When you decide to visit another country - you are bound by the laws of that country while you are in - if you can not abide by their laws - then do not visit their country.
I expect people who visit Canada to abide by our laws, if they do not - they will face the full penalty of Canadian law - true, we do not have the death penalty - we can only make that particular law for our own country - we do not rule the world. Frankly I do not think you should commit murder in any country!
STEVEN m WOODS did NOT take 2 cousins into the woods and shoot them. He took on eman out of the car and shot him at POINT BLANK range, then stabbed(NOT CUT) his 'friends' throat. Guess my sister was the lucky one- she was shot in the knee (so she couldnt run) had her throat slit, and was shot in the head. I can not even begin to imagine the fear in her as she crawled away...
1) If you go to a foreign country, you are subject to their laws and punishments. Being Canadian doesn't give you a right to come to my country, murder someone, and get saved by the Canadian government.
2) What's your position on abortion? I'm just dying to know.
So you're saying Canadians have a right to life, but Harvey Mad Man and Thomas Running Rabbit did not? All they did was offer him a ride on the highway.
No, I'm sure you're not saying that. This guy is bye bye. He doesn't get my sympathy nor my money.
When you go abroad: follow the rules of that country. You may not agree with it, but it is NOT your country.
Think of all the taxes we're paying just to entertain the thought that this guy should be sent back to Canada.
Think even more about the cost of hiving this story on a national broadcaster.
Read the Wikipedia article on him. The guy is a scumbag!
I think Canadians should think twice about murdering citizens abroad and expecting that our hard-earned money is going to help pay to get them off the hook.
I heard he marched two cousins into the woods and shot them in the head.
I don't support the death penalty, either, but actually, we in fact have it. Yes we do!
What happened to that guy in front of Union Station who held a gun to a woman's head. They took him out. That's the death penalty. God bless our wonderful police because if they had waited for Joe Legal to step in, a woman would have died.
This guy you're talking about took the lives of two innocent people. I say hang 'im.
I'm could never say the death penalty has never been shown to deter murder, moonbear 1006.
Murderers who have been incarcerated have often murdered again. How many who have received the death penalty have murdered a second time? The answer to that proves that the death penalty is indeed a deterrent.
Exactly! "If this Canadian government does not protect citizens' lives, what good is it for?
Bring back capital punishment! If a murderer knows the laws kills anyway it's HE who has chosen his death -- not the public. Obviously incarceration doesn't work because more people are murdered every day. The only way to deal with this effectively is to remove the cancerous murderers cancers from society before they become malignant.
The death penalty has NEVER been shown to deter murder. In fact, murder rates have actually decreased following abolition in many countries & states (including Canada), it does not protect ppl from murder, that is a myth & there are statisticss to prove it. What it can do though, is kill innocent ppl, without the means to proper legal defence. See vid "the wrong man on death row", a perfect illustration of what would happen if you didn't have the money for defence in the US.
I hope Stephen Harper and the Conservatives annihilate the Liberals this election and every successive one. Down with the Liberals and their mix of fscism and communism!
I would like to respond to the young Liberal lad in the video.If you oppose the death penalty, would you say that a woman has no right to kill her attacker to prevent herself from being raped? Every Liberal who wishes to protect murderers and rapests are just as bad as the criminals themselves. You leftwing cockroaches are the problem with Canada. You have hijacked Canada's government and imposed your agneda when still a majority of Canadians support the death penalty.
ALL Motherfuckers against DP,I hope your mothers daughters,Just some1 close to u gets decapitated and feeded to pigs and c what it feels like to experience this bullshit while the motherfucker goes to jail while u pay him to live luxuriosly!!In my community,u kill u die!!we cut their hands feet off and we dump them in the desert and believe me i sleep outside during summer and no asshole touches me coz they know what they ll get!!!
As far as the death penalty is concerned, the Canadian people had no say in the matter. Like many other important things that define our society, this issue was decided by unelected liberal judges and trained seal MPs voting with their parties.
Would you favour a referendum on capital punishment to let the people decide? How about one on gay marriage? Abortion?
Wow thanks just for copying a previous comment you left.
Let me repeat. We don't have the death penalty in Canada. That means no matter what, Canadians don't get executed. That law against the death penalty is automatic.
And just as that is, so should clemency.
You can be as sensationalist as you want, but no where did I even suggest native lives are less then those of white people.
Correct. There is no death penalty in Canada. That means that you can't get the death penalty only in Canada. Laws passed by the Canadian government only apply in - pay attention here - Canada. Why would you think that applies in other sovereign countries? What the hell do they teach you kids in school? Take a civics course.
Your post may not have been "sensationalist", but it was very incomplete and misleading. You didn't say what Ronald Smith did or name his victims. Clearly you are more concerned with the interests of a murderer then the interests of his victims and their families (who said wanted Smith to get the dp). I'm glad to see the Canadian government does not feel the same way.
I strongly support the dp. You can not fight crime otherwise. it costs too much to keep these people in prison and 15 % of them are retarded and 50 % feeble.
It actually costs more to execute someone due to trails and appeals then it would to keep them in jail. FYI Canada and many other countries have a lower crime rate then those countries with the death penalty, not to mention less crowded prisons.
The reason the prisons are less crowded is because a liberal judicial system is leaving the criminals on the street. If murderers get life with parole, lesser crimes get less as well. Early release and parole are more common. Naturally the jails aren't crowded - dumb-ass liberals have left more criminals on the street.
I've heard the crime numbers argument before. Same old story - figures don't lie but liars can figure. Especially the liars wanting to justifying something sketchy.
Well Mill was wrong on a a lot of things, as so was einstein, da vinci, Aristotle, etc. That's how knowledge works, we build on the mistakes of those that come before us.
My opinion is that abortion within the first trimester is solidly moral. Abortion in the third trimester is solidly immoral. As for the second trimester, I admit more thought has to be given.
No he isn't, and I never said he did, how about watching the videos before you comment? Harper only polled Canadians on whether they should bring back the death penalty, and then reversed a government held policy for over 30 years that demanded Canadians not be executed by others. What I said is that Harper and the Conservatives are immoral in allowing Canadians to be executed, in giving other governments the freedom to kill Canadians when Canadians don't even trust their own government to do so
Let us not forget child molestors. Do you think an adult who ass-rapes a child is worthy of our protection? If there is anything more taboo these days, it's child-molestation.
You do know that arguements will just keep going on and on and on unless, emotion is removed from the human? better that killing humans, and life still exists and you have a perfect civilisation because nobody has the pathetic emotion too keep them back form building, building a civilisation, realisticly, for the bigger picture, aliens? Earth should be one, big motherfucken country, if we see aliens, then we have war not on our own people thats crazy????
Don't go and break another countries' laws and you won't have to worry. Anyway it is time change. Violent recidivisim is getting out of hand and it is time to vote for change. VOTE CONSERVATIVE.
So no matter how injust another country's laws are, the Canadian government shouldn't do anything if Canadians are involved? That's the type of thinking that allowed Adolf to prosper.
Also in regards to serial killers, convicted, admitted, beyond any reasonable doubt. would it than be logical to keep these monsters locked for life. example Karla Homolka. convicted admitted serial killer who now walks our streets under a new identity free to kill again.
Yes it would be logical because then they wouldn't go out and commit any other crimes. Your example conflicts with your question, as by your own statement Karla is not locked up for life.
I have a question for the author of the video, would you not agree with the death penalty in certain circumstances, for example if a person was found in the act of committing a first degree murder admitted to the murder, and hereby there would be no appeals neccessary would it still than be more expensive for and execution or life in prison.
No, for various reasons. The first is, killing another person because they killed is not justice, it does not correct any wrong, therefore it makes a new one. Whether he admits it or not, it doesn't matter, as there have been cases where people who have done no crime admit to it anyways because they want to die.
Yuour absolutely correct and i do not disagree with you, the death penalty is no justice. But neither is locking them up for life, the only point im trying to make is this; i work everyday 40 hours a week, i live by the law i pay my taxes and i have basic health, dental and life insurance. I dont feel it is my responsibility to house, feed and cover medical and dental expenses of the person who chooses a life of crime.
Locking a person up for the rest of their life is justice. A Murderer is punished and no vengence was done on behalf of the state, allows that individual to think of what they did for who knows how long. Locking them up allows for real morality to incur. Where Morality is ultimately based on reason, through reflection immoral acts will be punished.
You can't really punish someone morally, if they don't acknowledge it. And killing people doesn't acknowledge anything but the state is just as bad as the killer.
"Wooo hooo!" Let's spend even more money having them in appeals for 10 years, spending more money then it would if we kept them in jail for life, and be murderers ourselves with the Death Penalty!
I do not agree with the dealth penalty nore condone it, but the facts are if people go to another country and commit a crime in which they know would likely result in the death penalty why should it be our governments responsibility to fight for their rights. We have no right to interfere with the politics or the laws of other countries, be it right or wrong. Too many of us are expected to care for and fight for people who were given a chance at freedom and failed.
For the last 40 years Canada had done the very thing you are suggesting shouldn't be done. The reason why we did, is because every country, regardless of it being Canada, when it sees some human atrocity it acts. By your argument we should have let Hitler kill all the jews in germany.
To compare hilter and his crimes towards the jews is pushing it a little far. I understand your point, and am always open to other peoples opinion. But i still believe that no matter what our personal convictions, the law is the law. The same as it is for any law it varies within municipality, provinical and federal. Not all laws are the same everywhere you go, even within canada and nor should they be.
You claim you understand my point but continue to ignore it. You think laws should be different everywhere, on that reasoning, you would literally, and no exageration be okay with governments or other people on other countries getting away with horrible atrocities. You need to reconcile this with your ideology.
Murder victims have a right to life too. If a Canadian commits a capital crime in the U.S., they are eligible to the ultimate punishment. As for the DNA theory, it is not as definate as one might think. Simply because there is no match does not prove innocence. Read up on Darryl Grayson from Alabama.
So murder victims are useless statistics because they are dead? Just because the killer is still alive means that we should feed and shelter them? That is some bad logic.
I never said they were useless statistics, please provide the quote of me saying murder victims were useless statistics.
Yes we should feed and shelter the killer because we're not killers. We're not savages who can't control our blood lust.....well at least Canada and I'm not....you on the other hand...
Once someone murders or rapes, they offically resign their own right to live and must face the consequences. I don't see what is so bloody about injecting someone with drugs and putting them to sleep. BTW, appeals for LWOP sentences also cost millions of dollars.
See your argument isn't very good. Everyone has rights, and sometimes those rights get overridden, but in any situation, it wasn't a public policy to do so. Yet with governments killing, you have just that. And therefore your point is invalid.
BTW, I've found evidence, unbiased evidence to show in enforcing the death penalty the costs exceed that of life in prison, if you claim differently, please evidence in support of it.
Lethal injection is about $80, firing squad is about $10 for bullets, hanging is about $30 for rope. Execution is cheap and effective, but it's the appeals that raise the cost, most of which are classic delaying tactics to preserve a killer. If the appeals system was restricted, numerous taxpayers dollars would be saved.
Okay, if murders have no rights, then any government that executes has no rights. But you'll say a government doesn't murder, it executes, well what's the difference? You'll say it's justice, and I'll point out, it is not justice because nothing gets corrected, its just blood lust.
Blood lust, revenge, ect. You are a typical abolitionist that cannot accept that some killers just need to die for their crimes. Nothing gets corrected? An executed murderered is no longer a burden.
Okay then the government then would deserve to be juiced as soon as it murdered a criminal. Then you'll need to differentiate murder from execution. Then you'll need to differentiate why the state can kill but not citizens, even in those examples of citizens killing for justice. All of which I predict you coming up empty.
The Death Penalty is immoral because it kills people, it doesn't punish them. Punishing is an attempt to rectify an action. The Death Penalty does not rectify the person who is executed, it kills them. The Death Penalty does not attempt to rectify society, because there is no deterrance. The death penalty is immoral because it is pointless.
The Death Penalty needlessly takes life. There is no reason to kill a murderer. What is killing him or her going to accomplish? It won't deter anybody more then jail does. It costs more. It only quenches the blood lust of those who pulled the switch.
So you think you can compare a situation where a cop's life is in imminate danger, and a government that has a criminal within it's custody and no danger is present? Again, horrible argument.
Actually it is the same argument. Think of the death penalty as the ultimate law enforcement. The only sure way to make sure a murderer will never murder again is to execute them, not preserve them so they can kill another inmate or a prison guard.
By your argument, the only way to be sure any criminal will not do a crime is to kill them. And criminals who are in jail for life kill just as often as regular prisoners do, so your argument of killing them is groundless.
Alive killers in jail are less of a burden then those we kill. It costs more to execute someone, with all the appeals, lawyer fees, etc. then it does to keep them locked up for life.
If our justice system workeed properly, there would be a restriction on the appeals system and we would be juicing alot quicker. A few appeals should take 5 years then it is time to send them to God's court.
So limiting the appeals is your answer? Having a time limit is your answer? No matter how much validity an appeal has, 5 years and he's dead no matter what? That is what your argument implies, and no rational person would hold such conclusions.
There are many reasons why lives are taken; war, self-defense, and law enforcement. Your adamant statement forgets these exceptions, so you should record this video over again.
I said a government should never take it's citizen's lives. Explain how a government can take it's own citizen's lives in self-defense? In War a government doesn't kill it's own citizens, the enemy does. And law enforcement takes lives only when the officers lives are in imminent threat. Thus executions are not even similar.
I can only agree that mistakes happen and we have to make sure that the right person gets the punishment. Only with 100% certainty can we execute a criminal. As far as I know, DNA can provide absolutely accurate proof.
Yes but DNA isn't found in the majority of the murder cases. Killing anybody, anytime is wrong. For you to be morally justified you have to say killing in some cases is okay (ie punishment). Okay mentally disabled people who kill, people who kill by accident, people who are abused all their lives and kill in uncontrollable spurts, we should kill them.
To kill someone because they killed, you are saying what they did was wrong, but when you do it, it's not wrong because you're doing it to punish that person. So immoral things are allowed because you deem it so? You're above morals?
"To kill someone because they killed, you are saying what they did was wrong, but when you do it, it's not wrong because you're doing it to punish that person."
If Robert Pickton is convicted, he will never set foot outside a prison again. Should taxpayers continue footing the bill for years for such monsters?
Easy, to kill someone, you really have to be sure. ie more trials. Youtube won't let me type links, so you'll find them in the description of the video.
You are missing the point even more by thinking that Canadian laws reflect the will of the majority of Canadians. Don't use word "therefore", because the relationship between Canadian laws and public opinion is not direct.
I would argue most of the time there is a direct relationship, and a majority of Canadians are against the Death Penalty. The Conservative government over the summer found only 1 of 5 Canadians are for the Death Penalty.
That's a lie. The Conservatives polled Canadians over the summer found only 1 in 5 Canadians were for Death Penalty. google search Toronto Star Death Penalty
Yes it is true in Canada. The Conservative government who like the Death Penalty, did a poll themselves and they found a large majority of Canadians are against it.
I don't care for how long Canadian government has been telling anything to U.S. or for how long it didn't execute anybody, that's irrelevant. Moreover, executing convicted murderers in not morally wrong. Further still, whether I'm for or against Canadian law is also irrelevant, you have no point here.
What do you not remember what you say? You said, "you think if you're Canadian you can go to foreign countries and commit crime and be judged by Canadian laws?" And I responded that for 40 years, Liberal AND Conservative Governments have. So You were wrong.
Don't you get the point? The time for how long Canadian government had this or that policy is not important. The policy is wrong and I explained why. If it was in place, doesn't mean it was a legitimate policy. Check your passport, it's written that if you commit crimes in other countries you will be judged according to their laws. Don't think you're so special because you live in Canada and that Canada has a right to interfere in other country's legal system.
Every country interferes with every other country's legal system. America does it with us, we've done it with them; England has done it with Germany, the US, you name it! Countries have gone to war because of other countries imprisioning their citizens! Don't say countries don't interfere.
Lol, you think if you're Canadian you can go to foreign countries and commit crime and be judged by Canadian laws? This is ridiculous. U.S. are not in Canadian jurisdiction so Canada can't tell the U.S. how to enforce their laws and administer punishment.
And stop saying Canadian government does not protect Canadians bla bla bla...Canadian government does not protect MURDERERS. A person who intentionally takes somebody's life away should be stripped of his own.
Here's an interesting fact to prove you horribly wrong. For the last 40 years the Canadian government had been telling the US and other countries what that they cannot execute Canadians.
Also to prove you even more contrary then you already are. If you equate not executing murderers as "protecting" them, well again for the last 40 years Canada has not executed any murderer.
By your very admission you think a government, built on bureaucracy, should be able to execute it's citizens, where it's been proven to make mistakes. Now beyond it being morally wrong, you are against Canadian law, and therefore the will of the majority of Canadians.
Totally depends on the crime, but thats a domestic issue and my personal opinion. As far as defending our citizens abroad, it should go without question that we do not allow execution. If this guy was in some village about to be beheaded Canada would never condone it, Harper is a suck to the USA- without even liking them much!
It's odd how simple-mindedness is the favourite accusation of those who consult nothing but their own convictions. It is a fact that the murder rate is higher in those areas that have the death penalty. Why? We can only speculate, but the probable cause is that where capital punishment is sanctioned, the idea of murder becomes less repellent to personal moral convictions. The deterrent factor does not work because first-degree murderers never believe they will get caught.
At any rate, the more important point is that one either believes that taking the life of another person is wrong or one doesn't. If one doesn't, well one has the same moral status as a murderer. If one doesn't, neither ganging up to commit the act through one's government, nor conniving at it taking place in another country, as the Harper government is doing, does anything to mitigate the moral wrongfulness.
"Canada doesn't have the death penalty...why is it okay to allow other countries to kill our citizens when we make it illegal?"
Because no two countries have the same legal structure. No country can impose any stricter, or more lenient, sentences on those who commit crimes in foreign countries.
An arrested suspect is free to contact the appropriate embassy. After that, the local judicial system must take precedence.
Fischer, for the last 40 years, Canada did exactly what you're denying. Canada stood up for Canadians abroad who we're facing the death penalty, and commuted their sentences.
This Government will not protect Canadians abroad.Stockwell Day said this is the only change to our Foreign Policy.Does this mean we will continue to provide safe hacen to other nationalities in Canada facing the Death penalty in their respective Countries? Was this new policy written up on a napkin , or is the PMO testing the water with another sorted little lie? What government would put the rights of Foreign Citizens above the rights of its own? Answer: Steven Harper's
As of this week, 63% of Canadians are in favor of the death penalty.
If you are concerned genuinely for right to life, fight for the unborn!
nightowl8936 3 weeks ago
When you decide to visit another country - you are bound by the laws of that country while you are in - if you can not abide by their laws - then do not visit their country.
I expect people who visit Canada to abide by our laws, if they do not - they will face the full penalty of Canadian law - true, we do not have the death penalty - we can only make that particular law for our own country - we do not rule the world. Frankly I do not think you should commit murder in any country!
TheAltaRose 6 months ago
STEVEN m WOODS did NOT take 2 cousins into the woods and shoot them. He took on eman out of the car and shot him at POINT BLANK range, then stabbed(NOT CUT) his 'friends' throat. Guess my sister was the lucky one- she was shot in the knee (so she couldnt run) had her throat slit, and was shot in the head. I can not even begin to imagine the fear in her as she crawled away...
rsswinney 9 months ago
ALWAYS? Do some homework!
PhilipJFry72 1 year ago
I was hoping this was a video about Stephen Harper getting the death penaly. I guess we can only dream.
HugeJasFilms 2 years ago
1) If you go to a foreign country, you are subject to their laws and punishments. Being Canadian doesn't give you a right to come to my country, murder someone, and get saved by the Canadian government.
2) What's your position on abortion? I'm just dying to know.
NichtOliver 2 years ago
Comment removed
nero87 2 years ago
So you're saying Canadians have a right to life, but Harvey Mad Man and Thomas Running Rabbit did not? All they did was offer him a ride on the highway.
No, I'm sure you're not saying that. This guy is bye bye. He doesn't get my sympathy nor my money.
When you go abroad: follow the rules of that country. You may not agree with it, but it is NOT your country.
ALFIEAJAPAN 2 years ago
Think of all the taxes we're paying just to entertain the thought that this guy should be sent back to Canada.
Think even more about the cost of hiving this story on a national broadcaster.
Read the Wikipedia article on him. The guy is a scumbag!
I think Canadians should think twice about murdering citizens abroad and expecting that our hard-earned money is going to help pay to get them off the hook.
Fry.
ALFIEAJAPAN 2 years ago
I heard he marched two cousins into the woods and shot them in the head.
I don't support the death penalty, either, but actually, we in fact have it. Yes we do!
What happened to that guy in front of Union Station who held a gun to a woman's head. They took him out. That's the death penalty. God bless our wonderful police because if they had waited for Joe Legal to step in, a woman would have died.
This guy you're talking about took the lives of two innocent people. I say hang 'im.
ALFIEAJAPAN 2 years ago
I'm could never say the death penalty has never been shown to deter murder, moonbear 1006.
Murderers who have been incarcerated have often murdered again. How many who have received the death penalty have murdered a second time? The answer to that proves that the death penalty is indeed a deterrent.
tracy10UT 3 years ago
Exactly! "If this Canadian government does not protect citizens' lives, what good is it for?
Bring back capital punishment! If a murderer knows the laws kills anyway it's HE who has chosen his death -- not the public. Obviously incarceration doesn't work because more people are murdered every day. The only way to deal with this effectively is to remove the cancerous murderers cancers from society before they become malignant.
tracy10UT 3 years ago
The death penalty has NEVER been shown to deter murder. In fact, murder rates have actually decreased following abolition in many countries & states (including Canada), it does not protect ppl from murder, that is a myth & there are statisticss to prove it. What it can do though, is kill innocent ppl, without the means to proper legal defence. See vid "the wrong man on death row", a perfect illustration of what would happen if you didn't have the money for defence in the US.
moonbear1006 3 years ago
I hope Stephen Harper and the Conservatives annihilate the Liberals this election and every successive one. Down with the Liberals and their mix of fscism and communism!
oldsmobileman8 3 years ago
I would like to respond to the young Liberal lad in the video.If you oppose the death penalty, would you say that a woman has no right to kill her attacker to prevent herself from being raped? Every Liberal who wishes to protect murderers and rapests are just as bad as the criminals themselves. You leftwing cockroaches are the problem with Canada. You have hijacked Canada's government and imposed your agneda when still a majority of Canadians support the death penalty.
oldsmobileman8 3 years ago
ALL Motherfuckers against DP,I hope your mothers daughters,Just some1 close to u gets decapitated and feeded to pigs and c what it feels like to experience this bullshit while the motherfucker goes to jail while u pay him to live luxuriosly!!In my community,u kill u die!!we cut their hands feet off and we dump them in the desert and believe me i sleep outside during summer and no asshole touches me coz they know what they ll get!!!
sshapewa 3 years ago
Shut up you motherfucker an eye for an eye. if you cut of someones head on a bus you should execute the psycho. before he kills some one else
yx85kid 3 years ago
stop defending kriminals you motherfucker
the dp is the most apropriat respons to various type of extreme kriminality
denonbladedododo 3 years ago
As far as the death penalty is concerned, the Canadian people had no say in the matter. Like many other important things that define our society, this issue was decided by unelected liberal judges and trained seal MPs voting with their parties.
Would you favour a referendum on capital punishment to let the people decide? How about one on gay marriage? Abortion?
RicPhlare 3 years ago
What the Conservatives said is that clemency will no longer be automatic.
If you kill two natives because you're bored, then Canada won't be fighting to keep you alive.
Or are the lives of two natives not worth the same amount of justice as two white people?
PhilipJFry72 3 years ago
Wow thanks just for copying a previous comment you left.
Let me repeat. We don't have the death penalty in Canada. That means no matter what, Canadians don't get executed. That law against the death penalty is automatic.
And just as that is, so should clemency.
You can be as sensationalist as you want, but no where did I even suggest native lives are less then those of white people.
scottyross00 3 years ago
Correct. There is no death penalty in Canada. That means that you can't get the death penalty only in Canada. Laws passed by the Canadian government only apply in - pay attention here - Canada. Why would you think that applies in other sovereign countries? What the hell do they teach you kids in school? Take a civics course.
RicPhlare 3 years ago
@scottyross00
Your post may not have been "sensationalist", but it was very incomplete and misleading. You didn't say what Ronald Smith did or name his victims. Clearly you are more concerned with the interests of a murderer then the interests of his victims and their families (who said wanted Smith to get the dp). I'm glad to see the Canadian government does not feel the same way.
TheStapleGunKid 1 year ago
I strongly support the dp. You can not fight crime otherwise. it costs too much to keep these people in prison and 15 % of them are retarded and 50 % feeble.
denonbladedododo 3 years ago
It actually costs more to execute someone due to trails and appeals then it would to keep them in jail. FYI Canada and many other countries have a lower crime rate then those countries with the death penalty, not to mention less crowded prisons.
scottyross00 3 years ago
The reason the prisons are less crowded is because a liberal judicial system is leaving the criminals on the street. If murderers get life with parole, lesser crimes get less as well. Early release and parole are more common. Naturally the jails aren't crowded - dumb-ass liberals have left more criminals on the street.
I've heard the crime numbers argument before. Same old story - figures don't lie but liars can figure. Especially the liars wanting to justifying something sketchy.
RicPhlare 3 years ago
Just make officers get heavey duty rapid fire rifles like in the states. The fear is bigger and no more crimes.
agenttech 3 years ago
Mill disagreed with you
Tinna9Truliani 4 years ago
Well Mill was wrong on a a lot of things, as so was einstein, da vinci, Aristotle, etc. That's how knowledge works, we build on the mistakes of those that come before us.
scottyross00 4 years ago
ok...short question, if everybody has the right to live, then, what's your opinion on abortion? ( I'm pro-choiche btw)
thefool1234 4 years ago
My opinion is that abortion within the first trimester is solidly moral. Abortion in the third trimester is solidly immoral. As for the second trimester, I admit more thought has to be given.
scottyross00 4 years ago
...he isn't brining back the dealth penalty
one199 4 years ago
No he isn't, and I never said he did, how about watching the videos before you comment? Harper only polled Canadians on whether they should bring back the death penalty, and then reversed a government held policy for over 30 years that demanded Canadians not be executed by others. What I said is that Harper and the Conservatives are immoral in allowing Canadians to be executed, in giving other governments the freedom to kill Canadians when Canadians don't even trust their own government to do so
scottyross00 4 years ago
Let us not forget child molestors. Do you think an adult who ass-rapes a child is worthy of our protection? If there is anything more taboo these days, it's child-molestation.
ma7799 4 years ago
I agree it's very taboo and wrong. But killing that person won't do anything, but satisfy blood lust. It's not justice.
scottyross00 4 years ago
You do know that arguements will just keep going on and on and on unless, emotion is removed from the human? better that killing humans, and life still exists and you have a perfect civilisation because nobody has the pathetic emotion too keep them back form building, building a civilisation, realisticly, for the bigger picture, aliens? Earth should be one, big motherfucken country, if we see aliens, then we have war not on our own people thats crazy????
Jarda44 4 years ago
Don't go and break another countries' laws and you won't have to worry. Anyway it is time change. Violent recidivisim is getting out of hand and it is time to vote for change. VOTE CONSERVATIVE.
Sparkyman1000 4 years ago
So no matter how injust another country's laws are, the Canadian government shouldn't do anything if Canadians are involved? That's the type of thinking that allowed Adolf to prosper.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Thanks for this video!
Just remember the David Milgaard case for anybody who thinks the death penalty is a good idea.
TimmyEatsWorld 4 years ago
Also in regards to serial killers, convicted, admitted, beyond any reasonable doubt. would it than be logical to keep these monsters locked for life. example Karla Homolka. convicted admitted serial killer who now walks our streets under a new identity free to kill again.
yaboydw 4 years ago
Yes it would be logical because then they wouldn't go out and commit any other crimes. Your example conflicts with your question, as by your own statement Karla is not locked up for life.
scottyross00 4 years ago
I have a question for the author of the video, would you not agree with the death penalty in certain circumstances, for example if a person was found in the act of committing a first degree murder admitted to the murder, and hereby there would be no appeals neccessary would it still than be more expensive for and execution or life in prison.
yaboydw 4 years ago
No, for various reasons. The first is, killing another person because they killed is not justice, it does not correct any wrong, therefore it makes a new one. Whether he admits it or not, it doesn't matter, as there have been cases where people who have done no crime admit to it anyways because they want to die.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Yuour absolutely correct and i do not disagree with you, the death penalty is no justice. But neither is locking them up for life, the only point im trying to make is this; i work everyday 40 hours a week, i live by the law i pay my taxes and i have basic health, dental and life insurance. I dont feel it is my responsibility to house, feed and cover medical and dental expenses of the person who chooses a life of crime.
yaboydw 4 years ago
Locking a person up for the rest of their life is justice. A Murderer is punished and no vengence was done on behalf of the state, allows that individual to think of what they did for who knows how long. Locking them up allows for real morality to incur. Where Morality is ultimately based on reason, through reflection immoral acts will be punished.
scottyross00 4 years ago
You can't really punish someone morally, if they don't acknowledge it. And killing people doesn't acknowledge anything but the state is just as bad as the killer.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Wooo hooo! Let's preserve and feed every scumbag to show just how effective our justice system is!
ma7799 4 years ago
"Wooo hooo!" Let's spend even more money having them in appeals for 10 years, spending more money then it would if we kept them in jail for life, and be murderers ourselves with the Death Penalty!
scottyross00 4 years ago
I do not agree with the dealth penalty nore condone it, but the facts are if people go to another country and commit a crime in which they know would likely result in the death penalty why should it be our governments responsibility to fight for their rights. We have no right to interfere with the politics or the laws of other countries, be it right or wrong. Too many of us are expected to care for and fight for people who were given a chance at freedom and failed.
yaboydw 4 years ago
For the last 40 years Canada had done the very thing you are suggesting shouldn't be done. The reason why we did, is because every country, regardless of it being Canada, when it sees some human atrocity it acts. By your argument we should have let Hitler kill all the jews in germany.
scottyross00 4 years ago
To compare hilter and his crimes towards the jews is pushing it a little far. I understand your point, and am always open to other peoples opinion. But i still believe that no matter what our personal convictions, the law is the law. The same as it is for any law it varies within municipality, provinical and federal. Not all laws are the same everywhere you go, even within canada and nor should they be.
yaboydw 4 years ago
You claim you understand my point but continue to ignore it. You think laws should be different everywhere, on that reasoning, you would literally, and no exageration be okay with governments or other people on other countries getting away with horrible atrocities. You need to reconcile this with your ideology.
scottyross00 4 years ago
For you are either for:
a) at least recognition of (a) universal law, such as human rights.
or
b) You are not, and thus humans, as long as their not in Canada, can be tortured, murdered, raped, abused, molested, etc.
scottyross00 4 years ago
So you are saying that Jews and murderers are morally the same?
ma7799 4 years ago
I don't understand this statement.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Murder victims have a right to life too. If a Canadian commits a capital crime in the U.S., they are eligible to the ultimate punishment. As for the DNA theory, it is not as definate as one might think. Simply because there is no match does not prove innocence. Read up on Darryl Grayson from Alabama.
ma7799 4 years ago
You do realize you just said dead people have a right to life, right? (That's some bad logic).
Again, the death penalty is not a punishment, the death penalty does nothing to rectify the situation. It is pure blood lust.
scottyross00 4 years ago
So murder victims are useless statistics because they are dead? Just because the killer is still alive means that we should feed and shelter them? That is some bad logic.
ma7799 4 years ago
I never said they were useless statistics, please provide the quote of me saying murder victims were useless statistics.
Yes we should feed and shelter the killer because we're not killers. We're not savages who can't control our blood lust.....well at least Canada and I'm not....you on the other hand...
scottyross00 4 years ago
"Everyone has a right to life"
Try telling the killers that
Once someone murders or rapes, they offically resign their own right to live and must face the consequences. I don't see what is so bloody about injecting someone with drugs and putting them to sleep. BTW, appeals for LWOP sentences also cost millions of dollars.
ma7799 4 years ago
See your argument isn't very good. Everyone has rights, and sometimes those rights get overridden, but in any situation, it wasn't a public policy to do so. Yet with governments killing, you have just that. And therefore your point is invalid.
scottyross00 4 years ago
BTW, I've found evidence, unbiased evidence to show in enforcing the death penalty the costs exceed that of life in prison, if you claim differently, please evidence in support of it.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Lethal injection is about $80, firing squad is about $10 for bullets, hanging is about $30 for rope. Execution is cheap and effective, but it's the appeals that raise the cost, most of which are classic delaying tactics to preserve a killer. If the appeals system was restricted, numerous taxpayers dollars would be saved.
ma7799 4 years ago
And more innocent people would die. This is a horrible idea.
scottyross00 4 years ago
How so? Appeals should be used to clear up any doubts, but they are usually delaying tactics that people like you utilize to spare a killer's life.
ma7799 4 years ago
And you do you find which is which?
scottyross00 4 years ago
Murders have no rights, period.
ma7799 4 years ago
Okay, if murders have no rights, then any government that executes has no rights. But you'll say a government doesn't murder, it executes, well what's the difference? You'll say it's justice, and I'll point out, it is not justice because nothing gets corrected, its just blood lust.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Blood lust, revenge, ect. You are a typical abolitionist that cannot accept that some killers just need to die for their crimes. Nothing gets corrected? An executed murderered is no longer a burden.
ma7799 4 years ago
Life in prison is cheaper then killing him. Executions are burdens.
Executing a criminal doesn't do anything.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Government, government, government. It seems like this video is nothing more than an excuse to bash a government in some way.
ma7799 4 years ago
Really? Do you think I'm acting when I talked? Do you think I'm not disgusted with the death penalty?
scottyross00 4 years ago
I would rather save my anger for the murderers that deserve to be juiced.
ma7799 4 years ago
Okay then the government then would deserve to be juiced as soon as it murdered a criminal. Then you'll need to differentiate murder from execution. Then you'll need to differentiate why the state can kill but not citizens, even in those examples of citizens killing for justice. All of which I predict you coming up empty.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Obviously you cannot tell the difference between crime and punishment, which is typical of a humanist.
ma7799 4 years ago
Thanks for proving my prediction correct.
scottyross00 4 years ago
The Death Penalty is immoral because it kills people, it doesn't punish them. Punishing is an attempt to rectify an action. The Death Penalty does not rectify the person who is executed, it kills them. The Death Penalty does not attempt to rectify society, because there is no deterrance. The death penalty is immoral because it is pointless.
scottyross00 4 years ago
The Death Penalty needlessly takes life. There is no reason to kill a murderer. What is killing him or her going to accomplish? It won't deter anybody more then jail does. It costs more. It only quenches the blood lust of those who pulled the switch.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Not needlessly, it is a question of justice.
And I'd like to know where did you get the data saying execution costs more than a life imprisonment?
olegplanets 4 years ago
read description of video, youtube isn't letting me post links.
scottyross00 4 years ago
read description of video. It's actally widely held.
scottyross00 4 years ago
If a cop guns down a gangbanger or bank robber is he immoral too?
ma7799 4 years ago
So you think you can compare a situation where a cop's life is in imminate danger, and a government that has a criminal within it's custody and no danger is present? Again, horrible argument.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Actually it is the same argument. Think of the death penalty as the ultimate law enforcement. The only sure way to make sure a murderer will never murder again is to execute them, not preserve them so they can kill another inmate or a prison guard.
ma7799 4 years ago 2
By your argument, the only way to be sure any criminal will not do a crime is to kill them. And criminals who are in jail for life kill just as often as regular prisoners do, so your argument of killing them is groundless.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Can a dead killer kill again?
ma7799 4 years ago
Of course not, so you're saying kill all prisoners in jail, because all have the same liklihood to kill in jail.
scottyross00 4 years ago
At least you have SOME logic! Dead killers are no longer a burden when they are six feet under, nor do we need to give them "rights."
ma7799 4 years ago
Alive killers in jail are less of a burden then those we kill. It costs more to execute someone, with all the appeals, lawyer fees, etc. then it does to keep them locked up for life.
scottyross00 4 years ago
If our justice system workeed properly, there would be a restriction on the appeals system and we would be juicing alot quicker. A few appeals should take 5 years then it is time to send them to God's court.
ma7799 4 years ago
So limiting the appeals is your answer? Having a time limit is your answer? No matter how much validity an appeal has, 5 years and he's dead no matter what? That is what your argument implies, and no rational person would hold such conclusions.
scottyross00 4 years ago
I he was innocent, then don't convict him. The justice system is the problem; not the death penalty.
ma7799 4 years ago
I suggest you watch another clip of mine, titled "Death Toll." An innocent man in Canada was executed, and our justice system was in good order.
scottyross00 4 years ago
i would rather pay taxes and have him never walk the streets again rather then paying taxes and have him get out on parole
yx85kid 3 years ago
According to your video, you quoted "NO ONE can take anyone else's life."
ma7799 4 years ago
Yes. That's what I said, and?
scottyross00 4 years ago
There are many reasons why lives are taken; war, self-defense, and law enforcement. Your adamant statement forgets these exceptions, so you should record this video over again.
ma7799 4 years ago
I said a government should never take it's citizen's lives. Explain how a government can take it's own citizen's lives in self-defense? In War a government doesn't kill it's own citizens, the enemy does. And law enforcement takes lives only when the officers lives are in imminent threat. Thus executions are not even similar.
scottyross00 4 years ago
I can only agree that mistakes happen and we have to make sure that the right person gets the punishment. Only with 100% certainty can we execute a criminal. As far as I know, DNA can provide absolutely accurate proof.
olegplanets 4 years ago
Yes but DNA isn't found in the majority of the murder cases. Killing anybody, anytime is wrong. For you to be morally justified you have to say killing in some cases is okay (ie punishment). Okay mentally disabled people who kill, people who kill by accident, people who are abused all their lives and kill in uncontrollable spurts, we should kill them.
scottyross00 4 years ago
DNA never establishes 100%. Again you are wrong.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Is there any peer-reviewed study which can confirm that DNA cannot establish a 100% evidence? I don't think so
olegplanets 4 years ago
Nothing is ever 100%, any scientist would tell you that. You don't need a peer reviewed study.
scottyross00 4 years ago
To kill someone because they killed, you are saying what they did was wrong, but when you do it, it's not wrong because you're doing it to punish that person. So immoral things are allowed because you deem it so? You're above morals?
scottyross00 4 years ago
There's a difference.
olegplanets 4 years ago
Yeah, only because you say there is.
scottyross00 4 years ago
"To kill someone because they killed, you are saying what they did was wrong, but when you do it, it's not wrong because you're doing it to punish that person."
If Robert Pickton is convicted, he will never set foot outside a prison again. Should taxpayers continue footing the bill for years for such monsters?
FischerFan 4 years ago
fyi costs more to execute someone then to put them in jail for life.
scottyross00 4 years ago
"fyi costs more to execute someone then to put them in jail for life."
Could you explain how?
FischerFan 4 years ago
Easy, to kill someone, you really have to be sure. ie more trials. Youtube won't let me type links, so you'll find them in the description of the video.
scottyross00 4 years ago
cheaper to lock someone up for life then to execute them, because of appeals after appeals after appeals.
scottyross00 4 years ago
You are missing the point even more by thinking that Canadian laws reflect the will of the majority of Canadians. Don't use word "therefore", because the relationship between Canadian laws and public opinion is not direct.
olegplanets 4 years ago
I would argue most of the time there is a direct relationship, and a majority of Canadians are against the Death Penalty. The Conservative government over the summer found only 1 of 5 Canadians are for the Death Penalty.
scottyross00 4 years ago
I don't know where you got that, but about half of Canadians are in favour of death penatly.
olegplanets 4 years ago
liar. Over the Summer the Conservatives polled Canadians, only found 1 in 5 Canadians are for it.
scottyross00 4 years ago
That's a lie. The Conservatives polled Canadians over the summer found only 1 in 5 Canadians were for Death Penalty. google search Toronto Star Death Penalty
scottyross00 4 years ago
When they voted out the death penalty it was by very few votes that it was abolished
yx85kid 3 years ago
Not true. Public opinion was in favour of capital punishment for a long time while it was prohibited. Now it's about half/half
olegplanets 4 years ago
Yes it is true in Canada. The Conservative government who like the Death Penalty, did a poll themselves and they found a large majority of Canadians are against it.
scottyross00 4 years ago
I don't care for how long Canadian government has been telling anything to U.S. or for how long it didn't execute anybody, that's irrelevant. Moreover, executing convicted murderers in not morally wrong. Further still, whether I'm for or against Canadian law is also irrelevant, you have no point here.
olegplanets 4 years ago
What do you not remember what you say? You said, "you think if you're Canadian you can go to foreign countries and commit crime and be judged by Canadian laws?" And I responded that for 40 years, Liberal AND Conservative Governments have. So You were wrong.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Don't you get the point? The time for how long Canadian government had this or that policy is not important. The policy is wrong and I explained why. If it was in place, doesn't mean it was a legitimate policy. Check your passport, it's written that if you commit crimes in other countries you will be judged according to their laws. Don't think you're so special because you live in Canada and that Canada has a right to interfere in other country's legal system.
olegplanets 4 years ago
Every country interferes with every other country's legal system. America does it with us, we've done it with them; England has done it with Germany, the US, you name it! Countries have gone to war because of other countries imprisioning their citizens! Don't say countries don't interfere.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Lol, you think if you're Canadian you can go to foreign countries and commit crime and be judged by Canadian laws? This is ridiculous. U.S. are not in Canadian jurisdiction so Canada can't tell the U.S. how to enforce their laws and administer punishment.
And stop saying Canadian government does not protect Canadians bla bla bla...Canadian government does not protect MURDERERS. A person who intentionally takes somebody's life away should be stripped of his own.
olegplanets 4 years ago
Here's an interesting fact to prove you horribly wrong. For the last 40 years the Canadian government had been telling the US and other countries what that they cannot execute Canadians.
Also to prove you even more contrary then you already are. If you equate not executing murderers as "protecting" them, well again for the last 40 years Canada has not executed any murderer.
scottyross00 4 years ago
By your very admission you think a government, built on bureaucracy, should be able to execute it's citizens, where it's been proven to make mistakes. Now beyond it being morally wrong, you are against Canadian law, and therefore the will of the majority of Canadians.
scottyross00 4 years ago
AMEN!!!!!!!!!
yx85kid 3 years ago
Totally depends on the crime, but thats a domestic issue and my personal opinion. As far as defending our citizens abroad, it should go without question that we do not allow execution. If this guy was in some village about to be beheaded Canada would never condone it, Harper is a suck to the USA- without even liking them much!
quexalcoatl 4 years ago
Why does it depend on the crime? What good is it to kill someone when they're in jail? They aren't going to do it again cuz they're locked up.
johnnyroyale00 4 years ago
Your opinion may change if a friend or family member was a victim, as mine was.
gracie502000 4 years ago
Guess what I've had a family member killed you cold hearted woman. Don't go supposing things that you have no idea about.
scottyross00 4 years ago
It's odd how simple-mindedness is the favourite accusation of those who consult nothing but their own convictions. It is a fact that the murder rate is higher in those areas that have the death penalty. Why? We can only speculate, but the probable cause is that where capital punishment is sanctioned, the idea of murder becomes less repellent to personal moral convictions. The deterrent factor does not work because first-degree murderers never believe they will get caught.
walkerc585 4 years ago 3
At any rate, the more important point is that one either believes that taking the life of another person is wrong or one doesn't. If one doesn't, well one has the same moral status as a murderer. If one doesn't, neither ganging up to commit the act through one's government, nor conniving at it taking place in another country, as the Harper government is doing, does anything to mitigate the moral wrongfulness.
walkerc585 4 years ago
Canada doesn't have the death penalty...why is it okay to allow other countries to kill our citizens when we make it illegal?
scottyross00 4 years ago
"Canada doesn't have the death penalty...why is it okay to allow other countries to kill our citizens when we make it illegal?"
Because no two countries have the same legal structure. No country can impose any stricter, or more lenient, sentences on those who commit crimes in foreign countries.
An arrested suspect is free to contact the appropriate embassy. After that, the local judicial system must take precedence.
FischerFan 4 years ago
Fischer, for the last 40 years, Canada did exactly what you're denying. Canada stood up for Canadians abroad who we're facing the death penalty, and commuted their sentences.
scottyross00 4 years ago
Did it cross your simple mind why this killer is on death row. He shot two people in the head. They are dead.
gracie502000 4 years ago 2
This Government will not protect Canadians abroad.Stockwell Day said this is the only change to our Foreign Policy.Does this mean we will continue to provide safe hacen to other nationalities in Canada facing the Death penalty in their respective Countries? Was this new policy written up on a napkin , or is the PMO testing the water with another sorted little lie? What government would put the rights of Foreign Citizens above the rights of its own? Answer: Steven Harper's
Gillhoolee 4 years ago