thompso@utecfc.UUCP (Mark Thompson) (09/04/84)
I read an interesting fact regarding the shooting of two police officers
near Ottawa. Seems the criminal that was killed in the shootout had recently
served three years for 20 or so armed robbery offences. Why only three years!!??
After he was released he was soon back in prison for eight months on a drug
offence. Apparently true justice was only attainable when left in the hands of
the police. Unfortunately two law abiding policemen had to end up shot in the
process. How about a minimum 20 year sentence for anyone using a gun in a crime?
How about the return of capital punishment? Why should the person(s) responsible
for the bombing in Montreal get away with anything less than their life(s)? Why
spend $40,000 odd a year keeping these killers in prison when all too often
if they are released they go on to kill again. I am sorry but I cannot feel
any compassion for these criminals. All my compassion is given to their victims.
Mark Thompson
UTMEmartin@dciem.UUCP (Martin Tuori) (09/07/84)
Mark Thompson writes:
Why spend $40,000 odd a year keeping these killers in prison when all too often
if they are released they go on to kill again. I am sorry but I cannot feel
any compassion for these criminals. All my compassion is given to their victims.
I agree! The CBC Radio Noon program ran a phone-in on capital punishment
last week (in the wake of another police death), and all the usual arguments
came out pro and con. But the attitude that seems to get insufficient
airtime is that society doesn't owe the criminal anything. Society is an
evolutionary system, and the bad weeds should be removed. Rehabilitation
is ineffective; until we can remove the causes of crime, perhaps we should
at least clean house. Fewer criminals should go to jail for first time, or
lesser offences, since prison serves as school for criminals. But repeat
and dangerous offenders should not be released, and we should think about
capital punishment. It's a very difficult issue, but one that must be faced.
--
Martin Tuori
{allegra,decvax,duke,floyd,linus}!utzoo!dciem!martinmmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/08/84)
==============
Mark Thompson writes:
Why spend $40,000 odd a year keeping these killers in prison when all too often
if they are released they go on to kill again. I am sorry but I cannot feel
any compassion for these criminals. All my compassion is given to their victims
==============
What does it have to do with compassion? I understand the argument that
we spend more money keeping criminals alive than we would spend to kill
them, but it doesn't seem to me a sufficient argument to get me to
support capital punishment.
If you are talking compassion, I think killing someone quickly is more
compassionate than sentencing them to a life in prison. It is said that
some murderers kill IN ORDER TO BE KILLED, perhaps to get out of a life
in prison when killing a guard gets the death sentence. How does capital
punishment help the dead guard? How does it help the next guard to be
killed?
The arguments that would sway me are ones based on the effectiveness of
the punishment. We know that prisons are training schools for crime,
especially violent crime. Hence it is probably not a good idea to
send someone non-violent to prison. If you do send someone to prison,
it is probably not a good idea ever to let them out. But in that case,
why not kill them and save the money? One reason is that, for all
of what Henry Spencer says, such evidence as there is suggests that
there will be more murders if you kill murderers than if you don't
(even allowing for the ones you let out after they finish their sentences).
The evidence of which I am aware is not strong, but I know of none
pointing the other way.
I also worry somewhat about where the limit should or would be placed
between capital and non-capital crimes. There are lots of people
wthout whom society would be better off (but the names of those people
depend on who is listing them). Should we allow society (the government,
courts appointed by the government, or some other power-driven subgroup)
to choose? Treason has been a crime subject to the death penalty
(maybe it still is [Dave Sherman listening?]), but who defines treason?
Perhaps John Turner might have thought quite a few Canadians committed
treason last Monday! We have had a few episodes in the States in which
treason was defined not much differently.
If capital punishment is allowed for murder, the only reason can be
revenge. An eye for an eye. You might say that at least that person
would not kill again, but then very few killers do, anyway, except for
those that killed many times before they were caught. Killing the killer
might give the relatives of a murder victim some satisfaction, but it
doesn't do the victim much good. Mark's comment about his compassion
being for the victim is reasonable, but not helpful.
What I want is to be able to go around with the lowest possible likelihood
of being murdered, by my wife, by a mugger, or by a terrorist (in rough
order of social likelihoods). I don't think restoring capital punishment
will achieve this state. I am willing to pay a little to keep killers
alive in jail, if thereby I improve my chances of staying alive a little
longer.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtbaines@utecfc.UUCP (Ian Totman) (09/09/84)
Re: capital punishment
What seems to be happening in our society is that the goal of
rehabilitation (an admirable one) is resulting in society being seen to be
too 'easy' on violent criminals and not taking into consideration the victims.
Many criminals are habitual offenders and seem unable to fit into society for
whatever reason. The question becomes "what do you do with these people?"
We hear of the cost of keeping these criminals in our prisons, of the prisons
just being a place for them to learn their trade, and of them being let out
after relatively short (subjective assessment) periods of time to kill again.
I'm not sure if I agree that capital punishment is the way to go (for many
of the reasons Martin Taylor brought up) and because it *is* irreversible (what
if the witnesses lied?). Also, any kind of 'standoff' between criminals and the
police would be more dangerous since the criminals would be more tempted to
fight to the death (since they would face that anyway).
I would like to hear ideas people have as to how to protect society from those
who don't seem to be able to live within it. Can we put prisons in more remote
locations? Would the idea of actually making them WORK while in prison to help
pay their debt help deter future incarcerations? (At least we would get some-
thing useful from them. The act that put them there in the first place means
they give up some rights - being forced to work, etc.) And is there a move
(finally!) to give harsher sentences for violent crime (murder, rape, and
other assault)?
Ian