OT - Pig Farmer Murders in Canada

Pat - if you're interested in what this is all about, go to
http://www.missingpeople.net/2002-2/...15_murders.htm

Sharon (N.B.)

clancy wrote:

Pat - if you're interested in what this is all about, go to
http://www.missingpeople.net/2002-2/...15_murders.htm

Sharon (N.B.)


But you'd be better off if they didn't see it. We live about 10 miles
from there and it's turned into a 3 ring circus. These animals (not the
pigs) are Canada's best reason to bring back the death penalty. We've
become nothing more than a haven for drug, and people smugglers,
murderers, so called refugees, and a home base for the worst criminal
element. Stepping down from my soapbox now.

Maureen In Vancouver, B.C.

--
Maureen Miller C.H.

How I agree with you on the death penalty! Keeping the likes of that behind
bars and feeding him for the rest of his natural life sickens me. There's
not a politician around that I know of who will even talk about the death
penalty. In one of our recent elections, they had people calling to see if
you'd support their candidate - and they asked what would be one of the most
important things you'd like to have the man deal with - I said the death
penalty. He just laughed and said 'now wouldn't that be a hot topic?'
Well, yeah, buddy, a hot one but one that more and more people want
discussed.

Sharon (N.B.)
.................................................. ...........................
..............

"Russell Miller" wrote in message
...
clancy wrote:

Pat - if you're interested in what this is all about, go to
http://www.missingpeople.net/2002-2/...15_murders.htm

Sharon (N.B.)


But you'd be better off if they didn't see it. We live about 10 miles
from there and it's turned into a 3 ring circus. These animals (not the
pigs) are Canada's best reason to bring back the death penalty. We've
become nothing more than a haven for drug, and people smugglers,
murderers, so called refugees, and a home base for the worst criminal
element. Stepping down from my soapbox now.

Maureen In Vancouver, B.C.

--
Maureen Miller C.H.

Oh dear. I know this is a very dicey subject.
I agree with Ruby and Sheena in principle.

Currently, the state of Wisconsin is considering implementing the death
penalty. Nothing to vote on, yet. Just conversation.

One of the things that bothers me is how the death penalty - in states
that have it - is set up and used. As an example: automatic if you
kill a policeman. Well, why is a policeman's life any more valuable
than my spouses or child's? That argument doesn't hold water for me.

In the current system outlined by both Ruby and Sheena, I don't trust
the death penalty laws because I simply don't trust the system.
Illinois is an apt example.

HOWEVER: For mass murderers (both serial and spree) such as Manson,
Gacy, Dalmer, and the recent Canadian situation, I have no compunction
whatsoever. It is obvious and without doubt who the perpetrator is.
And it should be swift.

Other than that, I don't think so. And I highly resent the laws that
make one victim's life more important than another.

Dianne

Stitcher wrote:

Think David Milguard, Donald Marshal etc would vote for it.
I personally would prefer my tax dollars to feed and house 10 guilty
men than execute 1 innocent one.
Ruby

Also, Sheena wrote:
We are going to have to disagree on this one. I can't help thinking
of David Milgaarde, Donald Marshall and Guy Paul Moran - all innocent
of the murders they were accused of, how would we give them back their
lives if we had executed them ?

Until we have perfect law enforcers, better we do not execute
murderers for fear we execute even one innocent person.

Back in the 70s when the whole thing was debated ad nauseum, it was a
retired chief of the RCMP who convinced me execution was wrong. He
said that he had researched all the cases of people who had hanged in
Canada and he found, without exception, they were people without the
money to employ a good defence lawyer. If you had money, you did not
necessarily go free, but you did not hang either. So it came down to
being a case of one sort of justice for the wealthy and another for
the less endowed.

The thing I would like to see is a life sentence being a life sentence
- even if it is costly to the tax payer to keep the murderer in jail
for life. To allow them out sooner is an insult to the person they
murdered. It says to me, your life was only worth ten years.

The other thing that makes me feel execution is the wrong approach is
looking at the US statistics about whom they execute. Mostly black,
mostly very low IQ, and again, not wealthy. Given all of the
executions, who feels more secure at night in their homes ? A
Canadian or an American ? Who is more likely to die from a bullet ?

So I say execution cannot be undone in the case of a wrong verdict and
does not prove to be effective as a deterrent.

"Stitcher" wrote

(In) Canada having the death penalty would not address the wrong where one
serial killer ( of a pair )is free in 12 years because she did a deal

Yeah, and one of the victims was her own sister. IMO both she and her lawyer
ought to be in jail for life.

Death penalty and then what is next that wonderful 3 strikes law
under which a fellow in California is serving 50 yes FIFTY YEARS
His second and third strikes being stealing a videos tape from walmart
and getting caught. His first strike a housebreaking with no weapon.

I think this sort of thing is what makes people so cynical about the legal
system. If it were seen to be a bit more evenhanded and less concerned with
trivialities and games about admissability of evidence we might all be a bit
better off.

emerald

Well I totally believe in the death penalty for those who ARE the murderers
beyond doubt - names that come to mind are Dahmer, Gacy, Manson, Susan Smith
and our own Bernardo - everyone knows these people are guilty - why should
they be fed 3 meals a day at tax payers' expense? Not in my book. You have
a good point tho' Sheena with regard to - if a person is given life, then
let it be life - not 5 years and out cuz someone was a good boy - nope, life
should mean life. And it should not be a life of laying in front of tv
having your meals delivered to your door. Justice should be the same for
all - not different for those who have money - and we've seen lots of those
cases - there is something very wrong with the justice system and I wish I
knew how to make it better.

Sharon (N.B.)
.................................................. ...........................
..

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 02:07:31 GMT, "clancy"
wrote:

How I agree with you on the death penalty! Keeping the likes of that
behind
bars and feeding him for the rest of his natural life sickens me.
There's
not a politician around that I know of who will even talk about the death
penalty. In one of our recent elections, they had people calling to see
if
you'd support their candidate - and they asked what would be one of the
most
important things you'd like to have the man deal with - I said the death
penalty. He just laughed and said 'now wouldn't that be a hot topic?'
Well, yeah, buddy, a hot one but one that more and more people want
discussed.

Sharon (N.B.)

We are going to have to disagree on this one. I can't help thinking
of David Milgaarde, Donald Marshall and Guy Paul Moran - all innocent
of the murders they were accused of, how would we give them back their
lives if we had executed them ?

Until we have perfect law enforcers, better we do not execute
murderers for fear we execute even one innocent person.

Back in the 70s when the whole thing was debated ad nauseum, it was a
retired chief of the RCMP who convinced me execution was wrong. He
said that he had researched all the cases of people who had hanged in
Canada and he found, without exception, they were people without the
money to employ a good defence lawyer. If you had money, you did not
necessarily go free, but you did not hang either. So it came down to
being a case of one sort of justice for the wealthy and another for
the less endowed.

The thing I would like to see is a life sentence being a life sentence
- even if it is costly to the tax payer to keep the murderer in jail
for life. To allow them out sooner is an insult to the person they
murdered. It says to me, your life was only worth ten years.

The other thing that makes me feel execution is the wrong approach is
looking at the US statistics about whom they execute. Mostly black,
mostly very low IQ, and again, not wealthy. Given all of the
executions, who feels more secure at night in their homes ? A
Canadian or an American ? Who is more likely to die from a bullet ?

So I say execution cannot be undone in the case of a wrong verdict and
does not prove to be effective as a deterrent.

Sheena

................................................. ..........................
..
.............

"Russell Miller" wrote in message
...
clancy wrote:

Pat - if you're interested in what this is all about, go to

http://www.missingpeople.net/2002-2/...15_murders.htm

Sharon (N.B.)


But you'd be better off if they didn't see it. We live about 10 miles
from there and it's turned into a 3 ring circus. These animals (not the
pigs) are Canada's best reason to bring back the death penalty. We've
become nothing more than a haven for drug, and people smugglers,
murderers, so called refugees, and a home base for the worst criminal
element. Stepping down from my soapbox now.

Maureen In Vancouver, B.C.

--
Maureen Miller C.H.

wrote
We are going to have to disagree on this one. I can't help thinking
of David Milgaarde, Donald Marshall and Guy Paul Moran - all innocent
of the murders they were accused of, how would we give them back their
lives if we had executed them ?

Until we have perfect law enforcers, better we do not execute
murderers for fear we execute even one innocent person.

Back in the 70s when the whole thing was debated ad nauseum, it was a
retired chief of the RCMP who convinced me execution was wrong. He
said that he had researched all the cases of people who had hanged in
Canada and he found, without exception, they were people without the
money to employ a good defence lawyer. If you had money, you did not
necessarily go free, but you did not hang either. So it came down to
being a case of one sort of justice for the wealthy and another for
the less endowed.

The thing I would like to see is a life sentence being a life sentence
- even if it is costly to the tax payer to keep the murderer in jail
for life. To allow them out sooner is an insult to the person they
murdered. It says to me, your life was only worth ten years.

The other thing that makes me feel execution is the wrong approach is
looking at the US statistics about whom they execute. Mostly black,
mostly very low IQ, and again, not wealthy. Given all of the
executions, who feels more secure at night in their homes ? A
Canadian or an American ? Who is more likely to die from a bullet ?

So I say execution cannot be undone in the case of a wrong verdict and
does not prove to be effective as a deterrent.

Sheena

All the same - with the threat of a death sentence in the offing I`m sure
that there would be far less murders. I wouldn`t mind a life sentence if it
meant life, as you say - but with none of the comforts that prisoners get
these days - TV, phone-calls, three good meals a day, education, games,
conjugal visits, etc., etc. I`m of the "Lock `em up and throw away the key"
persusaion. And yes, I`m definitely for the death penalty, even if there
are the occasoinal errors. I`d rather take that chance.

Pat P.

Let us not forget Clifford Olson. He not only brutally murdered several
children, but went on to write a book about it and make even more deals
to tell the police where he hid several more bodies! He even worked out
a cash deal for his wife I believe! As for the rich getting the better
lawyers, well, look at the 3 ring circus O.J. Simpson commanded. You
might well be right on that point. But having been attacked by a drug
addict with a large knife last year, only to find he was protected under
the mental health act, then have our house b&e'd last week, I'LL TAKE MY
CHANCES IN THE U.S.A. FOR BEING SAFER THANKS! )

As for the guilt aspect, in years past, innocent men may have been put
to the gas chamber, but with today's technology and D.N.A. testing, is
that still an option? I also believe no man, policeman or otherwise
should have a higher value put on his life or loss thereof. I also agree
with jail for 50 years means 50 years. Not 6 years for good behavior!
We have a warning on our news today. It's warning parents to watch their
daughters because a repeat sex offender has been released. He has
attacked several young girls and teens in the past, and the police
believe he will do so again so be on the lookout for him. EXCUSE ME?
Where's my scissors! Now I'm getting all upset again. Time to calm
myself with stitches.)

Maureen In Vancouver, B.C.

Stitcher wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 02:07:31 GMT, "clancy"
wrote:

How I agree with you on the death penalty! Keeping the likes of that behind
bars and feeding him for the rest of his natural life sickens me. There's
not a politician around that I know of who will even talk about the death
penalty. In one of our recent elections, they had people calling to see if
you'd support their candidate - and they asked what would be one of the most
important things you'd like to have the man deal with - I said the death
penalty. He just laughed and said 'now wouldn't that be a hot topic?'
Well, yeah, buddy, a hot one but one that more and more people want
discussed.

Sharon (N.B.)

Think David Milguard, Donald Marshal etc would vote for it.
I personally would prefer my tax dollars to feed and house 10 guilty
men than execute 1 innocent one.
Ruby
"Death is like birth, painful, messy and undignified" James

--
Maureen Miller C.H.

They're still walking the face of the earth Ruby - so they did get justice
in the end - I don't believe they had DNA in those days to prove without a
doubt that they hadn't committed the crimes .. but now they do. I'm talking
about people like I mentioned where they admitted the murders themselves -
where there is no doubt they committed the crimes - someone mentioned
Olson - he murdered all those people and what does the justice system do?
Pay him $10,000 per body if he revealed where the body was - uh-huh - that's
justice all right. How about Susan Smith - she drowned two beautiful little
boys - her boys - she DID it - she should die for that in my opinion. The
Simpson case was the biggest farce ever. You want these people studied?
There's lots of time to study them before you zap them - that takes a good
15 years it seems. Baloney! And don't you love it that your taxes are
paying Karla Homolka's way thru college? Give me a break.

Sharon (N.B.)
.................................................. ...........................
.........

"Stitcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:27:03 GMT, "clancy"
wrote:

Well I totally believe in the death penalty for those who ARE the
murderers
beyond doubt - names that come to mind are Dahmer, Gacy, Manson, Susan
Smith
and our own Bernardo - everyone knows these people are guilty - why
should
they be fed 3 meals a day at tax payers' expense? Not in my book. You
have
a good point tho' Sheena with regard to - if a person is given life, then
let it be life - not 5 years and out cuz someone was a good boy - nope,
life
should mean life. And it should not be a life of laying in front of tv
having your meals delivered to your door. Justice should be the same for
all - not different for those who have money - and we've seen lots of
those
cases - there is something very wrong with the justice system and I wish
I
knew how to make it better.

Sharon (N.B.)

Apparently the jurors who convicted Marshal, Milguard were sure they
were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In spite of the fact that I know how manipulative these types can be,
I think some effort to study them should be made as I feel it would be
helpful in helping to catch future murders and perhaps even stoping
them before they start, escalate to murder. Bernardo started out as a
peeping Tom as did Bundy .
Ruby
"Death is like birth, painful, messy and undignified" James

"clancy" wrote in message
...
They're still walking the face of the earth Ruby - so they did get justice
in the end - I don't believe they had DNA in those days to prove without a
doubt that they hadn't committed the crimes .. but now they do.

There was no DNA testing when these people were convicted, but there was
plenty of tunnel vision in the police and prosecution and failure to
consider, even for one nano-second, the fact that they might be wrong. In
the case of David Milgaard there was another potential suspect, with a
criminal record for a less severe offence of the same nature, who
subsequently turned out to be the guilty party (DNA proven IIRC), right
there all along, and it *still* took 20 years for them to even agree to
looking at the case.

emerald