Hi StephenBoothoot,

I am not opposed to the death penalty.

I do; however, think that it should only be used in extreme cases.

Clifford Olsen, in my opinion, should have been executed.

I am aware that there are Murder convictions which have been overturned and a death penalty is hard to overturn after it has been carried out.  Which is why I think it should only be reserved for extreme cases.

I'm not desperate for it to be brought back.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I can't see what would be achieved by death penalty in any case. Certainly, I can't see what would be achieved my executing even a mass murderer.

All we would do by bringing back the death penalty is open a fresh path to abuse of that power.

I had the pleasure of knowing a few murderers. Since they never expected to be caught, the threat of the death penalty would mean nothing to them.

I am opposed to capital punishment, period.

Hi graeme,

I don't pretend that it is a deterent.

We have enough penalties on the books as it is and few spend time contemplating all the penalties that can be applied.

Folk either do not believe they will be caught or they are unconcerned about the consequences if they are.

It is a tool.

Abused it becomes a weapon and I would not like to see that.

Grace and peace to you.

John

The death penalty a "tool"?: there's a barbaric bit of cynicism if ever I heard it.  The death penalty dehumanises the society that practises it. It's not about the crime or the criminal, just the state, the spiritual ugliness of the society that supports it and the limits of its members' core morality. It debases those who sentence people to death and those who carry out the sentence. It is a social denial of hope, of compassion and of thought. It expresses anger, not justice. It is, in a word, stupid.

I don't murder people, but if I choose to live in a jurdisdiction that does, that makes me an accesssory, as far as I'm concerned.

Murder is murder, whether state-sanctioned or not.

So, in other words life imprisionment is enough for those who brutally rape and torture children such as those being tried in the Tori Stafford case.  Even when bodies are mutilated, often beyond recognition. 

And the teenager in Toronto who was stabbed almost 40 times and stuffed in a garbage bag in an act of premeditated murder.

The Shafia case - 4 young women drowned.....

Yes, those who perpetrate such heinous crimes obviously have serious issues....but will life imprisonment (20+ years) create a turnaraound in their lives and attitudes.   Is Paul Bernardo a better person today?  Would you want him living in your neighbourhood and around your children?

"The death penalty dehumanises the society that practises it".  Tell me then, how do we stop people from perpetrating the barbaric acts in the cases above and others?

Do we condone murder because the perpetrators have had a "tough" life or are so stoned on drugs they don't know right from wrong?

Hi MikePaterson,

Nothing your garnish of generalization can't spruce up.

That would be true if the death penalty was about who we get to kill.  If it is included as penalty it is included alongside imprisonment (nothing dehumanizing about putting people in cages I'm sure).  There is still the necessity of trial and jurisprudence.  I'm not advocating lynch mobs and vigilantiism.

Obviously I don't agree with you.  If you have studies showing that it does I would be happy to read them.  

It can be those things.  I do not believe that it must automatically be those things.  Should it be common place?  I would hope it wouldn't be.  So far we haven't argued that it should be mandatory we are only discussing whether or not it should be considered as a possibility.

Grace and peace to you.

John

When the Shafia "honour killings" made the headlines, most people said "there is no honour in killing!"

I agree, there is no honour in killing, not even in killing killers.

I am opposed to the death penalty period. Two wrongs don't make a right, as the saying goes. Taking another's life, even a murderer's, is in itself murder, imo. There is always a chance that someone can be rehabilitated.  It's human's own hatred, forgiveness deficit (for lack of a better word) and desire for revenge that prevents us from  allowing that to happen. I am also disgusted by the actions of murderers and would not want to be in the same room with them, even after rehabilitation. My gut reaction is that  I don't trust that it's safe to give them a chance, and my own disgust clouds my thinking...but that perhaps is my own problem. Looking at it objectively though, It doesn't mean they aren't safe to be given a chance, and the professionals working with them would be the best to say. Of course, I don't think they should be allowed where they could be any danger to the public until they are rehabilitated. However,  I wouldn't  want to have coffee with the executioner either. That too is disgusting to me, and murder. Takes a certain kind of person to accept such a career. There's the dangerous criminal who's rcognized what they've done and feels remorse and is working to be rehabilitated into society...and there's the executioner who accepted a  paid career in revenge essentially, who kills people with no remorse like it's another day at the office. They would have to, or else how could they even do a job like that? That's how I see it anyway.

Even for those who believe that there are criminals who deserve to die, having the dealth penalty would create the possibility that, too often, the wrong person would be executed. If more facts surfaced years later proving they were indeed innocent, it's not a case of, "Oops, sorry about that." ...that reason alone is eough to not have the death penalty.

I am wholly with Rev John and Gecko on this one. And I plan on listening to the Current later when I have some peaceful time. 

Actually can I get the Current in type?  My puter does NOT like any cbc player application

Even if  I could be persuaded that a dangerous criminal deserves to die for their crime, which I don't think I can be, I would never support the possibilty of legalizing it because, as has been seen in the US, too many of the wrong people get executed.  Too often, the prisoner gets killed while there are still shadows of doubt emerging in their case, but their court trial has passed and the proper paperwork or whatever  bureaucracy is  required, doesn't get through in time for a retrial. So no, no, no. Absolutely not. We have to consider that, not just the "justice" of revenge (which I don't think is justice myself)!  Plus, we have an abissmal legal aide system here, so those who cannot afford lawyers may not get very good legal representation. No way I would support it..

What about Robert Pickton or Russell Williams? Or the two individuals who kidnapped and killed Tori Stafford, but not before subjecting her to I don't even like to think of what. These are guilty beyond shadow of a doubt, and it is premeditated and hienous.

Note that we are discussing EXTREME cases here.

Yes, what they did was heinous and I had to turn off the news the other night because the Stafford trial made me sick to my stomach. Lock them up and keep them well out of harms way, work on rehabilitating them (yes, even them),  and get counselling for the families affected, including the family of the of the criminal(s) who have to live with what their son/ daughter / husband/ wife/ parent, has done. That would be closer to justice, imo. 

Maybe we can learn something from the Amish:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/terri-roberts-amish-shooting-victims_n_987525.html

What about the big killers - George bush, Obama, Blair, Cameron?

some people are looking for puniishment enough? Then why now torture themk almost to death, heal them, and torutre them again, and heal them....

An if you hang each really terrible killer a thousand times, how does that benefit the victims? How does that prevent more killers - like Bush and Obama and Blair and Cameron that we give honours to?

And if we kill people out of a spirit of revenge, who gets even with us? What's enough for us?

Let's be realistic. the only benefit of the death penalty is that it enables a lot of people to feel self-righteous. I wonder how many of them would even dare to suggest hanginig George bush for his murders of tens of thousands of children - or his father for the same crime in Guatemala?

Look at real killers. those men are real killers. They are unquestinaly guilty under the law. So where's the cry for the death penalty for them?                                                     Of course, their case is different because it's------different.

I am opposed to the death penalty. I agree with others who say it can become an abuse of power. If we believe that life is sacred, then we have to believe all life is sacred, even those who challenge us. I do struggle with the idea of keeping Paul Bernardo alive, and the amount of money that costs us. Never-the-less, it is a small(ish) price to pay in the big picture. Even his life is sacred.

I find it ironic that people who are most vocal about "pro-life", anti abortion issues, are often the most supportive of the death penalty. That is nuts. You cannot call yourself pro-life, and be in favour of the death penalty.

I heard or read a stat somewhere that the death penalty costs us more. Many people are waiting  on death row. They are appealing their sentences more than others, and that costs far more money.

This is not an easy issue. I get that. There are monsters out there who challenge our faith. That being said, I am not suggestng we pity them, or let them off the hook. I am just saying, I do not believe in capital punishment.

Kimmio, that is a beautiful story. Thanks.

I am not for it in any circumstance.

I would rather have one insane person language in prison for 80 years, then risk put someone to death.  

If we kill one person, then .....who is next? What criterias come in.  It is a slippery slope...and prone to huge costs through the business of appeals / kiling.

I can't believe that we are having this discussion.   I had the illusion that I lived in a civilized society and that we had done away with the death penalty long ago.

But then I once believed that I lived in a country that would not sanction torture.

I read it a few months ago, and cried, and it has stuck with me. I cried again when I read it over today. There really are alternatives to vengeance as a form of "justice", and I hope society doesn't become too hardened to realize that..

Kimmio wrote:

"I wouldn't  want to have coffee with the executioner either. That too is disgusting to me, and murder. Takes a certain kind of person to accept such a career. There's the dangerous criminal who's rcognized what they've done and feels remorse and is working to be rehabilitated into society...and there's the executioner who accepted a  paid career in revenge essentially, who kills people with no remorse like it's another day at the office. They would have to, or else how could they even do a job like that? That's how I see it anyway."

I wonder about the defense lawyers who take on cases such as Clifford Olson, Robert Picton, Paul Bernardo....and the present case of defending the perpetrators of the crimes against Tori Stafford.

I wonder how those lawyers sleep at night knowing that they are defending people where the case is so clearly premeditated murder.  The lawyers are well paid - guess the money is enough to appease their conscience.

I know the decision to execute is not yours. And im thankfull we have more compassionate lawmakers in our government.

this is  saddening.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.(Luke 6:37)

⁸ If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”^[a] you are doing right. ⁹ But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. ¹⁰ For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. ¹¹ For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,”^[b] also said, “You shall not murder.”^[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

 ¹² Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, ¹³ because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:8-13)

When it comes to somenoes life, i dont feel anyone has a authority to execute another.

its disgusting.

do you think the death penalty has circumvented murders in USA?

Innocent people get convicted, if such happens to one, is that not enough?

disgusting

in regards to such as Olsen and the death penalty, I prefer to consider Gods capabilities in regards to his own will. Could he not take a mans life in a moment?

Well, they have to do it. Somebody has to do it. They get a fair trial. I wouldn't want to do it, that's for sure. I'm sure not many lawyers would argue their client's innocence unless there was good reason to believe they truly had nothing to do with it,  but might argue for a lesser sentence as just punishment for the guilty..and if I am wrong on that, which now thinking about the mercy sorry, meant to say "honour killing" family, sorry  wrong word the first time I wrote this post...there was nothing merciful about it....the recent case, forgot their names...I seem to remember they maintained that they were innocient throughout the trial. The defense lawyer knew they were going to lose as the case went on I would guess, as the evidence mounted against them on the prosecution side.  In the end, judge and/ or jury decides the verdict and the punishment. We have to have that. Even if they are guilty, their punishment needs to be decided in a fair trial, or else we are no better than a dictatorship. Still, it would be very unpleasant work I think.

Thinking further on this comment I made. Seeler is absolutely right. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. So, lawyers, if they decide to take the case would have to set their personal feelings aside and just interpret the law. It would be difficult to do, but necessary.

of course they should sleep at night knowing they defended people in truth,

i do too consider that there is corruption.

"Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?"(John 7:21)

Hi gecko46,

If the accused are not allowed competent defenders then where would justice be?

Opinions such as yours are why there is a strong reaction to the death penalty.  Without a trial you have already, apparently, determined guilt.  Further, you attack those who would get in between you and the lynching.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi StephenBoothoot,

Hold that thought a moment.

Hypocrite.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Those accused of the crimes against Tori Stafford have not been found guilty yet.  Until then we have to presum innocent.   Until proven guilty they are entitled to a fair trial, which means having a lawyer(s) represent them.  It is the lawyer's duty to represent them to the best of their ability.   Perhaps (maybe unlikely) but perhaps, the person has been falsely accused. It has happened in Canada all too often.  Back in the 1950s when we still had the death penalty, a fourteen year old boy was sentenced to be hanged.  Years later he was released because of lack of evidence.  Apparently his lawyers, probably believing along with the public that he was guilty, failed to do their job in defending him to the best of their ability.  Or maybe they didn't have the ability. 

Our laws are based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that requires lawyers who are willing and able to put personal feelings aside.  (And no, I don't have any lawyers in my family.)

Plus, they need to gather the evidence for or against and go through the process of determining what would be a just punishment. It's not one size fits all.

"Opinions such as yours are why there is a strong reaction to the death penalty.  Without a trial you have already, apparently, determined guilt.  Further, you attack those who would get in between you and the lynching."

Very interesting.....I've made some provocative statements here because I know those opinions are out there.....

.....and I've been judged.

Many years ago I read The Steven Truscott Story and further extensive documentation which seemed to prove his innocence.  He was wrongfully convicted IMHO.

I rest my case.

good questions, gecko46 :3

Many years ago, I was working with children who had been sexually abused. I was supposed to go to court  to support a couple of girls whose abusive father was seeking access and visitation. Their file showed disgusting past abuse. I was talking to their lawyer and asked how a lawyer could defend a man like their father. He reminded me that in this country everyone has the right to ask. It does not mean they will get.  The same applies for having a lawyer defend you. As others havr said, people are innocent until proven guilty. Even Paul Bernardo was entitled to proper representation. I would not want to live in a country that denied anyone that right.  It was Stephen Truscott's situatiom that changed the laws amd removed the death penalty from the books. He was supposed to have been hanged. He did not commit that murder, so it would have been a dreadful wrong if he'd been hanged. 

I also believe that there are degrees of crime....if guilty, then, of which charge? was it premeditated or not, if guilty, then what sentence? what contributing factors were present.

there are few cases which are cut & dried, and I am thankful for the defense attornies for arguing the law on their clients behalf.

everyone deserves a voice

I have met both of Paul Bernardo's lawyers. They defended the murder charge and successful appeal of a member of my congregation. Both are very competent, capable lawyers (Ken Murray and John Rosen) who believed in the principle of proper representation.

Amongst all the names we like to toss about... one hangs in my craw

Jesus.

State sanctioned murder

crime sedition

death by execution

Lessons learned?

IMO    If I do not support it for a friend, I should not support it for my enemy.

Let grace be shown to the wicked, yet he will not learn righteousness... Isa. 26:10

Let me point out the word WICKED here. There are some truly evil people that exist. 

--------

"But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

**

premeditated murder indicated here.

and there's more. All you  have to do is look it up.

John: how deeply can you look into another's heart and declare that person should die for what they have done or what they hey are? WHO would you send to the executioner? Would YOU be willing to BE the exceutioner? How about the collaborators in evil… in my experience, there are always collaborators. So often, situations draw evil out; I am one who believes that the popular culture's romanticisation of guns DOES relate to gun crime; that popular culture's sexualisation of children does turn some minds towards child assault and murder. Every action has its context: contexts are formed collectively and they are not necessarily for the best of all. We live in selfish times in a selfish society — we are careless about the contexts out self advancement creates. 

Create contexts of state violence and capital punishment and you create contexts in which, at the point of cracking, a stressed soldier can start raiding civilian homes and start killing children and adults… he's just punishing the sources of his nightmares.

We are urged to compassion: that means being beside the sufferers. It is sufferers who make others suffer. 

John, to quote YOUR post above: maybe re-read it?:

-----------------

"

-------------

Hi MikePaterson,

How deeply does one have to look into another's heart to declare them guilty of anything Mike?  How deeply does society look into the heart of one convicted of murder or aggravated assault or fraud?

This presumes that I sit around wishing others were dead.  Which is presumption pretty far removed from reality.  Typically, in Canadian courts of law we wait until an individual has been found guilty before we go to the sentencing phase of the trial.

Presuming a guilty verdict has been rendered and presuming that the guilty verdict includes the possibility of a death penalty I would look for a number of factors and weigh those factors accordingly.

Having access to a tool doesn't mean one will always use that tool.

I would not relish the role nor would I actively seek it out.  I don't relish presiding over funerals and I certainly don't push people into dying so that I can preside over them.

Again, if the collaboration is proven in court and the guilty verdict allows for a death sentence it follows that such a sentence be considered.  Whether it is called for would be another matter.

Canada has not had to capital punishment since 1976.  In 1993 we had the Somalia Affair.  I expect that the conditions of the deployment, more so than an active use of captial punishment contributes to pushing soldiers to the breaking point.

Such exacerbating criteria would be weighed in the sentencing phase.

Sometimes sufferes make others suffer.  I do not know that all sufferers cause suffering.  I also don't believe that having suffered myself I now have the right to inflict injury on others or that any injury I inflict must automatically be forgiven if I appeal to a previous injury.

Where have I committed hypocricy here Mike?  

Just because you and I disagree on something it doesn't follow that I am more primitive than you or less enlightened than you.  It is a disagreement.  I understand civilized people have them from time to time.

Grace and peace to you.

John

The question for me about the death penalty is; who do we choose to live or die?

As practiced in the US, the choices appear to be disproportionately the poor, people of colour, the vulnerable who have been shaped by a violent society.

I give the latest choice.  The soldier in Afghanistan who went on a shooting spree.  There are growing demands for his execution.  This was a man whose country took him and trained him to be a killer ... he was lauded for sanctioned killings yet he will now be punished because he killed in a manner not sanctioned.

I predict, neither his government nor his fellow citizens will see the role they played in creating the recipe for disaster. 

And this leads me to answer my own question:  We choose to sanction the killing of individuals who embrace our culture's violent fantasies and make them into a reality.  We choose to kill the outcast failures in our societies.  The ones without enough money to afford the lawyers or whose personal tragedies don't tug at our compassion or relate to our own identities.  

IMHO, we choose these people because they are reminders that monsters are not born they are created and we do not want to be reminded of our creations.

But the inner wounds from his multiple deployments and his family’s deteriorating circumstances had largely escaped notice, until the evening Army officials say he picked up his rifle and walked alone into a sleeping village just outside his base near Kandahar.

     Washington Post, March 2012

  LBmuskoka quote:

"IMHO, we choose these people because they are reminders that monsters are not born they are created and we do not want to be reminded of our creations."

Another case - Viet Nam and the My Lai Massacre.

Questions About Soldiers' Conduct
As the gruesome details of My Lai reached the American public, serious questions arose concerning the conduct of American soldiers in Vietnam. A military commission investigating the massacre found widespread failures of leadership, discipline, and morale among the Army's fighting units. As the war progressed, many "career" soldiers had either been rotated out or retired. Many more had died. In their place were scores of draftees whose fitness for leadership in the field of battle was questionable at best. Military officials blamed inequities in the draft policy for the often slim talent pool from which they were forced to choose leaders. Many maintained that if the educated middle class ("the Harvards," as they were called) had joined in the fight, a man of Lt. William Calley's emotional and intellectual stature would never have been issuing orders.

Orders from Above?
Calley, an unemployed college dropout, had managed to graduate from Officer's Candidate School at Fort Benning, Georgia, in 1967. At his trial, Calley testified that he was ordered by Captain Ernest Medina to kill everyone in the village of My Lai. Still, there was only enough photographic and recorded evidence to convict Calley, alone, of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison, but was released in 1974, following many appeals. After being issued a dishonorable discharge, Calley entered the insurance business.

Oh and here is another ambiguous case to consider in relation to the choices we make about who deserves death and who doesn't ...

The Curious Case of Trayvon Martin

Trayvon had left the house he and his father were visiting to walk to the local 7-Eleven. On his way back, he caught the attention of George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain, who was in a sport-utility vehicle. Zimmerman called the police because the boy looked “real suspicious,” according to a 911 call released late Friday. The operator told Zimmerman that officers were being dispatched and not to pursue the boy.

Zimmerman apparently pursued him anyway, at some point getting out of his car and confronting the boy. Trayvon had a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. Zimmerman had a 9 millimeter handgun.

[...]

Trayvon was buried on March 3. Zimmerman is still free and has not been arrested or charged with a crime.

Trayvon was 17.

How is it self-defense when you are the one in pursuit?

    IBID

Ironically, I'm writing this post from Texas (down here for a conference).

I am against the death penalty and always have been (it was repealed while I was a child). Perhaps if we had a perfect system of justice where there was never a wrongful conviction and where killers were not often the product of systemic injustice, then we could see our way to doing it. If we could ensure that it is not used a tool of public outrage rather than a tool from removing the very rare, truly dangerous from out midst, we could see our way to doing it.

The Guy Paul Morin case alone speaks volumes about whether our system is up to the challenge of fairly, impartially determining guilt as should be a requirement before we start executing people. He was convicted of killing Christine Jessop. He was cleared after DNA evidence finally ruled him out as the killer. The resulting inquiry showed that improper actions taken by the police and prosecution had been a factor in the conviction (which only came after the Crown appealed an earlier acquittal). Executive Summary is here: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/morin/morin_esumm.pdf

Had he been executed, as I'm sure some would have wanted, would he ever have been cleared? Would we have even known that justice failed?

If we can't ensure justice when there is no death penalty, then we must not go down the road of having one until we can.

Mendalla

Who would you have decide on the sentence?   As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer) the jury decides on guilty or non-guilty but not on the sentencing.   Would you put the responsibility of sentencing in the hands of the judge alone, and hope that he or she wouldn't be influenced by their personal feelings or experiences and whether or not they could identify with the accused?   Or would you have laws (I believe they are commonly called 'minimum sentence' laws) that would automatically pass the sentence:   first degree murder = death penalty?  

We live in an economic system that depends on murder. Why on earth do you think we're having so many wars? For over five hundred years, the west has been making itself rich by killing people.

Nor is it all perfectly legal. There are international conventions, laws about when one can legally go to war. Almost all of our wars over the past 60 years have not qualified.

The soldiers we send to war are not scarred simply by the experience of war. Learning to want to kill is an essential part of their trainging. This particularly picked up, with the help of psychologists, after World War Two. Special ops and snipers the heroes of our our time,  are trained to be assassins - and to enjoy it.

It is likely that over a million Iraqis were killed because their dictator was "a bad man". Can that make sense to anybody?

We don't have to look into the heart of a killer? But we do it all the time. We look into the hearts of Bush and Blair and Obama, and   see them pure. So it's okay for them to kill. We look into hearts of oil corporation CEOs, and note that they are simply assuring oil supplies. God bless them.

We look into the hearts of frauds like our bankers - and give them more money.Punishment is for the poor, the insane. The US, which imprisons and/or kills more people than any other country in the world, has not become notably law-abiding as a result.

So why don't we imprison a few bankers, gas a few oil execs -and if it works on them, we can go back to doing it to the poor and the unbalanced?

If you're going to advocate the death penalty, then advocate it for the rich and the privileged as well as for the rest of us.

If our elected government passes a law that it is all right to kill - does that make it all right?  If it passes a law that it is all right to bomb a country, does that maie it all right?

By all means, give unto ceasar what is caesar's. But first make sure exactly what is and what is not caesar's.

hmm, didnt seeming 'graceful and peaceful ' to me, but if i feel that way and express the concern and reflected on scripture, that may make me a hypocrite in your books, i wonder what you think of Jesus and the Apostles.

I dont think because we disagree and have a issue that defines us.

When one considers what forgiveness is for others , much understanding will come for theitr own heart.

i maintain, im happy you are not in the govt as a lawmakers.

i think you are geratkly skilled in speaking and could have been a exceptional lawyer, its some of your values i dont agree with, but thats okay.

[insert your repsonse to mike paterson here]

i wont label you as a hypocrite. I wonder by which standards you would say that.

do you apply those same standards to anyone who speaks out on issues, shares concerns, and srtive to find room for improvement in hope and love.

maybe you dont see room for imporvement in life?

forgiveness is a virtue.

so is mercy.

if one is sentance for to death, where is there any mercy left?

i understand yoru strict conditions, as they are today. what woul dhappen when we got comfoprtable with those, would extreme cases then be including if the person killed was a police officer or a politician then it is more reasonable for a death [penalty, then what?, if the death occured in relation to a felony robbery?, then what after 3 strikes?

im not saying thiat woud be you way, whaty im suggesting is such may soon to follow.

with Love

Steve

I have had a family member murdered (my father when I was young) Wanting revenge, though normal emotion, would acccomplish what exactly?

Protect others? They can be protected with incarceration.

What does state sanctioned murder accomplish? It is simply a life for a life. It is archaic. It is vengeance and nothing more. It isatisfies that feeling that someone is so vile they "deserve" to die. Yippee Ki-yay!!

So, whatever my father's children felt, whatever my mother felt... whatever my grandparents felt... iwould be inflicted on another family?

These "worthless" human beings belong to someone. What did their families do to have this inflicted on them?

For me, the "unlovables" are not only are loved by friends and family, they also belong to God.

I feel so strongly, I have protested the death penalty my entire adult life. I have also sat in a room watching an execution carried out.

Part of my protest is that it is just sickening in its simplistic stupidity.

Part is that as a tool, it is a poor one. It does not deter others. "At 12:01" becomes just another thing like "IED"...

The largest part, is that of disproportionate use of the "tool". It is used on the poor. Those who afford good lawyers get better defense, period. The most heinous criminals make deals to recover bodies or finger accomplices that involve taking it off the table. The application is racist, period.  Black on black crimes do not generally warrant the death penalty nearly as much in the US, but if a black kills a white they do.

One can look how many people with mental illness are executed in the US.

One can look at how many with low IQ's are...

The tools are used on the most vulnerable. Smarter, richer, whiter... defendants avoid the death penalty.

Do we assume Canada would use "the tool" better?

Tools are great.

In the hands of those who will abuse, they are weapons.

In the hands of the incompetent, they are also dangerous.

If I want to build a shed I need a hammer and nails and a saw, etc. I do not need a sawmill though I may want one, feel I deserve to have one, feel I should have one.... maybe just in the arsenal, just in case....

We have the tools of prisons and mental facilities and we are building more prisons and getting tougher on crime. Adding capital punishment as "a tool" to deter crime (which it does not), weed out folks from society(who are not part of society if they are incarcerated) or eliminate overcrowding(cause the dead take up less space)  is a "tool" of the assinine.

 
With a criminal justice system stacked disproportionately already, (look into Canadaian sentence demographics and prison demographics) giving that criminal justice sytem another "tool" is like handing a prefectly good rope, "nuttin' wrong with a rope as a tool", to a lynch mob.

No thank you.

the Christianity i know, gives me the flexibility to even change my mind, and encourages me to seek reconciliation.

to forgive, reconcile, embrace all.

----------------------------------------------
because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!(James 2:13)

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.(Matthew 7:2)

Got here late so there's a few things I'd like to comment on:

If the death penalty is a slippery slope, and we used to have it, shouldn't we already be executing for petty offences? 

Or does the "slippery slope" argument just not hold water?

Grame, please stop derailing the thread.  Bush, Obama, Blair, etc have not been convicted of murder in Canada.  I realize that you are opposed to capital punishment, but clouding the debate makes debate impossible, and that helps noone.

Lawyers:  I've known a couple criminal lawyers, and they generally beleive in the system.  That is what lets them defend someone they think is guilty.  It is not a money thing; it's about the integrity of the system.

Describing capital punishment as "state santioned murder" is incorrect.  Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a human life.  It is a legal term with a very defined meaning.

Mike P: "Would YOU be willing to BE the exceutioner?" is absolutely irrelevant.  I am not willing to be a prison guard either.  Should we abolish prisons?

Personally, I am of two minds on this subject.  On the one hand keeping Clifford Olson alive is of no use to anyone.  On the other hand, Steven Truscott, and David Milgard.  I have no problem with murderers being executed, I just don't have complete faith in our ability to convict the right person 100% of the time.   

Hi seeler,

I would trust that decision to a judge or even a panel of judges if one is concerned about one person having too much power.

If I can trust a judge to determine life without parole is a just sentence what grounds do I have to say the judge cannot be trusted with a death sentence?

I believe minimums are already set for all infractions.  I would never advocate for the death penalty to be used as a minimum.  It is by its nature a maximum sentence.

Grace and peace to you.

John