|
Post by happyhaddock on Jun 2, 2009 20:17:44 GMT -5
I guess in California, that's the best system there is. My concern is the current state of affairs in Canada. When there are 52 little countries making up their own rules, costs for those individual systems inevitably rise. Canada nees to develop an economically-friendly method of handing down the DP. We have that. No DP = no DP costs. No changes are needed.
|
|
|
Post by wildep on Jun 5, 2009 11:26:24 GMT -5
The system we have doesn't have the clout to hand down a suitable punishment. Canada needs to have a death penalty option to hand down in cases where it is warranted.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jun 11, 2009 10:34:47 GMT -5
Canada already hung one innocent man. How do you plan to fix that?
|
|
|
Post by wildep on Jun 18, 2009 20:19:30 GMT -5
Law enforcement didn't have the tools 50 years ago that they do now.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jun 20, 2009 11:28:51 GMT -5
The SCOTUS just ruled that the tools don't matter, even if they can prove you are innocent. Their rules and procedures are more important than the facts or the truth they say.
|
|
sdl
New Arrival
Posts: 0
|
Post by sdl on Jul 23, 2009 19:30:09 GMT -5
Canada already hung one innocent man. How do you plan to fix that? Canada is lucky that Pat Buchanan's clone Stockwell Day isn't in charge. He'd execute anybody for the thrill of it.
|
|
|
Post by Greylek on Jan 23, 2010 12:31:05 GMT -5
Well if you want to get technical about religion and the DP, then God himself would be on the recieving end of it--considering he murdered ALOT of people.
But again the issue of the DP is one of opinion from everyday people, religious leaders and academic scholars: and just like the gun debate, I don't think it as right or wrong (moral vs immoral) but as a personal opinion that one chooses to support or one chooses not too.
|
|
|
Post by Greylek on Jan 23, 2010 12:33:36 GMT -5
The system we have doesn't have the clout to hand down a suitable punishment. Canada needs to have a death penalty option to hand down in cases where it is warranted. Canada doesn't even have LWOP. Try baby steps first before you try bringing back capital punishment.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Jan 24, 2010 12:26:41 GMT -5
Canada doesn't even have LWOP Well they SHOULD.
|
|
|
Post by Greylek on Jan 26, 2010 15:16:23 GMT -5
Canada doesn't even have LWOP Well they SHOULD. so apparently one lawyer said that Canada does have Life because with each sentence of murder they give an option for parole, 5,7,12,20 etc. If they are denied parole they stay in prison until its granted or they die. My problem is that we allow them to apply for parole. Doesn't matter if they don't get it, its the fact that the justice system considers the possibility of releasing them thats unfortunate...considering Canada let out a man who murdered his family, wife, son and daughter...
|
|
|
Post by ♥Eva♥ on Mar 25, 2010 6:43:24 GMT -5
As i understand the Catholic church's position on the death penalty they concede that capital punishment was at one time correct, but with the existence of modern prisons it is no longer neccesary, in their opinion.
|
|
|
Post by ♥Eva♥ on Mar 25, 2010 7:03:12 GMT -5
Everyone Screwed Up, But Only McNair Is ExecutedOne of the most perversely bizarre stories I've seen, culminating in the execution of Willie McNair, this is an example of how the levels of failures resulted in the execution of one man. It's stories like this that make me disgusted by those whose biggest complaint about the law is that they don't get enough "me" time. McNair was convicted after his first trial based on "illegal evidence, inflammatory comments, and name-calling," bad enough that even an Alabama appeals court reversed the conviction and sent it back for retrial. Alabama, apparently, is the only state in the nation where a judge can reject the jury's sentencing decision and order execution on his own. The problem here was that McNair's indigent defenders were limited to $1,000 for out-of-court work, and claimed they couldn't manage to do the work needed within the budget. This is clearly a two-part failure, from the state's ridiculous low limit for out-of-court work in a death case to the defense lawyers absolute failure to provide effective assistance, compensation notwithstanding. So the criminal defense lawyers were prepared to let a man die because they weren't paid enough? Don't get me started. One of the primary mitigating factors in a death case is aberrant behavior. But of course, if you don't present the mitigating factors, then it doesn't exist. Well done, fellows. Are you proud of yourselves? But the district court's decision was reversed on appeal, not because it was inherently wrong, but based upon the procedural flaw of presenting evidence at the hearing that was neither new nor unavailable at the trial. It's unclear why this wasn't permitted as evidence of ineffective assistance, rather than in mitigation of the sentence, but it was rejected nonetheless. McNair sought leave to appeal to both the Alabama Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Both turned him away. On May 14, 2009, Willie McNair was put to death by lethal injection. And this is really the best system there is? Tell it to Willie McNair. Dearest Haddock! Somewhat off topic here, BUT nevertheless... The murderer you mention was 100% guilty of murdering Mrs. Ella Foy Riley! He even admitted it! The only wrongdoing in this case was the murdering of Mrs. Riley! www.wtvynews4.com/home/headlines/45190267.html
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Mar 25, 2010 17:54:03 GMT -5
Dearest Haddock! Somewhat off topic here, BUT nevertheless... The murderer you mention was 100% guilty of murdering Mrs. Ella Foy Riley! He even admitted it! The only wrongdoing in this case was the murdering of Mrs. Riley! www.wtvynews4.com/home/headlines/45190267.htmlThat's irrelevant. The OJ jury thought he probably did it also but their verdict was not guilty because the state failed to prove it. Those were the instructions all juries get - sadly few have a clue what they are doing. If the SCOTUS can rule that innocence is no bar to execution then it ought to follow that if the process is faulty the benefit should accrue to the accused, not the state.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Mar 26, 2010 7:16:52 GMT -5
As i understand the Catholic church's position on the death penalty they concede that capital punishment was at one time correct, but with the existence of modern prisons it is no longer neccesary, in their opinion. Yes, that's correct. www.cacp.org/That's the Catholic's Against Capital Punishment's Website. I get their newsletters.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Dec 28, 2010 16:20:26 GMT -5
In the first place, it's morally RIGHT. Secondly, I couldn't give a toss about what the Bishop of Rome and his bunch of paedophile, murdering, lying Teague fan club says about anything. If Benny XIV told me the time of day I'd check my watch! There is no morality in depriving a living human being of life, no matter how you try to justify it. Secondly, just because some priests are pedophiles does not mean that no religious person need speak at all. You can dump on the pediphiles as much as you like, far as I'm concerned. But you want to toss out the baby with the bath water. That's just dumb! "There's no morality in depriving a living human being of life"? If the execution of a murder....the worst of the worst....saves the life of the innocent.... there is plenty of true justification.... I see no justification in allowing them to continue to murder....anywhere.
|
|