Americans....if you are facing the Death Penalty, come to Canada

[metallicat]

Canada sending the man back would hardly be taking part in his execution. He hasn't even been found guilty. He's a fugitive!

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Think about this. Somebody who may be a murderer runs into your house to escape somebody. You know full well that if you send them back out your door, they will be killed immediately. What do you do?

Do you have the conscience to send somebody out to his assured death? If you know the guy would be punished thoroughly for his crimes for several years but he would live, would that make it easier for you to send him back out?

Well it is quite simple because you don't need to have a hypotical case here. In the States he/she will have their case tried. They will have the opportunity to defend themselves in the most fair law systems (unfair according to many victims) in the world. They will NOT be lined up at the border and shot.

It is simple. Send them back.


Now if we are unsure they will recieve a fair trial then we should think about it.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Kool Keef

Your analogy is completely flawed. There isn't a lynch mob waiting on the border to string this guy up the minute he's released. He is accused of murder. He will be tried. He has a chance to be found not guilty. Even if found guilty, there is no guarantee that he will be executed.

A more appropriate analogy would be that an accused murderer runs into your house to escape the authorities and the police are waiting at the front door. What's your conscience say now?

Exactly right.

As simple as it sounds, you don't want to risk execution, don't kill someone in a state with a death penalty.

Canada should deport him like any other criminal, and let justice in the jurisdiction he committed the crime try him as per the laws in that jurisdiction.

[metallicat]

Exactly, he did not commit his crime here, so why should our country decide the punishment?

[icarus]

Originally Posted by browna

As simple as it sounds, you don't want to risk execution, don't kill someone in a state with a death penalty.

Canada should deport him like any other criminal, and let justice in the jurisdiction he committed the crime try him as per the laws in that jurisdiction.

But unfortunately (or fortunately) Canada has its own laws that pertain to persons remanded in its custody. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a jurisprudence which applies to such a person, regardless of whether the matter is a trial or a procedural one as in this case.

And as an aside, there is evidence that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent (one of the reasons we abolished it). People are no less likely to commit a capital offence in a retentionist state as they would in an abolitionist state.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I agree that Canada should not send send someone back to a country where they face the prospect of torture and/or death. I hate the fact that we have to pay for these yahoos. And I don't see it as imposing our morals on the US, we are not allowing them to impose their morals on us...

What do you mean, imposing morales?

Its an extradition for a trial, its one thing if you dont believe their justice system to be fair, its completely different if you dont believe in their penalties.

Should the US not extradite a possible murderer to Canada if it doesnt believe in the case or some type of evidence?

Please.

Its about the Canadian Liberal ideals putting their European based ideas against those of the United States.

If you kill, you should be killed, plain and simple. Use the money saved by not imprisoning them to support, um, Global Warming or welfare or homeless or whatever you want.

MYK

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

If you kill, you should be killed, plain and simple. Use the money saved by not imprisoning them to support, um, Global Warming or welfare or homeless or whatever you want.

MYK

Lets forget about the moral implications here for a minute and focus on the financial ones.....it costs more to run someone through the death penalty process than it does to remand them for 25 years.....so you will actually be losing money.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Lets forget about the moral implications here for a minute and focus on the financial ones.....it costs more to run someone through the death penalty process than it does to remand them for 25 years.....so you will actually be losing money.

Costs more money to take someone outside, line them up and have the firing squad shoot them?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Costs more money to take someone outside, line them up and have the firing squad shoot them?

Well the thing is.....the USA does not operate like Iraq or China....so that argument is invalid.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

What do you mean, imposing morales?

Its an extradition for a trial, its one thing if you dont believe their justice system to be fair, its completely different if you dont believe in their penalties.

Should the US not extradite a possible murderer to Canada if it doesnt believe in the case or some type of evidence?

If Canada believes that the individual was going to face unfair punishment or an unreasonable process of law, I think that they should not have to go back.

Imagine you are a cop/lawyer and a kid showed up at your house after doing something wrong (definitely worthy of punishment), but you know that when their parents get them back they are going to get an completely unreasonable beating, what would you do and how would you feel about it...do you give 'em back (too bad so sad) or do you interfere?

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Its about the Canadian Liberal ideals putting their European based ideas against those of the United States.

If you kill, you should be killed, plain and simple. Use the money saved by not imprisoning them to support, um, Global Warming or welfare or homeless or whatever you want.

So Robert Latimer (Farmer who killed his daughter because she was in pain) and Steven Truscott (15 year old convicted of murder in 1959, recent evidence suggests he was innocent) should have been executed?

Please

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Imagine you are a cop/lawyer and a kid showed up at your house after doing something wrong (definitely worthy of punishment), but you know that when their parents get them back they are going to get an completely unreasonable beating, what would you do and how would you feel about it...do you give 'em back (too bad so sad) or do you interfere?

The problem is Fozzie....it seems many people on this site are perfectly ok with killing other human beings.....so they don't think the person will receive unreasonable punishment.

I just want to know....where do people think they have the authority or right to end another persons life....no matter what that person has done? Where....really I would like to know.

[MarchHare]

When the US deported Maher Arar to Syria knowing that he would be tortured and his human rights would be violated, everyone on this site was shocked and abhorred that the American government would do such a thing, right?

But now that the Canadian government won't turn over a man to the US unless we receive assurances that he won't be executed if found guilty of the crime of which he is accused, all of a sudden people want us to adopt policies exactly like the ones that led to the Arar scandal?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Good point...

[redforever]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I don't think it is the Canadian goverments right to impose its beliefs on another country. I'm not sure what this guy did. But I allways feel that the victoms are forgotten in these situations. The fact is that this guy is a murderer. Death sentence or not, that is the law in the state he committed the crime. It shoudn't be any of Canada's business. Ship him back, he is not our resposability.

So, isnt this type of attitude exactly what happened with Maher Arar? He was sent to Syria knowing full well he would be tortured and now upon a full public inquiry and investigation, Arar has been found 100% innocent.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

When the US deported Maher Arar to Syria knowing that he would be tortured and his human rights would be violated, everyone on this site was shocked and abhorred that the American government would do such a thing, right?

But now that the Canadian government won't turn over a man to the US unless we receive assurances that he won't be executed if found guilty of the crime of which he is accused, all of a sudden people want us to adopt policies exactly like the ones that led to the Arar scandal?

3 key differences IMO

1- Arar was Canadian and being sent to another country. This guy is American and being sent to America. Arar should have been sent back to Canada.

2-Arar was going to be turtured etc. before ever being given a fair trial or conviction. This guys will have a trial first and a chance to defend himself.

3-The US, for all it's flaws atleast has a decent justice system where the guy can defend himself fairly. Syria on the other hand...

I have to agree with the send him back crowd. I don't like the death penalty, but I think unfortunately it's the law of their land and we have to respect that.
If this guy was a refugee or something and was going to be wrongfully killed for crimes he didn't commit, commited under opression etc. then I would change my tune.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Lets forget about the moral implications here for a minute and focus on the financial ones.....it costs more to run someone through the death penalty process than it does to remand them for 25 years.....so you will actually be losing money.

Beat me to it. People often assume that the death penalty is cheap, but the way it's done in the US is actually quite expensive.

Personally, I think it's pretty inhumane to decide whether someone should live based on financial costs, but even if we do look at costs, it's not a good move.

[jolinar of malkshor]

I don't understand how people can have a certain belief but only stand up for it when it when it directly affects them....

I will be the first person to bitch about the cost to tax payers for *******s like this....but I just can't say....ah I am against the death penalty only in Canada....anyone else that faces it...well.....not much I can do about it.

[swo2k1]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Remember Charles Ng? Same thing with him. I think we had held him for several years until the US decided that they would not seek the death penalty.

Charles Ng is currently on Death Row in San Quentin Prison in California. Canada tried to get assurances in this case as well while he was serving time in Canada (for crimes committed in Calgary), but the United States refused and basically told Canada either send him back or when he gets out then he would be there problem. Obviously Canadian authorites didn't want a serial killer running around, so they sent him back.

[jolinar of malkshor]

It appears you are correct about Ng....but as I am searching his name...it looks like some immigration officials were in hot water for releasing him. Any how....we kept him for quite a while I think.

Thanks for clarifing that.

[cal_guy]

It's not the government that requires that all fugutive to be protected from the death penalty, that comes from a 2001 Supreme Court of Canada decision and is mirror by other

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Burns

Here's a disturbing study of the error rate in the application of the death penalty in the United States.

http://www.justicedenied.org/landmarkstudy.htm