Robert Pickton, notorious pig farmer and killer/mutilator of dozens of women, has been granted an appeal of his conviction to the Supreme Court. When first charged he did not get the ordinary legal aid lawyer. He got representation by high priced criminal attorneys - funded by our tax dollar. An appeal to the Supreme Court is not for the faint of wallet - but then again since when have taxpayers been considered thrifty.
On the other hand, daily we read of increasing numbers of citizens lining up at food banks, more homeless, single parents raising kids on marginal budgets, funding shortages for health care, education and the list goes on. . . and budget deficits.
When I shake my head its in the hope that something will kick loose and I will understand the rationale for this process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Pickton is a prime example of why the death penalty should be available in certain circumstances. He does not deserve to live, let alone use my money to fund useless appeals.
ReplyDeleteMy question is who's the idiot that thinks he deserves and appeal? Is there any basis for it. I wouldn't think so. Some how he would have to prove things weren't on the up and up in his trial. I can't believe the supreme court would allow such an appeal. Maybe there are a few to many bleeding heart liberals on the bench.
ReplyDeleteAlways puzzled by those who feel the death penalty is the ultimate punishment. Id think spending the rest of your days locked up in jail is much greater punishment...death is easy in comparison!
ReplyDeletePolitical Junkie2 - you never spend the rest of your life in jail. Max would be 25 years. Sentences are concurrent, not consecutive. I do not support the death penalty, but I do think life imprisonment should mean the rest of your natural life.
ReplyDeleteI use to don support the death penalty but have come around in recent years. For some people, such as Pickton, there is no rehabilitation and they cannot be trusted free again. What purpose is there in continually overcrowding the jails and paying the costs of keeping him alive for the next 20/30 years?
ReplyDeleteExpensive, and unlike normal people all the time in the world in a cell would not give Pickton any perspective on what he has done and the lives he has ruined. Like a bad car send it to the junkyard, or a sick dog put it down in peace. With every aspect of life we can acknowledge when it is time to move on, but with human life we seem to hold it to some holy ideal that it is wrong to end a human life.
Civicmistress - Your statement "Max would be 25 years" is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada a life sentence for first degree murder contains no statutory release after 25 years. Parole eligibility does exist at the 25 year mark, but in no way is a release guaranteed. Life imprisonment is a real possibility.
You may want to better familiarize yourself with the Criminal Code or better clarify your statements, as you are perpetuating misinformation to your readers.
Life in prison is a posibility & for someone like Pickton I am sure that would apply. And life in prison is worse then death.
ReplyDeleteTo justify state sanctioned murder because it will cost tax payers less is not worthy of comment.
Political Junkie2, do your ideals on state sanctioned murder hold true with euthanasia and assisted suicide? Not that those are made for financial reasons, but rather for compassionate ones.
ReplyDeleteIf you support euthanasia/assisted suicide, who can you draw a line there?
Anon, Liking euthansia/assisted suicide to capital punishment would be comparing apples to oranges comparison. There are many differences.
ReplyDeleteFor one, capital punishment is not a sentence given on compassionate grounds...its purely for retribution. The person sentenced to death generally doesnt wish to die. People who request euthansia/suicide request it on compassionate grounds.
PJ2, at its root both subjects are intertwined in that they involve taking a human life, whatever the grounds may be. Advocates against both assisted suicide and the death penalty cite the sanctity of life. Again, the basic question involves allowing a human to take another human's life (whatever their reason may be). If you aren't against the death penalty for the sanctity of life reason, than what else is preventing it? You cannot really believe that sitting in a cell would be worse than death can you? psychologically damaging yes, but it isn't 'end game'. But really, if not sanctity of life than what?
ReplyDeleteThey are intertwined only in so far as taking life is concerned.To assume that taking a life based on retribution and taking a life based on compassionate grounds(where the decision is made by the person involved) are one in the same. That assumption is false.
ReplyDeleteUsing the sanctity of life argument completely disregards the issue of quality of life. Many of us believe consideration of quality of life is essential to the issue of euthansia/assisted suicide.
I stand corrected. You can be sentenceed to life, but you are eiligible for parole after 25 years. It isn't often that anyone is denied parole. I guess it depends on who is sitting on the parole board years down the road. I expect that Pickton, at about 75 years of age, will be given parole.
ReplyDelete