killers on parole do not kill

[danmand]

From a letter to the editor in the Globe and mail, by
PAULA OSMOK
John Howard Society of Ontario

Toronto -- The answer to the question you posed in your editorial, "Do those killers who win early parole go out and commit more murders?" is a resounding no . An average of six people per year in Canada have been granted early eligibility for parole under the faint-hope clause since 1987.

Currently, 80 of those are living on full or day parole and 29 remain in prison - meaning they've not yet become eligible for or were denied parole. Of the 17 parole revocations of people who both obtained early eligibility and were granted parole between 1987 and 2001, only four were due to new offences (three for drug offences and one armed robbery) and none for murder.

The faint-hope clause does not open the floodgates for dangerous people into the community. Reductions in parole eligibility are granted in exceptional cases and the process is rigorous to say the least - a judge, 12 jurors and the parole board must agree that the early eligibility and release are prudent.

Releasing prisoners on parole isn't about being soft on crime; on the contrary, the parole program is soundly based in the research on what works to make Canadian communities safer.

 

[jwmorrice]

There are probably some murderers that you could, without danger to society, parole the day after their trial. However, fundamental justice requires that a punishment be proportional to the crime. I think that if you purposely take a life, you should spend the rest of yours behind bars.

jwm

 

[peter4]

There are probably some murderers that you could, without danger to society, parole the day after their trial. However, fundamental justice requires that a punishment be proportional to the crime. I think that if you purposely take a life, you should spend the rest of yours behind bars.

jwm

..... and I think that if you purposely take a life ..... then your life should also be taken from you.

 

[nottyboi]

..... and I think that if you purposely take a life ..... then your life should also be taken from you.

Well thank goodness twits like you don't run the country. So who is going to do the executing? What about the trauma to the family of the killer? What about the trauma to the prison staff? What about the consequences of our society? And at the end of the day, what is the benefit? People like you never think about the consequences, just kill kill kill If we execute people, we devalue life in society at large.

 

[nottyboi]

There are probably some murderers that you could, without danger to society, parole the day after their trial. However, fundamental justice requires that a punishment be proportional to the crime. I think that if you purposely take a life, you should spend the rest of yours behind bars.

jwm

Perhaps for the worst murders (like Bernado and Olsen) I agree with you. But most murders are rarely an innocent victim getting killed.

 

[Hangman]

That article makes a lot of sense. I doubt many killers kill just for its own sake. Usually its part of a more long term criminal activity like drug dealing. Sure there are some outright psycho killers but those ones you don't let out.

The problems I have with capital punishment (says the guy calling himself 'Hangman') is that it's a) final and b) too easy.

People on Death Row get exonerated by DNA, and if you've already popped him, well that would suck. I'd rather be able to release an innocent man.

For the guilty, I think they should spend the rest of their lives behind bars, preferably at hard labour, not allowed to die.

Check out the Onion's recent video on the US Supreme Courts ruling on the death penalty for more in-depth analysis.

 

[peter4]

Well thank goodness twits like you don't run the country. So who is going to do the executing? What about the trauma to the family of the killer? What about the trauma to the prison staff? What about the consequences of our society? And at the end of the day, what is the benefit? People like you never think about the consequences, just kill kill kill If we execute people, we devalue life in society at large.

Nottyboi - to answer your questions:

- I would gladly do the executions - and I would gladly do it for the token salary of $ 1.00 per year - I suspect a lot of others would too.
- Re:trauma to the families - "please - give me a break"
- Re: trauma to prison staff - "please - give me a break"
- The benefit????? Pretty obvious Nottyboi - the executed prisoner would NEVER EVER be a "repeat offender" and we would save tons of taxpayer dollars!

Nottyboi - if you want to stay with the status quo - that is your prerogative - personally the status quo is a "no go" for me.

 

[capncrunch]

the executed prisoner would NEVER EVER be a "repeat offender" and we would save tons of taxpayer dollars!

It costs more to execute a criminal than to put them away for the rest of their life.

http://www.nyadp.org/main/faq#0

 

[peter4]

It costs more to execute a criminal than to put them away for the rest of their life.

http://www.nyadp.org/main/faq#0

lol - that is very funny - written by a group opposed to the death penalty!
Let me prepare an ad for some swamp land that I have in Florida - and I know that you will buy that too, correct?

 

[capncrunch]

lol - that is very funny - written by a group opposed to the death penalty!
Let me prepare an ad for some swamp land that I have in Florida - and I know that you will buy that too, correct?

Look up the original source material, then get back to me.

See Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, 09/9/99 and New York Law Journal, April 30, 2002.

But even discounting the cost argument - besides, should cost be the prime determining factor in whether justice is served? - the justice system isn't perfect. Remember Donald Marshall Jr., David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin and Steven Truscott? And those are only the ones we know about and made the news.

Do your research first. I'll wait.

 

[peter4]

Look up the original source material, then get back to me.

See Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, 09/9/99 and New York Law Journal, April 30, 2002.

But even discounting the cost argument - besides, should cost be the prime determining factor in whether justice is served? - the justice system isn't perfect. Remember Donald Marshall Jr., David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin and Steven Truscott? And those are only the ones we know about and made the news.

Do your research first. I'll wait.

..... if you bothered to check into some of my past posts - you would know that I'm only talking about cases where guilt is absolute - 100%no doubt. Take for instance ... Paul Bernardo.

...... I am not talking about 20 years on death row - I am talking obviously a very quick "operation" - you tell me that someone at 20 years of age going into the prison system for a "life sentence - which is a joke in itself" costs less than someone 20 years of age - who is executed 3 months in - hmmmm - where are the savings ????

If you are against Capital Punishment - just say so. I am for it.

 

[capncrunch]

...... I am not talking about 20 years on death row - I am talking obviously a very quick "operation" - you tell me that someone at 20 years of age going into the prison system for a "life sentence - which is a joke in itself" costs less than someone 20 years of age - who is executed 3 months in - hmmmm - where are the savings ????

So you advocate a wholesale change in how capital cases are handled?

If you are against Capital Punishment - just say so. I am for it.

I am against it (obviously). There are too many holes in the system.

 

[alexmst]

I remember reading the defence argument in Texas of the woman who ran over her husband and killed him when she found out he was cheating on her with his receptionist:

Since she only had one husband and he is now dead, she has no risk of re-offending. Therefore she is no risk to society.

ha ha. Well, I guess that is true...as long as she doesn't marry again...

The other one was "If you send my client to jail, their kids will have no parents" (Yeah, but that is because the client killed the other parent).

 

[peter4]

So you advocate a wholesale change in how capital cases are handled?

I am against it (obviously). There are too many holes in the system.

Cap'n - yes - in the case of a piece of shit like Bernardo - it should be a "very swift operation" - someone like Bernardo does not deserve to breathe air whatsoever! Do you agree - or disagree with that?

- fill the "holes" and make it work.

 

[RandyAndy2]

..... I'm only talking about cases where guilt is absolute - 100%no doubt.

I see. So you think that the convictions of Milgaard, Morin, etc. were cases where they sort of thought that these guys were guilty? Where it was 65% certain? No, of course not. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that for those making the judgement (judge or jury) there was not a reasonable doubt. That is, they were 100% certain.

And since you want the killing to be quick, I expect (correct me if I'm wrong) you want to deny the right to appeal.

How would you feel about being responsible for killing an innocent person?

 

[peter4]

I see. So you think that the convictions of Milgaard, Morin, etc. were cases where they sort of thought that these guys were guilty? Where it was 65% certain? No, of course not. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that for those making the judgement (judge or jury) there was not a reasonable doubt. That is, they were 100% certain.

And since you want the killing to be quick, I expect (correct me if I'm wrong) you want to deny the right to appeal.

How would you feel about being responsible for killing an innocent person?

Randy - I did not comment on the convictions of Milgaard, Morin etc.. What I said was - if there is absolutely no doubt - "such as in the Bernardo case" - then execute him! For any case where there is a conviction - and if any juror has any doubts - then there can be a different sentence.

- Should Bernardo have a right to appeal Randy? In his case - I do not think tat he should have had any rights - it was clear cut what he did - he was one sick bastard who deserved to die right away.

Tell me Randy - you think our current system is good? So, I guess that means taht you agree with the "sweetheart deal" that Homolka got?!?!?!

Wonderful.

 

[RandyAndy2]

Randy - I did not comment on the convictions of Milgaard, Morin etc.. What I said was - if there is absolutely no doubt - "such as in the Bernardo case" - then execute him! For any case where there is a conviction - and if any juror has any doubts - then there can be a different sentence.

- Should Bernardo have a right to appeal Randy? In his case - I do not think tat he should have had any rights - it was clear cut what he did - he was one sick bastard who deserved to die right away.

Tell me Randy - you think our current system is good? So, I guess that means taht you agree with the "sweetheart deal" that Homolka got?!?!?!

Wonderful.

peter4
I'd like to hear your comment on what should be done with false convictions - that is what my post was all about. Please re-read my post. My point was that for the false convictions there was obviously no doubt at the time of conviction. With our system or any other, there will be false convictions. It's not like with those that are falsely convicted the jury is kinda sorta sure, and for the others they're really really sure. So if you have capital punishment you will be killing innocent people. I ask you again, how do you feel about that?

For the record, I think that Bernardo and Homolka are monsters. How could anyone think otherwise? What makes you think that I like Homolka's "sweetheart deal"? Just because I oppose capital punishment? That's some kind of logical leap, isn't it?

 

[peter4]

peter4
I'd like to hear your comment on what should be done with false convictions - that is what my post was all about. Please re-read my post. My point was that for the false convictions there was obviously no doubt at the time of conviction. With our system or any other, there will be false convictions. It's not like with those that are falsely convicted the jury is kinda sorta sure, and for the others they're really really sure. So if you have capital punishment you will be killing innocent people. I ask you again, how do you feel about that?

For the record, I think that Bernardo and Homolka are monsters. How could anyone think otherwise? What makes you think that I like Homolka's "sweetheart deal"? Just because I oppose capital punishment? That's some kind of logical leap, isn't it?

Randy- false convictions will always be a fact of life - and sometimes perhaps a "fact of death" . I wouldn't want to see a false conviction that results in executing an innocent - but, I think that the greater good ( executing people like Bernardo et al ) outweighs the instances where someone might be wrongfully executed. For me - it would b a "cost of doing business" and I would indeed feel the same way - if it were a friend, family member or myself.

There are ways however to minimize - possibly eliminate entirely - the chances of that ever happening, and that could be agreed upon and legislated in any new "arrangement".

 

[capncrunch]

I will admit in the case of Bernardo and similar monsters, it's hard to argue against the ultimate punishment. That's why we have courts and a legal system; it removes the element of vengeance and emotionally-led decisions.

Thankfully, such monsters - and monstrous acts - are still exceedingly rare, at least in Canada.

 

[hoser1970]

Randy- false convictions will always be a fact of life - and sometimes perhaps a "fact of death" . I wouldn't want to see a false conviction that results in executing an innocent - but, I think that the greater good ( executing people like Bernardo et al ) outweighs the instances where someone might be wrongfully executed. For me - it would b a "cost of doing business" and I would indeed feel the same way - if it were a friend, family member or myself.

Peter, like you, I used to be in favour of capital punishment. That was until I realized how many innoncent people had been convicted of serious crimes.

The whole premise of the criminal justice system (ok, in the US, but really not that different here) is that it is better for 100 guilty people to go free than it is for 1 innocent person to be convicted. Based on your argument above, you would prefer that 100 innocent people be executed, rather than 1 guilty person be incarcerated in prison (that's right, not go free, but be sent to prison). And you can honestly say you are ok with this?

Of course you would not feel the same way if this were your friend, or your parent/sibling/child or yourself and you believed that they/you were innocent. To claim otherwise, unless you have already been in put in that position (which you couldn't have been put in in Canada) is absolutely ridiculous.

Let me hear you speak of the "greater good" as they are about to give you a lethal injection, or turn on the electric chair. I daresay your last words would be closer to "I DIDN'T DO IT! I'M INNOCENT! YOU ARE MAKING A MISTAKE!"