Alright so with everything that has happened in Aurora this past weekend and the debates Ive seen online amongst people, its gotten me to thinking about punishment for these crimes, and other criminals in general. People keep talking about the remorse that a murderer may feel, but in my opinion, remorse wont bring back a mother's dead son, it wont bring back a husband's lost wife, so why should that count for anything. In that moment where a murderer acts, they do so without consideration for the lives he is ripping apart, and commits his acts in malevolent fashion.
It is my opinion that the death penalty should be allowed in Canada for crimes that it is deemed necessary for, even though i know canada would never accept this. Why should a murderer live, when he made sure none of his victims ever would again.

I'm opposed to the death penalty because I don't think any individual or group of individuals has the right to decide if somebody should die.

Say you have a jury.. it might be convincing to think that these people, if chosen from a diverse and encompassing enough background, the final verdict they decide should be 'the best' or 'most right'. However, the fact of the matter is that guilt or innocence, as determined by a jury, is based on what single or small group of opinion determines what is right, and ends up either being: coerced (due to length of deliberation and wanting to get it over with), unconsciously influenced to drop a particular opinion due to group bias or psychological reasons, or emotion.

Now I don't need to explain at length what is wrong with having a single judge being in charge of determine if somebody lives or dies.

It also might seem convincing to let the judgement rest in a group of judicial officials or some sort of council where most of the flaws pointed out in the jury might be overcome, but I think an opposite sort of set of erroneous ideas comes up. When you have legal professionals or 'highly objective' people, there tends to be this sense of righteousness and decision making based on 'for the good of the many' type approach. This sort of instils an air of detached decision making akin to some bizarre government control of thought and behaviour.


I think if somebody does something horrible, they should be forced into a position where they can't interact with the sort of people they committed the crime against, for a large length of time (or indefinite) and attempt to be rehabilitated. I don't think these people should be released (except in unique cases) but they should be able to live in an environment with similar persons (prison), and be put to use doing something productive to society. Life (or at least aged life) is pretty valuable and a lot of work and resource has gone into educating or making it into something, and it shouldn't just be thrown away because of emotions, no matter how extreme the act that it had committed.

A lot of the reason people don't like the death penalty is either religious or personal mortality that holds life as sacred, and killing as an immutable offence against existence. The problem is that how does one differentiate against killing one, versus killing 12? Do double homicides fit into the same category as a mass murderer? 3? Where do you draw the line? How distanced from the killing and under what circumstances can somebody be held accountable? Since the previous president of the united states commanded his armed forces to attack a country under knowingly false pretences, that lead to the death of thousands of innocent people, should he be put to death?

These ambiguities are why we don't have the death penalty in every state/province/country.

I dont think the death penalty makes anyone less likely to commit a crime they want to commit, they are going to do it anyway. So since it is not helping crime rates (we have a pretty good crime rate here in Canada, it even went down 6% says cbc today!), then all the death penalty is for is to make everyone else feel good. And thats kindof a problem, knowing someone was put down like a dog? It makes me sick, even if James Holmes got the death penalty I wouldnt be happy about it, maybe the victims family would be at peace.

It should probably just be a life without parole kind of deal - no one has to see that person again or be afraid. But then again, there are terrible cases where murders, etc, dont get life, they get like 10 years, thats not cool.

I don't agree with the death penalty at all. I know that people always use the reasoning "Well, what if it were your mother or father, etc" but that doesn't work for me. I'd much rather watch someone stay in prison indefinitely for the rest of their natural lives. The death penalty is too much of an easy way out for me. If someone killed my family I'd want to watch them rot.

Originally Posted by RyanC

I'm opposed to the death penalty because I don't think any individual or group of individuals has the right to decide if somebody should die.

Say you have a jury.. it might be convincing to think that these people, if chosen from a diverse and encompassing enough background, the final verdict they decide should be 'the best' or 'most right'. However, the fact of the matter is that guilt or innocence, as determined by a jury, is based on what single or small group of opinion determines what is right, and ends up either being: coerced (due to length of deliberation and wanting to get it over with), unconsciously influenced to drop a particular opinion due to group bias or psychological reasons, or emotion.

Now I don't need to explain at length what is wrong with having a single judge being in charge of determine if somebody lives or dies.

It also might seem convincing to let the judgement rest in a group of judicial officials or some sort of council where most of the flaws pointed out in the jury might be overcome, but I think an opposite sort of set of erroneous ideas comes up. When you have legal professionals or 'highly objective' people, there tends to be this sense of righteousness and decision making based on 'for the good of the many' type approach. This sort of instils an air of detached decision making akin to some bizarre government control of thought and behaviour.


I think if somebody does something horrible, they should be forced into a position where they can't interact with the sort of people they committed the crime against, for a large length of time (or indefinite) and attempt to be rehabilitated. I don't think these people should be released (except in unique cases) but they should be able to live in an environment with similar persons (prison), and be put to use doing something productive to society. Life (or at least aged life) is pretty valuable and a lot of work and resource has gone into educating or making it into something, and it shouldn't just be thrown away because of emotions, no matter how extreme the act that it had committed.

A lot of the reason people don't like the death penalty is either religious or personal mortality that holds life as sacred, and killing as an immutable offence against existence. The problem is that how does one differentiate against killing one, versus killing 12? Do double homicides fit into the same category as a mass murderer? 3? Where do you draw the line? How distanced from the killing and under what circumstances can somebody be held accountable? Since the previous president of the united states commanded his armed forces to attack a country under knowingly false pretences, that lead to the death of thousands of innocent people, should he be put to death?

These ambiguities are why we don't have the death penalty in every state/province/country.

There are some great points made for your agruement in here man. the part i highlighted though.. my only question is, why should the man who took someone elses life, get the priveledge of doing something productive for society when they took that chance away from their victim? I just cant justify someone that takes another persons life being given the priveledge of life. I wont use the arguement if it was someone i know, because again that brings in a bias.

Originally Posted by sarahsullz

I don't agree with the death penalty at all. I know that people always use the reasoning "Well, what if it were your mother or father, etc" but that doesn't work for me. I'd much rather watch someone stay in prison indefinitely for the rest of their natural lives. The death penalty is too much of an easy way out for me. If someone killed my family I'd want to watch them rot.

Good point about death being an easy way out for the convict, and kinda creepy about wanting to watch them rot but completely understand why you say that!

I'm glad Canada doesn't have the death penalty because it is inhumane. You could say that inhumane acts of a criminal deserve inhumane punishment but I think the state should hold itself to a higher moral standard than the criminals it punishes.

I don't really see how the death penalty solves anything. Yeah, the person dies and you can argue that it frees up tax money that would be used to sustain them in jail, but to me at least, it seems like a faulty solution at best. Someone's mother/father/brother/friend/whatever is still dead, and I find it hard to believe that a moment of vengeance can really make up for that kind of loss.

Originally Posted by Chris23

People keep talking about the remorse that a murderer may feel, but in my opinion, remorse wont bring back a mother's dead son, it wont bring back a husband's lost wife, so why should that count for anything. .

Right, while killing the murderer will definitely bring back the mother's dead son and the husband's lost wife.

We don't live in 500 BC, there are better responses to murder than public barbarism.

Anyway, all these revenge-based punishments -- including life imprisonment -- don't do anything to stop the general problem. They just satisfy the public's barbaric tendencies. (the victim's family is typically used as an excuse for public barbarity; in general, why would a victim's family member want the offender's family to go through the same torture that they would be going through? What have the offender's friends/family done?)

Better awareness of mental health issues (for problems like the Batman shooting), a more sane look at social inequality (for gangland violence), etc. will do far more than any after-the-fact punishment will.

I didn't read the other posts, but in the original one, the author says something along the lines of "murderers' remorse won't bring back a mother's dead son...". All I have to say to this is: And killing another person will?
Killing people because they killed people is not justice.

I for one am all for the death penalty. Moreover, I believe there should be a slow, painful death penalty reserved for people like Holmes who kill innocent people on purpose. I don't want my tax dollars going to supporting these losers lives, and I feel the family's of people who have been killed deserve to know that the person who wrought such hurt are now dead.

Originally Posted by Brandon.Brad

I for one am all for the death penalty. Moreover, I believe there should be a slow, painful death penalty reserved for people like Holmes who kill innocent people on purpose. I don't want my tax dollars going to supporting these losers lives, and I feel the family's of people who have been killed deserve to know that the person who wrought such hurt are now dead.

OK I agree that Holmes should be punished, and the death penalty should be enacted for this dude. How walked into a theatre full of people watching a movie and open-fired, then shows no remorse for it in court. HOWEVER, if the death sentence was imposed on him, it would open the gates for more cases similar to this, and imagine what would happen if a particularly ingenious prosecutor was working a particular case? In which an innocent man/woman was accused of something that he didnt do? And since it's up to the jury to decide whether the accused is innocent or guilty, an innocent person could be killed for no reason.

I think he should be sentenced to life imprisonment, solitary confinement, with 3 square, semi-unhealthy meals a day.

then again I'm twisted in weird ways so don't let my opinion stand for anything... .

long story short, some complete inhumane sonsofbitches should be killed without having to waste taxpayer money keeping him in jail, but since the system is deeeeeeply flawed innocent men/women could be killed by mistake.

Originally Posted by Melanieee

I dont think the death penalty makes anyone less likely to commit a crime they want to commit, they are going to do it anyway. So since it is not helping crime rates (we have a pretty good crime rate here in Canada, it even went down 6% says cbc today!).

someone watched CBC news at 5 today

what if someone is actually innocent and wrongly convicted? Years down the road new evidence coud present itself. It happens.

I support the death penalty, but only in extreme cases like the Batman shooting where multiple, innocent people were killed at random. There is also Extensive evidence and multiple witnesses supporting this claim. If this happened in Canada, the longest a "life sentence" is is 25 years. That means that if the guy straightens up in prison, there is a possibility he could get part of his life back or have another chance at killing more.

In this case, he would not be a problem anymore with the death sentence

As for if there is a single shooting or without VERY extensive evidence, the death sentence should not be enacted since there may be an extremely tiny chance that this is the wrong person, or the intentions to kill were not there but was an accident. If there is any chance it is not the right person, it should be off the table

Prison need to stop being so well funded, that way... life in prison would be painful rather than 3 meals a day with a bed to sleep in at night that they're getting now.

Originally Posted by Snowman

I support the death penalty, but only in extreme cases like the Batman shooting where multiple, innocent people were killed at random. There is also Extensive evidence and multiple witnesses supporting this claim. If this happened in Canada, the longest a "life sentence" is is 25 years. That means that if the guy straightens up in prison, there is a possibility he could get part of his life back or have another chance at killing more.

In this case, he would not be a problem anymore with the death sentence

As for if there is a single shooting or without VERY extensive evidence, the death sentence should not be enacted since there may be an extremely tiny chance that this is the wrong person, or the intentions to kill were not there but was an accident. If there is any chance it is not the right person, it should be off the table

That sounds reasonable, we don't want mistakes to be made, but exceptions are made for particularly heinous crimes... problem is, once you begin making exceptions, mistakes will inevitably be made.