There's not a whole else that burns me as much as our Canadian dysfunctional so-called justice system. For years, many people have indicated that the criminal justice system is like a revolving door in Canada. Criminals roam free, excused for their actions by any variety of bleeding heart liberal justifications for their behaviour. If you've ever watched the movie Primal Fear, it raises the issue that mental competency (or lack thereof) can easily be feigned. Plus, with a good enough (read: sleazy) lawyer, the blame for anyone's criminal actions can be easily shifted elsewhere, resulting in the bad guy getting a lesser sentence, despite damning evidence. Paul Bernardo is one of these pieces of sh-- (I'll just abbreviate it to POS from hereon in), who, while convicted on clear unrefutable evidence that he savagely raped and killed two teenage girls as well as his teenage sister-in-law, due to Canada not having a death penalty, this scum bag how has his living expenses, meals and lodging (albeit in a prison) covered by the Canadian taxpayer. In the U.S., depending on the state, he would have been six feet under by now.
Enter Vince Li, another POS who savagely killed and gruesomely mutiliated a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus last year in Manitoba. Tim McLean did not provoke the attack, nor did anything that warranted such an awful death at such a young age. Police say that Li not only savagely killed him with a knife, but started to eat his body parts, putting some parts in his pocket or scattering them throughout the bus. Thankfully, passengers locked him in the bus while authorities arrived, so he was apprehended by the police.
At the recent conclusion of his trial, it was deemed that he was found not criminally responsible due to mental illness so rather than locking him up in prison for the rest of his life, he is now going to be "treated" at a psychiatric hospital of some sort. Li claims that "God made him do it.". Oh brother.
Now, I know I am going to get flamed by people who say that I am devoid of compassion and understanding. Perhaps I am, but you know, Mr. McLean's family is right - whatever the cause of his actions, he still acted. I don't buy the argument that psychologists and psychiatrists like to maintain, that there are times where one does not have even a semblance of control over their actions. The overwhelming vast majority of the population does not go around murdering people, much less doing it in such a way that is, I think it's safe to say, universally considered grotesque and all out wrong. We're not talking self-defence here. We're not talking mob killings here where it may be argued that the target deserves what he/she gets. We're talking about an innocent person here, who was minding his own business when out of nowhere, some looney bin starts to stab him repeatedly. People should not have to fear riding buses (though I have not taken public transit for years due to the increasing depravity of some public transit riders).
The fact is, a guy like Li, even if I would concede has mental problems, should be locked up in a prison for the rest of his life. Canada does not offer the death penalty, so the most severe punishment is life in prison (which in Canada means 25 years without parole, I believe). He can get treated in jail, if the system wants to work on his issues. But he should not be released to a mental hospital where security is not as tight, and where, given the right behavioural stimuli and playing his good behaviour cards right, "experts" may deem him fit for release to the general public at a future date.
Now, for those who think it's better to rehabiliate than to lock up a murderer (which is what this guy is, no matter what the courts say), let me ask you - would you be willing to let him be released in your residential area? Would you be OK with him as a neighbour, knowing he butchered an innocent person on a bus? Anyone who does this to another human being without provocation has forfeited his / her right to peaceful existence amongst the general populace.
I have talked about this before, and will mention it again. It is easy to claim to be a friend of the behavioural sciences and afford grace to those who are mentally unstable, but until you have an experience where you see the fallacy of the system, you will continue to dream idealistically that everyone, regardless of their societal threat levels, should be given a second chance. If you read this blog for a while, you'll know a few years back, a lady showed up at my door on a warm Saturday night in August. Neither my wife and I knew who she was, but she started to knock on my door, and that gravitated to trying to kick down my door. When this happens to you, the fear in your heart is tremendous. I made several mistakes that night, the first of which was confronting her. My initial assessment of her was that she was drunk, but there was no alcohol on her breath. She claimed that we kidnapped her child and that she wants into the house. I stood in the doorway and refused entry, while my wife called the police. All this happened, while my 2-year-old was sleeping upstairs.
Once I refused her entry, I can see that she started to seethe. She started cursing me, hurling racial epithets at me, saying stuff like "You f***ing Chinese people come to this country and kidnap our children" and worse, and started to move close to me (I was neither armed nor knew what to do in that case at the time). I just stood my ground and prayed quickly to God that He would protect me. Thankfully she backed away once my wife said that the cops were coming. Now, the cops later revealed that she had a mental condition and was obviously off her medication. My question to the officer was, "well, what the hell was she doing roaming the streets, driving a car?" Apparently officers check in on her "periodically". But in my view, that's not good enough. Vince Li could be that woman in a number of years...one event can trigger him to do the unthinkable. It's foolish to expect people like this to take their meds and hope that they do, without any form of consistent supervision. I mean, if that woman was armed and killed me or my wife, what would the socialists say then? Sorry, I'm not offering my life for some social experiment. Next time a crazy comes to my door, I will be fully armed with my Remington 870 stoked with 00 buckshot and regardless of their mental disposition, if they try to attack me, I will hit back and chances are, they will not get back up. You see, I am an equal opportunity defender, when it comes to my home and my family.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand. Mr. McLean's family now has to attend annual reviews for Li to ensure that he remains in custody. It's bad enough they lost a son to this killer; now, the system puts the onus on them to ensure that they participate in his annual reviews to ensure he continues to be institutionalized. It is conceivable (especially given the Canadian system of judicial dispensation) that down the line, this guy can be released, and without a criminal record, he can go where he wants, live where he wants, and do what he wants. Dare I say it, for people like this, these events are not a one-time occurrence. I found out later that the lady who was at my door who claimed that we kidnapped her children trashed a donut shop previously. Again, I ask, why is she allowed to roam amongst the general community? I would ask the same of Vince Li, who obviously by his actions demonstrated that he is a threat to the general public. As a result, he should be locked up indefinitely, not given another chance due to the justice system shifting the blame.
Showing posts with label murder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label murder. Show all posts
Friday, March 6, 2009
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Even "Nice Guys" Have Something to Hide
Being an avid listener of news and talk radio, I am glad in a way that today, something else was front and center of the news, instead of constantly hearing about the every waking movement of that wench, Paris Hilton. At the same time, I sincerely wish there was something else in the news that would have displaced yet another sad story about a murder-suicide, and one that, unfortunately, involves a young child.
Unless you have been sleeping under a rock for the past 24 hours, you will have no doubt heard about the story of famous wrestler Chris Benoit, and how it appears as if he was responsible for the strangulation/suffocation deaths of his wife and seven-year-old son. I mention this as a springboard into my rant today, which is not about Benoit or even wrestling, but about the erroneous notion that when it comes to nice people, society in general has a pretty good inkling of who they consider will fit such an image. My argument here is that not only is it damaging to perpetuate this image, but it also fosters an increased need to try to live up to it, which only drives people's closet skeletons even further. Certainly this is nowhere more evident than today's church-going Christians, but for now, please allow me to lay out my points.
One thing that was said in today's many talk shows which dealt with the Benoit situation, was how he was regarded by his friends, family and colleagues as a true family man, in a business where family is not necessarily put on a pedastal. It was referenced how Benoit invited his wife and son into the ring when he won the championship, and how they were involved in his work, through appearances, etc. All in all, his public and private presentation on his family life would lead many to indicate that for all intents and purposes, he had a rather model life outside of the ring (as model as the life could be, in comparison with the lives of other wrestlers).
Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah - earlier this year, there was a case in the Toronto area (actually, in the Markham area, where I live), where two women were found dead in a quiet residential street, in what was believed to be a quiet residential home. One of the women was an account executive for a radio station in Toronto, while the other was a massage therapist (if I remember right). The massage therapist was separated or divorced from a major Toronto sports broadcaster. Anyhow, the guy charged, was the first woman's husband. When it made news and they interviewed the community, the overwhelming reaction was utter shock. "But, that family looked so happy together! They are always walking their dog and with their kids, always smiling...we never saw them argue" ...and so forth. The guy charged was deemed "a nice guy" who was "incapable of such a heinous crime". Heck, they even have inadvertent videotape of him by one of the major Toronto newspapers, who happened to be filming at the Toronto Zoo on New Year's Day - they happen to catch this guy on video (about a month before he was charged for the murders), and he said on the video something to the effect of, "it's going to be a great year for the family".
Why is it that people fall for this bull crap? I remember it was the same reaction with Paul Bernardo, the infamous Canadian sexual killer of teenagers. People were aghast back in the early 90s. "No, it can't be them!!!" (referring to him and his equally guilty wife Karla Holmolka). And the worst line, "but they were such a cute couple!" (as if that somehow disqualifies them of any ill-action towards anyone). When people conclude that a couple or a family or an individual is the epitome of what a human being should be, I think that's when the person being spoken of tends to want to continue to maintain and build on such accolades, and that, of course perpetuates the problem.
Now, that is not to say that there are not genuinely nice people out there, and yes, I am sure some people can be nice all the time. But as a discussion with one of my co-workers showed, things aren't always what they seem. She said to me one time that she has a good sense of who people are and what their personalities are like. I wanted to test her on this, so I asked her to give me an assessment on myself. She said that she does not believe that I have the capacity to get angry and lose my cool, since she has worked with me for 7+ years, and I've never lost my cool at work. She also believes that I am not the arguing type (at this point, I knew that her intuition was crap, but I wanted to keep it going to show the point). She said that she believes I am very kind and that I am "tolerant" of others. She also said that I was incapable of the standard gamut of "wrongdoing". Well...where would I start in my response? I mentioned to her my past with being a porn addict and dealer, how I got into fights when I was younger, and even after being saved, I still wrestled with lust issues. I also said that I argue all the time with people - she just doesn't see it since she's not in the manager's meetings...and yes, I even argue with my wife at home. I spank my son and don't tolerate insubordination. She asked if I swore, and I wanted to be honest, and so I told her, yes, once in a while. She was surprised. I'm not sure why, since she's getting an impression based on working with me and we work under strict professional guidelines. Of course, I'm not going to yell at people in open view in the office. Never have. I'm not going to berate people in front of our customers. And yes, to an extent, I have succumbed to the need to maintain as stain-free of a demeanour and persona as I can in the office. It is, of course, ironic that a couple of months later (only about a month ago), I had a huge blow-up in the office, where I was screaming and yelling in open view, and she was the target. It wasn't deliberate or planned, and I did apologize for an extremely short fuse, but in retrospect, I think God willed it this way to humble me at work, as well as to show others that Christians are not perfect, by any stretch of the imagation.
Speaking of which, this is rampant in the vast majority of churches in North America, and I would imagine world-wide. Is it any wonder that it seems like Christians in particular get shocked over and over again when a major (or minor) preacher or teacher "falls from grace". Interestingly enough, the non-Christians don't seem terribly surprised. Yet Christians seem to continue to hold in high regard the people who are perceived as types "you can't go wrong with". I'm sure they said that about Ted Haggard.
Where is comes from is a mistaken idealism about the fact that Biblical living means that while you try to perpetuate the fruits of the Spirit, as laid out in the Epistles in one's demeanour, even in times of failure, you don't show weakness (sort of how you won't hear too many Christian men admit that they have masturbated). As it is difficult to to live out (since as it says in Romans, we have a war being waged from Satan so we do things that we know we should do but we don't, and we don't do things that we know we should) a life that consistently shows real, tangible fruit at all times, it is sometimes easier just to cover up our shortcomings, thinking it will somehow discredit the Gospel if we show that we are in fact still fallen, frail human beings. That is not to say we should not strive to be Christ-like in all that we do (I believe we should!), but when we fail, let's be honest about it and ask for God's forgiveness and strength to continue, rather than blowing smoke in people's faces with a teflon spiritual life.
A message to Christians out there - be a little more discerning in who you consider to be your close-to-perfect people. I have always believed that someone who seems to always have their act together, who always have smiling kids, who always seems to get that job or that role or that material thing or that accolade, without showing or admitting any vulerability, struggle, or doubt, probably has something they are hiding. I am totally convinced of this. The Bible is clear that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (italics mine).
Many, many years ago, before my wife and I got married, we knew a fellow, who with his wife, seemed like the "Benny Hinn" of our social circles (and since I am not a fan of Benny Hinn at all, I want to state that when I compare people to him, I am not being complimentary). He advertised that he did not drink, did not swear, and every freaking moment, would say "Praise the Lord!" Ask my wife - I'm not kidding you here - it was that bad. Once, we were all at dinner with some other friends, and he started off with his "Praise the Lord" schtick. My wife whispered to me, "what is up his ass?", to which I burst out laughing. Yet others thought he was a godly guy who again, could do no one wrong. It came as no surprise to me when we found out that he was involved in some shady business dealings, which lost him some of his Christian friends as a result. I think over time, everyone's true colours will eventually show. The old adage applies: You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can even fool all of the people some of the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
The TV show Everybody Loves Raymond really drives this point home. If you don't watch it, I won't bother explaining all the characters, but what I do want to do is compare and contrast the two sets of parents (both in their 60s or older). Ray's parents argue constantly, get on each other's nerves, yet behind all the crazy antics and grumpiness, and sarcasm, lies a gentle tenderness and unspoken respect that can only be gained through honest and forthright communication. In the show, their marriage has lasted something like 45 or 50 years. Contrast that with Debra's parents, who never fought, who travelled together, and were kissy-kissy lovey-dovey all the time, using babynames for each other and smiles everywhere...one day, they had it with each other and got divorced and soon after, he brought home a younger woman. I think that episode really hits the nail on the head, as far as how people perceive relationships, but more importantly, not everything is always as it seems.
All that being said, I am writing this simply to provide some thoughts that you should never be surprised to hear such and such a person who was considered to be a nice guy, actually turns out to be a pretty rotten guy, or conversely, you should never be equally surprised to find out a person who has been considered a bad guy, to turn out to be a pretty decent guy. We don't know people's hearts, so let's all stop pretending that we do. I mean, you can read my blog here and get a sense of who you think I am, but in reality, do you really know? I could be a far-left leaning socialist liberal, for all you know, and I am just doing this to sabotage the growing conservative movement. I could be a closet homosexual hiding behind a guise of "married with children", a heavy gambler, a perpetual drug user. I could have a ton of money in the bank that I obtained through organized crime. The cops could be knocking at my door any minute, and you won't see blog updates in weeks, as I am in jail. You don't know any of this from reading what I wrote. I could be a closet schitzophrenic who otherwise covertly talks a mean talk of theology and seems like he has an aptitude for computer technology. All this can be easily put on (the movie Primal Fear makes this point brilliantly).
So next time we see someone who looks like they have it all together (or don't), let's not be so quick to draw conclusions one way or another. I believe everyone has something to hide - some just hide it better than others.
Unless you have been sleeping under a rock for the past 24 hours, you will have no doubt heard about the story of famous wrestler Chris Benoit, and how it appears as if he was responsible for the strangulation/suffocation deaths of his wife and seven-year-old son. I mention this as a springboard into my rant today, which is not about Benoit or even wrestling, but about the erroneous notion that when it comes to nice people, society in general has a pretty good inkling of who they consider will fit such an image. My argument here is that not only is it damaging to perpetuate this image, but it also fosters an increased need to try to live up to it, which only drives people's closet skeletons even further. Certainly this is nowhere more evident than today's church-going Christians, but for now, please allow me to lay out my points.
One thing that was said in today's many talk shows which dealt with the Benoit situation, was how he was regarded by his friends, family and colleagues as a true family man, in a business where family is not necessarily put on a pedastal. It was referenced how Benoit invited his wife and son into the ring when he won the championship, and how they were involved in his work, through appearances, etc. All in all, his public and private presentation on his family life would lead many to indicate that for all intents and purposes, he had a rather model life outside of the ring (as model as the life could be, in comparison with the lives of other wrestlers).
Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah - earlier this year, there was a case in the Toronto area (actually, in the Markham area, where I live), where two women were found dead in a quiet residential street, in what was believed to be a quiet residential home. One of the women was an account executive for a radio station in Toronto, while the other was a massage therapist (if I remember right). The massage therapist was separated or divorced from a major Toronto sports broadcaster. Anyhow, the guy charged, was the first woman's husband. When it made news and they interviewed the community, the overwhelming reaction was utter shock. "But, that family looked so happy together! They are always walking their dog and with their kids, always smiling...we never saw them argue" ...and so forth. The guy charged was deemed "a nice guy" who was "incapable of such a heinous crime". Heck, they even have inadvertent videotape of him by one of the major Toronto newspapers, who happened to be filming at the Toronto Zoo on New Year's Day - they happen to catch this guy on video (about a month before he was charged for the murders), and he said on the video something to the effect of, "it's going to be a great year for the family".
Why is it that people fall for this bull crap? I remember it was the same reaction with Paul Bernardo, the infamous Canadian sexual killer of teenagers. People were aghast back in the early 90s. "No, it can't be them!!!" (referring to him and his equally guilty wife Karla Holmolka). And the worst line, "but they were such a cute couple!" (as if that somehow disqualifies them of any ill-action towards anyone). When people conclude that a couple or a family or an individual is the epitome of what a human being should be, I think that's when the person being spoken of tends to want to continue to maintain and build on such accolades, and that, of course perpetuates the problem.
Now, that is not to say that there are not genuinely nice people out there, and yes, I am sure some people can be nice all the time. But as a discussion with one of my co-workers showed, things aren't always what they seem. She said to me one time that she has a good sense of who people are and what their personalities are like. I wanted to test her on this, so I asked her to give me an assessment on myself. She said that she does not believe that I have the capacity to get angry and lose my cool, since she has worked with me for 7+ years, and I've never lost my cool at work. She also believes that I am not the arguing type (at this point, I knew that her intuition was crap, but I wanted to keep it going to show the point). She said that she believes I am very kind and that I am "tolerant" of others. She also said that I was incapable of the standard gamut of "wrongdoing". Well...where would I start in my response? I mentioned to her my past with being a porn addict and dealer, how I got into fights when I was younger, and even after being saved, I still wrestled with lust issues. I also said that I argue all the time with people - she just doesn't see it since she's not in the manager's meetings...and yes, I even argue with my wife at home. I spank my son and don't tolerate insubordination. She asked if I swore, and I wanted to be honest, and so I told her, yes, once in a while. She was surprised. I'm not sure why, since she's getting an impression based on working with me and we work under strict professional guidelines. Of course, I'm not going to yell at people in open view in the office. Never have. I'm not going to berate people in front of our customers. And yes, to an extent, I have succumbed to the need to maintain as stain-free of a demeanour and persona as I can in the office. It is, of course, ironic that a couple of months later (only about a month ago), I had a huge blow-up in the office, where I was screaming and yelling in open view, and she was the target. It wasn't deliberate or planned, and I did apologize for an extremely short fuse, but in retrospect, I think God willed it this way to humble me at work, as well as to show others that Christians are not perfect, by any stretch of the imagation.
Speaking of which, this is rampant in the vast majority of churches in North America, and I would imagine world-wide. Is it any wonder that it seems like Christians in particular get shocked over and over again when a major (or minor) preacher or teacher "falls from grace". Interestingly enough, the non-Christians don't seem terribly surprised. Yet Christians seem to continue to hold in high regard the people who are perceived as types "you can't go wrong with". I'm sure they said that about Ted Haggard.
Where is comes from is a mistaken idealism about the fact that Biblical living means that while you try to perpetuate the fruits of the Spirit, as laid out in the Epistles in one's demeanour, even in times of failure, you don't show weakness (sort of how you won't hear too many Christian men admit that they have masturbated). As it is difficult to to live out (since as it says in Romans, we have a war being waged from Satan so we do things that we know we should do but we don't, and we don't do things that we know we should) a life that consistently shows real, tangible fruit at all times, it is sometimes easier just to cover up our shortcomings, thinking it will somehow discredit the Gospel if we show that we are in fact still fallen, frail human beings. That is not to say we should not strive to be Christ-like in all that we do (I believe we should!), but when we fail, let's be honest about it and ask for God's forgiveness and strength to continue, rather than blowing smoke in people's faces with a teflon spiritual life.
A message to Christians out there - be a little more discerning in who you consider to be your close-to-perfect people. I have always believed that someone who seems to always have their act together, who always have smiling kids, who always seems to get that job or that role or that material thing or that accolade, without showing or admitting any vulerability, struggle, or doubt, probably has something they are hiding. I am totally convinced of this. The Bible is clear that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (italics mine).
Many, many years ago, before my wife and I got married, we knew a fellow, who with his wife, seemed like the "Benny Hinn" of our social circles (and since I am not a fan of Benny Hinn at all, I want to state that when I compare people to him, I am not being complimentary). He advertised that he did not drink, did not swear, and every freaking moment, would say "Praise the Lord!" Ask my wife - I'm not kidding you here - it was that bad. Once, we were all at dinner with some other friends, and he started off with his "Praise the Lord" schtick. My wife whispered to me, "what is up his ass?", to which I burst out laughing. Yet others thought he was a godly guy who again, could do no one wrong. It came as no surprise to me when we found out that he was involved in some shady business dealings, which lost him some of his Christian friends as a result. I think over time, everyone's true colours will eventually show. The old adage applies: You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can even fool all of the people some of the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
The TV show Everybody Loves Raymond really drives this point home. If you don't watch it, I won't bother explaining all the characters, but what I do want to do is compare and contrast the two sets of parents (both in their 60s or older). Ray's parents argue constantly, get on each other's nerves, yet behind all the crazy antics and grumpiness, and sarcasm, lies a gentle tenderness and unspoken respect that can only be gained through honest and forthright communication. In the show, their marriage has lasted something like 45 or 50 years. Contrast that with Debra's parents, who never fought, who travelled together, and were kissy-kissy lovey-dovey all the time, using babynames for each other and smiles everywhere...one day, they had it with each other and got divorced and soon after, he brought home a younger woman. I think that episode really hits the nail on the head, as far as how people perceive relationships, but more importantly, not everything is always as it seems.
All that being said, I am writing this simply to provide some thoughts that you should never be surprised to hear such and such a person who was considered to be a nice guy, actually turns out to be a pretty rotten guy, or conversely, you should never be equally surprised to find out a person who has been considered a bad guy, to turn out to be a pretty decent guy. We don't know people's hearts, so let's all stop pretending that we do. I mean, you can read my blog here and get a sense of who you think I am, but in reality, do you really know? I could be a far-left leaning socialist liberal, for all you know, and I am just doing this to sabotage the growing conservative movement. I could be a closet homosexual hiding behind a guise of "married with children", a heavy gambler, a perpetual drug user. I could have a ton of money in the bank that I obtained through organized crime. The cops could be knocking at my door any minute, and you won't see blog updates in weeks, as I am in jail. You don't know any of this from reading what I wrote. I could be a closet schitzophrenic who otherwise covertly talks a mean talk of theology and seems like he has an aptitude for computer technology. All this can be easily put on (the movie Primal Fear makes this point brilliantly).
So next time we see someone who looks like they have it all together (or don't), let's not be so quick to draw conclusions one way or another. I believe everyone has something to hide - some just hide it better than others.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Why I Believe in Capital Punishment
It's been said that capital punishment or state-sanctioned executions are barbaric and it is a shame that countries like the United States still have provisions in many of its States for the use of executions for crimes such as capital murder. This has cropped up in the last year or so with headlines which talk about lethal injections which have gone awry to other "botched executions". While I'm sure you have your opinions, I certainly have mine, and to summarize, I think that society in general (especially the more liberal-leaning segments as of late) put the wrong focus on things. Unfortunately, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-found-guilty criminals seem to be a social experiment with the softer segment of our society who somehow believe evil can be rehabilitated. Worse are those who choose to use the Bible to tout the fact that everyone should be given a second chance. While spiritually this is true, and I suppose practically it may be true as well, the fact of the matter is, consequences have actions. This is clearly seen in Scripture with those who choose certain paths reap the consequences of those paths. The cause and effect relationship is quite prevalent here. The thief on the cross may have believed in Christ on his death-bed, but he wasn't spared the punishment for his crime. Despite David being a crucial person in the lineage of Christ, David was still human and David sinned with Bathsheba, and there were tragic consequences as a result. Repentance may make things right with God, but God still allows you to face the result of your actions. There are a number of proverbs which deal with cause and effect. And the old adage "you play with fire, you get burned" is quite accurate.
So, this takes us to the issue of those who have been found by a court of law to be guilty of murder, child rape, etc. Yes, I know, I know, it has been shown (especially in Canada) some cases where people were incarcerated for decades, only to be found innocent later. And society does tend to find people guilty when charged, rather than presume their innocence until proven otherwise. But I'd say that there is less on the line in Canada, since it's not someone living or dying that we're talking about - they just lock them up for "life" (and "life" in Canada is considered about 25 years) , unless you're talking about a case like Paul Bernardo (if you haven't heard of him, look him up on the internet - he was found guilty of truly heinous crimes - and there is videotape proof of his crimes, which thankfully has since been destroyed or locked up somewhere). Bernardo has shown a pattern and tendency to be a predator - I don't believe that he will ever change. Someone is not right in his head. Even if it was psychological, does that make it right that we should just lock him up and pay for his food and such? My, what nice treatment he gets, even if he is confined to a 6 x 8 cell for 23.5 out of 24.0 hours per day, in isolation in Kingston Pen. Too bad his victims, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, both teenagers, were not afforded the same courtesy. And his ex-wife's sister (also a teen) was not given the same basic minimum human treatment. I say, let's fry Paul Bernardo's ass now.
I've also heard the argument that "what if someone is executed who is innocent?" Has that happened in the U.S., the current world champion of capital punishment? Not to my knowledge. And...the case that was closest to this occurring (in Virginia, I think)...after the guy was executed (and he swore up and down that he was innocent right up until the point he was lethally injected or electrocuted, or whatever they did to him), forensic DNA researchers confirmed that yes, he was guilty. This was, of course, after tons of left-leaning organizations petitioned for the commuting of his sentence.
How many more convicted criminals (we're talking murders and rapists here) were released after serving time, only to reoffend? I'm telling you, there is no rehabilitation for these people. You can cut their nuts off, chop their arms off, yank out their legs by their feet, but their hearts will still be wicked, and they'll think of some other way to hurt someone. Now, I know what you will tell me - Jesus can save these people. Absolutely he can. But just like the reckless person who was promiscuous before accepting Christ, and had previously contracted HIV, faith in Christ will not change what consequences you bring forth. The Bible says you sow what you reap. How true is that? Years ago, shortly before I was married, I followed a case on the news of a lady in Texas (I think) - Tanya Faye Tucker, or something like that - she was a convicted murderer, and she gave her life to Christ. While I don't know her heart, I have seen her in interviews and there is something about her which I believe shows a genuine conversion and newfound faith in the Lord. But guess what - they executed her anyway, and in talking with my Christian friends at the time, they were horrified that I thought that the State made the right decision. Recently, there was a guy in Tennessee, I think, who killed a cop back in the early 80s when he was young and stupid. He also became saved, and his life was changed and lots of people attested to this (this was the guy who for his last meal, wanted pizzas delivered to other inmates in other jails). He also was executed. I support that execution, since, as a believer, he is not beyond the laws of the land.
The only executions that I would support is for criminals found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in cases of murder or child rape. I would not support, for instance, what Saudi Arabia has as its criteria for executions, or recently in Iran, where you can be put to death for possession of pornography. I think essentially, for me, it comes down to the old eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth scenario, so my philosophy is life for a life. You murder someone in cold blood - off to the gallows with you - I don't care how you try to justify it. The vast majority of people in this world do not commit murder in their lifetime. You victimize a child sexually - off to the gas chamber with you - I don't care how abused you were as a child or how you cannot control yourself. You, my friend, are, as they say, SOL.
Cruel and unusual punishment during executions - botched executions, etc: Well, this is a tougher one. I agree with humane executions - at one point, I favoured letting a death row inmate incur the wrath of the family of the victim (so if they choose to shoot you like you shot their family member, that was fine with me...or strangulation or whatever else). But that just breeds a sense of vengeance, and vengeance is probably not a good reason for the state to execute someone. Executions should be done simply because it is just, and that there are dire consequences for crimes like first degree murder. Still, does it matter if they can't find the vein or if the prisoner suffers somewhat? They'll be dead in a short time anyway, so who cares? Again, they didn't afford any courtesy to their victims, so there ya go.
Other stuff: For those who make the deterrent argument, that it is not a deterrent. I haven't drawn firm conclusions to this point as of yet, but I will say that I believe the "executions are not a deterrent argument" to be a red herring, since I suspect that those who argue against capital punishment would still do so if there was conclusive proof that it was a deterrent, and that more lives can be spared. Similarly, the same people that play the race card, saying that there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by poor black men is, are, I suspect, putting on a smokescreen, since they would still be against the death penalty if it was 100% white men on death row. Anyway, I am not sure whether there are any deterrent effects in capital punishment, but it doesn't play into my arguments anyway. I am undecided on this point only because I know from experience that severe fines and so forth do have a deterrent effect (ie. speeding tickets, etc.); however, the U.S. has had capital punishment for a while now, and they seem to be as homicidal of a country as ever - but then again, they have a much larger populace than most countries and also have a large number of poor people. But again, deterrence has never been part of my argument, so there's no point in working out my thoughts here on the subject.
This argument can go on forever...but there's my 2 cents.
So, this takes us to the issue of those who have been found by a court of law to be guilty of murder, child rape, etc. Yes, I know, I know, it has been shown (especially in Canada) some cases where people were incarcerated for decades, only to be found innocent later. And society does tend to find people guilty when charged, rather than presume their innocence until proven otherwise. But I'd say that there is less on the line in Canada, since it's not someone living or dying that we're talking about - they just lock them up for "life" (and "life" in Canada is considered about 25 years) , unless you're talking about a case like Paul Bernardo (if you haven't heard of him, look him up on the internet - he was found guilty of truly heinous crimes - and there is videotape proof of his crimes, which thankfully has since been destroyed or locked up somewhere). Bernardo has shown a pattern and tendency to be a predator - I don't believe that he will ever change. Someone is not right in his head. Even if it was psychological, does that make it right that we should just lock him up and pay for his food and such? My, what nice treatment he gets, even if he is confined to a 6 x 8 cell for 23.5 out of 24.0 hours per day, in isolation in Kingston Pen. Too bad his victims, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, both teenagers, were not afforded the same courtesy. And his ex-wife's sister (also a teen) was not given the same basic minimum human treatment. I say, let's fry Paul Bernardo's ass now.
I've also heard the argument that "what if someone is executed who is innocent?" Has that happened in the U.S., the current world champion of capital punishment? Not to my knowledge. And...the case that was closest to this occurring (in Virginia, I think)...after the guy was executed (and he swore up and down that he was innocent right up until the point he was lethally injected or electrocuted, or whatever they did to him), forensic DNA researchers confirmed that yes, he was guilty. This was, of course, after tons of left-leaning organizations petitioned for the commuting of his sentence.
How many more convicted criminals (we're talking murders and rapists here) were released after serving time, only to reoffend? I'm telling you, there is no rehabilitation for these people. You can cut their nuts off, chop their arms off, yank out their legs by their feet, but their hearts will still be wicked, and they'll think of some other way to hurt someone. Now, I know what you will tell me - Jesus can save these people. Absolutely he can. But just like the reckless person who was promiscuous before accepting Christ, and had previously contracted HIV, faith in Christ will not change what consequences you bring forth. The Bible says you sow what you reap. How true is that? Years ago, shortly before I was married, I followed a case on the news of a lady in Texas (I think) - Tanya Faye Tucker, or something like that - she was a convicted murderer, and she gave her life to Christ. While I don't know her heart, I have seen her in interviews and there is something about her which I believe shows a genuine conversion and newfound faith in the Lord. But guess what - they executed her anyway, and in talking with my Christian friends at the time, they were horrified that I thought that the State made the right decision. Recently, there was a guy in Tennessee, I think, who killed a cop back in the early 80s when he was young and stupid. He also became saved, and his life was changed and lots of people attested to this (this was the guy who for his last meal, wanted pizzas delivered to other inmates in other jails). He also was executed. I support that execution, since, as a believer, he is not beyond the laws of the land.
The only executions that I would support is for criminals found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in cases of murder or child rape. I would not support, for instance, what Saudi Arabia has as its criteria for executions, or recently in Iran, where you can be put to death for possession of pornography. I think essentially, for me, it comes down to the old eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth scenario, so my philosophy is life for a life. You murder someone in cold blood - off to the gallows with you - I don't care how you try to justify it. The vast majority of people in this world do not commit murder in their lifetime. You victimize a child sexually - off to the gas chamber with you - I don't care how abused you were as a child or how you cannot control yourself. You, my friend, are, as they say, SOL.
Cruel and unusual punishment during executions - botched executions, etc: Well, this is a tougher one. I agree with humane executions - at one point, I favoured letting a death row inmate incur the wrath of the family of the victim (so if they choose to shoot you like you shot their family member, that was fine with me...or strangulation or whatever else). But that just breeds a sense of vengeance, and vengeance is probably not a good reason for the state to execute someone. Executions should be done simply because it is just, and that there are dire consequences for crimes like first degree murder. Still, does it matter if they can't find the vein or if the prisoner suffers somewhat? They'll be dead in a short time anyway, so who cares? Again, they didn't afford any courtesy to their victims, so there ya go.
Other stuff: For those who make the deterrent argument, that it is not a deterrent. I haven't drawn firm conclusions to this point as of yet, but I will say that I believe the "executions are not a deterrent argument" to be a red herring, since I suspect that those who argue against capital punishment would still do so if there was conclusive proof that it was a deterrent, and that more lives can be spared. Similarly, the same people that play the race card, saying that there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by poor black men is, are, I suspect, putting on a smokescreen, since they would still be against the death penalty if it was 100% white men on death row. Anyway, I am not sure whether there are any deterrent effects in capital punishment, but it doesn't play into my arguments anyway. I am undecided on this point only because I know from experience that severe fines and so forth do have a deterrent effect (ie. speeding tickets, etc.); however, the U.S. has had capital punishment for a while now, and they seem to be as homicidal of a country as ever - but then again, they have a much larger populace than most countries and also have a large number of poor people. But again, deterrence has never been part of my argument, so there's no point in working out my thoughts here on the subject.
This argument can go on forever...but there's my 2 cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)