signs of the times
From what I remember of my brief encounters with the legal area and legal studies, I believe I was told that crime and punishment is all based on what the society at the time feel is appropriate. If there is a small amount of a certain crime, then there is a low punishment for that offence. Just as if there is no real out pour of hatred of a certain crime, then they really dont enforce the crime that hard. For instance, jaywalking in Canada. This is a crime that is not really that outpouring or an epidemic, nor is it one that is really hated in the country. There is some concern and if a police officers sees you doing something like this really stupid (like trying to run across a busy 4 lane highway during rush hour traffic) that they 'might' stop you and give you a $57 fine or something. We arent talking jail time, nor are we talking that the police are out and if they are chasing a bank robber at high speed, will see you jaywalk and stop the pursuit just to grab your ass.
Where am I going with this? In Canada we have had a recent bunch of killings due to stabbings, gun shots, beatings...you name it, Albertans seem to be wanting to do to another individual. There was a case in Red Deer where a group of teenage girls poisoned another girls slurpee out of jealousy; a gang of teenagers beat a lone teenager over a disagreement with a The most recent is the case of Nina Courtepatte (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2007/01/22/trial-ninac.html). The background to this case is basically a group of 5 people ranged between 17 to 36 stalked out West Edmonton Mall, selected a person at random which was Nina, lead her away and then 'allegedly' (since the trial is still ongoing and all are innocent til proven guilty) kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered her. The reason for this act of violence? they were 'looking for someone to kill'. No real hatred to this girl, no real reason, no real rhyme, they just wanted to see what it would be like to beat the hell out of someone and kill them.
I have been following this one (along with Pickton as well, the BC pig farmer that is being accused of murdering nearly 49 prostitutes in the BC island area and burying them in his pig farm, making him either the worst or first serial killer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton) with a bit of interest since I have noticed that crimes in Canada are suddenly taking a big turn for the worse. It is almost like crimes have no punishment, to the point where crimes are almost being acceptable. Going back to the point where punishments are either light because the actions are becoming more acceptable by society or because they aren't that common. Well, they are obviosly common, since people seem to be killing or beating anyone that looks at them the worst way. So, I guess by the light sentences that people are getting it is because judges and society seems to think that this type of barbarianism is acceptable. A recent poll in the Edmontonsun (www.edmontonsun.ca) asked about capital punishment, and these were the results:
Should capital punishment be reintroduced in Canada?
Yes 86%
No 14%
Total Votes for this Question: 1604
a little history about capital punishment in Canada. Before Canada eliminated the death penalty in 1976, 1,481 people were sentenced to death, with 710 executed. Of those executed, 697 were men and 13 were women. However, interesting note is that Canada didnt abolish the death penalty til 1976, but last people to be executed in Canada was in 1953 for women (Marguerite Pitre on January 9, 1953) and 1962 for men (Ronald Turpin, 29, and Arthur Lucas, 54). Guess that means that from 1962 to 1976 there were no murders or anything in Canada huh? nope, it means that the criteria to put people to death was incredibly high and it wasnt just a case of "you kill and you are killed" attitude. Why was it abolished? it was a close free vote but it was taken away because people questioned the perfection of the legal system and wondered how many innocent people might accidentally be put to death only to have discovered later that they were innocently punished for their crimes.
Now I wonder, at what point should we bring back the death penalty? does two wrongs make a right? perhaps if Canada had the death penalty this crime would not have been commited since the reason that the individuals stated for doing this act of violence was to see someone die. Perhaps many other lives would have been saved had the culprits had the chance to sit back and think that if they did this act then they would have to pay the ultimate price if caught. But what about the crimes where a person acts out in an act of uncontrollable anger and kills someone, then if they acted outside their scope of mental mind, can they be put to death? or what of the argument of the slippery slope? where if we say that 'only acts of extreme violence can be punished by death', then where do we put the line of 'extreme violence'? where is the line always drawn when you put the line in the sand? to the extreme right or left? only Hitler and Sadam should be put to death, but others that kill only one shall live? or shall we go to the other extreme where even killing one person is punishable by death? because once you get into the grey area then you start the paradoxical question of 'how many grains of sand makes a heap?' you put two grains of sand on a table, you dont have a heap; you add one more and have two grains, you dont have a heap. So, how many grains of sand must you add before you get a heap? you kill one person in an act of rage (suppose you caught the person raping your wife, and you kill them) should you be put to death? Suppose you kill two people in an act of rage (gang rape perhaps?), should you be put to death? at what point is the line drawn that says "you did extremely bad, we dont want to try to rehabilitate you' and take them from this earth?
I also wonder if the survey done by the Edmonton sun actually has a good showing of all the people in Canada concerning reinstatment of the death penalty. After all, the problem with surveys that require people from choosing whether to say something or not, you usually get just the hard core people. Those that really want the death penalty will want to speak up because they are enraged by the crime in question. Those that are either on the fence, or perhaps dont agree with it, will sluff it off and not vote because they dont want to waste their time on something that really has no weight. Also, I wonder if the proximity of the Nina crime is foremost in the peoples mind so they are not voting due to rational and logical thought and information but are those small minded people that are only thinking of rage, revenge and 'eye for an eye' justice? So many thoughts, though wonder, with the increase of senseless and mass crimes that are coming to light in the news these days (killer slurpees, kids through boulders from overpasses, gang beatings over cell phones and drive by shootings), if there was the free vote in parliament these days, how many people would stand up and say that 'death for death is wrong' and how many would actually say 'death for death makes me as bad as the person that pulls the trigger'. Have we come to the point where seeing so much death happen on the streets to tohse law abiding citizens that we, the law abiding citizens ourselves, are about to lower ourselves to the level of the barbarians and heathens on the street doing the crimes? In this matter, does an ounce of prevention really be better than a pound of cure?
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2007/02/11/3586998-sun.html
Ultimate penalty City teen's slaying rekindles debate over capital punishment By MICHELLE MARK, SUN MEDIA
The vicious rape and slaying of 13-year-old Nina Courtepatte has a group of Calgarians lobbying the federal government to reinstate the death penalty. Merle Terlesky says he is heading to Edmonton's Court of Queen's Bench tomorrow to represent a citizen group that is outraged anyone could be capable of such a horrendous crime and says they should be punished accordingly. "We're trying to draw some national attention to reigniting the debate on capital punishment," Terlesky said yesterday. Terlesky acknowledged that no verdict has been made in the Courtepatte case.
"Is it in the interest of society at large to house (criminals) after committing such a heinous crime? I question if someone like that is rehabilitatable."
Courtepatte was sexually assaulted, choked, beaten and stabbed April 4, 2005, at a golf course near Stony Plain.
Court heard that she had been randomly selected at West Edmonton Mall by the alleged killers.
Gary Hunt, whose son Josh, 16, was slain at a south Edmonton home Oct. 14, said he's "50-50" on the death penalty. A 17-year-old was charged with second-degree murder in his son's homicide.
"I believe in certain circumstances that (capital punishment) would be absolutely necessary," said Hunt.
In cases where it's clear a murder was planned, and that the killer is likely to kill again, said Hunt, a strong case could be made for capital punishment. But, Hunt continued, "You don't want to do anything for revenge. Two wrongs don't make a right." While Terlesky admits the death penalty might not deter people from committing crimes, it could bring justice to the victim's loved ones. "We certainly welcome the Harper government's new initiatives on changes to the Young Offenders Act, but are judges going to carry through on the full sentences? That's a problem as well, even when the rules are there, the judges aren't enforcing it." Michael Erin Briscoe, 34, from Edmonton, and Joseph Wesley Laboucan, 19, from Fort St. John, B.C., are currently on trial facing charges of aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and first-degree murder in Courtepatte's death. A 17-year-old boy pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and is awaiting sentencing. A 17-year-old girl and a 16-year-old girl were also charged with first-degree murder.
Canada abolished capital punishment in 1976.
Where am I going with this? In Canada we have had a recent bunch of killings due to stabbings, gun shots, beatings...you name it, Albertans seem to be wanting to do to another individual. There was a case in Red Deer where a group of teenage girls poisoned another girls slurpee out of jealousy; a gang of teenagers beat a lone teenager over a disagreement with a The most recent is the case of Nina Courtepatte (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2007/01/22/trial-ninac.html). The background to this case is basically a group of 5 people ranged between 17 to 36 stalked out West Edmonton Mall, selected a person at random which was Nina, lead her away and then 'allegedly' (since the trial is still ongoing and all are innocent til proven guilty) kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered her. The reason for this act of violence? they were 'looking for someone to kill'. No real hatred to this girl, no real reason, no real rhyme, they just wanted to see what it would be like to beat the hell out of someone and kill them.
I have been following this one (along with Pickton as well, the BC pig farmer that is being accused of murdering nearly 49 prostitutes in the BC island area and burying them in his pig farm, making him either the worst or first serial killer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton) with a bit of interest since I have noticed that crimes in Canada are suddenly taking a big turn for the worse. It is almost like crimes have no punishment, to the point where crimes are almost being acceptable. Going back to the point where punishments are either light because the actions are becoming more acceptable by society or because they aren't that common. Well, they are obviosly common, since people seem to be killing or beating anyone that looks at them the worst way. So, I guess by the light sentences that people are getting it is because judges and society seems to think that this type of barbarianism is acceptable. A recent poll in the Edmontonsun (www.edmontonsun.ca) asked about capital punishment, and these were the results:
Should capital punishment be reintroduced in Canada?
Yes 86%
No 14%
Total Votes for this Question: 1604
a little history about capital punishment in Canada. Before Canada eliminated the death penalty in 1976, 1,481 people were sentenced to death, with 710 executed. Of those executed, 697 were men and 13 were women. However, interesting note is that Canada didnt abolish the death penalty til 1976, but last people to be executed in Canada was in 1953 for women (Marguerite Pitre on January 9, 1953) and 1962 for men (Ronald Turpin, 29, and Arthur Lucas, 54). Guess that means that from 1962 to 1976 there were no murders or anything in Canada huh? nope, it means that the criteria to put people to death was incredibly high and it wasnt just a case of "you kill and you are killed" attitude. Why was it abolished? it was a close free vote but it was taken away because people questioned the perfection of the legal system and wondered how many innocent people might accidentally be put to death only to have discovered later that they were innocently punished for their crimes.
Now I wonder, at what point should we bring back the death penalty? does two wrongs make a right? perhaps if Canada had the death penalty this crime would not have been commited since the reason that the individuals stated for doing this act of violence was to see someone die. Perhaps many other lives would have been saved had the culprits had the chance to sit back and think that if they did this act then they would have to pay the ultimate price if caught. But what about the crimes where a person acts out in an act of uncontrollable anger and kills someone, then if they acted outside their scope of mental mind, can they be put to death? or what of the argument of the slippery slope? where if we say that 'only acts of extreme violence can be punished by death', then where do we put the line of 'extreme violence'? where is the line always drawn when you put the line in the sand? to the extreme right or left? only Hitler and Sadam should be put to death, but others that kill only one shall live? or shall we go to the other extreme where even killing one person is punishable by death? because once you get into the grey area then you start the paradoxical question of 'how many grains of sand makes a heap?' you put two grains of sand on a table, you dont have a heap; you add one more and have two grains, you dont have a heap. So, how many grains of sand must you add before you get a heap? you kill one person in an act of rage (suppose you caught the person raping your wife, and you kill them) should you be put to death? Suppose you kill two people in an act of rage (gang rape perhaps?), should you be put to death? at what point is the line drawn that says "you did extremely bad, we dont want to try to rehabilitate you' and take them from this earth?
I also wonder if the survey done by the Edmonton sun actually has a good showing of all the people in Canada concerning reinstatment of the death penalty. After all, the problem with surveys that require people from choosing whether to say something or not, you usually get just the hard core people. Those that really want the death penalty will want to speak up because they are enraged by the crime in question. Those that are either on the fence, or perhaps dont agree with it, will sluff it off and not vote because they dont want to waste their time on something that really has no weight. Also, I wonder if the proximity of the Nina crime is foremost in the peoples mind so they are not voting due to rational and logical thought and information but are those small minded people that are only thinking of rage, revenge and 'eye for an eye' justice? So many thoughts, though wonder, with the increase of senseless and mass crimes that are coming to light in the news these days (killer slurpees, kids through boulders from overpasses, gang beatings over cell phones and drive by shootings), if there was the free vote in parliament these days, how many people would stand up and say that 'death for death is wrong' and how many would actually say 'death for death makes me as bad as the person that pulls the trigger'. Have we come to the point where seeing so much death happen on the streets to tohse law abiding citizens that we, the law abiding citizens ourselves, are about to lower ourselves to the level of the barbarians and heathens on the street doing the crimes? In this matter, does an ounce of prevention really be better than a pound of cure?
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2007/02/11/3586998-sun.html
Ultimate penalty City teen's slaying rekindles debate over capital punishment By MICHELLE MARK, SUN MEDIA
The vicious rape and slaying of 13-year-old Nina Courtepatte has a group of Calgarians lobbying the federal government to reinstate the death penalty. Merle Terlesky says he is heading to Edmonton's Court of Queen's Bench tomorrow to represent a citizen group that is outraged anyone could be capable of such a horrendous crime and says they should be punished accordingly. "We're trying to draw some national attention to reigniting the debate on capital punishment," Terlesky said yesterday. Terlesky acknowledged that no verdict has been made in the Courtepatte case.
"Is it in the interest of society at large to house (criminals) after committing such a heinous crime? I question if someone like that is rehabilitatable."
Courtepatte was sexually assaulted, choked, beaten and stabbed April 4, 2005, at a golf course near Stony Plain.
Court heard that she had been randomly selected at West Edmonton Mall by the alleged killers.
Gary Hunt, whose son Josh, 16, was slain at a south Edmonton home Oct. 14, said he's "50-50" on the death penalty. A 17-year-old was charged with second-degree murder in his son's homicide.
"I believe in certain circumstances that (capital punishment) would be absolutely necessary," said Hunt.
In cases where it's clear a murder was planned, and that the killer is likely to kill again, said Hunt, a strong case could be made for capital punishment. But, Hunt continued, "You don't want to do anything for revenge. Two wrongs don't make a right." While Terlesky admits the death penalty might not deter people from committing crimes, it could bring justice to the victim's loved ones. "We certainly welcome the Harper government's new initiatives on changes to the Young Offenders Act, but are judges going to carry through on the full sentences? That's a problem as well, even when the rules are there, the judges aren't enforcing it." Michael Erin Briscoe, 34, from Edmonton, and Joseph Wesley Laboucan, 19, from Fort St. John, B.C., are currently on trial facing charges of aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and first-degree murder in Courtepatte's death. A 17-year-old boy pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and is awaiting sentencing. A 17-year-old girl and a 16-year-old girl were also charged with first-degree murder.
Canada abolished capital punishment in 1976.
posted by Capt_Canuck at 7:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home