[Zephyr]

Whether the person is fairly tried or not, the punishment is the issue, not the trial.

If you find a person fairly tried for a crime other than homicide, like say burglary, and the punishment was barbaric, even if it were not capital, wouldn't you object?

That is where the line is being drawn. A case-by-case scenario would not affect the position one iota. Democratic vs non-democratic may be more in the realm of a tactic, since non-democratic countries would likely not care what another country or countries thought.

 

[ShonTron]

How about a policy condemming all executions, whether done by a "democracy" or not, and forget case-by-case responses?

Even in Democratic Countries (though Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 made farces of democracy) the process is failed. I would like you to read about Illinois Governor George Ryan's commuting of all sentences. Or how race has been, and continues to be, a major issue and theme in the application of the sentance. Canada has its share of wrongful convictions, or which several were capital cases.

Canada must join the rest of the civilized world and condemn the use of state-sanctioned killing of any kind. I am becoming increasingly dismayed by Harper's approach, which at times almost makes Mulroney look like a Canadian nationalist (Muldoon at least went against the US by supporting freedom in South Africa - I can't see Harper taking such a stand.)

I like Canada's approach. Life, with typically 15 to 25 years in prison, and for those rare cases where merited, the dangerous offender provision. Not only are the States regressive in terms of the death penalty, they also give excessive sentences, particularly for non-violent offenses, and has the largest population in prison in the world. Thanks to Nixon/Rockefeller, Reagan and Bush 41.

Interestingly though, Michigan was the first English-speaking jurisdiction to abolish the dealth penalty, back in 1846.

 

[allabootmatt]

Meanwhile, the US is slowly, finally, heading in the right direction on this issue - while there are still 38 death penalty states (the exceptions being AK, HI, IA, MA, ME, MI, MN, ND, RI, VT, WI, WV and DC and territories), it's now effectively gone in NY and IL, and a few states, such as New Hampshire, it's on the books, but not used. Death row inmates in California are more likely to die in prison of natural causes these days.

And with the current suspension of the penalty while the lethal injection procedure is under review, it's the beginning of the end in US.

Also probably about to be retired in NJ, which was never particularly enthusiastic about the idea of executions. Believe there is also a moratorium in FL after several horrifically botched "procedures."

 

[Hydrogen]

From a moral standpoint, yes, capital puishment is very cruel. But with the overpopulation issues of the world and increasing pressures on food, freshwater, and energy resources, it is probably necessary from an economic and environmental standpoint.

I doubt capital punishment will address or solve any of these concerns, so it's hardly a rationale for it. Should an approach to state-sanctioned killing ever come in order to solve economic or environmental fears, it would come as it has in the past: identify a politically weak group and commit mass murder.


As to why the Conservatives won't sign this resolution on the death penalty is a little bizarre. The excuse provided is, to be blunt, idiotic. What's up, they have only so much resolution support to go around?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I doubt capital punishment will address or solve any of these concerns, so it's hardly a rationale for it. Should an approach to state-sanctioned killing ever come in order to solve economic or environmental fears, it would come as it has in the past: identify a politically weak group and commit mass murder.


As to why the Conservatives won't sign this resolution on the death penalty is a little bizarre. The excuse provided is, to be blunt, idiotic. What's up, they have only so much resolution support to go around?

if the really cared about cost and the environment, they would use the same needle on everyone without the alcohol swab and instead of the electric chair, they would erect a really tall metal pole during a thunderstorm.

 

[Hydrogen]

Gee, I'd hate to be on your death row.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Gee, I'd hate to be on your death row.

LOL! i don't believe in the death penalty when there's tons of miserable work that could be done. death is no deterrent, manually separating the feces from the water at sewage treatment plants day after day for years is.

 

[Zephyr]

if the really cared about cost and the environment, they would use the same needle on everyone without the alcohol swab and instead of the electric chair, they would erect a really tall metal pole during a thunderstorm.

I have two keywords for you - cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[ShonTron]

No mention here of the historic date of December 17, 2007, when New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed into law a bill that abolishes the death penalty in that state. It is the first legislative abolition in the US since 1965 when IA and WV abolished it.

It is also effectively abolished again in New York State thanks to its state supreme court. The legislature has yet to attempt to re-write the law that was struck down. (There were a number of sentences, but not carried out, since George Pataki was made governor).

There are still 36 states that have it on the books, though several have yet to perform an execution, and IL still has a moratorium imposed well before the current hiatus.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

Death-row Canadian casts shadow over Tories
Ottawa stance reignites fears of hidden agenda
Richard Foot
Canwest News Service
Monday, January 28, 2008

Two words have dogged Stephen Harper's political ambitions for years. Fairly or unfairly, suspicions of a "hidden agenda" may have cost him the majority he craved in the last election -- and could haunt his campaign in the coming one.
Harper has tried, since taking office, to shake off this charge from his political opponents who want to regain power.
There has been no government campaign against abortion or official bilingualism, the military has not been dispatched to Iraq and gay marriage has not been repealed.
On Oct. 31, however -- after 20 months of trying to prove that a secret plan to impose its moral agenda on the country was a figment of the imagination -- the Harper government suddenly announced Canada would no longer ask for clemency from execution for its citizens on death row in the United States.
The news not only reversed Canada's long-standing foreign policy, it also re-awakened the whispers, the kind of talk that has gnawed at Harper and his colleagues ever since they arrived on the national stage under the banner of the Reform party.
"There is no agenda in our caucus on abortion, on bilingualism, or on capital punishment," Conservative MP John Reynolds explained in the 2004 election campaign, a claim that would be repeated again and again through the 2006 contest that finally brought the party to power.
Now the clemency issue has pushed capital punishment to the fore again, and the critics have pounced, alleging the decision is proof of plans to eventually bring back the death penalty to Canada.
"Their actions indicate they want to do domestically what they are doing indirectly internationally," says Liberal MP Dan McTeague, the party's consular affairs critic.
"I don't recall Harper or anyone else campaigning on capital punishment, and I'm concerned that this is a harbinger of what he plans to do here in Canada, if given another mandate."
If the Conservative strategy is to raise the death penalty issue -- as it applies to Canadians on death row abroad -- will it help or hinder the party at election time?
Capital punishment is one of those contentious moral issues that usually only lands politicians in trouble. Canadians have remained divided on the matter ever since Ottawa removed the death penalty from the Criminal Code in 1976.
Eleven years later, a free vote in the House of Commons on a motion to reinstate the death penalty was defeated, but only by a margin of 21 votes, with 127 MPs in favour, and 148 against.
A federal poll of 4,000 Canadians taken last summer found that only one in five supported capital punishment, but the mood differed across the country. In Alberta, about 30 per cent of respondents supported the death penalty. In Newfoundland, that number was less than 17 per cent.
Another poll of 1,000 Canadians in November, suggested that 50 per cent disapproved of the Conservative decision not to intervene on behalf of Canadian citizens sentenced to death abroad, while 43 per cent agreed with the policy.
While Canada's small-c conservative movements have openly flirted with capital punishment for decades, they have been internally divided on the matter. No mainstream political party since 1976 has officially endorsed the death penalty.
Although former prime minister Brian Mulroney himself was a staunch opponent, a majority of his Progressive Conservative MPs -- 125 of 208 -- voted to bring back the death penalty in 1987.
Two of the Tories who voted yes are now ministers in Harper's cabinet, but neither Justice Minister Rob Nicholson or Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn agreed to be interviewed for this story.
The Reform party, under Preston Manning, came closest to advocating a return to the death penalty; their party platform endorsed a nationwide referendum on the matter, rather than another Commons vote.
Later, when Stockwell Day took the helm of the Canadian Alliance, the party had no official position on capital punishment, even though Day himself was publicly in favour.
The Conservatives, under Stephen Harper, have followed a similar path -- steering clear of a formal policy on capital punishment other than to make it clear that the debate is not one the party's leader is interested in.
The difficulty for Harper is that he leads a party that counts on a core group of supporters for whom reinstating the death penalty remains an important goal.
Gerry Nicholls, former president of the National Citizens Coalition, a conservative think-tank, says Harper is deliberately using the issue of clemency to send a message to this conservative base, without ever intending to bring the death penalty back to Canada.
"The whole capital punishment issue is a strong appeal to the populist wing of the Conservative party -- mostly old Reformers," says Nicholls.
"The Conservative government has let conservatives down in a lot of areas and has not acted in true conservative fashion. Many of Harper's policies seem very Liberal, and this is causing some discontent in party ranks.
"His position on clemency for Canadians on death row is very clever. He doesn't have to go through the trouble of saying, 'We're going to look at capital punishment again,' which would be very controversial politically for his government. But he can send a message -- a code to the small-c wing of the party -- 'I'm looking out for your interests, too.' "
Nicholls doubts the policy will backfire at election time, even if most Canadians oppose capital punishment.
Ronald Smith, the Canadian at the heart of the current clemency decision, is a convicted double murderer facing the death penalty in a U.S. prison. It will be tough for any politician, in a populist affair like an election campaign, to defend a man like that.
"The Conservatives are strong on law and order issues," says Nicholls. "If the Liberals want to fight them on that turf, that can only be good for Harper."
But Mark Warner, a Toronto lawyer originally nominated to run for the Conservatives in the next election -- but recently dumped as the party's candidate in Toronto Centre -- says no measure of political support for the death penalty will play well among voters in Canada's big cities.
"In this part of the country, the hidden agenda fears are still real," says Warner. "The Conservatives were making some progress on it, but they never overcame it completely.
"Now, this death penalty thing comes along, and while it may shore up support from core Conservative voters, it won't appeal to anyone in my city. It's whacko stuff."
McTeague says whether Harper is simply sending a message to a wing of his party, or whether he's actually testing the water for a return of the death penalty in Canada under a majority Conservative regime, the party's equivocation on the execution of Canadian citizens is now clear for all to see.
"The proverbial horse had bolted the barn," he says. "It casts a very dark shadow on the Conservative party. And it's another headache Mr. Harper will have to deal with in 2008.""
---
DEATH ROW KILLER SPEAKS
In November, Canwest News Service reporter Randy Boswell interviewed Ronald Smith, the only Canadian citizen currently on death row in the United States, at a state prison in Deer Lodge, Mont. Following are excerpts from Smith's comments:
- On Canada's clemency reversal: "I was kind of dumbstruck. I mean, you go from one day -- 'Oh yeah, we're supporting clemency, we're going to try to get you home' -- to 'You're on your own, dude.' What the hell's going on? They're saying, 'Go ahead and execute him, it doesn't matter to us.' Well, that's not right. If Canada doesn't have a death penalty, then they should be concerned."
- On capital punishment: "If we are a civilized society, then why would we sanction murder? And that's basically what this is: it's retaliation killing -- you kill me, I kill you. That's all it is, Old West mentality ... If we want to put forth the idea that we are a civilized society, then we can't put forth the idea that it's OK to kill. You can't have it both ways."
- On rehabilitation: "The whole idea in Canada has been to try and rehabilitate prisoners if possible. Why shouldn't I have the opportunity -- just because I came down to the United States and killed somebody? What difference does it make? If anybody else deserves an opportunity, then I should as well -- I'm a Canadian citizen."
- On remorse: "People don't understand the trauma even the killer goes through. I've had to live with this for 25 years -- what I've done to the families, what I did to my family. You can't go through that without it having an effect on you. And it has. There's definitely -- there's no way I would kill anybody again. I wouldn't guarantee I wouldn't punch somebody in the mouth, but that's a long way from killing somebody."
- On freedom: "While there is a very distinct possibility I'll hit the streets again, I have no intention of asking to get back out for at least five years. ... I have to prepare myself, so that's what I'm looking at ... If I can go out and hit that street again, that would be great -- I'd be tickled pink. Because I actually believe I've got an opportunity to stay out there this time -- I believe I've grown enough as a human being that I can make that goal."
- On clemency advocates: "I appreciate the fact that they're not arguing for me -- they're arguing for an ideal. You have to take me out of the equation. I just happen to be a rallying point for the argument."

© The Edmonton Journal 2008​

 

[Brandon716]

This isn’t an innocent bystander caught up in a third-world country. This is a murderer in a democratic country who was found guilty at trial. Death sentences are automatically appealed and his sentence still stands. At the end of the day, why should the Canadian government waste taxpayer dollars on him? The only injustice is how long it’s taken for them to ‘execute’ the sentence.

Its really about what the Conservative party represents, not what the individual in the case represents.

Canada's new Conservative party is so far to the right that it resembles the Republican party south of the border, and for that Canadians shouldn't give them a majority government.

 

[Hydrogen]

Meh, they're not that right wing, and they ain't new anymore.

 

[ShonTron]

This should send shivers down any reasonable person's spine.

Smith testified in death penalty case

Feb 08, 2008 11:57 AM
THE CANADIAN PRESS

A disgraced pathologist whose work helped jail innocent parents for the deaths of their children once provided expert evidence in an Ohio death penalty case, the inquiry probing the mistakes of Dr. Charles Smith heard Friday.

Commissioner Stephen Goudge refused to allow lawyers to explore Smith's testimony at the 2000 trial, which saw a father convicted of raping and killing his three-year-old daughter.

Still, documents released by the inquiry tell a gripping tale of the role the now-disgraced pathologist's evidence played in the trial that ended in a death sentence for Christopher Fuller – a sentence later reduced to life in prison.

"I, along with my colleagues, found your work in this case to be truly outstanding," reads a September 2000 letter to Smith from John Holcomb, the assistant prosecuting attorney in the case.

"I can well imagine that pediatric forensic pathology must rank among the most unpleasant fields of medicine in which to practice, but society is indeed fortunate that a man of your calibre has chosen to do so."

Lawyer Louis Sokolov, of the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted, said considering Smith's "failings as a pathologist and as a witness," having a jury decide a death penalty case based in part on his evidence is, "to say the least, disquieting."

Several lawyers sought the commission's permission to examine Dr. James Young, a former chief coroner of Ontario, about Smith's testimony in the case.

However, Goudge ruled that exploring the Ohio case falls outside the scope of the inquiry.

A written court decision striking down Fuller's appeal cites Smith's testimony that the girl "had a urinary tract infection in the days or weeks before she died."

The appeal court's decision noted that "Smith stated that wasn't necessarily indicative of sexual contact because there are 'lots of different causes of urinary tract infection.' "

The appeal court upheld Fuller's original conviction.

Smith's work in some 20 cases of suspicious child death is the focus of the inquiry into systemic failings of pediatric forensics in Ontario.

 

[ShonTron]

Update:

Ottawa ordered to seek clemency for Canadian on death row

Excerpt:

KIRK MAKIN

Globe and Mail Update

March 4, 2009 at 3:55 PM EST

OTTAWA — A Federal Court of Canada judge has ordered the federal government to resume diplomatic efforts to spare the life of a Canadian –Ronald Smith – who has spent the past 24 years living on death row in a Montana prison.

Mr. Justice Robert Barnes said that the Canadian government could have a profound influence on whether Mr. Smith is executed – and it has a duty to exert that influence.

Evidence in the case “overwhelmingly establishes the value of government intervention on behalf of their nationals facing execution in the United States,” Judge Barnes said.

After many years of negotiations between his lawyers and Canadian diplomatic officials, and Montana state officials, the Canadian government abruptly abandoned Mr. Smith in 2007.

In a statement to Parliament, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said that the Canadian government would no longer seek clemency for Mr. Smith or any other mass or multiple murderer facing the death penalty in a democratic country.

“To the best of my knowledge, this is unprecedented,” said a lawyer for Mr. Smith, Marlys Edwardh. “I think this is a severe slap in the face to the Harper government and a severe slap in the face to their handling of this issue, and their retreat from a Canadian practice that has been universal.”

Ms. Edwardh said that the federal government will have to reopen discussions immediately with the Governor of Montana to lay the groundwork for a formal request for clemency.

 

[kEiThZ]

I wish the SCC would also order them to intervene in the case of Omar Khadr.