Life on death row, kind of a cake walk.

[SirJosephPorter]

That doesn’t matter, counrtyboy. One murder does not justify another murder. Besides, how do you know that the first murder didn’t have a reason for it, that it wasn’t justified?

Sometimes a person's credibility is enhanced if he just says "I'm sorry I'm wrong I misspoke, it's a subject I don't know anything about".

No, I did not misspeak, JLM. I have explained the difference between 'justified' and 'right or wrong' in a previous post.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am a Conservative and though I know of a few criminals who deserve to be lynched,

Quite so Mowich, you illustrate my point perfectly. They deserve to be lynched, a lynching would be justified. But would it be right? Absolutely not.

 

[gopher]

Maybe Peterson is doing well but for many past innocents on death row it was no laughing matter.

 

[countryboy]

That doesn’t matter, counrtyboy. One murder does not justify another murder. Besides, how do you know that the first murder didn’t have a reason for it, that it wasn’t justified? I think you are confusing the terms ‘justified or unjustified’ with ‘right or wrong’, the two are totally different concepts.

Justified means that a deed is done in response to provocation, and it may be a response commensurate with the provocation. That does not make it right.

Let me give you an example. Suppose somebody murders my wife. In my opinion, I would be justified in killing him. But it would be wrong; it is not a good idea to take the law in my hand, the right thing to do is to let the justice system deal with him.

So don’t confuse ‘justified’ with right or wrong. If something is justified, it may be the right thing to do in some instances, not in other instances.

Or take the Old Testament justice, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. There is justification for that. However, that is not the right thing to do.

As Tevye remarked in Fiddler on the Roof “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, that way the whole world will become blind and toothless.”

Man oh man...you have a way of making something simple look very confusing. You said, "the right thing to do is to let the justice system deal with him." I agree. I don't think I ever suggested taking the law into my own hands.

So, we're discussing a change in the way the justice system deals with convicted murderers. I didn't suggest we should have the death penalty. I suggested an alternative to that plan. And if it became law, it would then be "right", right?

So where is the confusion here? I only mention that because you cautioned me not to get confused. ("So don’t confuse ‘justified’ with right or wrong.") I'm not.

But are you sure you're not confused, maybe just a little bit?

 

[countryboy]

Maybe Peterson is doing well but for many past innocents on death row it was no laughing matter.

Of course not. Neither are situations where people become dead through the act of murder. Do you have an opinion on that?

 

[countryboy]

I define murder as preplanned, cold blooded killing of a human being. It does not matter if it is justified or not, it is wrong most of the time (I wouldn’t say it is always wrong, I don’t believe in moral absolutes).

To give you an example, suppose somebody murders Paul Bernardo in prison. Most people will agree that the murder would be justified, that Bernardo deserved it. But that doesn’t make it right, murder is wrong most of the time, whether justified or not.

But murder may be justified or unjustified.



Indeed Parliament makes the laws. And Parliament has outlawed death penalty in Canada, and a good thing too.

1. And you point is...?
2. OK, now we're agreed that the Supreme Court does not make the laws. We're making progress.

 

[JLM]

I define murder as preplanned, cold blooded killing of a human being. It does not matter if it is justified or not, it is wrong most of the time (I wouldn’t say it is always wrong, I don’t believe in moral absolutes).

To give you an example, suppose somebody murders Paul Bernardo in prison. Most people will agree that the murder would be justified, that Bernardo deserved it. But that doesn’t make it right, murder is wrong most of the time, whether justified or not.

But murder may be justified or unjustified.





Indeed Parliament makes the laws. And Parliament has outlawed death penalty in Canada, and a good thing too.

News flash- murder is not necessarily preplanned in which case it is second degree murder.

 

[taxslave]

Quite so, Kakato. Study after study have shown that death penalty is much more expensive that life without parole.

There are endless appeals in the case of death penalty, and attendant costs of lawyers, judges, other staff, cost of running the courts etc. Organizations like ACLU and others, who are strongly opposed to death penalty, have very smart lawyers. They keep finding loophole after loophole and keep launching appeal after appeal.

There is no such thing with life without parole. There is one appeal and that is it. So if one looks at cost alone, it is nonsense to have death penalty.

But influence of religion, of Bible is strong in USA. Bible says thou shalt have death penalty (At least that is how Americans interpret the Bible) and that is that. Common sense, cost effectiveness, these things do not matter when religious principles are at stake.

That is simply because so many parasites have their hands in the taxpayers pocket. If the execution took place right after the sentencing the expense would drop quite considerably. Common sense and cost effectiveness do not matter when liberal dogma is at stake.

 

[JLM]

That is simply because so many parasites have their hands in the taxpayers pocket. If the execution took place right after the sentencing the expense would drop quite considerably. Common sense and cost effectiveness do not matter when liberal dogma is at stake.

Absolutely, where there is D.N.A. proof or other substantiating evidence or a confession.

 

[Kakato]

I have heard it is still a region of great natural beauty, JLM (I haven’t been there myself).

You remind me of the oil lobby (and Republicans, but the two are practically synonymous) which wanted to dig all over Alaska for oil. Their justification? That there is nothing in Alaska; it is all a patch of frozen wasteland, frozen tundra.

It's a bloody moonscape and it's called the barrenlands for a reason.
Totally different then Alaska and also about 5000 miles from it,they do the mars mission training on Devon island just south of Ellesmere.spring starts in july and winter starts end of september,ten feet of ice and 24 hour darkness in the winter.
Not many tourists go there.

 

[TenPenny]

I define murder as preplanned, cold blooded killing of a human being. .

Which is not the legal definition of murder in Canada, so it's no wonder it's hard to figure out what you say some times.

When you define things the way you want to, of course you can always claim to be 'right'.

 

[JLM]

Which is not the legal definition of murder in Canada, so it's no wonder it's hard to figure out what you say some times.

When you define things the way you want to, of course you can always claim to be 'right'.

Yep, that statement alone certainly disqualifires him as any kind of expert on criminal law.

 

[countryboy]

Yep, that statement alone certainly disqualifires him as any kind of expert on criminal law.

I think we already have enough "experts" on criminal law in Canada...in fact, too many. Too many criminal trials end up as a "performance" to see which side can outfox the other with legal tricks, technicalities, and other flim-flam tactics. "Right" and "wrong" seem to get left behind in many cases.

I'd like to see the laws and procedures simplified to be more effective. In other words, to help prevent crime and keep criminals off the streets. Rehabilitation of criminals is important too, but not at the expense of the public's safety.

This emphasis on "human rights" is all well and good...I'd just like to see it applied more fairly and consistently, across the board, to include the public and the potential victims of crimes.

 

[Mowich]

I think we already have enough "experts" on criminal law in Canada...in fact, too many. Too many criminal trials end up as a "performance" to see which side can outfox the other with legal tricks, technicalities, and other flim-flam tactics. "Right" and "wrong" seem to get left behind in many cases.

Isn't that the truth. Though, I must admit, here in Canada we don't seem to get as carried away as they do in the US where murder trials, especially, tend to become three ring circus with one attorney trying to outdo the other to the benefit of none.

I'd like to see the laws and procedures simplified to be more effective. In other words, to help prevent crime and keep criminals off the streets. Rehabilitation of criminals is important too, but not at the expense of the public's safety.

Yep, a complete revamping of the system is definitely in order, though as we 'speak' there are hundreds of lawyers out there doing their level best to make things as complicated as possible.

This emphasis on "human rights" is all well and good...I'd just like to see it applied more fairly and consistently, across the board, to include the public and the potential victims of crimes.

I don't think 'fairly and consistenly' are words that lawyers are familiar with, CB. But, we can always hope. Ever read, "Kill All The Lawyers" by William Deverell???

 

[countryboy]

Isn't that the truth. Though, I must admit, here in Canada we don't seem to get as carried away as they do in the US where murder trials, especially, tend to become three ring circus with one attorney trying to outdo the other to the benefit of none.



Yep, a complete revamping of the system is definitely in order, though as we 'speak' there are hundreds of lawyers out there doing their level best to make things as complicated as possible.




I don't think 'fairly and consistenly' are words that lawyers are familiar with, CB. But, we can always hope. Ever read, "Kill All The Lawyers" by William Deverell???

In fact, I'm not even sure it's all because of the lawyers, although they do participate willingly in the "system" - that's their job. The real problem, I'm sad to say, is us. Yeah, I know, it's kind of "pie in the sky" to think that we could actually have a say in the laws to which we live under, but I think that's the general idea of our system of government, isn't it?

Too many special interest groups have gotten their way and carried things to an extreme, especially things that revolve around that sensitive issue of "human rights." I'm not even sure what that means anymore.

Is it fair that someone can get gunned down in the street, and then the "gunner" can languish for a long time in the "system" - at our expense - while dozens of lawyers and experts fight it out in courtrooms, appeal systems, and all the rest? What about the victim and the family? Do they not have "human rights" too?

I don't think the ship is running on an even keel anymore. If the system were cleaned up, allowing for a more direct route to get to the "guilty or not guilty" part, and if more effective deterrents/penalties were in place to discourage criminals from doing bad things in the first place, and if law enforcement officials weren't constantly being "trumped" by judges who appear to be "soft", then perhaps we would actually see a safer Canada.

After all, the average citizen isn't a criminal so why would they be afraid of a "tougher" system? It's supposed to be there to protect them from violent crime.

Any system, no matter how good we think it is, should be subjected to a complete and thorough scrutiny on a regular basis, to make sure it is doing what it was intended to do. If changes are required to make it better, then do it.

Results count, intentions don't.

 

[Mowich]

In fact, I'm not even sure it's all because of the lawyers, although they do participate willingly in the "system" - that's their job. The real problem, I'm sad to say, is us. Yeah, I know, it's kind of "pie in the sky" to think that we could actually have a say in the laws to which we live under, but I think that's the general idea of our system of government, isn't it?

Too many special interest groups have gotten their way and carried things to an extreme, especially things that revolve around that sensitive issue of "human rights." I'm not even sure what that means anymore.

Is it fair that someone can get gunned down in the street, and then the "gunner" can languish for a long time in the "system" - at our expense - while dozens of lawyers and experts fight it out in courtrooms, appeal systems, and all the rest? What about the victim and the family? Do they not have "human rights" too?

I don't think the ship is running on an even keel anymore. If the system were cleaned up, allowing for a more direct route to get to the "guilty or not guilty" part, and if more effective deterrents/penalties were in place to discourage criminals from doing bad things in the first place, and if law enforcement officials weren't constantly being "trumped" by judges who appear to be "soft", then perhaps we would actually see a safer Canada.

After all, the average citizen isn't a criminal so why would they be afraid of a "tougher" system? It's supposed to be there to protect them from violent crime.

Any system, no matter how good we think it is, should be subjected to a complete and thorough scrutiny on a regular basis, to make sure it is doing what it was intended to do. If changes are required to make it better, then do it.

Results count, intentions don't.

Oh, oh... I smell Royal Commission here....:lol::lol::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Man oh man...you have a way of making something simple look very confusing. You said, "the right thing to do is to let the justice system deal with him." I agree. I don't think I ever suggested taking the law into my own hands.

So, we're discussing a change in the way the justice system deals with convicted murderers. I didn't suggest we should have the death penalty. I suggested an alternative to that plan. And if it became law, it would then be "right", right?

So where is the confusion here? I only mention that because you cautioned me not to get confused. ("So don’t confuse ‘justified’ with right or wrong.") I'm not.

But are you sure you're not confused, maybe just a little bit?

Well it appeared to me that you were confused, countryboy. You seem to be saying that I cannot say that murder may be justified on the one hand and say in the same breath that it is wrong. So I clarified what I was trying to say.

 

[countryboy]

Oh, oh... I smell Royal Commission here....:lol::lol::lol:

Heaven forbid! That would just be another waste of time and money. I was thinking more of having the PM appoint 5 regular citizens from across the country to a "Common Sense Advisory Group" (no experts allowed), and having them spend 6 months collecting views, thoughts, and information from regular people on this issue. The "report" should be no longer than 2 pages, and it should address the question, "What should we do about violent crime in Canada?"

Then, that input should be turned into a bill that would go before Parliament. And be debated. And go through all the committees to tune it up.

And then pass the bloody thing and get on with the job of making Canada safe. And save taxpayers money. And introduce the concept of right and wrong into the justice system. And never mind the special interest groups. They can be just as special as they want, as long as they don't screw up life for the majority of us.

I know, it all sounds too simple. But, it's always nice to dream, isn't it? :roll:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

1. And you point is...?
2. OK, now we're agreed that the Supreme Court does not make the laws. We're making progress.

Supreme Court has never made any laws, that is not their function. It is up to Parliament to pass laws.

However, it is Supreme Court’s duty to see if any law passed by the Parliament is in accordance with the Charter. If it is not, then Supreme Court will strike it down. That is what happened in the case of abortion and gay marriage (and what is likely to happen if Parliament ever legalizes death penalty, I think chances are very high that Supreme Court will declare that death penalty violates the Charter).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

News flash- murder is not necessarily preplanned in which case it is second degree murder.

Well, yes. But here we are talking in the context of death penalty. Any murder deserving of death penalty is always preplanned (or first degree).