Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Who supports the death penalty?

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:05am - 145 Comments

In his interview with the CBC, Mr. Harper acknowledged that he personally supports the death penalty in certain unspecified circumstances. In his support, the Prime Minister is conceivably joined by the Justice Minister, who voted in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment in 1987.

When Ekos polled on the issue last March, it found that 40% of Canadians supported such reintroduction.

Data from 2000 suggests that opinions on this issue have remained relatively unchanged in 10 years. In June of 2000, 43 per cent disagreed with capital punishment while 44 per cent agreed with it. Those who support the reintroduction of capital punishment tend to be Conservative supporters (53 per cent), residents of Alberta (48 per cent), men (43 per cent), seniors (45 per cent), high school grads (48 per cent) and college grads (46 per cent).

Tags: capital punishment, Crime, death penalty, Ekos, justice, Rob Nicholson, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

Emily

Again….we're rehashing old questions, going over old ground that was decided years ago….instead of moving forward.

hollinm

It isn't often we agree but on this one we do. Of course the reason this stuff keeps coming up is because people like Wherry and the rest of the left are trying for a gotcha moment. I can tell you first hand there is no intention of introducing legislation concerning abortion (we have no law) and capital punishment. Now never is a long time though so I won't go that far.
Philanthropist

Again…. it was decided the Earth was flat years ago, why go over old ground………… LOL!

DifferentGuest

There's a difference between politics and science, you know.

Trudeau lover

Spoken like a true "Liberal"." We already decided for you".
Matt Delisle

You think it's fair for the society to pay 80 000$ A YEAR to keep Russell in jail instead of paying 25$ for his last meal before getting executed?

Emily

Or Steven Truscott's parents.

Leo

Truscott always maintained he was innocent plus they did not have tools like DNA tests in 1959.

Emily

And since then they've discovered many other innocent people who were convicted of murder. They'd all be dead now if we had the death penalty.

More to the point….we'd have never looked for the real killers.

Leo

"Stephen Harper says he has no intention of attempting to change the current law regarding capital punishment, despite his personal belief that the death penalty is sometimes "appropriate."

Never said bring back Capital Punishment, but there are exceptions – Olsen, Bernardo, Pickton – fit the bill. The murders they committed deem them no longer human beings.

hollinm

Of course the left is trying to make his comments into something they are not. I think we can all agree we have instances where we thought the death penalty was the appropriate punishment.

LdKitchenersOwn

I don't understand why people are thumbing Emily down on this. It's perfectly legitimate for James to point out that the parents of murder victims might feel differently about the death penalty than the general population. Why then is it a problem for Emily to point out that the parents of innocent Canadians who were sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit might also have a particular point of view on the issue?

truenorth

Agree.. I brought this up on a different thread yesterday, If your going to vote, do it on the content of the comment…not the Commentor…….

Bob

As long as we're clear that no one likes Emily…

Emily

Gosh…I'm all broken up about that.

I may fling myself on my bed and have a good cry. LOL
hollinm

Good!!!!!!!!!!!!!
truenorth

Speak for yourself please Bob, I personally have never met her and I doubt very much if you have either, So for you to say you don't like her, is just plain childish, ,,Dislikeing her comments, or responses is one thing,….anyway I resent being included in your comment '''no one ''' likes Emily….Thankyou!
JamesHalifax

Bob…….I don't dislike Emily.

I just think she's a duffos.

JamesHalifax

Emily, I don't agree with the death penalty. Too many chances for error. However, in the cases I describe above, when evidence is incontravertable….I'm persuaded to make an exception. Insstead, I would rather these animals be locked up in a cage for the rest of their lives.

Failing that….they should be forced to live with the Judges who let them out.
Healthcare Insider

I don't know Emily, they might have wanted to see the real killer dead after what their son went through.

Healthcare Insider

I was referring to Steven Trustcott's parents.

D.D.S

yes…I imagine they WOULD want revenge…our place as a civil society is to attempt justice…not revenge

john g

Come on Aaron. Now we're using 25 year old voting history as a basis for what people believe today? Maybe he still does, but to present that as your only evidence is pretty weak. The likes of monsters such as Paul Bernardo, Karla Homolka, and Russell Williams are enough to make any person potentially reconsider what they think about this topic over a 25 year span. People can change their minds the other way too you know.

tedbetts

So you'll be telling Harper to stop misusing out of context quotations from Ignatieff that are that old?

john g

Why? Is Harper a journalist?

It's already been established that there is no statute of limitations for how far back any politician will go for a cheap shot to make a political opponent look bad (see "Northern European Welfare State" or "Firewall" for a Liberal example).

It would be nice if we could expect the fourth estate to refrain from the cheap shot altogether, but guys like Aaron unfortunately make that a pipe dream. Aaron's point in this post could easily have been made without involving Nicholson at all, who in 2008 (which one would hope is more relevant than 1987) repeated Harper's position that the government is not going there. Adding Nicholson's musings from 25 years ago adds nothing to the argument and just makes him look like he's out for any excuse to paint Nicholson as a knuckle dragger.

TimesArrow

I'm not a fan of negative ads per se. That said i can't remember seeing those two quotes taken wildly out of context in the same manner as many of the appalling Ignatieff ads have been. Call me naive if you like [ i know there are plenty of examples of real low shots aimed at the cons - the worst i've seen were the NDP ads in Quebec - disgusting!] but your example is no kind of comparisan at all.

AT1

Really, you don't remember the Firewall letter being taken out of context, torqued and exaggerated? Perhaps you should actually read the original letter that proposed to prevent federal intrusions into provincial jurisdictions by setting up arrangements that currently exist in Quebec.

hollinm

Not on your life. Of course thats the only defense you Libs have is that it is out of context. Perhaps knowing full context would not help your leader either. Be careful what you wish for.

Richard_S_Argent

"In his support, the Prime Minister is conceivably joined by the Justice Minister, who voted in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment in 1987."

W.B.

Abortion and the death penalty are pretty obvious questions which will likely be dealt with in a Conservative majority, but why didn't Mansbridge ask Harper whether he thought there would be a lot of protests over selling off the CBC?
Emily

That was a lose-lose interview on Harper's part. He mentioned both abortion and the death penalty….but said he'd never push for them.

This warns the rest of Canada that there can never be a Con majority, because everyone knows Harper can change his mind on a dime.

And it throws his base under the bus at the same time. LOL

jonatwitan

Emily, do you try to mislead people on purpose?

Harper was asked about the death penalty and abortion, and he responded to the questions. How then can you even dare to say that this was Harper pushing for these two things?

Of course, you saying such things simply warns the rest of the Maclean's comment board that you are one who should never be taken seriously.

burlivespipe

Maybe she's just taking a page from ye ole CONservative handbook on talking points and how to spin them?

Mike T.

And is it even spin to point out he's broken promise after promise, from income trust to appointing senators to not bringing troops back from Afghanistan ever ever ever, fixed election dates….

Holly Stick

jonatwitan, Harper lies about things. Why would anyone trust him?

Emily

And his answers scared everybody. My comment holds.

Try not to live up to your name.

Vatro

It's good to know that you consider yourself "everybody," it shines a new light on your regular commenting.

hollinm

Trouble is Harper had a very good interview with Mansbridge and it scared the crap out of you Emily. Remember I told you in a previous post that you can expect more interviews with the PM.
You are being disingenous. Harper was asked about both issues. He dismissed the abortion issue and was a little more nuanced in his response on the death penalty. However, already some media are suggesting that Harper favours the dealth penalty. No wonder he doesn't want to talk to the media in this country.

Leo

I'd volunteer to "push the button" on those two.
Passing by

This would be a deadly issue for a party interested in attracting the votes of women.
Phil_King

Ah yes, the love of vengence. Murderous rage sanctified by authority.

I guess the next question is how many wrongly convicted innocent people are we willing to kill, excuse me, how much "collateral damage" are we willing to accept, to exact our vengence?

I'm very sure someone already has a number in mind.

Personally I'd prefer a different form of incarceration over the death penalty. Most murderers are psychologically unstable. (you don't say!)

Perhaps rather than set a timer by which a murderer, or even pedophile, violent offender etc, suddenly comes free, we should govern their release by science?

They go free when a board of psychiatrists deems them safe, and not one moment before, which for most means never.

At least then the convicted innocent won't die, society will be at less risk and we don't have to act like a bunch of freaking hypocrits.

NamelessLurker

Phil – curiosity question if you don't mind -

Suppose we not interested in any potentially innocent people being put to death – but merely reserving it for the likes of Bernardo and Williams?

Like the PM, I apparently have a philosophical support for the death penalty as-an-option-in-some-very-specific cases. But the spate of overturned wrongful convictions makes me wary of capital punishment as a rule.

Still hypocritical in your mind?

Patchouli

In Bernardo's case, there were video tapes of clearcut evidence of the rape and torture of the girls who were murdered; in Williams's case, he confessed and pleaded guilty — and we had that terrible terrible video of their deaths. No need for juries to make that big decision to put someone to death.

So, given that research shows most people would find reasonable doubt when deciding whether or not to put a defendent to death, more murderers would walk totally free instead of being jailed for life. That means low likelihood for conviction — plus higher possibility that we put to death the wrong people (and as Emily pointed out earlier, never even look for them, believing the case to be resolved).
Phil_King

While I find it easier to empathize with that limited version, I believe it would still be unwise and contrary to ethical principles, if not outright hypocritical.

Why lower ourselves in this manner when we can so easily control them and protect society?

Besides there are other factors at play.

For example, a number of men falsely accused of Bernardo's crimes have gone free thanks to verifiable facts Bernardo has revealed while in jail. Facts we wouldn't have had if we'd killed him. Innocent men who'd be in jail otherwise.

Then there's the fact that killing a guy like Bernardo means less time for him to suffer recrimination. Killing can be a form of mercy is some cases, and I wonder why we would release him from his guilt in this way?

I say let him rot in solitary with the knowledge of what he's done; the price he set to watch his own life waste slowly and uselessly away.

Some might consider that a greater vengence, but I see it as the justice he deserves without debasing ourselves.

TimesArrow

While undoubtedly he deserves death i personally can't imagine the hell of being locked up with your own pisspot and another psycho for a stable-mate for the rest of your natural. It must be a sort of living hell.

LdKitchenersOwn

Suppose we not interested in any potentially innocent people being put to death – but merely reserving it for the likes of Bernardo and Williams?

Isn't the problem there still the same though, that being where the line is drawn? Somewhere on the spectrum between Bernardo on one side and the wrongly convicted innocent person on the other is the line we'd have to draw where we'd be saying "on this side of the line you're eligible for the death penalty, but not on this side of the line". Essentially, you'd be dividing convicted murderers into one group of "guilty" people, and a second group of "REALLY guilty" people, and I'm not sure one should do that. Even if drawing such a distinction were ethical, how exactly would we do it in a practical sense? Are you only eligible for the death penalty if there's videotape of you committing the crime? Only if you plead guilty (which is another slippery slope, as people have plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit). How do we distinguish between the convicted killers who are eligible for capital punishment and the convicted killers that aren't?

TimesArrow

We used to have different categories for murder [ do we still?] premeditated, murder 1. et al.

But to reinforce your point anecdotally: I personally know [ second hand] of one guy at Kingston who committed a crime of passion in his teens. It was horrendous and he served 20 odd years. Apparently he did change his life around, become a reformed and penitent man, a trustee and all that. Tragically his attempts to gain parole were turned down once too often – he committed suicide. Should that man have been put to death? Who's wise enough tomake that call?

Treat each man according to his just deserts and who should escape a whipping – Hamlet

Leo

How about: "Time is the justice that examines all offenders"

or my favourite for these blogs: "Make not your thoughts your prisons"
TimesArrow

…or

"O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space…"
Leo

Timeless…the Bard is timeless
LdKitchenersOwn

We used to have different categories for murder.

True, and we still do, but in this context I believe the suggestion was less that the sentence be modified based upon the crime, then that the sentence be modified based upon our confidence that the convicted is actually guilty (in other words, I don't want to risk killing an innocent person… but if we're SURE that they're guilty then execution is OK in those cases.).

For the purpose of categorizing levels of OFFENCE different sentences make sense, but in this context we'd be measuring levels of guilt, not the nature of the offence.
TimesArrow

Not quite measuring levels of guilt, rather levels of certainty of guilt. I'm no lawyer but i believe that might run afoul of the principle of benefit of doubt always being with the accused. The last person hanged in Britain is an instructive case.

NamelessLurker

Very true. Which murders are heinous enough to warrant application of the death penalty is at some level – subjective.

Which is largely why capital punishment is never coming back. When to apply it, how to carry it out, the belief of many people sense that the state should not take life (somewhat wrongly in my view – we all generally accept the police may need to shoot a hostage taker as a counter example) and the frailties of our legal system (cops lie, or can become blind to other suspects, juries can be unreliable or display unwillingness to make that verdict call, lawyers can be flat out incompetent in mounting a defense), the general lack of gravitas of our parliament (seriously … can you imagine these people debating an issue of such import and potential finality ….).

Not gonna happen.

But notice I said legal system, not justice system. There are those cases … Some of you may prefer the notion of them rotting away in jail. That's fine, I can respect that – but there are those cases where my gut reaction is that on behalf of the victim who does not get to while away those years, justice really would be served by executing some of the bastards.

Myself, I don't think of it in strict black and white term. Most murders – say crimes of passion – permit the possibility of later reform. (per TA below). Even drug murders, where young gang members

NamelessLurker

Skip the last sentence…. I was on a different train of thought.

Hey – did I hear someone ask for an edit function ?
Thwim

Become less nameless (sign up for an intense debate acct) and you can edit your own messages.. at least until someone response to them.
Leo

"on behalf of the victim who does not get to while away those years, justice really would be served by executing some of the bastards"

Olson is one of the biggest reasons this whole death penaulty came up again. He tortured the victims families for years – sending them letters describing what he did to their kids. Just two years ago he managed to get a photo out of himself in his jail cell and had it posted to MySpace for all his cult followers. I would challenge anyone to give one reason why he is still alive.
D.D.S

because we don't perform state sanctioned murder…..

Lee_JD

I guess the real issue we should be addressing then is how many people get wrongly convicted? Lots of people bring up past wrongful convictions but I would like to think that there are few to none now, with DNA and forensics and all that.

If our wrongful conviction rate isn't zero then we should really be concerned and try to fix that. If somebody innocent gets sent to prison for 10 or 20 years I don't think we can sleep any easier then if they were wrongfully executed; we shouldn't feel any better, at least.

LdKitchenersOwn

I think perhaps you're putting too much stake in DNA and forensics. I'm CERTAIN that our wrongful conviction rate isn't zero, it can't be, and people have actually been wrongly convicted based on DNA evidence that turned out to be either wrong, or misinterpreted. Plus, innocent people have been known to cut plea deals before their day in court even arrives, so that's a problem almost independent of the evidence (which in those cases is never tested in court).

I think you're right about it being (almost) as bad to wrongfully send someone to prison for 20 years as it is to wrongfully execute someone, but I think you're much too confident in our modern ability to only convict guilty people, forensic technology notwithstanding.
Lee_JD

I wasn't really confident; I was just hoping it was better.

But my point was really not that we should execute people because there aren't wrongful convictions, but rather that we shouldn't be treating wrongful incarceration and wrongful execution as two fundamentally different things. How can people get so upset about a wrongfully convicted person getting executed, and not the fact that they were wrongfully convicted in the first place? Does the fact that we give them an apology and a couple million dollars (if they're still alive) make it okay? It seems very pick-and-choose to me.
Mike T.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no way to 100% effectively tell if the wrongful conviction rate is 0. Certain evidence can sometimes later be disproven or questioned, but that's it. And it's not like the state has great interest in putting resources into double checking convictions years after the fact.

tedbetts

Is there any fundamental promise or principle from before January 23, 2006 that Harper has actually kept? The only ones I can think of are the short-sighted, politically driven GST cut.

That being the case, it's no wonder Say Anything Steve is content to say he won't do anything about abortion or the death penalty. He feels no obligation to keep his word on anything.

burlivespipe

Of course that ol' 'against all wisdom' cut to the GST has proven to be a real magic mcguffin when it came to driving Canadians into debt. "Wow! 2 percent off of everything! I'm gonna rack up my credit cards and take out a loan on the ol' house!" Harper's little clever tax cut — after raising income taxes — really did a job. Of course, throwing Flaherty the keys to the economy wasn't a wise thing, either…
tedbetts

Burlivespipe: Your comment disappeared but you mentioned Flaherty. Here's what he said about the GST:

Hon Mr Flaherty: The member opposite again raises the question of reducing the sales tax. I must say that with respect to tax cuts, I agree with Paul Martin. With respect to reducing the GST federally and the RST provincially, I also agree with the federal minister, and we've talked about this. All you get is a short-term hit, quite frankly. You accelerate spending. You pull it ahead by a month or two. It has no long-term positive gain for the economy. On this side of the House — and I say this with respect to the member opposite — we're interested in long-term, sustainable economic growth and the creation of permanent jobs in Ontario. That's what grows the economy. That's what helps people. That's what helps retailers in Ontario, not short-term, knee-jerk actions.

And no, I have no idea why neither Stephen Harper nor Jim Flaherty have not been asked about that statement by our illustrious media.

TimesArrow

Cognitive dissonance…i wonder if Flaherty even raised any objections within cabinet at all? It seems that all principles are merely ephemeral in the race for a the grail – a majority. It's quite fascinating really – like watching a slow train wreck – unless you happen to be on the train that is.

Dan F

How about Guy-Paul Morin's Parents?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Paul_Morin
David B

It's the economy Stupid …. not abortion, gun control and death penalty and who will pay for this … and on a side bar it costs 1 1/2 times more to execute someone as opposed to keeping them for life.

Over the past decade it had slowly declined to $458-billion in 2008. Now this has all changed. Our federal debt grew by $5.8-billion in 2008-09, by $55.4-billion in 2009-10 and is expected to grow by $45.4-billion in 2010-11. Further, it's expected to grow through at least 2014-15. In just three years all the debt repayment of the past eight years will be wiped out.

Canada's debt re-passed the $500-billion mark at 4:55:46 AM on December 2, 2009.

Yup you betcha Harper wants to talk "Death Penalty"

Emily

Totally agree….it's just another round of old topics to distract from today's problems.
TimesArrow

Question: why does it cost 11/2x more to execute someone then keep someone for life…curious.

Thwim

Well, for one, a person sentenced to death will generally appeal things as far as they can possibly go.

For two.. economies of scale. Keeping a prisoner isn't anything unusual for the system, and we've streamlined the processes involved to make them more effective and cheaper. An execution, on the other hand, is rather an unusual and involved circumstance, requiring specialized staff, rooms, and materials.

Of course, there was one group of people who took advantage of economies of scale for their executions, but I somehow doubt we want to follow in their path. Godwin and all.

TimesArrow

I'd like to see some figures on that before i took a view. Still, executing someone using parsimony as justification is abhorrent.

AT1

David, maybe you should fire off a complaint to the CBC, because it was clearly Peter Mansbridge who brought the topic up, not Harper. You do realize how an interview works, right?

D.D.S

you have got to be kidding….you don't think Harper KNEW the questions before he even went into the interview???

Mike T.

Supports killing people he disapproves of? it's easy to picture harper fFANTASIZING about it as he works his never ending hours at his darkened, computer-less desk.
Claudia Lemire

Crying wolf again, trying to make a story out of nothing, that's why the Liberal party is not taking seriously!

He was asked a question and answered, (personally I am pro choice and against the death penalty) but he answered very well and most people with BRAINS does think so too!

TimesArrow

Whatever this is, it isn't the official site of the LPC, so you're a little over the top. Personally i think Harper's views as stated are reasonable and probably in line with mine as to why we can't bring back the death penalty – because the justice system makes too many tragic mistakes.

alfanerd

Good point. If you want the official site of the LPC (communication wing), it can be found at http://www.cbc.ca
TimesArrow

Would it be equally as inaccurate for me to say the editorial board of the NP is a echo chamber for the CPC?
LdKitchenersOwn

LOL, I love it when people don't read comments carefully before responding to them!

Claudia: Harper answered that question very well.

TimesArrow: No you Liberal hack, Harper answered that question VERY well!!!

Claudia Lemire

; )

psiclone

HAHAHA! too funny Liberals backtracking everywhere – David McGuinty looking fool today for suggesting that Harper bring it a vote = WHAT? – I mean that is like the fish demanding a hook in the mouth – Harper was asked a question and answered reasonably and with consideration and honesty – then what do you get today BUT the Lib's making themsleves look stupid as well as incompetent – can anyone imagine what would happen if harper took David seriously and called his bluff it would make Iggy duck for cover faster than you can say HAAVAAD !

TimesArrow

Well, people sometimes say foolish things. But you already knew that.

Halo_Override

The evident problem is that he doesn't.

LdKitchenersOwn

I'm not sure I get the whole "calling his bluff" point. If there was a vote on this, wouldn't it fail pretty spectacularly? I'm sure there are MPs, likely from all parties, who would support reintroducing the death penalty, but aren't they pretty well outnumbered?

It seems to me that were such a vote held it would be defeated even if every party held an absolutely open and free vote, but I guess I could be wrong.

Now, demanding that the PM hold a vote on something he doesn't want to hold a vote on anyway may seem a bit strange, if McGuinty was demanding the right to defeat something the government doesn't even want proposed, but I don't see how a vote on capital punishment would be much of a problem for the Liberals. I could be underestimating the support in the House for capital punishment, but I don't think Ignatieff would even need to whip the vote to defeat capitol punishment's re-introduction.

psiclone

Angus Reid : polls suggest nearly two-thirds of Canadians are enthusiastic supporters of the death penalty for the crime of homicide. An Angus Reid poll in 2009 suggested 62% of respondents supported the death penalty for murder, against just 29% who opposed it. Nearly one-third of Canadians would support capital punishment for rape and 17% backed the death penalty for kidnappers.Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/19/jo… – how many of these supporters might live in Liberla ridings in the big cities = think about it !

LdKitchenersOwn

OK, but we're not going to bring back capitol punishment by plebiscite, so it doesn't matter what a poll of Canada says, it matters what a poll of MPs say, and I think most MPs would vote against the re-introduction of capital punishment.

Even with the polls it depends upon how you ask the question. If you ask if people support re-introducing capital punishment more people in polls say no (46%) than say yes (40%), and that gap has been slowly widening.

I think I agree with the Prime Minister's take on this when he said "I don’t see the country wanting to do that". Neither do I.

psiclone

the issue would not be the vote of the MP's but the narrative – think about it – Harper could say Open Vote and not whip his MP's as afer all almost everyone wouldn't be surprised by the CPC supporting capital punishment .. however .. what if big city constituents climbed all over Lieberal MP's backs and they decided to support it – they would be adding to the fuel that they do not support a Law and Order agenda – this is a classic wedge that Harper could drive his party right through and not even have to vote against it himself – total win win for Stevie if you ask me – classic stupid mistake by David McGuinty

Halo_Override

Great. Because being an "enthusiastic supporter of the death penalty" ISN'T THE LEAST BIT CREEPY.

LdKitchenersOwn

Unless there's more to the numbers than reported, there's no reason for them to have used the word "enthusiastic" in that report at all actuually. The Poll indicates the level of support in the poll, but nowhere in the article is any mention made of any measure of the level of poll participants "enthusiasm". The problem, I think, is that the Post writer has misunderstood (or simply misused) the word "enthusiasm".

If a poll finds that 60% of Canadians support X you can't just say that Canadians "enthusiastically" support X. Maybe those 60% are largely indifferent to X, or maybe they're enthusiastically committed to X, but you can't tell from the numbers provided. I think that what the writer has done is assumed that a higher number correlates to greater enthusiasm, but that's not the case. If X has 70% support and Y has 50% support you can't say that X is more enthusiastically supported than Y. Maybe that 50% is absolutely passionate about issue Y, and the 70% who support X just flipped a coin, and could have just as easily said they supported something else.

There could be more to the numbers, but as written it seems to me that the writer is correlating a high degree of support (I simply click Yes, not No), with a high degree of enthusiasm (I click YESSSS!!!! 'Cause I'm TOTALLY PSYCHED ABOUT IT!!!! Give me the thing I just clicked or give me DEATH!!!). There's actually no way to link "support" with the level of the enthusiasm of that support without asking more questions than are indicated in the piece.
Halo_Override

Fine, ruin my fun with logic.

JamesHalifax

Phil King asked:

"How else to explain the fact that, for example, the 3% aboriginal population represents 20% of the jail population?"

Hey Phil…….maybe it's because they are committing more crimes? Did you think of that?

If someone assaulted your wife or broke into your home, would you feel less outrage if they were Cree or Mohawk? Would your first thought be about the offenders background, or about your wife?
Andrew (not PorC)

Harper claims to be Christian, right? One of the central tenets of Christianity is the Ten Commandments. One of those commandments is that you must not kill people. Harper advocates killing people. Ergo, Harper is a hypocrite.

I don't believe there was fine print on those commandments. ('Don't kill people, unless you really don't like them and they sinned.')

truenorth

Eye for an eye……

harebell

Err ……. I believe he said Harper was a xtian.
You need to focus on the NT as opposed to the OT.
Lots of blessed are the meek. turn the other cheek and being wealthy is not cool type of references in the NT. The "age of grace" is emphasised more than the wrathful stuff in Leviticus.
Being Jewish the OT is your thing, Being a xtian should mean you follow the teachings of Jesus.

Lee_JD

It's been a while since I read the Bible but I think it says you're supposed to stone people if they work on thew Sabbath, so I think that whole 'thou shalt not kill' thing is only sort of a general guideline.

LdKitchenersOwn

I think that whole 'thou shalt not kill' thing is only sort of a general guideline

LOL! So, they're more the "Ten Forceful Suggestions" then.

Vatro

I understand its convenient to your argument to say "kill" rather than murder, but it should be pointed out that in Hebrew, as in English there are two distinct words for the ideas with two distinct meanings. The bible happens to use the one that would be translated as murder, but feel free to use them interchangeably despite the fact they are not synonymous.

madeyoulook

The only way to explain this unfortunate fact away without acknowledging the social factors, is to claim that natives are born criminals. Any one want to back THAT claim? I should bloody hope not.

They are not born criminals. They are made. Canada deliberately infantilizes native people, bribing those on reserve to stay in (often) third world conditions while depriving them of any property rights incentive to enjoy the fruits of their labours more fully. Canadians are generally leery of your "20% of the jail population" figure to further cement their prejudice against the First Nations peoples of Canada who are not presently behind bars.

So, your choices are to grow up on a reserve where the living conditions approach worthless. Or move to the city where people treat you as if you're worthless. Ugly choices. I don't want to think about how I might have turned out facing all that.
Andrew (not PorC)

Maybe that's because it's all a steaming pile of BS.

So the official theology is 'kill people if you can think of a good enough justification for doing so'? That's just great. I'm not super comfortable with giving people license to kill other people.

LdKitchenersOwn

Well, but now your making a different argument, not so much that Harper's a hypocrite for not following his religion properly, but that all Christians are hypocrites because their sacred foundational document is all a "steaming pile of B.S.".

I don't think you can claim that Harper is a hypocrite because he's not following the ten commandments closely enough while simultaneously claiming that the ten commandments are just part of big steaming pile of hypocrisy.

Andrew (not PorC)

People get to pick and choose what they like from the Bible. I don't see how we can have capital punishment for murders and not for adulterers and blasphemers. Why do Christians wear mixed fibres and eat shellfish. By doing so, they're admitted that vast swaths of the holy book are BS. Fine. But then don't pick and choose what you like to justify killing people.

LdKitchenersOwn

Fine, but again now you're arguing that CHRISTIANITY is hypocritical, whereas before you were arguing that Harper was a hypocrite for not following his Christian rules closely enough. If the whole religion is just a crap shoot where people get to pick and choose what they like from the Bible, then Harper wasn't being hypocritical by doing so (if he did so).

LdKitchenersOwn

So the official theology is 'kill people if you can think of a good enough justification for doing so'?

I think a believer might re-word that to "kill people if the Bible says you should kill them". It's not as though one just needs to "think up" a justification post facto, one is presumably meant to follow the justifications provided in advance by God, through the Bible.

Pele

Phil, there's no excuse for native crime rates. It's an ethical choice. Time to stop the welfare.

I know too many good, kind and successful people from a difficult native background to fall for that.
Pele

Emily, let me ask, do you support partial birth abortion?

The reason I ask is, you seem so willing to go to fight for the guilty, I wonder if you care the same for the innocent?

evenflow

Laws are produced not only to punish the guilty but to protect the innocent and one should always remember that the rights you take away from the accused or charged you take away from yourself as well.

Healthcare Insider

Karla Homolka, Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olson and others like them are sociopaths. They torturted other human beings and enjoyed it. They have no capacity of empathy. It is understandable why people feel they do not deserve to live. However, I believe life in prison is the right punishment. A civilised society does not take a life. It does astound me that Karla Homolka walks free after only 12 years and she is not an exception in this country.

Orson Bean

. . . although, to be fair, Homolka was an exceptional case in terms of the specific facts of the case. As I recall, she made her plea agreement before they found the tapes (and virtually everyone agrees that the discovery of the tapes made for a much easier conviction of Bernardo). Had the police and Crown already found the tapes, the assumption now is that they wouldn't have been so keen to make a deal with Homolka in order to obtain her testimony.

LdKitchenersOwn

I find it interesting that there is only one developed nation in the entire Western Hemisphere that has capital punishment. The U.S. is also the only developed nation outside of Asia to still have capital punishment (Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are the other developed nations that still allow capital punishment).

This isn't an "argument" against capitol punishment, but if you showed most people a list of the 58 countries that still have capital punishment, next to a list of the 95 countries that have abolished capital punishment, and people didn't know what the two lists were, I'd guess that the VAST majority of Canadians would want us on the later list.

Orson Bean

LKO, in fact that's always been for me one of the reasons I'm not in favour of capital punishment. I've seen that list before, and I find it quite compelling: e.g., do I want to be in a club with Saudi Arabia and Iran, or Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands? To me, it's a no-brainer.

Mike T.

Besides, someday we might want to invade them, and politicians will need all the dehumanizing differences they can get!

Orson Bean

Yes, it will prove an extremely useful propaganda tool when an NDP-led Canadian government declares war on the United States.

Mr Irrelevant

I am actually quite surprised that the vast majority of those opposed to the death penalty are using wrongful convictions as the argument against. It's valid, but kind of implies that the death penalty is "appropriate" for the guilty, if only we had a foolproof method of determining guilt. Not that different from Harper's position, if at all.

LdKitchenersOwn

I think a lot of people opposed to the death penalty wouldn't be opposed to the death penalty if we had a foolproof method of determining guilt. That said, I think it's the most commonly occurring argument because it's the most difficult to refute. If you can't convince someone that the death penalty is wrong because we might end up killing an innocent person, is there another argument that WOULD convince that person?

There may be dozens of arguments against drinking cyanide, but I think "it'll kill you" is the only one most people would actually use to stop someone from doing it. If you can't convince them with that one, you probably can't convince them.
wjm_19

I think they are right. I believe you don't need any other argument, I base my belief on the fact that all life is sacred. The kind of collateral damage that is acceptable to me is zero the only way to insure that is no death penalty, simple.

evenflow

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Harper already reintroduced Capital Punishment on the Canadian People by not standing up for Canadians who face the death penalty in other countries? Is this not a change from the previous stance Canada held?

If so, then Stephen Harper just lied to the Canadian People by saying he wouldn't touch it because he already has.

TimesArrow

He's certainly a hypocrite based on his remarks to Mansbridge. He implied that it is much too divisive here and the country doen't want that. Evidentally this does not apply to foreign regimes. I know his rationale is that countries with democratic justice systems can make their own minds up. But really, is the likelihood of wrongful conviction any less likely in the US then here? Actually this stinks. We will apparently pick and chose who we will stand up for in democracies based on pretty much the arbitrary condition he mentions in this interview – that it's ok in some curcumstances. He gets to do that overseas but backs off here because there's no political upside to it – yet. I don't know about you, but i find this very troubling indeed.
Healthcare Insider

I said in an earlier blog that there are some people – Karla Homolka, Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olson – sociopaths that many people would not lose sleep over if they were to die – I can remember when Jeffrey Dalmer was shived in prison. Can you say you were honestly upset? Okay, well lets discuss Ronald Smith, another sociopath who took two young Montana youths out of their vehicle and shot them both in the back of the head. He then confessed and asked for the death penalty. Then he changed his mind. He is already in the US. He is in Montana; a "hang em high state". There is no question he the crime…he felt no empathy for those boys or their families…perhaps Harper does think the death penalty is appropriate in this case but he certainly has no say anyway.

TimesArrow

"There is no question he the crime…
Probably in this case. But mistakes are still possible, even probable in the future.

…perhaps Harper does think the death penalty is appropriate in this case but he certainly has no say anyway"

He certainly does have a say. He's just chosen not to exercise that option.

Vatro

If you travel to another country you are choosing to subject yourself to their system of laws and more importantly perhaps, their punishments. The Canadian government can choose to advocate for you of course, but it's not obligated to do so. And indeed one would expect them not to interfere with sovereign nations unless those laws subjected the person to loss of rights which official Canada holds to be inviolable.

Orson Bean

I don't really see it being a winner of an issue for anybody. For one thing, although support for capital punishment does poll higher among typical conservative voters (older people, males, etc.), support and opposition for it doesn't neatly divide up along party lines. Lots and lots of Liberal and Dipper voters have "hang 'em high" views on crime and punishment.