Right To Die

79 Replies to “Right To Die”

1. Regardless of which way one swings on capital punishment, the point being made here is a particularly cogent one. The Canadian Left is perfectly fine with killing your sick grandmother, while at the same time -violently- outraged about killing Paul Bernardo. Or even letting him kill himself.
   Which is utterly insane, no matter how you look at it.

2. Groc, bluetech, O Kiny, K99 and phantom picked up on the left’s blatant insane mindwarped thinking on this – too bad so many others partially derailed a great post by Kate.

3. I remind all those gung ho for the death penalty that Ian Thompson could have quite easily had to shoot one or both of the fire bombers who attacked him, and it would have been on video.
   So today he could quite easily be facing the death penalty at the hands of the MORON who’s crown attorney in his illegal storage case. Since there’d be no question that he killed them, might he not hang for defending himself?
   Self defense is in the eye of the beholder.
   I think what’s failed to sink in with a lot of us is that our own government, our own police, judges, MPs etc., are by FAR the greatest threat we face in life. You can defeat a rapist, you can run away from a robber, but how the hell are you going to beat a whole frickin’ country?
   That’s why I very much think that government should -not- have the right to kill anyone outside of open war or police action. CITIZENS are the proper ones to make that call at the moment of the crime.
   Because most of the time, your average citizen is quite happy to do as Mr. Thompson did. Scare them off. Normal people will not lightly kill another human being.
   Castle doctrine, absolute protection of the right to carry personal weapons, that’s all the capital punishment anyone needs.

4. Way back when the death penalty was eliminated there was no such thing as DNA evidence and the like. Forensic science has come a long way since then. Wrongful convictions are much less likely to happen today. I would have no problem with the death penalty if rigorous and high standards of absolute proof were a prerequisite. It should also only be an option in certain classes of murder, such as Picton, Bernardo or Olson – in other words absolute monsters who commit mass murders or multiple serial murders or the murder of children. The time has come, IMHO, and we can make the availability of a death penalty judgment far more rigorous and difficult to obtain.
   Having said that, I noted today that Papa Shafia has decided to appeal. Wouldn’t it be nice if the death penalty was brought back and applied to him.

5. This is a tuffy
   Firstivly lol I know it is not a word but anyway Firstivly lol. This is not about the death penalty this is about all but giving them every single device possible so they can end it them selves. Here is my dilemma , I am a christian I love god above all else the problem I have with this is that god knows our hearts he wrote his law on our minds and in our hearts this is gods law I follow it as best I can even though my human desires agree with all of the human punishments available but I know this is not gods will , so I think we would as Christians be just as guilty of committing murder (as we would be premeditating the death of another human being) as the criminal who committed murder themselves …….in the eyes of the lord (remember that)
   So I can understand why all of the godless people want their justice in this world but as Christians we all must leave as ,any doors open for people to reconcile with god and that includes allowing the worst pieces of human garbage or to me my fellow brothers and sisters every opportunity to reconcile with god it is very important to me as a Christian to offer that and let me explain to you who have no god why .
   When we try to offer justice here it is petty and laughable to god never forget that if we think ending someone’s life here try to wrap your head around yourself spending eternity in a painful blustery bloody fiery hell to me being separated from god is my biggest fear and by eliminating someone’s ability to reconcile you may cast them innocent in they eyes of the lord we have no clue how god works in these situations because sometimes they arecut short and it tells me that that was gods plan . Sorry this is dragging on but I am very hesitant to just cast human judgement on gods creation it truley scares me . This is my opinion if you don’t believe kep your comments to yourself how ever if you do believe I would have gone on to elaine more but this is getting to long . So you can see why I am torn I am torn between what god wills and what I want as a sinful human being. I think most Christians will agree with me.
   Thank you have a great night I will check in later to respond to anyone’s comments or questions.

6. It’s too much power to give the state.
   Certainly, there are scum out there who really deserve the death penalty. But the state would have to be perfect in order to administer that level of justice.
   And the state? She ain’t perfect

7. The real joke about the death penalty is that the Liberals got rid of it purely to thumb their noses at the conservatives. As they have done with most things Justice related.
   Just Punishment is not a Leftist value, after all. Nor is equality before the law, apparently.

8. It is not the State that needs to be perfect, it’s the pll that practice LAW that need to stop the crap… We need to hold the Lawyers/Judges to the same measure/level of LAW as that provided a defendant. We need to abolish self-regulation Law Societies. The OWS group would have an issue if they demanded that Lawyers be adjudicated by ordinary citizens…
   WE can never have a perfect system (we are Humans), but we must have the means to protect society…Those that deny the need for protection are a big part of the problem, it was nice to be young and stupid, but one has a responsibility to yourself and those (society) that depend on you..
   The Death penalty will always be an option to advanced societies..

9. I am, reluctantly, with those who oppose capital punishment. Not because I don’t think scum like Picton, Bernardo, etc., don’t deserve it, but because far too many times, the cops focus on the wrong guy to the exclusion of others. Some of the stories have been told above; here’s another:
   Just before Bernardo moved to St. Catherines, a young woman named Elizabeth Bain was murdered in Scarborough. The police almost immediately decided her boyfriend was guilty, and pursued him to the exclusion of all other suspects, despite witness reports of a blond man, possibly Bernardo, seen near her just before her disappearance. Bain’s body is never found, but the police charge Baltovich (her former boyfriend) with murder, and he is convicted. He serves 8 years in prison before being released on appeal and finally exonerated.
   As we’ve seen in the Picton case, some cops are too afraid to rock the boat to go after obvious suspects. In other cases, cops are too lazy to chase down other leads, and prefer to shape the evidence to fit their chief suspect. And, as we’ve all seen on TV, the offer “we’ll take death penalty off the table if you confess” might be compelling to a poor man who can’t afford Johnny Cochrane to defend him.
   But, as Mark pointed out above, Boisvenu was NOT advocating capital punishment by the state. He simply said if a criminal wants to end his own life, we should let him. That’s a far different thing, and it’s an idea worthy of support, IMHO.

10. TJ at 5:18 What if you personally witness a thug kill your own child, are you saying no to the death penalty in that case?
    I am saying no to a state imposed death penalty.
    Call me crazy, but I think all a parent can expect in that circumstance is vigilante style justice. Should the parent take the law into his own hands, or expect the state to pull the trigger?
    Again, we’re not saying that killers don’t deserve the death penalty, but just that its too big a responsibility for an imperfect state\justice system.
    The state can never remedy the execution of an innocent man.

11. There is no reason why there cannot be separate classifications to impose capital punishments on certain murders. A few innocent people are convicted of murder occasionally, but that should not outweigh the death sentence for confessed and proven beyond doubt sexual predator murderers like Clifford Olson, Paul Benardo, Ted Bundy, Jeffry Dalmer et al.
    When there is overwhelming evidence of multiple pre-planned stranger murders by confessed sexual predators, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that they forfeited their time on this earth.
    There should also be no reason that these individuals should be charged and tried as murders of passion, mistaken identity, or as a single homicide count for each of their victims, whatever.
    Their crimes are particularly unique and proven beyond anyone’s doubt.

12. For all the world to see; The utter stupidity and moronic defenders of the lefts lack of mind set; Pat Martin, quite possibly the stupidest MP and the biggest waste of tax-payers money since senator Thompson. This man is so stupid he must have a servpro crew come in every morning, unreal. Good on the HONORABLE senator, suck it up ANGRY PAT.

13. i was in the coffee shop tonight.
    there were four at the table, i threw out the question of binging back the death penalty.
    one said no comment… he later said they have to do something.
    two said bring back the death penalty, i agree.
    and one said bring back the lash, i agree with that also.
    when they sold us this life in prison instead of the noose, life was supposed to be for life, not 3.5 to ?? years and your out and able to do it again.
    as for give them a piece of rope…..i think a little help is still needed, i think it was the hang’em high movie, clint eastwood tactic works for me.

14. Their crimes are particularly unique and proven beyond anyone’s doubt.
    In those cases the death penalty is appropriate.
    In cases where there is a reasonable doubt, then give real life imprisonment, not scot free in a few years.

15. Paul@5:51, and others:
    If you read through what I wrote, really what I advocate is that the “general public” in the area be the court of last resort. Note that the public could not vote to impose the death penalty on an individual not already sentenced to death by a legally-constituted court, and that sentence upheld by however many courts of appeal that the case may pass through.
    The “mob” cannot “hang an innocent man” unless that innocent man has already been figuratively hanged by the courts. What the “mob” can do is commute a death sentence to life in prison.
    My hope would be that such a mechanism would act as a check against innocent persons being railroaded by a corrupt justice industry.

16. We have in this country something called “dangerous offender” status – essentially lock-up-criminal-throw-away-key after a vigorous judicial process.
    Convicted murderers with “dangerous offender status” should be the starting point for the death penalty in Canada.

17. Eagle nails it in a nutshell:
    “The state can never remedy the execution of an innocent man.”
    And since every human system is flawed, this inevitably happens wherever the death penalty is allowed. And in a free and democratic society, it must never happen.

18. Fred wrote: “cyanide pills are quicker & easier, much less mess.”
    My Dad had a cyanide pump that we used to kill gophers and other pests. You had to wear a WWII surplus gas mask, place the pump over the hole, and give them one stroke.
    Sometimes they`d leave the hole in a state of convulsion. It was quick, but not clean, trust me. My ancestors had the answer. The Guillotine.
    The “national razor” was a tad messy, but painless.
    Executions are about setting a good example. I`m told that in an abandoned prison in Toulon, the following words were carved into the walls of the cell of a man awaiting execution by guillotine.
    “If I have done anything worthwhile in my life, I have served as a bad example for the human race.”

19. jwkozak91 at 10:59 PM, agreed.
    One thing I’d like to make abundantly clear to leftards in this country. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUNISHING CRIMINALS. The whole point is to protect society from dangerous people and save the tax payer from having to support these misanthropes until they die of natural causes in their old age. Period.

20. Louise >
    Bingo.
    We are beyond a time where we can simply banish people out of society into the wilderness. They come back one way or another.
    Prison is a secure form of banishment, not so much punishment and certainly not rehabilitation.
    Certain humanoid animals are cancerous tumours to a society that have no place left to safely be let go on this earth. Humanity and civility is ending it quickly and efficiently for all concerned.

21. eh tu? >
    Why have courts of law at all?
    Everyone’s innocent regardless, because cops, lawyers, and judges are all corrupt, so everyone else must be innocent.
    There’s no reason that with today’s technology a criminal/ suspect cannot be recorded continuously from the time of his arrest to the time he stands trail to prove confessions and allegations of abuse.
    We’re monitored all the time, why not arrested suspects?

22. If there was ever a time when the government and it’s agents could be trusted with the power of capital punishment, a time when the police did not frame peoplefor crime and withhold exculpatory evidence, that time is surely past.
    The government and it’s agents have too much power now, and too little accountability.

23. Oz, agree entirely. Look no farther than Caledonia to see that. Or that pr1ck who ran over the bike courier in Toronto and -strolled- away scot free.

24. Sen. Boisvenu did nothing wrong. What he said cannot possibly be construed as “counseling” suicide.

25. “In cases where there is a reasonable doubt, then give real life imprisonment, not scot free in a few years.”
    Posted by: North of 60 at February 3, 2012 10:50 PM
    Are’t you supposed to acquit when there’s reasonable doubt?

26. Now some idiot, 26 year old Quebecer, Jacques McBrearty (McBratty?) who said he tried to commit suicide, has filed a complaint against Senator Boisvenu: “This is simply not acceptable. . . His comments are disturbing and cannot go unpunished.” Really?
    Obviously this spoiled brat doesn’t understand the concept of freedom of speech. He also said, “Luckily” he didn’t succeed at hanging himself. That’s debatable, as Canada would be minus one more deluded and entitled youth. (I guess he’d consider my comment unacceptable and in need of punishment. For these lefties, those with whom they disagree deserve punishment, while murderers should never be punished—only rehabilitated. Give. me.a.break.)
    I actually wrote the senator saying I was sorry he had apologized. For what? He has a perfect right to express his opinion. I find M Spoiled Brat’s comments and actions much more offensive than the comments of Senator Boisvenu’s. And the Surete du Quebec is actually going to waste time and resources investigating this nuisance complaint. Mon Dieu!

27. Amazing!
    While recession knocks at our doors, while our biggest trading partner is dying, while a criminal psychopath plots the demise of Israel, our esteemed press is fixated on the quotes of an obscure senator.
    Questions: should Nero be honoured as the first Canadian journalist? Should we have an awards night, perhaps?
    “And this year, the Nero for Best Supporting Driveler goes to….”

28. So what is someone convicted of murder (rightly or wrongly)to do?
    Likely he/she will be banished to a maximum security facility with no opportunity for any redemption or atonement to society.
    With no hope suicide may well be their only option – the ultimate of cowardice or the ultimate act of what courage they still have?

29. Some will say this crime bill hasn’t gone far enough. I thought Senator Boisvenu was on the way to the mark with his suggestion of rope for some prisoners but he didn’t cast his noose far enough. If we examine the impact of crime by the colour of one’s collar we can see that white collar crime is devastating. When we find indictable crime amongst government executives, Members of Parliament or the Senate there is merit in discussing the value of capital punishment for such despicable behaviour. The debate seems to have reopened. There are a hundred ways to throw the common man in jail but those who make the law, enforce and interpret evidence rise above it all like a five dollar parking ticket. It’s possible for the House of Commons to create laws that are not in the best interest of the people and not possible for people to live by. We need a House of Commons Canada can live with where we can forget that over a hundred Members of Parliament have been found guilty of indictable offenses, in recent times, and move forward knowing that the threat of capital punishment may stay their pen writing hands in the future.