man kills his wife for a cup of tea

Other places have the dealth penalty, that's what it's for, instead this guy is free to kill more people over tea.

Minstrel, I did not state at any time that Canada has the death penalty, that's your interpretation.

Canada should have the dealth penalty and do away with the Bernardo's and Homolka's.

 

If he's in jail, how is he free to kill more people over anything?

That's what I thought you were getting at. And that's a different issue, isn't it?

 

I was stating my feelings on this man, which is my right to do. You're the one implying I said something which I did not say, I was clarifying my point.

He is free to do so when he gets out.

 

IF he gets out. That's the problem.

 

Yep. Ironic indeed! That would result in two people dead because of a cup of tea. Somehow doesn't seem right. (Yes, I know the man would be dead because he killed his wife but the trigger, if you will, was a cup of tea).

I wish I could take the moral high ground here and say I don't share the same sentiments as those demanding a price in blood from the perpetrator of this senseless crime ... but I can't. My first response was 'put him down like you would a rabid dog'.

Bernardo's and Homolka's - do you mean these two sickos? (Less sympathetic account here at Wiki)

 

Bernardo will spend the rest of his life in jail. Through psychopathic plea bargaining in which she played the "poor abused wife" card, Homolka is now out on the streets, despite evidence unearthed later suggesting that she was the primary offender and not a passive participant in at least some of their crimes. Among other things, she drugged her own sister so she could watch Bernardo rape her - and overdosed her sister so the sister died.

On the other hand, we have the example of Texas and certain other states where apparently even being seriously psychotic or developmentally handicapped to the point that the individual almost certainly did not realize the full implications of what he was doing is not a sufficient defense to protect the individual from being murdered by the state.

Add to that more than a few well publicized cases in Canada in the past decade or so as well as in other places of individuals incarcerated for murder and later proven (using DNA evidence in one case) to be innocent and I am happy to say that we do not have the death penalty in Canada. Murder in the name of the state is still murder, no matter how heinous the crime.

 

Yes, the death penalty is a moot point where I live as well since it was abolished several decades ago so regardless of the crime the maximum penalty is life in jail.

Every so often however, a case comes to light such as the Bernardo and Homolka one, or the Soham murders here in the UK, where it seems as though a penalty of death is an appropriate punishment.

Unfortunately, you are quite correct that innocent people and those who are mentally incapable of knowing right from wrong, will be executed to satisfy the bloodlust of vengance -- and that can't be the right thing to do.

Personally, I'm a switherer ... in some instances I think these 'creatures' should be boiled in acid for the things they have done and on the other hand I know it isn't justice I want but bloody revenge and if we had the death penalty here in the UK, innocent people would die. Luckily for me it isn't my decision.

 

I think even if you're primarily looking for vengeance that life imprisonment, TRUE life imprisonment, is a better option.

Bernardo is basically in solitary confinement because if he were let out into the general prison population he'd be dead in a day.

 

I think you're right. Somehow doesn't seem enough in some cases though.

 

I know. When I think of the bastards who sawed off the heads of hostages and that woman reporter in Iraq, as an example, I cannot imagine anything that would qualify as harsh enough to satisfy "an eye for an eye" vengeance, including state execution.

But I think that's one of the problems with determining sentencing based on vengeance.