- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Greymatters said:
Force a system that pays lawyers by completed trials, not by the hour. That would move things along nicely.
The Capital Punishment Debate
- Thread starter Michael Dorosh
- Start date
Force a system that pays lawyers by completed trials, not by the hour. That would move things along nicely.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
As much as the idea of paying lawyers for complete trials rather than by the hour is tempting, I don't think it would serve the interests of justice very well. I can already see lawyers just pleading out or making unfavorable deals just to complete a trial as quickly as possible...so they can move on to the next. And this goes both ways; Prosecutors making bad deals to the potentially guilty to end it quick, and defense lawyers forcing potentially innocent clients to take plea bargains by convincing that there's no hope of acquittal (again, to move on to the next client). Motivation often lies with incentive, and if the incentive is to have as many clients as possible, lawyers will likely try to find an easy way to maximize that incentive. Lawyers are only human after all (surprising I know 
, sorry, just a little poke...). This is not to say that there won't be lawyers who will 'do the right thing', but I don't think they will be in the majority in this scheme. I am likely going to take some flak for my dim view of lawyers... but so be it...
It is agreed however that the current system is woefully inefficient, and the pay by the hour system is just exacerbating things.
, sorry, just a little poke...). This is not to say that there won't be lawyers who will 'do the right thing', but I don't think they will be in the majority in this scheme. I am likely going to take some flak for my dim view of lawyers... but so be it...It is agreed however that the current system is woefully inefficient, and the pay by the hour system is just exacerbating things.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Delicron said:
I don't think you have a dim view of lawyers - I think you have a dim view of humanity - and I agree with you completely.
You're right about the current system being inefficient - I don't know what the answer is.
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Points
- 1,260
I see this thread is 14 pages long, and more than two years old. But, seeing how I did not vote in the poll, I suppose it's worth a bump.
The poll was:
"If Canada were to ever adopt the death penalty again (I know not likely) how do you think the manner of exexcution should be carried out?"
I can't speak for others, but if offerred a choice ( none of which are very nice ), I would go with the gas chamber.
The poll was:
"If Canada were to ever adopt the death penalty again (I know not likely) how do you think the manner of exexcution should be carried out?"
I can't speak for others, but if offerred a choice ( none of which are very nice ), I would go with the gas chamber.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hang them and while we are at it bring back corporal punishment.Whipping with the cat of nine tails as part of the sentence and the Paddle for breaking the rules in side.. bread and water in the hole would be good as well
- Reaction score
- 1,419
- Points
- 1,040
I'm not old school, but I believe that other methods of capital punishment listed are either "soft" so that we as a society don't get the "heebie-jeebies" when we kill someone, and the other extreme is just sadistic.
Take a classic Canadian Case: Clifford Olson. This guy did horrible things. Assume that he has been sentenced to die. Some would want to inflict pain. I say that those people are sadists. Others wish to "put him to sleep". Those people are weak-kneed, unwilling to accept that we as a society are killing someone. I believe that societies may have to kill one of its own members, once in a generation at most. But when it's done, it must be efficient and without sadism, but it must not be "sanitary". Hanging by the neck fulfills both of those criteria. And, if we use hemp, it's a green alternative (no chemicals or carbon spewing bullets!)
Take a classic Canadian Case: Clifford Olson. This guy did horrible things. Assume that he has been sentenced to die. Some would want to inflict pain. I say that those people are sadists. Others wish to "put him to sleep". Those people are weak-kneed, unwilling to accept that we as a society are killing someone. I believe that societies may have to kill one of its own members, once in a generation at most. But when it's done, it must be efficient and without sadism, but it must not be "sanitary". Hanging by the neck fulfills both of those criteria. And, if we use hemp, it's a green alternative (no chemicals or carbon spewing bullets!)
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Points
- 1,260
I guess this poll leads to the next decision. What would you order for your last meal?:
"Dead Man Eating":
http://deadmaneating.blogspot.com/2003_12_07_deadmaneating_archive.html#107135025859953857
"Dead Man Eating":
http://deadmaneating.blogspot.com/2003_12_07_deadmaneating_archive.html#107135025859953857
- Reaction score
- 2,827
- Points
- 940
Well, only once in the condemned criminal's generation at any rate. ;DTechnoviking said:
- Reaction score
- 382
- Points
- 780
I don't think lethal injection is the soft kneed method of killing people. Capital punishment is about issuing a sentence to a crime. The quickest most humane way is the likely the best way, as it causes less controversy. Look south of the border at when the debate arises about capital punishment. It is almost always when something goes wrong and Joe Public is exposed to some horrific scene of someone dying a horrid painful death (even if they do deserve it for the crimes they committed).
If we really wanted retribution, we would allow what we think of the most heinous of criminals (child molestors, psychopaths, sadists, etc.) to live among the general population for as long as they could survive.
If we really wanted retribution, we would allow what we think of the most heinous of criminals (child molestors, psychopaths, sadists, etc.) to live among the general population for as long as they could survive.
- Reaction score
- 5,990
- Points
- 1,160
captloadie said:
Then we should go back to the guillotine. It is by far the quickest and most painless, but perhaps not the most visually appealing for some.
- Reaction score
- 5,962
- Points
- 1,260
I don't think how matters as much as where and when.
IF the death penalty is to have any useful deterrent value then surely it must be done in public - maybe near a high school (students are very impressionable) - and at an opportune time (maybe just before school starts so that teachers will have one of those valuable teachable moments).
IF the death penalty is to have any useful deterrent value then surely it must be done in public - maybe near a high school (students are very impressionable) - and at an opportune time (maybe just before school starts so that teachers will have one of those valuable teachable moments).
- Reaction score
- 2,827
- Points
- 940
When should also include proximity to the guilty verdict and sentencing.
Looking at the US examples, by the time every possibly legal loophole is tried, no one except the victim's family has any remote knowledge of the crime being deterred or the example made.
Looking at the US examples, by the time every possibly legal loophole is tried, no one except the victim's family has any remote knowledge of the crime being deterred or the example made.
- Reaction score
- 1,419
- Points
- 1,040
This is the crux of my argument. We are making it humane so that it is more palatable for us as a society. If we were to have capital punishment, then we must never ever be comfortable with it. That way, we can assure ourselves that only those very deserving individuals are subjected to it.captloadie said:
I'm not arguing to make it brutal either, but quick, efficient and if you wish, environmentally friendly: locally grown hemp made into rope.
