PDA

View Full Version : History of the death penalty in Canada



Adelaide
04-22-2013, 07:50 PM
Another discussion elsewhere had me seeking out information on the history of the death penalty in Canada and I found out some interesting things.



Hanging was the only way civillians were executed; the military could execute people by firing squad. The only crimes that resulted in execution were murder, treason and rape following Confederation in Upper and Lower Canada.
There were 3 men on federal payroll as official hangmen/executioners; one of which, Arthur Ellis, has a literary award named after him. He accidentally beheaded someone by miscalculating their weight and died in poverty.
The last execution was in 1962
Execution was removed from the Canadian Criminal Code in 1977 but remained in the Canadian National Defence Act for cases of treason and mutiny, but generally considered abolished legally.
It was officially abolished in 1998 by removal of executions in the Canadian National Defence Act.
One of the reasons hangings were stopped was because a 14 year old boy was convicted of capital murder where the mandatory punishment was hanging. His death sentence was removed and he was eventually free on parole, relieved of parole, and assumed a new identity in a city and had several children. Later, he was acquitted by the Ontario Court of Appeals, with a personal apology from our Attorney General even though his family felt he did commit the murder.
Support for the death penalty in Canada is roughly equal to that of the United States, but it still remains abolished. Nearly 3 in 5 Canadians support bringing it back.
In 2001, our Supreme Court ruled that we would not extradite criminals who would face the death penalty. We would only extradite under the guarantee that the criminal were not executed.
Today, if a criminal is sentenced to life in prison (the harshest sentence we have) they are eligible for parole in 7 to 25 years, but if the courts decide the criminal is a dangerous offender, they can be held indefinitely with parole hearings every 7 years.

Mister D
04-22-2013, 07:54 PM
That 60% figure is surprising to me.

Peter1469
04-22-2013, 07:54 PM
Wow I had no idea that most Canadians want the death penalty back!

Adelaide
04-22-2013, 08:00 PM
Yeah, it surprised me, too. But it won't happen.

KC
04-22-2013, 08:03 PM
Wow I had no idea that most Canadians want the death penalty back!

I read that part just as I was about to praise Canada for being so much further ahead than us on this one. Whoops.

GrassrootsConservative
04-22-2013, 08:04 PM
I read that part just as I was about to praise Canada for being so much further ahead than us on this one. Whoops.

Why is the death penalty suddenly bad?

Mister D
04-22-2013, 08:10 PM
I read that part just as I was about to praise Canada for being so much further ahead than us on this one. Whoops.

Was the rejection motivated by a lack of confidence in the state?

KC
04-22-2013, 08:11 PM
Why is the death penalty suddenly bad?

When was it ever good? If our natural rights include life, liberty and property, isn't the death penalty the negation of the first and most important of those rights?

GrassrootsConservative
04-22-2013, 08:20 PM
When was it ever good? If our natural rights include life, liberty and property, isn't the death penalty the negation of the first and most important of those rights?

Not if the criminal(s) involved has taken another person's life. Then I believe in Hammurabi's Code because dude do you know how much money we spend on keeping criminals alive?

Peter1469
04-22-2013, 08:23 PM
Yeah, it surprised me, too. But it won't happen.

Do you have high levels of violent crime that would cause people to want to bring the death penalty back. I know that they just discovered a terror cell there....

Chris
04-22-2013, 08:25 PM
When was it ever good? If our natural rights include life, liberty and property, isn't the death penalty the negation of the first and most important of those rights?

Having natural rights doesn't imply artificial protection, that would be a naturalistic fallacy. Personally I don't see why the state should protect those who commit heinous crimes. I wouldn't go as far as say China where the accused, guilty or not, is executed as a deterrence (heard that somewhere).

KC
04-22-2013, 08:26 PM
Not if the criminal(s) involved has taken another person's life. Then I believe in Hammurabi's Code because dude do you know how much money we spend on keeping criminals alive?

I believe that taking another person's life deserves that they should forfeit their liberty and property, but not their life. The cost of keeping criminals alive is worth it, especially given that many who are convicted are done so under faulty evidence. Since guilt in many cases is wrongfully attributed, the state should not be involved in taking anyone's life.

GrassrootsConservative
04-22-2013, 08:28 PM
I believe that taking another person's life deserves that they should forfeit their liberty and property, but not their life. The cost of keeping criminals alive is worth it, especially given that many who are convicted are done so under faulty evidence. Since guilt in many cases is wrongfully attributed, the state should not be involved in taking anyone's life.

That's such a small % of cases now that we have DNA evidence.

KC
04-22-2013, 08:35 PM
Having natural rights doesn't imply artificial protection, that would be a naturalistic fallacy. Personally I don't see why the state should protect those who commit heinous crimes. I wouldn't go as far as say China where the accused, guilty or not, is executed as a deterrence (heard that somewhere).

Of course it doesn't. Our natural rights are negative rights, meaning that the government may not take them away without due process of law. While the death penalty requires due process of law, it does so with imperfect evidence. I think that since life is the most important of our natural rights, it should not be taken from us by the state period.

Chris
04-22-2013, 08:41 PM
Of course it doesn't. Our natural rights are negative rights, meaning that the government may not take them away without due process of law. While the death penalty requires due process of law, it does so with imperfect evidence. I think that since life is the most important of our natural rights, it should not be taken from us by the state period.

But they are given due process of law. It's the best we imperfect creatures can do, find a man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we're to have a state, that seems the minimal protection it can give the rest of us.

GrassrootsConservative
04-22-2013, 08:43 PM
Lol history room death penalty debate thread. Sorry OP.

I agree with Chris here. That makes the most sense.

KC
04-22-2013, 08:47 PM
But they are given due process of law. It's the best we imperfect creatures can do, find a man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we're to have a state, that seems the minimal protection it can give the rest of us.

Right, they are given due process of law, but does that justify the state taking action in taking away a person's life?

Chris
04-22-2013, 08:50 PM
Right, they are given due process of law, but does that justify the state taking action in taking away a person's life?

For heinous crimes, as long as we accept some sort of state, I think so, for reasons given above.

GrassrootsConservative
04-22-2013, 08:51 PM
Right, they are given due process of law, but does that justify the state taking action in taking away a person's life?

In my opinion, it does. It's unsustainable for our country to support every criminal we have. The very worst ones should be killed.

Greenridgeman
04-22-2013, 08:52 PM
Yeah, it surprised me, too. But it won't happen.


Never say never.

Greenridgeman
04-22-2013, 08:53 PM
In my opinion, it does. It's unsustainable for our country to support every criminal we have. The very worst ones should be killed.



Really. It makes no sense whatever to take a guy like Charlie Manson and give him what he always wanted, three hots and a cot and all the sex he can handle.

Giving life to many of these animals is like throwing brer' Rabbit in de bryah patch!

Greenridgeman
04-22-2013, 08:56 PM
Right, they are given due process of law, but does that justify the state taking action in taking away a person's life?


Society has asserted that right since long before there were states.

There are things so heinous that one forfeits life and any consideration from the rest of humanity.

You know, like placing a bomb next to an eight year old boy watching a sporting event.

GrassrootsConservative
04-22-2013, 08:58 PM
Society has asserted that right since long before there were states.

There are things so heinous that one forfeits life and any consideration from the rest of humanity.

You know, like placing a bomb next to an eight year old boy watching a sporting event.

A very good example.

KC
04-22-2013, 09:02 PM
Society has asserted that right since long before there were states.

There are things so heinous that one forfeits life and any consideration from the rest of humanity.

You know, like placing a bomb next to an eight year old boy watching a sporting event.

I don't disagree that my opinion on this is a radical one.

Chris
04-22-2013, 09:05 PM
Example of a heinous crime: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is charged with using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death the penalty for which heinous act the max penalty is death.

Greenridgeman
04-22-2013, 09:25 PM
When was it ever good? If our natural rights include life, liberty and property, isn't the death penalty the negation of the first and most important of those rights?


Ever heard of the social contract and natural law.

As long as there have been modern humans, and maybe even before, society has had expectations of its members; certain violations of those conditions called for forfeiture of life.

Using your logic, government could not fine people.

That would be a violation of pursuit of happiness and private property.

KC
04-22-2013, 09:29 PM
Ever heard of the social contract and natural law.

As long as there have been modern humans, and maybe even before, society has had expectations of its members; certain violations of those conditions called for forfeiture of life.

Using your logic, government could not fine people.

That would be a violation of pursuit of happiness and private property.

I tend to think of life as the most important of our natural rights.

Peter1469
04-22-2013, 09:33 PM
I am not against the death penalty per se. But when a society gets as large and diverse as the US, it tends to apply the death penalty unequally. That is a problem. That is why I think we should only use it against the worst of the worst.

Greenridgeman
04-22-2013, 09:46 PM
I tend to think of life as the most important of our natural rights.


So, any right can be forfeited if one violates the rules of society.

Mister D
04-22-2013, 09:50 PM
So, any right can be forfeited if one violates the rules of society.

Agreed. If you violate the basic rights of others why should society respect yours?

KC
04-22-2013, 09:51 PM
So, any right can be forfeited if one violates the rules of society.

Yes, any right can be taken away if one violates the rules of society, but I disagree with the idea of the state taking a person's life. I think life is the most important of our rights and if it's possible to either take away a person's liberty or their life I choose the former on principle.

Greenridgeman
04-22-2013, 10:08 PM
Yes, any right can be taken away if one violates the rules of society, but I disagree with the idea of the state taking a person's life. I think life is the most important of our rights and if it's possible to either take away a person's liberty or their life I choose the former on principle.





I chose the later on principal.


The life sentence would be fine if only anti-deathers were taxed to pay for it.

And before you start in on how much it costs to prosecute a death case, legal antics does not make it right.

There are many case of obvious guilt that should take no more than two weeks from apprehension to execution, just like the guy that tried to shoot FDR and killed the mayor (of Chicago?) instead.

In heinous cases of abolute guilt, try and fry 'em in the same month.

Dr. Who
04-22-2013, 10:31 PM
Society has asserted that right since long before there were states.

There are things so heinous that one forfeits life and any consideration from the rest of humanity.

You know, like placing a bomb next to an eight year old boy watching a sporting event.
And yet there are those who physically and emotionally abuse their children until the child commits suicide or until the child dies of one last blow, but they receive light sentences.

Dr. Who
04-22-2013, 10:39 PM
Agreed. If you violate the basic rights of others why should society respect yours?
Knowing that you are a Christian, do you not believe in the commandment: Thou shalt not murder. If one kills in defense of one's own life or that of another, that is not murder, but to premeditate the death of another and take that life, irrespective of the crimes of that person, is murder. How do you reconcile your core beliefs with the death penalty?

Mister D
04-23-2013, 07:50 AM
Knowing that you are a Christian, do you not believe in the commandment: Thou shalt not murder. If one kills in defense of one's own life or that of another, that is not murder, but to premeditate the death of another and take that life, irrespective of the crimes of that person, is murder. How do you reconcile your core beliefs with the death penalty?

Murder is the unjustified killing of another human being. I don't see the state as being unjustified when it executes defective, anti-social persons. Similarly, soldiers are not murderers although many of their lethal acts are premeditated.

Common
04-23-2013, 10:36 AM
When I was taking Criminal Justice and Sociology courses for one of the professors we had to write a paper on the death penalty, we could write the paper on our personal beliefs for or against. I wrote my paper for the Death Penalty knowing it would be more favorable to write an against paper.
As he was returning out graded papers he stated that 90% of the class wrote papers against the DP. When I got my paper he had given me a barely passing grade with a note that said If I hadnt put non factual statements in the paper he would have given me a 90+ I asked him after the class what was in my paper that was not truthful. He said where I put that most individuals executed in NY and NJ since records started were caucasian males. I said if I can show you proof of my statement will you change my grade. He smirked and said yes and the next class I brought him copies of every single person executed in both states from the start of record taking to the last one. Over 80% were white males and if you included hispanics as white males it was 90%. He changed my grade to 100 and asked if he could have copies of this.
The lists I presented had DOB birth place Race and even broke down to ethnicity in the earlier days. The most of those executed were Irish, German, Italian mostly immigrants I would guess. Like Sacco and Venzetti for those that know that piece of history.

What does that mean? and what was my purpose for posting. I wanted to demonstrate that this raging about minorities being executed more than others because of race is bs. The death penalty was administered as ethnicity and race became involved in capitol crime. Like the Irish mobsters germans then the Italian black hand and Cosa Nostra WHITE MALES were the criminals and committing most of the capitol crimes then and White males were the lionshare of those executed. Today blacks are executed in larger numbers because they are more the organized crime. Bloods, Crypts etc.
The death penalty should be administered in those rare circumstances where a human is so foul and evil and unsalvageable. Like Serial Killers and Serial Pedophilles and Terrorists but not limited too.

Mister D
04-23-2013, 10:53 AM
When I was taking Criminal Justice and Sociology courses for one of the professors we had to write a paper on the death penalty, we could write the paper on our personal beliefs for or against. I wrote my paper for the Death Penalty knowing it would be more favorable to write an against paper.
As he was returning out graded papers he stated that 90% of the class wrote papers against the DP. When I got my paper he had given me a barely passing grade with a note that said If I hadnt put non factual statements in the paper he would have given me a 90+ I asked him after the class what was in my paper that was not truthful. He said where I put that most individuals executed in NY and NJ since records started were caucasian males. I said if I can show you proof of my statement will you change my grade. He smirked and said yes and the next class I brought him copies of every single person executed in both states from the start of record taking to the last one. Over 80% were white males and if you included hispanics as white males it was 90%. He changed my grade to 100 and asked if he could have copies of this.
The lists I presented had DOB birth place Race and even broke down to ethnicity in the earlier days. The most of those executed were Irish, German, Italian mostly immigrants I would guess. Like Sacco and Venzetti for those that know that piece of history.

What does that mean? and what was my purpose for posting. I wanted to demonstrate that this raging about minorities being executed more than others because of race is bs. The death penalty was administered as ethnicity and race became involved in capitol crime. Like the Irish mobsters germans then the Italian black hand and Cosa Nostra WHITE MALES were the criminals and committing most of the capitol crimes then and White males were the lionshare of those executed. Today blacks are executed in larger numbers because they are more the organized crime. Bloods, Crypts etc.
The death penalty should be administered in those rare circumstances where a human is so foul and evil and unsalvageable. Like Serial Killers and Serial Pedophilles and Terrorists but not limited too.

Very interesting!

NY and NJ had small black populations prior to WW1.

Common
04-23-2013, 11:13 AM
Very interesting!

NY and NJ had small black populations prior to WW1.

Blacks werent committing most of the street crime then. The white ethnic gangsters were.
I dont have access to get the exact records now but Id bet right now today theres more whites executed across the country than blacks. Of course if you take in percentage of population it would be more evident a larger percentage of blacks are being executed.

Adelaide
04-23-2013, 08:24 PM
Do you have high levels of violent crime that would cause people to want to bring the death penalty back. I know that they just discovered a terror cell there....

No. Our crime rates are low (compared to the US) and have been dropping.

Adelaide
04-23-2013, 08:27 PM
Never say never.

Never.

It would damage our reputation and essentially alienate us from most of our allies on a major issue that we've basically chained ourselves to in the international community.

Harsher sentencing? A must. Capital punishment? Nope.

Peter1469
04-23-2013, 08:34 PM
Never.

It would damage our reputation and essentially alienate us from most of our allies on a major issue that we've basically chained ourselves to in the international community.

Harsher sentencing? A must. Capital punishment? Nope.

I agree. I just wonder why some many Canadians now want it.

Adelaide
04-24-2013, 06:29 PM
I agree. I just wonder why some many Canadians now want it.

Robert Pickton, for one example. We've seem a couple really atrocious crimes recently.

Peter1469
04-24-2013, 07:08 PM
Robert Pickton, for one example. We've seem a couple really atrocious crimes recently.

Wow, this sort of stuff doesn't make it into mainstream news in the US.

Common
04-24-2013, 11:43 PM
Wow, this sort of stuff doesn't make it into mainstream news in the US.

They reported about Pickton here when it happened, Canadas crime rate has dropped like a rock steadily since the 90s and its alot lower now than it was in the 70s. They are doing something right up there

Adelaide
04-28-2013, 03:39 PM
They reported about Pickton here when it happened, Canadas crime rate has dropped like a rock steadily since the 90s and its alot lower now than it was in the 70s. They are doing something right up there

It's true. Really, the only reason why I would think that Canadians would poll high with regards to bringing back the death penalty is because of the very high profile murder cases that pop up. We don't really have that many murders statistically, so when something horrible happens I could see how a large percentage of Canadians would suddenly support capital punishment. Such as Luka Magnotta who dismembered and ate part of a student he had killed and then fled to Europe. The murders that make our news cycle are truly atrocious and absolutely shocking and I think it makes people want the death penalty back even if they don't agree with it. Hell, I've read some of these cases and thought to myself that they should be dead but I just can't support the death penalty, regardless of what the crime is or the details of it.