The Capital Punishment Debate

[midgetcop]

The problem with hate speech laws is they are misused to censor expression that some people merely find objectionable.  It is best to simply confront bad ideas with good ones.  Hate speech laws are the legal equivalent of hecklers.  A heckler is merely a living ad hominem fallacy.

I'm sure you have an example of your above assertion.

The forum is yours.........

 

[Brad Sallows]

I am not aware offhand of any convictions* which didn't involve outright exhortations to violence, so change "are misused" to "can be misused"; I am aware of attempts to use hate speech laws to pressure people to clam up.  Here is one example which was interesting for the direction of the ideological pressure:

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/con/2001/con_01-10-24.html

I am not merely interested in the selling points of a proposed law or program; I am equally interested in possible abuses and shortcomings.  If someone utters threats, we already have laws to cover that.  Laws with indistinct applicability and the potential to curtail basic freedoms are poor laws.

*Although it would be useful to know exactly what this fellow had written and distributed:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1405939/posts

 

[Glorified Ape]

The problem is that someone yelling "fire" is clearly commiting an act of mischief which is likely to place peoples lives in danger.  The part of the criminal code under which he can be charged are clear and dificult to misinterpret.  In contrast, look at the wording of our wondefrful hate-speech legislation:

The first section on genocide is taken straight from the UN. The second on hate speech I really don't see as problematic as it specifically states a breach of the peace. The same impetus is behind the law against yelling "fire" in a theatre.

What you didn't include was:

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an
opinion on a religious subject;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he
believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal,
matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

In other words, if you came on this board and for whatever reason decided to state that you support the war in Iraq because you think Muslims are a threat to us, you could theoreticaly be locked up for the next 5 years.  Your statement is encouraging other governments and their soldiers to "kill members of the group" where the group is a distinct religion and a distinct "ethnic origin".  And technicaly, that means that a good number of the members of this board are now criminals.  Wether we're convicted of it or not is immaterial; we HAVE violated this law.  Personaly, I don't like having to think of myself as a criminal.

Firstly, it's ignorant to say "Muslims are a threat to us" as not all Muslims ARE a threat to us. It's equivalent to saying "Blacks are criminals" in its ignorance. As for its qualification as hate-speech, I'm not sure. It certainly intends to cast aspersions on an entire group of people based on their religious faith and is demonstrably untrue in its current form. A similar case is R v. Keegstra, it might give some insight:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/128mile.asp

See, that's the misconception.  The government and the judges are the ones who set the standard.  If you want an example, think about our own society.  Could you imagine a black man being incarcarated for giving a speech in which he advocates killing or otherwise hurting white people?  It wouldn't happen.  Look at all the protests where supporters of Palestine advocate the destruction of Israel.  Are they prosecuted?  Ofcourse not!  As a society we tend to view racism as a one-way street - only the "majority" can discriminate against the "minorities". 

Acutally, a Tanzanian feminist lesbian was charged with inciting hatred against Americans in 2003. I'm not sure if she was convicted. I agree with you that equal application of the law is essential and that often it's not achieved. It annoys me as much as it does you that not everyone is prosecuted equally for the same crime.

Now what would happen if our government and judges underwent a massive reorganization?  All of a sudden we elect a white-power organization into government.  Well, you'd see the exact opposite.  Minorities would be charged for comiiting "hate crimes" against whites, while whites would have pretty much total impunity.  Hate-speech laws wouldn't have stopped Hitler, if anything they would have given him yet another tool to use against his people.

I doubt it - were hate speech laws in place (hypothetically identical to ours) prior to his rise, Hitler wouldn't have made it past the Beerhall doors - he'd have been in prison. His statements were so far out there that there is no doubt of his guilt under the legislation. Mein Kampf would never have been sold commercially and anyone handing it out would have been arrested and charged.

Well, there's always the possibility of escape.  However, you're right, if a life sentence were truly "for life" I wouldn't bother arguing for the death penalty.  Both achieve the same result more or less.  However, I don't see life imprisonment as any more moral than the death penalty.  And if I were falsly convicted of a crime, personaly, I'd rather be executed than spend the rest of my life in jail.

Why? At least while you're sitting in jail there's the possibility of new evidence coming to light to free you, not to mention the appeals, investigations, etc.

Wether it passes the oakes test or not is also a matter of opinion.  It's all subjective.  Our government and judicial system have determined that, in their opinion, the death penalty does not pass the Oakes test.  However, that's the same government that seems to have determined that having the average citizen spend 50% of their income on taxes is somehow beneficial to our society, so I certainly don't have much faith in their ability to weigh the benefits and detriments of the death penalty

From your POV, I can see where you're coming from. As for the Oakes test, I can't see it passing with any kind of political climate. The benefits are just too minimal/vague and the infringement too maximal. Even if I were pro-CP, I'd still have to admit that killing someone is a greater infringement than imprisoning them. The benefits angle could be argued, but all the data from the US indicates that the death penalty really doesn't provide anything but a sense of revenge. The murder rate is higher in the south, which executes the overwhelming majority of all those executed in the country, than it is in the North which accounts for a fraction of the total executions.

 

[TCBF]

"The murder rate is higher in the south, which executes the overwhelming majority of all those executed in the country, than it is in the North which accounts for a fraction of the total executions."

- Correlation does not equal causation. There are many other cultural factors as well - the Reconstruction is not over yet.

In any case, the best and most efficient death penalty is often the one enacted by the intended victim - on the spot. 

Tom

 

[Glorified Ape]

"The murder rate is higher in the south, which executes the overwhelming majority of all those executed in the country, than it is in the North which accounts for a fraction of the total executions."

- Correlation does not equal causation. There are many other cultural factors as well - the Reconstruction is not over yet.

In any case, the best and most efficient death penalty is often the one enacted by the intended victim - on the spot. 

Tom

I'm not arguing FOR correlation, I'm arguing against it. There's no demonstrable correlation between capital punishment and crime rates. The fact that the South has a higher crime rate is, I would wager, a function of its poverty levels (dont quote me on it) than its sentencing practices.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Vote  Zipperhead for Attorney General

Thanks, brother.  I imagine that my constant swipes at the Liberal Party wont help me get any patronage appointments any time soon.  But if I did get in.....boy howdy you would see some crazy stuff until I got recalled!

 

[zipperhead_cop]

It looks like we may be getting hung up again on the idea of the death penalty serving some sort of deterrent value.  I believe there are plenty of stats to back that up...if someone is going to kill another person, they don't put a lot of thought on consequence due to a variety of factors. 
But who cares?  Should it not be sufficient that a deserving individual is taken out of the mix, permanently?  There will always be appeals, and outcry's, and much protesting, but why not have it as an option?  The public wants it but should not have to fight a straight vertical up fight to get it.  Bring it back and put sufficient parameters on it in order to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to make sure that mistakes don't happen. 
And why is a public sense of "vengeance" so patently wrong?  The public deserves to have a system that makes them feel safe and protected.  If they are so incensed by a killing that they are upset by the death of a stranger, should not a remedy be a public punishment that reassures the citizenry that "if you blow it, you will pay".  I think people are getting pretty sick of the total lack of personal accountability they see all around them everywhere.  When people see a$$hats getting caught and put in jail, they are always stoked.  Why do you think there are so many police shows on TV and in the theatres?  People want to see bad guys getting jammed.  The public want a sense of fairness to be shown.  When you do bad, you get bad.  It doesn't have to get all complicated for them. 
Seriously, don't get hung up on the "ooh, gawd, what if an innocent is killed".  The GUILTY don't get convicted of half the shit they do.  An innocent person will very rarely even be charged, let along be convicted these days (lets not march out the old, boring Morin cases and the whatnot).  The law is so unbelievably in favor of the criminal that if someone was convicted of first degree murder (and all pipe dreams aside, that's the best we can hope for to have the DP applied) and qualified for the DP, the case would likely be a "caught on tape" slam dunk.  And don't underestimate the leftist adgenda's of our socialist judges who would probably never actually use it as sentencing.  I would even be happy if a life sentence was that, life.  As it stands, 80% of offenders that apply under the ironically named "faint hope clause" are granted parole.  Not very faint.  (Semi unrelated:  last I saw the list, the John Howard Society charity that busts it's ass getting murderers out of jail is supported with your United Way dollars).
Better to have the tool and not use it, than need the tool and not be able to get it.

 

[TCBF]

"I'm not arguing FOR correlation, I'm arguing against it. There's no demonstrable correlation between capital punishment and crime rates. The fact that the South has a higher crime rate is, I would wager, a function of its poverty levels (dont quote me on it) than its sentencing practices"

I would say that capital punishment garuntees no second offense.

Higher crime rates are not so much a function of poverty as much as a loss of cultural discipline.  My forebares - and probably yours too - survived The Great Depression in rural Canada.  They were emaciated, on relief, and suffering from protein deficiency that affected their education - yet they did not steal.

I doubt, with even the social safety nets that exist in North America today, people are as short of food as our predecessors were in The Dirty Thirties. 

So - what is there to steal for?  No excuse.

To

 

[Cloud Cover]

*Although it would be useful to know exactly what this fellow had written and distributed:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1405939/posts

Most of it is reproduced at this link, scroll about halfway down: http://www.saskhrt.ca/forms/index/Descisions/050205.htm

AFIC, they're all a bunch of kooks.

 

[Glorified Ape]

"I'm not arguing FOR correlation, I'm arguing against it. There's no demonstrable correlation between capital punishment and crime rates. The fact that the South has a higher crime rate is, I would wager, a function of its poverty levels (dont quote me on it) than its sentencing practices"

I would say that capital punishment garuntees no second offense.

Higher crime rates are not so much a function of poverty as much as a loss of cultural discipline.  My forebares - and probably yours too - survived The Great Depression in rural Canada.  They were emaciated, on relief, and suffering from protein deficiency that affected their education - yet they did not steal.

I doubt, with even the social safety nets that exist in North America today, people are as short of food as our predecessors were in The Dirty Thirties. 

So - what is there to steal for?   No excuse.

To

Crime rates during the Great Depression did increase.

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/history/1920/index_e.shtml

 

[TCBF]

Coincidental with Prohibition or Poverty?

Tom

 

[TCBF]

"Wait till the bear takes a dump, then turn it over to the family."

It is times like these - worn out from a multi-thread, multi-faceted, dogmatic, running argument with our learned colleague Glorified Ape - that I need to read a refreshing line like the one above.  Restores my faith in Canada, it does.



Tom

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Thanks!  Pragmatic solutions are what I'm all about.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

There is much talk about deterrence, and about cost effectiveness of capital punishment, and I will leave those discussions to others.  While I do not say that executing a serial rapist/murderer will deter others from committing a like crime, and I cannot say it will be cheaper than imprisoning him indefinitely as a dangerous offender, I can absolutely guaranty that this particular criminal will never hurt anyone again.  There is no early release, no escape, no appeal from the grave; and thus a zero chance to re-offend.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

+1 mainerjohnthomas.
Its just that simple

 

[Roy Harding]

I realize this is an old thread.

While wasting my time here, I've been listening to the radio.

CBC has just reported that Mr. Pickton has been determined by the jury to be Guilty of six counts of second degree murder.

 

[eurowing]

I'll pull the trigger!

 

[Roy Harding]

I'll pull the trigger!

Get in line - BEHIND me.

That being said - we don't have capital punishment here, from what I'm hearing on the radio, he'll be sentenced to a minimum of ten years, a maximum of 25 - such is the justice system we have.

 

[X-mo-1979]

Hanging for sure.
And public at that.Nothing says a good family outing like some hot cocoa,a beaver tail and a public hanging to finish off the day.

Plus watching someone hang for crime would forever be etched into a child's mind making him less likely to do it.

 

[1feral1]

Gallows please! Traditional and proven!

Seen a recent Pommy movie on based on the 'hangman' during the 30's- 50's I think, seen it in Baghdad around time of that 'other' hanging, ha!

Anyways, this bloke could get a guy from the gallows door to swinging in just 8 seconds!!

Now thats a record, he also did some hanging of Nazi war crims too.