|
Post by Students on Nov 25, 2008 11:47:10 GMT
EDIT: Spam deleted- the only thing that was legible was the title, which might start a healthy debate if nothing else
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Nov 25, 2008 21:12:17 GMT
Canada banned the death penalty because of fears about wrongful convictions, concerns about the state taking the lives of individuals, and uncertainty about the death penalty's role as a deterrent for crime. The 1959 case of Steven Truscott, who was just 14 years old when convicted of a murder that he did not commit, was a significant impetus (although certainly not the only one) toward the abolition of capital punishment. (On August 28, 2007, Truscott was acquitted of the charges by the Ontario Court of Appeal.) Cliquez ici
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Nov 26, 2008 0:50:24 GMT
Bit sodding late...!
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Nov 26, 2008 19:28:17 GMT
I'm for the restoration of the death penalty, and corporal punishment in this country. People say that there is no place for these in a civilised society but the more I read and see reported the less I believe we are a civilised society.
|
|
|
Post by bh on Nov 26, 2008 20:41:06 GMT
Sorry peeps me too. Since capital punishment was done away with creeps such as Sutcliffe, and other lunatics atre living the life of Riley at our expence. Multi murders, like the tube bombers don't deserve to live! Sorry, prehaps I'm old fashioned, but if one of my friends/relitives were killed by those types of cowards well....................................... sorry!
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Nov 26, 2008 21:04:02 GMT
So it's not OK for them to kill people, but it's OK for us to kill them?
|
|
|
Post by coops on Nov 27, 2008 11:24:56 GMT
If someone I loved was murdered of course I would like nothing more than ten minutes in a locked room with an assortment of sharp objects, but a truly civilised society does not kill it's citizens in the name of retribution. The fact that a very, very good friend of mine WAS murdered (in Northern Ireland, and the bloke that did it was let out under the Good Friday Agreement) has not changed my mind.
Does the death penalty work as a deterrent? Have a look at the murder rates in countries that have it and in the states in the US that have it, you'll find that it doesn't, the threat of death does not deter killers.
To paraphrase someone probably quite famous:
Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged."
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Nov 27, 2008 14:41:40 GMT
I'm with you there, Coops. I once read that if you are a black man living in urban America, you stood a one in nineteen chance of being murdered. This was in 1989 and the trend was upward; God knows what the rate is now.
|
|
|
Post by J Esaj PRA on Nov 27, 2008 17:26:42 GMT
So it's not OK for them to kill people, but it's OK for us to kill them? If you don't behave like a human, you lose the right to be treated like one. So, I'd say the logical answer to your question is yes... Except that it'd require the kind of proof that we cannot deliver, so the reality would be that it'd never happen. Does the death penalty work as a deterrent? Have a look at the murder rates in countries that have it and in the states in the US that have it, you'll find that it doesn't, the threat of death does not deter killers. Do the people in these places feel they get justice though? The problem we have is that our current punishments aren't punishments at all.
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Nov 27, 2008 17:51:16 GMT
Had Michael Ryan (Hungerford) not had the decency to top himself we'd all be paying for his upkeep now,why?
Top him.
One of the things that lead to the abolishion of the death penalty was the understanding that a life sentence would be life. Alas this is not the case is it.
The law in this country has been twisted in the most perverse way by "human rights" law, the legal profession and mamby pamby bleeding heart liberal w**kers. As a result ordinary law abiding hard working folk have in effect been thrown to the dogs of druggies, gun toting knife wielding thugs, annoying little s**ts who "know their rights" but not their responsibilities. And a police force who worse than being inefectual actually persue and harass the ordinary citizen.
Broken Britain, I'd mend it, but I and people like me will never get the chance.
|
|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on Nov 27, 2008 20:16:13 GMT
EDIT: Spam deleted- the only thing that was legible was the title, which might start a healthy debate if nothing else It contained links to pictures of Chinese women in bikinis The Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty may no longer contain supporters of the CFL's Saskatchwen Roughriders who will be thinking that penalty would be appropriate for quarterback Michael Bishop, who turned the ball over FIVE TIMES as we went out of the play-offs at home to the BC Lions.
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Nov 27, 2008 21:17:50 GMT
Do the people in these places feel they get justice though? The problem we have is that our current punishments aren't punishments at all. That seems to suggest that the perception of justice is better than the system actually working as it is intended to. If the death penalty is less of a deterrent than imprisonment, then is it better to have a higher rate of violent crime just to appease those who feel that true justice has been done after the execution? Surely the whole point of sentencing is not only to punish those who commit the crime but also to make significant inroads into deterring others? If so, your point seems pretty irrational and contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by DazaB_WCFC on Nov 27, 2008 22:13:26 GMT
So it's not OK for them to kill people, but it's OK for us to kill them? If you don't behave like a human, you lose the right to be treated like one. So, I'd say the logical answer to your question is yes... You wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of your son/daughter screaming, your house is being burgled and as you run downstairs, the intruder punches your son to keep him quiet. You instinctively reach for the heavy ornament on the bookshelf and smash the burglar on the head. The intruder dies instantly. You are a murderer, yet you have acted in the most instinctive way a human being would possibly react to protect your family. Should you be killed by a court of law?
|
|
|
Post by amberaleman on Nov 27, 2008 23:10:42 GMT
If you don't behave like a human, you lose the right to be treated like one. So, I'd say the logical answer to your question is yes... You wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of your son/daughter screaming, your house is being burgled and as you run downstairs, the intruder punches your son to keep him quiet. You instinctively reach for the heavy ornament on the bookshelf and smash the burglar on the head. The intruder dies instantly. You are a murderer, yet you have acted in the most instinctive way a human being would possibly react to protect your family. Should you be killed by a court of law? You'd probably have a good defence in law here. If you had reasonable grounds for believing that your son (or any other person) was at risk of serious harm, you'd be justified in taking action to prevent that harm. You'd have no way of knowing whether the intruder intended to throw a single punch or launch a sustained assault.
|
|
|
Post by J Esaj PRA on Nov 28, 2008 13:10:50 GMT
...your point seems pretty irrational and contradictory. That's what you get when you take two unrelated comments and quote them together, out of context. Typical computer behaviour though - complete failure to understand natural language! No. 'Murder' requires the act to be premeditated, surely? You'd get done for manslaughter, but the chances of a conviction under the circumstances you describe are (or should be) slim. Of course, the jury could get it wrong, so I refer you back to my comment about requiring the kind of proof we cannot deliver – it has to be totally without doubt.
|
|