justice is a joke. The first tennent of justice should be restitution - making good to the victum for the crime - that is not done anymore. The second tennent should be punishment - in most parts of North America, "punsihment" is a joke and many criminals enjoy a higher standard of living and a more comfortable life than they did outside of detention. At the very least, criminals should have to work as hard as the rest of us and "earn their keep". If life is easier in The Big House why would anyone be worried about going back?

The best argument against the death penality that I have heard "When Cain killed Able God exiled him, God didn't kill him." What better reference could you have. All death penalities loving Religious fundies should read their bible. Mankind kills, god exiles. We should all try to be more God like.

QuoteThat is one of the costs of maintaining a civil society.

QuoteMankind kills, god exiles

That's it two wrongs don't make a right.

Shelley

I voted no.

As Jane pointed out, here in Canada we have had a lot of people serving lengthy jail terms freed from prison after it was proved through DNA that they were innocent.

I think that in many countries right now all the prosecution has to do is prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.  However when it comes to a death sentence I would vote yes if it was proved beyond "any" doubt.

Life in prison needs to be changed as well.  It may be expensive to keep a murderer in jail, but if that person were kept in jail for the rest of their life until death, with just the dare essentials to live, that way they could wallow in their own despair it would mean something.

Steph

I'd have to agree with Leigh on this one. It might not be a deterent for others committing crimes of violence but it would sure keep the a**hole in question from doing it again. For those of you quoting the Bible as to what God would do in regards to punishment for murder, you should read a little deeper. In the Old Testament, one of the ten commandents says that "Thou Shalt Not Kill". However should you decide to do so, the Bible is quite clear on what should happen to you. There are several references as to the death penalty. One that comes to mind is in the book of Numbers chapter 35 verses 16 to 21. Check it out.

I find it touching that all of the people who are in favour of the death penalty have such faith in the legal system.

That said, I work in it and I don't. I have had one client that I knew was wrongfully convicted. I may have had more. That was the only one I knew about, but the rules of evidence prohibited me from proving it.

Also, the circumstances of most offences aren't the extremes. Most of them are pretty pathetic individuals pr they do have extenuating circumstances, but can't afford a lawyer who could help them bring it out. And it does cost more to off them than to keep them alive. It's also a worse punishment to keep them alive than to put them out of their misery. So perhaps I'm more cruel than those who want to put them down. I want to see the bastards live with what they did.

Also, the death penalty tends to be given for offences that offend those in power. It's the underprivileged that get it. You don't see child molesters given the death penalty. You see cop killers given the death penalty, though. Just look at the race of most people on death row in the States. Doesn't mean that black people are worse than white people. It means they are differentially enforced against.

I'm glad Canada doesn't have it. I couldn't bear practicing criminal law if my client's life were on the line.

Dennis

I voted Yes for murder. If you take a life you owe a life. I am however for a lengthy appeal system to help weed out mistakes but if it is a clear cut case, they need to be put down. I am reminded of a case which was over turned by the Rose Bird court in California. The Perp along with his girlfriend kidnapped and raped a woman from a convienance store, stabbed her multiple times and the perp was quoted as haveing said "Why won't this bit## die. Rose Bird overturned the death penalty conviction stating that she could not find premeditation as required by the death penalty statute.

1) The Statute needs a better defintition
2) Cases like that should always result in a death penalty.

Cassie

If you kill the killer you have stooped to their level and you become what they are, a killer, and thus you are no better than the killer--you are part of this, your hand is on the needle.  This moral relativism is one reason the United States is rapidly loosing credibility around the world as the exemplar of justice.  Cut it any way you want.  If you demand the death penalty, then you have blood on your hands. 

Dawn

I voted no on the death penalty.

Execution by the State of another human is simply wrong.  It goes against what society is trying to teach.  It can not be undone.

And if I am not mistaken, life without parole makes an inmate much more dangerous for the guards.  The inmate has nothing to lose by contuing to murder while in prison.

Isolate them.  Separate them from the general prison population.  Do whatever to severely limit their contact with the world.  Make it unpleasant.

Chaunte


The following may sound like I am joking, but I am serious about this...

Assume that an individual is found guilty of murder.  Violent.  Brutal.  Absolutely no doubt about it whatsoever.

Should this person lose the right to be called "human," and simply be an animal of the genus and species homo-sapien sapien?  If so, then don't we put down mad animals?

 

QuoteIf you demand the death penalty, then you have blood on your hands. 

          There have been thousands, yes thousands of second murders. By second murders I mean murderers convicted of murder, who went to prison then were released and then comitted another murder and were convicted again.  Who has the blood of those thousands on their hands?  Capitol punishment would have absolutely saved these thousands, no theory, no religion, no doubt, just a fact.

beth

The stats I've read have said it's very rare for someone to kill again. Where did you get yours Beth?

Dennis