Two more reasons to end the death penalty

[MadHound]

On Monday Joseph Amrine walked off of death row a free man. With the 17 year old DNA evidence too degraded to use, three witnesses who recanted their testimony, and the Missouri Supreme Court overturning the decision, Cole County prosecutors decided not to refile the case against Amrine, thus setting him free. <http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2003/Jul/20030728News002.asp>

In Indiana Darnell Williams got a stay of execution to allow DNA evidence to be brought to the court's attention after 17 years.
<http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/2/061340-7002-127.html>

This is why I am against the death penalty. It is irrevocable, if a mistake is made, it cannot be corrected. I understand the need for the victim's family to find some closure(I've been in that situation), but state sponsored murder is not the answer. Given the mistakes, both intentional and unintentional, the racist nature of sentencing, and the fact that due to appeals, transportation, etc, etc, a death sentence winds up costing us more than life in prison, we should stop killing people. That is what happened in Illinois. The govenor put a moritorium on all death penalties to allow for DNA testing and for the state to step back and take a good look at what it was doing.

If you wish to fight against the death penalty in your area, go to <http://www.forusa.org/> and look up your nearest chapter. You can also get involved through both Amnesty International and the ACLU.

The death penalty has to end now. It is the moral and the logical thing to do.

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. Neither moral, nor logical

Yes, a poorly run death penalty is bound to make mistakes. Even a well-run program would make a few. But if you don't use it, invariably those who would die end up killing, raping and maiming others -- both inside and outside of prison. The death penalty prevents that.

[acerbic]

2. Why invariably?

But if you don't use it, invariably those who would die end up killing, raping and maiming others -- both inside and outside of prison.

Put them into a cell alone: who are they going to kill, rape or maim?

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Alone

So, that means, no visitors, no medical care (try that one), no exercise out of the cell, etc. Isn't that called cruel and unusual punishment?

[acerbic]

13. Well that was inane...

So, that means, no visitors, no medical care

If somebody is just isolated from the other prisoners, how does that mean "no visitors, no medical care"? :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Risk factors

If someone is a risk to harm other people, the only way to say that risk is eliminated is to keep them TOTALLY isolated. Once they have contact with others -- guards, visitors, prisoners, staff -- then they pose a threat. And that takes us back to my original point. They remain a threat, except under my plan.

[acerbic]

15. That fits the debate standards of J/PS just perfectly...

If someone is a risk to harm other people, the only way to say that risk is eliminated is to keep them TOTALLY isolated. Once they have contact with others -- guards, visitors, prisoners, staff -- then they pose a threat.

"If something I oppose doesn't TOTALLY ELIMINATE some threat, it's of no use, but let's ignore the risks of what I support." Same old, same old...

FYI: Hannibal Lecter is a fictional character. The risk of actual prisoners in reality killing, eating or raping their guards when being taken to the infirmary or to see visitors from behind a glass is pretty small, perhaps smaller than the risk of innocent people being executed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Prison

First of all, very few of the worst kind of murderers end up in the Supermax facilities. Lots of murderers end up in Genpop hanging with the rest of the prisoners. Those murderers are big time risks to everyone.

Those select few that end up in Supermax still remain a threat to everyone in that facility. You have to remember that, when you take away parole and access to most things, prisoners lose all reason to behave. They have nothing else to lose and act like it.

Yes, Hannibal is thankfully fictional. But there are tons of criminal monsters in our prisons without the need for fiction.

So again, I say, if you really want to protect society from these monsters, then you need to put them all in Supermax facilities. All the murderers, all the rapists. However, we don't begin to have enough such facilities.

No, that won't guard us 100% from them. The death penalty would however.

[acerbic]

17. Muddled...

So again, I say, if you really want to protect society from these monsters, then you need to put them all in Supermax facilities. All the murderers, all the rapists. However, we don't begin to have enough such facilities.

Weren't we talking about what could be done instead to those who now get the death penalty... or are you saying that all the murderers, all the rapists should get the death penalty?

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. A lot more

I have said it before, the problem with the death penalty is we don't use it enough.

Not all murderers and rapists deserve it, but sure as hell many or most do.

[acerbic]

19. Sick...

I have said it before, the problem with the death penalty is we don't use it enough.

http://www.google.com/search?q=overturned+murder+convictions&btnG=Google+Search

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Details

Do you think I want the death penalty used poorly? No. Should going on death row be a 20-year process? Also no.

We should have a streamlined process that ensures that both fair trials took place and that DNA evidence was checked in all cases.

But my comment stands.

[acerbic]

21. Which would be easier to make into reality and which is fantasy:

make the "justice" system fair and error-free OR make it so that the errors aren't irreversible? :think:

Do you think I want the death penalty used poorly? No. Should going on death row be a 20-year process? Also no.
We should have a streamlined process that ensures that both fair trials took place and that DNA evidence was checked in all cases.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. I would rather

Save the greatest number of people from the depravations that the criminal element of our society causes them.

[iverglas]

23. thanks, you!

"If something I oppose doesn't TOTALLY ELIMINATE some threat,
it's of no use, but let's ignore the risks of what I support."
Same old, same old..."

(If anyone whose words you were representing thinks you were misrepresenting them, I'll leave it to them to say so. I might say a wee bit of hyperbole, but that's about all.)

I do sit here looking at all the constant carrying on about what a dangerous and threatening bunch the others are, and how we all need to be armed to the teeth against the others, and wonder what strange psychotic version of reality I've wandered into.

Not only do some people seem to think that it is possible to "make everybody happy" (see that other thread), but they also seem to think that it is possible to eliminate the risk of harm, and even harm itself, from everyone's life. And then *they* decry the "nanny state".

The risk of what they support is quite evident in the thread with the tales of dead kids. Those kids are all dead because of someone else's stupidity, negligence or malice. (We really do not attribute the deaths of children who engaged in risky behaviour to the children's own stupidity or negligence; if we did, we'd just hand them all a 26er of whisky, a handgun and the car keys and tell them to be careful.)

Life was not safe for those kids. The firearms in their environment didn't make them safe. They made them dead. The firearms created a risk, they didn't reduce the risk, for them.

And then these deaths are dismissed as instances where someone (be it the child or an adult in the child's life) didn't follow the rules. If the rules had just been followed by that someone else, the kids wouldn't be dead. Well, duh.

And well, so would the people killed by all those nasty murderers not be dead if all the murderers had just followed the rules.

I'm not seeing much of a distinction here.

Your interlocutor subsequently said:

"So again, I say, if you really want to protect society from these monsters,
then you need to put them all in Supermax facilities. All the murderers,
all the rapists. However, we don't begin to have enough such facilities.

No, that won't guard us 100% from them. The death penalty would however."

Hmm. And so would eliminating all firearms in private possession guard children 100% from death by firearms that are stupidly, negligently or criminally used against or around them. Of course, there are reasons not to eliminate all firearms in private possession, so not many people advocate that solution.

There are some pretty good reasons not to use the death penalty too, but death penalty advocates don't get too troubled about those reasons.

The death of innocent people, and the possibility of such things happening, are things that tend to bother normal people. I'm bothered by the deaths of children, and the possibility of the deaths of children, when firearms are used stupidly, negligently or criminally against or around them. I'm also bothered by the deaths, and the possibility of the deaths, of people wrongfully convicted of murder. (I'm bothered by the intentional death of just about anybody, but the possibility of wrongful deaths works sufficiently to eliminate the death penalty as an option, I'd say.)

On the other hand, there are the deaths, and the possibility of deaths, of people who might not have died if they'd had firearms to "defend themselves". I haven't looked closely at all the alleged facts about the use of firearms in self-defence, but I'd have to say that so far they look damned bogus to me (in terms both of the "self-defence" element of many actual instances and of the efficacy of having a handgun in many hypothetical instances).

So even if the people with these concerns are only concerned about the risk to themselves, and not, say, the risk to children with firearms in their environment, or the risk to people subject to someone else's wrongful use of firearms, I don't see much to support their assertion that possessing firearms will eliminate the risk to themselves that they perceive.

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Ah hyperbole, you know it well

First off, I am not one of those who, "think that it is possible to eliminate the risk of harm, and even harm itself, from everyone's life." I just want to minimize the worst of it, the worst offenders. The repeat offenders.

Firearms don't make kids dead. Stupid adults who don't put them away or don't teach children that life is not like what they see on TV are responsible. America has had guns for centuries. Children have been raised to hunt, to shoot and defend themselves. It is only now that such issues are raised because, as is evident in other aspects of our society, many parents are not doing their jobs.

The difference in our outlook is actually quite simple. Gun banners, and you seem (emphasis there) to be among them, want to penalize law-abiding citizens for the actions of those in the tiny minority who don't obey the law. The death penalty reverses that equation and penalizes in bulk the guilty, the deadly and the ongoing threats to our society. While a few innocents may be harmed in that situation, more would be harmed without it.

Unlike you, I'm NOT bothered by the intentional death of just about anybody, just the innocent. The guilty can fry any day as far as I am concerned. If you rape, you murder, you will find no compassion and no forgiveness in my heart. Maybe that awaits you in the afterlife, but not here. Not with me. (Yes, I am a Christian, no I am not perfect. I don't turn the other cheek well.)

As for quantifying self defense use of guns, well it's impossible. Gun injuries and gun deaths create a paper trail. They get logged into police statistics. If a gun accomplishes self defense but is never used, there is no paper trail. Frankly, even if the gun is fired and no one hit, many police will not file a report. You know how tough all that paperwork can be.

I own a gun. As an African-American male in the small-town South, I find it more than comforting. Though I get along with many of my neighbors, a few have expressed "reservations" that I have periodic single white female visitors. I have always made it clear that my life is my business and that I am in a good position to protect myself should anyone decide otherwise.

So, has my gun provided me with self defense? I don't know. I may never know. As they say, lies, damn lies and statistics.

[demsrule4life]

26. I like the way you think

As a white male that lives in a small southern town, you are more then welcome to live nextdoor to me. I also have a pistol range in my backyard, more then welcome to comeover and practice.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Thanks

By and large, most of my neighbors are similarly neighborly. The South ain't exactly how they paint it up North.

[iverglas]

28. it all just makes me sad

"Stupid adults who don't put them away or don't teach children that life is not like what they see on TV are responsible. ... It is only now that such issues are raised because, as is evident in other aspects of our society, many parents are not doing their jobs."

Let's talk about this.

"Stupid adults ... are responsible."

Okay. So we agree that there is a PROBLEM? That children are being injured and killed? I think we can even agree that "stupid adults are responsible" ... although you seem to want to discount the obvious facts that accidents happen (and the smartest, most responsible people do have accidents, and might even accidentally forget to lock the gun cabinet, for instance) and that children are driven by an curiosity that overcomes even the underdeveloped appreciation of risks and consequences they may have, and can overcome all the precautions that adults may take and lectures they may give.

What do we normally do about problems as serious as children being killed? Well, when children are being killed in car crashes, we make the use of seat belts and child safety seats mandatory. We do not permit adults to endanger children by failing to protect them from the potential dangers of riding in cars. This kind of law is enforceable (even if it is not adequately enforced at any given time or in any given place). People driving around with children in their cars are visible to the public, and to law enforcement authorities. There is a fair bit of incentive for them to obey the law -- if they actually need an incentive to protect their children from harm -- because they are exposed to consequences if they do not.

How does this compare with children being injured and killed as a result of adult stupidity in relation to firearms? What possible opportunity does the public or law enforcement authorities have to observe situations in which adults are endangering children through the unsafe storage, handling or use of firearms? Answer? NONE. The public and law enforcement authorities (where registration of firearms is not mandatory) do not even know if a child is exposed to firearms. What incentive does a parent who is not "responsible" enough to protect his/her child from the inherent dangers have to do it? Answer: NONE.

And who are the victims of this irresponsibility? CHILDREN.

In what other situations do we simply wash our hands of any public responsibility for CHILDREN? Well, I'd have to agree that in some situations we certainly do -- like leaving it up to parents to decide what television programming will be available to their children. But in a lot of other situations, we do not wash our hands of responsibility. If a parent beats or neglects his/her child, we do NOT say "oh well, there goes an irresponsible parent; whatever happens to the child, it's just that irresponsible parent's fault". If a parent takes a child on board a fishing boat without a life jacket, we don't just say "oh well, if the child drowns, it's the irresponsible parent's fault".

No. We make laws to protect the children and we enforce those laws. We do not wait until a child dies of abuse or drowning or going through the windshield before we step in. *WE* attempt to protect the children, and where necessary to protect them from the parents' neglect or abuse or irresponsibility. We are able to do this where the "irresponsibility" goes on in public view, but we also act on any indication of a problem that is out of public view.

To some extent we have to rely on children self-reporting the problems they experience in private. And to that end, we teach children what they should expect from the adults in their life -- specifically, that they should not expect abuse -- and we instruct them how to protect themselves when possible (like, by buckling up) and instruct them in how to seek protection when they need it.

Would you like this solution for adults who are "irresponsible" with firearms in children's environments? Should little Billy and little Teresa run to their school counsellor and say "daddy keeps a loaded revolver on the bedside table", "daddy let me shoot his rifle at the neighbour's dog", "I know where to find mummy's pistol and when she's not home me and my friends play with it"? Even if they should -- do you think maybe they would? I don't.

So: exactly what SOLUTION to this PROBLEM do you propose? That's what I'd like to know. I should really say, though: what METHOD OF REDUCING THE RISK do you propose? since I'm sure we're agreed that virtually no risk can be eliminated.

Is this problem really so negligible in your eyes that you think relying on "educating" the irresponsible adults is sufficient? Is "educating" small children about what to do around firearms going to counteract their own natural curiosity, and inability to assess risks and consequences, sufficiently to ensure that they are not injured and killed? If you think that either of these things will work, you're living in a universe I don't inhabit, populated by people who do not exist.

"Gun banners, and you seem (emphasis there) to be among them, want to penalize law-abiding citizens for the actions of those in the tiny minority who don't obey the law."

You can emphasize anything you want as much as you want, you are still making an allegation for which you have not a shred of evidence, and which is in point of fact FALSE.

I do not SEEM to be any such thing, and you have no grounds for asserting that I seem to be any such thing. So I'd suggest that you retract your false allegation and apologize.

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Brevity

Thy name is NOT iverglas.

Yes, we agree there is a problem. There are many in our society. This is one of them. Although, accidents do happen, they never happened even vaguely with the frequency they now occur. Guns haven't changed that much. Some people have.

Limiting guns is not like car seats. I don't see car seats mentioned anywhere in MY Constitution. Maybe they are in yours. Some other examples where we defer to parents without checking up on them: health, nudity, eating habits (we don't mandate weight either), religion, employment, etc. Pretty much most of a child's life is deferred to parents UNTIl parents break the law.

Do I want children informing on their parents about gun use? No. Since I don't live in the Soviet Union, I would oppose such actions. Do you want your kids ratting you out to the IRS either?

Solution: There is no perfect solution that weighs the rights of sociey to have guns vs. the risk of those who mishandle. Lacking a perfect solution, I would propose a very strong and aggressive education campaign. Much like the one about smoking or car seats. Designed to teach parents how to store guns and kids both how not to abuse them and how to use them carefully.

Hell, if you taught Americans that there is often a shell in the chamber of a 9mm even when they take out the rest, you'd save hundreds of lives per year.

I based my sumise (not allegation) and even strongly qualified it on your posts. If it ain't true. It ain't true.

So now, what is YOUR solution?

[iverglas]

31. idiocy and failure

"Some other examples where we defer to parents without checking up on them: health, ..."

Uh, no. I do know that some backwoods societies do things like allow parents to deny children medical treatment because of the parents' "religions beliefs", but even then they may only do so based on those loony religious beliefs, and that "right" is very strictly circumscribed.

We do NOT defer to parents without checking up on them when their children's health is known to the public to be at risk. The extent to which the existence of risk might be inquired into by the public may vary (I'm sure it's less intense in the US than other places), but essentially, it is a great deal more difficult for a parent to conceal neglect of a child's health problems than it is to conceal endangerment of a child through improper storage, handling or use of firearms.

... nudity, ...

Great leaping lizards, in what sense does "nudity" present a risk to children's health or safety?? And do you think that if a child were being allowed to parade around outside in the nude in January in Michigan, some public authority might not take an interest? Or if a 12-year-old were doing it in July in public view in circumstances where harm could result to the child?

... eating habits (we don't mandate weight either), ...

You may have me there ... although I believe that weight was precisely the issue in a child-protection case in the US quite recently. But no, where eating habits present an immediate and demonstrable threat to a child's health and safety, we do indeed intervene. Starving children are not allowed to die; children fed on a diet of twinkies and coke may indeed be taken into protection.

... religion, ...

And uh ... do you know of some risk that "religion" presents to children's health or safety? And if it did -- say, if the parents' "religion" involved putting their children into cages with lions -- do you seriously think that the state would not intervene?

... employment, ...

Perhaps you have never heard of child labour laws.

... etc.

I'll look forward to your elaboration. Perhaps you can think of something that is actually analogous to the unsafe storage, handling or use of firearms.

"Limiting guns is not like car seats. I don't see car seats mentioned anywhere in MY Constitution."

Ah yes. Your founding fathers obviously intended to prevent the public from protecting the lives and safety of children. I see.

"Do I want children informing on their parents about gun use? No. Since I don't live in the Soviet Union, I would oppose such actions. Do you want your kids ratting you out to the IRS either?"

Hmm, yet another silly "analogy".

Does a parent's dealings with the tax authorities endanger a child?

Do you also not want your child "ratting you out" if you beat him or her?

But of course, I didn't really ask you whether you "wanted" this. I asked you whether it would be effective for reducing the risk to children at risk.

"Solution: There is no perfect solution that weighs the rights of sociey to have guns vs. the risk of those who mishandle. Lacking a perfect solution, I would propose a very strong and aggressive education campaign. Much like the one about smoking or car seats. Designed to teach parents how to store guns and kids both how not to abuse them and how to use them carefully."

Funny how we also have laws that PROHIBIT giving children access to cigarettes, and that PROHIBIT carrying children in passenger vehicles without appropriate restraints.

As I noted, that latter one is relatively easy to enforce, if we choose. The prohibition on giving children cigarettes is somewhat less easy ... but heck, what parent, however irresponsible, is likely to create a five-buck-a-day addiction for his/her child that the parent will then have to pay for?

WE DON'T just "teach" parents not to give their children cigarettes or not to carry them in cars without restraints. We TELL them that they MUST do it and we make the enforcement arrangements we believe to be necessary and possible, to PREVENT them from doing those things.

And we don't allow parents to give children access to cars in which they may ride without restraints.

"I based my sumise (not allegation) and even strongly qualified it on your posts. If it ain't true. It ain't true."

"Proof by blatant assertion", yet again. I could say that I base my own suRmise that you are an axe murderer on your posts, and qualify the hell out of it, of course. I won't. Because I have NO REASON to think such a thing.

If you have a reason to think that I am a "gun-banner", you need to present that reason. If I have said something in my posts that makes me "seem" this way to you, you need to cite it.

Otherwise, you need to retract it. Or just look like a person who likes making allegations for which s/he can present no evidence.

"So now, what is YOUR solution?"

Well, of course, I did qualify that question by asking how you would reduce the risk, since there is almost never a "solution" to a complex social problem.

Firearms registration, to start with. That way, even your puny proposal can actually be made effective: people who wish to be, or are known to be, in possession of firearms can have that (continued) possession subject to training requirements, for starters. And evaluation, periodic re-training and re-assessment, reporting, spot-checks to verify compliance with storage and handling requirements, confiscation where they cease to qualify for possession of firearms, and so on.

A ban on private possession of handguns except in extraordinary circumstances. Anyone who "needs" them for sporting purposes could be perfectly free to own them, and to store them securely at the facility where such events take place, which facility would be under appropriate supervision.

A ban on any weapon not needed for a use recognized by society as legitimate, mainly hunting weapons. I might go so far as to require that the legitimacy of the use claimed by the would-be firearm owner be demonstrated: that s/he really is a hunter, or a rural dweller, for instance. Where I'm at, "self-defence" is *not* recognized as a legitimate reason for possessing a firearm, and I see no reason why it should be.

I actually happen to know someone whose young son committed suicide with one of the family hunting weapons. The father, whom I met after the death and was involved with for a while, was indeed a legitimate hunter, and cared deeply for his children. I have no doubt that his sons had been instructed in the safe use of the family firearms and had participated in hunting activiites.

The son (who was 13 and had serious medical problems) was depressed, and the father did not have the skills to recognize the problem or the potential for danger in the situation: a depressed child with access to firearms. Yes, it was his JOB to do that; but how many parents are skilled or competent enough to identify and deal with their children's serious mental health problems? Was he "irresponsible"? Sure; by definition -- the child, depressed or not, had access to firearms. Is the child dead? Yes. Does whose "fault" it was make any difference to that fact? No. Is that death and others like it something I think measures should be taken to avert, even at the cost of interfering with some people's "rights" more than they might like? Yup.

.

[malkia]

32. Is this your version of gun control?

So despite our argument we can never reach an agreement on this issue. I come from an ex-communist country were only few can obtain a CCW. For the last 2 days I’ve been trying to find the actual number of licenses issued without much luck. But the number is not very big.
I’ve seen gun control in action. Only criminals have guns. Despite the “strict” prohibition.
So if your version of gun control includes banning most of the guns I don’t want it.
How do you suppose this ban will be enforced? Like the prohibition? Like the drug wars?
BTW was there any decrease in use of drugs after all these years? Why do you think the ban on guns will work? Show me one SINGLE time when any ban worked?

[iverglas]

33. big whup

"I come from an ex-communist country were only few can obtain a CCW."

I'll bet your bogeyman communists also had speed limits. You wanting to abolish them? Does the fact that "communists" do something make it BAD? Quick answer: no. There are things that the bishop of Rome does that, evil old gnome though he might be, are "good".

Sorry, you got yourself a losing "argument" there. All it is, is a reverse appeal to authority. Instead of "so-and-so says so, so it must be right", you're saying "so-and-so did it, so it must be bad". That ain't how it works.

"I’ve seen gun control in action."

Nope. You've seen gun control as practised by a particular group of people in a particular set of circumstances in action. If I were to have observed a criminal trial in your ex-country and been appalled at how it was conducted, would I be justified in saying "I've seen the criminal justice system in action", and it doesn't work? Quick answer: no.

Speaking from up here in the land of rights and freedoms, I *do* watch the legislative process and criminal justice system in action in the US and I *am* appalled. Canadians would never tolerate the abuses that go on in the US, in terms of violations of individual rights and freedoms, and denials of equal treatment, that occur there. Attempting to equate "relatively strict limitations on access to firearms" with "denial of individual rights and freedoms", and to say that a society that has one is on the slippery slope to being a society that has the other, just DOES NOT WORK.

"So if your version of gun control includes banning most of the guns I don’t want it."

And ... like ... I'm surprised? Or that you're misrepresenting what I said?

"How do you suppose this ban will be enforced? Like the prohibition? Like the drug wars?"

Do you have ANY idea how tiresome these demonstrably and blatantly false analogies have grown??

"BTW was there any decrease in use of drugs after all these years? Why do you think the ban on guns will work? Show me one SINGLE time when any ban worked?"

You haven't been following at all, have you?

Oh, excuse my hyperbole all to hell. May I ask, rather: why exactly are you asking ME this question?

Why would I, who HAVE NOT PROPOSED A BAN ON GUNS, have any desire or duty to tell you why I would think that a ban on guns will work -- when I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT I THINK ANY SUCH THING?

On the other hand, with respect to a ban on specific firearms, yes, it seems to work quite well in Canada. Like I said: you haven't been following, have you? It would work even better if it were not so easy to illegally import the banned weapons from the great wild-west underdeveloped nation to the south.

That's not even to mention that your question is meaningless, since you haven't asked what it will supposedly work FOR. I mean, you might realize, I'd think, that the purpose of restrictions on access to firearms IS NOT to restrict access to firearms. Duh.

.

[malkia]

34. “specific firearms”?

“ban on private possession of handguns”+” ban on any weapon not needed for a use recognized by society as legitimate, mainly hunting weapons” – doesn’t leave much, does it? And it’s not something like banning, right?

[iverglas]

35. gosh, I dunno

“ban on private possession of handguns”
+” ban on any weapon not needed for a use
recognized by society as legitimate, mainly
hunting weapons” – doesn’t leave much, does it?

(A preliminary note -- surely you didn't interpret that as meaning that "mainly hunting weapons" were banned, when what it logically meant was that "mainly hunting weapons" ARE weapons "needed for a use recognized by society as legitimate" ...)

"Doesn't leave much"?

Is the cup full or half empty? How deep is half a hole? Shall we go on? How much IS "much"?

It leaves all the weapons that Canadians (i.e. as a society collectively, and as an overwhelming majority of its members individually), for instance, regard as being needed in order to exercise their rights and freedoms. And it leaves the ability to possess those weapons unrestricted except in such ways as are justifiable in a free and democratic society.

Well, that's the contention, anyhow -- and of course **I** will not cite the opinion of Parliament as in any way authoritative in that respect, unless it comes down to a matter in which the constitutional courts properly defer to Parliament. That's Parliament's view, and it's also my view -- and it is my very informed opinion that it will also be the view of the Supreme Court of Canada if the matter ever comes before it.

The Supreme Court of Canada being the court that, for instance, told Parliament that it could not prohibit inmates in penitentiaries from voting in federal elections, because to do so unjustifiably violates their constitutional rights. And that it could not restrict women's access to abortion by making them obtain certification that an abortion was "necessary" to their life or health, for the same reason. And that it could not impose mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offences except in very particular circumstances (where the court did defer to the legislature's judgment). Lower courts than the SCC have recently told provincial governments that they may not refuse to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, for the same reason.

And I could go on. There is no slippery slope in Canada when it comes to violations of constitutional rights -- except for the very upward slope we have been travelling in the last several decades, toward stronger protection of those rights, and expansion of the recognized rights.

So like I say: it leaves exactly what Canadian society believes should be left, after balancing the individual and collective interests at stake.

Of course, we're just a bunch of commies, so what do we know about rights and freedoms anyhow?

"And it’s not something like banning, right?"

Well, banning something is something like banning, I'd have to say. What we have here isn't an outright ban on handguns, actually (I may have overstated that case), although certain other weapons are indeed "prohibited" and not just "restricted" like handguns.

But no: requiring permits to possess, and requiring registration, are not "something like banning", you'd be right there alright.

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Ah CANADIAN law

Like we care. We rebelled against the king and governmental control. We are not going to embrace giving up that ability a second time around.

Canada, as you well know, is NOT the U.S., so it is a bad analogy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. To follow

Your comments, yes the government intervenes in EXTREME cases. So does the government in extreme cases of gun abuse. That means you should be happy with the status quo.

You cite intevention in health, but 99.9% of all healthcare decisions are made by parents, not the government.

Actually, we don't defer to ANYONE when we know there to be a present risk. If you had anthrax, the government would intervene whether you liked it or not.

I mentioned nudity because it HAS been in the news of late. If parents wish to keep a totally nude household they can do so. PUBLIC nudity is another matter.

I know of no case where "children fed on a diet of twinkies and coke may indeed be taken into protection." Care to cite it?

As for religion, yes I know LOTS of parents who put their kids in cages with lions. Good example...NOT.

Yes, I have heard of child labor laws and know that families get to be exempt from them.

Well, for many of us, actually having a gun in our home is part and parcel to protecting the lives of our loved ones. Sorry you don't like that.

There is no similarity between owning a gun and beating a child. One involves harming another human being. The other involves a legal and constitutionally protected activity.

So, you advocate forcing parents to make guns even more enticing by forbidding parents from teaching kids about them? Nice. Lots of us don't live in places where police are around the corner. If you live on a farm, your kids work that farm. They protect that farm. Guns are part of that. If you live in many neighborhoods in the U.S. -- including D.C. where only crooks get guns (that includes the politicians) -- having a gun is a necessary survival tool. Young folk in MY family have been taught how to operate a gun safely for decades. My granddaddy didn't take kindly to men in sheets. He taught us all well.

Ah, I love your sense of hyperbole. OK, let's just get it out front. Do you want to ban handguns, yes or no? The answer, mostly is yes.

Now, your solution:

* Firearms registration -- Since this is a first step to taking guns, it would be heavily ignored. What that does is create a whole new criminal class out of law-abiding citizens.

* Permission? The government gives us fucking permission to use out Constitutional rights? Not in the U.S. dear friend. Maybe Canada, but not here.

* Training requirements -- Talk about potential for abuse. Sure initially, it might be mostly legit. Later on, you might have to be an Olympic marksman to qualify. How about we do the same for Freedom of Speech. It probably costs just as many lives one way or another. I think you need to demonstrate a need to exercise that particular freedom.

* Spot-checks -- Now the government gets carte blanche to enter my home? They might find that difficult.

* Confiscation -- Ah yes, somehow I knew your plan had THAT in there.

* A ban on private possession of handguns except in extraordinary circumstances -- And you say you aren't a gun banner? Go figure.

* A ban on any weapon not needed for a use recognized by society as legitimate, mainly hunting weapons -- Again, no you aren't a gun banner. If it walks like a duck...

* I might go so far as to require that the legitimacy of the use claimed by the would-be firearm owner be demonstrated: that s/he really is a hunter, or a rural dweller, for instance. -- Boy, you sure are creating one hell of a bureaucracy. You'd have to have bureaucrats out there with the hunters. I bet THAT wouldn't be a very popular job. Probably good for the unemployment picture since there would be MANY vacancies.

* "Self-defence" is *not* recognized as a legitimate reason for possessing a firearm -- Do you live on top of a police station or something? For the rest of us, self defense is a bigger deal.

I am sorry for the people you know who lost a son. Lots of kids kill themselves with sleeping pills, in car crashes, jumping off bridges. It happens. It's unfortunate, but it still happens.

So, your final solution is to abridge the rights of the many because some people can't handle them.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

29. and sadder and sadder

"Unlike you, I'm NOT bothered by the intentional death of just about anybody, just the innocent. The guilty can fry any day as far as I am concerned. If you rape, you murder, you will find no compassion and no forgiveness in my heart."

I'm no more interested in what you are bothered by, or your capacity for compassion or forgiveness than I am in your religion -- unless it is relevant to the discussion. The reason that *I* am bothered by intentional killings is that they are contrary to respect for the rights we recognize individuals as having, and that *is* a relevant consideration.

Does NO ONE here know the MEANING of the expression they throw around so freely --
INALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Another job for the dictionary, I suppose.

alienate transfer ownership of to another person, etc.

inalienable that cannot be transferred to another

"Inalienable" DOES NOT MEAN "born with" or "innate" or "inherent".

An "inalienable right" is not one that you have whether you like it or not; it is a right that you cannot give up.

Just for instance: the right to liberty. You may not give up your right to liberty by selling yourself into slavery, or mortgaging your freedom against a debt. The right to life? You may not give up your right to life.

Or, as it was put on the Law & Order rerun I watched yesterday (and I may paraphrase slightly):

Assistant prosecutor with the annoying hoarse voice:
"Where I come from, if you <do all manner of horrible things>, you forfeit that right."

Dianne Wiest, District Attorney:
"Where I come from, you can't forfeit that right; we can only take it away from you."

Now of course, she used a common mis-formulation of the concept. We do not "take away people's rights", because we can't; they're inalienable. We violate those rights, we interfere with the exercise of them. We may do that when we have demonstrated justification for doing it. We believe that we have demonstrated justification for depriving someone of liberty, for instance, when we can show that doing so is necessary in order to protect the public from the harm likely to be done by the person.

Your lack of compassion, your lack of forgiveness, your religion -- none of those have anything to do with justification for violating rights in a liberal democracy, or, as we term it in Canada, "a free and democratic society". I'm pretty sure we've been over this before, so I'm not expecting you to acknowledge this FACT, but it always bears repeating.

The very reason we have laws and authorities to enforce and apply them is to prevent anyone's lack of compassion -- or compassion -- from resulting in a violation of someone's rights -- or resulting in society being unprotected.

We may collectively decide to exercise compassion, but not in such a way as to leave society unprotected. We may also collectively decide not to exercise compassion, but not in such a way as to violate someone's rights without justification.

Spouting one's "opinions" about what should be done to law-breakers without reference to the principles that apply is nothing but an attempt to subvert the true public debate of the issue and take it away from the REAL considerations that apply, in an attempt to get one's own way without demonstrating that that "way" is consistent with the principles by which one's society has agreed to live.

That's the sort of thing that fascists do. Adolph Hitler had a lot of "opinions" about what should be done, and he managed to dominate the public discourse, by appealing to false facts and irrelevant emotions, to the extent that any voices that might have spoken up on behalf of the principles he was disregarding and proposing to violate were suppressed. It is simply unacceptable, in a democracy, to advocate a public policy without reference to the principles that govern that public policy, and instead to appeal to the "validity" of one's feelings, one's "right" to an opinion, blah blah.

Me, I like to think that I'd have shot Hitler in a heartbeat, if the opportunity had arisen. I'd also like to think that I would have been prosecuted, under laws that applied the principles of a democracy, for doing so. And then, yes, I'd like to think that compassion would play a role in my sentence, since to exercise compassion for someone who shot Hitler -- in my case, at least -- would really be unlikely to result in society not being protected, either by turning me loose on it or by conveying tolerance of murder.

.

[iverglas]

24. deleted dupe ... didn't check first ... (nm)

.

[trotsky]

3. So the question becomes

How many innocent lives are you willing to terminate just to be sure that a rapist/murderer will never strike again?

More importantly, how does the state executing an innocent victim differ from an individual killing someone?

There is an option called life imprisonment without parole, you know. The innocent will then always have a chance to be released. It's a little late once they're in the grave.

[MadHound]

6. Show me where and how the death penalty acts as a deterent

Yes, the death penalty would prevent the perp from commiting anymore murders on the outside, but so does life imprisonment. And better work by prison guards would prevent the perp from commiting murder on the inside, but most people who kill on the inside weren't put in for murder in the first place. Most death row inmates are kept on death row, in isolation just for that reason. And the deterent value of the death penalty is zip, zero, nada. If somebody wants to kill, they're going to kill whether it is in a death penalty state or not.

So how does the death penalty prevent murder?

And as you say, even a well run death penalty will make a few mistakes. Those mistakes are human lives. Are those mistakes worth it? Are we supposed to accept the death of innocents as part of the "greater good"?

The death penalty is nothing but state sponsored murder, one whose blood is on all of our hands.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Life imprisonment

Doesn't do dick for the other people IN prison, most of them there for minor crimes. Those prisoners are human lives.

How many of those Supermax facilities are you willing to build?

[MadHound]

11. Those other people in prison are already protected

All prisoners who are recieving the death penalty are put in a single cell, segragated from the general prison populace. And I doubt that you would have to build that many more prisons to house them.

[greenwow]

4. Third reason is because...

two wrongs don't make a right.

[qb]

5. Good points

I never understood the "closure for the victim's family" argument for maintaining a flawed execution system. How does executing an innocent person while the real murderer goes free help the victim's family?

Another one I don't get is "there may be mistakes, but..."
I suspect this argument wouldn't exist if any of the "mistakes" belonged to the middle or upper classes.

[unblock]

7. there is a more direct argument

history has proved that killing is a privilege that is best not granted to governments.

this argument undercuts everything about the crime itself, victim's "rights" and the criminal's "deserving" to die. all this may still be true, and yet the government still should not have the privilege to calmly kill its subjects when life imprisonment is possible.

so even if some criminals deserve to die, we're still better off avoiding handing over our very lives to the whims of governments.


a genuine conservative would distrust government well enough to understand this argument.

[wwwunspunmediaorg]

8. If nothing else...

If nothing else... the states scrapping the death penalty would improve our image in the world, as apposed to the gun toting cowboy sex education image we have now because of the WH.

[Padme Amidala]

12. The death penalty should be abolished

The death penalty also sets a bad example. It shows that if you are a juror or judge you can kill at will. But if you are a regular person then it is wrong. This shows a double standard. This is also the problem with war. Exept in that case the judge or juror is the President.