Chickens support chopping block: Majority of Canadians support return of death penalty, poll finds
February 8, 2012 - 9:16am
Majority of Canadians Support Return of Death Penalty Poll Finds - by Richard J Brennan
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1127764--majority-of-canadians-suppo...
"A half-century has passed since the last person in Canada was executed, but a recent public opinion poll suggests Canadians are warming to the idea of a return to capital punishment.
The survey, conduced by Angus Reid Public Opinion in partnership with the Toronto Star found that 63% of the 1,002 Canadians surveyed across the country believe the death penalty is sometime appropriate.
Sixty-one per cent said capital punishment which was abolished in Canada in 1976, is warranted for murder.."
"Chickens Support Chopping Block..." ?
Are you referring to the Great Misled?
the Great Mislead. Mis-followed too..
The odds of any of the people who answered this survey ever facing the death penalty is miniscule.
It's much easier to agree with bringing back the death penalty when you picture hypothetical horrible unrepentant murderers facing justice not yourself or your family, friends , neighbours.
They are not misled - it's gut instinct - it just hasn't been thought through and very few people have any real experience in their lives to form their ideas on this subject.
Don't kill people. It's easy.
It sounds easy.
Cathfire - that reminded me of a quote from one of my favorite movies
[at a seminar, Charlie Kaufman has asked McKee for advice on his new screenplay in which 'nothing much happens like in the real world']
Robert McKee: Nothing happens in the world? Are you out of your fucking mind? People are murdered every day. There's genocide, war, corruption. Every fucking day, somewhere in the world, somebody sacrifices his life to save someone else. Every fucking day, someone, somewhere takes a conscious decision to destroy someone else. People find love, people lose it. For Christ's sake, a child watches her mother beaten to death on the steps of a church. Someone goes hungry. Somebody else betrays his best friend for a woman. If you can't find that stuff in life, then you, my friend, don't know crap about life! And why the FUCK are you wasting my two precious hours with your movie? I don't have any use for it! I don't have any bloody use for it!
Charlie Kaufman: Okay, thanks.
I can understand wanting revenge in the heat of the moment. I can understand imagining a horrible scenario when the question is raised by a pollster and responding in that same spirit. I don't support capital pinishment and my life was affected by murder. That doesn't make me a nice guy, I support life in prison.
It's not so hard to justify executing a violent criminal, and if there was never a chance of wrongful conviction, the death penalty might even make sense, to lower the financial burden of housing and feeding inmates for life.
But, if there's even a remote chance that an innocent person could be put to death because of a 'miscarriage of justice,' then the death penalty cannot even be considered an option.
capital punishment was abolished in France after the election of the Socialists in 1981 -- there was a guillotining as late as the 1970s -- but broader public opinion has never accepted that ...
I don't generally support it - but in the interests of deterrence, example and recognition of the serious, heinous nature of their offences I think political leaders who order/action/instigate aggressive war upon non-threatening countries/civilians, should face the supreme penalty. Obama, Stephen Harper, Fogh Rasmussen, Lt Gen Charles Bouchard, Bush, Cheney, people such as these should be executed for their crimes. Also public officials who instigate, plan or implement 'structural adjustment' policies which result in massive insult and injury to populations, or instigate, plan or implement 'sanctions' upon a civilian population - such as the genocide perpetrated upon the people of Iraq. These crimes should be punished by death.
I oppose capital punishment for a variety of reasons. But, this poll raises an interesting question in a democracy.
If more than 60% of a population favors X law, then on what basis should that desire be thwarted?
Democracy is not the rule of the majority.
Didn't certain majorities once favour segregation, and before that, slavery?
Democracy is not the rule of the majority.
It is if the majority is large enough. There is no solution to "the tyranny of the majority" if the majority is sufficiently large.
Democracy is not the rule of the majority.
Care to explicate?
I don't favour it, although in her book "A Report on the Banality of Evil," Hannah Arendt did summarize a considered argument in favour of the execution of Eichmann.
There are certain political figures and corporate leaders in the last 30 years or so who have facilitated such notable levels of genocidal banality of their own, that their executions from a rendering of justice, followed by a popped bottle of champagne to commemorate their victims, wouldn't necessarily be out of kilter with my conscience on the subject.
What if 95% or so decided that a policy of lynch mobs would save them, the taxpayers, some money.
What if 95% or so decided that a policy of lynch mobs would save them, the taxpayers, some money.
And? What would stop such a majority, especially if it was determined?
There are certain political figures and corporate leaders in the last 30 years or so who have facilitated such notable levels of genocidal banality of their own, that their executions from a rendering of justice, followed by a popped bottle of champagne to commemorate their victims, wouldn't necessarily be out of kilter with my conscience on the subject.
For purposes of illustration, can you name just two or three "corporate leaders" who merit execution?
Capital punishment should never be restored unless supported in a referendum by a clear majority voting on a clear question.
What is a clear majority and a question in your opinion?
I was just kidding, Todrick - you know, the Clarity Act? Sorry for the levity.
Capital punishment is a negation of our humanity. We have ways to deal with crime without killing people. We should all move on from there. And it has nothing to do with the chance that we may execute an innocent person. I don't want innocent people imprisoned for life either. And I don't think a good argument against torture is that "it doesn't work" or "what if we torture an innocent person?"
We should just move on.
Ohh sorry, my bad.
You are correct, we need to reform our justice system with something less primitive.
Is this a serious question? I think Slumberjack answered it sufficiently two posts above yours, but in case you're not joking, democracy is based on principles of equality, justice and fraternity that cannot be enforced--indeed, are necessarily ignored--by a majority rule principle. It's why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitution, a court system divorced from electoral rules and (in name, at least) a free press.
I lament the fact that anyone who lives in what they think is a democracy should believe that the right to murder another human being should be a votable exercise.
(I like to think, in the excellent quote that SJ cited, that the sentence after "and this is the reason...you must hang" is: "yet even so, kinsman, we grant you clemency, out of the pulver and the polished lens." That is the humanity I like to believe in.)
((Also: lol @ Unionist))
For purposes of illustration, can you name just two or three "corporate leaders" who merit execution?
I oppose capital punishment for a variety of reasons. But, this poll raises an interesting question in a democracy.
If more than 60% of a population favors X law, then on what basis should that desire be thwarted?
We contest laws "favoured by a majority" every day because we know that the majority have been misled, as was the majority that one exponent of majority rule obtained in 1933,leading to his installation as chancellor.
We know from overwhelming scientific evidence that the laid back attitude of the majority regarding climate change is creating the basis for one helluva miserable existence for our grandkids, and we know that laws favouring oil tankers and pipelines are created by those who mislead. On that basis, we should be climbing the barricades, rather than submitting to laws created by those who mislead. As Dickens told us, "The law is a ass," and a couple of centuries later we can conclude that a purely arithmetical understanding of "democracy" is the height of asininity.
@Sven: I'd list for consideration the folks who bought us DU munitions, daisy cutter bombs, the guy who led Blackwater, CEOs of military industrial firms as a whole, the ones who contribute to the political campaigns of politicians who promise and deliver on war, etc. Lists may vary of course depending on who compiles them, which is why I'm against capital punishment just as much as I'm against the existence of these people. I've been unable to square the contradiction, except to say that it shouldn't be left up to me I can tell you that.
Is this a serious question? I think Slumberjack answered it sufficiently two posts above yours, but in case you're not joking, democracy is based on principles of equality, justice and fraternity that cannot be enforced--indeed, are necessarily ignored--by a majority rule principle. It's why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitution, a court system divorced from electoral rules and (in name, at least) a free press.
I lament the fact that anyone who lives in what they think is a democracy should believe that the right to murder another human being should be a votable exercise.
(I like to think, in the excellent quote that SJ cited, that the sentence after "and this is the reason...you must hang" is: "yet even so, kinsman, we grant you clemency, out of the pulver and the polished lens." That is the humanity I like to believe in.)
((Also: lol @ Unionist))
It was a serious question. I agree that majority rule, all by itself, is not a good political system. By democracy I take it that you mean liberal democracy (or a constitutional republic or constitutional monarchy) with the safeguards you list.
Ygtbk, I always took "democracy" to mean that system of society where the people rule, as opposed to someone else.
Not very scientific, but it's my meaning.
Ygtbk, I always took "democracy" to mean that system of society where the people rule, as opposed to someone else.
Not very scientific, but it's my meaning.
I for one welcome our new insect overlords.
...democracy is based on principles of equality, justice and fraternity that cannot be enforced - indeed, are necessarily ignored - by a majority rule principle. It's why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitution, a court system divorced from electoral rules and (in name, at least) a free press.
A reliance on charters, constitutions, and courts to protect with finality certain "core principles" is illusory.
Because the foundational document in a constitutional democracy (a charter, constitution, etc.) is subject to change by majority will (usually a super-majority), all rights and obligations that flow from such a document are also subject to majority will.
The scope of a court's power is no different. That power is established by the foundational document - and because that foundational document can be changed by majority will, the court's power is subject to change, restriction, or elimination by majority will.
Nothing can withstand majority will if that majority is large enough and determined enough to exert that will.
That's true, Sven. Everything you said.
But majority will, historically, rarely exercises itself through referenda, and even more rarely through public opinion polls. That's why I'm still hopeful that the whim of the moment, influenced by the propaganda of the ultra-rich, won't strip our society of every gain we've made. Majorities are deeper thinkers than that, especially when they're pushed and they shove back.
What are the majorities reading/watching that make them "deeper thinkers than that?"
The "foundational document" that Sven refers to on his side of the line is the basis for conservative gains, politically, and in the courts.
Just taking a couple of (mocking) lines from America's Right turn: "We'll leave the details of the conservative media revolution to the text that follows, but in this introduction we would like to note that there is no conservative media monopoly today (2004), the way that there truly was a liberal media monopoly in the 1950s and '60s. What we have today is just more of a level playing field. Most of the mass media are still liberal, so what Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Tom Daschle are really complaining about is that they now have competition.
"What they really long for are the good old days when Americans has little choice but to get their political news through the gatekeepers at the three liberal networks - NBC, ABC, and CBS. Indeed, it would be a wonderful world for liberal Democrats if cable news TB and talk radio could be banished for polluting the political environment, because the three networks' news departments remain as staunchly liberal as before.
"We don't have to rely on the conservagtive Media Research Center to make our case that the broadcast television networks are hopelessly liberal...It is easy to see why Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and TomDaschle would prefer that you get all your political news from the three big networks. Those days are over, however, and no establishment genie can put DIRECT MAIL, TALK RADIO, AND CABLE NEWS, (my emphasis) back in the bottle - or, more accurately, the bottle neck where your political news is filtered by the likes of Peter Jennings and Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw. Moreover, AS WE DEMONSTRATE IN THIS BOOK, THE INTERNET IS ONLY MAKING THINGS WORSE FOR THE LIBERALS.(again, my caps)
"Liberal 'gatekeepers' take heed. There's a word for this new news environment. It's called democracy."
----
The "right" equates democracy with sources of information. Totally.
And Sven will never listen to the radio or TV south of the 49th without understanding that the "bat crazy" folk build their arguments from the holy of holies,the Constitution.
Go figure "democracy" in the land of numbers.
It's not so hard to justify executing a violent criminal, and if there was never a chance of wrongful conviction, the death penalty might even make sense, to lower the financial burden of housing and feeding inmates for life.
Yes, killing people as a cost-saving measure makes a lot of sense.
I guess you're OK with sending an innocent perosn to prison for life, as a more moral alternative.
I guess you're OK with sending an innocent perosn to prison for life, as a more moral alternative.
At what point did I say that? The fact that our system is not perfect and people are wrongly convicted is a very strong arument against the use of the death penalty. It's just a fact. I don't see how that information implies that it is OK for an innocent person to be wrongly convicted...
It's not so hard to justify executing a violent criminal, and if there was never a chance of wrongful conviction, the death penalty might even make sense, to lower the financial burden of housing and feeding inmates for life.
Yes, killing people as a cost-saving measure makes a lot of sense.
I guess you're OK with sending an innocent perosn to prison for life, as a more moral alternative.
I guess you're ok with being an ass - what do propose exactly - let me guess - if we get rid of capitalism - no will ever murder anyone or commit voilent crimes again.
I guess you're OK with sending an innocent perosn to prison for life, as a more moral alternative.
I agree with what I think you're implying here (i.e., if we shouldn't have capital punishment because we may kill innocent people, then the same argument would apply to imprisonment -- such that: we shouldn't imprison people because some people whom we imprison [in many cases for their entire adult lives] may be innocent).
And, not to put words in M. Spector's mouth, but, NuclearJeff, M. Spector is not saying that you favor imprisoning innocent people.
Sven is right.
The argument against capital punishment based on lack of absolute certainty of guilt implies that if only we could know for certain every time who is and isn't guilty, then all obstacles would be removed to the judicial murder of criminals. It's a view that went out of fashion with the Old Testament.
That's why such an argument deserves nothing but ridicule - especially when advanced by one who believes that a good case can be made for capital punishment as a cost-saving measure.
I remember reading something ten years ago that referenced U.S. crime statistics. It said that one in seven on death row will be innocent of the crimes they are accused of. And they are killed in order to demonstrate that killing is wrong.
I agree with what I think you're implying here (i.e., if we shouldn't have capital punishment because we may kill innocent people, then the same argument would apply to imprisonment -- such that: we shouldn't imprison people because some people whom we imprison [in many cases for their entire adult lives] may be innocent).
And, not to put words in M. Spector's mouth, but, NuclearJeff, M. Spector is not saying that you favor imprisoning innocent people.
Technically that's not the same thing. Once a life sentence is handed out, the sentence can be reversed. A death sentence is not reversible. The decision not to use the death penalty is an acknowledgement of this flaw in the system. I don't have a solution for it. But then again no one else has come up wtih any better ideas either. Mostly they tend to just criticize others, without offering anything productive.
The decision not use the death penalty is an acknowledgment of the fact that if we kill each other there will be nobody left. I can't believe we're having this discussion.
Once a life sentence is handed out, the sentence can be reversed. A death sentence is not reversible.
The appeal procedure is the same in both cases. And in practice, life sentences are rarely reversed after all the appeals have been exhausted - and even then only as the result of extraordinary political pressure by volunteers who work outside the justice system, and after the wrongfully convicted has spent many many years in prison.
So spare us the glib distinctions.
Not sure why eveyone wants to argue the same side of the coin... the death penalty is not acceptable. That's it. Why does it matter how I reached the conclusion, if we reached the same conclusion? Is it that you just enjoy the antagonism?
I remember reading something ten years ago that referenced U.S. crime statistics. It said that one in seven on death row will be innocent of the crimes they are accused of. And they are killed in order to demonstrate that killing is wrong.
Actually, all seven out of seven are killed to demonstrate that killing is wrong. I think that's called dialectics, or irony, or the Amerikan way of life, or something.
"democracy"
"a eye for an eye" or "thou shalt not kill" were around before democracies
Canadian fans of the death penalty are outraged - outraged - that Iran is planning to execute Saeed Malekpour.
Malekpour is a citizen of Iran. He is not a citizen of Canada. He is a former resident of Canada. He was arrested in 2008 when he went home to visit his dying father.
Contrast the Harper Government's reaction to the plight of Malekpour with its reaction to the pending execution of Canadian citizen Ronald Allen Smith by the State of Montana. Smith had to go to the Federal Court of Canada to get a judge to order Harper to seek clemency for Canadian citizen Smith from the governor of Montana. Smith is still on death row.
Bring back the death penalty? Are you kidding?
That would be disastrous to the private prison industrial complex.
I'd expect private prisons to sue the federal govt for breaking Nafta clauses.
ETA: On further thought prisons can probably make a higher profit margins on executions. So never mind.
"a eye for an eye" or "thou shalt not kill" were around before democracies
Neither news nor a surprise, given the usually violent character of non-democratic societies. More interesting question is how 'Thou Shalt not Kill' commandment was first overridden by Hamarabbi's 'Eye for an Eye' among believers.
We have no criminal justice system - just a criminal system. If the state can pin it on you, you're guilty. Otherwise you're innocent. The truth of the matter is secondary.
We have two major institutions based on adversarialism. One is the criminal system, the other is the political system. Is it any wonder they are both in constant states of disrepute?
We need to focus more on preventing the wrongs and less on punishing the wrong-doers. Revenge is natural but it is not pretty.
I don't generally support it - but in the interests of deterrence, example and recognition of the serious, heinous nature of their offences I think political leaders who order/action/instigate aggressive war upon non-threatening countries/civilians, should face the supreme penalty. Obama, Stephen Harper, Fogh Rasmussen, Lt Gen Charles Bouchard, Bush, Cheney, people such as these should be executed for their crimes. Also public officials who instigate, plan or implement 'structural adjustment' policies which result in massive insult and injury to populations, or instigate, plan or implement 'sanctions' upon a civilian population - such as the genocide perpetrated upon the people of Iraq. These crimes should be punished by death.
umm...hasn't the evidence shown that the Death Penalty doesn't work as a form of deterrence? Even going by War Crimes, hanging the Nazis didn't stop others from commiting more War Crimes later.
I don't favour it, although in her book "A Report on the Banality of Evil," Hannah Arendt did summarize a considered argument in favour of the execution of Eichmann.
There are certain political figures and corporate leaders in the last 30 years or so who have facilitated such notable levels of genocidal banality of their own, that their executions from a rendering of justice, followed by a popped bottle of champagne to commemorate their victims, wouldn't necessarily be out of kilter with my conscience on the subject.
That's horrible. By that logic, you could kill anyone just because you don't want to "share the earth with them".
As far as the quote from her 1963 book, the author was making the point in reference to Eichmann. As suggested directly in what you quoted of me, I don't share in the logic without reservation, but at the same time I find it quite difficult to gainsay in this particular instance. It is not without irony however that the nation which put Eichmann to death for his crimes routinely imposes the death sentence on innocent people today using similar logic, all without the luxury of a trial. I find that any system putting itself forward as being uniquely qualified to pass down those sort of judgements wind up demonstrating that they are uniquely incompetent in that regard.
I don't generally support it - but in the interests of deterrence, example and recognition of the serious, heinous nature of their offences I think political leaders who order/action/instigate aggressive war upon non-threatening countries/civilians, should face the supreme penalty. Obama, Stephen Harper, Fogh Rasmussen, Lt Gen Charles Bouchard, Bush, Cheney, people such as these should be executed for their crimes.
Followed by Fidel and Raul Castro, Erich Honnecker, Zhang Zhemin, Mengitsu Halie Mariam, and any other socialist tolitarian leader of the last century who did the same things mentioned. Hey, I'm only being fair.
I gotta boogie to work, so didnt get to read all above. Anybody else notice that while the spin of the article linked says Canadians 'warming' to the idea, the article does not compare the survey to any other survey?
I seem to remember when I was a teen and in my twenties support for the death penalty being higher, as the Scum commisioned polls on the subject at least once a year. It was certainly higher than the fifty percent of people who, given a choice, favour life imprisonment.
I'm absolutey against capital punishment, but if Hitler had been captured alive... uhhh... ummm... err
It was certainly higher than the fifty percent of people who, given a choice, favour life imprisonment.
Um, how is that mathematically possible?
It was certainly higher than the fifty percent of people who, given a choice, favour life imprisonment.
Um, how is that mathematically possible?
I took him to mean: T1 Past Pro Death x > 50% from recollection of the past; T2 Current Pro Life y > 50% from the article posted. The poster meant, I would guess, "My how things have changed since my youth" or something like that.
I don't remember seing any poll, ever, that got only 50% of Canadians to say they support the death penalty.
Sorry for my syntax
So... contrary to the headline, I would say support for the death penalty is in decline, not ascension.
And that's a good thing.
Well, to me it is, anyway. Maybe not for posters who like to daydream about whom they'd shoot first come the jubilee.