Homicidal Nutter of the Day

There is not the slightest comparison between these two cases and that has been my point all along.

But the point is you want to put faith in the criminal justice system to deliver only righteous verdicts of death, yet indroduce an example where they monumentally failed to do so.
What has changed in your view? Has the court system suddenly stopped screwing up?

Justin Bourque on the other hand...

Yes, but its never just this case or just that case is it.
Being sure about a single case isn't a good lead as they were sure about those cases where they screwed up too.
If they can go ahead because they are sure then what is to stop them when they are sure but wrong?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But the point is you want to put faith in the criminal justice system to deliver only righteous verdicts of death, yet indroduce an example where they monumentally failed to do so.

Clearly, I am not advocating the death penalty for every case in which someone was killed. And I think you realize that. I'm trying to make a distinction between two vastly different cases. I have very little faith in the criminal justice system, but unless there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll, Bourque is guilty. The evidence is over whelming and I'd say he pleads guilty with mental issues. He will spend the rest of his life in a concrete home and Canada will not bring back the death penalty. We're just to damn nice.

Originally Posted by u crank

Clearly, I am not advocating the death penalty for every case in which someone was killed. And I think you realize that. I'm trying to make a distinction between two vastly different cases. I have very little faith in the criminal justice system, but unless there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll, Bourque is guilty. The evidence is over whelming and I'd say he pleads guilty with mental issues. He will spend the rest of his life in a concrete home and Canada will not bring back the death penalty. We're just to damn nice.

I know, what we have is a fundamental difference of approach.
You favour taking the risk on the occasional one where there is definite guilt.
I favour not taking the risk because you need to protect the innocent who definitely get found guilty.
So the question for your approach is how do you ensure that the innocent are excluded and it is only applied to those that are definitely guilty, after all those people who get wrongly convicted appeared to be definitely guilty in their trial.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So the question for your approach is how do you ensure that the innocent are excluded and it is only applied to those that are definitely guilty, after all those people who get wrongly convicted appeared to be definitely guilty in their trial.

Obviously there would have to be a different approach than the one in place now. It would have to apply to those cases where the convicted is beyond any shadow of doubt guilty. The aforementioned Justin Bourque is one. Another case here in Canada would be serial killer Clifford Olsen. He led the police to the bodies of his victims for cash. He also pleaded guilty. That's as definite as it gets. I guess some one would have to decide. I'm glad it won't be me.