*sigh*

This is probably a real tough one to discuss - but here it goes anyways.

Living in Canada, last week's media has been filled with speculations, predictions and some rehashing of the Bernardo/Homolka case including the 'deal with the devil'. Well, Karla Homolka is out of prison now. 12 years for her role in the killings of 3 young girls and the rape/torture of others. Has she paid her debt? Can this kind of debt ever be repaid? And what exactly does 'repaid mean?

In my opinion both her and Paul Bernardo share equal guilt (Therefore they should have shared the same fate, as well). Neither have shown any kind of concience nor concerns for their victims. Supposedly Homolka refused rehabilitation councelling while incarcerated. Bernardo will be inprisoned for the rest of his life.

Honestly, I wish capital punishment would be reinstated in Canada. Paul Bernardo, according to psychiatric assessments is beyond rehabilitation and will/would/does pose a threat to society if he was ever released. So, I ask: What's the point? Locking him up in a 7.5 ft cell for the rest of his life is going to help who? And let's not forget that the very society he poses a threat to gets to hand out their tax dollars to pay for his upkeep in prison. Along with books and computers for the prison libraries, basket ball courts and weight lifting equipment. It hardly seems right, does it?

The other side of the coin is, that if capital punishment would actually be ENFORCED (like, within weeks of conviction - not 15 years on death row) we just might see a decrease in violent crimes. I believe that fear is a great inhibitor.

What are your thoughts?

This is a tough one. In a lot of ways, I feel the same way as you do. The big issue I have though is that no legal system is perfect -- what about that one person out of X who is wrongfully condemned? While I believe that people like Bernardo/Homolka may very well be deserving of death, I couldn't deal with the guilt if someone innocent was sentenced to death.

You're right, I thought about that, too. But in cases like this one, where much of it is ON TAPE - there really isn't any doubt - reasonable or otherwise.

The other issue that comes to mind is: The prisions (at least in Canada) are so over populated that many first time offenders are actually 'kicked out'. No time, no space, etc. Now, these are probably the people who do stand a chance of rehabilitation - with the right programs, counselling, etc.

i think that with enough evidence.. and proof.. that they should put him to death. those people sound sooo aweful! i couldnt believe that they would let the girl out, if the man poses a threat even AFTER all this, wouldnt the girl?? maybe Canada should build more prisons.. maybe like have it sperated, like levels kinda thing.. like the weak stuff on the bottom, and the middle people in the middle and like the worst people on the very top so that way if they do try to escape they could hopefulyl catch them. do you guys already have soemthing like that? i know here in Minnesota the governer was or still is trying to reinstate the Death Penatly here. i dunno what happend though i'll have to ask the parnets about that one, lol

No, Cinn - Canada's *cough* legal system is about as effective as our *cough, cough* armed forces! :lol:

Throw them all on an island to fend for themselves... oh wait... we did that already... Australia! :P ;)

I believe for incredibly horrendous crimes with murder, rape and torture involved, if the evidence has no holes in it, then the death penalty should be used.
Where there are any doubts, definately not!
We don't have it over here, but again, our prison system is overflowing, we spend millions of tax payers money on it and the prisoners get free holidays, televisions and drugs are rife... they should all be in solitary confinement as no crime is victimless and if they've harmed someone, then they deserve to be shut away from everyone.

I agree, however, in the U.S. legal system, if there are any doubts about the defendant's guilt, shouldn't they be considered "not guilty" by law? Which is what makes me nervous about the entire thing -- if people can be convicted even though there are holes in the evidence, wouldn't it also be possible for them to be sentenced to death? Say someone has already been declared guilty -- that would make them eligible for such a sentencing. I dunno...perhaps I just don't understand it clearly enough.

This is a whole different subject, but at this point, where money and fame can potentially buy innocence, I have a difficult time personally entrusting our legal system to make absolutely sure that the guilty are sentenced and not the innocent. I apologize if this is inappropriate - I may be opening a whole 'nother can of worms here and it's only my own opinion - but if OJ Simpson and MJ can get off without a conviction, think about how many people who can't afford good lawyers are wrongfully convicted? Yes, there are appeals, etc...but assuming the truly innocent are ultimately exonerated, there will still be irreparable damage to their lives and to their reputations. No innocent person should have to suffer that.

Off to the gulitine!!!

.............................kidding :P

LOL Debs, you really should join Nationstates... You'd make a fabulous Queen for Queen Delphinum XVIII to play off! ;)

I know what you mean Nienna... It's just so difficult to say... In Scotland they have a 'not-proven' verdict... I don't know if it happens in other countries that way... I'll cut and paste a bit for you...

The verdict of not proven is essentially one of acquittal. In all respects the verdicts of not guilty and not proven have exactly the same legal effects. In practice it is thought that a verdict of not proven simply means that the judge or jury have reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt. It is interesting to note that the not proven verdict is used in one third of acquittals by juries, and in one fifth of acquittals in non-jury trials. Because of the higher number of non-jury trials ninety per cent of all not proven verdicts are returned in such cases. It is generally thought that the verdict gives juries, and judges, an option between not guilty and guilty where they feel that the charges have not been proved but they equally cannot say the accused is "not guilty" because of its moral connotations.


So it's a halfway house... Not exactly a good thing either... I think in the MJ case, this would be the verdict I'd have given.

Would I be on your side Ang? :unsure:

Then Okay! :clap:

Yeah you would be on my side! ;) www.nationstates.net Join up and come to The North Pacific... it's where I met Dan! ;) He's Lord Garlands! :D
My friends have accounts... Stef(bridesmaid) is Ikitiok, Matt is Screegor, Emily is Gaspodia (yes, she was Gaspode before my Gaspode was born), Tom(Dan's best man and RL best friend) is Miranda, Paul is Jet Li, Chris is Petworthia and there are other random people I know on there! :D LOL As I'm typing it, I'm seeing how weird it's all looking! :lol:

I'll sum this up with one quote:

"Why do we kill people to show people that killing is wrong?" - unknown

Of course, that has always made me wonder, but I do agree with the death penalty in some cases. First off, Canada doesn't have it and that can be an issue. Especially when life in prison is only 25 years. To me, that ids hardly enough for someone who's a repeat offender or a serious crime.

I don't believe in killing them the first time, everyone deserves a second chance but if they do something of the same nature again (eg. killing multiple times) then I think they should lose that chance and I think the death penalty is better for the publics safety and because we're supporting them in jail.

I'm going to bring up the Jamie Bulger case, even though it is upsetting...
Skim read this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bulger
I was only 8 years old but I remember this when it happened.

An estimated total of £4 million was invested in helping Thompson and Venables rebuild their lives on release from custody. A Merseyside WPC was awarded £100,000 in compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) relating to the murder investigation. In contrast, Jamie's mother, Denise Bulger, was given just £7,500 criminal compensation from the government. The trauma of Jamie's death led to the collapse of his parents' marriage. Ralph and Denise Bulger have both since re-married to other respective spouses.

Venebles and Thompson have new identities, no details are allowed to be leaked as to their whereabouts, etc... after this kind of horrific crime... does the legal system actually know how to deal with these kind of criminals? I find it very difficult to answer that... :???:

I guess I'm not really decided.

On the one hand...if a repeat offender cant be rehabilitated then why not just end it? If it's proven without a doubt that he/she did it then why put them in jail for life?

On the other hand Ive watched programs on TV where someone was proven guilty only to find out later that he/she wasnt guilty after all.

I'm definitely glad that I dont have to make the decision to execute someone. However, there are cases (Susan Smith) where I'd volunteer to do the deed.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/susansmithad1.html

Why should she be allowed to even have pen pals after what she did?

I have no idea what is right.

But that one recently about the guy killing his wife and unborn child (cant think of his name right now...) They made such a big deal out of it. if youre going to do it, do it, without all the fanfare IMO. It looked almost like a tv show.

It was Scott Peterson. He still says he's innocent. I dont know if he is or not....I didnt really follow the case.

i thought that was it...but i didnt want to say it since i wasnt sure in case "scott peterson" was someone else... lol

LOL...I love the pic in your siggy. :lol:

I created my bookmark! lol! this is gonna be fun..........

..............now I'm never gonna get work done :rolleyes:

lol! Deb

What's your nation? :D

That's just sick! And wrong! And sad! And...and... Oh, nevermind! :angry:

However, I don't think I would propose a death sentence for 2 kids. As for wrongful convictions, etc. - I don't think I would ever want to be on a jury deciding anyone's fate - unless I was 100% sure. And nowadays, with ballistics and dna evidence having come such a long way, MANY defendants CAN be proven guilty beyond ANY doubt. And in cases like Susan Smith, Bernardo & Homolka, Ted Bundy and the likes I really think capital punishment is in order.

Btw, it's wonderful to be able to discuss things like this without fear of being shut down or attacked - thank you Ang, Penny, and the rest of the mod team! :)

No I don't believe that they should've had the death penalty either, but I think there was something SERIOUSLY wrong with their upbringing to even consider doing such an awful thing.
These men, as they now are, should be sterilised imho though and kept away from all children, so they can never inflict this kind of torture on another child.
Going into a 'rehabilitation' centre would have taught them 'new tricks' from other not so nice teenagers... they're probably worse than when they went in!

Personally.. I believe anyone who commits a crime against children or murder someone intentially (as in they know exactly what they did), they should be put on death row no questions asked. Why should I have to pay for them out of my own pocket for them to live comfortably in jail?

This is a tough one.. I am actually against the death penalty, which is funny cause reading alot of these responces everyone seems to just want these wackos who kill/rape/ect to just die...
But they way that i see it is this.. These people that do these horrible crimes feel nothing for human /animal life. They just kill or rape and dont care about the person they are doing it to. they are sick twisted people who have problems and are driven to commit such crimes. In my opinion i cant see taking someone who has killed someone else (especially if it was planned and in a sick way with tourcher) and just basically killing them off. They need to pay.. they need to suffer just like the people who they hurt are suffering. Just like the families are suffering for the rest of their lives now cause of this person. I think putting them to death is too easy.. Give them an injection and they feel nothing and they are done.. No.. they need to suffer.. they need to live without freedom.. They need to be forced to think about what they did for the rest of their lives and deal with the "bed things" that happen in jail.
Not that im crazed or anything but i just think that death is an easy way out. They need to think about what they did and live with what they did for the rest of their lives..some of them will probably die in jail anyway...
But the flip side of this is.... I dont want to have to pay taxes for these dirtbags to be in jail...There has to be some other way.... <_< I just dont know what the answer is..

I got all messed up creating one lol! Still trying, get to play later. Will PM ya when the Beer Canadian thing doesnt work lol! eh?

I think if there was 100% proof, I would hang them myself. But again, its very hard to put a human beings life in the hands of just a jury, and finding out down the road the individual was innocent of the crime. So I am also a little weary of the death penalty also.

Deb

Beer Canadian thing???? Hockey is back???? LOL

Forget the hockey and the beer, how bout Vodka..........picked up vanilla vodka for my stash....mmmm...taste testing its good with pineapple juice and seven up, look out "C" here comes Deb!!!! the queenola of vodka lol! Okay, I can dream can't I? :innocent:

I'm opposed to the death penalty. As a Christian, I don't believe we have any right to take someone's life, even if they are murderers. They will recieve their punishment, though it may not be in this life.

Just my personal opinion.

I dont know, because in the old testament God used the death penalty, but after Jesus came as a savior, a lot of old testament rules changed. so thats why i dont know.

Right. God used the death penalty. But I think you'll agree that the American justice system is neither omniscient or omnipotent - they are not God. They're human, and sometimes, they make mistakes.

Personally, I choose to trust that God will punish wrongdoers and the death penalty is humans trying to play God.

Unfortunantly most people who kill feel no remorse for what they did. Sitting in jail will teach them nothing, nor make them suffer or feel quilty for what they did.

If God will hand down punishment, then why not now rather than later?

Good question, and I don't have a real good answer for that one, other than God says, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways".

Touche! ;) Good point!

Very good thoughts Emily!