- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
1- Risk of executing an innocent man. With life sentences, you can reverse the sentence. Case in point is David Milgaard, who was jailed for 15 years (IIRC) for a murder he did not commit.
(I'm not worried, even if every nation in the western world thinks I'm wrong)
Yes, there is a chance that can happen, capital punishment should only be used in cases where there is no possable doubt that the individual involved was guilty of a crime that warranted the death sentance.
2- Lack of ethical and moral jurisdiction. Governments do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies. What right do we have to decide to end another's life? They are there, in this instance, to protect Canadian society. There are more acceptable means of protecting society. If execution is used to protect society, then why not just jail them for life with no parole?
Governments can and do have the right to decide who lives and who dies, they maintain a police force and army who have the authority to use lethal force if it is warranted, an individual in serious enough danger can use lethal force as well.
"More acceptable" is a personal judgement.
"Jail them for life with no parole", there is the chance of escape and the infamous "Faint hope clause"
3- You can't make someone feel better about their loss by killing another. Too often, the execution of a criminal is justified due to the pain he has caused his victims family. How can you justify ending someone's life to ease the emotional pain of another? How is their emotional health more important than his existence? Also, how exactly is killing someone going to make another feel better about losing their spouse, child, parent or sibling? Is their pain so superficial that it can be eased by simply ending another's life? Keep in mind that their pain is focused around the victim not the perpetrator. It is caused by the loss of that loved one, it is not caused by the act of the criminal. If you could bring the person back by killing the perpetrator, then that would be different. In the end, after you kill the murderer, the victim is still dead, and their pain remains.
This is the bottem line of our disagreement on this issue. If someone has commited a crime that is deserving of something as serious as execution, then I have no problem with having them put to death, your saying there is nothing that deserves the death sentance and I'm saying there is.
I'm sure you are aware of what is going on in the Vancouver legal system right now with regard to the pig farmer.
I have no problem with, when the courts are done with him, if he were put to death.
It isn't an ease the pain issue it's a justice issue, there is (or should be) a price to pay, in my opinion death is not to high a price for the actions of some individuals.
As far as I'm concerned your point about executing an innocent man is the only one that's valid.
(I'm not worried, even if every nation in the western world thinks I'm wrong)
Yes, there is a chance that can happen, capital punishment should only be used in cases where there is no possable doubt that the individual involved was guilty of a crime that warranted the death sentance.
2- Lack of ethical and moral jurisdiction. Governments do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies. What right do we have to decide to end another's life? They are there, in this instance, to protect Canadian society. There are more acceptable means of protecting society. If execution is used to protect society, then why not just jail them for life with no parole?
Governments can and do have the right to decide who lives and who dies, they maintain a police force and army who have the authority to use lethal force if it is warranted, an individual in serious enough danger can use lethal force as well.
"More acceptable" is a personal judgement.
"Jail them for life with no parole", there is the chance of escape and the infamous "Faint hope clause"
3- You can't make someone feel better about their loss by killing another. Too often, the execution of a criminal is justified due to the pain he has caused his victims family. How can you justify ending someone's life to ease the emotional pain of another? How is their emotional health more important than his existence? Also, how exactly is killing someone going to make another feel better about losing their spouse, child, parent or sibling? Is their pain so superficial that it can be eased by simply ending another's life? Keep in mind that their pain is focused around the victim not the perpetrator. It is caused by the loss of that loved one, it is not caused by the act of the criminal. If you could bring the person back by killing the perpetrator, then that would be different. In the end, after you kill the murderer, the victim is still dead, and their pain remains.
This is the bottem line of our disagreement on this issue. If someone has commited a crime that is deserving of something as serious as execution, then I have no problem with having them put to death, your saying there is nothing that deserves the death sentance and I'm saying there is.
I'm sure you are aware of what is going on in the Vancouver legal system right now with regard to the pig farmer.
I have no problem with, when the courts are done with him, if he were put to death.
It isn't an ease the pain issue it's a justice issue, there is (or should be) a price to pay, in my opinion death is not to high a price for the actions of some individuals.
As far as I'm concerned your point about executing an innocent man is the only one that's valid.