Capital Punishment.

[MrPhotastic]

Capital Punishment has been around for thousands of years and still is used today to punish the most violent criminals. I believe that the punishment should fit the crime, however some countries execute drug dealers/traffickers, however only imprison rapist.

Does the punishment fit the crime?

How are punishments imposed in your respective country?

Where do you stand regarding capital punishment?

[Trien Chieu]

Capital Punishment has been around for thousands of years and still is used today to punish the most violent criminals. I believe that the punishment should fit the crime, however some countries execute drug dealers/traffickers, however only imprison rapist.

Does the punishment fit the crime?

How are punishments imposed in your respective country?

Where do you stand regarding capital punishment?

Yes, drug dealers/traffickers derserve Capital Punishment. You have to think about the how many lives were destroyed due to drugs. Believe it or not, drug dealers cause more harm to society than rapists and bank robbers. Rapists usually got caught on the first offense, 1 victim. Bank robber might got away few times and if no one got shot, the lost is money, not live. On the other hand, drug dealers usually don't get caught for a long time. In average, they hurt a lot more people and destroy a lot more lives, especially teenagers.

Please don't misunderstand that I am defending rapist and bank robber, they deserve harsh harsh punishment as well. I don't mind if they get death penalty either.

[MrPhotastic]

Yes, drug dealers/traffickers derserve Capital Punishment. You have to think about the how many lives were destroyed due to drugs. Believe it or not, drug dealers cause more harm to society than rapists and bank robbers. Rapists usually got caught on the first offense, 1 victim. Bank robber might got away few times and if no one got shot, the lost is money, not live. On the other hand, drug dealers usually don't get caught for a long time. In average, they hurt a lot more people and destroy a lot more lives, especially teenagers.

Please don't misunderstand that I am defending rapist and bank robber, they deserve harsh harsh punishment as well. I don't mind if they get death penalty either.

What is the rationale for imposing the death penalty on drug dealers? It's not going to stop other drug dealers from dealing or trafficking. Furthermore drug use is a victimless crime there are no victims involved. Drug dealers are more or less pharmacies that provide the supplies to the consumer (drug users).

The drug users are using these illegal drugs on thier own free will. Those so called "precious lives" wouldn't be so precious if people realize what they are doing to themselves by using drugs.

In the U.S. there are degrees of drug charges ranging from a felony, misdameanor, and infractions. And the crimes are punishable to the varying degrees of the charges, but never imposing the death penalty because it's not consider a capital offense.

[PJ]

Yes, drug dealers/traffickers derserve Capital Punishment. You have to think about the how many lives were destroyed due to drugs.

No, you need to think about how many innocent lives were destroyed as a result of the stupid government outlawing drugs. The illegalization of drugs is what caused many people to become interested in drugs. For these people, illegalization of drugs killed them.

If anyone deserves capital punishment, it is the politicians who passed the law to make drugs illegal. They've killed way too many people.

Analogy: everybody knows that medicine overdose can kill people. If you're supposed to take 4 pills a day, and you've taken 40 pills, chances are good that you're gonna have problems. But usually this isn't a problem in our society. Now, if the government draws unnecessary attention by putting a ban on medicine overdose, and it becomes "hip" and "chic", and the rate of medicine overdose goes up, and more people die from it, who do you reckon is to blame? The stupid government, of course.

[999roses]

No, it's because drugs make you high and happy. How do I know this? I was on laughing gas once (to get my WISDOM TEETH pulled out...), and let me tell you, that was such a wonderful time of my life where I had no problems and everything was SO HAPPY....

But in all honesty, it's not just rebellion. It's the fact that drugs make you HIGH.

[MrPhotastic]

No, it's because drugs make you high and happy. How do I know this? I was on laughing gas once (to get my WISDOM TEETH pulled out...), and let me tell you, that was such a wonderful time of my life where I had no problems and everything was SO HAPPY....

But in all honesty, it's not just rebellion. It's the fact that drugs make you HIGH.

Ahaha... your post remind me of this song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hOtsHOZVLc

[john-e]

One of the many things I like about Canada is that the justice system is one of the fairest around. Punishments for serious crimes are premised on the rehabilitation of the offender rather than the eye-for-an-eye position; i.e. you can't rehabilitate someone who's dead, so we don't kill them.

Re drug use, it's treated as a misdemeanour for soft drugs like marijuana, usually no jail time until your third offence and even then you're more likely to get off with probation/suspended sentence. First-degree murderers receive life sentences which do not mean life. I think it's 25 years with eligibility for parole after 15.

What's really great is that all punishments are scalable on a wide range, mostly depending on what the judge decides. And anyone can be classified as a dangerous offender in which case you are imprisoned indefinitely. However, this punishment is only used in extreme cases where the offender shows no remorse and no signs of rehabilitation.

Granted, it's not a perfect system. There are cases of prisoners being released early only to re-offend almost right away, but these are relatively few. At least we don't practice state-sanctioned murder.

My personal view on capital punishment is this. There are people alive today who probably deserve to die. But there are also alot of people who are dead today that deserved to live. We can't give them life, so what right do we have to kill those who (we think) deserve it? So until we figure out how to raise the dead, I say let them live.

Then there's the subject of wrongful convictions; we can release those people from prison and provide what compensation we can, but what do we do if someone is executed and then found innocent? Execute the judge, jury, and executioner? Being human means making mistakes and I would not want to risk having an innocent's blood on my hands.

[MrPhotastic]

First-degree murderers receive life sentences which do not mean life. I think it's 25 years with eligibility for parole after 15.

That's a very lenient sentence for first degree murder. Is that the mandatory minimum sentencing according to your state statute? What is the success rate of inmates' rehab over in Canada?

[Trien Chieu]

One of the many things I like about Canada is that the justice system is one of the fairest around. Punishments for serious crimes are premised on the rehabilitation of the offender rather than the eye-for-an-eye position; i.e. you can't rehabilitate someone who's dead, so we don't kill them.

Re drug use, it's treated as a misdemeanour for soft drugs like marijuana, usually no jail time until your third offence and even then you're more likely to get off with probation/suspended sentence. First-degree murderers receive life sentences which do not mean life. I think it's 25 years with eligibility for parole after 15.

What's really great is that all punishments are scalable on a wide range, mostly depending on what the judge decides. And anyone can be classified as a dangerous offender in which case you are imprisoned indefinitely. However, this punishment is only used in extreme cases where the offender shows no remorse and no signs of rehabilitation.

Granted, it's not a perfect system. There are cases of prisoners being released early only to re-offend almost right away, but these are relatively few. At least we don't practice state-sanctioned murder.

My personal view on capital punishment is this. There are people alive today who probably deserve to die. But there are also alot of people who are dead today that deserved to live. We can't give them life, so what right do we have to kill those who (we think) deserve it? So until we figure out how to raise the dead, I say let them live.

Then there's the subject of wrongful convictions; we can release those people from prison and provide what compensation we can, but what do we do if someone is executed and then found innocent? Execute the judge, jury, and executioner? Being human means making mistakes and I would not want to risk having an innocent's blood on my hands.

If we adopt singaporean justices system, our society will be much better, richer, ect.... Most of the trash and problems of society will disappear soon

[john-e]

That's a very lenient sentence for first degree murder. Is that the mandatory minimum sentencing according to your state statute? What is the success rate of inmates' rehab over in Canada?

Criminal law falls under federal jurisdiciton, so it's the same in all provinces and territories. It appears that parole for first-degree murder is after 22 years, with consideration given after 15 years. Might need a lawyer to figure this one out.

From the Correctional Service of Canada site http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/faits/03-06-eng.shtml

Under Section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada, offenders serving a life sentence for murder may be considered for parole after serving 15 years of their sentences.
Offenders serving life sentences for first-degree murder become eligible for unescorted temporary absences and day parole three years before their full parole eligibility date (normally 25 years). An offender may apply for escorted temporary absences after admission to a federal institution.
The sentencing judge determines when people convicted of second degree murder are eligible for consideration for parole, which can be set between 10 and 25 years. The Judicial Review provisions also apply for second-degree murder, if the parole eligibility date is set beyond 15 years. Inmates incarcerated for second-degree murder become eligible for consideration for unescorted temporary absences and day parole three years before their full parole eligibility date.
Offenders who are paroled while serving life sentences remain on parole for life, unless parole is revoked. Without a grant of parole, the offender remains imprisoned for life.

Re the success rate of rehab, I've copied various extracts from Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada for the full text. It seems to support more rehab = lower crime. Note that the neutrality of the article is under dispute.

There were 2,452,787 crimes reported in 2006; 48% were property related crimes and 12.6% were violent crimes. At a rate of 7,518 reported incidents per 100,000 people, the crime rate in 2006, the latest year for which there is statistics, was the lowest crime rate in twenty-five years. The crime rate has been in general decline since 1991.
There is controversy among criminologists over whether American harsh sentences are a cause or a reflection of higher crime rates. American sentences have been higher throughout the twentieth century, even during periods when the two country's crime rates were comparable.
Canada has comparatively low sentences for many crimes and most convicts receive parole after serving two thirds of their sentence. Canada also has abolished the death penalty since the 1970s. Sentences, especially for drug-related crimes are lower than sentences in the United States. Nowhere in Canada is there a law like California's "three strikes" policy. Canadian criminals are more likely to be given alternative sentences than jail times and more money is put into rehabilitation. Canada has a far lower percentage of its population in jail than the United States.
In addition, a less stringent approach to the punishment of some crimes, such as drug offenses, within Canada, may have the effect of skewing the data.
In 2001, Canada had about 32,000 people in prison or about 0.13% of the total population. The United States was the country with the highest number of people incarcerated. There were more than 2.2 million people living in jail (about 0.7% of the total population). The European average is of 0.2% of the total population, with France and Germany having lower rates than Canada, but with the United Kingdom, Spain and most of Eastern Europe having higher ones.

[Guo Xiang]

If we adopt singaporean justices system, our society will be much better, richer, ect.... Most of the trash and problems of society will disappear soon

Seriously... they won't disappear...

[expression]

Then there's the subject of wrongful convictions; we can release those people from prison and provide what compensation we can, but what do we do if someone is executed and then found innocent? Execute the judge, jury, and executioner?

We are so concerned with the probability of unintentionally wrongfully executing someone (which is rare), while with the death of an innocent resulting from an intentional malicious murder we shrug and say, oh well the dead cannot be raised so let's care about helping the troublemaker who brought about the death in the first place? You define that as "good justice"? No, we need to form a better rationale than that on such a serious issue.

Being human means making mistakes and I would not want to risk having an innocent's blood on my hands.

That's more like it. Truth is people are afraid to take the moral burden. And nobody has the power to define "justice". We mustn't confuse avoidance of morality as morality itself.

Sure we can debate on what's good, just or fair all day long, but bear in mind we are departing from the realm of legal affairs. The legal system can't handle that. It belongs to the humanities and religious compartments.

Laws are primary concerned with setting practical rules that works to stabilize society. Its only "date" with justice is whether it is "acceptable" to most people, so as to avoid serious complaints/protests that can destabilize government. But that usually comes last, because commoners like us debate about morality on spcnet instead of writing official protests to the senator.

Talking about the feasibility of capital punishment, concerns should be:
1) does capital punishment deter murders?
2) does it deter recurrence from past offenders?
3) how does it affect government (chiefly financial)?

[john-e]

If we adopt singaporean justices system, our society will be much better, richer, ect.... Most of the trash and problems of society will disappear soon

So if Singapore is so great, why are you living in Canada? The nice thing about living in a free country is that you're free to leave. Unless, of course, you're incarcerated or on parole .

I may not agree with your opinions, but I'll defend your right to express them. Another thing that makes this country a great place to live - we can speak our minds without fear of reprisal. From what I've read, this is not the case in Singapore.

[PJ]

If we adopt singaporean justices system, our society will be much better, richer, ect.... Most of the trash and problems of society will disappear soon

Take a look again at the facts.

According to Wikipedia's List of countries by Nominal GDP Per Capita, The Netherlands ranks as #9 @ $40,168, Australia is #14 @ $37,434, while Singapore is #20 @ $30,084. The data speaks for itself -- the advanced, liberal countries are RICHER than the rigid, conservative country of Singapore. Of course, you have the US which is ranked higher than all of these, but the US is nevertheless more liberal than Singapore.

Go liberalism.

[expression]

I may not agree with your opinions, but I'll defend your right to express them. Another thing that makes this country a great place to live - we can speak our minds without fear of reprisal. From what I've read, this is not the case in Singapore.

Sorry to be the devil's advocate, but from what I've read and heard, Canadians are not really "free" to speak their minds without fear of reprisal on say, homosexuality. Disapproval of homosexuality and same-sex unions based on religious beliefs is considered discrimination. So while ridding discrimination of homosexuals, you are technically discriminating against certain religions (they can't voice their beliefs anymore). So really the system is tailored not to "fairness", but to the stability of society. In this case the louder side wins.

Like I said, the legal system fares best when it sheds its "justice" and "morality" image.

[oGaKirA]

Re: drugs

Furthermore, drugs arent bad if used recreationally or productively.

Just look at all the great pple that used drugs. Surely they can attribute some of their success to drugs.
Bob Marley
The Beatles
Hendrix
Andy Warhol
etc.
etc.
etc.

[MrPhotastic]

Laws are primary concerned with setting practical rules that works to stabilize society. Its only "date" with justice is whether it is "acceptable" to most people, so as to avoid serious complaints/protests that can destabilize government. But that usually comes last, because commoners like us debate about morality on spcnet instead of writing official protests to the senator.

Talking about the feasibility of capital punishment, concerns should be:
1) does capital punishment deter murders?
2) does it deter recurrence from past offenders?
3) how does it affect government (chiefly financial)?

There are punishments that maintain and defends social orders. Punishments should reduce the law violators from future or continued criminal activity.

Seriously I don't think capital punishment deter murder or any other crime. The primary purpose of punishment IMO is to protect society from these criminals.

The primary goal of corrections in the U.S. prisons is to rehabilitate their inmates, however I do not think this approach is working a lot of criminals were granted probation as an alternative to prison. These probationers violated their probation condition, got their probation revoked and sent back to prison. This is a prime example of repeat offenders going back to prison after given a second chance. The more people that are put on probation the most likely they will recedivate and be sent back to prison.

[oGaKirA]

Yes, drug dealers/traffickers derserve Capital Punishment. You have to think about the how many lives were destroyed due to drugs. Believe it or not, drug dealers cause more harm to society than rapists and bank robbers. Rapists usually got caught on the first offense, 1 victim. Bank robber might got away few times and if no one got shot, the lost is money, not live. On the other hand, drug dealers usually don't get caught for a long time. In average, they hurt a lot more people and destroy a lot more lives, especially teenagers.

Please don't misunderstand that I am defending rapist and bank robber, they deserve harsh harsh punishment as well. I don't mind if they get death penalty either.

Nah your logics are out of whack. A person doesn't become a drug addict the first time he/she tries it. A bank robber is liable to blow your brains out on the spot.

We can only charge someone for a crime they commit. How are you supposed to charge a drug dealer for ruining pple's lives?

Pple should be charged accordingly based on seriousness of crime.
Of course if drug is a main concern for a country and death is the penalty...then so be it. I have no quarrels with them. I don't think it's fair but it seems to be relative based on countries.

[PJ]

Disapproval of homosexuality and same-sex unions based on religious beliefs is considered discrimination.

Well, that's because it is discrimination.
Is that punishable by law though?

[Trien Chieu]

In 2001, Canada had about 32,000 people in prison or about 0.13% of the total population. The United States was the country with the highest number of people incarcerated. There were more than 2.2 million people living in jail (about 0.7% of the total population). The European average is of 0.2% of the total population, with France and Germany having lower rates than Canada, but with the United Kingdom, Spain and most of Eastern Europe having higher ones.

The reason that US has higher rate of prisoner is because most of their criminals stay in jail with harsher sentence for similar crime whereas we give them lenient sentence with lot of bail. If our criminals receive the same sentence for the same crime, our rate would go up dramatically.