The Shotgun Blog
Friday, March 17, 2006
Death for Muckle
A recent comment on my own blog concerning Albert George Muckle's complaints about his security back in October:
I was good friends with victim… i miss her extermly. I wish we had the death penelty… i’d be in the front row to watch the bastard die. #
Open thread on the death penalty.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Death for Muckle:
Until we get more accountability from our politicians and police, coupled with freely getting information from all levels of government, no death penalty.
There are NOT enough checks and balances in the Canadian political or legal system, to trust those who would have the power of life and death, to use it justly or wisely.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-17 10:17:58 AM
Personally, I disagree strongly with the death penalty, because I certainly couldn't pull the trigger. But then again, the death penalty is a corporate response, not a private response. There are some crimes which are so horrible that perhaps society must answer them with death, because there is no other appropriate answer.
But like Speller said, the death penalty would be putting more power into the hands of a group I do not trust farther than I can spit. They'd use it to get rid of people convicted of "hate speech" within ten years.
Posted by: Tozetre | 2006-03-17 11:15:39 AM
The death penalty, while not without merits, simply politicizes the justice system further. Every capital murder case becomes a new stage for anti-death penalty protesters. Every high-profile case gives governor's and other state politicians the chance to grandstand on a "tough on crime" platform. Countless appeals that cost millions of dollars are all but inevitable. No thanks. I don't want to see any of that up here. We need tougher sentences, tighter parole restrictions, and less bleeding heart judges, not a new politically charged form of punishment that is outrageously expensive to carry out.
Posted by: Raging Ranter | 2006-03-17 11:40:46 AM
When we oppose the death penalty we need to realize that we then choose to show more compassion/concern for the murderer than for the victims.
Where one is found guilty of murder, and not based on circumstancial evidence, society is obligated to carry out capital punishment. To allow such murderers to beat the 'system' through technicalities and to continue to live a life of little deprivation, except for being free to go and come as they please, is to remove value from the lives stolen from their victims.
To deny capital punishment/the death penalty is not a sign of being progressive, rather it is evidence of societel rot.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-03-17 11:56:55 AM
Alain, in the 20th century the majority of people who met unnatural deaths were killed by their OWN governments.
Some were declared insane for being politically incorrect, step two was euthanasia for the insane.
There are virtually NO checks on government power in Canada.
It is not an issue of less compassion for victims than killers. The issue is the government victimizing it's citizens.
The abuse of power by government at ALL levels during my lifetime in this country has been staggering.
I refuse to give them MORE UNCHECKED POWER.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-17 12:13:43 PM
I have a different take.
To start with If LIFE IN PRISON actually MEANT LIFE then the death penalty is not necessary.
BUT because things are not that way we must consider 3 options.
1--Life meaning life in prison
2--Death meaning death, no further chances to harm (and possibility of killing an innocent person)
3--the way things are now where innocent persons are killed by criminals or raped, or beaten or injured or crippled permanently.
I will argue that the way things are we are actually choosing death or harm for the victims of criminals by neglecting to either put the criminal in for LIFE or put him away permanently.
IF we could ensure LIFE meaning LIFE in prison, then there is no need for death, and that would be my first choice.
BUT SEEING THAT ISN"T THE CASE HERE IS OUR CHOICE
Do we harm innocent bystanders, randomly by letting these criminals loose when they have records as long as your arm--
Do we go with a 3 strikes you are out method in which we make every effort to prove guilt or innocence, and when a criminal shows no ability or desire to change, do we stop giving him or her prison time, and give death instead.
NOTE that I AM NOT saying first and only offences. It may be argued that people who haven't shown a pattern of crime, could be mistakenly found guilty and really be innocent.
But how many innocent people are had up before a judge for the third or more time for violent offenses?
WHY ARE WE WORRIED ABOUT KILLING AN INNOCENT MAN OR WOMAN?
Innocent people are dying all the time under things the way they are now, and by allowing the "justice" system to continue unchanged, we are giving assent to the death or torture of the innocent victims of criminals every day!!!!!!!!!!!
What about an innocent person being wrongly accused and convicted?
I bring this argument back to the 3 times you are out method where in order to recieve the death penalty a person must be proven a habitual offender and not for mild things like shoplifting either.
I also would like to introduce the idea that in order to protect rights and freedoms, at times innocent people may die in war or in police work, in order to protect society as a whole.
In a sense, if after DNA evidence, and meeting the burden of proof and after showing a habitual violent offender status
if that one is still truly innocent, then too bad, they are the casualty of war on crime. Unavoidable.
I can hear the shrieking now, that is so unfair.
Well so is letting habitually violent criminals out on the streets to do it again and again.
How is that fair?
The way I'm proposing, would reduce the carnage of victims, and no matter which way you slice it, we will have victims.
Just let's choose-- shall we let the criminal out to choose a victim at random
or should we decide to make LIFE IN PRISON TRULY LIFE
or should we decide that Death at least stops further criminal acts and saves a whole lot of victims even considering a small percentage of those who are put to death unfairly.
Choose your style of unfairness!
For me it's
LIFE SHOULD MEAN LIFE and if it doesn't
then Death is the only fair alternative, but it's a second choice.
The only choice that I consider totally unfair is the system as it is now.
Where the victims of criminals bear the weight of society's indifference to their plight and their misplaced compassion for the criminals.
Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-03-17 12:16:47 PM
I agree with Raging Ranter that the inevitable politicization of the justice system is a strong argument against the death penalty. In the Canadian context you can be sure that each looming execution would turn into a twinned circus. In one ring, you'd get those who'd express with thrumming little fingers their eagerness for someone else to really "get it", in the other a dog's-breakfast of those empowered to the point of confusion by their own struggles on behalf of the world's downtrodden, who would make an endless wailing case in front of a nodding media that vicious murders/rapes/mutilations are the inevitable result of a government whose policies are not Left enough.
The first group should be left alone with their professional wrestling, and the latter group is already well-represented by the NDP/CBC-Liberals. Neither group deserves more coverage, or society's time, and the Albert George Muckles of the world don't deserve such tributes and enlargements as would occur if his death at government hands was imminent.
IMHO the world would be a better place if Muckle say, fell off a high cliff. But if his tumble were accompanied by a media circus, then his death would have made the world a worse place. In other words, I'm in favour of the death penalty for the Muckles and the Olsens and the Bernardos, but only if the final moment is followed by the word "whoops".
Posted by: EBD | 2006-03-17 1:00:56 PM
Capital punishment is wrong, scum should rot in filthy prisons for the rest of their lives.
Posted by: infidel | 2006-03-18 6:38:02 PM
that works for me, letting them rot, IF THAT MEANT THEY STAYED THERE
but they don't!
and that's the rub!
They get out of jail and go do it again, and again and again.....................
So either we get the cahones to stick em in for life or the electric chair whichever works best.
Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-03-18 6:46:25 PM
The judge in this case said the system turned this well adjusted content boy into what he had become today. While this is probably true, Albert Muckle was never a content well adjusted child.
He lived in our home from the age of 9 until he was twelve. For two years before he lived on a nearby reserve in two separate foster homes. Before that he was in a foster home from 3 wks. until he was four. Somewhere in between the fourth year of his life and the 7th, he was in 24 foster homes.
What happened? The system happened, his mother happened. The very first foster family wanted to adopt Albert and his brother. Sorry, no can do, his mom wanted her two boys back. Never mind that she had no intentions of looking after them, no white family was going take her kids from her. Apparently it didn't matter that this family could have been the best thing for them, it was the principle of the matter. I understand mom had them for about a month, then off they went again.
When Albert came to live with us, we were told that there would probably be a 'honeymoon period' in which Albert would be the model child. HAH! Who were they kidding? The Kenora Patricia Child and Family Services did absolutely nothing to prepare us for what we expect having Albert living with us. All the rights belonged to Albert. Anytime he wanted, he could call up his case worker and whine or complain about us. Of course they believed everything he told them. I felt like a warden in my own home. Albert was a thief, abusive to our pets, and a bully to his classmates. He always cried when he was caught. Always said he was sorry..... yeah, sorry he was caught.
Although jail is the best place for him, it burns my a$$ that the taxpayers would have to support this useless piece of trash for the rest of his life.
Posted by: Andrina Schuit | 2006-12-07 10:26:50 AM
I saw this on imao.com
Personally I'm against the death penalty, but we have to have it, otherwise we'd be committing executions in an alley with a coat hanger.
Posted by: Markalta | 2006-12-07 10:44:15 AM
... I wrote that comment... and never knew anything came from it.
Posted by: Sad Girl | 2008-04-15 12:15:18 PM
I must side with the criminals. Since THEY DO BELIEVE in the death penalty - as their own actions have demonstrated - we should not go against their personal philosophy.
HANG THEM - AND HANG 'EM HIGH!
Posted by: bobby | 2008-06-25 3:16:21 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.