It struck me this morning that even though all major cities are suffering from increased stabbings and gun violence, the east and west really differ on what they think should be done about it.
In the east, we hear about banning guns as the solution. This is the politically acceptable method of dealing with violent gun crimes, blame the guns not the criminal. If this succeeds, next we will be banning knives...
Toronto mayor asks for signatures coast to coast to compel Ottawa to legislate the disarming of everyone but the police
In a statement yesterday, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day noted handguns are already banned in this country except for a few legitimate purposes, a category that includes police officers, target shooters and approved collectors. Miller wants to see the ban extended to target shooters and collectors.
In the west, we hear about bringing back the death penalty. This is very politically incorrect, blaming and making the criminals responsible, not the instrument (guns, knives, golf clubs, ropes) they use in the crime.
From the comments section in the Edmonton Sun:
Capital punishment (or prison time) isn't meant to just be a deterrent, but a punishment. Prisons don't exist solely to scare people from lives of crime and some people do not deserve the option of rehabilitation, assuming it would work anyway.
C. James
(Some are incorrigible.)
I would like to ask letter-writer Vince Leonty if he can provide one name of a murderer who was executed who reoffended. I, for one, think the death penalty does work.
Bill Kushniryk
(Zero rate of reoffending.)
To Vince Leonty: The death penalty does deter that person from murdering again. Over the past years, many people (153 according to Time magazine) are killed by previous killers who are out on bail or parole. At first, people would get a life sentence. Then it was only 25 years. Now we have the faint-hope clause. If we don't have the will to kill these people, at least see that they never see the outside again. That would have saved these 153 victims.
Bob Taylor
(A life sentence should be for life.)
I have to agree with John Symington about drastic measures that should be taken with drug dealers. But a segregated town isn't the answer. Zero tolerance is. If you're a drug smuggler, you should get an instant death penalty following your trial. Dial-a-dopers who sell to young people? Prison for life! If you have a gun in your car to look cool to your homies as you deal death, you get what the smugglers are sentenced to.
Don Meadows
(You'd be one tough judge!)
Why are innocent people being murdered on our city streets? I think it is time to bring back capital punishment. Was capital punishment removed because innocent people were being locked up and then executed? I would say that the number of innocent people who are being murdered outweigh the mistakes that may happen in wrongful convictions. If you commit a murder, then the same thing should happen to you - within a month.
Jason Bernarth
(How would you feel if you were wrongly convicted?)
That is the great divide between the east and the west. Do nothing bans and gun registries, or actual punishment for crimes.
Sign a petition to ban already banned guns, or make the criminals actually pay for their actions? Which one do you choose?
5 comments:
Kill the killers... 100% of dead repeat murders or violent felons who used a gun or weapon to commit their offence don't have a hope in hell of re-offending....If you execute them, they're simply already in hell... I recognise "Thou shalt not Kill"
but as a society we need to get back to the very basics and draw the line... to be civilized you also need the courage to use the same methodology against offenders that seem to be all they understand... if you're going to kill someone intentionally and deliberately, you must also accept the greater concensous and expect it to have repercussions to that same level of justice ... It's not revenge or retribution... It's being held responsible for your actions... Capitale punishment for repeat offenders...
TangoJuliette sez:
Jails should be seen as the ideal site where convicted individuals are sent into "isolation" so that society is protected from them, incapacitating their orientation to commit criminal acts.
let's call this opening position: "Incapacitation Through Incarceration."
The questions raised re: "should jail time be punishment or rehabilitation?"
How about it being both? Rehab if possible, punishment as needed -- but most certainly, Isolate and Incapacitate all offenders.
The ones who act against society, simultaneously turn their backs on their society. In doing so, they openly reject all vestiges, trappings and benefits which membership in said society affords.
Sort of like, "membership has it's privileges." They come, and they can just as easily be lost, depending on how one handles their own "responsibiliaties" associated with membership in their society.
tj
t.e.&o.e.
Should be 50/50. And the punishment part should consist of no TV, nutritious, balanced but bland boring food, no junk food, no cigarettes, no sports, no magazines and a 8 to 5 "job" with strict dress codes, hours, and both quality and quantity quotas to be met, whatever the "job" is. That way, when the inmates are released, they just continue the same type of schedule and obligations they had inside, negating the need for all these programs to prepare the cons to reintegrate normal civilized society, but they'll have the choice of buying themselves a few perks once their working day is done. A bag of Doritos and a beer watching a hockey game. Now there's a deterrent to re-offending.
"ban already banned guns"?
Why not? It's the CPC way. They want to make killing a fetus illegal, which is already illegal.
Post a Comment