There are also numerous examples of people who have been horribly wronged forgiving and pleading clemency for their attackers too, does that mean we should just let them off?
Come on. You were reasonable for a bit... but this is a ridiculous statement. If we let them off... then we would be introducing a homicidal maniac back into society. We need to safeguard society even if someone wished to forgive them.
Now... if survivors wish to pardon the murderer of their child from a death sentence because this would help them sleep better at night... sure. We would be servicing the needs of the survivors and this is where our priorities should be in my mind.
I think pingfah's point is that if you start letting the victims decide the fate, you can't have it only one way.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Of course, victim impact is important too, but there's a good reason why we don't let victims, or those personally affected by the case decide upon sentencing. They are not rational or objective, we need objective minds to decide these sorts of things.
By objective minds do you mean only minds that are strongly opposed to the DP? The process that served this case decided to sentence these murderers to death.
I'm not disputing the correctness of the sentence, it was on the table, the judge handed it down, fair enough that's his job. I just don't think it should have been on the table.
Had the trial happened somewhere else, it would not have been on the table, but I would still want a Judge to determine the sentence based on law and procedure, rather than his personal feelings on the matter or how sorry for the victims he feels.
There are also numerous examples of people who have been horribly wronged forgiving and pleading clemency for their attackers too, does that mean we should just let them off?
Come on. You were reasonable for a bit... but this is a ridiculous statement. If we let them off... then we would be introducing a homicidal maniac back into society. We need to safeguard society even if someone wished to forgive them.
Now... if survivors wish to pardon the murderer of their child from a death sentence because this would help them sleep better at night... sure. We would be servicing the needs of the survivors and this is where our priorities should be in my mind.
You're right, it is ridiculous, but you were the one who said DP opponents might react differently if it was them, there are many examples where the precise opposite is true. The fact that I might let my emotions get the better of my principles, is precisely the reason why I would not support giving the victims the choice over whether the death penalty is applied. Emotional gut reactions are not a reasonable basis for a consistent and fair system of justice.
There are also numerous examples of people who have been horribly wronged forgiving and pleading clemency for their attackers too, does that mean we should just let them off?
Come on. You were reasonable for a bit... but this is a ridiculous statement. If we let them off... then we would be introducing a homicidal maniac back into society. We need to safeguard society even if someone wished to forgive them.
Now... if survivors wish to pardon the murderer of their child from a death sentence because this would help them sleep better at night... sure. We would be servicing the needs of the survivors and this is where our priorities should be in my mind.
I think pingfah's point is that if you start letting the victims decide the fate, you can't have it only one way.
Victims shouldn't singularly decide fates. This was never expressed. Their needs must be considered when determining fates though- they should not be a factor eliminated from the spectrum of outcomes because they might be emotional- of course they are going to be emotional. This fact doesn't make them irrelevant.
If a grieving father is insistent upon execution given what has happened... then this must be strongly considered when determining the sentencing. And, working both ways (as I said in my response): if survivors wish to pardon the murderer of their child from a death sentence because this would help them sleep better at night... sure. We would be servicing the needs of the survivors and this is where our priorities should be in my mind.
Of course, victim impact is important too, but there's a good reason why we don't let victims, or those personally affected by the case decide upon sentencing. They are not rational or objective, we need objective minds to decide these sorts of things.
By objective minds do you mean only minds that are strongly opposed to the DP? The process that served this case decided to sentence these murderers to death.
I'm not disputing the correctness of the sentence, it was on the table, the judge handed it down, fair enough that's his job. I just don't think it should have been on the table.
Had the trial happened somewhere else, it would not have been on the table, but I would still want a Judge to determine the sentence based on law and procedure, rather than his personal feelings on the matter or how sorry for the victims he feels.
There are also numerous examples of people who have been horribly wronged forgiving and pleading clemency for their attackers too, does that mean we should just let them off?
Come on. You were reasonable for a bit... but this is a ridiculous statement. If we let them off... then we would be introducing a homicidal maniac back into society. We need to safeguard society even if someone wished to forgive them.
Now... if survivors wish to pardon the murderer of their child from a death sentence because this would help them sleep better at night... sure. We would be servicing the needs of the survivors and this is where our priorities should be in my mind.
You're right, it is ridiculous, but you were the one who said DP opponents might react differently if it was them, there are many examples where the precise opposite is true. The fact that I might let my emotions get the better of my principles, is precisely the reason why I would not support giving the victims the choice over whether the death penalty is applied. Emotional gut reactions are not a reasonable basis for a consistent and fair system of justice.
Except that 'emotional gut reactions' are in the moment when the news has been provided to you that your children have been murdered. Several years later... the 'moment' is no longer in the 'gut reaction' mode. It's in the 'seeking appropriate justice' mode.
DP opponents always talk about removing emotion and moving forward objectively. To my way of thinking, if this should be our method of operation... maybe we should also not disclose details of the murders. Instead of revealing that the 11 year old girl was raped and burned alive with cold depravity... maybe we should we just say, "Subject X was placed to rest?" Don't let any gory details affect our judgement as well? Would this serve justice? It's safe to say it would serve those convicted of gruesome crimes. Is this something you would like to see?
The emotions of the survivors and the nature of the crime must be factored in when sentencing murderers. This is part in parcel.
Well now you are being silly, the details of the crime are inextricable from the evidence. Of course they must all be examined. And for most people there is never a point at which the murder of their child is not going to provoke a gut emotional reaction.
But if you are applying the death penalty based on a victim's request, where otherwise you might not, that IS giving the victim effective power over life and death is it not?
I agree that to some extent victims should be taken into account, if only to give them a voice for catharsis, but not where the life or death of the perpetrator is at stake. I don't think the government should have that power, so why on earth would I think a member of the public should have it?
Well now you are being silly, the details of the crime are inextricable from the evidence. Of course they must all be examined. And for most people there is never a point at which the murder of their child is not going to provoke a gut emotional reaction.
But if you are applying the death penalty based on a victim's request, where otherwise you might not, that IS giving the victim effective power over life and death is it not?
I agree that to some extent victims should be taken into account, if only to give them a voice for catharsis, but not where the life or death of the perpetrator is at stake. I don't think the government should have that power, so why on earth would I think a member of the public should have it?
I'm saying that a victim's needs must be factored into sentencing. I'm not necessarily saying they should be the sole determinant. A parent of a child killed by a drunk driver would have to live with a prison sentence for their child's murderer. A parent of a child that was raped and mutilated might expect a little more given the nature of the crime. I wish to take nothing away from the countless heart broken parents who have lost a child to a drunken driver; but a cold, sinister and depraved act is a slightly different animal and should be treated accordingly.
I hope you are not suggesting we simply placate survivors? Let them say what we know they are thinking, pat them on the head, excuse them from the court room, and get on with business?
For the most part I trust that we have a justice system that can determine the correct sentence regardless, and if we don't, we should have.
A depraved murder is a depraved murder, regardless of how the relatives of the victim feel about it. Is it reasonable that somebody should get a lesser sentence for the same crime, just because there was no victim there to advocate for a harsher penalty? Sentences should be determined based on the crime.
For the most part I trust that we have a justice system that can determine the correct sentence regardless, and if we don't, we should have.
A depraved murder is a depraved murder, regardless of how the relatives of the victim feel about it. Is it reasonable that somebody should get a lesser sentence for the same crime, just because there was no victim there to advocate for a harsher penalty? Sentences should be determined based on the crime.
Exactly!
This is why I feel when two guys break into a house, rape women and children, and light them on fire to die... they should be sentenced to death.
For the most part I trust that we have a justice system that can determine the correct sentence regardless, and if we don't, we should have.
A depraved murder is a depraved murder, regardless of how the relatives of the victim feel about it. Is it reasonable that somebody should get a lesser sentence for the same crime, just because there was no victim there to advocate for a harsher penalty? Sentences should be determined based on the crime.
Exactly!
This is why I feel when two guys break into a house, rape women and children, and light them on fire to die... they should be sentenced to death.
For the most part I trust that we have a justice system that can determine the correct sentence regardless, and if we don't, we should have.
A depraved murder is a depraved murder, regardless of how the relatives of the victim feel about it. Is it reasonable that somebody should get a lesser sentence for the same crime, just because there was no victim there to advocate for a harsher penalty? Sentences should be determined based on the crime.
exactly.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Paramedics arrived at a Westwood home eight days ago to find Gibson's two children -- one two and the other just three months old -- in critical condition in a bathtub. Gibson, who reportedly suffered from postpartum depression (PPD), was missing. The search ended three days later when her lifeless body was pulled from the Red River.
Vigils have been organized. A spontaneous memorial has sprung up outside the family's home. Social-service agencies are holding open grief counselling and mental-health-awareness sessions. Tough questions are being posed to officials of the health-care system to determine whether Gibson sought help.
When you add it all up, it means we are finally, thankfully talking about how to help those who suffer from debilitating mental illness.
However, lurking beneath the outreach, tributes and compassion is a troubling realization: If Gibson had not thrown herself into the river, we would have likely reacted quite differently.
We need only look at how we treated others who, in the fog of mental illness, committed horrible, violent crimes but did not take their own lives.
Consider the hatred we mustered in the early 1990s for Donna Trueman, a young mother suffering from profound psychosis who murdered her four-year-old son, convinced he was possessed by the spirit of Adolph Hitler. Owing to changes in the Criminal Code stemming from a landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling, Trueman was the first person found not criminally responsible for a violent crime. The public howled when it was decided Trueman would serve no prison time for killing her son.
We can also look to the case of Vincent Li, the drifter who beheaded fellow bus passenger Tim McLean in July 2008. Li, we know now, was tormented by voices telling him to commit acts of violence against strangers. Li was found not criminally responsible for McLean's death, and remains a resident of the Selkirk Mental Health Centre.
Like Trueman, Li became a political football for knee-jerk politicians and law-and-order crusaders. Every development in his treatment, every step he takes closer to freedom, is denounced as an affront to justice.
It's pretty obvious there were no vigils, no outpouring of compassion for Li and Trueman. We made no sincere attempt to understand the underlying disease that precipitated the crimes. There were memorials and genuine expressions of compassion for the victims of the violent acts, but we stopped short of showing compassion for the victims of mental illness.
It deserves to be said we can't really know Gibson's state of mind when she killed her children, or why she took her own life. No formal diagnosis is possible now and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority has so far refused to make public information about what, if any, contact she had with health-care professionals.
However, sources said she suffered from PPD, and was concerned enough about her state of mind that she sought treatment from a physician a short time before last week's tragedy.
If she did suffer from a postpartum psychosis, and the chances are very high, then a comparison with Li and Trueman is very revealing: We can now clearly see there are two types of mental-health victims: those who lived, and those who took their own lives and never had to face the aftermath of their crimes. This is indicative of the terrible shortsightedness that affects the public debate over mental health and how to treat it.
We will occasionally admit mental-health illness needs better treatment options, but almost no one makes it a priority. We will demonstrate compassion for some people who suffer from mental illness, but have no trouble expressing our contempt for others, even when it has been proven they could not have been fully responsible for the acts they committed.
Irony? We have a federal government that, in the same week professional athletes and their corporate sponsors launched a mental-health awareness campaign, introduced legislation to ensure longer terms of incarceration for anyone found not criminally responsible for a crime.
It seems quite obvious had Gibson survived, she would have been treated to the same contempt and outrage Trueman and Li faced. Under new not-criminally-responsible laws, she would have been portrayed as a monstrous criminal, not as a victim of a disease.
There would be no vigils, no marches, no outpouring of compassion and no debate about how to help other women who suffer the same affliction.
The ultimate irony? Society apparently requires the victims of mental illness to take their own lives before we get serious about helping them.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm saying that a victim's needs must be factored into sentencing. I'm not necessarily saying they should be the sole determinant. A parent of a child killed by a drunk driver would have to live with a prison sentence for their child's murderer. A parent of a child that was raped and mutilated might expect a little more given the nature of the crime. I wish to take nothing away from the countless heart broken parents who have lost a child to a drunken driver; but a cold, sinister and depraved act is a slightly different animal and should be treated accordingly.
I hope you are not suggesting we simply placate survivors? Let them say what we know they are thinking, pat them on the head, excuse them from the court room, and get on with business?
You keep talking about a 'victims needs', like that's something carved in stone that needs to be fulfilled. I call bullshit. Emotional responses should have no place with regard to the law. What you're talking about here is revenge, pure and simple. You think society should operate on the level of emotions, such as anger, vengeance, blood-lust, e.t.c. And you wonder why societies that have the death penalty tend to be more violent than societies without it?
From Reflections on the Guillotine
Albert Camus:
'Whoever has done me harm must suffer harm; whoever has put out my eye must lose an eye; and whoever has killed must die. This is an emotion, and a particularly violent one, not a principle. Retaliation is related to nature and instinct, not to law. Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature. If murder is in the nature of man, the law is not intended to imitate or reproduce that nature. It is intended to correct it. Now, retaliation does no more than ratify and confer the status of a law on a pure impulse of nature.'
'But, let me repeat, I do not believe, nonetheless, that there is no responsibility in this world and that we must give way to that modern tendency to absolve everything, victim and murderer, in the same confusion. Such purely sentimental confusion is made up of cowardice rather than of generosity and eventually justifies whatever is worst in this world....To any who feel, on the other hand, that hard labor is too mild a penalty, we can answer first that they lack imagination, and secondly, that privation of freedom seems to them a slight punishment only insofar as contemporary society has taught us to despise freedom.' www.deakinphilosophicalsociety.com/text ... ctions.pdf
I'm saying that a victim's needs must be factored into sentencing. I'm not necessarily saying they should be the sole determinant. A parent of a child killed by a drunk driver would have to live with a prison sentence for their child's murderer. A parent of a child that was raped and mutilated might expect a little more given the nature of the crime. I wish to take nothing away from the countless heart broken parents who have lost a child to a drunken driver; but a cold, sinister and depraved act is a slightly different animal and should be treated accordingly.
I hope you are not suggesting we simply placate survivors? Let them say what we know they are thinking, pat them on the head, excuse them from the court room, and get on with business?
You keep talking about a 'victims needs', like that's something carved in stone that needs to be fulfilled. I call bullshit. Emotional responses should have no place with regard to the law. What you're talking about here is revenge, pure and simple. You think society should operate on the level of emotions, such as anger, vengeance, blood-lust, e.t.c. And you wonder why societies that have the death penalty tend to be more violent than societies without it?
From Reflections on the Guillotine
Albert Camus:
'Whoever has done me harm must suffer harm; whoever has put out my eye must lose an eye; and whoever has killed must die. This is an emotion, and a particularly violent one, not a principle. Retaliation is related to nature and instinct, not to law. Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature. If murder is in the nature of man, the law is not intended to imitate or reproduce that nature. It is intended to correct it. Now, retaliation does no more than ratify and confer the status of a law on a pure impulse of nature.'
'But, let me repeat, I do not believe, nonetheless, that there is no responsibility in this world and that we must give way to that modern tendency to absolve everything, victim and murderer, in the same confusion. Such purely sentimental confusion is made up of cowardice rather than of generosity and eventually justifies whatever is worst in this world....To any who feel, on the other hand, that hard labor is too mild a penalty, we can answer first that they lack imagination, and secondly, that privation of freedom seems to them a slight punishment only insofar as contemporary society has taught us to despise freedom.' http://www.deakinphilosophicalsociety.c ... ctions.pdf
Camus... hmmmm?
This is the same guy that says a murderer awaiting his execution suffers far worse than his victim might have faced at his hands.
When I challenged such a ridiculous stream of thought and dismissed this 'scholar', you felt the need to defend such a preposterous statement. Remember when you said the two pre-teen girls who were tied, raped, and hours from their impending deaths in the back of Shearing's truck at least had a glimmer of hope for escape whereas a murderer on death row doesn't?
So... yah... I'm not surprised you're calling bullshit for victim's needs- you feel more sorry for the murderers.
This is the same guy that says a murderer awaiting his execution suffers far worse than his victim might have faced at his hands.
When I challenged such a ridiculous stream of thought and dismissed this 'scholar', you felt the need to defend such a preposterous statement. Remember when you said the two pre-teen girls who were tied, raped, and hours from their impending deaths in the back of Shearing's truck at least had a glimmer of hope for escape whereas a murderer on death row doesn't?
So... yah... I'm not surprised you're calling bullshit for victim's needs - you feel more sorry for the murderers.
Nothing preposterous about it at all. Unless that is you happen to be devoid of imagination and empathy. Being told the exact time and date of your execution months or years in advance is a type of mental torture that far exceeds any random attack in which the prospect of escape is always possible.
Though it's interesting that you put the words 'scholar' in quotation marks. i take it you've never heard of him before, despite him being one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, and winner of the Nobel Prize for literature.
Camus... hmmmm?
Your logic is to resort to emotional responses, such as revenge, and blood-lust. 'Murder the murderer' is your solution. Perpetuate the violence and suffering, and teach people that murder is a solution. Great logic that.
so which is it death or a life time torture ?
Godfather.
Neither. I am against the Death Penalty, it is morally wrong. Prison should be a no frills but humane place, the primary purpose of which is to deprive criminals of their freedom, not their health or sanity, and to keep dangerous people away from the rest of the population.
Solitary confinement should be used when a prisoner is a danger to themselves or other prisoners, not for the purpose of torturing somebody.
The justice system should not be there to exact our base desire for revenge.
You might call it 'revenge'... William Petit and countless others call it 'justice'.
When a depraved monster acts inhumanely towards a beautiful, innocent little child... our 'justice' system (not revenge system) needs to reflect our level of disdain and intolerance for such behaviour.
When a scumbag rapes, mutilates and murders children... they should not serve time like an accountant who has embezzled money. They have more than earned a punishment that meets the level of their crime.
The survivors should be the justice system's priority- not the child's murderer. In this particular case, the Petit family demanded the state seek execution and fortunately, the state has granted their wishes. Who are we to sit back, relatively unaffected by the crime (although if you have a heart you are), and reduce the survivors to onlookers because our values don't mesh with their needs?
Petit never asked for these shitbags to enter their home, beat him with a bat, rape his wife and 11 year old daughter, douse the girls in gasoline, and light the house on fire as if it was a day's work. These assholes more than deserve the worst thing that could happen to them. One is asking to be executed immediately while the state drags their feet. Grant him his wish. Why must people feel as if they know better in the aftermath of such a horrific event?
the fact there has been no media coverage on this suggests that this guy wont be missed by anyone. He was suggesting the people he killed in cold blood had committed crimes against him when the story suggests they were random strangers.
This is the same guy that says a murderer awaiting his execution suffers far worse than his victim might have faced at his hands.
When I challenged such a ridiculous stream of thought and dismissed this 'scholar', you felt the need to defend such a preposterous statement. Remember when you said the two pre-teen girls who were tied, raped, and hours from their impending deaths in the back of Shearing's truck at least had a glimmer of hope for escape whereas a murderer on death row doesn't?
So... yah... I'm not surprised you're calling bullshit for victim's needs - you feel more sorry for the murderers.
Nothing preposterous about it at all. Unless that is you happen to be devoid of imagination and empathy. Being told the exact time and date of your execution months or years in advance is a type of mental torture that far exceeds any random attack in which the prospect of escape is always possible.
Though it's interesting that you put the words 'scholar' in quotation marks. i take it you've never heard of him before, despite him being one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, and winner of the Nobel Prize for literature.
Camus... hmmmm?
Your logic is to resort to emotional responses, such as revenge, and blood-lust. 'Murder the murderer' is your solution. Perpetuate the violence and suffering, and teach people that murder is a solution. Great logic that.
You referenced him before. I remember him, but I'm not buying. If this is the crap he's spewing... I think he's an idiot. You can depict my logic as anything you want, but it is utterly amusing- and slightly disturbing- that you so easily dismiss the victims and their survivors in your eagerness to minimize the inhumane treatment the murderer displayed towards innocent life.
When you and your 'scholar' suggest that condemned murderer's have it worse than 8 year old Tori Stafford did when, out on some desolate dirt road, she was subjected to rape, bludgeoning with a hammer, mutilation, and a plastic bag burial underneath a rock... and that condemned murderers have a mental torture worse than what parents such as Petit have unable to escape the thoughts of their loved ones in their final, brutal moments... then I think you- and your out of touch scholar- are out of your freaking minds.
You might call it revenge and blood lust... but that is your perspective. And considering your perspective when comparing the 'fates' of the stakeholders... your words mean very little to a person who views the DP as justice. You go ahead and beat your chest from the corner of sick bastards such as Clifford Olson. I'll beat mine from the opposite corner.
LAST year China is thought to have executed about 3,000 people, or roughly four times more than the rest of the world put together (excluding Egypt and Syria, where numbers are hard to assess). It is a grim distinction. But consider a brighter, even astonishing, trend: over the past decade, the number of people China executes has fallen precipitously.
According to the Dui Hua Foundation, an American NGO that tracks these things, the 2012 figure is down from 12,000 people executed in 2002—a fall of three-quarters. In other words, though China remains the world’s chief executioner, it is also largely responsible for a marked worldwide fall in the number of executions.
The Communist Party considers the execution rate to be a state secret and has not even publicly noted the extent of this fall. But it has confirmed it indirectly. In 2012 a deputy minister of health cited the decline in executed prisoners as a reason for a shortage in organs available for transplant in China. Dui Hua’s estimates are thus the best figures available. Western scholars broadly agree with the numbers, behind which lies an intriguing tale of Chinese reformers working quietly for change.
Historically, the Chinese Communist Party has overseen horrendous violence. Though not on the scale of Stalin’s Soviet Union, this started with the purges of landlords and other “counter-revolutionaries” in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Mao Zedong coolly declared that “the killing of counter-revolutionaries should usually not exceed 0.1% of the population, and should be less than 0.1% in the cities.” Millions died in a few short years, as Chinese villages were encouraged to mete out their own punishment with the aim of creating a blessed “New China”.
The killer's words:
"It feels wonderful to cause their death and to watch their pain," he said in one of 81 letters he wrote to a former girlfriend while awaiting his trial. The writings from the magna cum laude Southern Methodist University graduate were introduced into evidence.
"God forbid I ever had my finger on the button to launch a nuclear explosive device because I guarantee that I would wipe as many of these bastards off the face of the planet as I am able!" he said in another letter.
Without remorse, he also acknowledged the killings while testifying at his capital murder trial.
The survivors' words:
"His statement just showed more of the heart of the man," John Everett said after witnessing the execution of his brother's killer. "Very dark and very evil and very unremorseful."
"I was 12 when it happened," Robert Everett's daughter, Emily, said. "Now I'm grown, married, with kids, and my dad didn't get to see any of that. I feel my dad finally has justice after 15 years."
Bottom Line:
This murderer was a LOSER who gleefully killed and celebrated doing so. The victims feel that JUSTICE has been served. For those that disagree with my choice of words... feel free to substitute:
1. 'Misunderstood poor soul' or 'Human being just like you or I' for LOSER
and
2. 'Bloodthirsty revenge' or 'Murder' for JUSTICE
... and we can still get along!
* For the record... these crimes wouldn't fall into the spectrum of crimes I would advocate the DP for. Although there is a serial fashion to them, I generally support the DP for cases of the 'extreme' nature. For example:
The murder of children is an automatic. Leave our children alone.
Elements such as confinement and torture (encompasses rape) are qualifiers.
Mass or serial murderers qualify.
LAST year China is thought to have executed about 3,000 people, or roughly four times more than the rest of the world put together (excluding Egypt and Syria, where numbers are hard to assess). It is a grim distinction. But consider a brighter, even astonishing, trend: over the past decade, the number of people China executes has fallen precipitously.
According to the Dui Hua Foundation, an American NGO that tracks these things, the 2012 figure is down from 12,000 people executed in 2002—a fall of three-quarters. In other words, though China remains the world’s chief executioner, it is also largely responsible for a marked worldwide fall in the number of executions.
The Communist Party considers the execution rate to be a state secret and has not even publicly noted the extent of this fall. But it has confirmed it indirectly. In 2012 a deputy minister of health cited the decline in executed prisoners as a reason for a shortage in organs available for transplant in China. Dui Hua’s estimates are thus the best figures available. Western scholars broadly agree with the numbers, behind which lies an intriguing tale of Chinese reformers working quietly for change.
Historically, the Chinese Communist Party has overseen horrendous violence. Though not on the scale of Stalin’s Soviet Union, this started with the purges of landlords and other “counter-revolutionaries” in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Mao Zedong coolly declared that “the killing of counter-revolutionaries should usually not exceed 0.1% of the population, and should be less than 0.1% in the cities.” Millions died in a few short years, as Chinese villages were encouraged to mete out their own punishment with the aim of creating a blessed “New China”.
the fact there has been no media coverage on this suggests that this guy wont be missed by anyone. He was suggesting the people he killed in cold blood had committed crimes against him when the story suggests they were random strangers.
Some people are just bad to the core.
We are pretty lucky he only killed two people. While in prison, he wrote his ex-girlfriend that if he could press a button that would kill everyone in the world, he would press it.
So... the Death Penalty is proving to be an effective deterrent in China?
The US... with its ineffective, cumbersome and limited application... is rendered ineffective?
Is this what you are telling us Bronx?
it's a fairly sizable leap, to say it lightly, to come to the conclusion that because their executions have decreased that this automatically means the crimes that call for the DP have decreased.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
So... the Death Penalty is proving to be an effective deterrent in China?
The US... with its ineffective, cumbersome and limited application... is rendered ineffective?
Is this what you are telling us Bronx?
it's a fairly sizable leap, to say it lightly, to come to the conclusion that because their executions have decreased that this automatically means the crimes that call for the DP have decreased.
It's no more a leap than to suggest states and countries are more violent because they have the Death Penalty.
The dramatic reduction does, at a minimum, beg some form of consideration.
The killer's words:
"It feels wonderful to cause their death and to watch their pain," he said in one of 81 letters he wrote to a former girlfriend while awaiting his trial. The writings from the magna cum laude Southern Methodist University graduate were introduced into evidence.
"God forbid I ever had my finger on the button to launch a nuclear explosive device because I guarantee that I would wipe as many of these bastards off the face of the planet as I am able!" he said in another letter.
Without remorse, he also acknowledged the killings while testifying at his capital murder trial.
The survivors' words:
"His statement just showed more of the heart of the man," John Everett said after witnessing the execution of his brother's killer. "Very dark and very evil and very unremorseful."
"I was 12 when it happened," Robert Everett's daughter, Emily, said. "Now I'm grown, married, with kids, and my dad didn't get to see any of that. I feel my dad finally has justice after 15 years."
Bottom Line:
This murderer was a LOSER who gleefully killed and celebrated doing so. The victims feel that JUSTICE has been served. For those that disagree with my choice of words... feel free to substitute:
1. 'Misunderstood poor soul' or 'Human being just like you or I' for LOSER
and
2. 'Bloodthirsty revenge' or 'Murder' for JUSTICE
... and we can still get along!
* For the record... these crimes wouldn't fall into the spectrum of crimes I would advocate the DP for. Although there is a serial fashion to them, I generally support the DP for cases of the 'extreme' nature. For example:
The murder of children is an automatic. Leave our children alone.
Elements such as confinement and torture (encompasses rape) are qualifiers.
Mass or serial murderers qualify.
thirty bills unpaid is so full of common sense & values it is overwhelming yet simplistic. these extremely nasty bastards deserve what they get. this disgusting freakshow actually awaits death administered by the state w/ open arms & is ready for his after life/ending or whatever you all believe.
So... the Death Penalty is proving to be an effective deterrent in China?
The US... with its ineffective, cumbersome and limited application... is rendered ineffective?
Is this what you are telling us Bronx?
I find it interesting that this thread is 56 pages long yet there are only 18 posts that reference china. Now considering they're the number one state sponsored death penalty country in the world you would think more people would be concerned with the thousands of people that are being executed over there than a handful in the US. :corn:
So... the Death Penalty is proving to be an effective deterrent in China?
The US... with its ineffective, cumbersome and limited application... is rendered ineffective?
Is this what you are telling us Bronx?
I find it interesting that this thread is 56 pages long yet there are only 18 posts that reference china. Now considering they're the number one state sponsored death penalty country in the world you would think more people would be concerned with the thousands of people that are being executed over there than a handful in the US. :corn:
People treat the states a little different as a democracy
Comments
I think pingfah's point is that if you start letting the victims decide the fate, you can't have it only one way.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm not disputing the correctness of the sentence, it was on the table, the judge handed it down, fair enough that's his job. I just don't think it should have been on the table.
Had the trial happened somewhere else, it would not have been on the table, but I would still want a Judge to determine the sentence based on law and procedure, rather than his personal feelings on the matter or how sorry for the victims he feels.
You're right, it is ridiculous, but you were the one who said DP opponents might react differently if it was them, there are many examples where the precise opposite is true. The fact that I might let my emotions get the better of my principles, is precisely the reason why I would not support giving the victims the choice over whether the death penalty is applied. Emotional gut reactions are not a reasonable basis for a consistent and fair system of justice.
Victims shouldn't singularly decide fates. This was never expressed. Their needs must be considered when determining fates though- they should not be a factor eliminated from the spectrum of outcomes because they might be emotional- of course they are going to be emotional. This fact doesn't make them irrelevant.
If a grieving father is insistent upon execution given what has happened... then this must be strongly considered when determining the sentencing. And, working both ways (as I said in my response): if survivors wish to pardon the murderer of their child from a death sentence because this would help them sleep better at night... sure. We would be servicing the needs of the survivors and this is where our priorities should be in my mind.
Except that 'emotional gut reactions' are in the moment when the news has been provided to you that your children have been murdered. Several years later... the 'moment' is no longer in the 'gut reaction' mode. It's in the 'seeking appropriate justice' mode.
DP opponents always talk about removing emotion and moving forward objectively. To my way of thinking, if this should be our method of operation... maybe we should also not disclose details of the murders. Instead of revealing that the 11 year old girl was raped and burned alive with cold depravity... maybe we should we just say, "Subject X was placed to rest?" Don't let any gory details affect our judgement as well? Would this serve justice? It's safe to say it would serve those convicted of gruesome crimes. Is this something you would like to see?
The emotions of the survivors and the nature of the crime must be factored in when sentencing murderers. This is part in parcel.
But if you are applying the death penalty based on a victim's request, where otherwise you might not, that IS giving the victim effective power over life and death is it not?
I agree that to some extent victims should be taken into account, if only to give them a voice for catharsis, but not where the life or death of the perpetrator is at stake. I don't think the government should have that power, so why on earth would I think a member of the public should have it?
I'm saying that a victim's needs must be factored into sentencing. I'm not necessarily saying they should be the sole determinant. A parent of a child killed by a drunk driver would have to live with a prison sentence for their child's murderer. A parent of a child that was raped and mutilated might expect a little more given the nature of the crime. I wish to take nothing away from the countless heart broken parents who have lost a child to a drunken driver; but a cold, sinister and depraved act is a slightly different animal and should be treated accordingly.
I hope you are not suggesting we simply placate survivors? Let them say what we know they are thinking, pat them on the head, excuse them from the court room, and get on with business?
A depraved murder is a depraved murder, regardless of how the relatives of the victim feel about it. Is it reasonable that somebody should get a lesser sentence for the same crime, just because there was no victim there to advocate for a harsher penalty? Sentences should be determined based on the crime.
Exactly!
This is why I feel when two guys break into a house, rape women and children, and light them on fire to die... they should be sentenced to death.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
exactly.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
What if Lisa Gibson had lived?
Paramedics arrived at a Westwood home eight days ago to find Gibson's two children -- one two and the other just three months old -- in critical condition in a bathtub. Gibson, who reportedly suffered from postpartum depression (PPD), was missing. The search ended three days later when her lifeless body was pulled from the Red River.
Vigils have been organized. A spontaneous memorial has sprung up outside the family's home. Social-service agencies are holding open grief counselling and mental-health-awareness sessions. Tough questions are being posed to officials of the health-care system to determine whether Gibson sought help.
When you add it all up, it means we are finally, thankfully talking about how to help those who suffer from debilitating mental illness.
However, lurking beneath the outreach, tributes and compassion is a troubling realization: If Gibson had not thrown herself into the river, we would have likely reacted quite differently.
We need only look at how we treated others who, in the fog of mental illness, committed horrible, violent crimes but did not take their own lives.
Consider the hatred we mustered in the early 1990s for Donna Trueman, a young mother suffering from profound psychosis who murdered her four-year-old son, convinced he was possessed by the spirit of Adolph Hitler. Owing to changes in the Criminal Code stemming from a landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling, Trueman was the first person found not criminally responsible for a violent crime. The public howled when it was decided Trueman would serve no prison time for killing her son.
We can also look to the case of Vincent Li, the drifter who beheaded fellow bus passenger Tim McLean in July 2008. Li, we know now, was tormented by voices telling him to commit acts of violence against strangers. Li was found not criminally responsible for McLean's death, and remains a resident of the Selkirk Mental Health Centre.
Like Trueman, Li became a political football for knee-jerk politicians and law-and-order crusaders. Every development in his treatment, every step he takes closer to freedom, is denounced as an affront to justice.
It's pretty obvious there were no vigils, no outpouring of compassion for Li and Trueman. We made no sincere attempt to understand the underlying disease that precipitated the crimes. There were memorials and genuine expressions of compassion for the victims of the violent acts, but we stopped short of showing compassion for the victims of mental illness.
It deserves to be said we can't really know Gibson's state of mind when she killed her children, or why she took her own life. No formal diagnosis is possible now and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority has so far refused to make public information about what, if any, contact she had with health-care professionals.
However, sources said she suffered from PPD, and was concerned enough about her state of mind that she sought treatment from a physician a short time before last week's tragedy.
If she did suffer from a postpartum psychosis, and the chances are very high, then a comparison with Li and Trueman is very revealing: We can now clearly see there are two types of mental-health victims: those who lived, and those who took their own lives and never had to face the aftermath of their crimes. This is indicative of the terrible shortsightedness that affects the public debate over mental health and how to treat it.
We will occasionally admit mental-health illness needs better treatment options, but almost no one makes it a priority. We will demonstrate compassion for some people who suffer from mental illness, but have no trouble expressing our contempt for others, even when it has been proven they could not have been fully responsible for the acts they committed.
Irony? We have a federal government that, in the same week professional athletes and their corporate sponsors launched a mental-health awareness campaign, introduced legislation to ensure longer terms of incarceration for anyone found not criminally responsible for a crime.
It seems quite obvious had Gibson survived, she would have been treated to the same contempt and outrage Trueman and Li faced. Under new not-criminally-responsible laws, she would have been portrayed as a monstrous criminal, not as a victim of a disease.
There would be no vigils, no marches, no outpouring of compassion and no debate about how to help other women who suffer the same affliction.
The ultimate irony? Society apparently requires the victims of mental illness to take their own lives before we get serious about helping them.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You keep talking about a 'victims needs', like that's something carved in stone that needs to be fulfilled. I call bullshit. Emotional responses should have no place with regard to the law. What you're talking about here is revenge, pure and simple. You think society should operate on the level of emotions, such as anger, vengeance, blood-lust, e.t.c. And you wonder why societies that have the death penalty tend to be more violent than societies without it?
From Reflections on the Guillotine
Albert Camus:
'Whoever has done me harm must suffer harm; whoever has put out my eye must lose an eye; and whoever has killed must die. This is an emotion, and a particularly violent one, not a principle. Retaliation is related to nature and instinct, not to law. Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature. If murder is in the nature of man, the law is not intended to imitate or reproduce that nature. It is intended to correct it. Now, retaliation does no more than ratify and confer the status of a law on a pure impulse of nature.'
'But, let me repeat, I do not believe, nonetheless, that there is no responsibility in this world and that we must give way to that modern tendency to absolve everything, victim and murderer, in the same confusion. Such purely sentimental confusion is made up of cowardice rather than of generosity and eventually justifies whatever is worst in this world....To any who feel, on the other hand, that hard labor is too mild a penalty, we can answer first that they lack imagination, and secondly, that privation of freedom seems to them a slight punishment only insofar as contemporary society has taught us to despise freedom.'
www.deakinphilosophicalsociety.com/text ... ctions.pdf
Camus... hmmmm?
This is the same guy that says a murderer awaiting his execution suffers far worse than his victim might have faced at his hands.
When I challenged such a ridiculous stream of thought and dismissed this 'scholar', you felt the need to defend such a preposterous statement. Remember when you said the two pre-teen girls who were tied, raped, and hours from their impending deaths in the back of Shearing's truck at least had a glimmer of hope for escape whereas a murderer on death row doesn't?
So... yah... I'm not surprised you're calling bullshit for victim's needs- you feel more sorry for the murderers.
Nothing preposterous about it at all. Unless that is you happen to be devoid of imagination and empathy. Being told the exact time and date of your execution months or years in advance is a type of mental torture that far exceeds any random attack in which the prospect of escape is always possible.
Though it's interesting that you put the words 'scholar' in quotation marks. i take it you've never heard of him before, despite him being one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, and winner of the Nobel Prize for literature.
Camus... hmmmm?
Your logic is to resort to emotional responses, such as revenge, and blood-lust. 'Murder the murderer' is your solution. Perpetuate the violence and suffering, and teach people that murder is a solution. Great logic that.
well said !
Godfather.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/31/killer-executed-texas/2606763/
the fact there has been no media coverage on this suggests that this guy wont be missed by anyone. He was suggesting the people he killed in cold blood had committed crimes against him when the story suggests they were random strangers.
Some people are just bad to the core.
You referenced him before. I remember him, but I'm not buying. If this is the crap he's spewing... I think he's an idiot. You can depict my logic as anything you want, but it is utterly amusing- and slightly disturbing- that you so easily dismiss the victims and their survivors in your eagerness to minimize the inhumane treatment the murderer displayed towards innocent life.
When you and your 'scholar' suggest that condemned murderer's have it worse than 8 year old Tori Stafford did when, out on some desolate dirt road, she was subjected to rape, bludgeoning with a hammer, mutilation, and a plastic bag burial underneath a rock... and that condemned murderers have a mental torture worse than what parents such as Petit have unable to escape the thoughts of their loved ones in their final, brutal moments... then I think you- and your out of touch scholar- are out of your freaking minds.
You might call it revenge and blood lust... but that is your perspective. And considering your perspective when comparing the 'fates' of the stakeholders... your words mean very little to a person who views the DP as justice. You go ahead and beat your chest from the corner of sick bastards such as Clifford Olson. I'll beat mine from the opposite corner.
According to the Dui Hua Foundation, an American NGO that tracks these things, the 2012 figure is down from 12,000 people executed in 2002—a fall of three-quarters. In other words, though China remains the world’s chief executioner, it is also largely responsible for a marked worldwide fall in the number of executions.
The Communist Party considers the execution rate to be a state secret and has not even publicly noted the extent of this fall. But it has confirmed it indirectly. In 2012 a deputy minister of health cited the decline in executed prisoners as a reason for a shortage in organs available for transplant in China. Dui Hua’s estimates are thus the best figures available. Western scholars broadly agree with the numbers, behind which lies an intriguing tale of Chinese reformers working quietly for change.
Historically, the Chinese Communist Party has overseen horrendous violence. Though not on the scale of Stalin’s Soviet Union, this started with the purges of landlords and other “counter-revolutionaries” in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Mao Zedong coolly declared that “the killing of counter-revolutionaries should usually not exceed 0.1% of the population, and should be less than 0.1% in the cities.” Millions died in a few short years, as Chinese villages were encouraged to mete out their own punishment with the aim of creating a blessed “New China”.
http://www.economist.com/news/china/215 ... -less-hard
Just for reference in the US in 2012 43 people were executed. :corn:
The killer's words:
"It feels wonderful to cause their death and to watch their pain," he said in one of 81 letters he wrote to a former girlfriend while awaiting his trial. The writings from the magna cum laude Southern Methodist University graduate were introduced into evidence.
"God forbid I ever had my finger on the button to launch a nuclear explosive device because I guarantee that I would wipe as many of these bastards off the face of the planet as I am able!" he said in another letter.
Without remorse, he also acknowledged the killings while testifying at his capital murder trial.
The survivors' words:
"His statement just showed more of the heart of the man," John Everett said after witnessing the execution of his brother's killer. "Very dark and very evil and very unremorseful."
"I was 12 when it happened," Robert Everett's daughter, Emily, said. "Now I'm grown, married, with kids, and my dad didn't get to see any of that. I feel my dad finally has justice after 15 years."
Bottom Line:
This murderer was a LOSER who gleefully killed and celebrated doing so. The victims feel that JUSTICE has been served. For those that disagree with my choice of words... feel free to substitute:
1. 'Misunderstood poor soul' or 'Human being just like you or I' for LOSER
and
2. 'Bloodthirsty revenge' or 'Murder' for JUSTICE
... and we can still get along!
* For the record... these crimes wouldn't fall into the spectrum of crimes I would advocate the DP for. Although there is a serial fashion to them, I generally support the DP for cases of the 'extreme' nature. For example:
The murder of children is an automatic. Leave our children alone.
Elements such as confinement and torture (encompasses rape) are qualifiers.
Mass or serial murderers qualify.
So... the Death Penalty is proving to be an effective deterrent in China?
The US... with its ineffective, cumbersome and limited application... is rendered ineffective?
Is this what you are telling us Bronx?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/texas-running- ... ml#VBVZHnD
it's a fairly sizable leap, to say it lightly, to come to the conclusion that because their executions have decreased that this automatically means the crimes that call for the DP have decreased.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It's no more a leap than to suggest states and countries are more violent because they have the Death Penalty.
The dramatic reduction does, at a minimum, beg some form of consideration.
thirty bills unpaid is so full of common sense & values it is overwhelming yet simplistic. these extremely nasty bastards deserve what they get. this disgusting freakshow actually awaits death administered by the state w/ open arms & is ready for his after life/ending or whatever you all believe.
goodnight, garbage
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I find it interesting that this thread is 56 pages long yet there are only 18 posts that reference china. Now considering they're the number one state sponsored death penalty country in the world you would think more people would be concerned with the thousands of people that are being executed over there than a handful in the US. :corn:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&q ... 93&bih=461
pick a link
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
People treat the states a little different as a democracy