# "Beast of B.C". finally got his



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Clifford Olson AKA as the Beast of BC has finally got his just reward, dead of
cancer in a prison hospital. The notorious and unrepenting sadistic killer of
11 beautiful and innocent children, has gone to meet his "maker".

(Fly on the wall.... at the gates to Hades inferno ):

Satan: Name?
Olson: Clifford Olson
Satan: Ah yes! We have been waiting for you!

Olson: Am I going to continue my perpetual sentence in a nice prison cell like in Canada?

Satan: No we have other plans for you.

Olson: you are going to use me for your evil purposes up there?

Satan: No, we are going to use you..but not in the way you expect.

Satan: (to 9/11 terrorists): Forget about those virgins, guys!
Here is a real challenge for you. See these pokers..take them and put the ends of these in the red hot coals....Olson! Bend over!

Olson: But! But!..I have my prison rights as given to me by Canada Corrections! And do I still get to collect my OAS and GIS here?

Satan: No, those payments stopped as soon as you left Canada...
and you have no prisoner rights to protect you here. 
Down here you can only expect to get your just rewards with plenty of hot pokers ...
and my 9/11 friends will take you up in their planes to crash into the the hot stalagmites down here over and over and over, so you can enjoy your experience of that burning feeling... again and again!


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I was driving last night and heard this on the radio and pulled over and cried. I was shocked at how intensely I felt at this news. NOT sadness at his death. Being reminded unexpectedly of his crimes.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Even though Canada abolished the death penalty, many prisoners in other parts
of the world have been put to death for lesser crimes than this. 
This deranged serial killer, methodically tortured his victims in very inhumane ways.

In order to recover the bodies, the Feds (RCMP) agreed to Olson's "payment
for bodies" deal that he struck with the police. This was at least $100,000.00
that his wife (obviously she was not to concerned about collecting BLOOD MONEY), 
received. Later on, Olson admitted at a parole hearing that "God had forgiven him"..and he felt that he was now "exonerated" by God and was going to write a book about his crimes. The families of the victims protested and soon put a stop to that! 

This, in some ways is similar to OJ (Simpson). Even though he got off scot free for the (alleged) murder of his wife and her friend, later on he wanted to profit from his (alleged crime) by writing a book titled..
"If I did it"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It

While OJ's (alleged crimes) may have been perpretrated in a jealous rage...the
Olson murders were due to a psychopath running loose in society and police
slow to apprenhend him until 11 young victims lost their lives. 

The injustice here is to the Canadian taxpayers, that had to pay for Olson's
upkeep and gov't pension while he was imprisoned since the '80s at 
more than likely $60K (or more a year). 

To add more insult to us taxpayers, according to federal pension statutes, we had to pay Olson his OAS and more than likely a income supplement while he rotted in prison!

The law regarding dangerous offenders (incarcerated for life and denied parole at each parole hearing )was just changed this year, so now they can't "profit" off the Canadian taxpayers anymore...so at least because of Olson (and others like him), we can see that as some sort of justice.... I suppose.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I really don't mind having to pay to keep psychopaths in prison. On the other hand, I mind a lot if our government were to get back into the business of state murder.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I really don't mind having to pay to keep psychopaths in prison. On the other hand, I mind a lot if our government were to get back into the business of state murder.


This is backwards.

So hold on, you rather keep a prisoner alive and spend $60k a year on him instead of killing him and keeping $60k, or using that $60k to do some GOOD like give back to the families that were affected by his crimes?


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

I do *not* believe that everyone has a right to life. 

I think that public approval of the death penalty in Canada is well above 50% & I would welcome the return of the death penalty for extreme cases such as this [Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka ,etc.] & that would also allow the extradition of other barbaric murderers. I am reminded of how hard the government initially worked to keep Charles Ng from being extradited to the US.

"In 1976, capital punishment was removed from Canada's Criminal Code. After years of debate, Parliament decided that capital punishment was not an appropriate penalty. The reasons for this decision were due to the possibility of wrongful convictions, concerns about the state taking the lives of individuals, and uncertainty as to the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent."

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/fs-fi/2003/doc_30896.html

While I understand the potential for miscarriage of justice in wrongful convictions, it is 2011 and we now have the science & technology that was not available when the 710 people were executed in Canada.

*"A recent Supreme Court ruling suggests that the death penalty would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada today"* - how so?


----------



## petulantfem (Dec 13, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> This is backwards.
> 
> So hold on, you rather keep a prisoner alive and spend $60k a year on him instead of killing him and keeping $60k, or using that $60k to do some GOOD like give back to the families that were affected by his crimes?


It is not backwards, it is just a different set of values. 

I feel the same way - I am not in favour of the death penalty, and I do not have any issue with the financial cost of keeping a dangerous person locked up. In my opinion, that is a very worthwhile expense.

I can understand that people have different perspectives on this. 

I hope that his death brings the victim's families some peace and closure.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Most Canadians would be abhorred by the death penalty, even though there are cases that are so gruesome it seems appropriate.

I doubt Olson, or other prisoners of his ilk, have a great time in prison.

They are held in protective custody, locked in a small cell for 23 hours a day.

They say that Paul Bernardo is going insane. It wouldn't be surprising.

Staring at the walls all day and night. Talking to yourself all day and night.

It is basically the life of an animal in a zoo.

They are welcome to it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> This is backwards.
> 
> So hold on, you rather keep a prisoner alive and spend $60k a year on him instead of killing him and keeping $60k, or using that $60k to do some GOOD like give back to the families that were affected by his crimes?


Killing people to save money is not just abhorrent, but it's a slippery slope. How far from putting grandma on an ice floe?

And how many innocent people are we, as a people, allowed to murder in order to satisfy our bloodlust for the guilty?


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

In general I'm opposed to the death penalty, in part because of the rather large number of people who have been convicted of murder in this country and later exonerated, but I think that the law should allow for exceptions in specific cases, Olson's being right up there at the top of the list. Not only did he commit the terrible crimes that he confessed to, he wrote to some of his victims' families from prison, describing to them exactly how he had killed their child. I can't help but think that the world would have been a better place had he been executed years ago.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> They say that Paul Bernardo is going insane. It wouldn't be surprising.


Bernardo is held in solitary isolation with 24/7 video surveillance and light. I've been in that prison. The cost is more like double for this kind of surveillance. He still has books and TV. I would imagine the same fate for Olsen.

I'm in favour of considering the death penalty again. If today's technology can prove to such a higher certainty, then why not? Especially if they admit to such crimes and show no remorse

If you ask me, I think the justice system purposely lets many criminals back into society far too easily. It's good for their business... just look at all the repeat offenders


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

andrewf said:


> And how many innocent people are we, as a people, allowed to murder in order to satisfy our bloodlust for the guilty?


I think the value of that argument is close to zero, "in my opinion" (of course).

It shouldn't be about innocence, it should be about justice. It should be about moving forward as a society. Its all a game to these people. Don't you understand? They like it. That's why they do it. It's fun for them. They don't care about going to jail, not nearly as much as you or I would. Its part of the game and they probably pre-assume they will end up there. You would be a fool to believe otherwise. Paying tax dollars to keep a criminal alive is a huge waste.

If it was your child that was raped and killed, you would rather know that everytime you purchase something part of that money is going into your child's killer's bank account?

.... Somebody get me a Kit-Kat.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

sags said:


> They say that Paul Bernardo is going insane. It wouldn't be surprising.


I'm pretty sure that he was already insane when he tortured/raped/murdered those girls. I would have no issue putting the noose on him myself...no sense wasting greenhouse gas credits electrocuting that waste of skin.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

^ That's the spirit!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> So hold on, you rather keep a prisoner alive and spend $60k a year on him instead of killing him and keeping $60k, or using that $60k to do some GOOD like give back to the families that were affected by his crimes?


I think that public opinion is somewhat split on capital punishment in spite of serial killers being convicted and incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives.

Even if capital punishment was reinstated in special cases, I'm not sure that the federal gov't would take the money that used to incarcerate a prisoner, and use
the equivalent amount to be paid out to the victim's families as compensation. 

Instead of using the $100k that the feds agreed to pay Olson for the recovery of the victims, they should have reneged , once they had recovered the last body, kept quiet on that and split that up 11 different ways to compensate the victim's families for funeral/gravesite/headstone expenses.

I'm sure that public opinion would would feel, at least that way the $100k spent to recover the bodies and convict Olson for each murder, (because only he knew where he hid the bodies), was justified. 

Instead they agreed to pay it to Olson's wife. Whether she deserved that or not, is difficult to answer, a deal was struck and the justice system/police kept their side of the deal.

This is similar to the deal that the prosecutors in Ontario struck with Homolka to become the prosecution witness against Bernado to convict him of at least the murders of the school girls. Homolka was equally as guilty, as she participated willingly in those murders. She hould have been given a similar life without parole sentence, but she got a basically light sentence and she essentially got away with murder in this case, since the police needed evidence to convict Bernado. 

However, this plea bargain was struck before the video tapes, ( of the victims being murdered), was released by Bernado's lawyer to the police. 
He was charged with (I believe), obstruction of justice later on because of that. 

Even after public opinion, and the victim's families protesting against the decision that she only got the maximum of 12 years as part of the plea bargain, they informed everyone in the press that a deal was a deal. They couldn't go back on their word, for fear of jeopardizing future cases, where information can be derived from persons of interest/ accomplices in future plea deals, using these confessions as admissable evidence.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

> ...it should be about justice.


No, IMO it should be about keeping convicted criminals locked away from society so that they can't make victims out of other people. I've never understood the argument we often see in the media about whether the main purpose of prison should be to punish or to rehabilitate - to me, although both may have a place, the main reason for imprisoning a serious criminal will always be to keep him/her from repeating their crime.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Karen said:


> the main reason for imprisoning a serious criminal will always be to keep him/her from repeating their crime.


Well, yes, but would capital punishment not solve your concern?

Capital punishment would serve justice _and_ keep the criminal from re-offending.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

It sure would, KaeJS, and, as I said in an earlier post, I think capital punishment is appropriate in an extreme case like Olson's, especially since there was absolutely no doubt as to his guilt. What I can't go along with, though, is executing everyone who is convicted of murder; those of you who disagree should stop and think about whether you'd change your mind if you were the one falsely convicted of murder. There have been several people in Canada in recent years who were falsely convicted, spent years in prison, and then were proven beyond all doubt to be innocent. It would have been a bit late at that stage to apologize to their relatives if they had been executed.


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

Far less innocent people get put down from capital punishment then in any given "armed conflict" I'm for it... although it's proven that providing legal aid for the defendants turns out to more expensive then if you just kept the guy in jail for life... Lawyers and judges are not cheap and most people walking to the chair tend to spend a lot of time trying to avoid it.... their cases drag on for years...sure the odd innocent person may get nicked but society and people are not perfect....innocent people die every day from someone elses mistakes such is the nature of life.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

I still say you'd change your mind in a hurry if you were the innocent person awaiting execution, DanFo. I think there's an argument to be made for withdrawing a lot of the "comforts of home" from the most evil of these prisoners (computers with internet access are a good example) and making a life sentence mean exactly that, but I will never believe in capital punishment except in the most extreme of cases.

Before I retired, I worked for an agency that, for a couple of years, received regular correspondence from Olson - created on the computer and printer he was provided with in his cell. Eventually the courts put a stop to it, but during those years I used to put on vinyl gloves before I could bring myself to touch his letters, as did everyone else in the office!


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

really, kaeJS, why so much verbal violence.

since when are we "fools" not to agree with you that offenders must be put to death. Since when is it self-evident that saving money by gassing them or poisoning them is the only acceptable solution. Since when does the jungle lex talionis - an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth - mean that we are "moving forward as a society." Since when have you had this doctorate in criminology.

perhaps next you might be in favour of tortuous public executions ? would stoning to death or burning at the stake move us forward as a society, faster & further ?

a key sign of a civilized society is that its justice system has moved past primitive mob revenge towards protection of the living & everything that that implies.

canada can be proud that it stands among the nations that have abolished the death penalty. We have very few crimes of the olsen-bernardo-pickton-williams type. These are recidivist killers who have to be kept isolated forever.

i'd be interested to know how many convicts of this extreme type we are keeping locked up, in canada, right now. I'd guesstimate fewer than 40. I'd bet that the auditor general uncovers far more money wasted each year on paper clips, personal travel & entertainment expenses for government officials, useless goverment infrastructure contracts, etc than the costs of incarcerating all of these dangerous offenders.

re partial death penalties reserved for the worst offenders, there would be endless debates over who is remorseful, who can be rehabilitated, who is faking it. In the end it would not be execution by judge & jury; it would be execution by an unknown, unseen panel of prison psychiatrists. This would be a serious regression of justice imho.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

humble, 

I did not say that all who does not agree with my own beliefs are fools.

I said that when these people are committing crimes, the whole thing is a type of game to them and they very well know the consequences. Have you ever seen how some of them act when they are caught? The reason they are so cool and nonchalant is because they already knew it was going to happen and they get a kick out of it. Obviously this is only for the bigtime killers. One man who kills another man in heat of jealousy and aggression will definitely feel remorse.

What I said is that one would be a fool to not recognize that most of the serious offenders do it out of spite or pleasure and have already assumed their own sentence in jail. They more than likely feel there is nothing to their life, anyway.

There are definitely fair arguments for both sides of the table, (ie, executing an innocent man/woman). And I think I agree with this now. Maybe capital punishment should only be conducted in situations where there is extremely hard evidence without a doubt and/or the offender agrees to being guilty.

It is upsetting when a person is falsely convicted and spends years of their life in jail. I do not feel we compensate these people enough. You cannot bring back wasted memories that cannot be lived twice, such as a daughters graduation or a friends marriage.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i'd oppose partial reinstatement of the death penalty because it would mean transferring the final decision away from the open justice system & onto a hidden, secret panel of unknown prison psychiatrists.

plus canada doesn't have many murderers in the extreme category, anyhow. So i'd bet that the cost of keeping them alive for an extra number of years, until their natural deaths, would be no greater than the combined costs of keeping them alive plus paying for endless debate, on a case-by-case basis, over long periods of many years, about what to do with each one of them.

not that this has much to do with the price of chicken, but every time i see another one of those horrifying & sickening stories in the news - like some middle eastern country is going to execute a possibly-innocent canadian youth in their custody by beheading him - i think to myself that global opinion does matter; and the global statistics say that X number of countries have abolished capital punishment; and thank god canada is one of those countries.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm aware that my opinion that capital punishment is appropriate in extreme cases is probably more theoretical than realistic. It's very true that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to apply in practical terms. Defence counsel and their psychiatrists would have a field day trying to prove that it shouldn't apply to their clients and the court proceedings would go on forever. I've never believed that a criminal showing remorse should have any effect on the sentence they receive, but that seems to have become accepted in our court system. So in the end, I realize that my solution to the capital punishment question is impractical and is never going to happen, but I can't help but wish it could.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> I think the value of that argument is close to zero, "in my opinion" (of course).
> 
> It shouldn't be about innocence, it should be about justice. It should be about moving forward as a society. Its all a game to these people. Don't you understand? They like it. That's why they do it. It's fun for them. They don't care about going to jail, not nearly as much as you or I would. Its part of the game and they probably pre-assume they will end up there. You would be a fool to believe otherwise. Paying tax dollars to keep a criminal alive is a huge waste.
> 
> ...



How many Steven Truscotts are we allowed to kill per Clifford Olsen? If you're cool with executing innocent people just to satisfy blood lust for the guilty, I'd want a kit kat too.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I also don't know how any person of an Abrahamic faith could condone capital punishment. God was pretty unequivocal in the ten commandments about not killing people.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Yes, and that's why abortion is so very wrong. I find it odd that a society that celebrates the right to kill the unborn simultaneously find capital punishment to be unacceptable to punish the guilty.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I don't think abortion is wrong at all.

If the child cannot be cared for properly or is not wanted, why would anyone allow a child to be born and grow up in an environment where it cannot be provided all that it needs or should receive?

^ that's where we get our serious offenders a lot of the time, is it not? Neglected children?

with the way this thread is going... someone is going to post about how we shouldn't be eating burgers and chicken breasts because it is bad to kill the animals...


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> with the way this thread is going... someone is going to post about how we shouldn't be eating burgers and chicken breasts because it is bad to kill the animals...


But they're so tasty.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> I don't think abortion is wrong at all.
> 
> If the child cannot be cared for properly or is not wanted, why would anyone allow a child to be born and grow up in an environment where it cannot be provided all that it needs or should receive?
> 
> ^ that's where we get our serious offenders a lot of the time, is it not? Neglected children?


I think it was freakonomics that analyzed crime rates once abortion was legalized in the states... or maybe when it became widely available for the lowest income class. Crime fell substantially 15 or 16 years after the change. 

Ethics of abortion aside, the cost of an abortion is way less than the cost and the burden of an unwanted child on society.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

@Dmoney: actually in the second book, they analyzed the effects of capital punishment, and they said that the problem of capital punishment is that it's not that it's not effective, we just don't execute enough people. Think of the # of murders prevented by capital punishment in the US. Now imagine if we executed more people then wouldn't it reduce the crime rate even more?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> What I said is that one would be a fool to not recognize that most of the serious offenders do it out of *spite or pleasure and have already assumed their own sentence in jail. They more than likely feel there is nothing to their life, anyway.*


I would beg to disagree with this statement , kind sir.

Our own infamous "kernal" Williams, now a dangerous sex offender and incarcerated for life without any chance of parole, led a double life.
He was above reproach in his reputation in Canada's Armed Forces as
Base Commander at CFB Trenton, (RCAF as of this year).

He secretly led a double life as a leader and a person that everyone respected
by day, and as a night stalker/sexual predator by night. He was married and
owned property both in Ottawa a cottage near Tweed, Ont.

In fact he was deemed to be so respectectable within his authority, that
no one, not even the local police or the Ontario Provincial Police even considered him remotely as a suspect,.....until two local residents driving on
highway 37 from Tweed to Belleville , one night, saw something suspicious
for that time of night....
a SUV parked in the middle of the field near the place of the second victim and reported that to police after hearing about the murder.

So here is one case, where the perpretrator of the crime had committed
the first murder, got away with it, hiding behind a prestigious appointment
that carries all the respect of that office, and confidently continuing on his crime spree thinking that he could evade the law. 

But like most criminals that continue on their crime spree, they cannot think of every trick to throw the police off their track. Eventually they make a mistake.

Williams also made that same mistake by wearing the SAME SHOES with the same unique tread(at his interrogation at the Ottawa Police station,
which he had worn on the night that he had committed the second murder.
However, police had a cast of the footprint, not to mention a cast of the
same tire tread on his SUV that matched. 

Williams, a very egocentrical and narcissistic physcopath, with characteristic sexual deviancy (dressing up in the underwear of his victims and taking pictures of himself), carried on a "normal" lifestyle, (at least from everyone's perspective),
up to point that he realized he was finally caught. When the evidence was
presented, he broke, and confessed in front of police cameras. 

Up to then, he never expected to spend any time in prison or felt that there was nothing to his life, as he thought he had the perfect alibi. 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_signs_of_a_physcopath


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

I doubt the death penalty would had stopped Williams.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In a politically charged environment, where the designation "weak on crime" can mean the loss of an election, there is no way of separating political ambition from prudent thought.

Better that we bear the cost of having to house and feed murderers, than convict and kill one innocent person.

The justice system just makes too many mistakes.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Better that we bear the cost of having to house and feed murderers, than convict and kill one innocent person.
> 
> *The justice system just makes too many mistakes*.


If there is DNA evidence present on the victim, then that can be used to
compare against the DNA of the alleged perpretrator. The chance of
DNA evidence being wrong (convicting an innocent person) is one in several
billion.

In cases such as these, there is no mistake that the person with the matching DNA evidence committed the crime.

In OJ's case, he got off on a technicality, because the LA Police did not
secure the crime scene and it was contaminated by other people visiting
the site of the crime, not to mention one of OJ's defence team, (J. Cochrane)
holding up evidence (a dried out and shrunken leather glove, drenched in
the victims blood) and asking OJ to try it on. Well we all know what happens
to leather or rawhide when it gets wet and dries out..it shrinks!
So OJ can't seem to get it on his hand anymore, and Johnny waves it in
front of the jurors and exclaims "If the glove doesn't fit..then you must acquit"...and it worked for OJ! 

However, it is difficult sometimes to collect DNA evidence on victims that
are finally discovered after several months or even years.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

slacker said:


> I doubt the death penalty would had stopped Williams.


Even if it was still in place for some types of crime, you are right about
Williams, because being a deviant, he started off gradually with house
break ins in Belleville and Ottawa, where his wife lived and they owned 
a house together. At first it was just break ins and gathering the women's
underwear (which he tried on), and kept in the basement of his house where
he lived with his wife. Then it progressed to more violent bondage types
of crimes where he wanted to have complete control of his victims during
the assault. The victims begging for his life excited him sexually even more,
and the assaults would intensify. During those crimes, he would not
think of the consequences of being caught, as he never expected to be
caught with his double life. So even if the death penalty was
still in place, it probably wouldn't have made much difference
with a physcopath.

What I find very strange is that wife, who lived in Ottawa and with him
when he came home, to do his breakins in Ottawa, didn't become curious
about the bags and bags of victims underwear in the basement, 
until the police raided his house to secure evidence for the trial.

While the police couldn't clearly charge her as an accomplice in the rapes
and murders (unlike Homolka), they couldn't help but think she KNEW what
was going on yet turned a blind eye to what he was doing.

UPDATE: one of the rape victims is now suing both Williams and his now
ex-wife for several million dollars in a civil court. There the court 
doesn't need absolute proof or DNA, but a just a preponderance of evidence
that he was the prepretrator of the assault against her.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

The sad part with Williams is that fairly often, people with warped sense of power like Williams make it to the top because of their ability to manipulate others. I'm not saying in any way all leaders are like this, far from the truth. But there are enough that are like this.

We all know the type, a-holes who bully themselves to the top while brown nosing with those sorry saps who enjoy people who pump up their own ego. I happens in military, politics, major corporations, and I'm sure in gangs and other forms of hierarchys.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

You won't get to Colonel just from brown nosing and bullying but it may look like that from the outside. Young officers who show potential are given the opportunities or challenges to prove they are ready for the next level. I can't speak for politicians and corps but the military pushes leaders to their limit in terms of working under pressure in physically demanding and harsh situations. Brown nosing does nothing in this case but charisma and being social are part of it.

I think it's fairly unusual for military officers, politicians or CEOs to be committing that kind of crime. There's bad apple in all walks of life. It's not like we condone that kind of thing, nowadays you are court martialed for insinuating something offensive or threatening.

I doubt the death penalty would have deterred him because he tried to commit suicide as soon as he was in jail.

One thing interesting about abortions being legalized is that crime rates dropped significantly about 15 years later.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Sociopaths are often expert at manipulation, which can help them rise to positions of power. Not sure if Williams is a sociopath (there seems to be a good chance he is) given his lack of empathy and ability to compartmentalize so effectively.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

His trade, military pilots, has by far the highest initial requirements to get in, the highest failure rate in training, and a very high currency standard to maintain. Actually our pilots are known in NATO for high standards even for pilots. I'm not arguing he's deranged in some way, but he didn't manipulate his way to Colonel.. They are mostly type A individuals and it's pretty easy to judge their performance the way they are tested. Brown nosing might help in jobs where you have no better way to compare performance


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> 1. a key sign of a civilized society is that its justice system has moved past primitive mob revenge towards protection of the living & everything that that implies.
> 
> 2. canada can be proud that it stands among the nations that have abolished the death penalty. We have very few crimes of the olsen-bernardo-pickton-williams type. These are recidivist killers who have to be kept isolated forever.


1. I don't view capital punishment as revenge/retribution at all, but as justice. 

I'm not sure if you're all familiar with the case of a young Iranian woman who was blinded by a man for having turned down a marriage proposal. Initially, the court had sentenced the accused to be blinded in similar fashion as the victim had been & this method of course would have amounted to retribution/revenge [I would not have shed any tears if the court had in fact carried such punishment]. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/31/iran-acid-woman-pardons-attacker

However, the death penalty methods used in the US for example [hanging was the method previously used in Canada], are not cruel & can hardly compare to the type of heinous crimes we're discussing here, so no, the death penalty is not for revenge IMO.

While deterrence & public safety are top reasons for those who believe in capital punishment, I also happen to believe that a certain human evil has no place in society. Was it wrong to have tracked & killed Osama bin Laden or Anwar al-Awlaki? Some believe so, but I do not & I do not believe it is playing God! 

2. Canada can be proud of many things indeed!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Mode, I'm not sure if that was directed at me. Regardless of the stringency of the program for pilots, being a good pilot does not land you a job as a base commander, right?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

t.gal i am so not getting this.

blinding a person who blinded another is not OK punishment, but putting to death a person who killed another is OK punishment ??

it's a question of semantics. Both may be justice to some but both are revenge & retribution to me.

arguments that modern execution methods like gassing, poison & supershock are so kind & humane that we should no longer feel any queasiness about using them sail right over my head.

and i thought we'd already finished with the idea that the death penalty is to be reserved only for those undefined, nebulous cases described somewhat delicately above as "certain human evil" that have "no place in society."

those in favour of a two-tier death penalty apparently consider that there are clean acceptable apple-pie murders that should not trigger death penalties.

then there are other more unspeakable murderous acts that are to be removed from the centuries-old criminal justice system. Instead, these undefined acts are to be judged & juried by secret panels of prison psychiatrists, who alone will have the final power to decide whether execution is to take place or not.

it took us hundreds of years to move through habeas corpus to doctrines of innocent-until-proven-guilty to opposition to mob lynchings to abolition of the death penalty. Our public courtrooms are attended by the 5th estate who may freely report all that they see & hear. In other countries journalists fight for, sometimes even die for, the right to report first-hand on the workings of the judicial system at every level. We should never give up that right imho. It's a hallmark of a civilized society.

that justice be transparent, public, written down as legislation, subject to appeal, accountable to the nation it serves, is a keystone of western democracy. Who could possibly want to dismantle this achievement in favour of anonymous black-hooded committees of prison shrinks meeting secretly to decide - with no public accountability - who shall live & who shall die.

it would be like regressing back to the 12th century.

norway comes to mind. A nation of grief. Many youths who were to be the leaders of tomorrow killed in rounds of bullets. Norway, like canada, is a country that has abolished capital punishment. But we are *not* hearing mainstream norwegians calling, now, for the execution of gunman breivik.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I can't help but think the 'special case' executionists are just blood thirsty. I don't see any reason why it is sometimes okay to execute people who pose no imminent threat to others, but sometimes not.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

The Communists in the USSR had a good system of leaving prisoners to their
own fate. Whether political dissidents or criminals, they were all sent to Sibera to 
enjoy life at the Gulag penal colonies there. 
Living conditions were extremely harsh and many had to scrounge for food in the fields to survive. Some even ate rats.

Escape was impossible as the penal colonies were thousands of miles from
civilization. Most prisoners died of starvation or diseases because there
were no hospitals or doctors to treat the sick. Very few made it back.
In fact the German 6th army surrendered at Stalingrad and the Russians
put them on a forced march to Siberia. Very few came back.

Canada has abolished the death penalty, so the argument on crime and punishment
is pointless, as none of the serial killers are going to ever be executed.

Now there are plans to build these superjails. Why not build them in the Northwest Territories (Nunavut) and house all the lifetime prisoners there. 

With temperatures of -50c in the winter and thousands of miles from
civilization, they aren't going to go anywhere. Even if they manage to scale razor wire double fences, if they want to try the "mad trapper" lifestyle in the summer months, the wolves and bears will get to them. 

So, instead of watching TV and reading books to put in their time, have them chop wood to stoke a wood heater so they can stay warm. If they don't want to do that, then leave them to their own accord. 

This way nobody has to be judge, jury and executioner.. just call it death by natural causes.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Mode, I'm not sure if that was directed at me. Regardless of the stringency of the program for pilots, being a good pilot does not land you a job as a base commander, right?


It's a fairly demanding pre requisite though, and they certainly don't become base commanders being a bad pilot. He would have had to actually perform rather than brown nosing and bullying. Lots of people act entirely different in their personal time than at work, and are capable of keeping both worlds apart. I would say it's much harder to do that in the military, however the higher they go the less peers they have around.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

HP:

*"blinding a person who blinded another is not OK punishment"?* - from my point of view, no, it isn't because it is done for the sake of revenge, rather than for justice [no matter how justified such punishment may sound].

*"modern execution methods like gassing, poison & supershock are so kind"* - I did not say they were kind; naturally *no* execution method whatsoever is kind, but again in my view & I'm entitled to one, it would be justified for a % of society's worst criminals.

*"death penalty is to be reserved only for those...described somewhat delicately above as "certain human evil" that have "no place in society"* - those are the cases I was talking about & there was nothing delicate and/or with hidden meaning about my description. I think I was very clear.

*"norway comes to mind"* - yes, it does and I would *not* feel queasy in the least if Breivik were to be executed.

It is obvious why many are divided on this very complex issue, so we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I can't help but think the 'special case' executionists are just blood thirsty. I don't see any reason why it is sometimes okay to execute people who *pose no imminent threat to others, but sometimes not*.


???
US states that have the death penalty and death row inmates, go through
years of appeal before their sentence is carried out. Most are murderers
and even they can ask for an 11th hour last resort appeal for clemency to the governor of the state, before the sentence is carried out.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

t.gal i don't see that you were clear at all.

where, exactly, did you define who is to be put to death for murder & who shall commit murder but get to live.

is it according to the number of murders.
or the gory nature of them.
or the age or innocence of the victims.

and until all these points are spelled out in the legislation & until all the judges, juries, barristers, solicitors, reporters, camera crew & public can see the distinctions in writing & understand the meanings to perfection, then what we would have with on-again-off-again capital punishment would be mob lynchings. As in back to the 12th century.

i don't see canada as having any interest in debating this. There are probably very few convicts in canada who'd be put to death under on-again-off-again CP. Probably as few as six or seven. It's a lot cheaper just to lock em up.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I happen to agree with others here that if the case is 100% certain and there have been a number of murders committed then I see the death penalty as a good idea. I also think if someone is in Canada not a citizen and has committed murder in another country they should be sent back no matter if they have a death penalty in that country or not. To me this is the worst waste of money giving lawyers jobs to stop people who don't belong here from going home to face justice.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

dogcom said:


> I also think if someone is in Canada not a citizen and has committed murder in another country they should be sent back no matter if they have a death penalty in that country or not.


Agreed, also.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> t.gal i don't see that you were clear at all....where, exactly, did you define who is to be put to death for murder & who shall commit murder but get to live.


I didn't realize that I was supposed to provide an exact criteria to justify my belief in capital punishment. 

The Canadian examples of Olsen, Bernardo & Williams would qualify nicely and I [and many others] would not feel pukish in the least if such human evil were to be executed. 

Since you brought up Norway, how fair is a judicial system when the punishment for murder there is 21 years *regardless of # of murder victims?* Last I read is that Breivik will be tried differently as surely the public would not have accepted a mere 21 years for the unspeakable terror he committed last July.

There is no denying that the judicial system is seriously flawed and I'm not just talking about Canada; seems many countries indeed have a benevolent justice system.


----------



## Kim (Jan 10, 2011)

Here is a quote that I have had pinned to my office wall for many years from Andy Rooney.

"Did you know that it cost forty thousand dollars a year to house each prisoner? Jeez, for forty thousand bucks apiece I'll take a few prisoners into my house. I live in Los Angeles. I already have bars on the windows.

I don't think we should give free room and board to criminals! I think they should have to run twelve hours a day on a treadmill and generate electricity. And, if they don't want to run, they can rest in the chair that's hooked up to the generator."


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I like that one, Kim!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

carverman said:


> ???
> US states that have the death penalty and death row inmates, go through
> years of appeal before their sentence is carried out. Most are murderers
> and even they can ask for an 11th hour last resort appeal for clemency to the governor of the state, before the sentence is carried out.


Someone in a maximum security prison poses no imminent threat to the public. Executing them is murder in cold blood. It is not self defense, which is just about the only reasonable cause I can think of for the deliberate killing of others.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Executing them is murder in cold blood. It is not self defense, which is just about the only reasonable cause I can think of for the deliberate killing of others.


Then what about all those Canadian soldiers in WWI, that under control of
the British generals, were essentially sacrificed by Canada to gain a little
ground in no man's land from the Germans? Justify it all you want as an
act of war..these young men were forced to go over the top into a rain
of machine gun bullets and artillary shells to die in mud holes never to
see their families again. Suicide missions. Young innocent men, essentially forced to be executed by the enemy for being on the other side. 
If they refused to do that, they were labelled cowards, courtmartialled and summarily shot by the same generals that forced them to their deaths!

What justifies this kind of killing?...and lets not forget that the outcome of
WWI (where MILLIONS of soldiers (as well as innocent civilians) were killed, 
maimed and wounded), was basically a treaty signed by the Germans and the Allies in a railcar in France to stop hostilities..an armistice. (Nov 11, 1918) 

There was no resolution coming from that sacrifice of young lives. In essence those lives were wasted because in 1939, it started all over again!

And you have seem to have pity for those few deranged multiple mass murderers of innocent children and women who are incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives with 3 meals a day, TV and access to a prison library?


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> You won't get to Colonel just from brown nosing and bullying but it may look like that from the outside.


Of course not, but that's not what I said now was it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Are you asking me to defend trench warfare?

Edit: I guess I also need to clarify. I don't feel sympathy for mass murdering psychopaths. I just don't want my government murdering people in turn. Same goes for torture. The terrorists won when they succeeded in driving America to abandon any moral high ground by engaging in torture. I don't say this because I love mass murderers, but because I think our principles count for something.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

If killing is wrong then why is it ok to kill "these criminals" ? 

That's supposed to be the difference between us and them...

Either it's wrong or it's not. 

Quite frankly if you look into the psychology of psychopaths and the science behind it, these people are completely hardwired to have no empathy for other people, they are born with their brain that way and cannot be fixed. 

In the States it might interest you to know that it costs a lot more to execute a prisoner than to keep them incarcerated for life. The fact that most of the executed tend to be poor, low IQ, and visible minority is also well documented. So saving money is not a reason to execute people.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Berubeland said:


> If killing is wrong then why is it ok to kill "these criminals" ?
> 
> That's supposed to be the difference between us and them...
> 
> *Either it's wrong or it's not. *


Society and the legal system make the rules and laws as far as capital punishment.
What was acceptable many years ago..criminals being hung in Canada for
any murder including treason, (Louis Riel as an example who was deemed
responsible for the Metis uprising), is now considered unacceptable
punishment in modern Canadian society. We prefer to incarcerate them (child killers/serial rapist-murderers), with some of these in isolation to "protect" them from the general prison population, so that no harm may actually come to them while incarcerated for life. They can still enjoy some privileges in prison if they behave themselves, while living out their entire natural lives. A chance they didn't give to their victims. 

Olson was a very cruel and sadistic when he killed those 11 children.
With some, he drove spikes into their heads while they were still alive! 

Do these physcopaths, (most of which lead a double life and are
not insane in the sense of the word), be allowed to continue being housed
and fed by society for free, and collect gov't pensions when the ordinary
poor people can barely afford to live? 

Is this fair? Is this right? 

Our infamous "kernal" (Williams) was judged as a habitual sex offender and will still be able to collect his military pension in prison at the appropriate age, even though he was officially removed from military records that he ever was there, and his uniform was burned by the military ...in response to his evil deeds and defamation
and shame to his rank and the prestigous honour of being an officer commissioned by the Queen! Others have been courtmartialed and shot by a firing squad for lesser crimes years ago! Don't forget, he was still an commissioned officer until
he was convicted and stripped of his rank!

What do you think about that? 



> In the States it might interest you to know that it costs a lot more to execute a prisoner than to keep them incarcerated for life. The fact that most of the executed tend to be poor, low IQ, and visible minority is also well documented. So saving money is not a reason to execute people.


The reason it costs so much is not because of the execution chamber itself,
whether it be gas (not used anymore I believe), or the electric chair (another
cruel form of execution... if you have seen the "Green Mile" with Tom Hanks.

Currently the "acceptable" form (and most humane) type of execution seems to be lethal injection, which is similar to the euthansia injection give to our pets when there is no hope.

The reason it costs so much to "execute" prisoners in the US, is not the
execution process itself, but the countless legal battles and appeals for
those that can afford it..hence the poor, low IQ get it more often, because
they can't afford lawyers, and very few criminal lawyers will work "pro bono".


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ Without those costly legal proceedings, we would be murdering innocent people. Hell, even with those proceedings, there have been many innocent citizens murdered in the name of bloodlust and retribution. You can at least try to compensate someone from wrongful incarceration. How does a society atone for wrongful execution? How is that even tolerable?


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

If its cheaper to keep them alive from a taxpayers perspective, then I'm all for it.

Otherwise, we should cut them loose. 

*andrewf*,

We are animals. In the wild, animals kill other animals for all kinds of reasons (food, territory, opposite sex, entertainment, ego boosting) and there is definitely nothing wrong with killing someone who kills someone else. You know what would happen to an animal that kills another animal within a "family"? That animal gets slaughtered.

And no, humans are not "on another level" from animals. We are all inherently animals and the only reason we behave differently is because of the law (and that still doesn't stop people). Humans = Animals.

I don't think "principles" count for anything. In fact, I think our principles are diminished by saying to our criminals "Hey, go kill some people. We will give you food, shelter, and a television!" 

*Berubeland*,

Killing in self defense or for justice is not wrong.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Kae, that's just nuts. Your argument, when logically extended, is Hobbesian anarchy. Animals don't have law, so we shouldn't either? That is an absolutely useless proposition. The law is an essential technology to modern human civilization.

I think you're also nuts if you believe prison is a pleasant place to spend the rest of your life. Capital punishment has no effect on dissuading people from committing murder--criminals don't think they will get caught. 

From your premise, the ideal form of punishment would be the most horrific, painful, drawn-out, brutal torture we could devise. We should also broadcast the process on television and force children to watch, so any psychopaths out there might have second thoughts about killing people when they grow up. Otherwise, we're being soft on crime.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'll also note that humans and other social animals are 'pre-programmed' with a sense of morality, primarily because it is evolutionarily advantageous for group cohesion. Maybe I'm misreading your premise, but you seem to be suggesting that humans, and animals by extension, are amoral.

For that matter, you claim there is no concept of morality in nature, but in another breath assert that there is one of justice. What is justice without morality?


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

We should definitely have the law, but just because we have the law does not mean we cannot kill. Without the law, we would all be screwed. I am certainly not saying that we do not need it. I was just trying to get my point across that I don't think killing for the sake of justice is quite as bad as some people are making it seem.

We should do what we need to do to get ahead and move on with our lives. I just don't think housing criminals (that commit such intense crimes) is necessary.

But like I said, whatever is the most economically and environmentally friendly. I really don't care about their well-being. I couldn't care less if they died or not, I just want my money to be used properly.

I don't see it as killing for bloodlust, but for advancement and best use of our money/time/environment.

And as far as a pleasant prison experience, I knew a guy once who was always in and out of jail. He liked his "Jail life" more than his real life because his real life was so effed up. He said he's never been so warm and well-fed until he went to jail. Obviously, this is not the case for most people, though.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

My thoughts are that there is no justice. 

If killing Olsen or Williams brought back their victims I'd be all for it. 

There is no justice available for these crimes, there is just loss for the families of the victims forever. 

Once the sadistic killer gets put to death then there's just an additional death, not justice, not bringing back of the victims who were murdered. 

As a society of law, if we say killing is wrong, then it applies to all situations. As far as privileges for these people, they are still people even though we must keep them locked up for the safety of the rest of society. It's a sign of our humanity as a society that we treat them with respect. It's easy to treat the nice functional people well, the true test of our commitment to the principles of human rights occurs with the disenfranchised, the homeless, the dysfunctional, the criminal, the elderly, the disabled and the people who have no voice or power to defend themselves. 

As far as their pensions are concerned, as far as I know you have to work to qualify for them. If they worked for them, the money was collected from them and they earned it. Just pay them.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Berubeland said:


> As far as privileges for these people, they are still people even though we must keep them locked up for the safety of the rest of society. It's a sign of our humanity as a society that we treat them with respect.


This is the only part I would disagree with. They are not people. People don't torture children for fun, people don't kill other people in a cold calculated way to satisfy some sick urge. 

They really deserve nothing.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Berubeland said:


> My thoughts are that there is no justice.
> 
> If killing Olsen or Williams brought back their victims I'd be all for it.
> 
> ...


1. It may not be "justice" as you see it, but hell... if it makes people feel better then they should be killed. There are lots of families of victims that would love to see these criminals killed, and since they are virtually useless and thrown to the garbage like a mcdonalds take out bag, you might as well kill them and make someone happy for a few minutes.

2. Treat them with respect? ...what? Where's my Kit-Kat?

3. Who cares if they worked for it. They don't deserve it. I don't care if they slaved over that money and endured extreme physical labour. They made an unforgivable mistake in society and they should lose all privileges and entitlements (including that to life)


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

> As far as their pensions are concerned, as far as I know you have to work to qualify for them. If they worked for them, the money was collected from them and they earned it. Just pay them.


Berubeland, you are mistaken about that. The public/media outrage about Olson's receiving approximately $1100/month in pension money while he was in prison was nothing to do with his CPP or any pension he might have paid into during his working life - it was a combination of OAS and GIS, neither of which have anything to do with whether one works or not. It was the GIS in particular that outraged me - it's supposedly paid to help seniors with very low incomes cover their basic living expenses; prisoners have those expenses covered by taxpayers - there was no justification for paying them GIS.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

" if it makes people feel better then they should be killed. "

Right, so if it makes people "feel" better it's ok. Let's follow that logic shall we? 

Last week someone cut me off in traffic, they were definitely a jerk. I would have "felt" better if they were dead.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

A friend of mine in the States is an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, despite the fact that his father was brutally murdered 20 years ago. When Troy Davis was executed last week, he sent around an email that said "As a murder victim's son, I want to speak out against Georgia's execution of Troy Davis. I don't want to impugn the family of Mark MacPhail, but it is often an assumption that murder victim family members support the death penalty. Many of us do not. This was neither just nor moral: we must, once and for all, abolish the death penalty."

I've talked with him about it and his view is that the death penalty solves nothing; as others have said above, it doesn't bring the victims back to life and simply adds another death to the pile. And it's an obstacle to the process of cultural evolution in which humans endeavor to transcend our more destructive and counterproductive animal instincts. I'd go so far as to say that the death penalty is anti-human, because it embodies the qualities we most need to quell in order to fulfill our potential as a species. 

I've never been in prison, but my brother has and he can assure you that it's not a pleasant place to spend your life.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Berubeland said:


> " if it makes people feel better then they should be killed. "
> 
> Right, so if it makes people "feel" better it's ok. Let's follow that logic shall we?
> 
> Last week someone cut me off in traffic, they were definitely a jerk. I would have "felt" better if they were dead.


That's a completely different scenario than having someone killed who has brutally murdered and raped 11 children and will be sentenced to life in prison, anyway.

I think society will agree that being cut off is not a big deal in comparison to the slaughter of 11 children.

The psychopath is a wasted life, anyway. He will be imprisoned until he dies. There is no use for him and he knew the rules before committing his crimes. 

The guy that cut you off didn't hurt anybody - he just made you angry for a minute. You can't even compare the two.

Murder 11 children > cut someone off


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Karen said:


> Berubeland, you are mistaken about that. The public/media outrage about Olson's receiving approximately $1100/month in pension money while he was in prison was nothing to do with his CPP or any pension he might have paid into during his working life - it was a combination of OAS and GIS, neither of which have anything to do with whether one works or not. It was the GIS in particular that outraged me - it's supposedly paid to help seniors with very low incomes cover their basic living expenses; prisoners have those expenses covered by taxpayers - there was no justification for paying them GIS.


I don't mind the idea of charging prisons a geared-to-income room and board. That would deal with the issue of prisoners receiving OAS/GIS while incarcerated. I guess it also lets wealthy prisoners pay for their accommodations.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> That's a completely different scenario than having someone killed who has brutally murdered and raped 11 children and will be sentenced to life in prison, anyway.
> 
> I think society will agree that being cut off is not a big deal in comparison to the slaughter of 11 children.
> 
> ...


The trouble is defining:

Murder 11 children > threshold for deserving death > cut someone off

And how many innocent people are we, as a society, allowed to murder by execution? It is an inevitable artifact of fallible justice and use of the death penalty.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

Stephen Harper is in favour of the death penalty.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ Point being?


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

andrewf,

I guess what I really don't understand is:

Why does anyone care if you kill these people?

Do they feel bad for them? 

Cause they shouldn't.

Nobody's crying about the cows and chickens while they're stuffing their face with McDonalds. Everyone's out eating cows when they could be eating beans and milk for protein.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

I feel bad for those people. 

It may seem strange but as awful and as twisted as they are they do have friends and family who do love them. It is more expensive to kill them then to house them so why would we diminish ourselves by killing someone who is incarcerated and no threat to anyone? 

We abhor them for killing yet you feel justified to kill them because of the quality of the person.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Berubeland said:


> I feel bad for those people.


I feel bad for you.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I feel bad for the person who has to carry out the execution. The blood is on their hands, and on the hands of a society that is willing to murder its own citizens, even the least or worst among us.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i'm glad someone has finally offered the name of Troy Davis. Executed, with judicial disregard for evidence that he was wrongfully convicted, in georgia, 2 weeks ago.

and i'd like to thank berubeland & others for their eloquent statements about why we don't have capital punishment in canada any longer. To put a killer to death is not justice, it's just another death, berubeland said.

remarks that victims' families "love" to see criminals executed and that executions should be carried out purely to make victims' families "happy for a few minutes" are barbaric, imho.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVMho2cP1NE


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Berubeland said:


> I feel bad for those people.
> 
> It may seem strange but as awful and as twisted as they are they do have friends and family who do love them. It is more expensive to kill them then to house them so why would we diminish ourselves by killing someone who is incarcerated and no threat to anyone?
> 
> We abhor them for killing yet you feel justified to kill them because of the quality of the person.


If a family member of mine were to kill 11 children... or even 1 child, they would no longer be my family member. Williams' wife left him, rightly so. It's very doubtful Olson's wife and kid want anything more to do with him, other than collecting their blood money.

In a case like Troy Davis, he has some supporters, but any supporter of Olson is just as twisted as Olson himself (not those against the death penalty from a moral point of view, those genuinely supporting his life and/or release).


----------

