Death Penalty

Gandhi once said an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Gandhi also told Europe to submit to Hitler's regime and protest it peacefully once he took over. Civilized language cannot speak to barbarians, which is precisely the issue with the death penalty; Gandhi's thinking is not always right.

I don't see how that non-sequitur relates to anything on this topic. I never said Gandhi was right about everything, but the quote explains how I feel about this matter. One politically incorrect quote does not negate everything else such an influential person has said.

Gandhi also told Europe to submit to Hitler's regime and protest it peacefully once he took over. Civilized language cannot speak to barbarians, which is precisely the issue with the death penalty; Gandhi's thinking is not always right.

You know who else supports the death penalty? Hitler. This is a pretty bad place to bring him up if you're in favour of it.

Honestly, I don't know why you guys are babbling about a quote Ghandi said about Europe. Not everyone's perfect.

So what you're trying to say is that we should just leave this people alone and put them in jail? What will that do? It is nearly impossible to change these types of people.

I would like to have some sources based on the conclusion you come up with here, because I myself assume that this is what people think without really knowing what they are talking about. In Norway, we have a 0.78/100 000 ratio on murders, compared to US of America's 5.70 ratio. Yet we do not have a death penalty, and no possibility to stay in prison for more than 18 years at once. Coincidence? Maybe, I have no consistent proof of it being because of death penalty/life sentences/not being able to wear guns in the streets or not, but assuming the culture's affecting the amount of kills, I would assume Canada could be an example on what would happen if US of A permanently removed the death penalty. And it may happen it doesn't affect US of A in the same way, because a lot of factors affects this issue. But we evolved from violent and bloodthirsty Vikings which would kill our neighbour if he did something that affected us negatively, sooo...

Either way, I would feel more safe in a country where I know we don't have to kill people in order to keep murderings at a low rate.

 Wiki

Erik the Red's parents had to flee Norway because of "some killings" as The Saga of Eric the Red recounts. The family settled in western Iceland. The Icelanders later sentenced Erik to a three-year exile for several murders around the year 982. According to The Saga of Eirik the Red, his neighbour Thorgest borrowed a shovel and when it did not come back to Erik, he sought an explanation. When Thorgest refused to return it, Erik stole the shovel back. In the ensuing chase, he killed Thorgest. A second crime laid at Erik's door occurred when he insisted upon revenge for the deaths of his slaves who had "accidentally started a landslide" on Valthjof's farm. Valthjof murderously punished the slaves for this misfortune. Erik did not take kindly to this and so slew Valthjof. The Icelanders eventually convicted Erik of these murders and banished him from Iceland. This event led him and a group of followers to travel to the lands nearly 500 miles west of Iceland.

I always wonder why there's no death penalty in Canada, and I used to believe that there should be, but my mind changed last year in my gr 11 law class.

here are something I learned in gr11 law class although my final mark was like 66%...

In Canada there's no death penalty and yet the criminal rate is much lower than those countries that have death penalty.

It costs more money to execute a person in a non-arbitrary way than to put the person in jail for the rest of his/her life.

There have been some very rare cases in which a person is wrongfully accussed and being send to jail for the rest of his/her life. But a few years later, the person is proven innocent and therefore released from jail. If that person got a death penalty he/she will never come back.

Arguments on crime rates compared to death penalty: I am pretty sure its a cultural influence more so than a "WEHAVETEHD3ATHPENALTY" or "WEHAVETEHANT1D3ATHPENALTY".
So the question could be more along the lines of ...
How does one justify the death penalty?
or
Is the death penalty an effective preventative measure for criminals?(to test this you would need the SAME area pre and post death penalty: no CANADA>USA logic please)
etc etc...

well, Canada used to have death penalty, but after they removed it, the criminal rate went down.

I know this sounds illogical, but this is actually a fact.

well, Canada used to have death penalty, but after they removed it, the criminal rate went down.

I know this sounds illogical, but this is actually a fact.

Which would be a good case...
But I still believe that its not the criminals minds changing but the social pressures.

Which would be a good case...
But I still believe that its not the criminals minds changing but the social pressures.

well, i'd rather die than spending the rest of my life in jail. maybe that's how the criminals mind changed...

Do you have a source for that, Horus?

Do you have a source for that, Horus?

lol why don't u just google it...

http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php

Note that the above site (Amnesty International) has an agenda to push (strongly against death penalty), and that correlation does not imply causation. You'd need more than one source, certainly if you choose sources that are liable to be promoting their own agenda.

This is pretty much what I think of this:

 Spoiler

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Note that the above site (Amnesty International) has an agenda to push (strongly against death penalty), and that correlation does not imply causation. You'd need more than one source, certainly if you choose sources that are liable to be promoting their own agenda.

lol does it really matter where you get the source from? it's all facts that Canada's criminal rate decreased after the removal of capital punishment, just google it they are everywhere >.>

lol does it really matter where you get the source from? it's all facts that Canada's criminal rate decreased after the removal of capital punishment, just google it they are everywhere >.>

Yes, sources for information always matter. Inherent bias and a subliminal tenancy to skew facts one way or another when promoting ones own agenda doesn't always show what can be considered "fact". Sure the criminal rate may have decreased after its removal, but is that the sole factor?

it's all facts that Canada's criminal rate decreased after the removal of capital punishment

You didn't understand. Just because Canada eliminated the death sentence and the homicide rate went down after the fact doesn't mean those two are related that way. Another factor could be at work.

For example, when ice cream consumption goes up, so do the number of drowning deaths. Do people drown because of ice cream? Highly unlikely. in this case, the intermediate factor is obvious - the time of year and temperature determines people's desire for ice cream and their inclination for swimming. But in more complicated cases as homicide rates, the factors aren't as obvious. The above was just an example of why correlation != causation.

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]
I believe it actually costs more to execute a person than it does to keep them in jail for life.[/COLOR]

What...? :f6:
10 years in jail and a few hundred dollars for the chemical is more expensive than a lifetime in jail?

Anyway, the death penilty is final. You can't undo it. I think it should be reserved for a select few cases, like it use to. Not the several thousand it is now. <_<

What...?
10 years in jail and a few hundred dollars for the chemical is more expensive than a lifetime in jail?

Hazzy, after a typical death sentence, lawyers will continue to file appeals for decades on behalf of their clients. Oftentimes, our method of attempting to weed out cases where innocents are convicted ensures costly court battles while the convicts sit on death row.

At least, that's the way it works in the United States. Things are handled much more efficiently in states like China, Iran, and North Korea, but I shudder at the so-called "justice system" in place at each of the states there.

I think it should be reserved for a select few cases, like it use to. Not the several thousand it is now. <_<

If the death sentence were only used in a select few cases, my guess is that those convicted could argue successfuly that they were being singled out for "cruel and unusual punishment."

You didn't understand. Just because Canada eliminated the death sentence and the homicide rate went down after the fact doesn't mean those two are related that way. Another factor could be at work.

For example, when ice cream consumption goes up, so do the number of drowning deaths. Do people drown because of ice cream? Highly unlikely. in this case, the intermediate factor is obvious - the time of year and temperature determines people's desire for ice cream and their inclination for swimming. But in more complicated cases as homicide rates, the factors aren't as obvious. The above was just an example of why correlation != causation.

oh if that's the case then I don't know, cause i was taught this last year in gr 11 law class.

But to counter the argument: it might or might not be related, but it's a fact that when capital punishment was removed the criminal rate decreased. and doesn't matter what really cause the decrease, the current system is working fine. There's no point putting the capital punishment back up again, because it is not needed and it "might" cause criminal rate increase. do we really want to test it out?