[newfette]

and if hes poor then tax payers are still paying for him to life..

take him out back and pump him full of javex

[Robair]

newfette newfette:

and if hes poor then tax payers are still paying for him to life..

I.... don't understand what you're saying here.

The death penalty is very expensive compared to life without parole.

[Wally_Sconce]

Robair Robair:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Capital punishment means that you have been convicted of something that isn't eligible for forgiveness by anyone but god.

Fixed.

I can appreciate the difference that you are pointing out. But, each type of conviction is capable of having to meet a specific criteria. For example, evidence that shows deliberate and intentional planning of a murder.

It was one thing for someone like Milgard to be wrongly convicted of a crime. Its another thing to prove that he planned every little detail of the crime.

Its hard to explain this accurately in 100 words or less. Instead of picking apart my post, could you just try to understand what I'm getting at ( even if you disagree)

[sasquatch2]

The major reason for the extra expense of capital punishment is the extensive reviews before carrying out the executions.
I was once a supporter of capital punishment but with the incredible # of condemned now exonerated by such things as DNA---it gives me pause.
In cases like Bernardo, Homulko, and Olsen....I see no difficulty......
These creeps are costly due to extra security costs to protect them from the general population and the real tragedy is Karla....free on the streets.

[Robair]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

the real tragedy is Karla....free on the streets.

Yes that is deafinatly a failure of our justice system. One of many, which, is kind of my point...

[Robair]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Robair Robair:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Capital punishment means that you have been convicted of something that isn't eligible for forgiveness by anyone but god.

Fixed.

I can appreciate the difference that you are pointing out. But, each type of conviction is capable of having to meet a specific criteria. For example, evidence that shows deliberate and intentional planning of a murder.

It was one thing for someone like Milgard to be wrongly convicted of a crime. Its another thing to prove that he planned every little detail of the crime.

Its hard to explain this accurately in 100 words or less. Instead of picking apart my post, could you just try to understand what I'm getting at ( even if you disagree)

I understand, I just don't buy it.

What it boils down to, is that if a bunch of government employees say they've done their jobs correctly, and the result does not turn out in your favour, you are giving your government the right to end your life.

I don't care how sophisticated your DNA machine is, it is still a person that has to load the correct sample into it. Any time, ANY time there is a person or people involved in the process, there will eventually be human error. There will always be people involved in the justic system.

That's without even addressing intentional tampering of the evidence or process...

[BartSimpson]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Scared me, thought this was about Canada...

Why? What have you done that would get you the death penalty if Canada had one?

[BartSimpson]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Child rapist should be shot and pied on.

Wouldn't you rather pie them first and then shoot them?

[BartSimpson]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

The major reason for the extra expense of capital punishment is the extensive reviews before carrying out the executions.
I was once a supporter of capital punishment but with the incredible # of condemned now exonerated by such things as DNA---it gives me pause.
In cases like Bernardo, Homulko, and Olsen....I see no difficulty......
These creeps are costly due to extra security costs to protect them from the general population and the real tragedy is Karla....free on the streets.

We're pretty close to the same page here.

Myself, I support the death penalty in cases where solid evidence not only makes it clear that the suspect committed the crime but when the evidence excludes everyone else on earth from suspicion.

In convictions where the evidence is purely or even partially circumstantial I am opposed to the death penalty. Give them life and then apologize later if the courts were wrong.

Just can't do that if we execute someone who might be innocent.

[Robair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

The major reason for the extra expense of capital punishment is the extensive reviews before carrying out the executions.
I was once a supporter of capital punishment but with the incredible # of condemned now exonerated by such things as DNA---it gives me pause.
In cases like Bernardo, Homulko, and Olsen....I see no difficulty......
These creeps are costly due to extra security costs to protect them from the general population and the real tragedy is Karla....free on the streets.

We're pretty close to the same page here.

Myself, I support the death penalty in cases where solid evidence not only makes it clear that the suspect committed the crime but when the evidence excludes everyone else on earth from suspicion.

In convictions where the evidence is purely or even partially circumstantial I am opposed to the death penalty. Give them life and then apologize later if the courts were wrong.

Just can't do that if we execute someone who might be innocent.

All the checks and balances in place to TRY and insure no wrongfull convictions are what makes an execution cost 40% more than life without parole.

Why flush tax dollars down the toilet? An we're talking a lot of tax dollars.

[Wally_Sconce]

Robair Robair:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Robair Robair:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Capital punishment means that you have been convicted of something that isn't eligible for forgiveness by anyone but god.

Fixed.

I can appreciate the difference that you are pointing out. But, each type of conviction is capable of having to meet a specific criteria. For example, evidence that shows deliberate and intentional planning of a murder.

It was one thing for someone like Milgard to be wrongly convicted of a crime. Its another thing to prove that he planned every little detail of the crime.

Its hard to explain this accurately in 100 words or less. Instead of picking apart my post, could you just try to understand what I'm getting at ( even if you disagree)

I understand, I just don't buy it.

What it boils down to, is that if a bunch of government employees say they've done their jobs correctly, and the result does not turn out in your favour, you are giving your government the right to end your life.

I don't care how sophisticated your DNA machine is, it is still a person that has to load the correct sample into it. Any time, ANY time there is a person or people involved in the process, there will eventually be human error. There will always be people involved in the justic system.

That's without even addressing intentional tampering of the evidence or process...

If you are saying DNA evidence is not absolute enough for capital punishment, then I'm willing to listen. In fact, I tend to agree with you.

However, I still have a firm believe that it is possible to lay out criteria that describes what kind of evidence leaves no doubt of guilt. Furthermore, we have a process of appeals and review that will scrutinize the evidence on an individual basis. In these circumstances, I support capital punishment for the most extreme crimes.

[Robair]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Furthermore, we have a process of appeals and review that will scrutinize the evidence on an individual basis.

Sounds expensive.

[Wada]

If you and I are not allowed to seek vengence then why should the government be allowed? After all the government is just an extension of ourselves.

[Xort]

I find it equaly wrong to imprison someone wrongly as I do putting them to death.

If I was offered a choice of death or forever in jail I'd save everyone some money and kill myself.

I would personaly like to see more small crimes lead to jail time as they are the ones that most impact my life.

I don't care what your reason is but when you break into my house to steal my stuff I want you to rot in jail. Shamefully judges never give out heavy sentances. (recall that B&E a house or residence carries a life term in Canada)

How does this relate? Well I'd like to see jail time for property crimes first before I set about trying to get capital punishment back.