Québec city mosque shooter fate to be decided today killed 6, injured 19 (2 critical)

[Yeeyi]

Capital punishment for sick bastard why do general public pay tax for a serial killer. Honestly a bullet to ahead would be easier and cost efficient

There's a high risk he won’t die right away, it usually takes a couple of min at the best to die from gun wound. If it doesn't go well it can take a long time and pain unimaginable to us.

 

[YourBroMoe]

40 years? Seems Ok.

Anders Breivik killed 77 people in Norway and he was sentenced to life in prison which is that he will only serve 21 years with the condition that he is rehabilitated. By the end of his sentence, he will be assessed and if he isn't rehabilitated, 5 more years will be added to his sentence and then re-assessed and added 5 more years...The idea is not revenge but rehabilitation. A fairer system.

Not really. I'd say it's a more merciful system if anything. However, crime needs a deterrent.

I'd also argue that the rehabilitation model isn't the cause for success in Scandinavian countries' low crime scores. It's the modernity and civility.

When it comes to crime, the retribution model is superior, since it actually references the idea of justice.

 

[YourBroMoe]

There's a high risk he won’t die right away, it usually takes a couple of min at the best to die from gun wound. If it doesn't go well it can take a long time and pain unimaginable to us.

I personally find the death penalty to be barbaric and unprincipled. The reason for this is due to the state's disdain for murder.

Of course, there is war and self defense, however these are different circumstances.

As you already have the criminal in custody, you get to control the parameters of said criminal's punishment.

 

[AussieHustler]

Not really. I'd say it's a more merciful system if anything. However, crime needs a deterrent.

I'd also argue that the rehabilitation model isn't the cause for success in Scandinavian countries' low crime scores. It's the modernity and civility.

When it comes to crime, the retribution model is superior, since it actually references the idea of justice.

@YourBroMoe

The idea that "crime needs a deterrent" is valid to a point, but harsher sentences have little deterrent, look no further than the death penalty in the United States. As long as poverty exists in a society crime will flourish.

 

[YourBroMoe]

@YourBroMoe

The idea that "crime needs a deterrent" is valid to a point, but harsher sentences have little deterrent, look no further than the death penalty in the United States. As long as poverty exists in a society crime will flourish.

Do you consider life in prison to be a harsh sentence? If so, why?

 

[Yeeyi]

I personally find the death penalty to be barbaric and unprincipled. The reason for this is due to the state's disdain for murder.

Of course, there is war and self defense, however these are different circumstances.

As you already have the criminal in custody, you get to control the parameters of said criminal's punishment.

Yeah, but do you really want to torture the criminal with a very long sentence? What is he going to do with his life as a 67-year-old former serial killer? And it cost taxpayers money to hold him in for so long, it just cheaper to kill him with a rope.

That's if it isn't allowed for prison labor. We could exploit the use of the prison labor for the better of the country, but that’s basically slavery, something which is even more evil towards the criminal

 

[AussieHustler]

Do you consider life in prison to be a harsh sentence? If so, why?

@YourBroMoe

Life is Ok in this case, but it shouldn’t be without parole, then the sentence becomes a revenge on an individual by society. I watched few documentaries where inmates sentenced to life without parole preferred the death sentence and finally, many of them committed suicide. The justice system primary focus should be on rehabilitation and not on revenge. If an inmate is beyond redemption and can’t be rehabilitated, then life without parole should be the last option for that inmate.

 

[YourBroMoe]

Yeah, but do you really want to torture the criminal with a very long sentence? What is he going to do with his life as a 67-year-old former serial killer? And it cost taxpayers money to hold him in for so long, it just cheaper to kill him with a rope.

That's if it isn't allowed for prison labor. We could exploit the use of the prison labor for the better of the country, but that’s basically slavery, something which is even more evil towards the criminal

Society is built on law and order. Law abiding citizens should live without fear. As a result, the privileges experienced by citizens are revoked the moment a citizen makes himself a criminal.

I'm perfectly okay with using criminals are free labor. As murder is a barbaric act, they gain usefulness in society, serving their time, the length of which is reflected on the severity of their crimes. For society's safety, the more dangerous the criminal, the longer his sentence should be. If one's entire life is in danger from said criminal, then life is the only logical timeline for said sentence.

As for your taxpayer argument, here are some facts:

1. In general, the cost of a prisoner per year is roughly $110k.
2. Using Canada as an example, there are about 40k prisoners out of the population of 30 million.
3. In general, the Canadian government collects roughly 270 billion dollars.
4. It costs 4.4 billion dollars to cover the criminals in prison.
5. That's 1.6% of our tax dollars.

I can personally live with that.

 

[YourBroMoe]

@YourBroMoe

Life is Ok in this case, but it shouldn’t be without parole, then the sentence becomes a revenge on an individual by society. I watched few documentaries where inmates sentenced to life without parole preferred the death sentence and finally, many of them committed suicide. The justice system primary focus should be on rehabilitation and not on revenge. If an inmate is beyond redemption and can’t be rehabilitated, then life without parole should be the last option for that inmate.

Should rehabilitation for the sake of a criminal be given higher priority than the peace of mind of the citizens who'd prefer the criminal stay in prison? If so, why?

 

[AussieHustler]

Should rehabilitation for the sake of a criminal be given higher priority than the peace of mind of the citizens who'd prefer the criminal stay in prison? If so, why?

@YourBroMoe

Very few victims of crime would agree to the concept of rehabilitation, but if roles were reversed, they would have been lobbying tirelessly for the concept. That’s human nature and very understandable. Furthermore, crime & punishment are the biggest weapon that politicians utilise during election campaigns and a frightened public would always relent to them. But ask yourself, is poverty, lack of good education and family dysfunction the underlying factors of people committing serious crimes, if not lessened (impossible to remove it), do you think harsher sentences should stop these people from committing more heinous crimes? Jails could be institutions of good influences and many serious offenders in prison have completed their education while incarcerated and reformed themselves. Revenge should be a last option. People should demand from their politicians to decrease the rates of poverty and not harsher sentences for crimes. A better and smarter way of fighting crime.

 

[Yeeyi]

Society is built on law and order. Law abiding citizens should live without fear. As a result, the privileges experienced by citizens are revoked the moment a citizen makes himself a criminal.

I'm perfectly okay with using criminals are free labor. As murder is a barbaric act, they gain usefulness in society, serving their time, the length of which is reflected on the severity of their crimes. For society's safety, the more dangerous the criminal, the longer his sentence should be. If one's entire life is in danger from said criminal, then life is the only logical timeline for said sentence.

As for your taxpayer argument, here are some facts:

1. In general, the cost of a prisoner per year is roughly $110k.
2. Using Canada as an example, there are about 40k prisoners out of the population of 30 million.
3. In general, the Canadian government collects roughly 270 billion dollars.
4. It costs 4.4 billion dollars to cover the criminals in prison.
5. That's 1.6% of our tax dollars.

I can personally live with that.

4.4 billion dollars for criminals is a waste money, considering that their lives are in total ruins if they had been there for a long time. Killing people who deserve death isn't barabric, but forcing someone 67-years as forced labour and then let him out into the world with tarnished image and no way for success in life, thats barbaric

Thanks for being one of the few users here that acts in a proper way when discussing seriously

 

[YourBroMoe]

@YourBroMoe

Very few of victims of crime would agree to the concept of rehabilitation but if roles were reversed, they would have been lobbying tirelessly for the concept. That’s human nature and very understandable. Furthermore, crime & punishment are the biggest weapon that politicians utilise during election campaigns and a frightened public would always relent to it. But ask yourself, is poverty, lack of good education and family dysfunction the underlying factors of people committing crimes, if not lessened (impossible to removeit), do you think harsher sentences should stop these people from committing heinous crimes? Jails could be institutions of good influences and many have completed their education while incarcerated and reformed themselves. Revenge should be a last option. People should demand from their politicians to decrease the rates of poverty and not harsher sentences for crimes. A better way fighting crime.

"Very few of victims of crime would agree to the concept of rehabilitation but if roles were reversed, they would have been lobbying tirelessly for the concept. That’s human nature and very understandable."

This is obvious, and doesn't answer the question.

"Furthermore, crime & punishment are the biggest weapon that politicians utilise during election campaigns and a frightened public would always relent to it. But ask yourself, is poverty, lack of good education and family dysfunction the underlying factors of people committing crimes, if not lessened (impossible to removeit), do you think harsher sentences should stop these people from committing heinous crimes?"

Again, this doesn't answer the question. However, I do agree that those factors increase the rates of crimes. I also don't desire harsher sentences. If I stated that, quote me.

"Jails could be institutions of good influences and many have completed their education while incarcerated and reformed themselves. Revenge should be a last option."

Revenge isn't the desire. Retribution is. The difference is that a citizen doesn't take the law in his own hands. The law is obeyed and criminals are punished for going against it. That's retribution.

"People should demand from their politicians to decrease the rates of poverty and not harsher sentences for crimes. A better way fighting crime."

A lot of deflecting here. You're a good debater. However, I'll force you to stay on topic. To answer your question, yes they should ask their politicians to decrease the rates of poverty.

I ask again:

Should rehabilitation for the sake of a criminal be given higher priority than the peace of mind of the citizens who'd prefer the criminal stay in prison? If so, why?

 

[YourBroMoe]

4.4 billion dollars for criminals is a waste money, considering that their lives are in total ruins if they had been there for a long time. Killing people who deserve death isn't barabric, but forcing someone 67-years as forced labour and then let him out into the world with tarnished image and no way for success in life, thats barbaric

Thanks for being one of the few users here that acts in a proper way when discussing seriously

In that particular instance, our opinions are subjective. I'll agree to disagree.

 

[AussieHustler]

"Very few of victims of crime would agree to the concept of rehabilitation but if roles were reversed, they would have been lobbying tirelessly for the concept. That’s human nature and very understandable."

This is obvious, and doesn't answer the question.

"Furthermore, crime & punishment are the biggest weapon that politicians utilise during election campaigns and a frightened public would always relent to it. But ask yourself, is poverty, lack of good education and family dysfunction the underlying factors of people committing crimes, if not lessened (impossible to removeit), do you think harsher sentences should stop these people from committing heinous crimes?"

Again, this doesn't answer the question. However, I do agree that those factors increase the rates of crimes. I also don't desire harsher sentences. If I stated that, quote me.

"Jails could be institutions of good influences and many have completed their education while incarcerated and reformed themselves. Revenge should be a last option."

Revenge isn't the desire. Retribution is. The difference is that a citizen doesn't take the law in his own hands. The law is obeyed and criminals are punished for going against it. That's retribution.

"People should demand from their politicians to decrease the rates of poverty and not harsher sentences for crimes. A better way fighting crime."

A lot of deflecting here. You're a good debater. However, I'll force you to stay on topic. To answer your question, yes they should ask their politicians to decrease the rates of poverty.

I ask again:

Should rehabilitation for the sake of a criminal be given higher priority than the peace of mind of the citizens who'd prefer the criminal stay in prison? If so, why?

@YourBroMoe

The justice system should be based on rehabilitation and not on revenge. Having said that, it should be based on a case by case basis because not everyone could be rehabilitated.

 

[Timo Jareer and proud]

The death penalty is illegal in Canada.