Quebec Tory Senator: Give murderers rope for their cells

[ballz]

You'd better read it again.  :

I stated exactly where the DNA was, and the finger print and that doesn't mean there wouldn't be "other evidence" ... those two were specifically brought up in ref to your "DNA is just more evidence, it isn't higher."

It sure as hell can be!! It can be just like Mr Murderer was nice enough to videotape his crime ... and the jury will decide ... that's why they exist.

And to your query? Was it a kid the 10 witnessed murdered? Then you know my answer!! And, if out of 10 witnesses, at least one couldn't tell authorities where dude touched the kid, where the kid touched the due etc ... they ain't very good eyes-on witnesses!! DNA does not have to be the offenders, most people kick and scream and leave their DNA on offenders as evidence too despite gloves/condoms etc.

This scenario should never happen of course. 10 people sitting back and watching a kid get killed? They should be glad I'm not the Crown Prosecution ... or I'd charge them too!!

I am OK with that. Still. Just as I was yesterday and just as I will be tomorrow, next week etc.

You kids have a good night.

You're working way too hard to ignore my point of "guilty vs not guilty" as opposed to "degree of evidence." Or in other words, shades of grey vs black and white.

I notice you are happy to answer about 10 witnesses (of course I know what you're answer would be), but not if there were only 5, 3 (now I don't know) or just 1 (now I really, really don't know). You just ignored the point of shades of grey vs black and white, and instead went on a completely irrelevant rant about charging the 10 witnesses for not intervening.

There is not "higher forms" of evidence. Higher forms of credibility, sure, but not a higher form of evidence. In some cases, key witnesses are the main factor, in others it is DNA, and in some it is a video tape, and in some it is a confession.  Either there is enough evidence of various kinds to prosecute someone, or there is not. Two people that commit the exact same crime under the exact same circumstances are just as guilty as the other one, one is not "more" guilty because of the type of evidence used to prosecute him, and therefore one shouldn't be subject to a harsher penalty.

This becomes an even more important principal of justice when you are talking about the death penalty.

 

[exabedtech]

If an enemy grenade lands in the middle of the CP or casualty collection point and someone jumps on the grenade (committing suicide) they'll be lauded as a hero.

Flight of the intruder.  One of the pilots is surrounded by the enemy. He's pretty sure he's dying. He calls an airstrike down on himself (committing suicide). If anyone did that in real life we would call them a hero.

If I cross the road and I push a child out of the way of a bus knowing it's going to smite me, I'd be called a hero.

Is it such an evil notion, giving a serial rapist-murderer a rope and giving them a choice to hang themselves?
I'm not gonna call them a hero but it WOULD in all likely hood save some lives.

Sure sitting in jail the rest of their life is a good punishment, kinda, but if you're willing to forgo that bit of punishment and giving them an easy out  it means that they are off the streets permanently and money is going elsewhere than keeping them alive fed clothed cared for medically, educationally etc..

Can't "give him a rope".  Assisting suicide is a crime in this country.  When you can't legally help a loved one who is begging you to help them die, helping the criminals to commit suicide isn't going to fly.  Yes, i'd love to see a guy like Russell Williams kill himself and do us all a favour, but we're VERY far away from legally being allowed to assist him.
The argument against assisted suicide often comes down to the risk of escalation. The Dutch program is a good example of a program initially intended only for the most extreme cases, but is now allow to be applied in all manner of circumstances.

Advocates against assisted suicide would likely point to the Nazi T4 euthanasia program.  My own opinion is that there are cases where it should be allowed, but there would need to be some serious controls.  On some level I can sympathize with Robert Latimer, but did his daughter really want to die?  At what point do we argue that the disabled are incapable of making their own decision.  Should someone be allowed to make that decision for them?  In Robert Latimer's case, it was simple murder but the way our assisted suicide laws are drawn up, simply advocating that a person should end their life is a crime whether that person actually succeeds or not.

 

[armyvern]

You're working way too hard to ignore my point of "guilty vs not guilty" as opposed to "degree of evidence." Or in other words, shades of grey vs black and white.

I notice you are happy to answer about 10 witnesses (of course I know what you're answer would be), but not if there were only 5, 3 (now I don't know) or just 1 (now I really, really don't know). You just ignored the point of shades of grey vs black and white, and instead went on a completely irrelevant rant about charging the 10 witnesses for not intervening.

There is not "higher forms" of evidence. Higher forms of credibility, sure, but not a higher form of evidence. In some cases, key witnesses are the main factor, in others it is DNA, and in some it is a video tape, and in some it is a confession.  Either there is enough evidence of various kinds to prosecute someone, or there is not. Two people that commit the exact same crime under the exact same circumstances are just as guilty as the other one, one is not "more" guilty because of the type of evidence used to prosecute him, and therefore one shouldn't be subject to a harsher penalty.

This becomes an even more important principal of justice when you are talking about the death penalty.

I didn`t ignore shit. I already answered it earlier.

Quite commonly 2 people can murder people. 1 can be eligible for the death sentence while the other is not. I`m good with that. That`s not shades of grey; rather it is considered as `special circumstances`in order to be eligible for sentence X. Must meet ticks in boxes to be eligible. Those are my ticks.

We also have those ticks for a myriad of lesser offenses in this country. With a weapon? Longer sentence. Prior conviction? Longer sentence? Involve a child? Longer sentence.

No shades of grey there for me. You meet the ticks: Bye, bye.

 

[ballz]

We also have those ticks for a myriad of lesser offenses in this country. With a weapon? Longer sentence. Prior conviction? Longer sentence? Involve a child? Longer sentence.

No shades of grey there for me. You meet the ticks: Bye, bye.

And how do any of those things involve basing the length of the sentence on evidence? Your examples are not even relevant.

You said it yourself "lesser offenses" not "lesser evidence."

How you can suggest that two people committing the same crime under the same circumstances, and getting a different sentence is in anyway "justice," is beyond me.

 

[armyvern]

And how do any of those things involve basing the length of the sentence on evidence? Your examples are not even relevant.

You said it yourself "lesser offenses" not "lesser evidence."

How you can suggest that two people committing the same crime under the same circumstances, and getting a different sentence is in anyway "justice," is beyond me.

No sentence length; dead. Clear enough for you?

Meet the special circumstances and that`s it. It may be beyond you, but is absolutely 100% normal in places currently having the DP as a possibility provided that the accused is found guilty by their jury and that the jury finds those special circumstances as having been met.

Normal; not rocket science.

As to your quoting my `lesser offences` (ie: lesser offenses than MURDER) without quoting the samples of those ... We do NOT send a guy who commits an assault to jail for life. We may commit a guy who commits an assault with a weapon to jail for life. WE, Canada, already apply `special circumstances` to these myriad of lesser (than murder) offenses, so what is so wrong with doing that for murderers of children? Nothing.

So, if you want to keep insisting that doing such `creates shades of grey`, how do you justify the fact that we already do so in this nation normally and routinely?

 

[ballz]

No sentence length; dead. Clear enough for you?

Meet the special circumstances and that`s it. It may be beyond you, but is absolutely 100% normal in places currently having the DP as a possibility provided that the accused is found guilty by their jury and that the jury finds those special circumstances as having been met.

Normal; not rocket science.

I would be interested in seeing those requirements in other jurisdictions you are talking about. I doubt they are requirements of a certain kind of evidence.

For Texas, the "ticks in the box" I found on wiki are here:

Since the re-introduction of the death penalty, Texas has always required the jury to decide whether to impose the death penalty in a specific case. However, Texas did not adopt the "aggravating factor" approach outlined in the Model Penal Code. Instead, once each side has pleaded its case, the jury must answer two questions (three, if the person was convicted as a party) to determine whether a person will or will not be sentenced to death:

The first question is whether there exists a probability the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a "continuing threat to society". "Society" in this instance includes both inside and outside of prison; thus, a defendant who would constitute a threat to people inside of prison, such as correctional officers or other inmates, is eligible for the death penalty.

The second question is whether, taking into consideration the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there exists sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence.

If the person was convicted as a party, the third question asked is whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased, or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased, or "anticipated" that a human life would be taken.

In order for a death sentence to be imposed, the jury must answer the first question 'Yes' and the second question 'No' (and, if convicted as a party, the third question 'Yes'). Otherwise the sentence is life in prison.

None of those are based on a type of evidence.

 

[ballz]

We do NOT send a guy who commits an assault to jail for life. We may commit a guy who commits an assault with a weapon to jail for life. WE, Canada, already apply `special circumstances` to these myriad of lesser (than murder) offenses, so what is so wrong with doing that for murderers of children? Nothing.

So, if you want to keep insisting that doing such `creates shades of grey`, how do you justify the fact that we already do so in this nation normally and routinely?

That's not giving a harsher sentence based on EVIDENCE.... How can I make that more clear?

Assault and assault with a weapon are two different offences. It is giving a harsher sentence based on the fact that you did something considered worse than just assaulting someone with your bare hands.

 

[armyvern]

That's not giving a harsher sentence based on EVIDENCE.... How can I make that more clear?

Assault and assault with a weapon are two different offences. It is giving a harsher sentence based on the fact that you did something considered worse than just assaulting someone with your bare hands.

A murder of an adult and a murder of a child are both murder.

I`m OK with giving one of them a much harsher sentence. Evidence showed the fact that one was an absolutely defenseless child, which for me, makes it a worse crime. Can I make that more clear?

That would be one of my special circumstances. You don`t have to like them; that doesn`t make it wrong. My opinion is just as valid as yours and, quite frankly, neither are worth much in this too-PC country.

 

[ballz]

Vern, I have no problem with requiring special circumstances, or "ticks in the box." I agree with bringing back the DP, and I agree with requiring special circumstances to make you eligible.

The only thing I disagree on is having "DNA (or any other specific kind of) evidence was used to prove the defendant guilty" as one of those "ticks in the box."

A murder of an adult and a murder of a child are both murder.

I`m OK with giving one of them a much harsher sentence. Evidence showed one was a child. Can I make that more clear?

Yes, that's fine if you are arguing that the required "tick in the box" be "the victim was under the age of 12" or something. Fine and dandy.

But you were advocating that one of the ticks in the box be "DNA evidence was presented." That's what I don't think is fine and dandy. That specific requirement.

That would be one of my special circumstances. You don`t have to like them; that doesn`t make it wrong. My opinion is just as valid as yours and, quite frankly, neither are worth much in this too-PC country.

I think your DNA evidence requirement would not be in the spirit of "justice," which is why I think it is wrong. That said, you are right, at this moment in Canada, our nitpicking is really much ado about nothing.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Unlike what someone else wrote above, I *would* like to change minds rather than just debate the point.  That said...

I can only conceive of three courses of action to deal with the people who are truly dangerous to society:
1) Kill them
2) Warehouse them
3) Export them

I object to (1) on the grounds of fallibility.  Yes, I recognize the accuracy of DNA identification; however, I do not recognize the accuracy of how DNA comes to be present in some circumstances.  Many victims of crime are victims of people who are acquaintances or closer; there are a lot of ways another person's DNA can come to be present on an object, at a location, or indeed on a person.  (And yes, when it comes to "on a person" there are many fewer mitigating circumstances.)

(2) Must be done humanely.

(3) No-one else is likely to accept our dangerous people.

There is, I suppose, a compromise between (2) and (3): a colony on our own sovereign soil.  Think "Escape From New York".

The problem with penal institutions is that they are not run like a service detention barracks - I envision an austere place, with an extremely busy schedule of mandated activities designed to leave prisoners with no energy or opportunity to abuse each other, and with opportunities to earn privileges but no inhumane punishments.  For example, I can tolerate the notion of weeks on end on Punishment Diet #1 (does such a thing really exist?) with no privileges bar those deemed medically necessary, but not solitary confinement.  And such a regimen has to start with juvenile offenders: they really, really need to want to avoid going back into such a place, ever.

 

[jollyjacktar]

There is a fourth option Brad.  Lobotomize them.  They won't hurt anyone again that way.

 

[mariomike]

For example, I can tolerate the notion of weeks on end on Punishment Diet #1 (does such a thing really exist?)

I believe something similar to it does:
"Restricted diet
55(1) A restricted diet may only be imposed on an inmate with the consent of an institution’s physician.
(2) A restricted diet is to consist of not less than 1100 calories per day.
(3) A restricted diet may be imposed for not more than 3 days.":
http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=726
"COMPENDIUM OF FEDERAL & PROVINCIAL CORRECTIONS LAW"
page 31.

Edit to add. Some discussion of Canadian military punishment diets here:
http://canadianprovostcorps.ca/dentbks-00.htm

 

[brihard]

There is a fourth option Brad.  Lobotomize them.  They won't hurt anyone again that way.

Nope, fails the revocability test.

Out of curiosity, have you seen A Clockwork Orange?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Nope, fails the revocability test.

Out of curiosity, have you seen A Clockwork Orange?

Yes I have.  One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest too (so I've seen Jack's version of post op glee).  Tough shit about the revocability test.  If they're that dangerous they don't deserve a chance to hurt anyone else again.  You're not killing them, cause that's taboo  :  and makes hearts everywhere bleed profusely.  F'em society's welfare comes first.

 

[brihard]

Yes I have.  One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest too (so I've seen Jack's version of post op glee).  Tough crap about the revocability test.  If they're that dangerous they don't deserve a chance to hurt anyone else again.  You're not killing them, cause that's taboo  :  and makes hearts everywhere bleed profusely.  F'em society's welfare comes first.

There is nothing inherently desirable or justifiable to society that execution or causing brain damage can accomplish that a true life sentence without parole and in isolation cannot. I don't give much of a shit for those who are guilty- my concenr is solely with the fact that the state is most certainly going to get it wrong from time to time, and such consequences as are imposed must be at least to an extend revocable when we discover that the justice system failed to exceed the competence of the weakest link in the chain at some point in a case.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Then we shall have to agree to disagree.

 

[Jarnhamar]

There is nothing inherently desirable or justifiable to society that execution or causing brain damage can accomplish that a true life sentence without parole and in isolation cannot. I don't give much of a shit for those who are guilty- my concenr is solely with the fact that the state is most certainly going to get it wrong from time to time, and such consequences as are imposed must be at least to an extend revocable when we discover that the justice system failed to exceed the competence of the weakest link in the chain at some point in a case.

Is the death of one man by error of the state worth the lives of 10, 100 or 1000 innocent victims whom said reoccurring offender may kill once they are let out of jail?
Life in prison isn't a good option as far as I'm concerned- too expensive.  How many lives could be saved if you took the cost of 12 "inmates for life" and turned that over into food and medicine?

We may take someones life by accident, but how many lives did we (Canada) take by accident overseas. Hundreds? I wouldn't be surprised if it was over 1000. 
That was in the name of the war which we went to in order to protect Canada from attack.

As far as I'm concerned putting a serial murderer to death is protecting Canada from attack just as well.

 

[brihard]

Then we shall have to agree to disagree.

Doesn't mean I have to shut up about it. It stuns me that so many people who are so readily critical of the state and its propensity to screw everything else up are willing to extend to it the blind trust to kill someone when it does not uniquely serve a need, or in this instance to cut part of someone's brain out.

When we achieve a government and justice system that can flawlessly establish truth I'll happily see us bring in the death penalty for some crimes. But it isn't, and probably won't be, and I'll not have the state possibly murder an innocent person because we *don't like* the thought of merely locking them away in solitary for the rest of their natural life.

[Quote author=Grimaldus]Is the death of one man by error of the state worth the lives of 10, 100 or 1000 innocent victims whom said reoccurring offender may kill once they are let out of jail?
Life in prison isn't a good option as far as I'm concerned- too expensive.  How many lives could be saved if you took the cost of 12 "inmates for life" and turned that over into food and medicine?

We may take someones life by accident, but how many lives did we (Canada) take by accident overseas. Hundreds? I wouldn't be surprised if it was over 1000. 
That was in the name of the war which we went to in order to protect Canada from attack.

As far as I'm concerned putting a serial murderer to death is protecting Canada from attack just as well.[/quote]

The necessary corollary of my position is we *must* have a method to completely isolate a criminal from society from the point of arrest until they're dead. That serves the same ends, but can be reversed when on the rare occasion we discover we screwed up.

There cannot be an analogy between accidental deaths in war and execution of an innocent. Every wartime accidental death either comes from malfeasance (which should be investigated and, if appropriate, treated as a crime) or from error made in good faith where that individual genuinely felt themselves or others at risk and had to act. You know this as well as I do; I know how damned close I came a couple of times to making that 'good faith' error. In war the normal peace has already broken down, and stability has to be restored before we have the luxury of taking many months or years to determine truth. A criminal justice system *does* have the luxury of as much time is needed, and the means do exist to prevent anyone from possibly victimizing others in that time.

As for life imprisonment costing more than execution- absolute bunk. A death sentence *must* carry with it every avenue of appeal, and even there errors are *still* made. It costs far more to run through all the legal avenues and then kill a man (plus to operate a special, small, segregated death row to hold these few) than to keep someone in jail for life. Only if we seek efficiency of scale and start executing wholesale like China can the death penalty be made cheaper, and that's obviously not an acceptable way to go about it.

 

[ballz]

Life in prison isn't a good option as far as I'm concerned- too expensive.  How many lives could be saved if you took the cost of 12 "inmates for life" and turned that over into food and medicine?

I'm on the pro-capital punishment side but expenses aren't a great argument. It's pretty damn expensive to execute someone, and it's not near as expensive "per prisoner" as the books say (just like it's not near as expensive to fly a plane per hour as the books say).

Nope, fails the revocability test.

That's fine if that's where your comfort level falls. Personally, I am not convinced by about this revocability standard. As long as we've made it statistically impossible for the state to screw it up (by having the requirements I outlined before), your concern that the state will do something irrevocable based on a false-conviction is IMO not relevant.

In what I've proposed, the only way they could falsely put someone to death is if they had 2 or 3 false-convictions on the same damn person, do you really think it's remotely possible that the state could manage that?

On another not about vengeance and justice... I don't think there's anything wrong or unjust with a bit of vengeance on someone that rapes and murders a pair of children. I would sleep soundly at night, but maybe I am just a bitter person.

 

[ballz]

Oh yes, and proportionality, and important factor of justice, just came to my mind.

As the crime gets worse, the punishment is supposed to get worse. Except, a second-degree murder gets one life in prison. There are crimes far far far worse than a second-degree murder. There has to be a punishment that is far worse.