Some very relevant points.

It all comes back to the same basic conclusion though, these types of heinous criminals don't necessarily need to be killed but they need to be removed from society forever. 25 years doesn't cut it. Once you commit an act like murder, rape, child rape etc you have in my eyes given up your right to ever co-habituate with civilized members of society ever again.

It should be maximum sentence every time for these types of crimes. Life (as in their actual lifetime) locked up. The years can be spent in different types of facilities but either way they should never be released. I dislike hearing the "they've paid their debt to society" excuse. What do you owe society for destroying the life of another human being (by taking it, raping etc)? You owe them their life, not just a certain number of years of it. You took a life and now for the rest of your life you will be removed from society, that is how you pay your debt to society by keeping your dangerous, violent, murdering, raping self out of it.

If you don't wish to be locked up for the rest of your life too damn bad, don't rape someone.

The death penalty is not a strong enough deterrent because the types of people who commit heinous crimes have no souls, so to speak. They're not afraid of death or leaving their loved ones. Many are sociopaths, they have no feeling. Being killed gives them an easy out of their pitiful lives.

Taking away their freedom forever would be a stronger deterrent. I'm confident that if a criminal knew a murder or rape charge carried an actual life sentence automatically, no ifs ands or buts that would be a stronger deterrent than a possible death sentence. It can't be a case by case thing. If you are proven to have murdered or rape someone that's it, you blew your only chance, its life in lockup. Granted some of these people are so arrogant they don't think they'll ever get caught so it may not deter them but it would get their sorry ass off the streets and prevent them from ever doing it again.

Okay, so if I've understood the points correctly the reasons given in favor of capital punishment are something like:

1. The serial killer/rapist/pedophile subset of criminals are unlikely to be rehabilitated (and have a high chance of re-offending).
2. The death penalty would be a more effective deterrent for this subset of criminals than 25 years in jail.
3. People who have murdered/raped have made a choice and thus forfeited their right to live.
4. The argument assumes a theoretical perfect justice system in which people aren't wrongfully convicted.

Correct me if I have made a mistake.

There is actually a contradiction in the argument as it has been presented: pedophiles/rapists/murderers apparently have a state of mind that can't be helped with therapy or rehabilitation, however fear of the death penalty is supposed to effectively stop rapes/murders in this subset from happening. I'd propose that there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty would significantly reduce crime in the serial killer/rapist subset. Certainly none has been provided.

Singapore is used as an example of a country where capital punishment works, but their system clearly contains the flaws that have been mentioned: people are wrongfully convicted with little chance to appeal, and a high proportion of foreign nationals are executed. Also, a much higher proportion of people are executed for drug trafficking than for murder or rape. Johannes van Damme is a pretty sad example, but there are others. It is also an unfair comparison: Singapore has the 4th highest GDP per capita in the world, and is a city-state of 4.5 million people. It is not comparable to the US or Canada, where there are these large slums (tenement-housing or the projects) where people in wretched conditions, total poverty, have been rounded up and put together.

With regards to poverty, I think it is relevant to the subject of capital punishment and life-sentences. If capital punishment and life sentences were exclusive to serial killers and pedophiles, then poverty wouldn't be an issue. But if murder and drug trafficking are included I'd expect a high proportion of executions to come out of these impoverished areas, as that's where the violent crime happens now.

So, I'd agree to the extent that perhaps full life-sentences would be best for the high-chance to re-offend subset (serial killers etc.) But otherwise the whole pro-capital punishment argument is kind of silly. It's way right of government policy and popular opinion in the developed world, like way off the spectrum. It relies on assuming some sort of perfect justice system that doesn't exist. But, more importantly, arguing about it kind of ignores the real issues like state aggression overseas, the environment, and poverty and hunger around the world.

edit: GDP -> GDP per capita

Originally Posted by dukeb

So, I'd agree to the extent that perhaps full life-sentences would be best for the high-chance to re-offend subset (serial killers etc.) But otherwise the whole pro-capital punishment argument is kind of silly. It's way right of government policy and popular opinion in the developed world, like way off the spectrum. It relies on assuming some sort of perfect justice system that doesn't exist. But, more importantly, arguing about it kind of ignores the real issues like state aggression overseas, the environment, and poverty and hunger around the world.

I agree on the full life sentences as I've stated above.

What do poverty, hunger and the environment have to do with the death penalty?

I feel for people who are starving and poor but it doesn't them them the right to commit crimes. (I'm not sure if that is what you're arguing, I'm just not sure what you mean by ignoring those issues).

I mentioned hunger, state aggression and the environment because those are serious issues that would take social reform (via people working together) to resolve, while capital punishment is a moot topic.

As for poverty, the majority of violent crime (for sure in the US, and likely in Canada) is done by poor people and to poor people. For example, in 2008 burglaries and assault were far more likely to happen to households with an annual income of less than $7500. People living in the projects are being treated unfairly by the justice system. Not because they should be morally excused for their crimes, but because crime is likely one of the very few lifestyles available to them. Many laws seem to specifically target poor people, such as drug trafficking laws (the war on drugs is really more of a war on the poor). The US must know about this impoverished part of the population, but instead of helping them through social policy they put them in prison (the reason has to do with who has control over policy: it is corporations, and people in slums aren't important from an investors perspective). My point is really that if the goal is to reduce violent crime, then the way to do it is to bring people out of slums (i.e. reduce poverty). If the goal is to have a debate about the inherent morals of capital punishment then, whatever, it is a moot debate.

Originally Posted by dukeb

I mentioned hunger, state aggression and the environment because those are serious issues that would take social reform (via people working together) to resolve, while capital punishment is a moot topic.

As for poverty, the majority of violent crime (for sure in the US, and likely in Canada) is done by poor people and to poor people. For example, in 2008 burglaries and assault were far more likely to happen to households with an annual income of less than $7500. People living in the projects are being treated unfairly by the justice system. Not because they should be morally excused for their crimes, but because crime is likely one of the very few lifestyles available to them. Many laws seem to specifically target poor people, such as drug trafficking laws (the war on drugs is really more of a war on the poor). The US must know about this impoverished part of the population, but instead of helping them through social policy they put them in prison (the reason has to do with who has control over policy: it is corporations, and people in slums aren't important from an investors perspective). My point is really that if the goal is to reduce violent crime, then the way to do it is to bring people out of slums (i.e. reduce poverty). If the goal is to have a debate about the inherent morals of capital punishment then, whatever, it is a moot debate.

I think the key sentence there is too poor people BY poor people. This would be a more relevant point if crime was being committed against poor people by more affluent people.

This may sound cold-hearted but I really don't care if you feel crime is the only "lifestyle" available to you. You may not have money but you do have a brain. Don't commit a crime. Crime is not a lifestyle and you will and should be punished if you commit one.

It doesn't matter to me if laws against drug trafficking are anti-poor by virtue of the fact that poor people traffic drugs. Don't traffic drugs. It's really simple. I don't buy the excuse that it is the only way they can sustain themselves. Apply for state welfare, try to get jobs, do anything other than sell drugs to support your family. If you know it is wrong and illegal and choose to do it anyway than you are a criminal regardless of your financial status. In Canada (which is what the original question asked about) there are programs to help out the less fortunate. Once they choose to resort to illegal activity I don't care about their financial status, they are a criminal.

All that said we weren't really discussing the death penalty for crimes like those involving drugs. We were talking heinous crimes like murder and sexual crimes.

If you commit a murder or a rape you have no excuse, not even your financial status.

I agree that things should be done to help impoverished people and keep them off the streets and away from becoming criminals. Street kids especially should be given second chances. Rehabilitation for petty crimes, drug crimes etc for poor people, and impoverished minors especially is important. We're not calling for a possible death sentence for them

There are two entirely different debates here. Poverty is related to crime in many ways but regardless of a person's financial well being or lack there of if they commit a crime serious enough to possibly be killed for it than my care about their status vanishes. The moment you kill someone or rape a child I don't give a damn if you grew up poor, you still grew up with a brain.

Yeah, sorry about that. I think I just killed any chance of someone new entering the debate after having read the whole thread >.<

I had some time off because of Faculty Day stealing all the first years, and there were just so many points I wanted to talk about. A lot of it was quotes though.

EDIT: Oops, I missed all the posts on this page... Ugh. I'll try to read them all now but I might not reply till Thursday if it looks like it would take too long. I'm tired as heck, and there are too many activities tomorrow.

Alright, this doesn't look too daunting. I'll tackle whats been posted so far before coming back on Thursday. I should mention that my last post was a reply to Dillon, I thought it was right below his because I didn't see the other page.

Originally Posted by sew12

The death penalty is not a strong enough deterrent because the types of people who commit heinous crimes have no souls, so to speak. They're not afraid of death or leaving their loved ones. Many are sociopaths, they have no feeling. Being killed gives them an easy out of their pitiful lives.

Taking away their freedom forever would be a stronger deterrent. I'm confident that if a criminal knew a murder or rape charge carried an actual life sentence automatically, no ifs ands or buts that would be a stronger deterrent than a possible death sentence. It can't be a case by case thing. If you are proven to have murdered or rape someone that's it, you blew your only chance, its life in lockup. Granted some of these people are so arrogant they don't think they'll ever get caught so it may not deter them but it would get their sorry ass off the streets and prevent them from ever doing it again.

You might be right if you're talking about the deterrent that a death penalty policy like what the states has, but if we are talking about an actual death penalty where you will definitely be killed it would be a much stronger deterrent.

These people may be evil, but a lot of them aren't stupid. (In fact, if I recall correctly, serial killers tend to have above average intelligence). I don't think that many people would take death over life in prison, even if they are rapists or murderers.

Originally Posted by dukeb

Okay, so if I've understood the points correctly the reasons given in favor of capital punishment are something like:

1. The serial killer/rapist/pedophile subset of criminals are unlikely to be rehabilitated (and have a high chance of re-offending).
2. The death penalty would be a more effective deterrent for this subset of criminals than 25 years in jail.
3. People who have murdered/raped have made a choice and thus forfeited their right to live.
4. The argument assumes a theoretical perfect justice system in which people aren't wrongfully convicted.

Correct me if I have made a mistake.

I'm sure various people have different arguments in favor, but that roughly sums up my view of it. Just change 4, really. It doesn't assume a perfect justice system, just one that executes less innocent people than the death penalty deters.

Originally Posted by dukeb

There is actually a contradiction in the argument as it has been presented: pedophiles/rapists/murderers apparently have a state of mind that can't be helped with therapy or rehabilitation, however fear of the death penalty is supposed to effectively stop rapes/murders in this subset from happening. I'd propose that there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty would significantly reduce crime in the serial killer/rapist subset. Certainly none has been provided.

That's not actually a formal contradiction, since there is no equivalence between inability to be rehabilitated and fear of death. Certainly for some of these people the fear of death would not be enough. I'm not saying that fear of the death penalty would stop all murder and rape, just that it is enough to keep some of them from happening. I'll try to find stats for rape in Singapore, and pedophilia ones if I can on Thursday. Or you can look yourself and point it out to me if they are on par with Canadian/US rape levels.

Originally Posted by dukeb

Singapore is used as an example of a country where capital punishment works, but their system clearly contains the flaws that have been mentioned: people are wrongfully convicted with little chance to appeal, and a high proportion of foreign nationals are executed. Also, a much higher proportion of people are executed for drug trafficking than for murder or rape. Johannes van Damme is a pretty sad example, but there are others. It is also an unfair comparison: Singapore has the 4th highest GDP per capita in the world, and is a city-state of 4.5 million people. It is not comparable to the US or Canada, where there are these large slums (tenement-housing or the projects) where people in wretched conditions, total poverty, have been rounded up and put together.

It also contains the pros that have been mentioned of lowering crime levels significantly. (At least with drug-trafficking and murder, I suppose I shouldn't say it works with rape as well until I check that for sure). The foreign nationals thing is not a flaw. If someone commits a crime in a foreign country they should pay for it in that country. Johannes van Damme was caught with a large amount of Heroine. If he was framed than that is indeed unfortunate. But if he was actually smuggling drugs while knowing what Singapore's drug policy was (or while not knowing the policy of the country he was smuggling it into) than he pretty much got what was coming to him. He took a risk that had high payoff, but also a large cost.

Regardless, I am not suggesting the death penalty for drug trafficking. Singapore is also the only country that practises an actual death penalty, and so the only country that can be looked at (to the best of my knowledge). However the wealth of its citizens is only a valid argument if you think poverty is relevant (and its not). Size is not a valid objection unless you can think of a reason that I'm missing.

Originally Posted by dukeb

With regards to poverty, I think it is relevant to the subject of capital punishment and life-sentences. If capital punishment and life sentences were exclusive to serial killers and pedophiles, then poverty wouldn't be an issue. But if murder and drug trafficking are included I'd expect a high proportion of executions to come out of these impoverished areas, as that's where the violent crime happens now.

If you are seriously suggesting that capital punishment is wrong because it targets people who are committing crimes than I'm not even going to continue this argument. That is the whole point of any judicial system, the fact that one demographic commits more crimes than another is not a valid argument.

Originally Posted by dukeb

So, I'd agree to the extent that perhaps full life-sentences would be best for the high-chance to re-offend subset (serial killers etc.) But otherwise the whole pro-capital punishment argument is kind of silly. It's way right of government policy and popular opinion in the developed world, like way off the spectrum. It relies on assuming some sort of perfect justice system that doesn't exist. But, more importantly, arguing about it kind of ignores the real issues like state aggression overseas, the environment, and poverty and hunger around the world.

edit: GDP -> GDP per capita

Well considering how many people do support capital punishment (48% according to the Gallup Poll which Chris referenced) its hardly a fringe opinion. That's the same number of people who opposed Prop 8 in California. It does not assume a perfect justice system, and opening debate on a subject, when it is based in logic, is never a bad thing. Just because you think there are more important subjects does not lower its legitimacy. Start debates on those topics as well than.

Originally Posted by dukeb

People living in the projects are being treated unfairly by the justice system. Not because they should be morally excused for their crimes, but because crime is likely one of the very few lifestyles available to them. Many laws seem to specifically target poor people, such as drug trafficking laws (the war on drugs is really more of a war on the poor). The US must know about this impoverished part of the population, but instead of helping them through social policy they put them in prison (the reason has to do with who has control over policy: it is corporations, and people in slums aren't important from an investors perspective). My point is really that if the goal is to reduce violent crime, then the way to do it is to bring people out of slums (i.e. reduce poverty). If the goal is to have a debate about the inherent morals of capital punishment then, whatever, it is a moot debate.

Drug trafficking laws specifically target drug traffickers. I personally believe that those laws shouldn't exist, but you have to see how fallacious your argument is here. If you want to argue against them based on, say, the fact that the government shouldn't be able to tell me what I put into my own body, than more power to you. But if you're arguing against them based on the fact that they are targeting the people committing the crime than you have no ground to stand on.

Everything else has either been countered by Stef already, or is borderline conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

These people may be evil, but a lot of them aren't stupid. (In fact, if I recall correctly, serial killers tend to have above average intelligence). I don't think that many people would take death over life in prison, even if they are rapists or murderers.

If you are seriously suggesting that capital punishment is wrong because it targets people who are committing crimes than I'm not even going to continue this argument. That is the whole point of any judicial system, the fact that one demographic commits more crimes than another is not a valid argument.


Drug trafficking laws specifically target drug traffickers. I personally believe that those laws shouldn't exist, but you have to see how fallacious your argument is here. If you want to argue against them based on, say, the fact that the government shouldn't be able to tell me what I put into my own body, than more power to you. But if you're arguing against them based on the fact that they are targeting the people committing the crime than you have no ground to stand on.

Everything else has either been countered by Stef already, or is borderline conspiracy theory.

With the current prison system you're probably right, many would rather spend their time there (out of the general population no less if they are a particularly heinous criminal) than be killed. If the prison system was revamped like the suggestion is than many would probably prefer the easy way out. For example right now in prisons they have commissary accounts where they can buy treats and stuff out of money people send me. Why the hell should a convicted murderer be allowed to buy candy? Yes prison inmates are allowed to buy candy, some children don't even get candy to enjoy in their lifetime and prisoners can purchase candy. How ridiculous is that? As has already been mentioned they can get free education too, he we are like chumps paying upwards of $6000 a year for tuition and fees and these gets can get educated for free. Lucky them. Numerous people have already said it but prison needs to be the bare minimum. No special privileges and treats for someone who murdered Joe's daughter.

Agreed on your second point. Criminals are criminals, it doesn't matter to me if punishment for criminals targets one demographic more so than others by virtue of the fact that that group commits more crimes. Every demographic has the same ability (except maybe the actually mentally challenged or ill) to NOT commit crimes. Sorry you grew up impoverished but it doesn't give you the right to become a criminal and get off scott free.

I'm not going to get into a debate on drug laws but I don't necessarily agree that there shouldn't be laws against drug trafficking. I think there's a case for government regulation of drugs like marijuana but let's be realistic here. The government may not being doing it out of the kindness of their hearts but trying to keep people from doing crack, heroin etc is probably best for people's health. It is your own body but why make it legal for you to fill it with crystal meth? I'm getting off topic though and I don't want to derail the thread with a drug debate. Agreed though, the argument that drug trafficking laws are bad b/c they target poor people (the ones trafficking drugs) is ridiculous. Laws against crime are just that against crime and those who commit crimes.

A better argument to make in defense of poor criminals or alleged criminals in this case is that they are unable to get the same kind of legal representation as rich, white collar criminals. This in itself is fundamentally unfair and may lead to more rich criminals getting off with their crimes. No one rich or poor should be able to do that. Perhaps the pay scale of lawyers should be regulated. Either pay more to the public defenders, or make it so that it isn't so appealing for lawyers to defend rich people over the poor. I mean this would probably lead to some unscrupulous under the table shady dealings but bribery and the like is illegal too.

Conspiracy theory made me laugh, yeah. I know the government seems like a big bad wolf to a lot of people but conspiracy theories about them make me laugh in a lot of cases.

What did you regard as "conspiracy theory"? I could probably elaborate for you.

Originally Posted by sew12

With the current prison system you're probably right, many would rather spend their time there (out of the general population no less if they are a particularly heinous criminal) than be killed. If the prison system was revamped like the suggestion is than many would probably prefer the easy way out. For example right now in prisons they have commissary accounts where they can buy treats and stuff out of money people send me. Why the hell should a convicted murderer be allowed to buy candy? Yes prison inmates are allowed to buy candy, some children don't even get candy to enjoy in their lifetime and prisoners can purchase candy. How ridiculous is that? As has already been mentioned they can get free education too, he we are like chumps paying upwards of $6000 a year for tuition and fees and these gets can get educated for free. Lucky them. Numerous people have already said it but prison needs to be the bare minimum. No special privileges and treats for someone who murdered Joe's daughter.

I guess it depends on how you define the bare minimum. How much space, whether they have to work, whether they have windows, whether they have running water or a bed, access to books, quality of food, etc. I can't see the conditions being bad enough that I would take death over them though. Maybe thats just me though.

Originally Posted by sew12

A better argument to make in defense of poor criminals or alleged criminals in this case is that they are unable to get the same kind of legal representation as rich, white collar criminals. This in itself is fundamentally unfair and may lead to more rich criminals getting off with their crimes. No one rich or poor should be able to do that. Perhaps the pay scale of lawyers should be regulated. Either pay more to the public defenders, or make it so that it isn't so appealing for lawyers to defend rich people over the poor. I mean this would probably lead to some unscrupulous under the table shady dealings but bribery and the like is illegal too.

Well, I don't know about this. I don't think its a huge mystery that the poor don't get the same sort of legal representation, but I can't see a better solution. Paying public defenders more wouldn't make them better, it would just mean that the rich would pay more to get the best lawyers still. Capping the pay of lawyers to prevent this leads to the best lawyers taking more money under the table, or switching to a new profession or country where their talents are recognized.

I guess a possible solution is to clean up the laws, getting rid of loopholes, making them easier to understand, getting conflicting ones off the books. If there is less ambiguity, there is less wiggle room for interpretation and less chance of a lawyer getting a guilty person off the hook. Also getting rid of pointless laws and regulations makes the important ones easier to enforce. But that would be unlikely to ever happen.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I guess it depends on how you define the bare minimum. How much space, whether they have to work, whether they have windows, whether they have running water or a bed, access to books, quality of food, etc. I can't see the conditions being bad enough that I would take death over them though. Maybe thats just me though.

For me the bare minimum would mean space enough for a cot and a toilet with an aisle in between. I'd have to look into the prison work system further to see if working would be necessary but the more hard labour the better, they shouldn't get paid for the work though, consider it community service. Water of course is a necessity for life so they should be able to have as much water was they need to sustain life. No books and no other forms of entertainment or education, not a thing, if they wanted to read books they should have stayed out in society where they have libraries and book stores. Quality of food, bare minimum to sustain life, nothing tasty or good, just whatever they need to live off of. I'm not calling for bad conditions, just absolute bare minimum for them to be able to stay alive, not live comfortably or get special treats.

Originally Posted by dukeb

What did you regard as "conspiracy theory"? I could probably elaborate for you.

Originally Posted by dukeb

(the reason has to do with who has control over policy: it is corporations, and people in slums aren't important from an investors perspective)

I said borderline conspiracy theory. Its not like you're one of those "omg9/11wasaninsidejobObama isaMuslimtheyputFluor ideinthewatertocontro lus" people. I mean, yeah Corporations have scary amounts of influence over the Government, and there isn't much doubt that what they prefer is to get money directly through subsidies and grants that could be spent in better ways (or not even collected in the first place). But you say it like you think that the corporations benefit from or are indifferent to the poor. One of the only reasons that Walmart was able to offer the low low wages it did was because the people who worked there were all also able to qualify for Welfare. And anybody can tell you that people being able to afford your product is generally good for business.

Originally Posted by sew12

For me the bare minimum would mean space enough for a cot and a toilet with an aisle in between. I'd have to look into the prison work system further to see if working would be necessary but the more hard labour the better, they shouldn't get paid for the work though, consider it community service. Water of course is a necessity for life so they should be able to have as much water was they need to sustain life. No books and no other forms of entertainment or education, not a thing, if they wanted to read books they should have stayed out in society where they have libraries and book stores. Quality of food, bare minimum to sustain life, nothing tasty or good, just whatever they need to live off of. I'm not calling for bad conditions, just absolute bare minimum for them to be able to stay alive, not live comfortably or get special treats.

Alright, fair enough. I'd still personally prefer that to death, but now I'm a little unsure if that biased my opinion too much of what others would find worse.

It's not like we are all gonna make a difference, but its fun to argue...




Personally, I think that we should consider the greater good and not the right answer. And by that I mean this.

personally i would not mind having couple innocent people getting killed for these reasons. I would sleep better at night knowing that there isn't anyone that would murder my daughter because the convict only got a 25 year sentence. (Rehabilitation does not work. Just like a drug addict can never get rid of his addiction.) So why not house them in jail for the rest of their lives? Because I do not like paying for taxes when I know that part of that money is going to the person that killed my daughter.

Either way, someone is not gonna be happy. The innocent people wrongfully convicted or the innocent people getting killed by convicts. At least with capital punishment the people that are getting killed had something to do with the murder otherwise they would not get convicted. (And I am talking about present day, because there are cases in the past when some people got convicted on circumstantial evidence)


Democracy is all about making as many people happy as possible. Fortunately for me, convicts are a minority.



-snaps

Not a commie or anything, but start looking towards the ways of the Chinese, who use labour as means of imprisonment, and then capital punishment for higher crimes. At least with Chinese inmates, they're doing intensive labour that can satisfy the needs of workers in agriculture, etc. What are we doing here in Canada?

Karla Hamolka got the opportunity to get free smokes, and a university degree after she took part in the sick doings of her estranged husband Paul Bernardo.
Imprisonment leaves us taxpayers wondering why the quality of living in jail is pretty damn amazing.

Hell, they even have the right to free eye exams & the right to vote for politicians in their riding!

I'm not wasting my tax on a sick person that decided to kill Jimmy down the street, just so he can get good shelter, great food, and unsurpassable healthcare routines. Like what Snaps said:

Personally, I think that we should consider the greater good and not the right answer.