Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death as a punishment for a crime. Canada abolished capital punishment in 1976.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
Political theme:
@9JZV4G6Conservative1yr1Y
I support it, with irrevocable proof. But I also know a lot that were on death row, were innocently convicted. But the amount of money that would go into retrial, was hefty back then. Serial killers should, receive the death penalty. 100%
@9D8PLJBConservative2yrs2Y
No, life is given by God and gouvernement has no right to take it
Yes, but meted out by the victim's family and only in air-tight, brutal, sadistic and truly malevolent cases. Any cased determined only by circumstantial evidence or DNA, no way. Too much room for bad trial procedure, faulty or corrupt laboratory work. It would seem that a second hearing would be needed to make sure that conviction met a VERY stringent criteria.
@97T4JZCConservative2yrs2Y
No, abolish the death penalty. Jail should be for the worst criminals, and rehabilitation should be the best resort
@97Z84HSConservative2yrs2Y
No, it is more cost-efficient to keep them in jail.
@8TCK7HGConservative4yrs4Y
No, living with guilt and regret is the worse punishment of all
@fjamalConservative3yrs3Y
Yes, but there must be undeniable evidence to rule out possible innocence, and if so, then death must be deemed a harsher punishment compared to life in prision.
@8PHYPN9Conservative4yrs4Y
only if there dangerous if they get out
@99NBHK8Conservative2yrs2Y
Yes, but at times the choice should be up to the prisoner but not always.
@8WTGFHGConservative3yrs3Y
Life in prison or assisted suicide instead
@8W468RYConservative4yrs4Y
Lock them up until proven guilty "for horrific crimes with undeniable evidence". The Death Penalty or Life in prison is then chosen by the victim's family and/or Court.
@8GJ55J3Conservative5yrs5Y
I believe if some one has committed a heinous crime (murder, rape, etc.) they should be used as test subjects for medicine if they are found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt or be used for labor jobs for the betterment of society if there is reason to suspect that their sentence may change.
@8V3C3GRConservative4yrs4Y
Yes, for all sex offenders
@8T3T55PConservative4yrs4Y
I’ve heard sometimes the death penalty can cost more than keeping them alive with all the court costs and hearing. I’m not sure though. If it’s really between killing people or prison we could just decrease the quality of prison to make up for cost. I guess I only care about costs.
@8ZX3GXZConservative3yrs3Y
No, the charter gives the right to life to all Canadians. Give criminals convicted of murder life in prison instead, and give them the choice between living out the rest of their lives, or ending it with assisted suicide. The point of the criminal Justice system is to take dangerous people of the streets to keep society safe, not to cruelly punish wrongdoing.
@8SGXQ5C4yrs4Y
No because Jesus said so
@757T3R35yrs5Y
Yes, we cannot risk the escape of convicted murderers or sex offenders
@6HDD83R4yrs4Y
Yes, but only as a last resort, where life imprisonment shall also be an alternative (life for those who were 21 years or older at the time of the crime, 50 years for those under 21 years)
@6HDD83R4yrs4Y
Yes, but only as a last resort, where life imprisonment shall also be an alternative
@EthanHars4yrs4Y
Yes, only for sex crimes and school shooters
@heatherdvdprincess3yrs3Y
Yes, but only with euthanasia that kills instantly.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
