the death penalty

Paul David wrote:

I don't give a shit if he feels guilty about it or if he jumps around for joy in the cell for 30 years about what he did. that's irrelevant. he is serving life. he will never get out. justice is served.

lukin2006 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

i don't support the death penalty on the grounds that it is inhumane ... that killing someone for a crime does not bring back the people he/she affected but serves only to satisfy a lust for justice that seems only palatable by one's death ...

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/facts ... yFacts.pdf

Not even for him

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/answer ... story.html

Now normally I would agree and I'm sure he'll have a meek existence in Kingston Pen. But does anyone think that he'll give what he did much thought, I don't. What's the proper punishment for him. I would like to see the criminal code amended to remove the parole option after 25 years and allow judges to hand out life terms with no parole.

Godfather. wrote:

polaris_x wrote:
i don't support the death penalty on the grounds that it is inhumane ... that killing someone for a crime does not bring back the people he/she affected but serves only to satisfy a lust for justice that seems only palatable by one's death ...

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/facts ... yFacts.pdf

********************************************************************************************************************************
I don't see the death penalty as any kind of a revenge for the justice system,what it does do is keep dirt bags off our public streets and out of our homes so that they will not kill anyone else.
keeping them in prison for life will not bring back the dead either so what would be the point in that ?
in my opinion if a person is willing to take a life for no reason other than to just enjoy the kill then that person sure as shit better be ready and willing to lay down their own life because society in general will not tolerate the actions of a killer in their own area,there is only one reason for killing that I can think of and thats self defense in fear of your own life or that of your loved ones and if a person crosses that line and kills for no other reason but to rob or just kill for enjoyment then they better know the rules.

Godfather.

lukin2006 wrote:

Now you obviously don't know much about the Canadian Justice System...every inmate is automatically eligible for parole after 25 years, it would seem unlikely that he obtain parole but you can never say never, what I was basically saying was we need to give the judge the option with certain cases at his/her discretion to remove parole eligibility, for one main reason as to not traumatize the families anymore. My comment was also direct toward polaris because we are both Canadians and it was meant as a discussion with recent tragic events.

lukin2006 wrote:

Paul David wrote:

ah, yet another person that thinks by one comment they can pin someone down!

au contrere, mon frere! I am a fellow Canuck. I OBVIOUSLY know plenty about the system. I believe there is always the option, though rare, that he could be designated a dangerous offender after the 25 years is up and not be released. So what you are suggesting is already in place. Does this mean that you "obviously" don't know much about the Canadian justice system? I would never say that.

But I do agree that "life" shouldn't mean 25 years. That ain't life. Getting out when he gets buried is life.

lukin2006 wrote:

Now you obviously don't know much about the Canadian Justice System...every inmate is automatically eligible for parole after 25 years, it would seem unlikely that he obtain parole but you can never say never, what I was basically saying was we need to give the judge the option with certain cases at his/her discretion to remove parole eligibility, for one main reason as to not traumatize the families anymore. My comment was also direct toward polaris because we are both Canadians and it was meant as a discussion with recent tragic events.

Yes, but the crown is not going after dangerous offender status. They believe it's unlikely he'll get paroled, the are probably right, but why not amend the criminal code and remove the possibility of parole, he doesn't deserve a hearing in 25 years, yet he automatically gets a parole hearing. I just wonder when some government is going to come along and remove the possibility of parole from these individuals.

cajunkiwi wrote:

catefrances wrote:

chadwick wrote:

slaughtering animals :evil:
in my book that is worth the shooter eating his or her own bullet
behind the ear is nice
whatever it takes

recently the topic is bear hunting
bear hunters should all get cancer before being electrocuted

the 2nd amendment says you have the right to bear arms or arm bears whatever the hell you want to do!
- robin williams
funny bastard

Though Robin Williams with bare arms is a scary sight

Byrnzie wrote:

OnTheEdge wrote:

No, being macho has nothing to do with it. It's someone realizing they fucked up and accepting their fate.

An eye for an eye, right?

Iran stones people to death and uses the Koran to justify it's barbarity.
America electrocutes people and uses the Bible to justify it's barbarity.

Both backwards countries who base their laws and beliefs on an antiquated, obsolete religion.

Edit: Not that all of America is backwards, just certain aspects, including the death penalty, and the crazy talking-in-tongues religious wackjobs, e.t.c.

Byrnzie wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Now do you oppose capital punishment on human rights issues or some other issue?

I wouldn't say it's a matter of human rights so much as reason and morality. If a scoiety can claim to be based on reason and morality then the first thing it should do is abolish the death penalty. Killing someone in the name of justice makes the society no better than the murderer whose crime it claims to oppose.

Any society that has the death penalty is a barbaric society as far as I'm concerned.