DC Sniper Executed

Post Reply New Topic

I'm in favour, in principle, of removing certain people from existence because of the harm they have done or (in some cases) may do. In practice, I don't trust the courts to get it right every time, so I'd prefer simply locking people up indefinitely.

I'm not in favour of punishment as a deterrent (that's not to say that it should not have a deterrent effect, just that the deterrent effect should not be the purpose of the punishment) and especially not in favour of punishment as revenge.

Where to start.

First, the pattern of wrongful convictions in the United States brings the entire issue of capital punishment into question. That's not to say that this offender was wrongly convicted; but the fact remains that convicted offenders on death row in the United States have been exonerated post-appeal.

Second, the purpose of the criminal justice system should not be to serve the interests of victims of crime. The criminal justice system should serve the purpose of meeting the State's interest in punishment; general deterrence; specific deterrence; rehabilitation; etc.

Victims of crime need a forum to obtain support, compensation and closure; but those legitimate private interests should not suborn the public interests of the criminal justice system. Victims relatives as witnesses to capital punishment seems simply to be pandering to a crass thirst for revenge, rather than any form of rational compensation, restitution or recovery for victims of crime.

Canada manages to maintain a lower (and diminishing) violent crime rate than the USA, and we do it without capital punishment. One has to wonder whether capital punishment serves the purpose for which it is intended.

There are cultural differences between the U.S. and Canada. BTW, what percent of your population are "persons of color" and, in particular, of African origin?

Canada did not have slavery, the U.S. did. That has had consequences even unto the present day.

ruveyn

I am normally against the death penalty because many people have been proven innocent with DNA evidence.

Yet this guy shot 10 total strangers to death. Why?

Was he a terrorist? No. Did he hate those people or have reason to hate them? No.

He did it for fun. For kicks.

So when this subhuman scumbag begs for "compassion" I know that I wouldn't listen to him.

How much compassion did he give his random victims?

Too bad they couldn't kill the other guy too.

STRONG supporter of the death penalty.

If we have good soild proof that someone has killed another person with malic of forethought they should die for this crime. In some cases I'd like to see puplic stoning brought back. One case that comes to mind for that is one from New Mexico were I live were the parents and uncle of a 6 month old baby beat her and raped her until she died. They got 18 years... Bacuse she dies of "child abuse" that was the max they could give them at the time. Other family members got a few weeks of jail time for not reporting the abuse. I fail to see how letting those who did such horrific things to a child too young to even sit up on her own live makes us a more civil society.

I support the death penalty and would like to see it return to the UK. Most people on the UK want it back.

Anyone who takes a life have forfeited their right to have a life.

What about accidental homicide? What about insanity? What about killing during a legit military operation? Wjat about killing in self defense?

ruveyn

Just a sticking point for me, does the executioner then forfeit their life?

The death penalty is for murder. I dont really consider any of these murder except for those claiming they were insane.

Accidental homicide caused by a deliberate action to harm another person can vary in severity but in the worst cases maybe the death penalty should apply here too.

Insanity I dont like hearing as a good reason to excuse someone from the death penalty so I would apply the same rules to the insane as any normal person.

A person killing in self defence should not be punished at all.

I dont see any reason for the executioner to forfeit their life. The executioner just restores the balance by taking the murderers life. If you then take the executioners life the balance is well off.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here...how can an imbalance caused by the loss of a life be restored by the loss of another?

Again, I'll say, it doesn't bother me for the people who commit capital crimes to lose their lives, I just don't know that I like what it says about the rest of us who are so willing to take them.

I could say its karma but really to me its just a fitting punishment for a murderer to lose his life. I dont understand why a person who would murder an innocent person should have the right to keep their life.

We are trying to get justice for the person that was killed. If I was the victim justice to me would be to do what I couldnt do to protect myself and end that persons life for me.

Of course I believe in death penalty and this is what I expect for me as a victim. For those who dont want the death penalty we can let them put in their will what they would prefer to happen should they be a victim.

Would anyone here be willing to sign a paper in advance saying that they dont want a person to face the death penalty for killing them?

Your idea of an Advance Directive regarding the fate of a potential murderer would have no impact on their judgement. Seeking the death penalty for a murderer has little to do with justice for the victim. Taking the murderer's life would have no impact on the victim's fate. It is an act carried out for the "benefit" of those who remain, who seek revenge in the hope to find peace/meaning/comfort from the death of the criminal. I can honestly say, if I felt it would have any impact, I wouldn't hesitate to put such a clause in writing. I would hope my family wouldn't find comfort in the taking of any person's life.

*In taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy (Sir Francis Bacon).

(Just wanted to make it clear, it is not for the sake of the murderer that I would not want capital punishment were I the victim, their life holds no value for me. I wouldn't want to be the cause/reason for another loss.)

So does a higher population of African origin result in a higher rate of violent crime? Does a record of slavery within the preceding two centuries result in a higher rate of violent crime? It doesn't seem to me that the suppositions of causation that are implied in your statements would stand up to even a rudimentary analysis.

A society will have as much violent crime and as much property crime as it is prepared to pay for through abandonment of the urban underclass (regardless of race). It is ironic that in the land of the American Dream, access to educational support, health care and employment opportunity continues to be denied to those who need it most. Capital punishment is simply the last, most complete symptom of a society that is failing itself and refuses to look at itself critically.

The United States is not the only country with a history of slavery. The United States is not the only country with a history of racial and ethnic violence (Canada did not turn to capital punishment in the wake of the October Crisis!). Yet the United States stands virtually alone in the OECD (Japan being a particular exception) in its reliance on capital punishment.

I as a Canadian, support the death penalty and think it should be reinstated in Canada...but for crimes such as first degree murder whereby it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person INTENDED, PLANNED and DELIBERATED the killing of the victim or they raped or sexually assaulted the victim before killing them.I also think pedophiles should be executed along with those who commit treason, terrorism, and other crimes against Canada and the Queen in reference to high treason.

Right now, Canada's justice system is a joke....

there is no consecutive sentencing.
In the US a person kills two people...

They go to jail for both of those crimes..sentences served consecutively

In Canada, it is concurrent, so a person who kills the same two people, only goes to jail for the same amount of time as a person who killed only one person...which means they basically get a two for one deal when it comes to killing...