|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 2, 2008 23:23:23 GMT -4
Well, "Yank" only gets used around me because I'm a jerk - and because there were a couple Americans living on my res floor last year. It is a very casual word; you won't hear it on the CBC. Still, I think it's a perfectly legitimate word, as well. Not really intended as an insult, just as a mild, friendly jab. We tease, but we love. As for the Queen, yes, there is something appealing there. And I am a monarchist.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 2, 2008 22:52:20 GMT -4
Something tells me that you've seen that happen... once.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 2, 2008 17:39:11 GMT -4
Darned right.
"Oh, you're from Glasgow? So you're English then?"
Mistake.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 2, 2008 15:44:40 GMT -4
Hey, I'll call Americans "Yanks." They get all standoffish and try to explain what state they're from. Good fun! But I'm fair - I let them call me a "Canuck." Seems only right.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 21, 2008 16:36:07 GMT -4
Just so.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 21, 2008 16:03:45 GMT -4
I agree that sometimes you need to do drastic things. I support defencive wars. The difference between that and supporting the death penalty is that in the former case there is no viable alternative, while in the latter case there is.
I can accept doing unsavoury things, so long as they are the only real option.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 21, 2008 14:50:28 GMT -4
And this is the fundamental philosophical difference, here. I disagree in the strongest way imaginable - killing even one innocent person is evil, plain and simple.
I don't think we're going to work this one out, somehow.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 21, 2008 14:08:18 GMT -4
No, I'm not making that claim. There probably are people who have been wrongly convicted. I am saying that particular care is given to capital cases and the defendents receive more chances to prove their innocence there than in other cases. Okay. So it is possible that someone could be wrongly convicted in a capital case. Of course perfection is impossible. But if you know that people have been wrongly convicted, even in capital cases, you know that the state has killed at least one innocent person. Wouldn't it be prudent to impose punishments which are reversible, just in case? Or do you simply not care that a few innocents get killed, so long as a bunch of scum gets killed as well?
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 20, 2008 19:32:10 GMT -4
Yes, it is. I'm still not pleased that he was only acquitted rather than exonerated.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 20, 2008 19:21:29 GMT -4
Okay. Are you claiming that the US justice system never wrongly convicts people? Ever? Only in capital cases? Frankly, that's impossible.
There is always the chance that the state will kill an innocent man. That is unacceptable and morally reprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 20, 2008 18:46:24 GMT -4
But maybe not. I'd prefer to have the guy walking free and guilty than dead and innocent. And I'd rather be jailed than dead, as well.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 20, 2008 18:15:36 GMT -4
Fine then. How about Stephen Truscott? Convicted 1959, acquitted 2007. His was the case that effectively ended the death penalty in Canada. As for the pathologist, Charles Smith, his errors were between 1991 and 2002. This all came out in 2007. Then there's David Milgaard. Conviced 1970, exonerated 1992. They caught the real guy in 1997.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 20, 2008 15:07:04 GMT -4
Okay. What if you were wrongly convicted for a capital crime and got the death penalty? Would you accept it as the cost of justice? The likelihood that I would ever be convicted for a capital crime is very small, so it's hard to emphasize with the position. If I were like many of the people on Death Row, with lots of prior crimes to my name before I finally got caught for murder, then I probably would feel any conviction for any crime I did was unfair, whether I really deserved it or not. But if the one-in-a-million chance occurred and I were wrongfully convicted for such a crime, I would have faith that eventually I would be found innocent, and exhaust all my abilities to overturn the wrongful conviction. If that ultimately did not occur I would not fear death as a martyr. Religious people have an advantage that way, I guess. We tend to believe there are things that are bigger than our personal wellfare. Well, I can give you three cases from Canada of wrongful conviction for murder right now off the top of my head, if you'd like. It does happen, rather more frequently than you'd like to believe. In fact, right now a forensic paediatric pathologist is going through an inquest to investigate gross, gross malpractice. It seems he sent many people (I don't know the exact number) to prison for murdering their children simply because he had no idea what he was doing. It happens. If we had the death penalty, some of these people who had committed no crime might be dead.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 18, 2008 19:52:34 GMT -4
If there is even the possibility that innocent people have been or could be executed then it's wrong. Well, obviously I disagree. I don't expect absolute perfection from our legal system but I do expect murderers to be executed when the crime warrants it. Okay. What if you were wrongly convicted for a capital crime and got the death penalty? Would you accept it as the cost of justice?
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on Feb 14, 2008 1:31:25 GMT -4
I object, strenuously. The death penalty is always wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you believe the death penalty is always wrong, is it because you believe that nothing justifies ever taking a human life, or is it something else about the death penalty - how it is carried out or the errors it may result in? It has nothing to do with the process. The concept is flawed. An eye for an eye is not justice.
|
|